Abstract
Abstract. Decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM) is limited by both the available substrate and the active decomposer community. The understanding of this colimitation strongly affects the understanding of feedbacks of soil carbon to global warming and its consequences. This study compares different formulations of soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition. We compiled formulations from literature into groups according to the representation of decomposer biomass on the SOM decomposition rate a) non-explicit (substrate only), b) linear, and c) non-linear. By varying the SOM decomposition equation in a basic simplified decomposition model, we analyzed the following questions. Is the priming effect represented? Under which conditions is SOM accumulation limited? And, how does steady state SOM stocks scale with amount of fresh organic matter (FOM) litter inputs? While formulations (a) did not represent the priming effect, with formulations (b) steady state SOM stocks were independent of amount of litter input. Further, with several formulations (c) there was an offset of SOM that was not decomposed when no fresh OM was supplied. The finding that a part of the SOM is not decomposed on exhaust of FOM supply supports the hypothesis of carbon stabilization in deep soil by the absence of energy-rich fresh organic matter. Different representations of colimitation of decomposition by substrate and decomposers in SOM decomposition models resulted in qualitatively different long-term behaviour. A collaborative effort by modellers and experimentalists is required to identify appropriate and inappropriate formulations.
Reference78 articles.
1. Ågren, G. and Bosatta, E.: Theoretical ecosystem ecology - Understanding element cycles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
2. Arah, J. R M.: The soil submodel of the ITE (Edinburgh) forest and hurley pasture models, in: Evaluation of soil organic matter models, edited by Powlson, D S., Smith, P., and Smith, J U., vol 38 of NATO ASI Series\\/, Springer, Berlin, 1996.
3. Atkinson, A. and Donev, A.: Optimum Experimental Designs, vol 8 of Oxford Statistical Sciences Series\\/, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.
4. Berg, B., Ekbohm, G., Johansson, M B., McClaugherty, C., Rutigliano, F., and DeSanto, A V.: Maximum decomposition limits of forest litter types: A synthesis, Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique, 74, 659–672, 1996.
5. Blagodatsky, S A. and Richter, O.: Microbial growth in soil and nitrogen turnover: A theoretical model considering the activity state of microorganisms, Soil Biol. Biochem., 30, 1743–1755, 1998.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献