Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2019 Dec 26;14(12):e0226909. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226909

Nine years of in situ soil warming and topography impact the temperature sensitivity and basal respiration rate of the forest floor in a Canadian boreal forest

Charles Marty 1, Joanie Piquette 1, Hubert Morin 1, Denis Bussières 2, Nelson Thiffault 3, Daniel Houle 4, Robert L Bradley 5, Myrna J Simpson 6, Rock Ouimet 4, Maxime C Paré 1,*
Editor: Julian Aherne7
PMCID: PMC6932772  PMID: 31877170

Abstract

The forest floor of boreal forest stores large amounts of organic C that may react to a warming climate and increased N deposition. It is therefore crucial to assess the impact of these factors on the temperature sensitivity of this C pool to help predict future soil CO2 emissions from boreal forest soils to the atmosphere. In this study, soil warming (+2–4°C) and canopy N addition (CNA; +0.30–0.35 kg·N·ha-1·yr-1) were replicated along a topographic gradient (upper, back and lower slope) in a boreal forest in Quebec, Canada. After nine years of treatment, the forest floor was collected in each plot, and its organic C composition was characterized through solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Forest floor samples were incubated at four temperatures (16, 24, 32 and 40°C) and respiration rates (RR) measured to assess the temperature sensitivity of forest floor RR (Q10 = e10k) and basal RR (B). Both soil warming and CNA had no significant effect on forest floor chemistry (e.g., C, N, Ca and Mg content, amount of soil organic matter, pH, chemical functional groups). The NMR analyses did not show evidence of significant changes in the forest floor organic C quality. Nonetheless, a significant effect of soil warming on both the Q10 of RR and B was observed. On average, B was 72% lower and Q10 45% higher in the warmed, versus the control plots. This result implies that forest floor respiration will more strongly react to changes in soil temperature in a future warmer climate. CNA had no significant effect on the measured soil and respiration parameters, and no interaction effects with warming. In contrast, slope position had a significant effect on forest floor organic C quality. Upper slope plots had higher soil alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratios and lower B values than those in the lower slope, across all different treatments. This result likely resulted from a relative decrease in the labile C fraction in the upper slope, characterized by lower moisture levels. Our results point towards higher temperature sensitivity of RR under warmer conditions, accompanied by an overall down-regulation of RR at low temperatures (lower B). Since soil C quantity and quality were unaffected by the nine years of warming, the observed patterns could result from microbial adaptations to warming.

Introduction

As with many biological processes, the soil respiration rate (RR) is strongly influenced by temperature [1,2]. As such, there is concern as to the potential impact of global warming on CO2 losses from the pedosphere and the resulting positive feedback on the climate system [3,4]. Soil warming experiments in the laboratory [5] or in situ [4,610] confirm that increased temperatures stimulate soil RR, although this positive effect can be small and temporary [1113] as a result of changes in the soil microbial communities, microbial thermal adaptation or/and depletion of C substrate [1,1215].

Climate change is expected to increase soil temperatures by 2–4°C in northeastern North America by the end of the century and extend the snow-free period by one month [16]. Whether this warming will result in net C losses from the soil depends on the temperature sensitivity of biochemical processes controlling C inputs (i.e., mainly photosynthesis) to and outputs (i.e., mainly soil respiration) from the soil organic C (SOC) pool. The temperature sensitivity of biochemical reactions is quantified by the Q10 index, i.e., the factor by which the reaction rate increases per 10°C rise in temperature [1]. The enzyme-kinetic theory predicts that the temperature sensitivity should be higher at low temperature as well as for slow-decomposing organic matter (i.e. recalcitrant) than for more labile C substrates, at least when C substrates are not a limiting factor [1,3]. Results from laboratory incubations frequently support this temperature effect [5] and the “C quality—temperature” theory [2,1719]. However, in situ soil warming experiments have produced conflicting results, with studies reporting a reduction [11,12] or an increase [6,7] in the Q10 of soil RR, while others report no significant effect [8,20,21].

In addition to temperature, N availability can affect the rate of soil organic matter (SOM) mineralization [2224], suggesting that increasing N deposition may impact C fluxes from the soil to the atmosphere. While studies have found that increased N availability promoted microbial decomposition in N-limited environments up to a certain level of N input [25], other studies report that chronic N fertilization or N deposition in temperate and boreal forests lead to a reduction in soil microbial activity, resulting in an accumulation of SOC [2628]. The addition of N has also been shown to impact the molecular composition of SOM [29], reduce fungal activity [30,31] and reduce total microbial and fungal biomass [27]. It is, however, uncertain whether the combination of both soil warming and increased N deposition will significantly impact the Q10 of soil RR and SOC characteristics as soil warming generally promotes soil microbial activity, whereas N fertilization generally has the opposite effect.

Boreal forests play a major role in the Earth’s C cycle. These ecosystems store ~272 Pg C, representing ~32% of global forest C [32], and SOC storage per unit area is, on average, more than two times higher (29.6 kg C m-2) than in tropical and temperate forests (12.2 kg C m-2) [33]. This ecosystem is characterized by a thick forest floor accounting for a large fraction of the total soil C pool (up to about 40% in black spruce forests) [34], low temperatures and recalcitrant litter, which theoretically make them more sensitive than more meridional ecosystems to increased temperatures. Increasing N deposition could also have a particularly significant impact on the rate of organic matter decomposition in the organic soil of boreal forests as these ecosystems are characterized by low soil N availability and generally receive low atmospheric inputs. It is therefore crucial to increase our knowledge regarding the impact of a combination of climate warming and increased N deposition on the organic C pool of the forest floor of boreal forests. Long-term soil warming experiments are necessary to assess the soil’s role in C feedbacks to the climate because the magnitude of CO2 net fluxes from the soil to the atmosphere varies across time [4]. Few long-term soil warming experiments have continued over periods of time >5 years [4,10,11,20,35] and most of them have focused on the impact of soil warming on soil RR and its temperature sensitivity [12,20,21,36] without investigating the impacts on organic C chemical composition at a molecular level. In addition, the interactive effects of the topography on the one hand and both soil warming and N addition on the other hand on the temperature sensitivity and the quality of soil organic C has to our knowledge never been investigated in boreal forests.

In this study, a boreal forest site in Quebec, Canada was subjected to in situ soil warming and canopy nitrogen addition (CNA). The applied soil warming (+2–4°C during the growing period) agrees with regional projections for 2050 [37]. Samples were collected from the forest floor after nine years of treatment and were incubated at four temperatures (16, 24, 32, and 40°C) to measure forest floor RR. Forest floor organic C composition was characterized using solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). The objectives were to assess the long-term impact of climate warming and N deposition on the forest floor organic C quality and on the temperature sensitivity of forest floor RR. We hypothesized that nine years of soil warming would decrease organic C quality as a result of the depletion of the most labile fraction. This would increase its temperature sensitivity as predicted by the “C quality—temperature” theory. In agreement with several N fertilization studies [26,27,29,31], we also hypothesized that CNA would increase organic C lability and increase C and N concentrations due to a reduction in soil microorganism activity.

Materials and methods

Study site

This study was carried out at the Simoncouche research station (48°13′ N, 71°15′ W; 350 m asl) located in the Laurentide Wildlife Reserve, Québec, Canada, in a mature black spruce stand (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP). Major perturbations have not affected the forest since a wildfire in 1922 [38]. The forest floor is covered by a moss layer mainly composed of Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.), Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt., Ptilium crista-castrensis (Hedw.) and Sphagnum sp. [39]. The understory is typically Cornus canadensis L., Rhododendron groenlandicum (Oeder) Kron & Judd, Gaultheria hispidula (L.) Muhl. and Kalmia angustifolia L. The podzolic soil is well drained and has a MOR-type humus with an LFH layer averaging ~10 cm in thickness [40]. Total N concentrations range from 6.8 to 12.8 g N kg-1. The stand lies on a gentle slope (8%–17%) of well-drained glacial till. The climate is continental, characterized by short summers (mean air temperature of 13.3°C from May to September) and long cold winters [41]. Snow cover lasts from November to May and reaches a maximum depth of 150 cm. Mean annual temperature is ~1.9°C and precipitation averages ~402 mm from May to September [42]. Atmospheric N deposition in this boreal region varies between 4 and 6 kg ha-1 yr-1 [43].

