Dedicated to Jianwu (Jim) Tang 唐剑武, who did so much to advance the science of soil respiration.
Abstract
Soil respiration (Rs), the soil-to-atmosphere flux of CO2, is a dominant but uncertain part of the carbon cycle, even after decades of study. This review focuses on progress in understanding Rs from laboratory incubations to global estimates. We survey key developments of in situ ecosystem-scale Rs observations and manipulations, synthesize Rs meta-analyses and global flux estimates, and discuss the most compelling challenges and opportunities for the future. Increasingly sophisticated lab experiments have yielded insights into the interaction among heterotrophic respiration, substrate supply, and enzymatic kinetics, and extended incubation-based analyses across space and time. Observational and manipulative field-based experiments have used improved measurement approaches to deepen our understanding of the integrated effects of environmental change and disturbance on Rs. Freely-available observational databases have enabled meta-analyses and studies probing the magnitude of, and constraints on, the global Rs flux. Key challenges for the field include expanding Rs measurements, experiments, and opportunities to under-represented communities and ecosystems; reconciling independent estimates of global respiration fluxes and trends; testing and leveraging the power of machine learning and process-based models, both independently and in conjunction with each other; and continuing the field's tradition of using novel experiments to explore diverse mechanisms and ecosystems.
Plain Language Summary
“Soil respiration” refers to the flow of carbon dioxide, mostly generated by plant roots and microbes, from the soil to the atmosphere. This flux is large and highly uncertain, and understanding it has significant implications for our ability to predict the effects of land use and climate change. This review summarizes advances, insights, and challenges in soil respiration science. It examines laboratory approaches and findings; documents changes in how researchers measure and understand soil respiration in the natural world; and describes efforts to estimate the global dynamics of soil respiration from openly-available databases of observations. We conclude by discussing the most compelling challenges and opportunities for the future.
Key Points
Recent decades have seen large advances in measurement methods, experimental approaches, and data availability in soil respiration science
Lab and field-based experiments have improved our understanding of the integrated effect of environmental change on soil respiration
Key challenges include broadening access and continuing to explore diverse mechanisms and ecosystems using novel model-experiment approaches
1 Introduction
“Soil respiration” (Rs) is conventionally understood to mean the flux of CO2, as measured at the surface of the litter layer, to the atmosphere (Ryan & Law, 2005). At ecosystem scales, Rs dominates ecosystem respiration (Law et al., 2002). Rs variability can drive the carbon balance of ecosystems (Desai et al., 2022) to entire continents (Ballantyne et al., 2017; Metz et al., 2023). Rs is the second largest carbon flux in the earth system after photosynthesis (Friedlingstein et al., 2022), and almost an order of magnitude larger than anthropogenic carbon emissions (Bond-Lamberty and Thomson, 2010b), and can thus affect the terrestrial carbon cycle (Ballantyne et al., 2017). The links between Rs, carbon allocation, and soil carbon turnover also mean that site-level Rs measurements can be used to calculate or constrain other carbon fluxes such as net biome production (Giasson et al., 2013; Gough et al., 2008; Goulden et al., 2011). In spite of this demonstrated importance of Rs, its underlying processes remain highly uncertain components of Earth System Models (Varney et al., 2022), and ecosystem respiration more generally dominates the uncertainty of terrestrial carbon storage in CMIP6 models (Wei et al., 2022). The interaction between Rs and environmental change thus remains one of the greatest sources of uncertainty in climate and earth system projections (Nissan et al., 2023).
Previous reviews have synthesized knowledge on ecosystem- to global-scale Rs and reflect the field's evolving research frontiers. Early examples included Raich and Potter (1995) and Schlesinger (1977), as well as quantitative reviews of how Rs interacts with climate change (Rustad et al., 2000; Schlesinger & Andrews, 2000). A 2003 workshop summarized concepts, mechanisms, and above-belowground coupling, with a call for multi-factorial experiments (Ryan & Law, 2005) Luo and Zhou (2006) comprehensively covered many of these topics in their book on Rs. A subsequent workshop in 2007 highlighted the opportunities for using automated soil respiration measurements (Carbone & Vargas, 2007). Focused reviews have surveyed methods to partition autotrophic (Ra) and heterotrophic (Rh) respiration (Hanson et al., 2000; Kuzyakov, 2006; Kuzyakov & Larionova, 2005; J. Zhu et al., 2023), the links between photosynthesis and Rs (Kuzyakov & Cheng, 2001; Kuzyakov & Domanski, 2000; Kuzyakov & Gavrichkova, 2010; Vargas, Baldocchi, et al., 2011), Rs response to elevated CO2 and temperature (Davidson & Janssens, 2006; Jackson et al., 2009; Pendall et al., 2004; Zak et al., 2000), inferring carbon allocation using isotopes (Brüggemann et al., 2011), above- and belowground Rh under ecosystem disturbance (Harmon et al., 2011), and wetting or thawing effects on Rs (D.-G. Kim et al., 2012). In the last decade, Rey (2015) discussed the importance of considering abiotic Rs sources and transport processes, while M. Xu and Shang (2016) examined the uneven distribution of global Rs measurements, factors affecting Rs computation at different spatial scales, and estimated the global Rs flux. Finally, Phillips et al. (2017) examined how methodological advances in measurement and analysis may improve our mechanistic understanding and modeling of Rs.
Here we survey and synthesize the development of Rs science, focusing on the last two decades. Most previous reviews have treated ecosystem Rs as equivalent to the sum of belowground autotrophic (Ra) and heterotrophic (Rh) respiration. We generally do the same, but emphasize the complexity and diversity of processes generating, transporting, and consuming belowground CO2 (Figure 1). This review focuses on the growth and application of Rs observational data from laboratory incubations and mesocosms (Section 2); surveys key developments of in situ ecosystem-scale observations and manipulations (Section 3); and synthesizes Rs meta-analyses and flux estimates to assess advances in quantifying and understanding global Rs (Section 4). We conclude by looking to the future, discussing what are, in our view, the most compelling challenges and opportunities for this field of research (Section 5).
2 Laboratory Incubations and Mesocosms
Laboratory experiments are foundational to our mechanistic understanding of soil heterotrophic respiration and carbon mineralization processes. These studies occur in tightly controlled environments and are usually manipulative rather than observational, enabling causal attribution and mechanistic understanding (Vicca et al., 2014). Laboratory conditions differ from the real world (Henry, 2007), however, and are typically disturbed, small-volume soil samples isolated from the pedosphere and effects of roots, litter, and soil fauna (Kampichler et al., 2001). Results can be affected by experimental protocols (X. Chen et al., 2010) as well as experiment length (Birge et al., 2015; Hamdi et al., 2013). Extrapolating such results to in situ conditions, or using them to parameterize models, must be done with caution (J. Chen et al., 2023; Patel et al., 2022).
Laboratory incubations are frequently used to manipulate a single aspect of the soil biotic or abiotic environment in isolation. One of the most extensively studied of these is the temperature sensitivity of Rh, often expressed as Q10, the relative change of respiration with a 10°C temperature increase. This is a voluminous literature to which we cannot do justice here; Hamdi et al. (2013) synthesized a broad range of such experiments. However, the field has increasingly recognized limits to this approach because of its intrinsic simplicity (Subke & Bahn, 2010) and because environmental change comprises far more than temperature increases. This has shifted both research (Bradford et al., 2010; Qu et al., 2023; Y. Zhang et al., 2023b) and inspired a new generation of process-focused models (Abramoff et al., 2018; Davidson et al., 2012; Sulman et al., 2014; Wieder et al., 2013) toward microbial responses to temperature variation more generally, and the degree to which microbial growth and turnover, substrate supply, and enzymatic kinetics control Rh acclimation (Bradford et al., 2010). Other studies have analyzed the responses of specific bacterial taxa and proposed that community-assembled traits of microbial taxa may enable enhanced prediction of carbon cycling feedbacks to climate change in ecosystems across the globe (C. Wang et al., 2021). These more recent studies have emphasized the need to incorporate multiple drivers and response variables in Rh incubations.
The response of soil Rh to temperature is contingent upon water availability, which is intricately linked with soil type (Hartley et al., 2021; Maia et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2021; X. Xu et al., 2016). Moyano et al. (2012) summarized hundreds of different Rh ∼ soil moisture responses from 90 different soils and found consistent effects of soil texture, organic carbon content, and bulk density. Other innovative studies have looked at the differential effects of top-down wetting simulating rainfall (Lee et al., 2004), versus bottom-up as a proxy for groundwater rise (Patel et al., 2021b), and how rewetting history and frequency affect microbial C and N dynamics (Fierer & Schimel, 2002; Hawkes et al., 2017). The maximum response of Rs to temperature is valid only when there is no water stress, an important factor in water-limited ecosystems (Almagro et al., 2009; Leon et al., 2014). Rh may also be limited by high soil moisture due to energetic and enzymatic constraints on microbial activity under short-term anaerobic conditions (Freeman et al., 2001), a relationship often used in ecosystem- and Earth system models (Sulman et al., 2014). Models may thus underestimate greenhouse gas emissions in high-moisture environments that experience redox oscillations, particularly in the face of altered frequency and intensity of precipitation (W. Huang & Hall, 2017).
Carbon accessibility to microbes is influenced by mineralogy (Rasmussen et al., 2018) and substrate characteristics (Leinweber et al., 2008; Lugato et al., 2021; Moinet et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2012) in addition to soil moisture and temperature. It is increasingly recognized that soil physicochemical characteristics determine carbon stabilization mechanisms, including organo-mineral associations (Kleber et al., 2007) and physical protection within aggregates (Pulleman & Marinissen, 2004). This limits soil organic matter (SOM) availability to microbes (Doetterl et al., 2015; Glassman et al., 2017; González-Domínguez et al., 2019; Torn et al., 1997). Uroz et al. (2015) proposed the term “mineralosphere” to reflect the strong mineralogical control on the distribution and function of mineral-associated bacterial communities.
The temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition decreases with increasing stability of SOM (Jia et al., 2023; Leinweber et al., 2008), implying that physicochemical protection of SOM constrains the temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition under field conditions (Moinet et al., 2020). Because of the complex nature of SOM (Trumbore, 2000; Rocci et al., 2024), separating soil carbon into particulate and mineral-associated organic matter may be crucial to understanding its vulnerability (Lugato et al., 2021; Zimmermann et al., 2012). Analytical techniques such as Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (Cooper et al., 2022; Wilson & Tfaily, 2018) and soft X-ray spectromicroscopy (C. Chen et al., 2014) can identify specific mineral-organic associations of SOM, a frontier that Rs researchers are only beginning to explore (Seyfferth et al., 2020). In addition, because microbial activity in soil is carbon-limited (Hobbie & Hobbie, 2013), changes in primary productivity produce a “priming effect,” increasing Rh above that derived from the substrate directly (Kuzyakov, 2006). B. Zhu and Cheng (2011) showed how plant-carbon inputs to the rhizosphere create a priming effect and simultaneously increase the temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition. In bulk soil, substrate availability also positively affects the temperature sensitivity of soil carbon mineralization (Gershenson et al., 2009; Jia et al., 2023). Researchers are increasingly incorporating microscale physicochemical properties (Abramoff et al., 2018; Moyano et al., 2013; Yan et al., 2018) and biological processes (Davidson et al., 2006; Soong et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2023; Wieder et al., 2013; Wutzler et al., 2023) into models (Rocci et al., 2024).
Moving upwards in scale, innovative studies have extended incubations across space and time. Continental-scale comparative incubations have examined magnitudes, variability, and drivers of respiration rates (Colman & Schimel, 2014; Tian et al., 2022) as well as temperature sensitivity (Craine et al., 2010; Q. Wang et al., 2016), microbial community structure (Karhu et al., 2014), and carbon use efficiency (Ye et al., 2019). Y. Liu et al. (2018) incubated 25 soils from tropical to cold-temperate forests to quantify how the temperature of optimal Rh varies by region and other factors. Incubation studies have also shown how Q10 depends on ecosystem type, with alpine grasslands showing higher temperature sensitivity than tropical forests in China (M. Liu et al., 2017). Soil carbon priming has also been characterized at the global scale—Bastida et al. (2019) found that positive priming effects were associated with drier, lower-carbon ecosystems—although work remains to be done on interactive effects between priming and other factors such as temperature (B. Zhu & Cheng, 2011). This increased understanding of microbial catabolism is critical for correctly implementing microbial processes in Earth system models (Soong et al., 2020).
Finally, larger mesocosms and ecotrons can include flora and fauna in an experiment, providing a higher degree of realism by manipulating both Ra and Rh (Stewart et al., 2013; Tingey et al., 2008). This allows for unusual and/or complicated experiments probing various biotic effects on Rs, for example, earthworms (Jouquet et al., 2012), plant diversity (D. Johnson et al., 2008; M. Liu et al., 2017), and litter characteristics (Fröberg et al., 2009; Jonasson et al., 2004). As an intermediate step between laboratory and field experiments, mesocosms can be used to test precipitation gradients (Yu et al., 2017), extreme precipitation events (Petrakis et al., 2017), the role of hydrology and salinity (Krauss et al., 2012), or CO2 fertilization (Mikan et al., 2000) on Rs. Ecotrons have also been proposed as a crucial intermediate scale between small-scale laboratory or pot experiments and our understanding of ecosystem processes (Chapin et al., 2009; Curiel Yuste et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2021; Ryan & Law, 2005). We suggest that future research take advantage of the balance between control, replication, and realism that mesocosms and ecotrons provide (Stewart et al., 2013).
