Experimental Soil Warming Impacts Soil Moisture and Plant Water Stress and Thereby Ecosystem Carbon Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experimental soil heating experiments have found a consistent increase in soil‐surface CO2 emissions (Fs), but inconsistent soil organic carbon (SOC) responses. Interpretation of heating effects is complicated by spatial heterogeneity and soil moisture, nitrogen availability, and microbial and plant responses. Here we applied a mechanistic ecosystem model to interpret heating impacts on a California forest subjected to 1 m deep, 4°C heating. The model accurately simulated control‐plot CO2 fluxes, SOC stocks, fine root biomass, soil moisture, and soil temperature, and the observed increases in Fs and decreases in fine root biomass. We show that a complex suite of interactions can lead to a consistent increase in Fs (∼17%) over the 5‐year study period, with very small changes in SOC stocks (<1%). Modeled increases in leaf water stress from soil drying reduced GPP and NPP. The resulting reduction in leaf and fine root allocation increased fine root litter inputs to the soil and reduced root exudation. Soil heating led to about a 50% larger increase in root autotrophic respiration than in heterotrophic respiration, with the heating effect on both these fluxes decreasing over the simulation period. Increased heterotrophic respiration led to increased soil N availability and plant N uptake. These heating responses are mechanistically linked, of magnitudes that can affect ecosystem dynamics, and long‐term observations of them are rarely made. Therefore, we conclude that a coupled observational and mechanistic modeling framework is needed to interpret manipulation experiments, and to improve projections of climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics.
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".