Experimental design

The field experiment combined soil warming (W) and canopy N addition (CNA) and was conducted over a nine-year period between 2008 and 2016. Twelve 7.5 m × 7.5 m square plots were delimited within a square area 60 m × 60 m. Four treatments were randomly assigned to these plots in a split-plot design: warming with N addition (W+N+), warming with no N addition (W+), no warming with N addition (N+), and no warming and no N addition (C). Each of these treatments was replicated in three landform units: at the top, in the middle and at the bottom of the slope (upper, back and lower slope, respectively) (Fig 1). Soil warming was conducted from April to July using heating cables placed beneath the forest floor corresponding to an approximate depth of 15 cm beneath the surface to simulate a 4°C increase in soil temperature. Cables were installed after cutting the soil vertically with a shovel or a knife and manually inserting the cable into the resulting narrow trench, which was then refilled quickly. Non-heating cables were also installed in non-heated treatments (C and N+) to account for potential root damage and soil disturbance during cable laying. Power was supplied by a diesel generator located 200 m from the site [42]. Soil temperature was measured between the cables every 15 minutes in three heated and three control plots. Data were stored as hourly averages in CR1000 data loggers (Campbell Scientific Corporation, Edmonton, Alberta). The difference in temperature between the control and warmed plots (W+ and W+N+ treatments) was maintained from April to July. Between 2008 and 2016, average monthly soil temperature during the growing season ranged from 5 to 14°C in May and August, respectively (data not shown). Soil warming led to an earlier snowmelt and higher soil temperatures at 15–20 cm depth (2–4°C on average) relative to control plots during this period (S1 Fig). Temperature increases matched estimates for 2050 of the FORSTEM climatic model developed for the boreal forest of eastern Canada [16]. To simulate increased N deposition, N was applied via sprinklers located above the canopy of one tree located within each plot. The equivalent of 2 mm of rainfall was applied to the canopy once a week from June to September (12–16 weeks per year). Rain was applied over a circular area having a ~3 m radius centered on the stem of each experimental tree in a plot. Nitrogen addition-free plots (W+ and C) were supplied with a water solution to reproduce the chemical composition of natural rainfall (14.93 μmol·L-1 for both NO3- and NH4+), while N-enriched plots (N+ and W+N+) received a solution of 44.78 μmol·L-1 for both NO3- and NH4+ to simulate a ~25% increase in inorganic N deposition during the growing season.

Fig 1. Schematic representation of the field experimental design at the Simoncouche research station, Quebec, Canada.

Fig 1

Squares represent 7.5 ×7.5 m experimental plots, and circles show the location of soil samples outside the experimental plots as controls. N+: canopy N addition (CNA); W+: soil warming; W+N+: combined CNA and soil warming; C: control (no CNA nor soil warming). The four types of experimental plots were replicated three times in three slope positions: upper slope, back slope and lower slope.

Forest floor sampling

Forest floor samples were collected in October 2016 after nine years of treatment in each of the four experimental plots (C, W+, N+ and W+N+) (Fig 1).

For each plot, four cores (depth of 5–10 cm and diameter of 8 cm) were extracted from the Fibric horizon (F) of the organic layer (beneath the litter layer) with a hammer drill, then mixed and homogenized in a polyethylene bag. Similarly, cores were extracted outside of each of experimental plots to assess the disturbance effect of heating cables on the forest floor. Filled bags were then taken to the lab and kept at 4 °C in the dark for five months until incubation.

Forest floor samples incubation

Prior to incubation, each sample was sieved (5 mm mesh) to remove coarse fragments and roots, and the sample was then homogenized. Each sample was split into four 15 g dry mass equivalent subsamples and placed in 500 ml Mason jars. Soil sample moisture was adjusted to 85% of soil’s water holding capacity (WHC) [34,44,45] with demineralized water [17,46]. This water content level was used because soil moisture is generally high during the growing season in boreal forests due to water inputs coming from snow melting, high precipitation rates and relatively low temperatures. In addition, soil relative microbial activity is generally maximal at soil water contents of 60–80% [47] and Q10 is higher at 80–100% of WHC than at lower soil moisture levels [48]. Forest floor samples were then incubated in the dark at four temperatures (T) (16, 24, 32, and 40 °C) for 6 h prior to measurements [17,46]. After this acclimatization period, the moisture level was readjusted to 85% of WHC, and the jars were covered with a hermetic lid equipped with a septum and then put back in the incubator for 4–16 h (depending on incubation temperatures) before soil respiration analyses. Temperatures as high as 32°C and 40°C are not commonly experienced in boreal forests but this incubation temperature range was chosen in order to have a rapid and strong RR response [48].

Forest floor respiration measurements

No RR measurements were conducted in the field. All measurements were performed in the laboratory after forest floor samples were incubated at different temperatures. We measured CO2 concentrations in jars after incubation by using a Fourier transform infrared gas analyzer (FTIR; FTLA2000 Series laboratory spectrometer, ABB, Zurich, Switzerland). Prior to measurements, the FTIR was calibrated by injecting 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 μL of pure CO2 into the chamber, and absorbance was measured at 4.24 μm (the wavelength at which absorbance was the highest).

After the incubation period (4–16 h), a 10 mL gas sample was collected from each jar with a syringe (1000 series, Gastight® syringes, Hamilton Company, Reno, USA) through the septum and injected into the FTIR chamber to determine the initial CO2 concentration (ti). Samples were then placed back into the incubators for another 4–16 h before another gas sample was collected and analyzed (tf). Three controls (“no soil” samples) were also incubated at each temperature to have a reference value (i.e., “zero” value). For each sample, CO2 production was calculated as the difference in CO2 concentration (ppm CO2) between tf and ti and expressed per g of total C in the soil sample (RR, μg·CO2·g-1 Csoil·h-1). The CO2 production in the “no soil” samples (i.e., blanks) was then subtracted from CO2 production of the soil samples.

Calculating forest floor organic C temperature sensitivity

The relationship between forest floor respiration rate (RR) and temperature is commonly described by the following first-order exponential equation [12,36]:

RR=BekT (1)

The parameter B is the intercept of soil respiration when temperature is zero (soil RR at T = 0 °C) and is thought to be a good estimate of the relative organic C quality [12,17,49]. To assess the bias that may have been introduced by using an incubation temperature much higher than those experienced in boreal forest soils (40°C), the model was adjusted with and without RR values obtained from the incubation at 40°C. The Q10 of RR was calculated as follows:

Q10=e10k (2)

where k is a temperature sensitivity parameter. Estimates of both B and k parameters were derived through an iterative approach using nonlinear least square estimates with the nls function in R [50].

Total C and N concentrations

After incubation, forest floor samples were dried at 55 °C until reaching a constant weight, ground to fine powder and were then analyzed with a CN analyzer (TruMac CN, LECO, UK). The determined C content (C concentration × soil sample dry weight) was used to express RR as a function of C content (μg CO2 g-1 Csoil h-1).

Solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) analysis

Dried and ground soil subsamples (~250 mg each) were packed into 4 mm zirconium rotors and sealed with a Kel-F cap. Solid-state 13C cross polarization magic angle spinning (CP-MAS) spectra were measured using a 500 MHz Bruker BioSpin Avance III spectrometer having a 4 mm H-X MAS probe. A MAS rate of 11 kHz was used with a 1 ms ramp-CP contact time and a 1 s recycle delay [51]. NMR spectra were processed using a zero-filling factor of 2 and line broadening of 50 Hz. Spectra were baseline-corrected manually and phased using TopSpin (v3.5). NMR spectra were integrated into four main regions using TopSpin (v3.5) which included: alkyl C (0–50 ppm); O-alkyl C (50–110 ppm), aromatic and phenolic C (110–165 ppm) and carboxylic and carbonyl C (165–210 ppm) [52]. Alkyl C to O-alkyl C ratios were calculated to compare the relative stage of degradation between samples [53].