3 In Situ Measurements and Manipulations
3.1 Methodological Advances
Both observational and manipulative studies of in situ Rs begin with the act of measurement (Figure 2), and substantial research has gone into accurately quantifying Rs (Luo & Zhou, 2006). Manual and automated chamber methods, in which the changing CO2 concentrations over time in a closed chamber (Pumpanen et al., 2004) are used to calculate the Rs flux using an infrared gas analyzer (Mills et al., 2012; Parkinson, 1981; Pongracic et al., 1997) or gas chromatograph (Mondini et al., 2010), are most common. Chambers are set into collars embedded in the soil surface; methodological studies have shown that collar properties generally do not introduce bias (Jian et al., 2020), but long-term installations may be problematic (X. Ma et al., 2023). Low mixing and turbulence velocity may also bias chamber-based Rs measurements (Brændholt et al., 2017). M. Xu and Shang (2016) discussed methods and challenges of such chamber-based Rs measurements.
Manual measurements are labor-intensive but can capture Rs spatial variability within an ecosystem and, to a limited extent, across time (La Scala et al., 2000; Leon et al., 2014; Panosso et al., 2009). Such measurements dominate the extant Rs literature. This approach is laborious, however, and for convenience researchers often measure once a month (Jian et al., 2018), likely biasing their observations to days and times when conditions are best for fieldwork (Cueva et al., 2017). Such sampling may not capture temporal trends (Vargas & Le, 2023) and inadequately samples Rs pulses driven by rain or atmospheric pressure (Bain et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2004; Leon et al., 2014; Pumpanen et al., 2010; K. Savage et al., 2014). This may bias the functional relationships researchers estimate between Rs and soil temperature or moisture as well as the calculation of annual flux estimates (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2019; Giasson et al., 2013; Vargas & Le, 2023; M. Xu & Shang, 2016).
Continuously-measuring automated systems provide detailed information about the temporal variability of Rs (Vargas, Carbone, et al., 2011). Early custom-made systems were engineered as chambers powered by pneumatic mechanisms and connected to infrared-gas analyzers (Brumme & Beese, 1992; Goulden & Crill, 1997; McGinn et al., 1998; Vose et al., 1995). Commercial automated chamber systems available by the mid 2000s, albeit at a high cost, were initially used in forests (Shi et al., 2009; Xiang et al., 2007) and their application has expanded to ecosystems worldwide (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2020). Other automated methods have been developed in the last 20 years (e.g., the forced diffusion method; Risk et al., 2011). Rs may be calculated from the concentration of CO2 at different soil depths, based on Fick's first law of diffusion (J. Tang et al., 2003 and references therein); early applications of this method include studies in temperate (Hirano et al., 2003; Schindlbacher et al., 2007) and water-limited ecosystems (J. Tang et al., 2003; Vargas & Allen, 2008b). The National Ecological Observatory Network network implemented this “gradient method” across its sites (https://data.neonscience.org/data-products/DP1.00095.001#documentation). Rs can also be calculated using a “gas-snake,” a flexible micro-polyvinylidene difluoride membrane that is pushed into the soil and equilibrates with soil air (Heinemeyer et al., 2012).
The large volume of temporally-detailed observations from automated systems has enabled new types of analyses (Figure 2). This has revealed the importance of seasonal temperature patterns, synoptic events such as weather fronts, and individual precipitation events (Thomey et al., 2011; Vargas, Carbone, et al., 2011). Automated measurements have also characterized diel patterns as well as decouplings from soil temperature (Gaumont-Guay et al., 2006; Misson et al., 2009; Vargas & Allen, 2008c) that may be due to the Kok effect, a temporary light inhibition of respiration (Wehr et al., 2016). These measurements have thus contributed to our understanding of how plant photosynthesis influences Rs (J. Tang et al., 2005; Vargas, Baldocchi, et al., 2011) Temporal lags between Rs and temperature/moisture have been detected using time-series techniques such as cross-correlation and wavelet analysis (Stoy et al., 2013; Vargas, Baldocchi, et al., 2010; Vargas et al., 2018; Q. Zhang et al., 2018). Automated Rs measurements provided the basis for demonstrating, via a physical process model, that diel phase lags between Rs and soil temperature can be explained by physical heat and gaseous transport through porous media (Phillips et al., 2011). Finally, the data density of automated systems has opened new opportunities for leveraging eddy covariance data that have only begun to be exploited (Barba et al., 2018; Hill et al., 2021; Phillips et al., 2017; X. Wang et al., 2017).
Automated systems also impose constraints and demand new protocols, however. Many analyses depend on continuous time series, and automated measurements of Rs inevitably have gaps due to loss of power, physical obstructions, or instrument measurement error (e.g., out of detection limit, spikes). A few studies have suggested approaches for gap-filling Rs time series (Gomez-Casanovas et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2020); it has been proposed that nighttime eddy covariance data could be used, but the substantial differences in magnitude and pattern between nighttime Reco and Rs (Barba et al., 2018; Renchon et al., 2018) present an obstacle for gap-filling even at sites where paired measurements are available. The community still needs to standardize methods and protocols in this area and develop consistent infrastructure and reporting formats for dealing with large data sets (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2021).
Manual and automated measurements of Rs are thus complementary, but the community needs to better reconcile information from these approaches for robust temporal (to annual fluxes) and spatial (to eddy covariance tower footprints) upscaling. Random heterogeneity can be addressed through Rs power analyses (Davidson et al., 2002; Pennington et al., 2020; Rodeghiero & Cescatti, 2008) and then adequate sampling, but must also take into consideration the shifting tower footprint (Barba et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2017) and statistical structure of the random error of measurements (Cueva et al., 2015; K. Savage et al., 2008; Wutzler et al., 2020). In temporal scaling, annual estimates from manual measurements may differ from those based on automated systems (Capooci & Vargas, 2022; M. Xu & Shang, 2016). Relatedly, the apparent strong temperature-Rs relationship derived from sparse manual Rs measurements becomes more complex when hundreds of observations are available (N. K. Ruehr et al., 2010; K. E. Savage & Davidson, 2003). This difference extends to uncertainty, where automated measurements incorporate natural temporal variability along with systematic and random errors (Berryman et al., 2018; Cueva et al., 2015), but are more vulnerable to spatial uncertainty and variability (Rodeghiero & Cescatti, 2008; Teixeira et al., 2012).
3.2 Observational and Manipulative Studies Across Space and Time
Observational studies have used combinations of manual and automated measurements to examine the Rs coupling with various biotic and abiotic factors. These include chronosequence studies looking at disturbance (Campbell & Law, 2005; Czimczik et al., 2006; O'Neill et al., 2006; C. Wang et al., 2002) and ecosystem development (Dacal et al., 2022; Gough et al., 2007; Marañón-Jiménez et al., 2011; Tedeschi et al., 2006); pre- versus post-disturbance effects (T. Hu et al., 2017; Vargas & Allen, 2008a); topographic complexity (Berryman et al., 2015; Kopp et al., 2022; Riveros-Iregui et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2008); and tree mortality (Avila et al., 2019; Borkhuu et al., 2015; Curiel Yuste et al., 2019; Mathes et al., 2023). Links between vegetation and soil respiration are frequently observed: Rs is higher closer to trees (Pennington et al., 2020; J. Tang & Baldocchi, 2005) and shrubs (Cable et al., 2013; Vargas et al., 2018), with different contributions from its source fluxes (Grossiord et al., 2012), as the roots and canopies of plants respire belowground, exude photosynthate, drop leaf litter, and change the micrometeorological environment (B. Wang et al., 2014). Across 18 forested ecosystems in Europe, Rs was significantly correlated with photosynthesis and total ecosystem respiration; disturbed sites deviated from this pattern (Janssens et al., 2001). The challenge with all observational studies, however, is the problem of confounding variables and ascertaining causality (Dacal et al., 2022; Detto et al., 2012; Larsen et al., 2019; Vargas et al., 2018).
Site-scale manipulative studies have significantly advanced our understanding of the biology and biogeochemistry driving Rs over the last two decades. Probably the most common manipulation aims to quantify the distinct sources of Rs, which have varying responses to environmental conditions and different implications for global climate change (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2018; Högberg, 2010; X. Tang et al., 2021). Separating Rs into its distinct components poses technical challenges, and methods include isotopes (Andrews et al., 1999; Schuur & Trumbore, 2006), component integration, tree girdling (Högberg et al., 2001), and root exclusion (including root removal, gap analysis, trench, and deep collar) (Jian, Frissell, et al., 2022). Root exclusion is the most commonly used due to its cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation (Chin et al., 2023; Jassal & Black, 2006), but each technique has its distinct advantages and disadvantages. Despite the potential benefits, integrating or comparing multiple methods remains infrequent (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2004; Comeau et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2017; Subke et al., 2006).
Disturbance manipulations aim to mimic processes such as fire, harvest, hurricanes, insect mortality, and organic matter change. Early ecosystem-scale experiments simulated hurricane blowdown (Bowden et al., 1993; Millikin & Bowden, 1996) and watershed-scale forest fires (Y. Kim & Tanaka, 2003), an experimental approach that has been applied in other ecosystems such as pine forests (Grady & Hart, 2006), grasslands (Knapp et al., 1998), and tropical savannas (Andersson et al., 2004). Tree girdling showed that the impact of tree mortality events on Rs is proportional to the loss of overstory canopy (Mathes et al., 2023), building upon early studies that first demonstrated the tight link between live trees and Rs (Högberg et al., 2001) (2001). Harvesting experiments observe strong effects on Rs (Gough et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2021; Čater et al., 2021; Parro et al., 2019). The landmark Detrital Input and Removal Treatment network experiment applied consistent methodologies and manipulations at sites worldwide; litter addition stimulated priming effects, increasing Rs (Lajtha et al., 2018). The common thread among these disturbances is their tendency to disrupt the existing carbon balance in soils, frequently leading to a prolonged reduction in Rs and soil organic carbon (SOC) in spite of often-elevated soil temperatures after disturbance (Aust & Lea, 1991; Siwek, 2021; Williams et al., 2016).
A second category of manipulation experiments has aimed to change soils' in situ environmental conditions through heating, drought or water additions, fertilization, or CO2 enrichment. Soil heating experiments have examined changes in Rs magnitude and sources, the durability of any changes, and how they are linked with for example, changes belowground allocation (Giasson et al., 2013) and/or the soil microbial community (Nyberg & Hovenden, 2020; Schindlbacher et al., 2011). For example, soil warming can induce modifications in microbial activity, facilitating thermal adaptation and influencing SOC decomposition rates, ultimately impacting Rs (Bradford et al., 2008). Several meta-analyses have synthesized warming experiments (see below), but substantial uncertainty remains about the in situ Rs response to temperature changes (Nissan et al., 2023). Novel experiments have challenged conventional wisdom on the importance and vulnerability to warming of deeper soil horizons (Hanson et al., 2017; Hicks Pries et al., 2017; Soong et al., 2021; Q. Zhang et al., 2023a).
Manipulative drought experiments consistently report strong negative effects on Rs (Morris et al., 2022; X. Wang et al., 2014). Substantial CO2 pulses can occur upon soil rewetting (D.-G. Kim et al., 2012; Thomey et al., 2011), and in some ecosystems annual fluxes are dominated by “hot moments” of rainfall-driven Rs pulses (Delgado-Balbuena et al., 2023; Metz et al., 2023; Vargas et al., 2018). Rainfall/drought experiments are crucial because of the confounding effect between soil temperature and moisture (Davidson et al., 1998; Lellei-Kovács et al., 2011), and interactive effects between drought and CO2 enrichment have also been reported (Reinthaler et al., 2021). Vicca et al. (2014) synthesized 38 manipulation experiments to examine whether Rs changes due to natural soil temperature and moisture variability would accurately predict Rs under altered rainfall, and concluded that generally, the answer was yes—except for studies with high-frequency Rs data. Vicca et al. (2014) suggest that high-frequency data capture short-duration shifts and pulses in the Rs response, increasing the variance of the data (cf. Vargas & Le, 2023). This emphasizes the importance, noted above, of consistently treating and reconciling these different measurement strategies.
In the last two decades, Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments have generally reported 20%–40% Rs increases in elevated-CO2 plots (Bernhardt et al., 2006; King et al., 2004; Pendall et al., 2001), but the durability of this effect varies (Norby et al., 2010). Tradeoffs between building plant biomass versus increasing SOC storage may partially explain this variable response of Rs to elevated CO2, but what drives this tradeoff is not well understood (Terrer et al., 2021). FACE experiments have generally been performed in developmentally young ecosystems, but recent studies in mature woodlands are more equivocal (Drake et al., 2018); there is also evidence of publication bias in this area (Dieleman & Janssens, 2010). These factors, combined with the high value of such experimental data for ecological to earth system modeling (Keenan et al., 2013; Medlyn et al., 2015; Norby et al., 2016), mean that CO2 enrichment experiments remain crucial for our understanding of how elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations may affect Rs, carbon cycling, and climate feedbacks.
The power of ecosystem-scale manipulations arises from integrating the effects of experimental treatment(s) across abiotic drivers, biogeochemical cycles, and biological processes. Their weakness lies in their complexity and cost, and thus they are rarely sustained beyond a few years. One interesting compromise to address this problem is soil transplant experiments, which are field-based but feature core- to monolith-scale experimental units moved between different elevations (Ayres et al., 2009; Mills et al., 2014), ecotones (Sjogersten & Wookey, 2002; Tremblay et al., 2018), or for example, saltwater exposure (Capooci et al., 2019; Hopple et al., 2022). While laborious to implement and limited in scale, the altered environmental conditions come “for free” and thus long-term field transplants can be highly cost-effective (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2016).
