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.

A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2


Terrestrial ecosystems remove about 30 per cent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by human activities each year1, yet the persistence of this carbon sink depends partly on how plant biomass and soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks respond to future increases in atmospheric CO2 (refs. 2,3). Although plant biomass often increases in elevated CO2 (eCO2) experiments4,5,6, SOC has been observed to increase, remain unchanged or even decline7. The mechanisms that drive this variation across experiments remain poorly understood, creating uncertainty in climate projections8,9. Here we synthesized data from 108 eCO2 experiments and found that the effect of eCO2 on SOC stocks is best explained by a negative relationship with plant biomass: when plant biomass is strongly stimulated by eCO2, SOC storage declines; conversely, when biomass is weakly stimulated, SOC storage increases. This trade-off appears to be related to plant nutrient acquisition, in which plants increase their biomass by mining the soil for nutrients, which decreases SOC storage. We found that, overall, SOC stocks increase with eCO2 in grasslands (8 ± 2 per cent) but not in forests (0 ± 2 per cent), even though plant biomass in grasslands increase less (9 ± 3 per cent) than in forests (23 ± 2 per cent). Ecosystem models do not reproduce this trade-off, which implies that projections of SOC may need to be revised.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Meta-analysis of the effect of eCO2 on percentage SOC across different factors.
Fig. 2: Elevated CO2 experiments show an inverse relationship between the effects of eCO2 on plant biomass and SOC stocks due to plant nutrient-acquisition.
Fig. 3: Effect of eCO2 (about 240 ppm) on SOC stocks scaled up from 108 CO2 experiments.
Fig. 4: Comparison of modelled and measured relationships between aboveground biomass and SOC responses to CO2.

Data availability

All the empirical data that support the main findings of this study have been deposited in Figshare ( and GitHub ( FACE-MDS data can be accessed at CMIP5 data can be accessed at TRENDY data can be requested at

Code availability

The R code used in the analysis presented in this paper is available in GitHub and can be accessed at


  1. 1.

    Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3269–3340 (2020).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. B. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 436–441 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Keenan, T. et al. Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun. 7, 13428 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Baig, S., Medlyn, B. E., Mercado, L. M. & Zaehle, S. Does the growth response of woody plants to elevated CO2 increase with temperature? A model-oriented meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4303–4319 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Drake, J. E. et al. Increases in the flux of carbon belowground stimulate nitrogen uptake and sustain the long‐term enhancement of forest productivity under elevated CO2. Ecol. Lett. 14, 349–357 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Norby, R. J. et al. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18052–18056 (2005).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    van Groenigen, K. J., Qi, X., Osenberg, C. W., Luo, Y. & Hungate, B. A. Faster decomposition under increased atmospheric CO2 limits soil carbon storage. Science 344, 508 (2014).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Todd-Brown, K. E. O. et al. Changes in soil organic carbon storage predicted by Earth system models during the 21st century. Biogeosciences 11, 2341–2356 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Heimann, M. & Reichstein, M. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature 451, 289–292 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bradford, M. A. et al. Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 751–758 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 684–689 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Reich, P. B., Hungate, B. A. & Luo, Y. Carbon-nitrogen interactions in terrestrial ecosystems in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 611–636 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Norby, R. J. & Zak, D. R. Ecological lessons from free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. 42, 181–203 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Terrer, C. et al. Ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 governed by plant–soil interactions and the cost of nitrogen acquisition. New Phytol. 217, 507–522 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Olson, J. S. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44, 322–331 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hungate, B. A. et al. Assessing the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on soil carbon: a comparison of four meta‐analyses. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 2020–2034 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kuzyakov, Y., Horwath, W. R., Dorodnikov, M. & Blagodatskaya, E. Review and synthesis of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on soil processes: no changes in pools, but increased fluxes and accelerated cycles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 128, 66–78 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tian, H. et al. Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: current status and future directions. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 775–792 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    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).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Nie, M., Lu, M., Bell, J., Raut, S. & Pendall, E. Altered root traits due to elevated CO2: a meta‐analysis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 1095–1105 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kuzyakov, Y. Priming effects: interactions between living and dead organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1363–1371 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Treseder, K. K. A meta‐analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytol. 164, 347–355 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Jastrow, J. D. et al. Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide increases soil carbon. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 2057–2064 (2005).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Carrillo, Y., Dijkstra, F. A., LeCain, D. & Pendall, E. Mediation of soil C decomposition by arbuscular mycorrizhal fungi in grass rhizospheres under elevated CO2. Biogeochemistry 127, 45–55 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Averill, C., Bhatnagar, J. M., Dietze, M. C., Pearse, W. D. & Kivlin, S. N. Global imprint of mycorrhizal fungi on whole-plant nutrient economics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23163–23168 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cotrufo, M. F., Ranalli, M. G., Haddix, M. L., Six, J. & Lugato, E. Soil carbon storage informed by particulate and mineral-associated organic matter. Nat. Geosci. 12, 989–994 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Craig, M. E. et al. Tree mycorrhizal type predicts within-site variability in the storage and distribution of soil organic matter. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3317–3330 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

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

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jobbágy, E. G. & Jackson, R. B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 10, 423–436 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sokol, N. W., Kuebbing, S. E., Karlsen‐Ayala, E. & Bradford, M. A. Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. New Phytol. 221, 233–246 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Evans, R. D. et al. Greater ecosystem carbon in the Mojave Desert after ten years exposure to elevated CO2. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 394–397 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Walker, A. P. et al. FACE-MDS Phase 2: Model Output (2018).

  35. 35.

    Wieder, W. R. et al. Carbon cycle confidence and uncertainty: exploring variation among soil biogeochemical models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1563–1579 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sulman, B. N. et al. Diverse mycorrhizal associations enhance terrestrial C storage in a global model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 501–523 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Shi, M., Fisher, J. B., Brzostek, E. R. & Phillips, R. P. Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: global carbon cycle impact from an improved plant nitrogen cycle in the Community Land Model. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1299–1314 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Norby, R. J., Warren, J. M., Iversen, C. M., Medlyn, B. E. & McMurtrie, R. E. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19368–19373 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Jiang, M. et al. The fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 580, 227–231 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B. & Allison, S. D. Global soil carbon projections are improved by modelling microbial processes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 909–912 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Terrer, C. Report of Mutualistic Associations, Nutrients, and Carbon Under eCO2 (ROMANCE) v1.0 Dataset. (2020).

  42. 42.

    Dieleman, W. I. J. et al. Simple additive effects are rare: a quantitative review of plant biomass and soil process responses to combined manipulations of CO2 and temperature. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2681–2693 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. in Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 225–238 (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).

  44. 44.

    Del Re, A. C. & Hoyt, W. T. MAd: meta-analysis with mean differences. R Package Version 08-2 (2014).

  45. 45.

    Song, J. & Wan, S. A Global Database Of Plant Production And Carbon Exchange From Global Change Manipulative Experiments (2020).

  46. 46.

    Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor Package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, (2010).

  47. 47.

    Osenberg, C. W., Sarnelle, O., Cooper, S. D. & Holt, R. D. Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80, 1105–1117 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rubin, D. B. & Schenker, N. Multiple imputation in health‐are databases: an overview and some applications. Stat. Med. 10, 585–598 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Lajeunesse, M. J. Facilitating systematic reviews, data extraction and meta‐analysis with the METAGEAR package for R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 323–330 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Van Lissa, C. J. MetaForest: exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis using random forests. Preprint at (2017).

  51. 51.

    Kuhn, M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28, (2008).

  52. 52.

    Calcagno, V. & de Mazancourt, C. glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J. Stat. Softw. 34, (2010).

  53. 53.

    van Groenigen, K. J. et al. Element interactions limit soil carbon storage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6571–6574 (2006).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Wang, B. & Qiu, Y. L. Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza 16, 299–363 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Maherali, H., Oberle, B., Stevens, P. F., Cornwell, W. K. & McGlinn, D. J. Mutualism persistence and abandonment during the evolution of the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Am. Nat. 188, E113–E125 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Terrer, C., Vicca, S., Hungate, B. A., Phillips, R. P. & Prentice, I. C. Mycorrhizal association as a primary control of the CO2 fertilization effect. Science 353, 72–74 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Medlyn, B. E. et al. Using ecosystem experiments to improve vegetation models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 528–534 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Zaehle, S. et al. Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate Free‐Air CO2 Enrichment studies. New Phytol. 202, 803–822 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites. New Phytol. 203, 883–899 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Walker, A. P. et al. Comprehensive ecosystem model‐data synthesis using multiple data sets at two temperate forest free‐air CO2 enrichment experiments: model performance at ambient CO2 concentration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 937–964 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Walker, A. P. et al. Decadal biomass increment in early secondary succession woody ecosystems is increased by CO2 enrichment. Nat. Commun. 10, 454 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Schlesinger, W. et al. in Managed Ecosystems and CO2 197–212 (2006).

  63. 63.

    Hungate, B. A. et al. Cumulative response of ecosystem carbon and nitrogen stocks to chronic CO2 exposure in a subtropical oak woodland. New Phytol. 200, 753–766 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Jordan, D. N. et al. Biotic, abiotic and performance aspects of the Nevada Desert Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) Facility. Glob. Change Biol. 5, 659–668 (1999).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Carrillo, Y., Dijkstra, F., LeCain, D., Blumenthal, D. & Pendall, E. Elevated CO2 and warming cause interactive effects on soil carbon and shifts in carbon use by bacteria. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1639–1648 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Mueller, K. E. et al. Impacts of warming and elevated CO2 on a semi‐arid grassland are non‐additive, shift with precipitation, and reverse over time. Ecol. Lett. 19, 956–966 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Zak, D. R., Pregitzer, K. S., Kubiske, M. E. & Burton, A. J. Forest productivity under elevated CO2 and O3: positive feedbacks to soil N cycling sustain decade‐long net primary productivity enhancement by CO2. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1220–1226 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Oleson, K. et al. Technical Description of Version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM) Report NCAR/TN-503+STR, (2013).

  69. 69.

    Clark, D. B. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description—Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 701–722 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Krinner, G. et al. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 19, (2005).

  71. 71.

    Haverd, V. et al. A new version of the CABLE land surface model (subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2995–3026 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Community Land Model Version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Meiyappan, P., Jain, A. K. & House, J. I. Increased influence of nitrogen limitation on CO2 emissions from future land use and land use change. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1524–1548 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Smith, B. et al. Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences 11, 2027–2054 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Goll, D. S. et al. A representation of the phosphorus cycle for ORCHIDEE (revision 4520). Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 3745–3770 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high‐resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Soudzilovskaia, N. A. et al. Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks. Nat. Commun. 10, 5077 (2019).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12, e0169748 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Batjes, N. H. Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 269, 61–68 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Shangguan, W., Dai, Y., Duan, Q., Liu, B. & Yuan, H. A global soil data set for earth system modeling. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 249–263 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank C. Körner, R. Norby, M. Schneider, K. Treseder, M. Hoosbeek and others for sharing data and advice. We thank the TRENDY, CMIP5 and FACE-MDS teams for the provision of the model simulations. C.T. was supported by a Lawrence Fellow award through Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). This work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by LLNL under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344 and was supported by the LLNL-Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) programme under project number 20-ERD-055. J.B.F. contributed to this research from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Government sponsorship acknowledged. Funding provided in part by the NASA Interdisciplinary Science (IDS) programme, and by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Program under Award Numbers DE-SC0008317, DE-SC0016188 and the LLNL Soil Science Focus Area (SFA) SCW1632. B.A.H. and K.J.v.G. were supported by the US Department of Energy through the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Program DE-SC0010632. The FACE Model-Data Synthesis was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research programme. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is operated by UT-Battelle LLC under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy. The BioCON experiment was funded by the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) grants DEB-0620652, DEB-1234162 and DEB-1831944, Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) grants DEB-1242531 and DEB-1753859, Biological Integration Institutes grant NSF-DBI-2021898, Ecosystem Sciences grant DEB-1120064, and Biocomplexity grant DEB-0322057, and by the US Department of Energy Programs for Ecosystem Research grant DE-FG02-96ER62291.

Author information




C.T. and R.P.P. conceived the original idea. C.T. designed the paper, with R.B.J., B.A.H. and K.J.v.G. contributing to the development of the conceptual framework. J.R. and C.T. collected the biomass and SOC data for the experiments. M.C. collected MAOM data. K.V.S. and S.V. collected litter data. C.T. ran the statistical analyses and scaling up. B.D.S. ran the analysis with TRENDY models. B.N.S., C.T. and B.A.H. ran the comparison with the FACE-MDS data. T.F.K., H.Z. and C.T. analysed CMIP5 data. P.B.R., B.A.H., E.P., Y.C., R.D.E, R.B.J. and many others ran the experiments. C.T. and B.A.H. wrote the first draft, with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Terrer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Jonathan Sanderman and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

