the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modeling boreal forest soil dynamics with the microbially explicit soil model MIMICS+ (v1.0)
Abstract. Understanding carbon exchange processes between land reservoirs and the atmosphere is essential for predicting carbon-climate feedbacks. Still, considerable uncertainty remains in the representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle in Earth System Models. An emerging strategy to constrain these uncertainties is to include the role of different microbial groups explicitly. Following this approach, we extend the framework of the MIcrobial-MIneral Carbon Stabilization (MIMICS) model with additional mycorrhizal groups and a nitrogen cycle that includes a novel representation of inorganic nitrogen sorption to particles via a Langmuir isotherm. MIMICS+ v1.0 is designed to capture and quantify relationships between soil microorganisms and their environment, with a particular emphasis on boreal ecosystems. We evaluated MIMICS+ against podzolic soil profiles in Norwegian forests as well as the conventional Community Land Model (CLM). MIMICS+ matched observed carbon stocks better than CLM, and gave a broader range of C:N ratios, more in line with observations. This is mainly explained by a higher direct-plant-derived fraction into the Soil Organic Matter (SOM) pools. The model produces microbial biomass estimates in line with numbers reported in the literature. MIMICS+ also showed better representation of climate gradients than CLM, especially in terms of temperature. To investigate responses to changes in nutrient availability, we performed an N enrichment experiment, and found that nitrogen sorbed to particles through the sorption algorithm served as a long-term storage of nutrients for the microbes. Furthermore, although the microbial groups responded considerably to the nitrogen enrichment, we only saw minor responses for carbon storage and respiration. Together, our results present MIMICS+ as an attractive tool for further investigations of interactions between microbial functioning and their (changing) environment.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2108 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2108 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2069', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2069/egusphere-2023-2069-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Elin Ristorp Aas, 22 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2069', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Nov 2023
The proposed soil carbon-nitrogen model could be an interesting addition to the modeling community. However, there are certain aspects that require improvement.
Introduction
Please describe the potential mechanisms/processes involved with EcM and AM based on previous research;
Please describe the potential improvements over the models in Sulman et al. (2019) and Baskaran et al. (2017) and distinguish your study with other similar ones.
Methods
Sensitivity analysis of parameters to modeled soil carbon is routine for model development and therefore is necessary here.
Line 103: describe in full C11, C12, N11, N12.
Lines 162-164: add details about how EcM produces enzymes and the mining algorithm (since it is the import part of this study); is there carbon cost for modeled nitrogen mining?
Lines 180-184: do they occur at the same time or sequentially? Please clarify. This is very important for nutrient competition.
Lines 195-201: please describe here how the parameters change with depth, in particularly the ones associated with EcM and AM.
Lines 214-216: cannot follow this sentence. Please elaborate.
Results
The poor simulation results in terms of soil carbon (site level one to one), and CN ratio is concerning. Please justify.
Please show seasonal variation of microbial respiration for model quality judgment. It can be shown in appendix though.
In the main text please show site-to-site correlation in addition to the boxplot. It is more informative.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2069-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Elin Ristorp Aas, 22 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2069', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2069/egusphere-2023-2069-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Elin Ristorp Aas, 22 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2069', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Nov 2023
The proposed soil carbon-nitrogen model could be an interesting addition to the modeling community. However, there are certain aspects that require improvement.
Introduction
Please describe the potential mechanisms/processes involved with EcM and AM based on previous research;
Please describe the potential improvements over the models in Sulman et al. (2019) and Baskaran et al. (2017) and distinguish your study with other similar ones.
Methods
Sensitivity analysis of parameters to modeled soil carbon is routine for model development and therefore is necessary here.
Line 103: describe in full C11, C12, N11, N12.
Lines 162-164: add details about how EcM produces enzymes and the mining algorithm (since it is the import part of this study); is there carbon cost for modeled nitrogen mining?
Lines 180-184: do they occur at the same time or sequentially? Please clarify. This is very important for nutrient competition.
Lines 195-201: please describe here how the parameters change with depth, in particularly the ones associated with EcM and AM.
Lines 214-216: cannot follow this sentence. Please elaborate.
Results
The poor simulation results in terms of soil carbon (site level one to one), and CN ratio is concerning. Please justify.
Please show seasonal variation of microbial respiration for model quality judgment. It can be shown in appendix though.
In the main text please show site-to-site correlation in addition to the boxplot. It is more informative.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2069-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Elin Ristorp Aas, 22 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Post-review adjustments
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
MIMICSplus Elin Ristorp Aas https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8394839
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
232 | 94 | 22 | 348 | 19 | 21 |
- HTML: 232
- PDF: 94
- XML: 22
- Total: 348
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Elin Ristorp Aas
Heleen A. de Wit
Terje Koren Berntsen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2108 KB) - Metadata XML