Article | Published:

Microbial formation of stable soil carbon is more efficient from belowground than aboveground input

Nature Geoscience (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

The relative contributions of aboveground versus belowground plant carbon inputs to the stable soil organic carbon pool are the subject of much debate—with direct implications for how the carbon cycle is modelled and managed. The belowground rhizosphere pathway (that is, carbon exiting the living root) is theorized to form stable soil carbon more efficiently than the aboveground pathway. However, while several mechanisms have been invoked to explain this efficiency, few have been empirically tested or quantified. Here, we use soil microcosms with standardized carbon inputs to investigate three posited mechanisms that differentiate aboveground from belowground input pathways of dissolved organic carbon—through the microbial biomass—to the mineral-stabilized soil organic carbon pool: (1) the physical distance travelled, (2) the microbial abundance in the region in which a carbon compound enters (that is, rhizosphere versus bulk soil) and (3) the frequency and volume of carbon delivery (that is, infrequent ‘pulse’ versus frequent ‘drip’). We demonstrate that through the microbial formation pathway, belowground inputs form mineral-stabilized soil carbon more efficiently than aboveground inputs, partly due to the greater efficiency of formation by the rhizosphere microbial community relative to the bulk soil community. However, we show that because the bulk soil has greater capacity to form mineral-stabilized soil carbon due to its greater overall volume, the relative contributions of aboveground versus belowground carbon inputs depend strongly on the ratio of rhizosphere to bulk soil.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

Experimental data in support of these findings are available at https://github.com/NoahSokol/root-pathway-efficiency.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Dungait, J. A. J., Hopkins, D. W., Gregory, A. S. & Whitmore, A. P. Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1781–1796 (2012).

  2. 2.

    Harden, J. W. et al. Networking our science to characterize the state, vulnerabilities, and management opportunities of soil organic matter. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e705–e718 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C. & Dignac, M.-F. Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269, 341–356 (2005).

  4. 4.

    Clemmensen, K. E. et al. Roots and associated fungi drive long-term carbon sequestration in boreal forest. Science 339, 1615–1618 (2013).

  5. 5.

    Schmidt, M. W. I. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56 (2011).

  6. 6.

    Pausch, J. & Kuzyakov, Y. Carbon input by roots into the soil: quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1–12 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Bradford, M. A., Keiser, A. D., Davies, C. A., Mersmann, C. A. & Strickland, M. S. Empirical evidence that soil carbon formation from plant inputs is positively related to microbial growth. Biogeochemistry 113, 271–281 (2013).

  8. 8.

    Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K. & Paul, E. The Microbial Efficiency–Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 988–995 (2013).

  9. 9.

    Sokol, N. W. et al. Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15361 (2018).

  10. 10.

    Puget, P. & Drinkwater, L. E. Short-term dynamics of root-and shoot-derived carbon from a leguminous green manure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65, 771–779 (2001).

  11. 11.

    Katterer, T., Bolinder, M. A., Andren, O., Kirchmann, H. & Menichetti, L. Roots contribute more to refractory soil organic matter than above-ground crop residues, as revealed by a long-term field experiment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 184–192 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Mazzilli, S. R., Kemanian, A. R., Ernst, O. R., Jackson, R. B. & Piñeiro, G. Greater humification of belowground than aboveground biomass carbon into particulate soil organic matter in no-till corn and soybean crops. Soil Biol. Biochem. 85, 22–30 (2015).

  13. 13.

    Pries, C. E. H., Bird, J. A., Castanha, C., Hatton, P.-J. & Torn, M. S. Long-term decomposition: the influence of litter type and soil horizon on retention of plant carbon and nitrogen in soils. Biogeochemistry 134, 5–16 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Pett-Ridge, J. & Firestone, M. K. Using stable isotopes to explore root–microbe–mineral interactions in soil. Rhizosphere 3, 244–253 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Menichetti, L., Ekblad, A. & Katterer, T. Contribution of roots and amendments to soil carbon accumulation within the soil profile in a long-term field experiment in Sweden. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 79–87 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Michalzik, B. et al. Modelling the production and transport of dissolved organic carbon in forest soils. Biogeochemistry 66, 241–264 (2003).

  17. 17.

    Sanderman, J. & Amundson, R. A comparative study of dissolved organic carbon transport and stabilization in California forest and grassland soils. Biogeochemistry 92, 41–59 (2008).

  18. 18.

    Neff, J. C. & Asner, G. P. Dissolved organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems: synthesis and a model. Ecosystems 4, 29–48 (2001).

  19. 19.

    Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. & Paustian, K. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241, 155–176 (2002).

  20. 20.

    Jackson, R. B. et al. The ecology of soil carbon: pools, vulnerabilities, and biotic and abiotic controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 419–445 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Cotrufo, M. F. et al. Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat. Geosci. 8, 776–779 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Miltner, A., Bombach, P., Schmidt-Brücken, B. & Kästner, M. SOM genesis: microbial biomass as a significant source. Biogeochemistry 111, 41–55 (2012).

  23. 23.

    Kaiser, K. & Guggenberger, G. The role of DOM sorption to mineral surfaces in the preservation of organic matter in soils. Org. Geochem. 31, 711–725 (2000).

  24. 24.

    Liang, C. & Balser, T. C. Microbial production of recalcitrant organic matter in global soils: implications for productivity and climate policy. Nat. Rev. Micro. 9, 75 (2011).

  25. 25.

    Simpson, A. J., Simpson, M. J. & Smith, E. Microbially derived inputs to soil organic matter: are current estimates too low? Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 8070–8076 (2007).

  26. 26.

    Kalbitz, K., Solinger, S., Park, J. H., Michalzik, B. & Matzner, E. Controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in soils: a review. Soil Sci. 165, 277–304 (2000).

  27. 27.

    Jorgensen, J. R. & Well, C. G. The relationship of respiration in organic and mineral soil layers to soil chemical properties. Plant Soil 39, 373–387 (1973).

  28. 28.

    Jans-Hammermeister, D. C., McGill, W. B. & Izaurralde, R. C. in Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle (eds Lal, R. et al.) 321–333 (Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 1997).

  29. 29.

    Farrar, J., Hawes, M., Jones, D. & Lindow, S. How roots control the flux of carbon to the rhizosphere. Ecology 84, 827–837 (2003).

  30. 30.

    Poeplau, C. et al. Low stabilization of aboveground crop residue carbon in sandy soils of Swedish long-term experiments. Geoderma 237, 246–255 (2015).

  31. 31.

    Ghafoor, A., Poeplau, C. & Katterer, T. Fate of straw- and root-derived carbon in a Swedish agricultural soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 53, 257–267 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Mendez-Millan, M., Dignac, M. F. & Rumpel, C. Molecular dynamics of shoot vs. root biomarkers in an agricultural soil estimated by natural abundance 13C labelling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 169–177 (2010).

  33. 33.

    Austin, E. E., Wickings, K., McDaniel, M. D., Robertson, G. P. & Grandy, A. S. Cover crop root contributions to soil carbon in a no‐till corn bioenergy cropping system. GCB Bioenergy 9, 1252–1263 (2017).

  34. 34.

    Keiluweit, M. et al. Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 588–595 (2015).

  35. 35.

    van Hees, P., Jones, D. L., Finlay, R. & Godbold, D. L. The carbon we do not see—the impact of low molecular weight compounds on carbon dynamics and respiration in forest soils: a review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 1–13 (2005).

  36. 36.

    McDowell, W. H. & Likens, G. E. Origin, composition, and flux of dissolved organic carbon in the Hubbard Brook Valley. Ecol. Monogr. 58, 177–195 (1988).

  37. 37.

    Finzi, A. C. et al. Rhizosphere processes are quantitatively important components of terrestrial carbon and nutrient cycles. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2082–2094 (2015).

  38. 38.

    Phillips, R. P., Erlitz, Y., Bier, R. & Bernhardt, E. S. New approach for capturing soluble root exudates in forest soils. Funct. Ecol. 22, 990–999 (2008).

  39. 39.

    Kallenbach, C. M., Frey, S. D. & Grandy, A. S. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat. Commun. 7, 13630 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Paul, E. A., Morris, S. J., Conant, R. T. & Plante, A. F. Does the acid hydrolysis–incubation method measure meaningful soil organic carbon pools? Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1023–1035 (2006).

  41. 41.

    Jagadamma, S., Mayes, M. A. & Phillips, J. R. Selective sorption of dissolved organic carbon compounds by temperate soils. PLoS ONE 7, e50434 (2012).

  42. 42.

    Mikutta, R., Kleber, M., Kaiser, K. & Jahn, R. Review. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 120–135 (2005).

  43. 43.

    Sanderman, J., Maddern, T. & Baldock, J. Similar composition but differential stability of mineral retained organic matter across four classes of clay minerals. Biogeochemistry 121, 409–424 (2014).

