Cited by 281Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions

Soil carbon stocks in experimental mesocosms are dependent on the rate of labile carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to soils

Bradford, M. A., Fierer, N., Reynolds, J. F.·2008·Functional Ecology

Abstract

1 The soil sink for carbon is important in regulating climate and soil fertility. The sink strength is dependent on the balance of soil carbon decomposition and formation. Variation in the rates of these processes to manipulations of resource availabilities under global change, such as elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, is not explained by soil microbial theory. 2 To investigate disparate responses of soil carbon dynamics in field investigations, to altered carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus availability, we couple fractionation, isotope and mesocosm techniques to quantify soil carbon decomposition and formation under different resource regimes. These regimes involve addition of multiple levels of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, alone and in combination. 3 We hypothesize that: (i) there is no net effect of labile carbon input rate on soil carbon stocks because reductions in soil carbon decomposition are offset by reductions in soil carbon formation; (ii) with simultaneous nutrient addition soil carbon stocks will increase because nitrogen will inhibit further soil carbon decomposition, and mitigate reductions in soil carbon formation observed under elevated labile carbon availability alone; (iii) this increase in soil carbon stocks will be a product of greater formation and decreased decomposition of slower-cycling, mineral-associated, soil carbon, whereas less stable, particulate soil carbon will simply turnover faster (due to greater soil carbon decomposition and formation)…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01404.x

Cites

1 of 1 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bradford, M. A., Fierer, N., & Reynolds, J. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Bradford, M. A.
Venue
Functional Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-11-03
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
964-974
ISSN
  • 0269-8463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2435
OpenAlex
W2147629723
Cited by
281
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
13.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Functional Ecology (publishedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Keywords
soil organic carbon, nitrogen addition, phosphorus addition, soil carbon decomposition, soil carbon fractions, mineral-associated organic carbon, particulate organic carbon, rhizodeposition, elevated CO2, global change, nutrient interactions, isotope fractionation, mesocosm experiment

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