Cited by 134Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPlant responses to elevated CO2CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions

SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND TURNOVER IN A PINE FOREST AFTER SIX YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO 2 ENRICHMENT

Lichter, John, Barron, Stacy H., Bevacqua, Christine E., Finzi, Adrien C., Irving, Katherine F., Stemmler, Elizabeth A., Schlesinger, William H.·2005·Ecology

Abstract

During the first six years of atmospheric CO2 enrichment at the Duke Forest free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment, an additional sink of 52 ± 16 g C·m−2·yr−1 accumulated in the forest floor (O-horizon) of the elevated CO2 treatment relative to the ambient CO2 control in an aggrading loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) forest near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. The experiment maintained an atmospheric CO2 concentration 200 μL/L above ambient levels in replicated (n = 3) FACE rings throughout the six-year period. This CO2-induced C sink was associated with greater inputs of organic matter in litterfall and fine-root turnover. There was no evidence that microbial decomposition was altered by the elevated CO2 treatment. Consistent with ecosystem recovery following decades of intensive agriculture, the C and N content of the mineral soil increased under both the elevated CO2 treatment and the ambient CO2 control during the six-year period. This increase is attributed to accumulation of plant residues derived from fine roots with relatively high turnover rates rather than accumulation of refractory or physically protected soil organic matter (SOM). The elevated CO2 treatment produced no detectable effect on the C and N content of the bulk mineral soils or of any particulate organic matter size fraction. Because the fumigation gas was strongly depleted in 13C, the incorporation of new C could be traced within the ecosystem. Significant decreases in δ13C of soil organic carbon (SOC) under the elevated CO2 treatment were used to estimate the mean residence times of intra-aggregate particulate organic matter and mineral-associated organic matter as well as the annual C inputs required to produce the observed changes in δ13C. Our results indicate that forest soils such as these will not significantly mitigate anthropogenic C inputs to the atmosphere. The organic matter pools receiving large annual C inputs have short mean residence times, while those with slow turnover rates receive small annual inputs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/04-1205

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • Low-storage changes for short-rotation woody crops were supported by findings for short-rotation forestry using labelled carbon, which also showed that new carbon accumulated in soil organic carbon pools was characterised by high turnover rates.

    “These low-storage changes were supported by findings for SRF using labelled C [142], which also showed that new C accumulated in SOC pools was characterised by high turnover rates.”
  • For forest systems, new carbon inputs from plant residues can enter relatively fast decomposable soil organic carbon pools, particularly if the soil had a low clay content.

    “For forest systems [142], it has been shown that new C inputs from plant residues can enter relatively fast decomposable SOC pools, particularly if the soil had a low clay content [148].”
  • The stability of SOC pools defines the sustainability of soil C sequestration and eventually the effective C neutrality of the system.

    “It is the stability of these pools which defines the sustainability of soil C sequestration and eventually the effective C neutrality of the system [125, 142].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lichter, J., Barron, S. H., Bevacqua, C. E., Finzi, A. C., Irving, K. F., Stemmler, E. A., & Schlesinger, W. H.
Affiliations
  • Bowdoin College (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Lichter, John
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-07
Volume
86
Issue
7
Pages
1835-1847
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022074668
Cited by
134
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
27.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Keywords
soil carbon sequestration, soil organic carbon turnover, elevated CO2, free-air CO2 enrichment, loblolly pine forest, forest floor, fine root turnover, litterfall, microbial decomposition, soil carbon residence time, particulate organic matter, mineral-associated organic matter, soil nitrogen, carbon sink

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