| Literature DB >> 27157964 |
Birgit Wild1,2,3, Norman Gentsch4, Petr Čapek5, Kateřina Diáková5, Ricardo J Eloy Alves2,6, Jiři Bárta5, Antje Gittel7,8, Gustaf Hugelius9, Anna Knoltsch1,2, Peter Kuhry9, Nikolay Lashchinskiy10, Robert Mikutta4,11, Juri Palmtag9, Christa Schleper2,6, Jörg Schnecker1,2,12, Olga Shibistova4,13, Mounir Takriti1,2,14, Vigdis L Torsvik7, Tim Urich2,6,15, Margarete Watzka1, Hana Šantrůčková5, Georg Guggenberger4,13, Andreas Richter1,2.
Abstract
Arctic ecosystems are warming rapidly, which is expected to promote soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition. In addition to the direct warming effect, decomposition can also be indirectly stimulated via increased plant productivity and plant-soil C allocation, and this so called "priming effect" might significantly alter the ecosystem C balance. In this study, we provide first mechanistic insights into the susceptibility of SOM decomposition in arctic permafrost soils to priming. By comparing 119 soils from four locations across the Siberian Arctic that cover all horizons of active layer and upper permafrost, we found that an increased availability of plant-derived organic C particularly stimulated decomposition in subsoil horizons where most of the arctic soil carbon is located. Considering the 1,035 Pg of arctic soil carbon, such an additional stimulation of decomposition beyond the direct temperature effect can accelerate net ecosystem C losses, and amplify the positive feedback to global warming.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27157964 PMCID: PMC4860603 DOI: 10.1038/srep25607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Map of sampling sites across the Siberian Arctic.
The dotted line indicates the polar circle. The map was created in R using the packages sp and rworldmap474950.
Characterization of sampling sites.
| Coordinates | MAT ( °C) | MAP (mm) | Vegetation type | Soil type | Active layer (cm) | Dominant plant species | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cherskiy | 69°26’N, 161°44’E | −12.7 | 160 | Shrubby grass tundra | Ruptic-Histic Aquiturbel | 30–70 | |
| Shrubby tussock tundra | Ruptic-Histic Aquiturbel | 35–60 | |||||
| Ari-Mas | 72°29’N, 101°40’E | −13.7 | 280 | Shrubby moss tundra | Typic Aquiturbel | 60–85 | |
| Shrubby moss tundra | Typic Aquiturbel | 65–90 | |||||
| Logata | 73°26’N, 98°25’E | −13.5 | 270 | Dryas tundra | Typic Aquiturbel | 35–70 | |
| Grassy moss tundra | Typic Aquiturbel | 30–65 | |||||
| Tazovskiy | 67°10’N, 78°55’E | −_8.2 | 454 | Shrubby lichen tundra | Typic Aquiturbel | 100–120 | |
| Forest tundra | Typic Aquiturbel | 130–150 |
Soil samples were taken from two representative vegetation types at each site. Mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) were derived from the WorldClim database51; soil description follows the USDA Soil Taxonomy52. Active layer depth was determined at the time of sampling in the late growing season, the variation is due to small-scale differences in surface morphology.
Characterization of the sampled soil horizons.
| Number of samples | Depth (cm) | Organic C (%) | N (%) | C/N | δ13C (‰) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organic topsoils | 18 | 10.0 ± 1.4 | 21.39 ± 1.46 | 0.87 ± 0.05 | 25.58 ± 1.88 | −27.45 ± 0.17 |
| Mineral topsoils | 23 | 12.7 ± 1.5 | 4.17 ± 0.56 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 15.50 ± 0.62 | −27.09 ± 0.21 |
| Mineral subsoils | 29 | 40.6 ± 4.0 | 1.27 ± 0.17 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 11.89 ± 0.49 | −26.08 ± 0.27 |
| Cryoturbated | 27 | 46.4 ± 3.6 | 6.48 ± 0.92 | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 16.53 ± 0.66 | −27.12 ± 0.17 |
| Permafrost | 22 | 89.3 ± 6.2 | 1.43 ± 0.44 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 12.02 ± 1.30 | −24.75 ± 0.52 |
Different letters indicate significant differences between horizon classes at p < 0.05. For data on individual sampling sites see Supplementary Table S1.