3.3 The Importance and Potential of Long-Term Measurements
Long-term observations are crucial for drawing robust scientific inference about the Earth system (Luo et al., 2011; Mori et al., 2023; Müller et al., 2016; Ward et al., 2017). While short-term observations provide insight into how Rs responds to perturbations, any extrapolation to long-term system behavior is problematic. This is due in part to the different response times of the Rh and Ra components of Rs: soil microfauna can rapidly adapt to changing conditions (Barron-Gafford et al., 2014; Carbone et al., 2011; L. Zhou et al., 2016), whereas slower-growing plants are restricted in their plasticity. Empirical evidence suggests that the response of Rs to environmental changes (e.g., warming, precipitation change, and N enrichment) can vary with the length of the study (Melillo et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2022), and most manipulation experiments tend to be short-term (X. Ma et al., 2023; Morris et al., 2022). In addition, the combined effects of observational error, Rs variability, and buffered soil response mean that climate change effects may be confidently attributed only over long observational periods (Figure 3).
The longer-term impacts of environmental change on Rs are only beginning to be understood. Many global change experiments suggest an acclimation of Rs in the long-term following warming or precipitation shifts: for example, an initial elevation in Rs in response to warming dissipated over 10 years in a mid-latitude forest (Melillo et al., 2002). Similar results were found for a meta-analysis of 32 sites, with statistically significant increases in Rs in the first 3 years subsequently fading (Rustad et al., 2001). Recent work synthesizing 81 warming experiments corroborates short-term increases in Rs in response to warming but did not include any studies lasting longer than 18 months (Y. Zhang et al., 2023b). The long-term Rs response to precipitation change seems similarly variable, with some studies indicating little change in Rs response over time (L. Liu et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2011) and others finding long-term acclimation to increased precipitation and gradual exacerbation of drought effects, depending on the ecosystem (Morris et al., 2022). One meta-analysis incorporating long-term data on Rs under multiple global change drivers found highly significant interactive effects of factors such as temperature and drought (L. Zhou et al., 2016). Due to the complexity of processes driving Rs and high variability of site conditions, addressing the long-term nature of Rs response and model prediction will be crucial.
4 Global-Scale Data and Analyses
A crucial trend over the last 20 years has been the rapidly increasing volume of observational Rs data (Hashimoto et al., 2023), driven by an expanding scientific community (D.-G. Kim et al., 2022) and the rising use of automated, continuous measurement systems (Vargas, Carbone, et al., 2011). Early data assemblages by individual authors (Hibbard et al., 2005; Raich & Schlesinger, 1992; Schlesinger, 1977) were valuable but one-time efforts. In contrast, the global Soil Respiration Database (SRDB) was first released as a fully-public resource in 2010 and has been periodically updated (Bond-Lamberty and Thomson, 2010a; Jian et al., 2021b). Subsequent studies have collected Rs data from the African continent (Epule, 2015), Russia (Mukhortova et al., 2021), and China (D.-G. Kim et al., 2022; Song et al., 2014). There have also been nascent efforts to compile data from automated systems into standardized formats and databases (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2020, 2021).
This explosion in available Rs data has been paired with equally rapid growth in satellite data products, reanalysis data sets, multi-model intercomparisons, plant trait databases, and other resources (Reichstein et al., 2003), resulting in many openly-available gridded, global Rs and Rh data sets (S. Chen et al., 2014; Hashimoto et al., 2015; Stell et al., 2021b; Warner et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2021). Advances in remote sensing of soil moisture variability (Y. Liu & Yang, 2022), an important driver of Rs at the biome and ecosystem scale (Hursh et al., 2017) but not typically used in global upscaling efforts, could lead to a more direct consideration of soil moisture in global Rs estimates. Remote sensing estimates of gross primary production (GPP) from novel metrics, such as solar-induced fluorescence (SIF; Bowman et al., 2017; Houweling et al., 2015) combined with inversion models of net CO2 exchange have led to independent and improved estimates of Rh as the residual of these observationally constrained fluxes (Konings et al., 2019). As a result, far more Rs science papers involve modeling or remote sensing than in the past.
This increasing data availability has supported many statistical meta-analyses related to Rs. Following early quantitative reviews of topics such as global patterns of root turnover (Gill & Jackson, 2000) and separating sources of Rs (Hanson et al., 2000), the first formal meta-analysis synthesized data from 32 experimental warming sites, most in the US and Europe (Rustad et al., 2001). Subsequent studies have examined the effects of a range of global change factors, as well as environmental features, on both Rh and Rs (Table 1). Broad patterns that emerge are: (a) warming consistently produces a strong increase, and drought a reduction, of Rh and Rs; (b) precipitation addition increases Rs overall, but the effect on Rh is unclear; (c) the picture for nitrogen addition is less clear. One meta-analysis suggested that N deposition impedes organic matter decomposition and thus reduces Rs (Janssens et al., 2010), but a subsequent study found a more complex response (L. Zhou et al., 2014). A recent global analysis found that, overall, N deposition enhances Rs except in hotspots where the effect is negative, mostly in acid soils and at high levels of N deposition (C. Chen & Chen, 2023). Finally and importantly, (d) in recent years, increasing numbers of studies have considered the interaction between different factors that regulate Rs (Gao et al., 2020; Raich et al., 2023; Yue et al., 2018; L. Zhou et al., 2016).
Table 1.
Effect of Global Change Factors on Soil Heterotrophic Respiration (RH) and Total Soil Respiration (RS) According to Individual Meta-Analysis Studies
Note. Factors shown include experimental warming, nitrogen addition, precipitation addition, drought or precipitation reduction, and CO2 addition. Table entries show statistical significance: strong positive effect (typically P < 0.01, double up arrow, bright green), weak positive effect (P < 0.05, single up arrow, light green), no effect (double dash, gray), mixed effect (up and down arrows, olive), weak negative effect (single down arrow, light red), strong negative effect (double down arrow, bright red). These symbols and colors convey only a simplified, qualitative summary of results, and we encourage readers to read the individual studies. Additional columns give the number of experimental pairs (N) and range of study durations (years) in each meta-analysis. Meta-analyses of more rarely examined factors such as fire (Gui et al., 2023; M. Hu et al., 2020), phosphorous (Feng & Zhu, 2019; X. Lu et al., 2022), topography (Y. Zhang et al., 2021), litter inputs (X. Chen & Chen, 2018; Y. Zhang et al., 2020), vegetation (X. Chen & Chen, 2019; Y. Zhang et al., 2021), microplastics (X. Liu et al., 2023), metallic nanoparticles (He et al., 2024), and acid rain (Feng et al., 2017) are not shown.
Quantifying the large-scale Rs flux is useful for understanding and constraining other parts of the global carbon cycle (Friedlingstein et al., 2022; Jian, Bailey, et al., 2022) he expansion of global observing networks and remote sensing data products has led to a proliferation of global Rs estimates using different model approaches (Figure 4; cf. Hashimoto et al., 2023). Upscaling techniques pioneered by Raich and Schlesinger (1992) to derive estimates of global mean Rs developed into more sophisticated multivariate regression (Raich et al., 2002) and then Bayesian approaches (J. Hu et al., 2016) and machine learning (ML) algorithms (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2012). Concurrently, increased resolution of atmospheric inversion estimates of net biome productivity, combined with an array of satellite-derived primary productivity estimates, have been combined to produce “top-down” Rh estimates (Konings et al., 2019).
Despite these advances, Rs remains one of the most uncertain global fluxes, both operationally and statistically. In evaluating global estimates of respiration, it is critical to evaluate which flux is being estimated because total ecosystem respiration is often compared with Rs, and Rh often assumes that aboveground heterotrophic fluxes are negligible. Recent estimates of global gross primary productivity have converged to 123 ± 8 Pg C year−1 with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.07 (Beer et al., 2010) 89.9 ± 13.3 Pg C year−1 (CV of 0.15) (Ballantyne et al., 2017; Jian, Bailey, et al., 2022). More observations may improve uncertainties at the regional scale, but do not necessarily reduce uncertainty of global Rs estimates (Stell et al., 2021a; M. Xu & Shang, 2016), because they are concentrated in “redundant” ecoregions (e.g., temperate forests and grasslands in North America, Europe, and eastern Asia) rather than underrepresented ecoregions (e.g., arctic, boreal, tropical, desert). Furthermore, errors can arise from the approach used to estimate global Rs, as well as the distributional assumptions made about the aggregated fluxes (Wutzler et al., 2020). Hursh et al. (2017) found a wide range of global Rs estimates derived from a mechanistic model (108.6 ± 69.6 Pg C year−1) compared to a statistical model (80.3 ± 24.6 Pg C year−1), using the same SRDB observations. Perhaps what is most disconcerting about global Rs estimates is their apparent divergence over time (Hashimoto et al., 2023 and Figure 4). It is thus crucial to have clearly reported respiration fluxes, additional Rs observations in underrepresented ecosystems (e.g., tropics, semi-arid, and arctic), and reporting estimates from an ensemble of statistical models to advance our understanding of global Rs.
The global Rs flux appears to be increasing over decadal timescales (Hashimoto et al., 2023), but the underlying cause remains unknown. Based on upscaled soil respiration data, Bond-Lamberty and Thomson (2010b) first suggested that global Rs is rising at ∼0.1 Pg C year−1, likely driven by temperature changes (e.g., N. Huang et al., 2020). This has been corroborated by top-down estimates of total respiration, with decadal variability possibly driven by soil moisture (Ballantyne et al., 2017; Green et al., 2019). Current explanations of this increase are an acceleration of the C cycle (i.e., increased C inputs belowground and thus Ra) and/or increasing mineralization of historically stable soil C (increased Rh). Lei et al. (2021) inferred strong Rs growth at the end of the twentieth century, followed by a hiatus, even as global Rh steadily increased from 1987 to 2016. This is consistent with analyses reporting a rising Rh:Rs ratio (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2018; X. Tang et al., 2021) and suggests soil C losses to the atmosphere, although this is difficult to reconcile with a strengthening net terrestrial carbon sink (S. Ruehr et al., 2023). Full attribution of the cause of large-scale Rs and Rh changes remains an important research frontier.
5 Challenges and Opportunities
Enormous progress in measurement and analytical techniques, observational networks, and cross-disciplinary research has been made over the last two decades. These developments highlight substantial challenges and exciting opportunities going forward.
The first major challenge and opportunity for Rs research centers around biases and gaps in our observational data and the community of Rs researchers itself. Most of our inferences about temporal changes in the global Rs flux depend on a space-for-time substitution that assumes the spatial gradient in current-day Rs is a reliable proxy for future change, but this is questionable and untested (Blois et al., 2013; Dunne et al., 2004; Knapp et al., 2017). A related problem is the distorted distribution of extant Rs data (Jian et al., 2021b; Stell et al., 2021a; M. Xu & Shang, 2016) and how it limits our ability to understand mechanisms, regional dynamics, and global-scale fluxes in an era of global environmental change. This can be dramatically seen in Figure 5: the spatial distribution of SRDB records (a close proxy for the overall published Rs literature) does not match with either observed climate change or the urban ecosystems in which most people live in the twenty-first century (Lerman & Contosta, 2019; Velasco et al., 2021).
We posit that expanding diversity, equity, and access in Rs research will enable scientists in these regions to fill these gaps in our knowledge of soil respiration, because regions where we have the fewest Rs measurements (Figure 5) coincide with lower-income regions where we have the fewest earth scientists. Infrastructure and publications related to Rs and greenhouse gas science have been expanding in less-developed countries (D.-G. Kim et al., 2022), and novel instrumentation approaches continue to lower monetary costs (Forbes et al., 2023; Risk et al., 2011). Expanding the size and diversity of the pool of Rs-focused scientists and networks (Vargas et al., 2013) will encourage novel and imaginative ideas, leverage community-specific knowledge, and lead to stronger science teams and results (Dwivedi et al., 2022; Y. Yang, Tian, et al., 2022). It cannot be done in isolation, however, and will depend on continuing improvements in the diversity, equity, and accessibility of global science (McGill et al., 2021).
Reconciling independent estimates of global respiration fluxes and trends is a second major challenge and may hold the key to diagnosing latent carbon cycle processes and their sensitivities to climate. We are now able to compare abundant bottom-up estimates of Rs and Rh with emergent top-down estimates over space and time to identify regions or processes that remain poorly understood. For instance, Jian, Bailey, et al. (2022) reported that Rs constrained by GPP was significantly lower than independent estimates of Rs. Similarly, recent advances in remote sensing and data assimilation have yielded top-down estimates of global Rh that tend to be higher than bottom-up estimates derived from soil respiration observations, with the greatest mismatch being in tropical latitudes where dense observations of Rs and Rh are still lacking (Konings et al., 2019). A recent regional carbon assessment based on a detailed accounting of C pools and fluxes estimated global soil Rh to be 39 Pg C year−1, slightly lower than previous top-down estimates but possibly higher than bottom-up estimates upscaled from soil respiration observations (Ciais et al., 2020). It may be possible to aggregate soil respiration data at similar continental scales as these regional assessments to evaluate to what extent spatial aggregation of observations may contribute to these mismatches in Rh fluxes (Butman & Raymond, 2011; Kicklighter et al., 1994; Tan et al., 2020).
