Increased understanding of nutrient immobilization in soil organic matter is critical for predicting the carbon sink strength of forest ecosystems over the next 100 years.

The terrestrial biosphere is currently thought to be a significant sink for atmospheric carbon (C). However, the future course of this sink under rising [CO2] and temperature is uncertain. Some contrasting possibilities that have been suggested are: that the sink is currently increasing through CO2 fertilization of plant growth but will decline over the next few decades because of CO2 saturation and soil nutrient constraints; that the sink will continue to increase over the next century because rising temperature will stimulate the release of plant-available soil nitrogen (N) through increased soil decomposition; that, alternatively, the sink will not be sustained because the additional soil N released will be immobilized in the soil rather than taken up by plants; or that the sink will soon become negative because loss of soil C through temperature stimulation of soil respiration will override any CO2 or temperature stimulation of plant growth. Soil N immobilization is thus a key process; however, it remains poorly understood. In this paper we use a forest ecosystem model of plant-soil C and N dynamics to gauge the importance of this uncertainty for predictions of the future C sink of forests under rising [CO2] and temperature. We characterize soil N immobilization by the degree of variability of soil N:C ratios assumed in the model. We show that the modeled C sink of a stand of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) in northern Sweden is highly sensitive to this assumption. Under increasing temperature, the model predicts a strong C sink when soil N:C is inflexible, but a greatly reduced C sink when soil N:C is allowed to vary. In complete contrast, increasing atmospheric [CO2] leads to a much stronger C sink when soil N:C is variable. When both temperature and [CO2] increase, the C sink strength is relatively insensitive to variability in soil N:C; significantly, however, with inflexible soil N:C the C sink is primarily a temperature response whereas with variable soil N:C, it is a combined temperature-CO2 response. Simulations with gradual increases of temperature and [CO2] indicate a sustained C sink over the next 100 years, in contrast to recent claims that the C sink will decline over the next few decades. Nevertheless, in using a relatively simple model, our primary aim is not to make precise predictions of the C sink over the next 100 years, but rather to highlight key areas of model uncertainty requiring further experimental clarification. Here we show that improved understanding of the processes underlying soil N immobilization is essential if we are to predict the future course of the forest carbon sink.

[1]  E. B. Rastetter,et al.  Changes in C storage by terrestrial ecosystems: How C-N interactions restrict responses to CO2 and temperature , 1992 .

[2]  D. A. King,et al.  Modelling forest response to increasing CO2 concentration under nutrient-limited conditions , 1994 .

[3]  B. Emmett,et al.  Nitrogen deposition makes a minor contribution to carbon sequestration in temperate forests , 1999, Nature.

[4]  Achim Grelle,et al.  Long‐term measurements of boreal forest carbon balance reveal large temperature sensitivity , 1998 .

[5]  K. Fog,et al.  THE EFFECT OF ADDED NITROGEN ON THE RATE OF DECOMPOSITION OF ORGANIC MATTER , 1988 .

[6]  Stephen W. Pacala,et al.  LINEAR ANALYSIS OF SOIL DECOMPOSITION: INSIGHTS FROM THE CENTURY MODEL , 1998 .

[7]  F. Joos,et al.  A first‐order analysis of the potential rôle of CO2 fertilization to affect the global carbon budget: a comparison of four terrestrial biosphere models , 1999 .

[8]  J. Thornley Grassland Dynamics: An Ecosystem Simulation Model , 1998 .

[9]  R. K. Dixon,et al.  Carbon Pools and Flux of Global Forest Ecosystems , 1994, Science.

[10]  M. Kirschbaum,et al.  Will changes in soil organic carbon act as a positive or negative feedback on global warming? , 2000 .

[11]  George M. Woodwell,et al.  Missing sinks, feedbacks, and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon balance , 1998 .

[12]  A. McGuire,et al.  Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production , 1993, Nature.

[13]  J. H. M. Thornley,et al.  Temperate forest responses to carbon dioxide, temperature and nitrogen: a model analysis , 1996 .

[14]  D. Hall,et al.  Biogeochemistry of terrestrial ecosystems , 1999 .

[15]  Unfccc Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1997 .

[16]  D. Baldocchi,et al.  The carbon balance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests , 1999 .

[17]  J. Houghton Climate change 1994 : radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios , 1995 .

[18]  R. Dewar,et al.  Soil processes dominate the long-term response of forest net primary productivity to increased temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. , 2000 .

[19]  M. Cannell,et al.  Temperate Grassland Responses to Climate Change: an Analysis using the Hurley Pasture Model , 1997 .

[20]  Björn Berg,et al.  Effect of N deposition on decomposition of plant litter and soil organic matter in forest systems , 1997 .

[21]  Mingkui Cao,et al.  Net primary and ecosystem production and carbon stocks of terrestrial ecosystems and their responses to climate change , 1998 .

[22]  R. McMurtrie,et al.  Long-Term Response of Nutrient-Limited Forests to CO"2 Enrichment; Equilibrium Behavior of Plant-Soil Models. , 1993, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[23]  Andrei P. Sokolov,et al.  Transient climate change and net ecosystem production of the terrestrial biosphere , 1998, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

[24]  Robert J. Scholes,et al.  Observations and modeling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide , 1993 .

[25]  William H. McDowell,et al.  Nitrogen Saturation in Temperate Forest Ecosystems , 1998 .

[26]  D. Powlson,et al.  Nitrogen deposition and carbon sequestration , 1999, Nature.

[27]  Ross E. McMurtrie,et al.  The temporal response of forest ecosystems to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration , 1996 .

[28]  Edward B. Rastetter,et al.  RESPONSES OF N‐LIMITED ECOSYSTEMS TO INCREASED CO2: A BALANCED‐NUTRITION, COUPLED‐ELEMENT‐CYCLES MODEL , 1997 .

[29]  Currie The responsive C and N biogeochemistry of the temperate forest floor. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  D. Schimel,et al.  Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle , 1995 .

[31]  W. Parton,et al.  Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands , 1987 .

[32]  P. Polglase,et al.  Carbon balance in the tundra, boreal forest and humid tropical forest during climate change: scaling up from leaf physiology and soil carbon dynamics , 1995 .

[33]  Gordon B. Bonan,et al.  Soil temperature, nitrogen mineralization, and carbon source–sink relationships in boreal forests , 1992 .

[34]  Sune Linder,et al.  Climatic factors controlling the productivity of Norway spruce : A model-based analysis , 1998 .

[35]  C. Peng,et al.  simulating carbon dynamics along the Boreal Forest Transect Case Study (BFTCS) in central Canada: 2. Sensitivity to climate change , 1998 .