Statistical analyses

ANOVA assessed the impact of soil warming (two factors: “warmed” and “unwarmed”), CNA (two factors: “N addition” and “No N addition”) and slope position (three factors: upper, back and lower slope) on Q10, B, forest floor C:N ratio and on the molecular composition of the forest floor organic C (percentages of alkyl C, O-alkyl C, carboxyl C, aromatic and alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio). The ANOVA models were computed in R using the aov function as follows:

aov(dV~WTreat+NTreat+WTreat:NTreat+landform)

with dV as the dependent variables, WTreat as the soil warming treatment, NTreat as the CNA treatment, WTreat:NTreat representing their interaction and landform being the position of the unit along the slope (upper, back or lower slope).

A linear regression was applied to the log (B) and Q10 values across these four treatments. A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using eight response variables (Q10, B, forest floor C:N and alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratios and the percentages of alkyl C, O-alkyl C, aromatic and carboxyl groups in SOC) and the 24 forest floor samples (4 treatments × 3 units + 12 samples outside each experimental plot; cf. Fig 1). Two-way ANOVAs tested the impact of warming and CNA treatments on Q10, B, N and C concentrations, and C:N ratio.

Results

Q10 and B values

The increase in forest floor RR with incubation temperature was well described by a first-order exponential model (RR = BekT) for all treatments (C, W+, N+ and W+N+) with or without the RR values obtained from the incubation at 40°C (Fig 2). The R2 values were generally higher with the four incubation temperatures (0.87–0.99) than without the RR values from the incubation at 40°C (0.7–1.0).

Fig 2. Relationship between forest floor mean respiration rate (Forest floor RR, μg C-CO2·g-1·C·h-1) and incubation temperatures (°C).

Fig 2

Relationships are shown for the four experimental treatments (C: control; N+: CNA; W+: soil warming; W+N+: combined soil warming and CNA) with (red lines) or without (black lines) RR values obtained from incubations at 40°C. The rows and the columns show the treatments and replicates for each treatment, respectively. Curves were obtained by fitting a first-order exponential equation (RR = Bek.T).

The use of three incubation temperatures only (no 40°C) had a strong influence on the computed B values (up to a factor 5). It ranged from 0.67 to 8.99 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 with the four incubation temperatures and from 0.87 to 5.89 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 without the RR values from the incubation at 40°C (Fig 2). The impact of removing RR values from the incubation at 40°C was much lower for k values.

Forest floor RR at 40°C was significantly higher (df = 11; F = 4.07; P = 0.05) in warmed plots (125.6 ± 47.6 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1) than in unwarmed plots (93.3 ± 28.6 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1). In contrast, RR at 16°C was slightly lower (df = 11; F = 4.18; P = 0.05) in warmed than in unwarmed plots (14.05 ± 2.79 vs. 16.07 ± 3.93 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1). No significant difference in RR was found among treatments at 24 and 32°C. The same strong exponential relationships were also observed for samples collected outside the experimental plots (S2 Fig).

There was a strong linear decline of Q10 with increased log(B) (R2 = 0.95; P < 0.001; Fig 3). Most samples collected outside experimental plots had a higher log(B) (i.e., a higher C lability) and a lower Q10 (i.e., a lower temperature sensitivity of C to decomposition) than those subjected to treatments.

Fig 3. Relationship between Q10 and natural log(B).

Fig 3

Both parameters were calculated from the relationship between forest floor respiration rate and incubation temperatures for each treatment (3 replicates × 4 treatments, n = 12) and for samples collected outside of experiment plots (i.e., controls, n = 12). Unit for parameter B is μg C-COg-1 C·h-1. *** indicates P<0.001.

Effects of soil warming and N addition on Q10, B and soil chemistry

Soil warming had a significant impact on both Q10 and B (Table 1).

Table 1. Effects of the experimental treatments and the landform on the forest floor.

CNAT WT Slope position CNAT:WT
B F 0.94 6.67 3.97 0.01
P 0.36 0.04 0.09 0.92
Q10 F 2.47 11.42 4.60 0.01
P 0.16 0.01 0.07 0.94
% N F 0.7 0.07 1.34 0.14
P 0.43 0.79 0.28 0.72
% C F 0.85 0.17 0.29 2.64
P 0.39 0.69 0.61 0.15
C:N ratio F 3.15 0.00 0.35 1.27
P 0.12 0.98 0.57 0.30
% Alkyl C F 1.23 2.28 5.49 2.28
P 0.30 0.17 0.05 0.17
% O-alkyl C F 0.69 3.77 8.68 1.45
P 0.43 0.09 0.02 0.27
% Aromatic F 0.05 0.00 1.57 0.00
P 0.83 1.00 0.25 1.00
% Carboxyl F 0.00 4.34 0.72 0.48
P 1.00 0.08 0.42 0.51
Alkyl:O-alkyl C F 0.96 3.83 9.46 2.25
P 0.36 0.09 0.02 0.18
Aromatic:O-alkyl C F 0.00 0.52 4.21 0.13
P 0.98 0.49 0.08 0.73

Results of the ANOVA (F- and P-values) conducted on ten forest floor variables. Independent variables are the canopy N addition treatment (CNAT), the soil heating treatment (WT), the landform (upper, back and lower slopes) and the interaction between CNAT and WT. Significant effects (P < 0.05) are shown in bold; (n = 12).

Mean Q10 was higher in warmed plots than in unwarmed plots (3.28 ± 0.74 vs. 2.24 ± 0.56) (Fig 4A; S1 Table). When RR values obtained from the incubation at 40°C were used, Q10 averaged 3.54 ± 0.48 in W+ and 3.01 ± 0.96 in W+N+, whereas it had mean values of 2.45 ± 0.70 in C plots, 1.98 ± 0.18 in N+ plots (S1 Table), and 2.13 ± 0.56 in samples outside the experimental plots (S2 Table). The removal of RR values obtained from the incubation at 40°C had little impact on Q10 values, which averaged 2.86 ± 0.70, 3.26 ± 0.70 in W+ and W+N+ plots, and 2.49 ± 0.50 and 2.71 ± 0.79 in C and N+ plots.

Fig 4. Impact of soil warming and CNA on the temperature sensitivity and the basal rate of forest floor respiration.

Fig 4

(A) Mean (± SD) Q10 and (B) mean (± SD) B values in “warmed” and “unwarmed” experimental plots with no canopy N addition (CNA-) or with canopy N addition (CNA+). Different letters indicate a significant effect of soil warming on Q10 and B values (ANOVA with warming and CNA treatments as independent variables; P < 0.05).

Mean B was significantly lower in warmed than in unwarmed plots (1.87 ± 1.35 vs. 4.94 ± 2.87 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-) (Fig 4B; S1 Table). The removal of RR values from the incubation at 40°C decreased the differences among treatments although B remained 30% lower in warmed than in unwarmed plots (1.98 ± 0.73 vs. 3.03 ± 1.67 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1; S1 Table). When all incubation temperatures were included in the analysis, B averaged 1.23 ± 0.9 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h- in W+ and 2.51 ± 1.6 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in W+N+, whereas the values were 4.43 ± 4.0 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in C plots, 5.45 ± 1.96 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in N+ plots (S1 Table) and 5.78 ± 2.49 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in samples from outside the experimental plots (S2 Table). Without RR values from the incubation at 40°C, B averaged 2.23 ± 0.74 and 1.74 ± 0.77 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in W+ and W+N+ plots, and 3.05 ± 0.83 and 3.00 ± 2.50 μg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in C and N+ plots (S1 Table).

