jinshijian
commented
3 years ago Our results of the "time for warm" approach matches well with results from this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13604
- All three possible community-level responses were observed: compensatory responses, enhancing responses, and no response.
- Overall average response ratios (n522soils) were significantly above 1.
- Arable or ‘managed’, low-C-content and low carbon-to-nitrogen ratio(C:N) soils were the only soils to show average RRMTvalues close to or below 1.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12129?page=6
- Notably, the strongest effects wherein the mineral horizon, where warming increased decomposer activity and carbon stock: a ‘biotic awakening’ at depth.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1796
- However, the utilization efficiency of a more recalcitrant substrate increased at higher temperatures in soils exposed to almost two decades of warming 5C above ambient. Our work suggests that climate warming could alter the decay dynamics of more stable organic matter compounds, thereby having a positive feedback to climate that is attenuated by a shift towards a more efficient microbial community in the longer term.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03226
- We present evidence that non-labile SOC is more sensitive to temperature than labile SOC, implying that the long-term positive feedback of soil decomposition in a warming world maybe even stronger than predicted by global models.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08031
- loss on ecosystem carbon balance. We find that areas that thawed over the past 15 years had 40 percent more annual losses of old carbon than minimally thawed areas, but had overall net ecosystem carbon uptake as increased plant growth offset these losses.
Time table for 2020 still make sense?
I checked with HR, I cannot work after Dec. 31th.
SRDB-V5
Time and collar
Land models
Time for warm