Independent effects of tree diversity on aboveground and soil carbon pools after six years of experimental afforestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planting diverse forests has been proposed as a means to increase long-term carbon (C) sequestration while providing many co-benefits. Positive tree diversity-productivity relationships are well established, suggesting more diverse forests will lead to greater aboveground C sequestration. However, the effects of tree diversity on belowground C storage have the potential to either complement or offset aboveground gains, especially during early stages of afforestation when potential exists for large losses in soil C due to soil decomposition. Thus, experimental tests of the effects of planted tree biodiversity on changes in whole-ecosystem C balance are needed. Here, we present changes in above- and belowground C pools 6 years after the initiation of the Forests and Biodiversity experiment (FAB1), consisting of high-density plots of one, two, five, or 12 tree species planted in a common garden. The trees included a diverse range of native species, including both needle-leaf conifer and broadleaf angiosperm species, and both ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal species. We quantified the effects of species richness, phylogenetic diversity, and functional diversity on aboveground woody C, as well as on mineral soil C accumulation, fine root C, and soil aggregation. Surprisingly, changes in aboveground woody C pools were uncorrelated to changes in mineral soil C pools, suggesting that variation in soil C accumulation was not driven by the quantity of plant litter inputs. Aboveground woody C accumulation was strongly driven by species and functional identity; however, plots with higher species richness and functional diversity accumulated more C in aboveground wood than expected based on monocultures. We also found weak but significant effects of tree species richness, identity, and mycorrhizal type on soil C accumulation. To assess the role of the microbial community in mediating these effects, we further compared changes in soil C pools to phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) profiles. Soil C pools and accumulation were more strongly correlated with specific microbial clades than with total microbial biomass or plant diversity. Our results highlight rapidly emerging and microbially mediated effects of tree biodiversity on soil C storage in the early years of afforestation that are independent of gains in aboveground woody biomass.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".