A third challenge concerns the power, applicability, and interpretability of ML algorithms (Dramsch, 2020; Reichstein et al., 2019). The large size of many Rs data sets, combined with the large number of environmental variables influencing Rs, has made Random Forests a popular algorithm in Rs research (e.g., H. Lu et al., 2021; Warner et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2021) but other approaches have also been applied. However, it is not clear that ML provides more utility over simple approaches: a study of Rs gap-filling algorithms found that ANNs exhibited larger errors than nonlinear least squares and other techniques (Zhao et al., 2020). Another analysis found no significant differences or biases among Rs estimates derived from semi-empirical, statistical or ML approaches (Hashimoto et al., 2023). We suggest that the field needs convincing demonstrations of what ML approaches add to more interpretable mechanistic or empirical approaches (Peters et al., 2014), careful consideration of the interpretability of ML models, and awareness of their potential biases (Perry et al., 2022). ML may be particularly useful for large-scale assessments of the importance of parent material (Aka Sagliker et al., 2018; Dacal et al., 2022), geochemistry (Doetterl et al., 2015), and presence of soil carbonates (Gallagher & Breecker, 2020). For all these reasons, ML remains an intriguing frontier but one that has yet to reveal new patterns to advance our theoretical understanding of Rs.
In addition to ML, Rs researchers should challenge themselves to increasingly employ creative and rigorous mechanistic modeling. This includes using model-experiment synthesis instead of model benchmarking (Hanson & Walker, 2019; Medlyn et al., 2015; Norby et al., 2016); investing in multi-model testbeds to accelerate progress (Wieder et al., 2018); favoring models based on fundamental and measurable pools and processes (Abramoff et al., 2018; Davidson et al., 2012); and rigorously assessing the value of data for models (Keenan et al., 2013). Novel approaches such as probabilistic modeling, which aim to represent a complex system's behavior based on the underlying probability distribution of its controlling factors, should be explored. Such work has for example, been able to predict and partition Rs (X. Zhou et al., 2010), determine the temperature dependence of Rs (Le & Vargas, 2024), and study its response to elevated CO2 (Gao et al., 2020) or extreme heat events (Anjileli et al., 2021). The central point is that progress will not come solely through numerical methods; integrating novel process models with manipulative field and lab experiments will be crucial (Kyker-Snowman et al., 2021; Medlyn et al., 2015).
The continued exploration of understudied mechanisms and ecosystems using diverse, novel experimental approaches constitutes a final, crucial challenge. Expanded research on the importance and complexity of hysteresis (Li et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2011; N. K. Ruehr et al., 2010; B. Wang et al., 2014) and antecedent conditions (Barron-Gafford et al., 2014; Cable et al., 2010; Hawkes et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2021a) will be crucial to account for the factors driving carbon-cycle twenty-first-century changes. This is particularly true given the expanding focus on nature-based climate solutions (Vargas & Le, 2023) and carbon capture and storage (Tao et al., 2023) as potential techniques for slowing climate change. Links among terrestrial, riverine, and aquatic carbon cycling are under-appreciated but potentially important pathways (Butman & Raymond, 2011; Tan et al., 2020), particularly with increasing disturbances such as storms and floods (Wen et al., 2022). Finally, as hinted at in Figure 5, certain types of ecosystems and environments merit focused research: for example, organic soils and wetlands, both managed and unmanaged; areas with thawing permafrost, and complex coastal interfaces. Including some of these key processes in models will be crucial to understand the driving mechanisms and controls of Rs, and to make testable predictions about its likely evolution in the changing earth system of the twenty-first century.
Acknowledgments
A.B., R.V., B.B.-L. and E.F.-C. were supported by the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program's “ResCom” (80NSSC21K1715) project. K.A.M. was supported by COMPASS-FME, a multi-institutional project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research as part of the Environmental System Science Program. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. We thank Elizabeth Smith, who helped organize the data underlying Figure 4, and Nathan Johnson, who illustrated Figure 1.
All data and code necessary to reproduce the table and figures, including information on package and R (R Core Team, 2023) versions used, are available at https://github.com/bpbond/jgr20 and permanently archived with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of 10.5281/zenodo.10620030.
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
Abramoff, R. Z., Guenet, B., Zhang, H., Georgiou, K., Xu, X., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., et al. (2022). Improved global-scale predictions of soil carbon stocks with Millennial Version 2. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 164, 108466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108466
Abramoff, R. Z., Xu, X., Hartman, M., O'Brien, S., Feng, W., Davidson, E., et al. (2018). The Millennial model: In search of measurable pools and transformations for modeling soil carbon in the new century. Biogeochemistry, 137(1–2), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0409-7
Aka Sagliker, H., Cenkseven, S., Kizildag, N., Kocak, B., Ozdeniz, E., Ozbey, B. G., et al. (2018). Is parent material an important factor in soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization?European Journal of Soil Biology, 89, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2018.11.002
Almagro, M., López, J., Querejeta, J. I., & Martínez-Mena, M. (2009). Temperature dependence of soil CO2 efflux is strongly modulated by seasonal patterns of moisture availability in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 41(3), 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.021
Andersson, M., Michelsen, A., Jensen, M., & Kjøller, A. (2004). Tropical savannah woodland: Effects of experimental fire on soil microorganisms and soil emissions of carbon dioxide. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 36(5), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.01.015
Andrews, J. A., Harrison, K. G., Matamala, R., & Schlesinger, W. H. (1999). Separation of root respiration from total soil respiration using carbon-13 labeling during free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE). Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63(5), 1429–1435. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351429x
Angert, A., Yakir, D., Rodeghiero, M., Preisler, Y., Davidson, E. A., & Weiner, T. (2015). Using O2 to study the relationships between soil CO2 efflux and soil respiration. Biogeosciences, 12(7), 2089–2099. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-2089-2015
Aubrey, D. P., & Teskey, R. O. (2021). Xylem transport of root-derived CO2 caused a substantial underestimation of belowground respiration during a growing season. Global Change Biology, 27(12), 2991–3000. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15624
Avila, J. M., Gallardo, A., & Gómez-Aparicio, L. (2019). Pathogen-induced tree mortality interacts with predicted climate change to alter soil respiration and nutrient availability in Mediterranean systems. Biogeochemistry, 142(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0521-3
Ayres, E., Steltzer, H., Berg, S., & Wall, D. H. (2009). Soil biota accelerate decomposition in high-elevation forests by specializing in the breakdown of litter produced by the plant species above them. Journal of Ecology, 97(5), 901–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01539.x
Bahn, M., Knapp, M., Garajova, Z., Pfahringer, N., & Cernusca, A. (2006). Root respiration in temperate mountain grasslands differing in land use. Global Change Biology, 12(6), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01144.x
Bain, W. G., Hutyra, L., Patterson, D. C., Bright, A. V., Daube, B. C., Munger, J. W., & Wofsy, S. C. (2005). Wind-induced error in the measurement of soil respiration using closed dynamic chambers. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 131(3–4), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.06.004
Ballantyne, A., Smith, W., Anderegg, W., Kauppi, P., Sarmiento, J., Tans, P., et al. (2017). Accelerating net terrestrial carbon uptake during the warming hiatus due to reduced respiration. Nature Climate Change, 7(2), 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3204
Barba, J., Cueva, A., Bahn, M., Barron-Gafford, G. A., Bond-Lamberty, B., Hanson, P. J., et al. (2018). Comparing ecosystem and soil respiration: Review and key challenges of tower-based and soil measurements. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 249, 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.028
Barron-Gafford, G. A., Cable, J. M., Bentley, L. P., Scott, R. L., Huxman, T. E., Jenerette, G. D., & Ogle, K. (2014). Quantifying the timescales over which exogenous and endogenous conditions affect soil respiration. New Phytologist, 202(2), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12675
Bastida, F., García, C., Fierer, N., Eldridge, D. J., Bowker, M. A., Abades, S., et al. (2019). Global ecological predictors of the soil priming effect. Nature Communications, 10(1), 3481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11472-7
Beer, C., Reichstein, M., Tomelleri, E., Ciais, P., Jung, M., Carvalhais, N., et al. (2010). Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: Global distribution and covariation with climate. Science, 329(5993), 834–838. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184984
Bernhardt, E. S., Barber, J. J., Pippen, J. S., Taneva, L., Andrews, J. A., & Schlesinger, W. H. (2006). Long-term effects of free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) on soil respiration. Biogeochemistry, 77(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-005-1062-0
Berryman, E. M., Barnard, H. R., Adams, H. R., Gallo, E., Brooks, D., & Brooks, P. D. (2015). Complex terrain alters temperature and moisture limitations of forest soil respiration across a semiarid to subalpine gradient. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 120(4), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jg002802
Berryman, E. M., Vanderhoof, M. K., Bradford, J. B., Hawbaker, T. J., Henne, P. D., Burns, S. P., et al. (2018). Estimating soil respiration in a subalpine landscape using point, terrain, climate and greenness data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 123(10), 3231–3249. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JG004613
Birge, H. E., Conant, R. T., Follett, R. F., Haddix, M. L., Morris, S. J., Snapp, S. S., et al. (2015). Soil respiration is not limited by reductions in microbial biomass during long-term soil incubations. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 81, 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.028
Blois, J. L., Williams, J. W., Fitzpatrick, M. C., Jackson, S. T., & Ferrier, S. (2013). Space can substitute for time in predicting climate-change effects on biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(23), 9374–9379. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220228110
Bond-Lamberty, B., Bailey, V. L., Chen, M., Gough, C. M., & Vargas, R. (2018). Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature, 560(7716), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x
Bond-Lamberty, B., Bolton, H., Jr., Fansler, S. J., Heredia-Langner, A., Liu, C., McCue, L. A., et al. (2016). Soil respiration and bacterial structure and function after 17 years of a reciprocal soil transplant experiment. PLoS One, 11(3), e0150599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150599
Bond-Lamberty, B., Bunn, A. G., & Thomson, A. M. (2012). Multi-year lags between forest browning and soil respiration at high northern latitudes. PLoS One, 7(11), e50441. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050441
Bond-Lamberty, B., Christianson, D. S., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Mathes, K., & Pennington, S. C. (2021). A reporting format for field measurements of soil respiration. Ecological Informatics, 62, 101280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101280
Bond-Lamberty, B., Christianson, D. S., Malhotra, A., Pennington, S. C., Sihi, D., AghaKouchak, A., et al. (2020). COSORE: A community database for continuous soil respiration and other soil-atmosphere greenhouse gas flux data. Global Change Biology, 26(12), 7268–7283. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15353
Bond-Lamberty, B., Pennington, S. C., Jian, J., Megonigal, J. P., Sengupta, A., & Ward, N. (2019). Soil respiration variability and correlation across a wide range of temporal scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 124(11), 3672–3683. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jg005265
Bond-Lamberty, B., & Thomson, A. (2010a). A global database of soil respiration data. Biogeosciences, 7(6), 1915–1926. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1915-2010
Bond-Lamberty, B., & Thomson, A. (2010b). Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Nature, 464(7288), 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08930
Bond-Lamberty, B., Wang, C., & Gower, S. T. (2004). A global relationship between the heterotrophic and autotrophic components of soil respiration?Global Change Biology, 10, 1756–1766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00816.x
Borkhuu, B., Peckham, S. D., Ewers, B. E., Norton, U., & Pendall, E. (2015). Does soil respiration decline following bark beetle induced forest mortality? Evidence from a lodgepole pine forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 214–215, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.258
Bowden, R. D., Castro, M. S., Melillo, J. M., Steudler, P. A., & Aber, J. D. (1993). Fluxes of greenhouse gases between soils and the atmosphere in a temperate forest following a simulated hurricane blowdown. Biogeochemistry, 21(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00000871
Bowman, K. W., Liu, J., Bloom, A. A., Parazoo, N. C., Lee, M., Jiang, Z., et al. (2017). Global and Brazilian carbon response to El Niño Modoki 2011-2010: Brazilian carbon balance. Life Support & Biosphere Science, 4(10), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ea000204
Bradford, M. A., Davies, C. A., Frey, S. D., Maddox, T. R., Melillo, J. M., Mohan, J. E., et al. (2008). Thermal adaptation of soil microbial respiration to elevated temperature. Ecology Letters, 11(12), 1316–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01251.x
Bradford, M. A., Watts, B. W., & Davies, C. A. (2010). Thermal adaptation of heterotrophic soil respiration in laboratory microcosms. Global Change Biology, 16(5), 1576–1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02040.x
Brændholt, A., Steenberg Larsen, K., Ibrom, A., & Pilegaard, K. (2017). Overestimation of closed-chamber soil CO2 effluxes at low atmospheric turbulence. Biogeosciences, 14(6), 1603–1616. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-1603-2017
Brüggemann, N., Gessler, A., Kayler, Z., Keel, S. G., Badeck, F., Barthel, M., et al. (2011). Carbon allocation and carbon isotope fluxes in the plant-soil-atmosphere continuum: A review. Biogeosciences Discussions, 8(11), 3619–3695. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-3457-2011
Brumme, R., & Beese, F. (1992). Effects of liming and nitrogen fertilization on emissions of CO2 and N2O from a temperate forest. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(D12), 12851–12858. https://doi.org/10.1029/92jd01217
Butman, D., & Raymond, P. A. (2011). Significant efflux of carbon dioxide from streams and rivers in the United States. Nature Geoscience, 4(12), 839–842. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1294
Cable, J. M., Ogle, K., Barron-Gafford, G. A., Bentley, L. P., Cable, W. L., Scott, R. L., et al. (2013). Antecedent conditions influence soil respiration differences in shrub and grass patches. Ecosystems, 16(7), 1230–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9679-7
Cable, J. M., Ogle, K., Lucas, R. W., Huxman, T. E., Loik, M. E., Smith, S. D., et al. (2010). The temperature responses of soil respiration in deserts: A seven desert synthesis. Biogeochemistry, 103(1–3), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9448-z