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

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Effects of eCO2 on aboveground biomass production versus effects of eCO2 on litter production and SOC storage.

a, Effect of eCO2 on litter production as the effect of eCO2 on aboveground biomass production increases. b, Effect of CO2 on SOC storage as the effect of CO2 on aboveground biomass production increases. Results for non-fertilized field eCO2 experiments (n = 10, and n = 35, respectively). Grey shading around regression lines represents the 95% confidence intervals. Dots represent individual experiments, with dot size in b proportional to the weights in the meta-regression.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Variable importance of 19 predictors of the effects of CO2 on SOC and biomass stocks.

a, b, Varying importance of the effect of CO2 on SOC stocks in relative (a) and absolute terms (b) across the full dataset (n = 108). c, Varying importance of the effect of CO2 on SOC stocks (%) across the subset of eCO2 experiments in ‘intact’ soils (n = 73). d, Varying importance of the effect of CO2 on plant aboveground biomass (n = 138). The varying importance in a, b and d is quantified based on a meta-forest model. The varying importance in c is quantified based on the sum of AICc weights, which allows for the quantification of the importance of interactions between predictors. As an initial step, moderators that consistently displayed negative variable importance (that is, that showed a reduction in predictive performance) were automatically dropped. LAImax, LAImean, MAP and MAT are defined in Extended Data Table 1.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Effects of eCO2 on SOC stocks and plant biomass in nitrogen-fertilized eCO2 studies.

n = 35. a, b, Effects are expressed as a regression (a) and overall effects in meta-analysis (b). Dot sizes in a represent the individual studies and are drawn proportional to the weights in the model. The regression with the subset of non-fertilized studies is also shown in a for comparison. Dots in b represent the effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from the meta-analysis.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Analysis of variables potentially explaining the observed effects of eCO2 on SOC.

Effects of eCO2 on root biomass (n = 45), fine-root production (n = 11), litter C:N (n = 16) and background SOC stocks (n = 38), between ecosystem types (grassland versus forest) and nutrient-acquisition strategies (AM versus ECM). Boxplots show the median, the first to third quartile, the 1.5× interquartile ranges, and outliers.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Partial dependence plots of the six most important predictors of the effect of eCO2 on SOC stocks across 108 experiments.

The figure shows the predicted CO2 effect in relative (a) and absolute terms (b) across each predictor and the most important interaction between predictors (right panels) in a random-forest meta-analysis. Error bands represent 95% confidence intervals. Partial regression plots give a graphical depiction of the marginal effect of a variable on the response and the shape and direction of the relationship. Little variation in the predicted effect of eCO2 across the values of a predictor generally reflects the low predictive power of the predictor. However, important predictors may show little variation in the predicted effect of eCO2 when involved in interactions, so the right panels show the most important interaction in the model. More details about the different predictors may be found in Extended Data Table 1. From a total of 19 predictors, only the six most important predictors and the most important interaction are shown here.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Representativeness of the scaling-up predictors of the effect of eCO2 on SOC stocks.

Histograms showing the distribution of both the predictors in the training dataset of CO2 experiments and the data used to scale up the global distribution of the effect. Predictions exclude regions between –15 to 15 and from 60° to 90° latitude owing to the lack of experiments.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Relationship between the effects of CO2 on aboveground biomass and SOC across individual models from three model ensembles.

a, FACE Model Data Synthesis Phase 2. Individual model results are represented by coloured symbols and lines. Each symbol represents one site; lines represent model-specific linear regressions. To ease interpretation of the results and the comparison with Fig. 4, axis limits are set. Dashed lines and error bands (grey shading) represent the linear regression line and standard error across all experiment-by-model results. b, TRENDY v7 models. c, CMIP5 models.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Difference between expected CO2 effects on SOC stocks based on TRENDY models and scaled up on the basis of experiments.

Expected values result from the relationship between βsoil and βplant coded in models. Positive values (red colour) indicate an overestimation by models; negative values (blue colour) indicate an underestimation by models.

Extended Data Table 1 List of predictors used to examine and to scale up the effects of eCO2 on SOC
Extended Data Table 2 Synthetic description of the basic characteristics of three model ensembles in terms of their treatment of CO2 effects

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table 1

Overview of CO2 enrichment experiments included in the analysis.

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Terrer, C., Phillips, R.P., Hungate, B.A. et al. A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature 591, 599–603 (2021).

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


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