the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dissolved organic carbon-mediated controls dominate soil carbon mineralization in response to freeze-thaw cycles
Abstract. Soil freeze-thaw cycles (FTCs) exert substantial effects on the mineralization of soil organic carbon (SOC), particularly in high-altitude and -latitude cold regions. Ongoing climate change is altering FTC frequency and duration, yet the responses of SOC mineralization to such changes remain poorly understood, limiting our ability to predict carbon cycle-climate feedbacks. Here, we incubated soils from two depths across three sites to quantify how FTC regimes regulate SOC mineralization and explore underlying controls. Across all treatments, we observed a pronounced thaw-induced pulse of CO2 release, but more frequent freeze-thaw cycles led to more cumulative CO2 release, given the same length of cumulative thaw days. Across treatments, mineralization was most strongly correlated with DOC and hydrolytic/oxidative enzyme activities, while being suppressed by mineralogical (free and amorphous Fe/Al oxides) and physical (aggregate-protected carbon) constraints. Partial correlations and path analyses revealed that DOC was the single most consistent predictor of mineralization, retaining its influence even when enzymatic, substrate quality, or mineralogical variables were controlled. Subsoil SOC mineralization was additionally shaped by molecular carbon composition and mineral protection. These findings reveal a vertical shift from DOC-mediated substrate accessibility to molecularly and physically constrained decomposition. Accounting for these depth-specific mechanisms will improve prediction of SOC-climate feedbacks under FTC shifts due to climate change.
- Preprint
(2178 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1850 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Mar 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-139', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 124 | 97 | 15 | 236 | 37 | 16 | 22 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 97
- XML: 15
- Total: 236
- Supplement: 37
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comment
This paper presents the response of three different soils (representing different altitudes) taken at two depths (0–10 and 70–80 cm) to four different kinds of freeze-thaw cycles (FTCs): long freeze/long thaw, long freeze/short thaw, short freeze/long thaw and short freeze/short thaw. The study, including a detailed experimental part and rigorous statistical analyses, highlights the differences in SOC mineralization across the altitudes, depths, and FTC types. Specifically, more frequent FTCs lead to higher SOC mineralization. Further investigation was conducted to determine the predictors of SOC mineralization. Dissolved organic carbon appears to be the most important of these predictors, both in topsoil and subsoil.
I found the article very interesting: the experimental design, while presenting limits, is both simple and efficient, and the results and conclusions are overall well presented. However, I got a bit lost in the statistical analysis part. This will certainly be useful for statistics enthusiasts, but it is a bit difficult to follow for the average reader (which I am). Be careful not to lose us in the way, because the paper is of great interest for everyone and the findings must be clear even for those who don’t master fully how you obtain them.
Overall, this paper is a nice addition to the knowledge on the effects of climate change – and specifically frequent FTCs – on soils and SOC mineralization.
Â
Specific comments
L55: please specify the depth you consider for subsoil.
L65: please define ‘labile’ (in terms of residence time for instance). Also, you could use a reference to establish DOC as a labile pool (while it is generally thought of as labile without more precision, several studies showed that part of it can persist for decades, see Kalbitz & Kaiser, 2008 (https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200700043) for example).
L109: what do you mean by ‘quality’?
L145: where does the 0.45 value come from?
L166: what are substrates A and B? If it is not important, it may be better not to mention it.
L250: ‘On the first thawing day (Fig. 3; Fig. 4), DOC concentrations varied significantly among treatments’ → if I am not mistaken, this is not visible on the figures you indicate; the uppercase letters in Fig.3 for DOC are all A and do not show the first thawing day.
L255: if I interpret it well, the MBC indicates that there are more microbes in the topsoil horizon than in subsoil (which is not surprising). How do you explain that enzyme activities are higher in subsoil (although not always significantly)?
L262: it is not completely clear to me how to read the partial correlations. What do PC x DOC = 0.66 (bottom left corner) and DOC x PC = 0.79 (top right corner) correspond to? Is 0.66 the partial correlation between SOC mineralization and PC with DOC controlled, or the contrary? Sorry if this is usual for this type of graph; perhaps adding a word about it would help. Also, why aren’t all the boxes filled?
L290: I am not familiar with path analysis, but I don’t see how ‘subsoil mineralization exhibited strong additional associations with C molecular composition’ (that we indeed see on Fig. S7) shows on Fig.6b. All values related to the molecular structure seem quite low. Shouldn’t we also see this correlation result on the path analysis?
Â
Technical comments
L31: you need spaces when using ‘ - ‘, also I think it needs a longer dash. Same later in the sentence.
L43: ‘and are sensitive to FTCs’
L44: ‘can recover rapidly’
L87: typo in ‘physicochemical’, and is a word missing? Perhaps ‘physicochemical properties’?
L96–99: the sentence seems to be repeated.
L148: vertexing → vortexing?
L248: spaces and longer dash needed when using ‘ - ‘.
L343: ‘due to the fact that DOC’