It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Conceptual and empirical advances in soil biogeochemistry have challenged long-held assumptions about the role of soil micro-organisms in soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics; yet, rigorous tests of emerging concepts remain sparse. Recent hypotheses suggest that microbial necromass production links plant inputs to SOC accumulation, with high-quality (i.e., rapidly decomposing) plant litter promoting microbial carbon use efficiency, growth, and turnover leading to more mineral stabilization of necromass. We test this hypothesis experimentally and with observations across six eastern US forests, using stable isotopes to measure microbial traits and SOC dynamics. Here we show, in both studies, that microbial growth, efficiency, and turnover are negatively (not positively) related to mineral-associated SOC. In the experiment, stimulation of microbial growth by high-quality litter enhances SOC decomposition, offsetting the positive effect of litter quality on SOC stabilization. We suggest that microbial necromass production is not the primary driver of SOC persistence in temperate forests. Factors such as microbial necromass origin, alternative SOC formation pathways, priming effects, and soil abiotic properties can strongly decouple microbial growth, efficiency, and turnover from mineral-associated SOC.
Mineral-associated soil carbon buildup is poorly explained by microbial necromass production (a common hypothesis). During litter decomposition, these processes are decoupled by priming effects and alternate soil carbon formation pathways
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 Indiana University, Department of Biology, Bloomington, USA (GRID:grid.411377.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0790 959X); Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division and Climate Change Science Institute, Oak Ridge, USA (GRID:grid.135519.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0446 2659)
2 University of New Hampshire, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.167436.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2192 7145); Young Harris College, Department of Biology, Young Harris, USA (GRID:grid.465785.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 8814 9176)
3 Indiana University, Department of Biology, Bloomington, USA (GRID:grid.411377.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0790 959X)
4 West Virginia University, Department of Biology, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.268154.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 6140)
5 University of New Hampshire, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.167436.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2192 7145)
6 Chinese Academy of Sciences, Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Management, Institute of Applied Ecology, Shenyang, China (GRID:grid.9227.e) (ISNI:0000000119573309)