Cited by 79Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportSoil and Unsaturated Flow

Simulating decomposition of labile soil organic carbon: Effects of pH

LEIFELD, J, ZIMMERMANN, M, FUHRER, J·2008·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Abstract

Based on previous studies we suppose common soil carbon turnover modelling approaches to fail to accurately simulate the fate of labile organic carbon in acidic soils possibly because pH effects on decomposition are not accounted for. For mountainous permanent grasslands with higher shares of particulate carbon, turnover times of this fraction were calculated by means of radiocarbon dating and compared with rate constants of the RothC model. The model rate constant for plant litter decomposition was adjusted by pH response functions derived from (i) published data of litter decomposition or soil N dynamics and (ii) a best fit through the radiocarbon-derived turnover rates. After parameterization, the match of radiocarbon-based and model-based values was significantly improved for both rate constants and pool sizes. The results suggest that ignoring soil pH effects in models might produce misleading projections on soil carbon stocks under warming.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.08.019

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Simulations were greatly improved when decomposition rates were calibrated using labelled C measurements and applied to experimental evidence for poplar litter.

    “Simulations were greatly improved when decomposition rates were calibrated using labelled C measurements [173–175] and applied to the experimental evidence presented for poplar litter [78, 109].”
  • Limitations of process-based models become more apparent at larger scales regarding soil depth, temporal resolution, and surface litter decomposition.

    “However, the limitations of process-based models become more apparent when simulating at larger scales with regard to their limits to consider the effect of soil depth [168], adequate temporal resolution [171] and surface litter decomposition [173, 174].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LEIFELD, J., ZIMMERMANN, M., & FUHRER, J.
Affiliations
  • Agroscope (CH)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
LEIFELD, J
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
2948-2951
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987386510
Cited by
79
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
Keywords
labile soil organic carbon, soil carbon decomposition, soil pH effects, particulate organic carbon, RothC model, plant litter decomposition, radiocarbon dating, soil carbon stocks, climate warming projections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review