Campbell, J. L., & Law, B. E. (2005). Forest soil respiration across three climatically distinct chronosequences in Oregon. Biogeochemistry, 73(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-5165-9
Capooci, M., Barba, J., Seyfferth, A. L., & Vargas, R. (2019). Experimental influence of storm-surge salinity on soil greenhouse gas emissions from a tidal salt marsh. Science of the Total Environment, 686, 1164–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.032
Capooci, M., & Vargas, R. (2022). Diel and seasonal patterns of soil CO2 efflux in a temperate tidal marsh. Science of the Total Environment, 802, 149715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149715
Carbone, M. S., Still, C. J., Ambrose, A. R., Dawson, T. E., Williams, A. P., Boot, C. M., et al. (2011). Seasonal and episodic moisture controls on plant and microbial contributions to soil respiration. Oecologia, 167(1), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1975-3
Carbone, M. S., & Vargas, R. (2007). Automated soil respiration measurements: New information, opportunities and challenges. New Phytologist, 177(2), 295–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02328.x
Čater, M., Darenova, E., & Simončič, P. (2021). Harvesting intensity and tree species affect soil respiration in uneven-aged Dinaric forest stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 480, 118638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118638
Chapin, F. S., III., McFarland, J., David McGuire, A., Euskirchen, E. S., Ruess, R. W., & Kielland, K. (2009). The changing global carbon cycle: Linking plant-soil carbon dynamics to global consequences. Journal of Ecology, 97(5), 840–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01529.x
Chen, C., & Chen, H. Y. H. (2023). Mapping global nitrogen deposition impacts on soil respiration. Science of the Total Environment, 871, 161986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161986
Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Kuzyakov, Y., Wang, D., & Olesen, J. E. (2023). Challenges in upscaling laboratory studies to ecosystems in soil microbiology research. Global Change Biology, 29(3), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16537
Chen, S., Zou, J., Hu, Z., Chen, H., & Lu, Y. (2014). Global annual soil respiration in relation to climate, soil properties and vegetation characteristics: Summary of available data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 198–199, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.08.020
Chen, X., & Chen, H. Y. H. (2018). Global effects of plant litter alterations on soil CO2 to the atmosphere. Global Change Biology, 24(8), 3462–3471. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14147
Chen, X., & Chen, H. Y. H. (2019). Plant diversity loss reduces soil respiration across terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 25(4), 1482–1492. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14567
Colman, B. P., & Schimel, J. P. (2014). Drivers of microbial respiration and net N mineralization at the continental scale. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 60, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.003
Comeau, L.-P., Lai, D. Y. F., Cui, J. J., & Farmer, J. (2018). Separation of soil respiration: A site-specific comparison of partition methods. SOIL, 4(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-141-2018
Cooper, W. T., Chanton, J. C., D'Andrilli, J., Hodgkins, S. B., Podgorski, D. C., Stenson, A. C., et al. (2022). A history of molecular level analysis of natural organic matter by FTICR mass spectrometry and the paradigm shift in organic geochemistry. Mass Spectrometry Reviews, 41(2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.21663
Craine, J. M., Fierer, N., & McLauchlan, K. (2010). Widespread coupling between the rate and temperature sensitivity of organic matter decay. Nature Geoscience, 3(12), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1009
Cucchi, M., Weedon, G. P., Amici, A., Bellouin, N., Lange, S., Müller Schmied, H., et al. (2020). WFDE5: Bias-adjusted ERA5 reanalysis data for impact studies. Earth System Science Data, 12(3), 2097–2120. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2097-2020
Cueva, A., Bahn, M., Litvak, M., Pumpanen, J., & Vargas, R. (2015). A multisite analysis of temporal random errors in soil CO2 efflux. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 120(4), 737–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jg002690
Cueva, A., Bullock, S. H., López-Reyes, E., & Vargas, R. (2017). Potential bias of daily soil CO2 efflux estimates due to sampling time. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 11925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11849-y
Curiel Yuste, J., Flores-Rentería, D., García-Angulo, D., Hereş, A.-M., Bragă, C., Petritan, A.-M., & Petritan, I. C. (2019). Cascading effects associated with climate-change-induced conifer mortality in mountain temperate forests result in hot-spots of soil CO2 emissions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 133, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.02.017
Curiel Yuste, J., Ma, S., & Baldocchi, D. D. (2010). Plant-soil interactions and acclimation to temperature of microbial-mediated soil respiration may affect predictions of soil CO2 efflux. Biogeochemistry, 98(1–3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-009-9381-1
Czimczik, C. I., Trumbore, S. E., Carbone, M. S., & Winston, G. C. (2006). Changing sources of soil respiration with time since fire in a boreal forest. Global Change Biology, 12(6), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01107.x
Dacal, M., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Barquero, J., Berhe, A. A., Gallardo, A., Maestre, F. T., & García-Palacios, P. (2022). Temperature increases soil respiration across ecosystem types and soil development, but soil properties determine the magnitude of this effect. Ecosystems, 25(1), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00648-2
Davidson, E. A., Belk, E., & Boone, R. D. (1998). Soil water content and temperature as independent or confounded factors controlling soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Global Change Biology, 4(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00128.x
Davidson, E. A., & Janssens, I. A. (2006). Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature, 440(7081), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04514
Davidson, E. A., Janssens, I. A., & Luo, Y. (2006). On the variability of respiration in terrestrial ecosystems: Moving beyond Q10. Global Change Biology, 12(2), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01065.x
Davidson, E. A., Samanta, S., Caramori, S. S., & Savage, K. E. (2012). The Dual Arrhenius and Michaelis-Menten (DAMM) kinetics model for decomposition of soil organic matter at hourly to seasonal time scales. Global Change Biology, 18(1), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02546.x
Davidson, E. A., Savage, K. E., Verchot, L. V., & Navarro, R. (2002). Minimizing artifacts and biases in chamber-based measurements of soil respiration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 113(1–4), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00100-4
Delgado-Balbuena, J., Loescher, H. W., Aguirre-Gutiérrez, C. A., Alfaro-Reyna, T., Pineda-Martínez, L. F., Vargas, R., & Arredondo, T. (2023). Dynamics of short-term ecosystem carbon fluxes induced by precipitation events in a semiarid grassland. Biogeosciences, 20(12), 2369–2385. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2369-2023
Desai, A. R., Murphy, B. A., Wiesner, S., Thom, J., Butterworth, B. J., Koupaei-Abyazani, N., et al. (2022). Drivers of decadal carbon fluxes across temperate ecosystems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 127(12), e2022JG007014. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022jg007014
Detto, M., Molini, A., Katul, G., Stoy, P., Palmroth, S., & Baldocchi, D. (2012). Causality and persistence in ecological systems: A nonparametric spectral granger causality approach. The American Naturalist, 179(4), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1086/664628
Dieleman, W. I. J., & Janssens, I. A. (2010). Can publication bias affect ecological research? A case study on soil respiration under elevated CO2. New Phytologist, 190(3), 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03499.x
Dirmeyer, P. A., Gao, X., Zhao, M., Guo, Z., Oki, T., & Hanasaki, N. (2006). GSWP-2: Multimodel analysis and implications for our perception of the land surface. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87(10), 1381–1398. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-87-10-1381
Doetterl, S., Stevens, A., Six, J., Merckx, R., Van Oost, K., Casanova Pinto, M., et al. (2015). Soil carbon storage controlled by interactions between geochemistry and climate. Nature Geoscience, 8(10), 780–783. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2516
Drake, J. E., Macdonald, C. A., Tjoelker, M. G., Reich, P. B., Singh, B. K., Anderson, I. C., & Ellsworth, D. S. (2018). Three years of soil respiration in a mature eucalypt woodland exposed to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Biogeochemistry, 139(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0457-7
Dramsch, J. S. (2020). 70 years of machine learning in geoscience in review. In B. Moseley & L. Krischer (Eds.), Machine learning in geosciences (Vol. 61, pp. 1–55). Elsevier.
Dunne, J. A., Saleska, S. R., Fischer, M. L., & Harte, J. (2004). Integrating experimental and gradient methods in ecological climate change research. Ecology, 85(4), 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-8003
Dwivedi, D., Santos, A. L. D., Barnard, M. A., Crimmins, T. M., Malhotra, A., Rod, K. A., et al. (2022). Biogeosciences perspectives on integrated, coordinated, open, networked (ICON) science. Earth and Space Science, 9(3), e2021EA002119. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ea002119
Feng, J., Wang, J., Ding, L., Yao, P., Qiao, M., & Yao, S. (2017). Meta-analyses of the effects of major global change drivers on soil respiration across China. Atmospheric Environment, 150, 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.11.060
Feng, J., & Zhu, B. (2019). A global meta-analysis of soil respiration and its components in response to phosphorus addition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 135, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.04.008
Fierer, N., & Schimel, J. P. (2002). Effects of drying–rewetting frequency on soil carbon and nitrogen transformations. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34(6), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00007-x
Forbes, E., Benenati, V., Frey, S., Hirsch, M., Koech, G., Lewin, G., et al. (2023). Fluxbots: A method for building, deploying, collecting and analyzing data from an array of inexpensive, autonomous soil carbon flux chambers. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128(6), e2023JG007451. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jg007451
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., et al. (2022). Global carbon budget 2022. Earth System Science Data, 14(11), 4811–4900. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022
Fröberg, M., Hanson, P. J., Trumbore, S. E., Swanston, C. W., & Todd, D. E. (2009). Flux of carbon from 14C-enriched leaf litter throughout a forest soil mesocosm. Geoderma, 149(3–4), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.11.029
Gallagher, T. M., & Breecker, D. O. (2020). The obscuring effects of calcite dissolution and formation on quantifying soil respiration. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 34(12), e2020GB006584. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gb006584
Gao, Q., Wang, G., Xue, K., Yang, Y., Xie, J., Yu, H., et al. (2020). Stimulation of soil respiration by elevated CO2 is enhanced under nitrogen limitation in a decade-long grassland study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(52), 33317–33324. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002780117
Gaumont-Guay, D., Black, T. A., Griffis, T. J., Barr, A. G., Jassal, R. S., & Nesic, Z. (2006). Interpreting the dependence of soil respiration on soil temperature and water content in a boreal aspen stand. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 140(1–4), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.08.003
Gershenson, A., Bader, N. E., & Cheng, W. (2009). Effects of substrate availability on the temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition. Global Change Biology, 15(1), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01827.x
Giasson, M.-A., Ellison, A. M., Bowden, R. D., Crill, P. M., Davidson, E. A., Drake, J. E., et al. (2013). Soil respiration in a northeastern US temperate forest: A 22-year synthesis. Ecosphere, 4(11), 140. https://doi.org/10.1890/es13.00183.1
Glassman, S. I., Wang, I. J., & Bruns, T. D. (2017). Environmental filtering by pH and soil nutrients drives community assembly in fungi at fine spatial scales. Molecular Ecology, 26(24), 6960–6973. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14414
Gomez-Casanovas, N., Anderson-Teixeira, K., Zeri, M., Bernacchi, C. J., & DeLucia, E. H. (2013). Gap filling strategies and error in estimating annual soil respiration. Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1941–1952. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12127
González-Domínguez, B., Niklaus, P. A., Studer, M. S., Hagedorn, F., Wacker, L., Haghipour, N., et al. (2019). Temperature and moisture are minor drivers of regional-scale soil organic carbon dynamics. Scientific Reports, 9, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42629-5
Gough, C. M., Vogel, C. S., Harrold, K. H., George, K., & Curtis, P. S. (2007). The legacy of harvest and fire on ecosystem carbon storage in a north temperate forest. Global Change Biology, 13(9), 1935–1949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01406.x
Gough, C. M., Vogel, C. S., Schmid, H. P., & Curtis, P. S. (2008). Multi-year convergence of biometric and meteorological estimates of forest carbon storage. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 148(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.08.004
Goulden, M. L., & Crill, P. M. (1997). Automated measurements of CO2 exchange at the moss surface of a black spruce forest. Tree Physiology, 17(8–9), 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/17.8-9.537
Goulden, M. L., McMillan, A. M. S., Winston, G. C., Rocha, A. V., Manies, K. L., Harden, J. W., & Bond-lamberty, B. P. (2011). Patterns of NPP, GPP, respiration, and NEP during boreal forest succession. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02274.x
Grady, K. C., & Hart, S. C. (2006). Influences of thinning, prescribed burning, and wildfire on soil processes and properties in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: A retrospective study. Forest Ecology and Management, 234(1–3), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.031
Green, J. K., Seneviratne, S. I., Berg, A. M., Findell, K. L., Hagemann, S., Lawrence, D. M., & Gentine, P. (2019). Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake. Nature, 565(7740), 476–479. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x
Grossiord, C., Mareschal, L., & Epron, D. (2012). Transpiration alters the contribution of autotrophic and heterotrophic components of soil CO2 efflux. New Phytologist, 194(3), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04102.x
Gui, H., Wang, J., Hu, M., Zhou, Z., & Wan, S. (2023). Impacts of fire on soil respiration and its components: A global meta-analysis. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 336, 109496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109496
Hamdi, S., Moyano, F. E., Sall, S., Bernoux, M., & Chevallier, T. (2013). Synthesis analysis of the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration from laboratory studies in relation to incubation methods and soil conditions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 58, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.012
Hanson, P. J., Edwards, N. T., Garten, C. T., & Andrews, J. A. (2000). Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: A review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry, 48(1), 115–146. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006244819642
Hanson, P. J., Riggs, J. S., Nettles, W. R., Phillips, J. R., Krassovski, M. B., Hook, L. A., et al. (2017). Attaining whole-ecosystem warming using air and deep-soil heating methods with an elevated CO2 atmosphere. Biogeosciences, 14(4), 861–883. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-861-2017
Hanson, P. J., & Walker, A. P. (2019). Advancing global change biology through experimental manipulations: Where have we been and where might we go?Global Change Biology, 26(1), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14894