There was no effect of CNA, nor any interaction between soil warming and CNA on Q10 and B (Table 1). Forest floor chemistry was not impacted by any of the treatments (S3 Table). Total N and C concentrations ranged between 1.2 and 1.3%, and between 43 and 49% across treatments, respectively (Table 2). The C:N ratio ranged between 35 and 41 across all treatments.

Table 2. Forest floor N (%), C (%) and C:N ratio.

Treatment N (%) C (%) C:N
C 1.2 ± 0.2 a 43.0 ± 5.4 a 35.3 ± 3.7 a
N+ 1.2 ± 0.1 a 49.0 ± 2.5 a 41.4 ± 3.3 a
W+ 1.3 ± 0.1 a 47.6 ± 2.7 a 37.9 ± 2.4 a
W+N+ 1.2 ± 0.0 a 46.7 ± 3.0 a 38.8 ± 2.9 a

Values (mean ± SD; n = 3) are shown for the four experimental treatments (C, N+, W+ and W+N+) after nine years. For each variable, values not sharing the same letter are significantly different (ANOVA; P ≤ 0.05).

Relationships among soil variables, treatments and slope position

The first two axes of the PCA explained 39.5% and 25.8% of the total variation, respectively (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Principal component analysis (PCA).

Fig 5

Projection of eight soil variables (Q10, B, C:N and alkyl:O-alkyl C ratios, and percentages of alkyl, O-alkyl, carboxyl and aromatic compounds), and sample scores for inside and outside experimental plots (n = 24) along the two first axes of a PCA. Red, black and blue symbols show upper, back and lower slope positions, respectively.

For PC1, Q10 was associated with the percentage of alkyl C and the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio, and Q10 was diametrically opposed to B, which was associated with the C:N ratio and the percentage of aromatic compounds along both axes. Forest floor samples from the W+ and W+N+ plots were situated generally on the left-hand side of the ordination along PC1, whereas samples from the N+ plots were mostly placed on the right-hand side. Control (C) and outside samples were scattered throughout the two-dimension space. Samples collected from the upper slope sites were associated with high Q10, percentage of alkyl C and alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio. Samples collected from the back and lower slopes were mostly associated with high B values, C:N ratios and the percentage of aromatic compounds.

Effect of the landform on forest floor organic matter chemical composition

Slope position (upper, back and lower slopes) significantly altered the percentage of alkyl C and O-alkyl C and the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio (Table 1). The alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio decreased and B increased moving from the upper to the lower slope (Fig 6A and 6B). This trend was observed regardless of the experimental treatment, both within and outside of the experimental plots (data not shown).

Fig 6. Effect of the slope position on forest floor organic C quality.

Fig 6

(A) Forest floor alkyl:O-alkyl C ratio (mean ± SD; n = 24) and (B) B parameter (mean ± SD; n = 24) in the upper, back, and lower slope positions. Values not sharing the same letters are significantly different (ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test; P < 0.05).

Discussion

Effect of incubation temperature and experimental treatments on the forest floor RR

As reported in most laboratory studies (see [5] for a review), RR significantly increased in an exponential manner with the incubation temperature. This pattern is due to a combination of increased microbial and enzymatic activity as well as increased availability of easily decomposable C substrates [2,8]. As shown on Fig 2, the removal of the incubation at 40°C had in some instances an impact on the rate of increase of RR with incubation temperature and on the RR at 0°C (k and B parameters, respectively), which suggests that the chosen range of incubation temperature can impact the results in this type of studies. Although the incubation temperatures that we used were higher than those experienced in boreal forests, we believe they did not significantly biased our results because i) all samples were submitted to the same temperature range, ii) using a large incubation temperature range allowed detecting RR differences that would have otherwise not been detected, and iii) using a large range of incubation temperatures resulted in stronger relationships (RR = f(T)) and more robust model parameters. We also took care to reduce the incubation duration at high temperatures so as to obtain similar CO2 concentrations among incubation temperature treatments.

The absence of a significant difference in RR between the control plots (C treatment) and samples collected outside of the experimental plots across the range of incubation temperatures (paired t-test; P = 0.47) confirms that the presence of the heating cables did not disturb the forest floor and did not have any impact on measured variables. In the control plots and the outside samples, Q10 values averaged 2.45 ± 0.70 and 2.13 ± 0.56, respectively. These values are consistent with the range of values (2.4–3.2) reported for boreal forests [7,8,44,45,49] and other cold ecosystems [6,12,54,55], but slightly higher than those reported in other studies (1.55 in subalpine coniferous forests in southern California [24], 1.81 in evergreen broadleaf forests in China [55]). These comparisons should nevertheless be made with caution because several factors, such as the temperature [19,56] and the duration of incubations [13,19], the methods of Q10 calculation [5], sampling seasons [9] and the depth of soil sampling [45,46] all impact temperature sensitivity values. The soil moisture level that we used (85%) may also have slightly overestimated the measured RR values, as suggested by a recent study which reports higher Q10 of soil RR at higher (80–100% WHC) than at lower incubation soil moisture (20–60%) [48].

Effect of soil warming on forest floor organic C quality and on the temperature sensitivity of respiration rate

Our data show that nine years of soil warming in the field had a significant impact on both B and the Q10 of RR (Fig 4). The large decrease in B (i.e. the respiration rate at 0°C inferred from the intercept of the regression curve with 0 °C) caused by soil warming is in accordance with another recent study [7] which reports a 50% lower RR at 0 °C after four years of soil warming in a balsam fir stand. It is also consistent with observations of a lower bioreactivity of C substrates in soils from black spruce forests located in warmer climates than those found in colder climates [45]. Similarly, a 3-year soil warming experiment (+4°C) in a boreal forest in Quebec produced a significantly reduced mineralizable SOC pool (by 16–25% on average) and, therefore, a decrease in the average quality of the total SOC [8], likely due to higher enzymatic and microbial activities in warmed plots [1,2,18]. The B parameter is thought to be a good indicator of organic C quality [1,17,36,57]. The lower the B parameter, the lower the quality of the SOC substrate. Nevertheless, our data indicate that the ~70% decrease in B caused by soil warming alone (W+ treatment) was not accompanied by a significant change in FF organic C chemical composition. The absence of an impact on the proportion of aromatic compounds suggests that the degradation of lignin and other aromatic compounds was not enhanced, a result that contrasts with a previous study that showed that 14 months of soil warming significantly reduced the abundance of lignin in the soil due to increased fungal biomass, i.e., main lignin decomposer [58]. Soil warming did not induce a change in the forest floor total C concentration either (Table 2), suggesting that the labile organic C pool was not significantly reduced. This may have resulted from i) the low size of the labile organic C pool relative to the total C pool and C inputs through litterfall at our site; ii) an insignificant change in the integrated net CO2 efflux from the soil over the nine years of the experiment at field temperatures. We cannot confirm this hypothesis from the present data as no RR were measured in situ. Nevertheless, our incubation data show that soil warming did not strongly impact forest floor RR at field temperatures (<32°C). This treatment mainly impacted forest floor RR at higher temperatures (Fig 2), which rarely occur in the field. The decrease in B may instead have resulted from changes in abiotic factors such as substrate or nutrient availability, as well as from changes in soil microbial composition and activity. Soil warming can indeed induce shifts in soil microbial populations and species [5961], as well as in microbial physiological functioning [62], which both impact the respiration rate-temperature relationship and C substrate use efficiency. Therefore, the possibility of a microbial shift, which reduced respiration rate at low temperature over the nine years of the experiment could be an explanation of the observed decrease in B in warmed plots.

The soil warming treatment also increased the mean Q10 of forest floor RR by ~45% compared to the control plots, which corroborates some studies [6,7,45] and contrasts with others reporting either no change or even a decrease in Q10 after in situ soil warming [8,9,12,20,21,54]. Several factors, such as ecosystem types, methodological and experimental differences may explain a part of these contrasted results among studies. For instance, three years of artificial warming produced a 27% increase in Q10 in balsam fir stands in Canada, whereas no effect was found for black spruce stands [7]. In contrast, soil warming resulted in a ~20% reduction in Q10 at a 45–55 cm depth in the Alaskan tundra [54] and in tallgrass prairie [12] as well as a slight decrease in Swedish [9] and eastern Canadian [8] boreal forests. The method of soil warming in the field, which can be performed or simulated in various ways (with heating cables [8,9,11,12], overhead heaters [6,63], by increasing snow cover during winter [54] or by transplanting soil cores to warmer sites [7,21]), may also contribute to the differences observed among studies. In addition, Q10 can vary locally as it is influenced by a multitude of factors including temperature [2,3], C quality, quantity and composition [1,5,17], C substrate availability for decomposers [64,65], physical and chemical protection of C substrates [1,64,65], the depth at which SOC is located [45,46,54], as well as the microbial community composition and structure, which all influence the respiration rate either directly or indirectly [66].

Several studies have found increasing Q10 when coupled with a decrease in C quality [1719,54], which agrees with the Arrhenius function, predicting that reactants having a higher activation energy (i.e., more recalcitrant) should have a higher temperature sensitivity [1,17,57]. The strong negative relationship between Q10 and B (Fig 3) is consistent with this theory and suggests that the increase in RR temperature sensitivity caused by soil warming resulted from a decrease in C quality. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, the decrease in C quality was not supported by the NMR analyses which did not reveal any significant change in the organic C composition of the FF, except in upper slope plots (see below). This observed discrepancy between the decrease in B and the absence of change in organic C composition may be due to the fact that B was not measured but inferred mathematically from RR data at higher temperatures. This method may have exacerbated the strength of the relationship between B and Q10. However, the so-called C quality—temperature theory is not always supported by experimental data. For instance, a recent study conducted in eastern Canada black spruce forests reported that a higher recalcitrance of SOM was not associated with a higher Q10 of RR in the organic layers [45]. Other studies have also found that the Q10 of SOC decomposition was not necessarily higher for slow-decomposing C substrates [36,67]. This is because this relationship holds as long as C substrate availability remains high and when organic C is not protected from microorganisms by minerals, which is not always the case in the field.

Although our data show a clear impact of soil warming on both B and the Q10 of forest floor RR, our results may have been slightly different if we had used another range of incubation temperatures. Boreal forest floors never experience temperatures as high as 40°C. These conditions may have somehow perturbed soil microorganisms and modified their metabolic activity. Therefore, parameter values may have been slightly different if the samples had been incubated at lower temperatures. As shown in Fig 2B and 2k parameters were sometimes significantly different when the incubations at 40°C were not included in the analysis. Although the trends were similar (i.e., higher Q10 and lower B in warmed plots as compared to unwarmed plots), the effect of soil warming on Q10 and B was not significant after the values of the incubation at 40°C were removed from the data set (S1 Table).

Effect of N addition on the temperature sensitivity of forest floor’s respiration rate and organic C chemistry

Although N fertilization can stimulate SOM decomposition in N-limited environments [25], the chronic addition of N can reduce soil microbial and fungal biomass activities, thereby reducing soil RR and SOM decomposition [28,29,31,68] and increasing SOC accumulation [2628]. For instance, N addition consistently decreased soil microbial RR and microbial biomass by 11% and 35%, respectively, across a large range of soils collected in North America over a year-long incubation period [68]. In the boreal forests of Sweden, soil RR was also reduced by 11% after 50 kg N yr-1 ha-1 of fertilization [27]. In the temperate forests of Massachusetts, 20 years of N fertilization resulted in the accumulation of between 5 and 25 kg C kg-1 N added per hectare [31]. In the present, nine years of N addition had no impact on the temperature sensitivity of RR and on the quality of the organic C of the forest floor (Table 1) nor on C and N contents (Table 2). In addition CNA did not significantly impact the molecular composition of the organic C, which contrasts with other studies reporting an increase in the abundance of plant-derived alkyl structures [29] or an enrichment of lignin-like C structures [69]. This, however, does not indicate that no molecular shifts happened in the soil profile. Nitrogen fertilization can have no effect on the percentages of alkyl C, O-alkyl C and carboxyl C in the forest floor, yet still produce a significant effect on the mineral soil and the particulate OM [26].

The absence of any significant effect from N addition was probably due to the relatively low amount of N actually introduced to the forest floor by our experimental setup. Several studies have shown that a large fraction of N deposition, especially NH4+, is intercepted by the canopy in boreal forests [70] as well as by the moss layer [71]; thus, a significant fraction of the added N may have failed to reach the forest floor in our experiment. This fraction may have been especially significant because of the low N inputs rates that were applied to the canopy. Our N addition treatment intended to simulate realistic changes in N deposition rates and was therefore much lower (0.30–0.35 kg N ha-1 yr-1 as compared to “natural” inputs of 1.1–1.6 kg N ha-1 yr-1 during the growing season) than the N fertilization rates in studies that report significant impacts of N addition on soil characteristics (e.g., 50 kg N ha-1 yr-1 [27]; 50–150 kg N ha-1 yr-1 [31]). Fertilization rates of 50–150 kg N ha-1 yr-1 may have impacted soil characteristics at our site, but these rates are not relevant to boreal forests of the region, which receive low levels (~ 5 kg N ha-1 yr-1) of N deposition [70]. It is unlikely that the lack of effect of N addition resulted from a shortage of fresh and easily decomposable C substrates required to decompose more recalcitrant SOM as documented in other studies [24]. The strong negative relationship that we found between B and Q10 agrees with the Arrhenius law and therefore suggests that C substrates were not limiting to microorganisms.

Effect of slope position on organic C quality and temperature sensitivity of RR

Topographic position has a strong influence on soil moisture and hence on other soil properties, such as nutrient availability and SOM characteristics [7274]. It is therefore an important factor controlling soil processes in boreal landscapes. Our data show a clear decrease in the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio and an increase in B from the upper to lower slope positions. Although we have not measured soil moisture in the field, it is very likely that there was a gradient from the top to the bottom of the slope, explaining these differences in soil characteristics. Most of the O-alkyl region corresponds to labile and easily degraded OM constituents, such as carbohydrates and peptides/proteins as well as methoxy C that is found in both lignin and peptides. More recalcitrant forms of OM resonate within the alkyl region [75,76]. As such, the alkyl:O-alkyl carbon ratio typically increases with progressive biodegradation of labile OM components, and thus the ratio is often used to compare the relative stages of SOM degradation. The gradients in alkyl C:O-alkyl C and B therefore indicate an increase in organic C quality from the upper to the lower slopes, although landform units were only separated by 10–20 m. A similar pattern was observed in Arctic ecosystems, where lower slope areas generally store relatively more labile C than the upper and back slope locations that are characterized by drier soils with more recalcitrant SOM [77]. This landscape pattern of SOM quality is thought to result directly from higher soil moisture in the lower slopes that i) limits microbial decomposition of SOM and hence promotes the accumulation of labile SOM [72] and ii) favours the growth of vegetation and the production of fresh litter [74]. Some dissolved organic C (DOC) may also migrate from the upper to the lower slope, which may enrich the labile fraction of SOC at the bottom of the slope. The ANOVA we performed showed no significant interaction between slope position and treatment, indicating that the impact of treatment was similar regardless of the position along the slope.

Conclusion

Nine years of in-situ soil warming from April to July increased the temperature sensitivity of forest floor RR and decreased its basal respiration rate at a boreal forest site. This result agrees with the C quality—temperature hypothesis but the absence of a significant change in the molecular composition of the forest floor organic C suggests that a shift in microbial composition and physiological rate also contributed to this result. The changes induced by soil warming were however not significant enough to impact forest floor C concentration in the long term. In contrast, our study reveals a significant impact of topography on forest floor organic matter chemical composition. Higher alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratios and lower B in upper than in lower slope plots point towards lower organic C quality in upper slope, likely due to lower moisture levels. The absence of interaction between the slope position and soil warming shows that the effect of soil warming was the same regardless of topography. In contrast with our initial hypothesis, N addition had no effect on the studied variables, likely due to a combination of low N inputs and N retention by the canopy and the moss layer. Overall, the decrease in B due to soil warming implies that the rate of decomposition of forest floor organic C pool in early spring—when soil temperature is low will likely be lower in the future (under a warmer climate) than it is today. Contrarily, the increase in the temperature sensitivity of RR may result in higher CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere during hot summer days in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal rate (B) of forest floor respiration.

