Experimental and observational studies find contrasting responses of soil nutrients to climate change
- Northwest A&F University, China
- Chinese Academy of Science and Ministry of Water Resource, China
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Spain
- CREAF, Spain
- Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain
- University of Colorado, Colorado
- University of Western Sydney, Australia
- University of Minnesota, United States
Figures
Figure 1
Map of the experimental and observational sites used in our analyses.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23255.002
Figure 2 with 1 supplement
Responses of soil (a) C, (b) N, and (c) P concentrations to wetting by using response ratios in manipulative experiments and slopes in precipitation gradient observations.
Symbols with error bars show the mean response ratios or slopes with 95% confidence intervals. Plus (+) and minus (–) signs represent positive and negative means, respectively. Green symbols are positive and red symbols are negative means whose confidence intervals do not include zero. ‘Multiple’ indicates results from studies conducted across an environmental gradient for multiple types of ecosystems or soils. Manipulative experiments are on the left and gradient observations are on the right of each panel. Numbers indicate the number of studies used in each case.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2
Response of soil C:N, C:P and N:P to precipitation, temperature and aridity in manipulative experiments (a) and gradient observations (b).
Aridity is defined as 1–AI, where AI, the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration, is the aridity index. Symbols with error bars show the mean response ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Symbols are colored according to significant differences. Green symbols with a plus sign (+) and pink symbols with a minus sign (–) represent positive and negative differences, respectively. Due to limited sample size, we do not present differences among ecosystem or soil types.
Figure 3
Responses of soil (a) C, (b) N, and (c) P concentrations to drying by using response ratios in manipulative drought experiments and slopes in aridity gradient observations.
Aridity is defined as [maximum AI in the data set – AI], where AI is the aridity index, the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Same symbols and explanations as in Figure 2.
Figure 4
Responses of soil (a) C, (b) N, and (c) P concentrations to warming by using response ratios in manipulative temperature experiments and slopes in temperature gradient observations.
Same symbols and explanations as in Figure 2.
Figure 5
Results of regression analysis for the response ratio (lnRR) in relation to mean annual precipitation and temperature in manipulative experiments of study sites.
Details of the fitted models are given within each panel.
Figure 6
Results of regression analysis for the soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations in relation to gradients of mean annual precipitation, aridity and temperature in observational studies.
Details of the fitted models are given within each panel. Aridity is defined as [maximum AI in the data set – AI], where AI is the aridity index, the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration.
Figure 7
Results of regressionanalyses for the soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations with gradients of mean annual precipitation, aridity and temperature using the controls from experiments.
Details of the fitted models are given within each panel. Aridity is defined as [maximum AI in the data set – AI], where AI is the aridity index, the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration.
Tables
Table 1
R2 values of multiple regression analyses of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations for the observational studies. Abbreviations: T, mean annual temperature; P, mean annual precipitation; A, aridity; S, FAO soil classification; E, type of ecosystem. Letter combinations indicate which explanatory terms are included in a model. Values in bold indicate significant effects (p<0.05).
| [C] | [N] | [P] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| T | 0.051 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| P | 0.222 | 0.061 | 0.007 |
| A | 0.319 | 0.181 | 0.001 |
| S | 0.334 | 0.179 | 0.107 |
| E | 0.420 | 0.215 | 0.158 |
| TP | 0.342 | 0.190 | 0.035 |
| TA | 0.331 | 0.201 | 0.070 |
| TS | 0.494 | 0.252 | 0.248 |
| TE | 0.509 | 0.288 | 0.285 |
| PA | 0.386 | 0.213 | 0.018 |
| PS | 0.562 | 0.230 | 0.166 |
| PE | 0.510 | 0.270 | 0.156 |
| AS | 0.492 | 0.349 | 0.212 |
| AE | 0.514 | 0.340 | 0.261 |
| SE | 0.700 | 0.350 | 0.359 |
| TPA | 0.424 | 0.285 | 0.115 |
| TPS | 0.685 | 0.349 | 0.322 |
| TPE | 0.583 | 0.358 | 0.322 |
| TAS | 0.569 | 0.450 | 0.361 |
| TAE | 0.566 | 0.446 | 0.374 |
| TSE | 0.758 | 0.411 | 0.484 |
| PAS | 0.564 | 0.418 | 0.256 |
| PAE | 0.577 | 0.432 | 0.307 |
| PSE | 0.743 | 0.409 | 0.418 |
| ASE | 0.671 | 0.554 | 0.479 |
| TPAS | 0.621 | 0.511 | 0.469 |
| TPAE | 0.617 | 0.542 | 0.434 |
| TPSE | 0.799 | 0.493 | 0.562 |
| TASE | 0.730 | 0.668 | 0.582 |
| PASE | 0.726 | 0.632 | 0.542 |
| TPASE | 0.771 | 0.727 | 0.629 |
Additional files
-
Supplementary file 1
Supplementary references.
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23255.011
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Experimental and observational studies find contrasting responses of soil nutrients to climate change
eLife 6:e23255.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23255