Harmon, M. E., Bond-Lamberty, B., Vargas, R., & Tang, J. (2011). Heterotrophic respiration in disturbed forests: A review with examples from North America. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, G00K04. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jg001495
Hartley, I. P., Hill, T. C., Chadburn, S. E., & Hugelius, G. (2021). Temperature effects on carbon storage are controlled by soil stabilisation capacities. Nature Communications, 12(1), 6713. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27101-1
Hashimoto, S., Carvalhais, N., Ito, A., Migliavacca, M., Nishina, K., & Reichstein, M. (2015). Global spatiotemporal distribution of soil respiration modeled using a global database. Biogeosciences, 12(13), 4121–4132. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4121-2015
Hawkes, C. V., Waring, B. G., Rocca, J. D., & Kivlin, S. N. (2017). Historical climate controls soil respiration responses to current soil moisture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(24), 6322–6327. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620811114
He, G., Lu, M., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Yang, Y., Ma, L., Li, S., & Liu, W. (2024). The global-scale impacts of metallic nanoparticles on soil carbon dioxide emissions. Global Change Biology, 30(2), e17164. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17164
Heinemeyer, A., Gruber, V., & Bahn, M. (2012). The “Gas-Snake”: Design and validation of a versatile membrane-based gas flux measurement system in a grassland soil respiration study. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 154–155, 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.10.017
Henry, H. A. L. (2007). Soil freeze–thaw cycle experiments: Trends, methodological weaknesses and suggested improvements. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39(5), 977–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.11.017
Hibbard, K. A., Law, B. E., & Sulzman, J. (2005). An analysis of soil respiration across northern hemisphere temperate ecosystems. Biogeochemistry, 73(1), 29–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-2946-0
Hill, A. C., Barba, J., Hom, J., & Vargas, R. (2021). Patterns and drivers of multi-annual CO2 emissions within a temperate suburban neighborhood. Biogeochemistry, 152(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-020-00731-1
Hirano, T., Kim, H., & Tanaka, Y. (2003). Long-term half-hourly measurement of soil CO2 concentration and soil respiration in a temperate deciduous forest. Journal of Geophysical Research D, 108(D20), 4631. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jd003766
Hobbie, J. E., & Hobbie, E. A. (2013). Microbes in nature are limited by carbon and energy: The starving-survival lifestyle in soil and consequences for estimating microbial rates. Frontiers in Microbiology, 4, 324. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00324
Högberg, P. (2010). Is tree root respiration more sensitive than heterotrophic respiration to changes in soil temperature?New Phytologist, 188(1), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03366.x
Högberg, P., Nordgren, A., Buchmann, N., Taylor, A. F., Ekblad, A., Högberg, M. N., et al. (2001). Large-scale forest girdling shows that current photosynthesis drives soil respiration. Nature, 411(6839), 789–792. https://doi.org/10.1038/35081058
Hopple, A. M., Pennington, S. C., Megonigal, J. P., Bailey, V., & Bond-Lamberty, B. (2022). Disturbance legacies regulate coastal forest soil stability to changing salinity and inundation: A soil transplant experiment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 169, 108675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108675
Houweling, S., Baker, D., Basu, S., Boesch, H., Butz, A., Chevallier, F., et al. (2015). An intercomparison of inverse models for estimating sources and sinks of CO2 using GOSAT measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120(10), 5253–5266. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jd022962
Hu, J., Zhou, J., Zhou, G., Luo, Y., Xu, X., Li, P., & Liang, J. (2016). Improving estimations of spatial distribution of soil respiration using the Bayesian maximum entropy algorithm and soil temperature as auxiliary data. PLoS One, 11(1), e0146589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146589
Hu, M., Song, J., Li, S., Li, Z., Hao, Y., Di, M., & Wan, S. (2020). Understanding the effects of fire and nitrogen addition on soil respiration of a field study by combining observations with a meta-analysis. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 292–293, 108106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108106
Hu, T., Sun, L., Hu, H., Weise, D. R., & Guo, F. (2017). Soil respiration of the Dahurian Larch (Larix gmelinii) forest and the response to fire disturbance in Da Xing'an Mountains, China. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 2967. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03325-4
Huang, N., Wang, L., Song, X.-P., Black, T. A., Jassal, R. S., Myneni, R. B., et al. (2020). Spatial and temporal variations in global soil respiration and their relationships with climate and land cover. Science Advances, 6(41), eabb8508. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb8508
Huang, W., & Hall, S. J. (2017). Elevated moisture stimulates carbon loss from mineral soils by releasing protected organic matter. Nature Communications, 8(1), 1774. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01998-z
Hursh, A., Ballantyne, A., Cooper, L., Maneta, M., Kimball, J., & Watts, J. (2017). The sensitivity of soil respiration to soil temperature, moisture, and carbon supply at the global scale. Global Change Biology, 23(5), 2090–2103. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13489
Jackson, R. B., Cook, C. W., Pippen, J. S., & Palmer, S. M. (2009). Increased belowground biomass and soil CO2 fluxes after a decade of carbon dioxide enrichment in a warm-temperate forest. Ecology, 90(12), 3352–3366. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1609.1
Janssens, I. A., Dieleman, W. I. J., Luyssaert, S., Subke, J.-A., Reichstein, M., Ceulemans, R., et al. (2010). Reduction of forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition. Nature Geoscience, 3(5), 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo844
Janssens, I. A., Lankreijer, H., Matteucci, G., Kowalski, A. S., Buchmann, N., Epron, D., et al. (2001). Productivity overshadows temperature in determining soil and ecosystem respiration across European forests. Global Change Biology, 7(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00412.x
Jassal, R. S., & Black, T. A. (2006). Estimating heterotrophic and autotrophic soil respiration using small-area trenched plot technique: Theory and practice. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 140(1–4), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.12.012
Jia, J., Liu, Z., Haghipour, N., Wacker, L., Zhang, H., Sierra, C. A., et al. (2023). Molecular 14C evidence for contrasting turnover and temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter components. Ecology Letters, 26(5), 778–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14204
Jian, J., Bailey, V., Dorheim, K., Konings, A. G., Hao, D., Shiklomanov, A. N., et al. (2022). Historically inconsistent productivity and respiration fluxes in the global terrestrial carbon cycle. Nature Communications, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29391-5
Jian, J., Bond-Lamberty, B., Hao, D., Sulman, B. N., Patel, K. F., Zheng, J., et al. (2021a). Leveraging observed soil heterotrophic respiration fluxes as a novel constraint on global-scale models. Global Change Biology, 27(20), 5392–5403. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15795
Jian, J., Frissell, M., Hao, D., Tang, X., Berryman, E., & Bond-Lamberty, B. (2022). The global contribution of roots to total soil respiration. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 31(4), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13454
Jian, J., Gough, C., Sihi, D., Hopple, A. M., & Bond-Lamberty, B. (2020). Collar properties and measurement time confer minimal bias overall on annual soil respiration estimates in a global database. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 125(12), e2020JG006066. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jg006066
Jian, J., Steele, M. K., Day, S. D., Quinn Thomas, R., & Hodges, S. C. (2018). Measurement strategies to account for soil respiration temporal heterogeneity across diverse regions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 125, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.07.003
Jian, J., Vargas, R., Anderson-Teixeira, K., Stell, E., Herrmann, V., Horn, M., et al. (2021b). A restructured and updated global soil respiration database (SRDB-V5). Earth System Science Data, 13(2), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-255-2021
Johnson, D., Phoenix, G. K., & Grime, J. P. (2008). Plant community composition, not diversity, regulates soil respiration in grasslands. Biology Letters, 4, 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0121
Johnson, M. S., Lehmann, J., Riha, S. J., Krusche, A. V., Richey, J. E., Ometto, J. P. H. B., & Couto, E. G. (2008). CO2 efflux from Amazonian headwater streams represents a significant fate for deep soil respiration. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17), L17401. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gl034619
Jonasson, S., Castro, J., & Michelsen, A. (2004). Litter, warming and plants affect respiration and allocation of soil microbial and plant C, N and P in arctic mesocosms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 36(7), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.02.023
Jouquet, P., Huchet, G., Bottinelli, N., Thu, T. D., & Duc, T. T. (2012). Does the influence of earthworms on water infiltration, nitrogen leaching and soil respiration depend on the initial soil bulk density? A mesocosm experiment with the endogeic species Metaphire posthuma. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 48(5), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-011-0652-3
Kampichler, C., Bruckner, A., & Kandeler, E. (2001). Use of enclosed model ecosystems in soil ecology: A bias towards laboratory research. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(00)00140-1
Karhu, K., Auffret, M. D., Dungait, J. A. J., Hopkins, D. W., Prosser, J. I., Singh, B. K., et al. (2014). Temperature sensitivity of soil respiration rates enhanced by microbial community response. Nature, 513(7516), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13604
Keenan, T. F., Davidson, E. A., Munger, J. W., & Richardson, A. D. (2013). Rate my data: Quantifying the value of ecological data for the development of models of the terrestrial carbon cycle. Ecological Applications, 23(1), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0747.1
Kicklighter, D. W., Melillo, J. M., Peterjohn, W. T., Rastetter, E. B., McGuire, A. D., Steudler, P. A., & Aber, J. D. (1994). Aspects of spatial and temporal aggregation in estimating regional carbon dioxide fluxes from temperate forest soils. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(D1), 1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1029/93jd02964
Kim, D.-G., Bond-Lamberty, B., Ryu, Y., Seo, B., & Papale, D. (2022). Ideas and perspectives: Enhancing research and monitoring of carbon pools and land-to-atmosphere greenhouse gases exchange in developing countries. Biogeosciences, 19(5), 1435–1450. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-1435-2022
Kim, D.-G., Vargas, R., Bond-Lamberty, B., & Turetsky, M. R. (2012). Effects of soil rewetting and thawing on soil gas fluxes: A review of current literature and suggestions for future research. Biogeosciences, 9(7), 2459–2483. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-2459-2012
Kim, H. (2017). Global soil wetness project phase 3 Atmospheric boundary conditions (Experiment 1) [Dataset]. Data Integration and Analysis System (DIAS). https://doi.org/10.20783/DIAS.501
Kim, Y., & Tanaka, N. (2003). Effect of forest fire on the fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O in boreal forest soils, interior Alaska. Journal of Geophysical Research, 197(D1), 8154. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jd000663
King, J. S., Hanson, P. J., Bernhardt, E., DeAngelis, P., Norby, R. J., & Pregitzer, K. S. (2004). A multiyear synthesis of soil respiration responses to elevated atmospheric CO2 from four forest FACE experiments. Global Change Biology, 10(6), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00789.x
Kleber, M., Sollins, P., & Sutton, R. (2007). A conceptual model of organo-mineral interactions in soils: Self-assembly of organic molecular fragments into zonal structures on mineral surfaces. Biogeochemistry, 85(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9103-5
Knapp, A. K., Ciais, P., & Smith, M. D. (2017). Reconciling inconsistencies in precipitation-productivity relationships: Implications for climate change. New Phytologist, 214(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14381
Knapp, A. K., Conard, S. L., & Blair, J. M. (1998). Determinants of soil CO2 flux from a sub-humid grassland: Effect of fire and fire history. Ecological Applications, 8(3), 760–770. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641264
Konings, A. G., Bloom, A. A., Liu, J., Parazoo, N. C., Schimel, D. S., & Bowman, K. W. (2019). Global satellite-driven estimates of heterotrophic respiration. Biogeosciences, 16(11), 2269–2284. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-2269-2019
Kopp, M., Kaye, J., Smeglin, Y. H., Adams, T., Primka, E. J., IV, Bradley, B., et al. (2022). Topography mediates the response of soil CO2 efflux to precipitation over days, seasons, and years. Ecosystems, 26(4), 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-022-00786-1
Krauss, K. W., Whitbeck, J. L., & Howard, R. J. (2012). On the relative roles of hydrology, salinity, temperature, and root productivity in controlling soil respiration from coastal swamps (freshwater). Plant and Soil, 358(1–2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1182-y
Kurganova, I. N., Lopes de Gerenyu, V. O., Khoroshaev, D. A., Myakshina, T. N., Sapronov, D. V., Zhmurin, V. A., & Kudeyarov, V. N. (2020). Analysis of the long-term soil respiration dynamics in the forest and meadow cenoses of the Prioksko-Terrasny biosphere reserve in the perspective of current climate trends. Eurasian Soil Science, 53(10), 1421–1436. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1064229320100117
Kuzyakov, Y. (2006). Sources of CO2 efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38(3), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.020
Kuzyakov, Y., & Gavrichkova, O. (2010). REVIEW: Time lag between photosynthesis and carbon dioxide efflux from soil: A review of mechanisms and controls. Global Change Biology, 16(12), 3386–3406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02179.x
Kuzyakov, Y., & Larionova, A. A. (2005). Root and rhizomicrobial respiration: A review of approaches to estimate respiration by autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms in soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 168(4), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200421703
Kyker-Snowman, E., Lombardozzi, D. L., Bonan, G. B., Cheng, S. J., Dukes, J. S., Frey, S. D., et al. (2021). Increasing the spatial and temporal impact of ecological research: A roadmap for integrating a novel terrestrial process into an Earth system model. Global Change Biology, 28(2), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15894
Lajtha, K., Bowden, R. D., Crow, S., Fekete, I., Kotroczó, Z., Plante, A., et al. (2018). The detrital input and removal treatment (DIRT) network: Insights into soil carbon stabilization. Science of the Total Environment, 640–641, 1112–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.388
Lange, S., Menz, C., Gleixner, S., Cucchi, M., Weedon, G. P., Amici, A., et al. (2021). WFDE5 over land merged with ERA5 over the ocean (W5E5 v2.0). https://doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.342217
Larsen, A. E., Meng, K., & Kendall, B. E. (2019). Causal analysis in control–impact ecological studies with observational data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(7), 924–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13190
La Scala, N., Marques, J., Pereira, G. T., & Cora, J. E. (2000). Short-term temporal changes in the spatial variability model of CO2 emissions from a Brazilian bare soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32(10), 1459–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(00)00051-1