Q10 and B parameters values are shown for each landform unit of the four experimental plots (C, N+, W+ and W+N+) and in outside-plot samples after nine years of treatment. Mean values (± SD) for each treatment are shown in bold.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal rate (B) of forest floor respiration.

Q10 and B parameters values for each landform unit outside the experimental plots after nine years of treatment. Mean values (± SD) for each treatment are shown in bold.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Forest floor chemical composition and characteristics.

Values (mean ± SD; n = 3) are shown for samples collected from the four treatments (C, N+, W+ and W+N+) after nine years of the in-situ experiment. No significant differences were found between treatments for any of the studied variables (one-way ANOVA; P > 0.05). Organic matter (OM) content was measured by weight loss on ignition (360 °C), total N and C contents by combustion, and P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Fe and S concentrations by ICP-AES following Mehlich 3 extraction method.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Differences in soil temperature (Δ Temperature) between unwarmed and warmed plots.

Differences on a daily basis in (a) the upper slope and (c) the back slope. Differences on a monthly basis (mean ± SD) in (b) the upper slope and (d) the back slope between 2008 and 2018. Months 1 and 12 are January and December, respectively.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Relationship between forest floor mean respiration rate (Forest floor RR, μg C-CO2·g-1·C·h-1) and incubation temperatures (°C) for soil samples collected outside the experimental plots.

Relationships are shown for the four experimental treatments (C: control; N+: CNA; W+: soil warming; W+N+: combined soil warming and CNA). The rows and the columns show the treatments and replicates for each treatment, respectively. Curves were obtained by fitting a first-order exponential equation (RR = Bek.T).

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Data_PlosOne.xlsx.

Respiration rates, B, Q10, C and N concentrations, and percentages of several chemical functional groups in the forest floor (FF) collected within and outside the experimental plots.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by fundings from CRSNG/NSERC (Strategic Project Grants), Fonds de Recherche Nature et Technologies du Québec, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Ouranos, Mitacs, Centre SÈVE, and la Fondation UQAC. We would like to thank Patrick Nadeau and Claire Fournier for technical assistance, and Xavier Plante and Catherine Tremblay for their help.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

JP, HM, DH, NT, MP and RLB received funding from CRSNG/NSERC (Strategic Project Grants), Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (MFFP) and Ouranos. RLB received funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Nature et Technologies (FRQNT) and Centre SÈVE. JP received funding from Mitacs. CM received funding from la Fondation de l’université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Davidson EA, Janssens IA. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature [Internet]. 2006. March 9 [cited 2011 Jun 11];440(7081):165–73. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16525463 10.1038/nature04514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Conant RT, Ryan MG, Ågren GI, Birge HE, Davidson EA., Eliasson PE, et al. Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates—synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob Chang Biol [Internet]. 2011. Nov 2 [cited 2013 Oct 22];17(11):3392–404. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kirschbaum MUFF. The temperature dependence of soil organic matter decomposition, and the effect of global warming on soil organic C storage. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 1995;27(6):753–60. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/003807179400242S [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Melillo JM, Frey SD, Deangelis KM, Werner WJ, Bernard MJ, Bowles FP, et al. Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science (80-). 2017;358:101–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hamdi S, Moyano F, Sall S, Bernoux M, Chevallier T. Synthesis analysis of the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration from laboratory studies in relation to incubation methods and soil conditions. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2013;58:115–26. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Aguilos M, Takagi K, Liang N, Watanabe Y, Teramoto M, Goto S, et al. Sustained large stimulation of soil heterotrophic respiration rate and its temperature sensitivity by soil warming in a cool-temperate forested peatland. Tellus, Ser B Chem Phys Meteorol. 2013;65(1):0–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tremblay SL, D’Orangeville L, Lambert MC, Houle D. Transplanting boreal soils to a warmer region increases soil heterotrophic respiration as well as its temperature sensitivity. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2018;116(October 2017):203–12. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.10.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.D’Orangeville L, Côté B, Houle D, Whalen J. Reduced mineralizable carbon in a boreal forest soil after three years of artificial warming. Can J Soil Sci [Internet]. 2013;93(5):567–72. Available from: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/abs/10.4141/cjss2013-046 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bronson DR, Gower ST, Tanner M, Linder S, Van Herk I. Response of soil surface CO2 flux in a boreal forest to ecosystem warming. Glob Chang Biol [Internet]. 2007;14(4):856–67. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01508.x [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schinlbacher A, Schnecker G, Takriti M, Borken W, Wanek W. Microbial physiology and soil CO2 efflux after 9 years of soil warming in a temperate forest–no indications for thermal adaptations. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21:4265–77. 10.1111/gcb.12996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Melillo JM, Steudler PA, Aber JD, Newkirk K, Lux H, Bowles FP, et al. Soil warming and carbon-cycle feedbacks to the climate system. Science (80-). 2002;298(5601):2173–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Luo Y, Wan S, Hui D, Wallace LL. Acclimatization of soil respiration to warming in a tall grass prairie. Nature. 2001;413(6856):622–5. 10.1038/35098065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bradford MA, Davies CA, Frey SD, Maddox TR, Melillo JM, Mohan JE, et al. Thermal adaptation of soil microbial respiration to elevated temperature. Ecol Lett. 2008;11(12):1316–27. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01251.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dalias P, Anderson JM, Bottner P, Coûteaux MM. Temperature responses of carbon mineralization in conifer forest soils from different regional climates incubated under standard laboratory conditions. Glob Chang Biol. 2001;7(2):181–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Walker TWN, Kaiser C, Strasser F, Herbold CW, Leblans NIW, Woebken D, et al. Microbial temperature sensitivity and biomass change explain soil carbon loss with warming. Nat Clim Chang [Internet]. 2018;8(10):885–9. Available from: 10.1038/s41558-018-0259-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Houle D, Bouffard A, Duchesne L, Logan T, Harvey R. Projections of Future Soil Temperature and Water Content for Three Southern Quebec Forested Sites. J Clim [Internet]. 2012. November [cited 2012 Nov 13];25(21):7690–701. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00440.1 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fierer N, Craine JM, Mclauchlan KK, Schimel JP. Litter quality and the temperature sensitivity of decomposition. Ecology. 2005;86(2):320–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Conant RT, Drijber RA, Haddix ML, Parton WJ, Paul EA, Plante AF, et al. Sensitivity of organic matter decomposition to warming varies with its quality. Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14(4):868–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Conant RT, Steinweg MJ, Haddix ML, Paul EA, Plante AF, Six J. Experimental warming shows that decomposition temperature sensitivity increases with soil organic matter recalcitrance. Ecology [Internet]. 2008;89(9):2384–91. Available from: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/08-0137.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Noh NJ, Kuribayashi M, Saitoh TM, Nakaji T, Nakamura M, Hiura T, et al. Responses of soil, heterotrophic, and autotrophic respiration to experimental open-field soil warming in a cool-temperate deciduous forest. Ecosystems. 2016;19(3):504–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vanhala P, Karhu K, Tuomi M, Björklöf K, Fritze H, Hyvärinen H, et al. Transplantation of organic surface horizons of boreal soils into warmer regions alters microbiology but not the temperature sensitivity of decomposition. Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17(1):538–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hobbie SE, Nadelhoffer KJ, Högberg P. A synthesis: The role of nutrients as constraints on carbon balances in boreal and arctic regions. Plant Soil. 2002;242(1):163–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schimel JP, Bennett JB. Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology. 2004;85(3):591–602. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Eberwein JR, Oikawa PY, Allsman LA, Jenerette GD. Carbon availability regulates soil respiration response to nitrogen and temperature. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2015;88:158–64. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.05.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Knorr AM, Frey SD, Curtis PS. Nitrogen additions and litter decomposition : A meta-analysis. Ecology. 2005;86(12):3252–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zak DR, Freedman ZB, Upchurch RA, Steffens M, Kögel-Knabner I. Anthropogenic N deposition increases soil organic matter accumulation without altering its biochemical composition. Glob Chang Biol [Internet]. 2017. February;23(2):933–44. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/gcb.13480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Maaroufi NI, Nordin A, Hasselquist NJ, Bach LH, Palmqvist K, Gundale MJ. Anthropogenic nitrogen deposition enhances carbon sequestration in boreal soils. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21(8):3169–80. 10.1111/gcb.12904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Janssens IA, Dieleman W, Luyssaert S, Subke JA, Reichstein M, Ceulemans R, et al. Reduction of forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition. Nat Geosci [Internet]. 2010;3:315–22. Available from: 10.1038/ngeo844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pisani O, Frey SD, Simpson AJ, Simpson MJ. Soil warming and nitrogen deposition alter soil organic matter composition at the molecular-level. Biogeochemistry. 2015;123(3):391–409. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Frey SD, Knorr M, Parrent JL, Simpson RT. Chronic nitrogen enrichment affects the structure and function of the soil microbial community in temperate hardwood and pine forests. For Ecol Manage. 2004;196(1):159–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Frey SD, Ollinger S, Nadelhoffer K, Bowden R, Brzostek E, Burton A, et al. Chronic nitrogen additions suppress decomposition and sequester soil carbon in temperate forests. Biogeochemistry. 2014;121(2):305–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science (80-). 2011;333(July):988–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lal R. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. For Ecol Manage [Internet]. 2005. December 10 [cited 2011 Aug 1];220(1–3):242–58. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112705004834 [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Laganière J, Paré D, Bergeron Y, Chen HYH, Brassard BW, Cavard X. Stability of soil carbon stocks varies with forest composition in the Canadian boreal biome. Ecosystems [Internet]. 2013. March 21 [cited 2013 Jul 19];16(5):852–65. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10021-013-9658-z [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Frey SD, Drijber R, Smith H, Melillo J. Microbial biomass, functional capacity, and community structure after 12 years of soil warming. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2008;40(11):2904–7. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tang J, Cheng H, Fang C. The temperature sensitivity of soil organic carbon decomposition is not related to labile and recalcitrant carbon. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Houle D, Bouffard A, Duchesne L, Logan T, Harvey R. Projections of Future Soil Temperature and Water Content for Three Southern Quebec Forested Sites. J Clim [Internet]. 2012. November [cited 2013 Oct 7];25(21):7690–701. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00440.1 [Google Scholar]
  • 38.De Barba D, Rossi S, Deslauriers A, Morin H. Effects of soil warming and nitrogen foliar applications on bud burst of black spruce. Trees. 2016;30:87–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dao MCE, Rossi S, Walsh D, Morin H, Houle D. A 6-year-long manipulation with soil warming and canopy nitrogen additions does not affect xylem phenology and cell production of mature black spruce. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:877 10.3389/fpls.2015.00877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rossi S, Bordeleau A, Morin H, Houle D. The effects of N-enriched rain and warmer soil on the ectomycorrhizae of black spruce remain inconclusive in the short term. Ann For Sci. 2013;70:825–834. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rossi S, Morin H, Deslauriers A. Multi-scale influence of snowmelt on xylogenesis of black spruce. Arctic, Antarct Alp Res. 2011;43:457–464. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lupi C, Morin H, Deslauriers A, Rossi S, Houle D. Increasing nitrogen availability and soil temperature: effects on xylem phenology and anatomy of mature black spruce. Can J For Res. 2012;42(1277–1288). [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ouimet R, Duchesne L. Dépôts atmosphériques dans les forêts au Québec: retombées actuelles et tendances au cours des 20 à 30 dernières années. Le Nat Can. 2009;133(1):56–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Laganière J, Paré D, Bergeron Y, Chen HYH. The effect of boreal forest composition on soil respiration is mediated through variations in soil temperature and C quality. Soil Biol Biochem. 2012;53:18–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Laganière J, Podrebarac F, Billings SA, Edwards KA, Ziegler SE. A warmer climate reduces the bioreactivity of isolated boreal forest soil horizons without increasing the temperature sensitivity of respiratory CO2 loss. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;84:177–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fierer N, Allen AS, Schimel JP, Holden PA. Controls on microbial CO2 production: A comparison of surface and subsurface soil horizons. Glob Chang Biol. 2003;9(9):1322–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Moyano FE, Manzoni S, Chenu C. Responses of soil heterotrophic respiration to moisture availability: An exploration of processes and models. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2013. April [cited 2013 Mar 6];59:72–85. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0038071713000138 [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhou W, Hui D, Shen W. Effects of soil moisture on the temperature sensitivity of soil heterotrophic respiration: a laboratory incubation study. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92531 10.1371/journal.pone.0092531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fierer N, Colman BP, Schimel JP, Jackson RB. Predicting the temperature dependence of microbial respiration in soil : A continental-scale analysis. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2006;20:GB3026. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org.; 2015.
  • 51.Conte P, Spaccini R, Piccolo A. State of the art of CPMAS 13C-NMR spectroscopy applied to natural organic matter. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2004;44:215–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Preston CM, Trofymow JA, Sayer BG, Niu J. 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with cross-polarization and magic-angle spinning investigation of the proximate-analysis fractions used to assess litter quality in decomposition studies. Can J Bot. 1997;75(9):1601–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Baldock JA, Oades JM, Waters AG, Peng X, Vassallo AM, Wilson MA. Aspects of the chemical structure of soil organic materials as revealed by solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy. Biogeochemistry. 1992;16:1–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bracho R, Natali S, Pegoraro E, Crummer KG, Schädel C, Celis G, et al. Temperature sensitivity of organic matter decomposition of permafrost-region soils during laboratory incubations. Soil Biol Biochem. 2016;97:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Peng S, Piao S, Wang T, Sun J, Shen Z. Temperature sensitivity of soil respiration in different ecosystems in China. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2009;41(5):1008–14. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Craine JM, Fierer N, McLauchlan KK, Elmore AJ. Reduction of the temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition with sustained temperature increase. Biogeochemistry. 2013;113(1–3):359–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tuomi M, Vanhala P, Karhu K, Fritze H, Liski J. Heterotrophic soil respiration-Comparison of different models describing its temperature dependence. Ecol Modell. 2008;211(1–2):182–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Feng X, Simpson AJ, Wilson KP, Dudley Williams D, Simpson MJ. Increased cuticular carbon sequestration and lignin oxidation in response to soil warming. Nat Geosci. 2008;1(12):836–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zhang W, Parker KM, Luo Y, Wan S, Wallace LL, Hu S. Soil microbial responses to experimental warming and clipping in a tallgrass prairie. Glob Chang Biol. 2005;11:266–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zogg GP, Zak DR, Ringelberg DB, Macdonald NW, Pregitzer KS, White DC. Compositional and functional shifts in microbial communities due to soil warming. Soil sci Soc Am J. 1993;61:475–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hartley IP, Heinemeyer A, Ineson P. Effects of three years of soil warming and shading on the rate of soil respiration : substrate availability and not thermal acclimation mediates observed response. Glob Chang Biol. 2007;13:1761–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Liu D, Keiblinger KM, Schindlbacher A, Wegner U, Sun H, Fuchs S, et al. Microbial functionality as affected by experimental warming of a temperate mountain forest soil—A metaproteomics survey. Appl Soil Ecol [Internet]. 2017;117–118(May):196–202. Available from: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.04.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Saleska SR, Harte J, Torn MS. The effect of experimental ecosystem warming on CO2 fluxes in a montane meadow. Glob Chang Biol. 1999;5(2):125–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Moinet GYK, Hunt JE, Kirschbaum MUF, Morcom CP, Midwood AJ, Millard P. The temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition is constrained by microbial access to substrates. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2018;116(October 2017):333–9. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.10.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Fontaine S, Barot S, Barré P, Bdioui N, Mary B, Rumpel C. Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature [Internet]. 2007. November 8 [cited 2013 Sep 24];450(7167):277–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17994095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Six J, Frey SD, Thiet RK, Batten KM. Bacterial and Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Am J [Internet]. 2006;70(2):555 Available from: https://www.soils.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/70/2/555 [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Benbi DK, Boparai AK, Brar K. Decomposition of particulate organic matter is more sensitive to temperature than the mineral associated organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem [Internet]. 2014;70:183–92. Available from: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.12.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ramirez KS, Craine JM, Fierer N. Consistent effects of nitrogen amendments on soil microbial communities and processes across biomes. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1918–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Liu J, Wu N, Wang H, Sun J, Peng B, Jiang P, et al. Nitrogen addition affects chemical compositions of plant tissues, litter and soil organic matter. Ecology. 2016;97:1796–806. 10.1890/15-1683.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Houle D, Marty C, Duschesne L. Response of nitrogen canopy uptake to a rapid decrease in bulk nitrate deposition in two eastern Canadian boreal forests. Oecologia. 2015;(177):29–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gundale MJ, Deluca TH, Nordin A. Bryophytes attenuate anthropogenic nitrogen inputs in boreal forests. Glob Chang Biol [Internet]. 2011. August 1 [cited 2011 Aug 18];17(8):2743–53. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02407.x [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Hobbie SE, Schimel JP, Trumbore SE, Randerson JR. Controls over carbon storage and turnover in high-latitude soils. Glob Chang Biol. 2000;6:196–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Yano Y, Shaver GR, Giblin AE, Rastetter EB, Nadelhoffer KJ. Nitrogen dynamics in a small arctic watershed: Retention and downhill movement of15N. Ecol Monogr. 2010;80(2):331–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Paré MC, Bedard-Haughn A. Landscape-scale N mineralization and greenhouse gas emissions in Canadian Cryosols. Geoderma. 2012;189–190:469–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Simpson MJ, Simpson AJ. The Chemical Ecology of Soil Organic Matter Molecular Constituents. J Chem Ecol. 2012;38(6):768–84. 10.1007/s10886-012-0122-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kögel-Knabner I. The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem. 2002;34:139–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Paré MC, Bedard-Haughn A. Soil organic matter quality influences mineralization and GHG emissions in cryosols: A field-based study of sub- to high Arctic. Glob Chang Biol. 2013;19(4):1126–40. 10.1111/gcb.12125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Julian Aherne

