How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?

Despite the importance of carbon (C) pools and CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems and especially in soils, as well as many attempts to assign fluxes to specific pools, this challenge remains unsolved. Interestingly, scientists investigating pools are not closely linked with...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Y. Kuzyakov
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2011-06-01
Series:Biogeosciences
Online Access:http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/1523/2011/bg-8-1523-2011.pdf
id doaj-5200161f4f3a455e8411d0931406d55e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5200161f4f3a455e8411d0931406d55e2020-11-24T21:12:13ZengCopernicus PublicationsBiogeosciences1726-41701726-41892011-06-01861523153710.5194/bg-8-1523-2011How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?Y. KuzyakovDespite the importance of carbon (C) pools and CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems and especially in soils, as well as many attempts to assign fluxes to specific pools, this challenge remains unsolved. Interestingly, scientists investigating pools are not closely linked with scientists studying fluxes. This review therefore focused on experimental approaches enabling soil C pools to be linked with CO<sub>2</sub> flux from the soil. The background, advantages and shortcomings of uncoupled approaches (measuring only pools <i>or</i> fluxes) and of coupled approaches (measuring both pools <i>and</i> fluxes) were evaluated and their prerequisites – steady state of pools and isotopic steady state – described. The uncoupled approaches include: (i) monitoring the decrease of C pools in long-term fallow bare soil lacking C input over decades, (ii) analyzing components of CO<sub>2</sub> efflux dynamics by incubating soil without new C input over months or years, and (iii) analyzing turnover rates of C pools based on their <sup>13</sup>C and <sup>14</sup>C isotopic signature. The uncoupled approaches are applicable for non-steady state conditions only and have limited explanatory power. The more advantageous coupled approaches partition simultaneously pools <i>and</i> fluxes based on one of three types of changes in the isotopic signature of input C compared to soil C: (i) abrupt permanent, (ii) gradual permanent, and (iii) abrupt temporary impacts. I show how the maximal sensitivity of the approaches depends on the differences in the isotopic signature of pools with fast and slow turnover rates. The promising coupled approaches include: (a) <i>&delta;</i><sup>13</sup>C of C pools and CO<sub>2</sub> efflux from soil after C<sub>3</sub>/C<sub>4</sub> vegetation changes or in FACE experiments (both corresponding to continuous labeling), (b) addition of <sup>13</sup>C or <sup>14</sup>C labeled organics (corresponding to pulse labeling), and (c) bomb-<sup>14</sup>C. I show that physical separation of soil C pools is not a prerequisite to estimate pool size or to link pools with fluxes. Based on simple simulation of C aging in soil after the input, the discordance of MRT of C in pools and of C released in CO<sub>2</sub> was demonstrated. This discordance of MRT between pools and fluxes shows that the use of MRT of pools alone underestimates the fluxes at least for two times. The future challenges include combining two or more promising approaches to elucidate more than two C sources for CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes, and linking scientific communities investigating the pools with those investigating the fluxes.http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/1523/2011/bg-8-1523-2011.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Y. Kuzyakov
spellingShingle Y. Kuzyakov
How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
Biogeosciences
author_facet Y. Kuzyakov
author_sort Y. Kuzyakov
title How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
title_short How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
title_full How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
title_fullStr How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
title_full_unstemmed How to link soil C pools with CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
title_sort how to link soil c pools with co<sub>2</sub> fluxes?
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Biogeosciences
issn 1726-4170
1726-4189
publishDate 2011-06-01
description Despite the importance of carbon (C) pools and CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems and especially in soils, as well as many attempts to assign fluxes to specific pools, this challenge remains unsolved. Interestingly, scientists investigating pools are not closely linked with scientists studying fluxes. This review therefore focused on experimental approaches enabling soil C pools to be linked with CO<sub>2</sub> flux from the soil. The background, advantages and shortcomings of uncoupled approaches (measuring only pools <i>or</i> fluxes) and of coupled approaches (measuring both pools <i>and</i> fluxes) were evaluated and their prerequisites – steady state of pools and isotopic steady state – described. The uncoupled approaches include: (i) monitoring the decrease of C pools in long-term fallow bare soil lacking C input over decades, (ii) analyzing components of CO<sub>2</sub> efflux dynamics by incubating soil without new C input over months or years, and (iii) analyzing turnover rates of C pools based on their <sup>13</sup>C and <sup>14</sup>C isotopic signature. The uncoupled approaches are applicable for non-steady state conditions only and have limited explanatory power. The more advantageous coupled approaches partition simultaneously pools <i>and</i> fluxes based on one of three types of changes in the isotopic signature of input C compared to soil C: (i) abrupt permanent, (ii) gradual permanent, and (iii) abrupt temporary impacts. I show how the maximal sensitivity of the approaches depends on the differences in the isotopic signature of pools with fast and slow turnover rates. The promising coupled approaches include: (a) <i>&delta;</i><sup>13</sup>C of C pools and CO<sub>2</sub> efflux from soil after C<sub>3</sub>/C<sub>4</sub> vegetation changes or in FACE experiments (both corresponding to continuous labeling), (b) addition of <sup>13</sup>C or <sup>14</sup>C labeled organics (corresponding to pulse labeling), and (c) bomb-<sup>14</sup>C. I show that physical separation of soil C pools is not a prerequisite to estimate pool size or to link pools with fluxes. Based on simple simulation of C aging in soil after the input, the discordance of MRT of C in pools and of C released in CO<sub>2</sub> was demonstrated. This discordance of MRT between pools and fluxes shows that the use of MRT of pools alone underestimates the fluxes at least for two times. The future challenges include combining two or more promising approaches to elucidate more than two C sources for CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes, and linking scientific communities investigating the pools with those investigating the fluxes.
url http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/1523/2011/bg-8-1523-2011.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT ykuzyakov howtolinksoilcpoolswithcosub2subfluxes
_version_ 1716751204741021696