Temperature response of plant residue and soil organic matter decomposition in soil from different depths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating how decomposition responds to temperature is important for understanding the soil's response under a changing climate. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the effect of temperature and addition of residue at different soil depths on decomposition of the residue and native soil organic matter (SOM) (i.e. priming). Soil samples from depths of 5–10, 20–25 and 40–45 cm were incubated at 5, 15 and 25 °C with and without 13 C‐labelled barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) residue. Respiration, microbial biomass, phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs) and mineral N were measured during the incubation. Respiration from residue and SOM increased with temperature in all treatments. The activation energy (Ea) was smaller in the control subsurface soil, indicating a more labile substrate, which resulted in greater respiration than surface soil when respiration was standardized to the amount of C. With the addition of residue, the subsurface soil respired less than the surface soil because of preferential use of residue‐C over soil organic carbon (SOC) and mineral N limitation. This resulted in negative priming of native SOC in the subsurface soil when residue was added. All PLFA biomarkers increased in the subsurface soil when incubated, even without the addition of residue, indicating a positive response of microbial activity to the optimized incubation conditions. Subsurface soil with small OC content and with small Ea had an active and efficient microbial community and relatively large rates of respiration. Highlights The response of residue and SOM decomposition to temperature in soil with a C gradient was evaluated. We assessed residue turnover with 13 C in surface and subsurface soils under varying temperatures. Activation energy was smaller in subsurface than surface soil. Temperature response of subsoil with small SOC content was similar to that of topsoil.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".