Randomized trial assesses soil respiration dynamics in mixed forests, highlighting precipitation effects on carbon fluxes.
Forest soils serve as critical terrestrial carbon sinks. While broad hydrothermal controls on soil respiration (Rs) are established, uncertainties persist regarding high-frequency temporal dynamics and moisture-dependent variations in temperature sensitivity (Q10). Specifically, conventional reliance on discrete, clear-day sampling obscures how precipitation disrupts diurnal patterns. To address this, we continuously monitored Rs and environmental factors in two Northeast Chinese mixed forests (Korean pine, Pinus koraiensis (KP), and Dahurian larch, Larix gmelinii (DL)) to quantify weather-driven daily dynamics and carbon fluxes. Precipitation primarily drove daily variability, but more importantly, it reshaped day–night asymmetry. Under clear-day conditions, Rs exhibited a consistent daytime-dominant pattern, with daytime fluxes being significantly higher than nighttime fluxes (p < 0.05). However, precipitation events fundamentally neutralized this asymmetry, resulting in no significant day–night differences across most phenological stages. Annual Rs effluxes (759 and 965 g C m−2 yr−1 for KP and DL, respectively) lacked significant inter-stand or temporal variations. Seasonal emissions peaked unimodally in July, with the non-growing season contributing merely 5%–8%. Notably, spring freeze–thaw Rs in the KP stand surged interannually by 143%. While Rs correlated positively with temperature (p < 0.001), Q10 was co-regulated by forest stand and moisture. Under moderate moisture, the KP stand’s Q10 (2.72) was significantly lower than the DL stand’s (3.81); however, this divergence neutralized under low moisture. Consequently, soil moisture acts as both a direct Rs driver and a fundamental regulator of its temperature sensitivity. These empirical findings provide critical data to calibrate forest carbon models, improving predictions of soil carbon feedbacks under future climate scenarios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: