Clarifying the evidence for microbial- and plant-derived soil organic matter, and the path toward a more quantitative understanding

IF 10.8 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Global Change Biology Pub Date : 2022-08-30 DOI:10.1111/gcb.16413
Emily D. Whalen, A. Stuart Grandy, Noah W. Sokol, Marco Keiluweit, Jessica Ernakovich, Richard G. Smith, Serita D. Frey
{"title":"Clarifying the evidence for microbial- and plant-derived soil organic matter, and the path toward a more quantitative understanding","authors":"Emily D. Whalen,&nbsp;A. Stuart Grandy,&nbsp;Noah W. Sokol,&nbsp;Marco Keiluweit,&nbsp;Jessica Ernakovich,&nbsp;Richard G. Smith,&nbsp;Serita D. Frey","doi":"10.1111/gcb.16413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Predicting and mitigating changes in soil carbon (C) stocks under global change requires a coherent understanding of the factors regulating soil organic matter (SOM) formation and persistence, including knowledge of the direct sources of SOM (plants vs. microbes). In recent years, conceptual models of SOM formation have emphasized the primacy of microbial-derived organic matter inputs, proposing that microbial physiological traits (e.g., growth efficiency) are dominant controls on SOM quantity. However, recent quantitative studies have challenged this view, suggesting that plants make larger direct contributions to SOM than is currently recognized by this paradigm. In this review, we attempt to reconcile these perspectives by highlighting that variation across estimates of plant- versus microbial-derived SOM may arise in part from methodological limitations. We show that all major methods used to estimate plant versus microbial contributions to SOM have substantial shortcomings, highlighting the uncertainty in our current quantitative estimates. We demonstrate that there is significant overlap in the chemical signatures of compounds produced by microbes, plant roots, and through the extracellular decomposition of plant litter, which introduces uncertainty into the use of common biomarkers for parsing plant- and microbial-derived SOM, especially in the mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) fraction. Although the studies that we review have contributed to a deeper understanding of microbial contributions to SOM, limitations with current methods constrain quantitative estimates. In light of recent advances, we suggest that now is a critical time to re-evaluate long-standing methods, clearly define their limitations, and develop a strategic plan for improving the quantification of plant- and microbial-derived SOM. From our synthesis, we outline key questions and challenges for future research on the mechanisms of SOM formation and stabilization from plant and microbial pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":175,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology","volume":"28 24","pages":"7167-7185"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16413","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

Abstract

Predicting and mitigating changes in soil carbon (C) stocks under global change requires a coherent understanding of the factors regulating soil organic matter (SOM) formation and persistence, including knowledge of the direct sources of SOM (plants vs. microbes). In recent years, conceptual models of SOM formation have emphasized the primacy of microbial-derived organic matter inputs, proposing that microbial physiological traits (e.g., growth efficiency) are dominant controls on SOM quantity. However, recent quantitative studies have challenged this view, suggesting that plants make larger direct contributions to SOM than is currently recognized by this paradigm. In this review, we attempt to reconcile these perspectives by highlighting that variation across estimates of plant- versus microbial-derived SOM may arise in part from methodological limitations. We show that all major methods used to estimate plant versus microbial contributions to SOM have substantial shortcomings, highlighting the uncertainty in our current quantitative estimates. We demonstrate that there is significant overlap in the chemical signatures of compounds produced by microbes, plant roots, and through the extracellular decomposition of plant litter, which introduces uncertainty into the use of common biomarkers for parsing plant- and microbial-derived SOM, especially in the mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) fraction. Although the studies that we review have contributed to a deeper understanding of microbial contributions to SOM, limitations with current methods constrain quantitative estimates. In light of recent advances, we suggest that now is a critical time to re-evaluate long-standing methods, clearly define their limitations, and develop a strategic plan for improving the quantification of plant- and microbial-derived SOM. From our synthesis, we outline key questions and challenges for future research on the mechanisms of SOM formation and stabilization from plant and microbial pathways.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澄清微生物和植物来源的土壤有机质的证据,以及通往更定量理解的道路
预测和缓解全球变化下土壤碳(C)储量的变化需要对调节土壤有机质(SOM)形成和持久性的因素有一致的理解,包括对SOM的直接来源(植物与微生物)的了解。近年来,SOM形成的概念模型强调微生物来源的有机质输入的重要性,提出微生物生理特性(如生长效率)是SOM数量的主要控制因素。然而,最近的定量研究挑战了这一观点,表明植物对SOM的直接贡献比目前这种范式所认识的要大。在这篇综述中,我们试图通过强调植物与微生物来源的SOM估计的差异来调和这些观点,这些差异可能部分源于方法上的限制。我们表明,所有用于估计植物与微生物对SOM贡献的主要方法都有实质性的缺点,突出了我们目前定量估计的不确定性。我们证明了微生物、植物根系和植物凋落物的细胞外分解产生的化合物的化学特征有显著的重叠,这给分析植物和微生物衍生的SOM,特别是在矿物相关有机质(MAOM)部分中使用共同的生物标志物带来了不确定性。尽管我们回顾的研究有助于更深入地了解微生物对SOM的贡献,但当前方法的局限性限制了定量估计。鉴于最近的进展,我们建议现在是重新评估长期存在的方法,明确其局限性,并制定战略计划以改进植物和微生物来源的SOM的量化的关键时刻。从我们的合成中,我们概述了未来在植物和微生物途径中SOM形成和稳定机制研究中的关键问题和挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Change Biology
Global Change Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
21.50
自引率
5.20%
发文量
497
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: Global Change Biology is an environmental change journal committed to shaping the future and addressing the world's most pressing challenges, including sustainability, climate change, environmental protection, food and water safety, and global health. Dedicated to fostering a profound understanding of the impacts of global change on biological systems and offering innovative solutions, the journal publishes a diverse range of content, including primary research articles, technical advances, research reviews, reports, opinions, perspectives, commentaries, and letters. Starting with the 2024 volume, Global Change Biology will transition to an online-only format, enhancing accessibility and contributing to the evolution of scholarly communication.
期刊最新文献
Broad-Scale Meta-Analysis of Drivers Mediating Adverse Impacts of Flow Regulation on Riparian Vegetation Local- and Regional-Scale Climate Variability Drives Complex Patterns of Growth Synchrony and Asynchrony in Deep-Sea Snappers Across the Indo-Pacific Reducing Fire Severity and Extent Bolsters Subalpine Forest Resilience to Global Change Through Key Demographic Pathways Zoonotic Host Richness in the Global Wildland–Urban Interface Soil Moisture Threshold of Methane Uptake in Alpine Grassland Ecosystems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1