A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2
Open accessAbstract
Terrestrial ecosystems remove about 30 per cent of the carbon dioxide (CO 2) emitted by human activities each year 1, 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 CO 2 (refs. 2,3). Although plant biomass often increases in elevated CO 2 (eCO 2) experiments 4-6, SOC has been observed to increase, remain unchanged or even decline 7. The mechanisms that drive this variation across experiments remain poorly understood, creating uncertainty in climate projections 8,9. Here we synthesized data from 108 eCO 2 experiments and found that the effect of eCO 2 on SOC stocks is best explained by a negative relationship with plant biomass: when plant biomass is strongly stimulated by eCO 2, 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 eCO 2 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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The generality of the narrative that SOC sequestration improves crop biomass and yield has been contested, both theoretically and empirically.
“While seemingly sound, the generality of this narrative has been contested, both theoretically (Janzen, 2006) and empirically (Terrer et al., 2021), as mentioned in the introduction.”
From Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon (2023) · cites this paper as Terrer et al., 2021
In “Predictors of SOC accrual under eCO₂” (page not provided), the paper reports that increases in plant biomass were associated with decreasing soil carbon in non-fertilized experiments, empirically challenging a generally positive relationship. But it studies responses to elevated CO₂, not whether SOC sequestration improves crop biomass or yield; in fertilized experiments, both biomass and soil carbon generally increased. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTerrer et al. (2021) showed a trade-off between SOC sequestration and plant biomass production in a meta-analysis of 108 elevated CO2 experiments across forests and grassland ecosystems, most likely due to competition for N between soil and plants.
“Terrer et al. (2021) showed a trade- off between SOC sequestration and plant biomass production in a meta- analysis of 108 elevated CO 2 experiments across forests and grassland ecosystems, most likely due to competition for N between soil and plants.”
From Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon (2023) · cites this paper as Terrer et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225 · see citing works
Ecological Lessons from Free-Air CO <sub>2</sub> Enrichment (FACE) Experiments
Norby, R. J., & Zak, D. R. (2011) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144647 · Cited by 681 · see citing works
Lajeunesse, M. J. (2016) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12472 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B. & Fisher, J. B. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 436-441 (2015).
- Keenan, T. et al. Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun. 7, 13428 (2016).
- Norby, R. J. et al. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 18052-18056 (2005).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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. 116, 23163-23168 (2019).
- Walker, A. P. et al. FACE-MDS Phase 2: Model Output. https://www.osti.gov/dataexplorer/biblio/dataset/1480327 (2018) doi:10.15485/1480327. · DOI
- 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. 107, 19368-19373 (2010).
- 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).
- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. Multiple Outcomes or Time-Points within a Study. in 225-238 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009).
- Van Lissa, C. J. MetaForest: Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis using random forests. (2017) doi:10.31234/osf.io/myg6s. · DOI
- van Groenigen, K. J. et al. Element interactions limit soil carbon storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 6571- 6574 (2006).
- Walker, A. et al. FACE-MDS Phase 2: Model Output. (2018) doi:10.15485/1480327. · DOI
- Walker, A. P. et al. Decadal biomass increment in early secondary succession woody ecosystems is increased by CO 2 enrichment. Nat. Commun. 10, 454 (2019).
- Schlesinger, W. et al. The Duke Forest FACE Experiment: CO2 Enrichment of a Loblolly Pine Forest. in 197-212 (2006). doi:10.1007/3-540-31237-4_11. · DOI
- Oleson, K. et al. Technical description of version 4.5 of the Community Land Model (CLM). (2013) doi:10.5065/D6RR1W7M. · DOI
- Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon
Moinet, G. Y. K., Hijbeek, R., van Vuuren, D. P., & Giller, K. E. (2023) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16570 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
The biogeography of relative abundance of soil fungi versus bacteria in surface topsoil
Yu, K., van den Hoogen, J., Wang, Z., Averill, C., Routh, D., Smith, G. R., Drenovsky, R. E., Scow, K. M., Mo, F., Waldrop, M. P., et al. (2022) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-14-4339-2022 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Sekhohola-Dlamini, L. M., Keshinro, O. M., Masudi, W. L., & Cowan, A. K. (2022) · Minerals · doi:10.3390/min12020111 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Terrer, C., Phillips, R. P., Hungate, B. A., Rosende, J., Pett-Ridge, J., Craig, M. E., van Groenigen, K. J., Keenan, T. F., Sulman, B. N., Stocker, B. D., Reich, P. B., Pellegrini, A. F. A., Pendall, E., Zhang, H., Evans, R. D., Carrillo, Y., Fisher, J. B., Van Sundert, K., Vicca, S., & Jackson, R. B.
- Affiliations
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Washington State University (US)
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US)
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Terrer, C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2021-03-24
- Volume
- 591
- Issue
- 7851
- Pages
- 599-603
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W3128816625
- Cited by
- 690
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 108 · 2025: 156 · 2024: 131 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 54
- FWCI
- 64.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.dora.lib4ri.ch
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
- DORA WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DE-AC52-07-NA27344, 1120064, 1234162, 1242531, 0322057, DEAC05- 00OR22725, 2021898, 0620652, 1753859, 1831944)
- U.S. Department of Energy (DEAC5207NA27344, FG0296ER62291, AC05-00OR22725, DE--AC05--00OR22725, AC52‐07NA27344, DE‐FG02‐, SCW1632, DE-AC05?, DESC0008317, DESC0016188, 00OR22725)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (DE-AC52-07NA27344, DE-AC05-00OR22725)
- Battelle (DE-AC05- 00OR22725, DE-AC05, DE-AC52-07NA27344)
- California Institute of Technology
- UT-Battelle (DE-AC05, DE-AC52-07NA27344, DEAC05-00OR22725, AC05-00OR22725)
- Office of Science (DESC0016188, DEAC05- 00OR22725, SCW1632, DE-AC52-07NA27344, DESC0008317, AC05-00OR22725)
- Jet Propulsion Laboratory
- Division of Environmental Biology (DEB-1234162, DEB: 1831944, DEB‐0620652, DEB-1242531, DEB‐1753859, 0620652, 0322057, 1120064, 1234162, DEB‐1120064, 1753859, DEB-0322057, 1242531, 1831944)
- Biological and Environmental Research (DESC0016188, DE‐SC0010632, DE-AC52-07NA27344, DE‐SC0008317, 00OR22725, SCW1632, DE‐AC05–00OR22725)
- Laboratory Directed Research and Development (DE- AC52-07NA27344, DE-AC05-00OR22725)
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DE‐AC5207NA27344, SCW1632, 20-ERD-055, DE-AC05-00OR22725, AC52-07NA27344)
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DE-AC52-07NA27344, AC05-00OR22725, DE-AC05-00OR22725)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
- Keywords
- elevated CO2, soil organic carbon, plant biomass, carbon sink, plant nutrient acquisition, grassland, forests, terrestrial carbon cycle
- MeSH terms
- Carbon Dioxide, Models, Biological, Plants, Soil, Biomass, Carbon Sequestration, Grassland
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