Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Weaker soil carbon–climate feedbacks resulting from microbial and abiotic interactions



The large uncertainty in soil carbon–climate feedback predictions has been attributed to the incorrect parameterization of decomposition temperature sensitivity (Q10; ref. 1) and microbial carbon use efficiency2. Empirical experiments have found that these parameters vary spatiotemporally3,4,5,6, but such variability is not included in current ecosystem models7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Here we use a thermodynamically based decomposition model to test the hypothesis that this observed variability arises from interactions between temperature, microbial biogeochemistry, and mineral surface sorptive reactions. We show that because mineral surfaces interact with substrates, enzymes and microbes, both Q10 and microbial carbon use efficiency are hysteretic (so that neither can be represented by a single static function) and the conventional labile and recalcitrant substrate characterization with static temperature sensitivity is flawed. In a 4-K temperature perturbation experiment, our fully dynamic model predicted more variable but weaker soil carbon–climate feedbacks than did the static Q10 and static carbon use efficiency model when forced with yearly, daily and hourly variable temperatures. These results imply that current Earth system models probably overestimate the response of soil carbon stocks to global warming. Future ecosystem models should therefore consider the dynamic interactions between sorptive mineral surfaces, substrates and microbial processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Relationships between total-SOM-weighted respiration (rCO2) and temperature under parameter perturbations.
Figure 2: Predicted emergent responses as a function of temperature forcing of different temporal variability.
Figure 3: Predicted relative changes in TOTSOM stocks subject to 50-year 4-K temperature perturbations as affected by the static versus prognostic CUE parameterizations and different mineral surface areas.


  1. Lloyd, J. & Taylor, J. A. On the temperature-dependence of soil respiration. Funct. Ecol. 8, 315–323 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sinsabaugh, R.L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L. & Richter, A. Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: Stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. Ecol. Lett. 16, 930–939 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Janssens, I. A. & Pilegaard, K. Large seasonal changes in Q10 of soil respiration in a beech forest. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 911–918 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pavelka, M., Acosta, M., Marek, M.V., Kutsch, W. & Janous, D. Dependence of the Q10 values on the depth of the soil temperature measuring point. Plant Soil 292, 171–179 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Steinweg, J. M., Plante, A. F., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. & Tanaka, D. L. Patterns of substrate utilization during long-term incubations at different temperatures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 2722–2728 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dijkstra, P. et al. Effect of temperature on metabolic activity of intact microbial communities: Evidence for altered metabolic pathway activity but not for increased maintenance respiration and reduced carbon use efficiency. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 2023–2031 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Koven, C. D. et al. Permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks accelerate global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 14769–14774 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V. & Ojima, D. S. Analysis of factors controlling soil organic-matter levels in Great-Plains grasslands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 1173–1179 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith, O. L. Analytical model of the decomposition of soil organic-matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 11, 585–606 (1979).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Grant, R. F., Juma, N. G. & Mcgill, W. B. Simulation of carbon and nitrogen transformations in soil — Mineralization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25, 1317–1329 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Riley, W. J. et al. Long residence times of rapidly decomposable soil organic matter: Application of a multi-phase, multi-component, and vertically-resolved model (BAMS1) to soil carbon dynamics. Geosci. Model Dev. 7, 1335–1355 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang, G. S., Post, W. M. & Mayes, M. A. Development of microbial-enzyme-mediated decomposition model parameters through steady-state and dynamic analyses. Ecol. Appl. 23, 255–272 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fujita, Y., Witte, J-P. M. & van Bodegom, P. M. Incorporating microbial ecology concepts into global soil mineralization models to improve predictions of carbon and nitrogen fluxes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 28, 223–238 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Koven, C. D. et al. The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4. Biogeosciences 10, 7109–7131 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Todd-Brown, K. E. O. et al. Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations. Biogeosciences 10, 1717–1736 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kleber, M. et al. Old and stable soil organic matter is not necessarily chemically recalcitrant: Implications for modeling concepts and temperature sensitivity. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1097–1107 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Quiquampoix, H., Servagent-Noinville, S. & Baron, M. in Enzymes in the Environment (eds Burns, R. G. & Dick, R. P.) 285–306 (Marcel Dekker, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tang, J. Y. & Riley, W. J. A total quasi-steady-state formulation of substrate uptake kinetics in complex networks and an example application to microbial litter decomposition. Biogeosciences 10, 8329–8351 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kooijman, S. A. L. M., Sousa, T., Pecquerie, L., van der Meer, J. & Jager, T. From food-dependent statistics to metabolic parameters, a practical guide to the use of dynamic energy budget theory. Biol. Rev. 83, 533–552 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Del Don, C., Hanselmann, K. W., Peduzzi, R. & Bachofen, R. Biomass composition and methods for the determination of metabolic reserve polymers in phototrophic sulfur bacteria. Aquat. Sci. 56, 1–15 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jenkinson, D. S. & Coleman, K. The turnover of organic carbon in subsoils. Part 2. Modelling carbon turnover. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 59, 400–413 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Davidson, E. A., Belk, E. & Boone, R. D. Soil water content and temperature as independent or confounded factors controlling soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 217–227 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hamdi, S., Moyano, F., Sall, S., Bernoux, M. & Chevallier, T. Synthesis analysis of the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration from laboratory studies in relation to incubation methods and soil conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 58, 115–126 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sierra, C. A. Temperature sensitivity of organic matter decomposition in the Arrhenius equation: Some theoretical considerations. Biogeochemistry 108, 1–15 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lopez-Urrutia, A. & Moran, X. A. G. Resource limitation of bacterial production distorts the temperature dependence of oceanic carbon cycling. Ecology 88, 817–822 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Conant, R. T. et al. Sensitivity of organic matter decomposition to warming varies with its quality. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 868–877 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Balser, T. C. & Wixon, D. L. Investigating biological control over soil carbon temperature sensitivity. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 2935–2949 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eyring, H. The activated complex in chemical reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 3, 107–115 (1935).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy, K. P., Privalov, P. L. & Gill, S. J. Common features of protein unfolding and dissolution of hydrophobic compounds. Science 247, 559–561 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the US Department of Energy, under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231, as part of their Regional and Global Climate Modeling (RGCM) Program; and by the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments (NGEE Arctic) project. J.Y.T. is also supported by an Early Career Development Grant provided by the Earth Sciences Division of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.Y.T. and W.J.R. conceived the project, J.Y.T. developed the model and conducted model runs, and J.Y.T. and W.J.R. analysed the data and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinyun Tang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, J., Riley, W. Weaker soil carbon–climate feedbacks resulting from microbial and abiotic interactions. Nature Clim Change 5, 56–60 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing