What will happen to soil carbon as the climate changes? A team of scientists seeks answers

Oct 06, 2011 by Dan Krotz

(PhysOrg.com) -- The ground beneath your feet could hide a sleeping giant. Globally, soils store three times as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere or in living plants.

Scientists don’t know what will happen to this carbon in response to climate change. It could enter the as CO2, a greenhouse gas, and further accelerate climate change. But how much — and when — remain a mystery.

An international group of scientists has proposed a new approach to soil carbon research that seeks answers to these questions. Their roadmap is published in the October 6 issue of the journal Nature and is co-authored by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) scientist Margaret Torn.

The collaboration started two years ago when Torn and 14 other scientists from ten countries met at a thousand-year-old monastery in Lake Constance, Switzerland. It was an eclectic gathering, reflecting the wide-ranging scope of the problem. Until recently, what scientists thought they knew about soil carbon was wrong. And new insights haven’t yet been fully implemented into global climate models.

The stone hallways echoed with the voices of an archaeologist, soil scientists, marine chemists, experts in microbial genomics, and others. For four days, the Lake Constance Think Tank on Global Change and Feedback From Global Carbon Dynamics — the name given to the group by the European Science Foundation — discussed what’s known about soil carbon cycling and what’s needed to better predict how soil organic matter will respond to climate change.

In the Q&A below, Margaret Torn explores why the group got together and what the future holds.

Q: Why is it important to gain a better understanding of how soils store carbon?

A: photosynthesize carbon, which then enters the soil via fallen leaves or root material. The fluxes between soil carbon in the form of organic matter and carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 are very large. A small change in carbon cycling can have a huge affect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and therefore a huge feedback to climate change.

As an example, a ten percent change in the soil carbon flux to the atmosphere would roughly double the net CO2 input. And if soils released only 0.3 percent of their carbon stores, it would equal year 2010 fossil fuel emissions.

Q: How has scientists’ understanding of soil carbon changed over the past decade?

A: For many years, scientists thought that organic matter (which contains carbon) persists in soil because it forms large molecular structures that don’t easily break down. But it’s not that simple.

We now know that many forms of organic matter in soils are simple biomolecules, not large macromolecules. In addition, new research indicates that whether or not carbon persists in soil hinges on interactions between soil organic matter and microbes, minerals, moisture, and the temperature — everything that makes up the soil ecosystem.

Compounds such as lignin, which we thought were stable, may only last five years in soil, while proteins, which we thought were decomposable, may last more than one thousand years.

All of this means that we need new conceptual and numerical models to predict how soil organic matter responds to climate change.

The time is ripe to capitalize on a lot of new science. We have a much better understanding today than we did 15 years ago of how soil carbon works at the molecular scale. We need to use this knowledge to learn if, when, and how soils will form positive feedback to climate change. This will take a coordinated effort by scientists from many disciplines, which was reflected in the diversity of researchers who attended.

Q: What new technologies have enabled scientists to better understand soil organic matter?

A: There are several. Thanks to genome sequencing techniques such as those at the Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, we now have a much better idea of what microbes are in soil, what they’re doing, and what proteins they’re producing. That’s important, because a handful of soil can teem with millions of microbes, some of which break down soil organic matter.


At the Advanced Light Source, which is located at Berkeley Lab, scientists can study soil organic matter the way it appears in the real world. This enabled researchers to learn that soil organic matter doesn’t exist in large molecular complexes called humics. Instead, it exists in small fragments and is often associated with mineral surfaces.

There’re also C-13 and C-14 isotopic analysis techniques, which allow scientists to determine how long carbon has been in soil. These isotopic, spectroscopic, and molecular marker tools are reshaping what we know about soil organic matter.

Q: How can a new generation of research help scientists improve predictions of soil carbon’s response to climate change?

A: Research on the molecular-level mechanisms that affect soil will provide a stronger foundation for numerical models. And this will help us make better predictions.