Figure 2Losses of native SOC from different horizons of arctic permafrost soils after 25 weeks of incubation (dark grey bars).
Losses induced by the addition of cellulose or protein in comparison to control samples are indicated in light grey. Bars represent means with standard errors, different letters indicate significant differences between horizons at p < 0.05. See Supplementary Fig. S1 for the development of SOC- and substrate-derived respiration over time.
Figure 3Response of cumulative SOC mineralization in different horizons of arctic permafrost soils to addition of cellulose or protein.
Response ratios were calculated as ratios of samples amended with cellulose or protein over control samples. Bars represent means with standard errors, significant differences in SOC mineralization between amended and control samples are indicated (Welch’s paired t-tests; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05). For response ratios at individual sampling sites see Supplementary Table S5.
Correlations between responses to addition of cellulose versus protein, for SOC mineralization and microbial biomass.
| RR (cellulose) vs. RR (protein): SOC mineralization | RR (cellulose) vs. RR (protein): Microbial biomass | |
|---|---|---|
| Organic topsoils | n.s. | n.s. |
| Mineral topsoils | n.s. | n.s. |
| Mineral subsoils | 0.524 | 0.577 |
| Cryoturbated | n.s. | n.s. |
| Permafrost | 0.462 | 0.724 |
| All horizons | 0.258 | 0.402 |
Response ratios (RR) were calculated as ratios of amended over control samples. Given values are Spearman’s rho of correlations significant at p < 0.05 (n.s., not significant).
Losses of native SOC without substrate amendment, and additional losses induced by cellulose or protein input, estimated for a growing-season of four months.
| Temperature (°C) | Loss of native SOC (% of SOC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No substrate amendment | Additional SOC loss induced by cellulose | Additional SOC loss induced by protein | ||
| Organic topsoils | 8.0 | 2.23 ± 0.22 | + 0.00 ± 0.08 | + 0.89 ± 0.37 |
| Mineral topsoils | 7.5 | 1.65 ± 0.16 | + 0.26 ± 0.07 | + 0.55 ± 0.17 |
| Mineral subsoils | 4.5 | 1.33 ± 0.23 | + 0.27 ± 0.09 | + 1.13 ± 0.14 |
| Cryoturbated | 4.0 | 0.65 ± 0.09 | + 0.08 ± 0.04 | + 0.60 ± 0.09 |
| Permafrost | 1.0 | 2.67 ± 0.50 | + 0.58 ± 0.38 | + 1.09 ± 0.24 |
Values derived from the incubation at 15 °C were adjusted for typical growing-season soil temperatures using Q10 values.
Figure 4Response of the microbial biomass in different horizons of arctic permafrost soils to addition of cellulose or protein.
Response ratios were calculated as ratios of samples amended with cellulose or protein over control samples. Bars represent means with standard errors, significant differences in microbial biomass between amended and control samples are indicated (Welch’s paired t-tests; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05). For microbial biomass in control samples see Supplementary Table S3, and for response ratios at individual sampling sites see Supplementary Table S5.
Figure 5Microbial substrate use efficiency of cellulose- or protein-derived C in different horizons of arctic permafrost soils.
Substrate use efficiency was calculated as the ratio of substrate-derived C in microbial biomass over substrate-derived C in biomass and cumulative respiration after 25 weeks of incubation. Bars represent means with standard errors. Significant differences between cellulose and protein treatments are asterisked (***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05), significant differences between horizons for cellulose or protein are indicated by different letters (p < 0.05). For data on individual sampling sites see Supplementary Table S6.