Search for: All records

Abstract Soil respiration (Rs), the soil‐to‐atmosphere flux of CO₂, is a dominant but uncertain part of the carbon cycle, even after decades of study. This review focuses on progress in understanding Rs from laboratory incubations to global estimates. We survey key developments of in situ ecosystem‐scale Rs observations and manipulations, synthesize Rs meta‐analyses and global flux estimates, and discuss the most compelling challenges and opportunities for the future. Increasingly sophisticated lab experiments have yielded insights into the interaction among heterotrophic respiration, substrate supply, and enzymatic kinetics, and extended incubation‐based analyses across space and time. Observational and manipulative field‐based experiments have used improved measurement approaches to deepen our understanding of the integrated effects of environmental change and disturbance on Rs. Freely‐available observational databases have enabled meta‐analyses and studies probing the magnitude of, and constraints on, the global Rs flux. Key challenges for the field include expanding Rs measurements, experiments, and opportunities to under‐represented communities and ecosystems; reconciling independent estimates of global respiration fluxes and trends; testing and leveraging the power of machine learning and process‐based models, both independently and in conjunction with each other; and continuing the field's tradition of using novel experiments to explore diverse mechanisms and ecosystems. 

Abstract The terrestrial carbon cycle is a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. Its dominant fluxes, gross primary productivity (GPP), and respiration (in particular soil respiration, R S ), are typically estimated from independent satellite-driven models and upscaled in situ measurements, respectively. We combine carbon-cycle flux estimates and partitioning coefficients to show that historical estimates of global GPP and R S are irreconcilable. When we estimate GPP based on R S measurements and some assumptions about R S :GPP ratios, we found the resulted global GPP values (bootstrap mean $${149}_{-23}^{+29}$$ 149 − 23 + 29 Pg C yr −1 ) are significantly higher than most GPP estimates reported in the literature ( $${113}_{-18}^{+18}$$ 113 − 18 + 18 Pg C yr −1 ). Similarly, historical GPP estimates imply a soil respiration flux (Rs GPP , bootstrap mean of $${68}_{-8}^{+10}$$ 68 − 8 + 10 Pg C yr −1 ) statistically inconsistent with most published R S values ( $${87}_{-8}^{+9}$$ 87 − 8 + 9 Pg C yr −1 ), although recent, higher, GPP estimates are narrowing this gap. Furthermore, global R S :GPP ratios are inconsistent with spatial averages of this ratio calculated from individual sites as well as CMIP6 model results. This discrepancy has implications for our understanding of carbon turnover times and the terrestrial sensitivity to climate change. Future efforts should reconcile the discrepancies associated with calculations for GPP and Rs to improve estimates of the global carbon budget.