I expect that in some places we’ll see a much greater vulnerability to rapid carbon destabilization than we expected. For example, instead of being intrinsically difficult to decompose, perhaps old carbon happened to be in a soil condition that inhibits decomposition. Once this condition changes, say through drying or thawing, the carbon could be released into the atmosphere.

In addition, most research on carbon has focused on the soil surface and temperate regions. In the past, we’ve looked at the top ten inches of soil, but soil is measured in meters. Fortunately, the scientific community is starting to look at the Arctic as well as deeper into the soil.

Q: Can this research also help scientists develop climate change mitigation strategies?

A: As scientists, we’re driven by the idea that a more accurate understanding of the earth system will help us do a better job of being stewards. And that applies here.

Our research could help evaluate carbon emissions-reducing technologies such as biofuels and biological carbon sequestration. Michael Schmidt, a co-author of the Nature paper from the University of Zurich, has already found that biochar, which is charred material from wildfires or a kiln, is not stable as previously believed. It also readily decomposes. Some scientists had believed that biochar could be used to sequester carbon, but this may not be the case.

Our research could also improve predictions of how soil responds to changes in land use and vegetation.

Explore further: Tropical storm batters southern Mexico coast, kills six

More information: The scientists’ article “Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property,” is published in the October 6, 2011 issue of the journal Nature. www.nature.com/nature/journal/… ull/nature10386.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Farming commercial miscanthus

Aug 31, 2011

An article in the current issue of Global Change Biology Bioenergy examines the carbon sequestration potential of Miscanthus plantations on commercial farms.

Recommended for you

Historian unearths origins of Mexico's water crisis

1 hour ago

A historic three-year drought has left California bone dry. But the state, along with much of the Southwest, is not alone in its water crisis. Mexico, too, is facing a severe water shortage, and Stanford ...

Nepal to end rescue operation on trekking route

6 hours ago

Nepal was wrapping up rescue operations in its northern mountains Monday, saying all the hikers believed to have been stranded on a trekking route by a series of deadly blizzards are now safe.

Major breakthrough could help detoxify pollutants

20 hours ago

Scientists at The University of Manchester hope a major breakthrough could lead to more effective methods for detoxifying dangerous pollutants like PCBs and dioxins. The result is a culmination of 15 years of research and ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
1. Climate change occurs, and
2. Life continues to evolve, because
3. Earth's heat source has evolved and continues to evolve [1].

World leaders, Al Gore, the UN IPCC, the US NAS, the UK RS, and the editors of Nature, Science, PNAS and MPRS cannot change reality.

They could and did successfully destroyed public confidence in their leadership by trying to control scientific information and people.

1. "Origin and Evolution of Life and the Sun"
Journal of Modern Physics 2, 587-594 (2011)

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
erich_knight
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2011
Not having access to the Nature article;
http://www.nature...386.html ,
I would like to read what exactly Michael Schmidt found that calls biochar into question.

This current study from Enviro-Sci, I took as great support for char soil-C sequestration;
Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript;
Interactive priming of biochar and labile organic matter mineralization in a smectite-rich soil

http://pubs.acs.o...s202186j
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2011
Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns and the universes power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys...
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2011
Since Oliver has claimed he would answer questions
I will respond to questions, as time permits, but I do not have time to argue with those who will not read information published in peer-reviewed papers [1-6]
I have read them and he knows it. Clearly he has ample time considering the number of posts he makes has been increasing.

Where is evidence for Iron in the those solar flare images you like to use? They only have TRACES of iron.

Where is the evidence that neutrons repel each other in a way that is different from the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Where is someone that supports your idea that the Sun is a pulsar? And how did that a pulsar form IF there is such a thing as neutron repulsion?

Since you are now claiming that neutron repulsion can blow galaxies apart how did they form in the first place since with neutron repulsion of that magnitude even stars WITH neutron stars in them could not form nor could they retain planets.

The papers do NOT cover these.

Ethelred