Law, B. E., Falge, E., Gu, L., Baldocchi, D. D., Bakwin, P., Berbigier, P., et al. (2002). Environmental controls over carbon dioxide and water vapor exchange of terrestrial vegetation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 113(1–4), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00104-1
Le, V. H., & Vargas, R. (2024). Beyond a deterministic representation of the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Science of the Total Environment, 912, 169391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169391
Lee, X., Wu, H.-J., Sigler, J., Oishi, A. C., & Siccama, T. G. (2004). Rapid and transient response of soil respiration to rain. Global Change Biology, 10(6), 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00787.x
Lellei-Kovács, E., Kovács-Láng, E., Botta-Dukát, Z., Kalapos, T., Emmett, B., & Beier, C. (2011). Thresholds and interactive effects of soil moisture on the temperature response of soil respiration. European Journal of Soil Biology, 47(4), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.05.004
Leon, E., Vargas, R., Bullock, S., Lopez, E., Panosso, A. R., & La Scala, N. (2014). Hot spots, hot moments, and spatio-temporal controls on soil CO2 efflux in a water-limited ecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 77, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.05.029
Lerman, S. B., & Contosta, A. R. (2019). Lawn mowing frequency and its effects on biogenic and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 182, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.016
Liu, F., Zhou, X., Dong, J., Yan, Y., Tian, J., Li, J., et al. (2023). Soil gas CO2 emissions from active faults: A case study from the Anninghe—Zemuhe fault, Southeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Frontiers of Earth Science in China, 11, 1117862. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2023.1117862
Liu, L., Wang, X., Lajeunesse, M. J., Miao, G., Piao, S., Wan, S., et al. (2016). A cross-biome synthesis of soil respiration and its determinants under simulated precipitation changes. Global Change Biology, 22(4), 1394–1405. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13156
Liu, M., Xia, H., Fu, S., & Eisenhauer, N. (2017). Tree diversity regulates soil respiration through accelerated tree growth in a mesocosm experiment. Pedobiologia, 65, 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2017.05.005
Liu, Y., Men, M., Peng, Z., Chen, H. Y. H., Yang, Y., & Peng, Y. (2023). Spatially-explicit estimate of nitrogen effects on soil respiration across the globe. Global Change Biology, 29(13), 3591–3600. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16716
Liu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2022). Advances in the quality of global soil moisture products: A review. Remote Sensing, 14(15), 3741. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153741
Lu, H., Li, S., Ma, M., Bastrikov, V., Chen, X., Ciais, P., et al. (2021). Comparing machine learning-derived global estimates of soil respiration and its components with those from terrestrial ecosystem models. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5), 054048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf526
Lu, X., Wen, L., Sun, H., Fei, T., Liu, H., Ha, S., et al. (2022). Responses of soil respiration to phosphorus addition in global grasslands: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 349, 131413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131413
Lugato, E., Lavallee, J. M., Haddix, M. L., Panagos, P., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2021). Different climate sensitivity of particulate and mineral-associated soil organic matter. Nature Geoscience, 14(5), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00744-x
Luo, Y., Melillo, J. M., Niu, S., Beier, C., Clark, J. S., Classen, A. T., et al. (2011). Coordinated approaches to quantify long-term ecosystem dynamics in response to global change. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 843–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02265.x
Ma, J., Wang, Z.-Y., Stevenson, B. A., Zheng, X.-J., & Li, Y. (2013). An inorganic CO2 diffusion and dissolution process explains negative CO2 fluxes in saline/alkaline soils. Scientific Reports, 3(1), 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02025
Maia, S. M. F., Gonzaga, G. B. M., Silva, L. K. D. S., Lyra, G. B., & Gomes, T. C. D. A. (2019). Soil organic carbon temperature sensitivity of different soil types and land use systems in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Soil Use & Management, 35(3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12508
Maier, M., Schack-Kirchner, H., Hildebrand, E. E., & Schindler, D. (2011). Soil CO2 efflux vs. soil respiration: Implications for flux models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151(12), 1723–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.07.006
Marañón-Jiménez, S., Castro, J., Kowalski, A. S., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Reverter, B. R., Sánchez-Cañete, E. P., & Zamora, R. (2011). Post-fire soil respiration in relation to burnt wood management in a Mediterranean mountain ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(8), 1436–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.030
Mathes, K. C., Pennington, S., Rodriguez, C., Bond-Lamberty, B., Atkins, J. W., Vogel, C. S., & Gough, C. M. (2023). Sustained three-year declines in forest soil respiration are proportional to disturbance severity. Ecosystems, 26(8), 1766–1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-023-00863-z
McGill, B. M., Foster, M. J., Pruitt, A. N., Thomas, S. G., Arsenault, E. R., Hanschu, J., et al. (2021). You are welcome here: A practical guide to diversity, equity, and inclusion for undergraduates embarking on an ecological research experience. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3636–3645. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7321
McGinn, S. M., Akinremi, O. O., McLean, H. D. J., & Ellert, B. (1998). An automated chamber system for measuring soil respiration. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 78(4), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.4141/s97-104
Medlyn, B. E., Zaehle, S., De Kauwe, M., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C., Hanson, P. J., et al. (2015). Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2621
Melillo, J. M., Frey, S. D., DeAngelis, K. M., Werner, W. J., Bernard, M. J., Bowles, F. P., et al. (2017). Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science, 358(6359), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan2874
Melillo, J. M., Steudler, P. A., Aber, J. D., Newkirk, K., Lux, H., Bowles, F. P., et al. (2002). Soil warming and carbon-cycle feedbacks to the climate system. Science, 298(5601), 2173–2176. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1074153
Mikan, C. J., Zak, D. R., Kubiske, M. E., & Pregitzer, K. S. (2000). Combined effects of atmospheric CO2 and N availability on the belowground carbon and nitrogen dynamics of aspen mesocosms. Oecologia, 124(3), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00008869
Millikin, C. S., & Bowden, R. D. (1996). Soil respiration in pits and mounds following an experimental forest blowdown. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(6), 1951–1953. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000060047x
Mills, R., Gavazov, K. S., Spiegelsberger, T., Johnson, D., & Buttler, A. (2014). Diminished soil functions occur under simulated climate change in a sup-alpine pasture, but heterotrophic temperature sensitivity indicates microbial resilience. Science of the Total Environment, 473–474, 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.071
Mills, R., Glanville, H., McGovern, S., Emmett, B. A., & Jones, D. L. (2012). Soil respiration across three contrasting ecosystem types: Comparison of two portable IRGA systems. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 174(4), 532–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201000183
Misson, L., Rocheteau, A., Rambal, S., Ourcival, J.-M., Limousin, J.-M., & Rodriguez, R. (2009). Functional changes in the control of carbon fluxes after 3 years of increased drought in a Mediterranean evergreen forest?Global Change Biology, 16(9), 2461–2475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02121.x
Moinet, G. Y. K., Moinet, M., Hunt, J. E., Rumpel, C., Chabbi, A., & Millard, P. (2020). Temperature sensitivity of decomposition decreases with increasing soil organic matter stability. Science of the Total Environment, 704, 135460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135460
Mondini, C., Sinicco, T., Cayuela, M. L., & Sanchez-Monedero, M. A. (2010). A simple automated system for measuring soil respiration by gas chromatography. Talanta, 81(3), 849–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2010.01.026
Mori, A. S., Suzuki, K. F., Hori, M., Kadoya, T., Okano, K., Uraguchi, A., et al. (2023). Perspective: Sustainability challenges, opportunities and solutions for long-term ecosystem observations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 378(1881), 20220192. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0192
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Winn, J. P., Hogan, E., Killick, R. E., et al. (2021). An updated assessment of near-surface temperature change from 1850: The HadCRUT5 data set. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(3), e2019JD032361. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd032361
Morris, K. A., Hornum, S., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Pennington, S. C., & Bond-Lamberty, B. (2022). Soil respiration response to simulated precipitation change depends on ecosystem type and study duration. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 127(11), e2022JG006887. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022jg006887
Moya, M. R., Sánchez-Cañete, E. P., Vargas, R., López-Ballesteros, A., Oyonarte, C., Kowalski, A. S., et al. (2019). CO2 dynamics are strongly influenced by low frequency atmospheric pressure changes in semiarid grasslands. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 124(4), 902–917. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jg004961
Moyano, F. E., Manzoni, S., & Chenu, C. (2013). Responses of soil heterotrophic respiration to moisture availability: An exploration of processes and models. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 59, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.002
Mukhortova, L., Schepaschenko, D., Moltchanova, E., Shvidenko, A., Khabarov, N., & See, L. (2021). Respiration of Russian soils: Climatic drivers and response to climate change. Science of the Total Environment, 785, 147314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147314
Müller, F., Bergmann, M., Dannowski, R., Dippner, J. W., Gnauck, A., Haase, P., et al. (2016). Assessing resilience in long-term ecological data sets. Ecological Indicators, 65, 10–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.066
Norby, R. J., De Kauwe, M. G., Domingues, T. F., Duursma, R. A., Ellsworth, D. S., Goll, D. S., et al. (2016). Model–data synthesis for the next generation of forest free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments. New Phytologist, 209(1), 17–28. (In press). https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13593
Norby, R. J., Warren, J. M., Iversen, C. M., Medlyn, B. E., & McMurtrie, R. E. (2010). CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(45), 19368–19373. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006463107
Nyberg, M., & Hovenden, M. J. (2020). Warming increases soil respiration in a carbon-rich soil without changing microbial respiratory potential. Biogeosciences, 17, 4405–4420. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4405-2020
O'Neill, K. P., Richter, D. D., & Kasischke, E. S. (2006). Succession-driven changes in soil respiration following fire in black spruce stands of interior Alaska. Biogeochemistry, 80, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-005-5964-7
Panosso, A. R., Marques, J., Pereira, G. T., & La Scala, N. (2009). Spatial and temporal variability of soil CO2 emission in a sugarcane area under green and slash-and-burn managements. Soil and Tillage Research, 105(2), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.09.008
Parkinson, K. J. (1981). An improved method for measuring soil respiration in the field. Journal of Applied Ecology, 18(1), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402491
Parro, K., Köster, K., Jõgiste, K., Seglinš, K., Sims, A., Stanturf, J. A., & Metslaid, M. (2019). Impact of post-fire management on soil respiration, carbon and nitrogen content in a managed hemiboreal forest. Journal of Environmental Management, 233, 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.050
Patel, K. F., Bond-Lamberty, B., Jian, J., Morris, K. A., McKever, S. A., Norris, C. G., et al. (2022). Carbon flux estimates are sensitive to data source: A comparison of field and lab temperature sensitivity data. Environmental Research Letters, 17(11), 113003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac9aca
Patel, K. F., Myers-Pigg, A., Bond-Lamberty, B., Fansler, S. J., Norris, C. G., McKever, S. A., et al. (2021a). Soil carbon dynamics during drying vs. rewetting: Importance of antecedent moisture conditions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 156, 108165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108165
Patel, K. F., Smith, A. P., Bond-Lamberty, B., Fansler, S. J., Tfaily, M. M., Bramer, L., et al. (2021b). Spatial access and resource limitations control carbon mineralization in soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 162, 108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108427
Pendall, E., Bridgham, S., Hanson, P. J., Hungate, B., Kicklighter, D. W., Johnson, D. W., et al. (2004). Below-ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: A discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models. New Phytologist, 162(2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01053.x
Pendall, E., Leavitt, S. W., Brooks, T., Kimball, B. A., Pinter, P. J., Wall, G. W., et al. (2001). Elevated CO2 stimulates soil respiration in a FACE wheat field. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00053
Pennington, S. C., McDowell, N. G., Megonigal, J. P., Stegen, J. C., & Bond-Lamberty, B. (2020). Localized basal area affects soil respiration temperature sensitivity in a coastal deciduous forest. Biogeosciences, 17(3), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-771-2020
Perry, G. L. W., Seidl, R., Bellvé, A. M., & Rammer, W. (2022). An outlook for deep learning in ecosystem science. Ecosystems, 25(8), 1700–1718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-022-00789-y
Peters, D. P. C., Kavstad, K. M., Cushing, J., Tweedie, C., Fuentes, O., & Villanueva-Rosales, N. (2014). Harnessing the power of big data: Infusing the scientific method with machine learning to transform ecology. Ecosphere, 5(1–15), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1890/es13-00359.1
Petrakis, S., Seyfferth, A., Kan, J., Inamdar, S., & Vargas, R. (2017). Influence of experimental extreme water pulses on greenhouse gas emissions from soils. Biogeochemistry, 133(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0320-2
Phillips, C. L., Bond-Lamberty, B., Desai, A. R., Lavoie, M., Risk, D., Tang, J. W., et al. (2017). The value of soil respiration measurements for interpreting and modeling terrestrial carbon cycling. Plant and Soil, 413(1–2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3084-x
Phillips, C. L., Nickerson, N., Risk, D., & Bond, B. J. (2011). Interpreting diel hysteresis between soil respiration and temperature. Global Change Biology, 17(1), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02250.x
Pongracic, S., Kirschbaum, M. U. F., & Raison, R. J. (1997). Comparison of soda lime and infrared gas analysis techniques for in situ measurement of forest soil respiration. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27(11), 1890–1895. https://doi.org/10.1139/x97-139
Pulleman, M. M., & Marinissen, J. C. Y. (2004). Physical protection of mineralizable C in aggregates from long-term pasture and arable soil. Geoderma, 120(3–4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.09.009
Pumpanen, J., Kolari, P., Ilvesniemi, H., Minkkinen, K., Vesala, T., Niinistö, S., et al. (2004). Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 flux. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 123(3–4), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.12.001
Pumpanen, J., Longdoz, B., & Kutsch, W. L. (2010). Field measurements of soil respiration: Principles and constraints, potentials and limitations of different methods. In Soil carbon dynamics: An integrated methodology (pp. 16–33).
