Response to: “The robust concept of mineral‐associated organic matter saturation: A letter to Begill et al. (2023)”

Poeplau, Christopher; Begill, Neha; Don, Axel

doi:10.1111/gcb.16920

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This reflects a broader trend in C stabilization literature over the past 20 years to focus on the reactivity of minerals and metal oxides in addition to soil texture (Hall & Silver, 2015; King et al., 2023; Kleber et al., 2005; Rasmussen et al., 2018; Tipping, 2002; von Lützow et al., 2006; Wagai et al., 2020). Despite general support of minerals as stabilizing forces, there are still uncertainties regarding the effective capacity of minerals to stabilize MAOM under different environmental conditions (Begill et al., 2023; Georgiou et al., 2022; Stewart et al., 2008), the spatial arrangement of MAOM on mineral surfaces (Possinger et al., 2020; Schweizer, 2022), and the temporal dynamics and methodological limitations of these associations (Cotrufo et al., 2023; Poeplau et al., 2023). These uncertainties present good opportunities for further study.…”

Section: Empirical Contributions To and Support For Som Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging 20 Years of Soil Organic Matter Frameworks: Empirical Support, Model Representation, and Next Steps

Rocci,

Cotrufo,

Ernakovich

et al. 2024

JGR Biogeosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past few decades, there has been an evolution in our understanding of soil organic matter (SOM) dynamics from one of inherent biochemical recalcitrance to one deriving from plant‐microbe‐mineral interactions. This shift in understanding has been driven, in part, by influential conceptual frameworks which put forth hypotheses about SOM dynamics. Here, we summarize several focal conceptual frameworks and derive from them six controls related to SOM formation, (de)stabilization, and loss. These include: (a) physical inaccessibility; (b) organo‐mineral and ‐metal stabilization; (c) biodegradability of plant inputs; (d) abiotic environmental factors; (e) biochemical reactivity and diversity; and (f) microbial physiology and morphology. We then review the empirical evidence for these controls, their model representation, and outstanding knowledge gaps. We find relatively strong empirical support and model representation of abiotic environmental factors but disparities between data and models for biochemical reactivity and diversity, organo‐mineral and ‐metal stabilization, and biodegradability of plant inputs, particularly with respect to SOM destabilization for the latter two controls. More empirical research on physical inaccessibility and microbial physiology and morphology is needed to deepen our understanding of these critical SOM controls and improve their model representation. The SOM controls are highly interactive and also present some inconsistencies which may be reconciled by considering methodological limitations or temporal and spatial variation. Future conceptual frameworks must simultaneously refine our understanding of these six SOM controls at various spatial and temporal scales and within a hierarchical structure, while incorporating emerging insights. This will advance our ability to accurately predict SOM dynamics.

show abstract