Earth's Systems / Biological processes / Terrestrial ecosystem functioning / Living soil system / Humification and SOM stabilization / Microbial necromass pathway to stable organic matter / Carbon use efficiency controls necromass production
Carbon use efficiency controls necromass production
Carbon use efficiency sets how much taken-up carbon becomes biomass and necromass rather than carbon dioxide. Substrate quality, nutrient limitation and temperature change it, with warming and acclimation shaping the soil carbon response.
Boundary: where this process starts
Starts with: Microbes take up substrate and split carbon between respiration and biomass synthesis (anabolism)
Boundary: where it ends
Ends after: High CUE (about 0.5-0.6) shunts more carbon into biomass and necromass; Lower necromass inputs and more respiration reduce soil carbon
Line thickness = size of impact (1 to 5)% on a line = chance a fork takes that branch📄 = pieces of evidence on a stepNegative effectLoops backHypothesisResource used up (arrow into the step)Resource used, not used upResource made or released (arrow out of the step)
What am I looking at? The concepts on every map
- Participant
- Someone or something that takes part in a process or influences it: a plant, a microbe, a river, a machine, a force. Participants are the rows of a map.
- Resource
- Something a step uses or uses up: water, oxygen, sunlight, a tool. Each step has an arrow down to the resources it uses.
- Step
- One thing that happens in a process. Every step has at least one participant and carries evidence.
- Decision fork
- A step where the process can go several ways. Every outcome is labeled with a percentage, and the percentages add up to 100%. It is not limited to yes or no.
- Loop
- A line that carries the process back to an earlier step. We record whether it reinforces or balances, how strong it is (weak, moderate, strong), and its gain (0 to 1): the share of the effect that returns on each pass.
- Size of impact
- Every line says how much the earlier step affects the next one (1 to 5), in which direction (+, -, 0), and why. Thicker lines mean bigger impact.
- Evidence
- The support for a claim: a source and what it shows. Every step, line, change and vote needs it. Click any step or line to read its evidence.
- Boundary
- Where a process starts and where it ends. Every process, and every subprocess, has a start and an end.
- Subprocess
- A step that is itself a whole process, with its own boundary, steps and lines. Click a step marked ↘ to open it. Subprocesses nest as deep as the evidence goes.
- Description
- A plain-language summary of what a process is and what it covers.
- Hypothesis
- A proposed new connection between two parts of the map that nobody has linked. It carries a prediction, a way to test it, and a count of papers on each topic and on both. It is an unverified idea until someone tests it.
Every step, with its evidence
The same information as the map, as a list you can search and share. Click a participant or resource to see everywhere it appears.
Microbes take up substrate and split carbon between respiration and biomass synthesis (anabolism)
Evidence (1) · added by Ember
- Liang, Schimel & Jastrow 2017, The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage, Nature Microbiology 2:17105: Anabolism increases the microbial contribution to stable soil carbon (confidence 0.8)
High CUE (about 0.5-0.6) shunts more carbon into biomass and necromass
Evidence (1) · added by Ember
- Sinsabaugh et al. 2013, Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling, Ecology Letters 16:930-939: Community CUE ranges roughly 0.3-0.6; high-quality, N-rich substrate raises it (confidence 0.7)
Low CUE (about 0.2-0.3) from poor-quality substrate, nutrient limitation or heat sends more carbon to CO2
Evidence (1) · added by Ember
- Sinsabaugh et al. 2013, Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling, Ecology Letters 16:930-939: Low CUE under nutrient imbalance (confidence 0.6)
Warming lowers CUE in models by about 0.016 per degree Celsius
Evidence (1) · added by Ember
- Allison, Wallenstein & Bradford 2010, Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nature Geoscience 3:336-340: Model assumed CUE declining with temperature, value used about 0.016 per degree, estimate not measured everywhere (confidence 0.5)
Lower necromass inputs and more respiration reduce soil carbon
Evidence (1) · added by Ember
- Allison, Wallenstein & Bradford 2010, Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nature Geoscience 3:336-340: Lower CUE leads to lower microbial biomass and soil carbon (confidence 0.6)
More CO2 to the atmosphere adds to warming
Evidence (1) · added by Ember
- Davidson & Janssens 2006, Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change, Nature 440:165-173: Soil carbon decomposition feedback to climate (confidence 0.65)
Microbial thermal acclimation and substrate depletion partly restore CUE under sustained warming
Evidence (2) · added by Ember-D
- Frey, Lee, Melillo & Six (2013) Nature Climate Change 3:395-398, The temperature response of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate: After long-term warming the CUE response to temperature was small or absent, contrary to a constant decline (confidence 0.8)
- Tucker, Bell, Pendall & Ogle (2013) Global Change Biology 19:252-263: Declining CUE explains only part of thermal acclimation of soil respiration (confidence 0.7)