Revisiting overflow metabolism and its impact on soil carbon cycling
Abstract. A major challenge in biogeochemistry is to reduce the uncertainty of projections made by soil carbon models. In the last two decades, carbon-use efficiency, the proportion of consumed carbon incorporated into microbial biomass, has become a central parameter to represent microbial control on carbon fluxes. For models that integrate other elements, like nitrogen, the adjustment of carbon-use efficiency in response to substrate stoichiometry has gained popularity as a mechanism to balance these fluxes, mostly due to its mathematical convenience. The reasoning behind this, is that microbes release the excess carbon as CO2, a mechanism known as overflow respiration. This mechanism, however, causes a characteristic decrease of carbon-use efficiency when reaching nitrogen limitation. In this study we propose that the implementation of overflow respiration forces an unrealistic decrease of carbon-use efficiency for three reasons: 1) physiological mechanisms can minimize carbon excess, avoiding overflow; 2) carbon overflow has been reported in laboratory experiments mainly as dissolved organic carbon (organic acids), and not as CO2; 3) functionally diverse microbial communities can exhibit higher-level dynamics, improving the recycling of nutrients and avoiding overflow. We use an individual-based microbial litter decomposition model to test the impact of these mechanisms on carbon-use efficiency. We found that physiological mechanisms such as flexible biomass stoichiometry can eliminate overflow, but nutrient allocation does not. When carbon overflow occurs as dissolved organic carbon, carbon-use efficiency increases under nitrogen limitation. Finally, a functionally diverse community can avoid carbon overflow, although carbon-use efficiency declines due to higher maintenance respiration. We demonstrate that the representation of overflow respiration in soil carbon models is more relevant than currently acknowledged. Redirecting carbon overflow to a dissolved organic carbon pool can lead to opposite trends in carbon losses. The soil carbon modeling community should thoroughly assess current implementations and explore more mechanistically grounded alternatives. This includes dissolved organic carbon pathways, more realistic microbial community representations, or other processes that better capture the complexity of microbial carbon use.
Review for “Revisiting overflow metabolism and its impact on soil carbon cycling” by Royo et al.
General comments:
The authors propose three potential mechanisms to mitigate overflow respiration in soil C models that may force a decrease in microbial carbon-use efficiency. They design numerical experiments to test these three mechanisms using DEMENT. The manuscript is well structured and written. However, this is a purely numerical study with no comparisons to either observations or other numerical models. In addition, sensitivity analyses to critical numerical parameters are missing, which may affect the results presented. I recommend major revision before it can be considered for publication. See my detailed comments below.
Major comments:
1. This is a purely numerical study with no comparisons to either observations or other numerical models. I would suggest including these comparisons, as they would significantly strengthen the manuscript.
2. The proposed three mechanisms works well to mitigate overflow respiration in DEMENT, while it is uncertain for other soil carbon models. How do the authors comment on this uncertainty?
3. I would suggest conducting sensitivity analyses to critical numerical variables (e.g., Vmax and Km), so that we can know when to involve these three mechanisms to mitigate overflow respiration.
4. Lines 113-115.The authors conduct numerical experiments with constant environmental variables. However, it remains unclear whether the proposed three mechanisms work with changing environmental variables. The authors should also test their mechanisms in real cases. In addition, the authors focus on CUE responses to the three mechanisms. It is also important to look at other metrics (e.g., DOC), especially when redirecting C overflow to DOC.
Minor comments:
1. Line 13. “reasoning” to “reason”.
2. I suggest the authors shortening the abstract.
3. Line 36. “enabled” to “enable”.
4. Lines 40-41. References are needed to support this statement.
5. Line 86. “for C:N litter” is unclear.
6. Suggest combining Figures 1 and 2 into a single figure.
7. Line 175. Suggest moving Figure 3 to the supplementary material as it provides limited information.
8. Line 343. “decomposers feed” to “feeding decomposers”.
9. Line 351. “maintenance” to “maintenance respiration”.