Biotic responses buffer warming-induced soil organic carbon loss in Arctic tundra

Junyi Liang, Jiangyang Xia, Zheng Shi, Lifen Jiang, Shuang Ma, Xingjie Lu, Marguerite Mauritz, Susan M. Natali, Elaine Pegoraro, Christopher Ryan Penton, César Plaza, Verity G. Salmon, Gerardo Celis, James R. Cole, Konstantinos T. Konstantinidis, James M. Tiedje, Jizhong Zhou, Edward A.G. Schuur, Yiqi Luo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

24 Scopus citations

Abstract

Climate warming can result in both abiotic (e.g., permafrost thaw) and biotic (e.g., microbial functional genes) changes in Arctic tundra. Recent research has incorporated dynamic permafrost thaw in Earth system models (ESMs) and indicates that Arctic tundra could be a significant future carbon (C) source due to the enhanced decomposition of thawed deep soil C. However, warming-induced biotic changes may influence biologically related parameters and the consequent projections in ESMs. How model parameters associated with biotic responses will change under warming and to what extent these changes affect projected C budgets have not been carefully examined. In this study, we synthesized six data sets over 5 years from a soil warming experiment at the Eight Mile Lake, Alaska, into the Terrestrial ECOsystem (TECO) model with a probabilistic inversion approach. The TECO model used multiple soil layers to track dynamics of thawed soil under different treatments. Our results show that warming increased light use efficiency of vegetation photosynthesis but decreased baseline (i.e., environment-corrected) turnover rates of SOC in both the fast and slow pools in comparison with those under control. Moreover, the parameter changes generally amplified over time, suggesting processes of gradual physiological acclimation and functional gene shifts of both plants and microbes. The TECO model predicted that field warming from 2009 to 2013 resulted in cumulative C losses of 224 or 87 g/m2, respectively, without or with changes in those parameters. Thus, warming-induced parameter changes reduced predicted soil C loss by 61%. Our study suggests that it is critical to incorporate biotic changes in ESMs to improve the model performance in predicting C dynamics in permafrost regions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4946-4959
Number of pages14
JournalGlobal Change Biology
Volume24
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2018

Funding

This study was financially supported by the US Department of Energy, Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences grant DE SC00114085 and Biological Systems Research on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling Program grants DE-SC0004601 and DE-SC0010715, and US National Science Foundation (NSF) grants EF 1137293 and OIA-1301789. C.P. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 654132. US Department of Energy, Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences, Grant/Award Number: DE SC00114085; Biological Systems Research on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling Program, Grant/Award Number: DE-SC0004601, DE SC0010715; US National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant/Award Number: EF 1137293, OIA-1301789; European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie, Grant/Award Number: 654132

FundersFunder number
Biological Systems Research on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling ProgramDE-SC0010715, DE-SC0004601
European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program
Marie Sklodowska-Curie
US Department of Energy
US National Science Foundation
National Science FoundationOIA-1301789, EF 1137293
U.S. Department of EnergyDE SC00114085
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme654132

    Keywords

    • acclimation
    • biotic responses
    • carbon modeling
    • climate warming
    • data assimilation
    • permafrost
    • soil carbon

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Biotic responses buffer warming-induced soil organic carbon loss in Arctic tundra'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this