Small-scale spatial patterns of soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks in permafrost-affected soils of northern Siberia

Evgrafova, Alevtina; Haye, Tilman René de la; Haase, Ina; Shibistova, Olga; Guggenberger, Georg; Tananaev, Nikita; Sauheitl, Leopold; Spielvogel, Sandra

doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.05.014

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…None of the three models we evaluated represent the potential for root exudates to liberate MAOM, which might be expected to accentuate total and protected soil C losses. Other important processes include the role of iron‐ and aluminum‐oxides in stabilizing SOM in sites with deeper active layers (Evgrafova et al, ), as well as in nonpermafrost soils (Rasmussen et al, ). Even with improved process representation, the timescales over which decomposition of previously frozen soil C will cause the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere remain uncertain, as does the degree to which mineral stabilization mechanisms may subsequently protect soil C. This wider view of factors responsible for soil C persistence highlights shortcomings of all three model projections and helps generate testable hypotheses that can guide further investigation into what the likely outcomes of environmental change will be on soil C stocks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic Soil Governs Whether Climate Change Drives Global Losses or Gains in Soil Carbon

Wieder

Sulman

Hartman

et al. 2019

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key uncertainties in terrestrial carbon cycle projections revolve around the timing, direction, and magnitude of the carbon cycle feedback to climate change. This is especially true in carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems, where permafrost soils contain roughly one third of the world's soil carbon stocks, which are likely vulnerable to loss. Using an ensemble of soil biogeochemical models that reflect recent changes in the conceptual understanding of factors responsible for soil carbon persistence, we quantify potential soil carbon responses under two representative climate change scenarios. Our results illustrate that models disagree on the sign and magnitude of global soil changes through 2100, with disagreements primarily driven by divergent responses of Arctic systems. These results largely reflect different assumptions about the nature of soil carbon persistence and vulnerabilities, underscoring the challenges associated with setting allowable greenhouse gas emission targets that will limit global warming to 1.5°C.Plain Language Summary Soils store carbon, lots of carbon. Because of these large carbon stocks, exchanges of carbon dioxide between soils and the atmosphere are large, and the potential responses of soil carbon stocks and fluxes to projected changes in climate are uncertain. The understanding of factors responsible for the persistence of these vast soil carbon stores has changed dramatically, and models need to widely implement these new ideas. Here we evaluate three models that make different assumptions about factors responsible for persistence of carbon in soils. Our results show that although the different model formulations produce similar estimates for initial soil carbon stocks, they show large spread in the fate of soil carbon under projected changes in soil temperature, moisture, and plant growth through the end of this century. These results highlight that greater attention is needed to develop and test model formulations that are consistent with observations and understanding-especially in the Arctic which has large soil carbon stores that are likely to experience rapid change in upcoming decades.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic Soil Governs Whether Climate Change Drives Global Losses or Gains in Soil Carbon

Wieder

Sulman

Hartman

et al. 2019

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The slower pedogenesis is probably the reason why no clear differentiation and trends in soil properties between transects was observed at Keta. Thus, a smaller average slope angle and thick SOL at Keta produced conditions similar to relatively flat forest-tundra, where pedogenic Fe and Al hydroxides showed pronounced small-scale spatial patterns that were neither spatially correlated with SOC stocks nor with any of the other soil properties [40]. A different situation was found along the elevational gradient at the locality Lama.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Changes of Soil Properties along the Altitudinal Gradients in Subarctic Mountain Landscapes of Putorana Plateau, Central Siberia

Gömöryová

Pichler

Merganič

et al. 2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes of soil properties along elevational gradients were studied in a less accessible and explored forest-tundra ecotone in the NW part of Central Siberia. Data on soil physical and chemical properties were collected along three horizontal transects at an elevation of 100–420 m a.s.l., at two localities differing in the slope angle. At each transect, five soil pits were excavated to a depth of 0.3–0.4 m. Soil samples were taken from the depths of 0–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.3 m. The results showed a pronounced effect of slope angle on the pattern of soil properties along the elevational gradient. At the locality with a gentle slope, soils exhibited 2.5 times larger thickness of the surface organic layer (SOL), higher pH, and Na+ content, and lower C, N, Ald, and Fed concentration indicating slower pedogenic processes on this site. On the other hand, at the locality with a steeper slope, soil properties were better differentiated between transects situated along elevational gradient especially at the depths of 0.1–0.2 and 0.2–0.3 m. However, a clear positive or negative trend with the altitude was observed only for some soil characteristics, e.g., SOL, C, N, or Ald concentrations on the Lama location.

show abstract

“…Thus, like soil C, the distribution of soil N across geomorphological terrain units reflects the absence of erosive forces at the study sites located in polygonal terrain, as well as differential inputs from the vegetation (Hobbie, 1996), where N has essentially been accumulating throughout the late Holocene. Other factors that may influence the distribution of N are temperature and hydrology, affecting decomposition (Schuur et al., 2008), sediment characteristics, and geochemistry, influencing OM stabilization (Evgrafova et al., 2018), as well as the presence and abundance of birds such as geese (Gauthier et al., 1996). Total N stocks in the humid polygonal terrain at Qarlikturvik Valley (4.0 ± 0.1 kg m −2 ) are four times greater than those at the Lena River delta (1.1 kg m −2 , Zubrzycki et al., 2013), but similar to those reported at Herschel Island (4.6 kg m −2 , Obu et al., 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks Among Dominant Geomorphological Terrain Units in Qarlikturvik Valley, Bylot Island, Arctic Canada

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Small-scale spatial patterns of soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks in permafrost-affected soils of northern Siberia

Cited by 19 publications

References 99 publications

Arctic Soil Governs Whether Climate Change Drives Global Losses or Gains in Soil Carbon

Arctic Soil Governs Whether Climate Change Drives Global Losses or Gains in Soil Carbon

Changes of Soil Properties along the Altitudinal Gradients in Subarctic Mountain Landscapes of Putorana Plateau, Central Siberia

The Distribution of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks Among Dominant Geomorphological Terrain Units in Qarlikturvik Valley, Bylot Island, Arctic Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About