  44. 44.

    Bradford, M. A., Fierer, N. & Reynolds, J. F. Soil carbon stocks in experimental mesocosms are dependent on the rate of labile carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to soils. Funct. Ecol. 22, 964–974 (2008).

  45. 45.

    Bird, J. A., Kleber, M. & Torn, M. S. 13C and 15N stabilization dynamics in soil organic matter fractions during needle and fine root decomposition. Org. Geochem. 39, 465–477 (2008).

  46. 46.

    Angst, G. et al. Soil organic carbon stocks in topsoil and subsoil controlled by parent material, carbon input in the rhizosphere, and microbial-derived compounds. Soil Biol. Biochem. 122, 19–30 (2018).

  47. 47.

    Schweigert, M., Herrmann, S., Miltner, A., Fester, T. & Kaestner, M. Fate of ectomycorrhizal fungal biomass in a soil bioreactor system and its contribution to soil organic matter formation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 88, 120–127 (2015).

  48. 48.

    Liang, C., Schimel, J. P. & Jastrow, J. D. The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17105 (2017).

  49. 49.

    Jones, D. L., Nguyen, C. & Finlay, R. D. Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil–root interface. Plant Soil 321, 5–33 (2009).

  50. 50.

    Martin, J. P. & Haider, K. Biodegradation of C-labeled model and cornstalk lignins, phenols, model phenolase humic polymers, and fungal melanins as influenced by a readily available carbon source and soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 38, 283–289 (1979).

  51. 51.

    Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K. & Batten, K. M. Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 555–569 (2006).

  52. 52.

    Wilson, G. W. T., Rice, C. W., Rillig, M. C., Springer, A. & Hartnett, D. C. Soil aggregation and carbon sequestration are tightly correlated with the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: results from long‐term field experiments. Ecol. Lett. 12, 452–461 (2009).

  53. 53.

    Lee, X., Wu, H. J., Sigler, J., Oishi, C. & Siccama, T. Rapid and transient response of soil respiration to rain. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1017–1026 (2004).

  54. 54.

    Berns, A. E. et al. Effect of gamma‐sterilization and autoclaving on soil organic matter structure as studied by solid state NMR, UV and fluorescence spectroscopy. J. Soil Sci. 59, 540–550 (2008).

  55. 55.

    Mayes, M. A., Heal, K. R., Brandt, C. C., Phillips, J. R. & Jardine, P. M. Relation between soil order and sorption of dissolved organic carbon in temperate subsoils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 1027–1037 (2012).

  56. 56.

    Plante, A. F., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., Paustian, K. & Six, J. Acid hydrolysis of easily dispersed and microaggregate‐derived silt‐ and clay‐sized fractions to isolate resistant soil organic matter. J. Soil Sci. 57, 456–467 (2006).

  57. 57.

    Lehmann, J. & Kleber, M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528, 60–68 (2015).

  58. 58.

    Beck, T. et al. An inter-laboratory comparison of ten different ways of measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 1023–1032 (1997).

  59. 59.

    Angst, G., Kögel-Knabner, I., Kirfel, K., Hertel, D. & Mueller, C. W. Spatial distribution and chemical composition of soil organic matter fractions in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil under European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). Geoderma 264, 179–187 (2016).

  60. 60.

    Fierer, N., Schimel, J. P. & Holden, P. A. Variations in microbial community composition through two soil depth profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 167–176 (2003).

  61. 61.

    Hurlbert, S. H. & Lombardi, C. M. Final collapse of the Neyman–Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 46, 311–349 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Iturbe for assistance with the figures, M. Keiluweit for input on microcosm design and J. Sanderman, D. Rasse and C. Chenu for discussion during the planning stages of the experiment. We also thank E. Karlsen-Ayala and C. Lombroso for assistance with laboratory work. Funding was provided to N.W.S. from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies and a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

    • Noah W. Sokol

    Present address: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Livermore, CA, USA

Affiliations

  1. Yale University, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA

    • Noah W. Sokol
    •  & Mark A. Bradford

Authors

  1. Search for Noah W. Sokol in:

  2. Search for Mark A. Bradford in:

Contributions

N.W.S. and M.A.B. conceived the project. N.W.S. designed and led the research and analysed the data. N.W.S. wrote the manuscript, with contributions from M.A.B.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah W. Sokol.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–3 and Supplementary Tables 1–9.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0258-6