Qu, R., Liu, G., Yue, M., Wang, G., Peng, C., Wang, K., & Gao, X. (2023). Soil temperature, microbial biomass and enzyme activity are the critical factors affecting soil respiration in different soil layers in Ziwuling Mountains, China. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, 1105723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1105723
Raich, J. W., Kaiser, M. S., Dornbush, M. E., Martin, J. G., & Valverde-Barrantes, O. J. (2023). Multiple factors co-limit short-term in situ soil carbon dioxide emissions. PLoS One, 18(2), e0279839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279839
Raich, J. W., & Potter, C. S. (1995). Global patterns of carbon dioxide emissions from soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1029/94gb02723
Raich, J. W., Potter, C. S., & Bhagawati, D. (2002). Interannual variability in global soil respiration, 1980-94. Global Change Biology, 8, 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00511.x
Raich, J. W., & Schlesinger, W. H. (1992). The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 44(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-1-00001.x
Rasmussen, C., Heckman, K., Wieder, W. R., Keiluweit, M., Lawrence, C. R., Berhe, A. A., et al. (2018). Beyond clay: Towards an improved set of variables for predicting soil organic matter content. Biogeochemistry, 137(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0424-3
Reichstein, M., Camps-Valls, G., Stevens, B., Jung, M., Denzler, J., Carvalhais, N., & Prabhat (2019). Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature, 566(7743), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0912-1
Reichstein, M., Rey, A., Freibauer, A., Tenhunen, J., Valentini, R., Banza, J., et al. (2003). Modeling temporal and large-scale spatial variability of soil respiration from soil water availability, temperature and vegetation productivity indices. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2003gb002035
Reinthaler, D., Harris, E., Pötsch, E. M., Herndl, M., Richter, A., Wachter, H., & Bahn, M. (2021). Responses of grassland soil CO2 production and fluxes to drought are shifted in a warmer climate under elevated CO2. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 163, 108436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108436
Renchon, A. A., Griebel, A., Metzen, D., Williams, C. A., Medlyn, B., Duursma, R. A., et al. (2018). Upside-down fluxes down under: CO2 net sink in winter and net source in summer in a temperate evergreen broadleaf forest. Biogeosciences, 15(12), 3703–3716. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3703-2018
Rey, A. (2015). Mind the gap: Non-biological processes contributing to soil CO2 efflux. Global Change Biology, 21(5), 1752–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12821
Risk, D., Nickerson, N., Creelman, C., McArthur, G., & Owens, J. (2011). Forced diffusion soil flux: A new technique for continuous monitoring of soil gas efflux. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151(12), 1622–1631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.06.020
Riveros-Iregui, D. A., McGlynn, B. L., Emanuel, R. E., & Epstein, H. E. (2012). Complex terrain leads to bidirectional responses of soil respiration to inter-annual water availability. Global Change Biology, 18(2), 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02556.x
Rocci, K., Grandy, S., Frey, S., Ernakovich, J., Cotrufo, F., Malhotra, A., et al. (2024). Bridging 20 years of soil organic matter frameworks: Synergies, distinctions and next steps. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. (Preprint). Retrieved from https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.170293436.63506237
Rodeghiero, M., & Cescatti, A. (2008). Spatial variability and optimal sampling strategy of soil respiration. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(1), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.025
Roy, J., Rineau, F., De Boeck, H. J., Nijs, I., Pütz, T., Abiven, S., et al. (2021). Ecotrons: Powerful and versatile ecosystem analysers for ecology, agronomy and environmental science. Global Change Biology, 27(7), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15471
Ruehr, N. K., Knohl, A., & Buchmann, N. (2010). Environmental variables controlling soil respiration on diurnal, seasonal and annual time-scales in a mixed mountain forest in Switzerland. Biogeochemistry, 98(1–3), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-009-9383-z
Ruehr, S., Keenan, T. F., Williams, C., Zhou, Y., Lu, X., Bastos, A., et al. (2023). Evidence and attribution of the enhanced land carbon sink. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 4(8), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00456-3
Rustad, L. E., Campbell, J. L., Marion, G. M., Norby, R. J., Mitchell, M. J., Hartley, A. E., et al. (2001). A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming. Oecologia, 126(4), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000544
Rustad, L. E., Huntington, T. G., & Boone, R. D. (2000). Controls on soil respiration: Implications for climate change. Biogeochemistry, 48, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006255431298
Sánchez-Cañete, E. P., Barron-Gafford, G. A., & Chorover, J. (2018). A considerable fraction of soil-respired CO2 is not emitted directly to the atmosphere. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 13518. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29803-x
Sánchez-Cañete, E. P., Oyonarte, C., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Curiel Yuste, J., Pérez-Priego, O., Domingo, F., & Kowalski, A. S. (2016). Winds induce CO2 exchange with the atmosphere and vadose zone transport in a karstic ecosystem. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 121(8), 2049–2063. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jg003500
Savage, K., Davidson, E. A., & Richardson, A. D. (2008). A conceptual and practical approach to data quality and analysis procedures for high-frequency soil respiration measurements. Functional Ecology, 22(6), 1000–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01414.x
Savage, K., Phillips, R., & Davidson, E. (2014). High temporal frequency measurements of greenhouse gas emissions from soils. Biogeosciences, 11(10), 2709–2720. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2709-2014
Savage, K. E., & Davidson, E. A. (2003). A comparison of manual and automated systems for soil CO2 flux measurements: Trade-offs between spatial and temporal resolution. Journal of Experimental Botany, 54(384), 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erg121
Schindlbacher, A., Rodler, A., Kuffner, M., Kitzler, B., Sessitsch, A., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2011). Experimental warming effects on the microbial community of a temperate mountain forest soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43(7), 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.03.005
Schindlbacher, A., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., Glatzel, G., & Jandl, R. (2007). Winter soil respiration from an Austrian mountain forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 146(3–4), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.06.001
Schlesinger, W. H., & Andrews, J. A. (2000). Soil respiration and the global carbon cycle. Biogeochemistry, 48(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006247623877
Schuur, E. A. G., & Trumbore, S. E. (2006). Partitioning sources of soil respiration in boreal black spruce forest using radiocarbon. Global Change Biology, 12(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01066.x
Seyfferth, A. L., Bothfeld, F., Vargas, R., Stuckey, J. W., Wang, J., Kearns, K., et al. (2020). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of geochemical controls on carbon cycling in a tidal salt marsh. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 282, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2020.05.013
Shi, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, G., Ruan, H., He, R., et al. (2009). Accelerated soil CO2 efflux after conversion from secondary oak forest to pine plantation in southeastern China. Ecological Research, 24(6), 1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-009-0609-2
Singh, S., Jagadamma, S., Liang, J., Kivlin, S. N., Wood, J. D., Wang, G., et al. (2021). Differential organic carbon mineralization responses to soil moisture in three different soil orders under mixed forested system. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering in China, 9, 682450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.682450
Siwek, J. P. (2021). Effects of forest disturbance on seasonal soil temperature changes in the Tatra Mountains in southern Poland. Central European Forestry Journal, 67(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.2478/forj-2021-0003
Sjogersten, S., & Wookey, P. A. (2002). Climatic and resource quality controls on soil respiration across a forest – Tundra ecotone in Swedish Lapland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34(11), 1633–1646. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00147-5
Soong, J. L., Castanha, C., Hicks Pries, C. E., Ofiti, N., Porras, R. C., Riley, W. J., et al. (2021). Five years of whole-soil warming led to loss of subsoil carbon stocks and increased CO2 efflux. Science Advances, 7(21), eabd1343. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1343
Soong, J. L., Fuchslueger, L., Marañon-Jimenez, S., Torn, M. S., Janssens, I. A., Penuelas, J., & Richter, A. (2020). Microbial carbon limitation: The need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling. Global Change Biology, 26(4), 1953–1961. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14962
Stell, E., Warner, D., Jian, J., Bond-Lamberty, B., & Vargas, R. (2021a). Spatial biases of information influence global estimates of soil respiration: How can we improve global predictions?Global Change Biology, 27(16), 3923–3938. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15666
Stell, E., Warner, D. L., Jian, J., Bond-Lamberty, B. P., & Vargas, R. (2021b). Global gridded 1-km soil and soil heterotrophic respiration derived from SRDB v5. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1928
Stewart, R. I. A., Dossena, M., Bohan, D. A., Jeppesen, E., Kordas, R. L., Ledger, M. E., et al. (2013). Chapter Two - Mesocosm experiments as a tool for ecological climate-change research. In G. Woodward & E. J. O'Gorman (Eds.), Advances in ecological research (Vol. 48, pp. 71–181). Academic Press.
Stoy, P., Dietze, M. C., Richardson, A. D., Vargas, R., Barr, A., Anderson, R. S., et al. (2013). Evaluating the agreement between measurements and models of net ecosystem exchange at different times and timescales using wavelet coherence: An example using data from the North American Carbon Program Site-Level Interim Synthesis. Biogeosciences, 10(11), 6893–6909. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-6893-2013
Subke, J.-A., & Bahn, M. (2010). On the “temperature sensitivity” of soil respiration: Can we use the immeasurable to predict the unknown?Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(9), 1653–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.026
Subke, J.-A., Inglima, I., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2006). Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: A metaanalytical review. Global Change Biology, 12(6), 921–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01117.x
Sulman, B. N., Moore, J. A. M., Abramoff, R., Averill, C., Kivlin, S., Georgiou, K., et al. (2018). Multiple models and experiments underscore large uncertainty in soil carbon dynamics. Biogeochemistry, 141(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0509-z
Sulman, B. N., Phillips, R. P., Oishi, A. C., Shevliakova, E., & Pacala, S. W. (2014). Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1099–1102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2436
Tamir, G., Shenker, M., Heller, H., Bloom, P. R., Fine, P., & Bar-Tal, A. (2011). Can soil carbonate dissolution lead to overestimation of soil respiration?Soil Science Society of America Journal, 75(4), 1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0396
Tan, Z., Leung, L. R., Li, H.-Y., Tesfa, T., Zhu, Q., & Huang, M. (2020). A substantial role of soil erosion in the land carbon sink and its future changes. Global Change Biology, 26(4), 2642–2655. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14982
Tang, J., & Baldocchi, D. D. (2005). Spatial-temporal variation in soil respiration in an oak-grass savanna ecosystem in California and its partitioning into autotrophic and heterotrophic components. Biogeochemistry, 73(1), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-5889-6
Tang, J., Baldocchi, D. D., Qi, Y., & Xu, L. (2003). Assessing soil CO2 efflux using continuous measurements of CO2 profiles in soils with small solid-state sensors. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 118(3–4), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1923(03)00112-6
Tang, J., Baldocchi, D. D., & Xu, L. (2005). Tree photosynthesis modulates soil respiration on a diurnal time scale. Global Change Biology, 11(8), 1298–1304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00978.x
Tang, X., Shi, Y., Luo, X., Liu, L., Jian, J., Bond-Lamberty, B., et al. (2021). A decreasing carbon allocation to belowground autotrophic respiration in global forest ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 798, 149273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149273
Tao, F., Huang, Y., Hungate, B. A., Manzoni, S., Frey, S. D., Schmidt, M. W. I., et al. (2023). Microbial carbon use efficiency promotes global soil carbon storage. Nature, 618(7967), 981–985. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06042-3
Tedeschi, V., Rey, A., Manca, G., Valentini, R., Jarvis, P. G., & Borghetti, M. (2006). Soil respiration in a Mediterranean oak forest at different developmental stages after coppicing. Global Change Biology, 12(1), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01081.x
Teixeira, D. D. B., Bicalho, E. D. S., Panosso, A. R., Perillo, L. I., Iamaguti, J. L., Pereira, G. T., & La Scala, N., Jr. (2012). Uncertainties in the prediction of spatial variability of soil CO2 emissions and related properties. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 36(5), 1466–1475. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-06832012000500010
Terrer, C., Phillips, R. P., Hungate, B. A., Rosende, J., Pett-Ridge, J., Craig, M. E., et al. (2021). A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature, 591(7851), 599–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03306-8
Thomey, M. L., Collins, S. L., Vargas, R., Johnson, J. E., Brown, R. F., Natvig, D. O., & Friggens, M. T. (2011). Effect of precipitation variability on net primary production and soil respiration in a Chihuahuan Desert grassland. Global Change Biology, 17(4), 1505–1515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02363.x
Tingey, D. T., Lee, E. H., Lewis, J. D., Johnson, M. G., & Rygiewicz, P. T. (2008). Do mesocosms influence photosynthesis and soil respiration?Environmental and Experimental Botany, 62(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.07.003
Torn, M. S., Trumbore, S. E., Chadwick, O. A., Vitousek, P. M., & Hendricks, D. M. (1997). Mineral control of soil organic carbon storage and turnover. Nature, 389(6647), 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/38260
Tremblay, S. L., D'Orangeville, L., Lambert, M.-C., & Houle, D. (2018). Transplanting boreal soils to a warmer region increases soil heterotrophic respiration as well as its temperature sensitivity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 116, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.10.018