Search for: All records

Climate change and unsustainable land management practices have resulted in extensive soil degradation, including alteration of soil structure (i.e., aggregate and pore size distributions), loss of soil organic carbon, and reduction of water and nutrient holding capacities. Although soil structure, hydrologic processes, and biogeochemical fluxes are tightly linked, their interaction is often unaccounted for in current ecohydrological, hydrological and terrestrial biosphere models. For more holistic predictions of soil hydrological and biogeochemical cycles, models need to incorporate soil structure and macroporosity dynamics, whether in a natural or agricultural ecosystem. Here, we present a theoretical framework that couples soil hydrologic processes and soil microbial activity to soil organic carbon dynamics through the dynamics of soil structure. In particular, we link the Millennial model for soil carbon dynamics, which explicitly models the formation and breakdown of soil aggregates, to a recent parameterization of the soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity curves and to solute and O₂diffusivities to soil microsites based on soil macroporosity. To illustrate the significance of incorporating the dynamics of soil structure, we apply the framework to a case study in which soil and vegetation recover over time from agricultural practices. The new framework enables more holistic predictions of the effects of climate change and land management practices on coupled soil hydrological and biogeochemical cycles.

 

Disturbances fundamentally alter ecosystem functions, yet predicting their impacts remains a key scientific challenge. While the study of disturbances is ubiquitous across many ecological disciplines, there is no agreed-upon, cross-disciplinary foundation for discussing or quantifying the complexity of disturbances, and no consistent terminology or methodologies exist. This inconsistency presents an increasingly urgent challenge due to accelerating global change and the threat of interacting disturbances that can destabilize ecosystem responses. By harvesting the expertise of an interdisciplinary cohort of contributors spanning 42 institutions across 15 countries, we identified an essential limitation in disturbance ecology: the word ‘disturbance’ is used interchangeably to refer to both the events that cause, and the consequences of, ecological change, despite fundamental distinctions between the two meanings. In response, we developed a generalizable framework of ecosystem disturbances, providing a well-defined lexicon for understanding disturbances across perspectives and scales. The framework results from ideas that resonate across multiple scientific disciplines and provides a baseline standard to compare disturbances across fields. This framework can be supplemented by discipline-specific variables to provide maximum benefit to both inter- and intra-disciplinary research. To support future syntheses and meta-analyses of disturbance research, we also encourage researchers to be explicit in how they define disturbance drivers and impacts, and we recommend minimum reporting standards that are applicable regardless of scale. Finally, we discuss the primary factors we considered when developing a baseline framework and propose four future directions to advance our interdisciplinary understanding of disturbances and their social-ecological impacts: integrating across ecological scales, understanding disturbance interactions, establishing baselines and trajectories, and developing process-based models and ecological forecasting initiatives. Our experience through this process motivates us to encourage the wider scientific community to continue to explore new approaches for leveraging Open Science principles in generating creative and multidisciplinary ideas.