Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does the temperature sensitivity of decomposition of soil organic matter depend upon water content, soil horizon, or incubation time?

Reichstein, Markus, Subke, Jens‐Arne, Angeli, Andrew C., Tenhunen, John D.·2005·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Several studies have shown multiple confounding factors influencing soil respiration in the field, which often hampers a correct separation and interpretation of the different environmental effects on respiration. Here, we present a controlled laboratory experiment on undisturbed organic and mineral soil cores separating the effects of temperature, drying–rewetting and decomposition dynamics on soil respiration. Specifically, we address the following questions: 1 Is the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration (Q10) dependent on soil moisture or soil organic matter age (incubation time) and does it differ for organic and mineral soil as suggested by recent field studies. 2 How much do organic and mineral soil layers contribute to total soil respiration? 3 Is there potential to improve soil flux models of soil introducing a multilayer source model for soil respiration? Eight organic soil and eight mineral soil cores were taken from a Norway spruce (Picea abies) stand in southern Germany, and incubated for 90 days in a climate chamber with a diurnal temperature regime between 7 and 23°C. Half of the samples were rewetted daily, while the other half were left to dry and rewetted thereafter. Soil respiration was measured with a continuously operating open dynamic soil respiration chamber system. The Q10 was stable at around 2.7, independent of soil horizon and incubation time, decreasing only slightly when the soil dried. We suggest that recent findings of the Q10 dependency on several factors are emergent properties at the ecosystem level, that should be analysed further e.g. with regard to rhizosphere effects. Most of the soil CO2 efflux was released from the organic samples. Initially, it averaged 4.0 μmol m−2 s−1 and declined to 1.8 μmol m−2 s−1 at the end of the experiment. In terms of the third question, we show that models using only one temperature as predictor of soil respiration fail to explain more than 80% of the diurnal variability, are biased with a hysteresis effect, and slightly underestimate the temperature sensitivity of respiration. In contrast, consistently more than 95% of the diurnal variability is explained by a dual-source model, with one CO2 source related to the surface temperature and another CO2 source related to the central temperature, highlighting the role of soil surface processes for ecosystem carbon balances.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001010.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 243

Metadata

Authors
Reichstein, M., Subke, J., Angeli, A. C., & Tenhunen, J. D.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-08-17
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
1754-1767
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2106776098
Cited by
243
References
3
FWCI
17.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does the temperature sensitivity of decomposition of soil organic matter depend upon water content, soil horizon, or incubation time? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001010.x
The paper
Reichstein, M., Subke, J., Angeli, A. C., & Tenhunen, J. D. (2005). Does the temperature sensitivity of decomposition of soil organic matter depend upon water content, soil horizon, or incubation time? Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001010.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.