9 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-14747

In-situ soil warming increases the recalcitrance and temperature sensitivity of forest floor organic carbon in a boreal forest: A nine-year landscape-scale study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Pare,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All reviewers have noted the novel contribution of your submission and strongly support its publication. Nonetheless, three of the four reviewers have suggested a number of revisions. While I have indicated 'major revisions', I believe that it should be straightforward to address all their concerns / comments in your revised submission.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The submitted manuscript has been prepared by an expert group of authors. The data base is exceptional and the consequences of soil warming are described. It is surprising that two soil warming experiments in Central Europe are not referenced. Hagedorn (Switzerland) and Schindlbacher (Austria) published many articles on soil warming and had conclusions that are totally in line with the presented data.

The data analysis is very good. I could not think of a reason how to improve the ms.

Reviewer #2: The authors used an unreplicated full-factorial slope*warming*N-addition experiment to evaluate how these factors impact respiration temperature sensitivity and SOM chemistry in a boreal forest site. This paper is very well written and the experimental design is very well thought out. However, some of the results are inconsistent, and I believe additional space would be well-spent addressing why this may be. I provide a few comments below:

Abstract: How can there be increased recalcitrance of the forest floor based on B and Q10, but not on NMR? What kind of changes in SOM composition would there be, and what would it take to see them? Or is this just a statistical power issue?

L100 - if N inputs are low, why add more? Is N deposition expected to increase in coming years? Or is the idea that warming may increase N-mineralization (ex as seen in Melillo PNAS 2011), and so adding N helps parse out the direct warming from indirect nutrient availability effects? Reference 35 doesn't seem like it addresses N deposition rates.

L104 - there are in fact a number of other studies which extended >5 years, including Kessler Farm, Abisko, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, and two studies in Alaska. Perhaps a stronger argument here would be to say that the C-loss and/or respiration dynamics are non-linear through time (ex Melillo 2017), so longer studies are needed to see this.

L148 - why warm April to July? why not May through September?

L203 - I understand that you want a strong respiration response (and that other people use these really high temperatures to try and fit the curve), but wouldn't it be better to focus more on the temperature range the soils experience? There are no error bars in figure 2, but it seems like the model doesn't fit that well at the lower temperatures the soils experience, and so I question the usefulness of the model or conclusions for boreal forests. In my own data, I see a different shaped response temperatures above vs. below the long-term incubation temperature. So I think caution is needed here. Also, does it really take that long to get detectable CO2 production from this soil at lower temperatures? The authors address this in Fig S/43, but only a quick approximation and no statistics confirming similar fits are completed (ie some of the parameters are half in the 16-32C model versus the 16-40C model...and 32C is still hotter than even temperate forest soils get with 5C of warming).

L234 - I don't think this is Q10 (or at least it is not the standard definition of Q10 as (r2/R1)^(T2-T1)/10C. If so, it is confusing that it is called Q10, but is not actually Q10.

L262- did you test the ANOVA assumptions? From figure 3 it seems like your data violates both normality and equal variances assumptions, although it is hard to tell with 3 replicates.

L266 - what is on the x-axis of this regression?

L287 and throughout - please report degrees of freedom with the F statistic.

L394,386 - typo

L422 - Or maybe evidence of direct thermal acclimation (ie shift of respiration optimum) to a higher temperature. Can you parse these drivers? I mean, I guess you could have if you followed Mark Bradford's protocol for looking at the Harvard Forest warming plots with and without substrate addition. This alternative biological explanation seems like it should be particularly discussed in light of there being no observable change in soil chemistry.

Reviewer #3: Long-term warming studies are still rare and the field warming experiment is impressive. Accordingly the paper will receive attention. The combination of an incubation study and NMR measurements makes sense. The whole setup of the incubation study is rather critical, as well as the interpretation of the results. Regarding the setup, authors are quite self-critical in the discussion – with good reason. Below I provide some critical points and probably helpful suggestions for the authors to re-think their interpretation of the results. Before publishing, quite a huge overhaul of the manuscript would be necessary.

Mayor comments:

As mentioned by the authors themselves, incubation of soil or forest floor at temperatures far outside natural site conditions makes interpretation of the results difficult (and are not really comprehensible). A special problem here is that the observed soil respiration at 40°C (which will hopefully never be reached in a boreal forest) strongly influences the target values (Q10, B). Authors also calculated Q10 and B for the temperature range 16-30°C (Suppl. Fig. 3 and 4) and argue that the outcome is similar. I strongly doubt that. In Fig S3 and S4, which show the results, it looks like as if there is no significant difference any more between the treatments Q10 and B (statistical results are not provided here). This, however, would completely change the outcome of the study (no effect on Q10 and only a slight trend towards decreasing B). To my feeling, this outcome is not so spectacular but fits better with the NMR results and the unchanged overall C concentrations.

The interpretation of B (the basal respiration at 0°C) is misleading. In the abstract already, B is denoted as a measure for the recalcitrance of the SOC. This is not correct. B is the CO2 efflux at 0°C and can, for sure, be related to SOC recalcitrance. However, there are also other similar important factors that can influence B. Long term soil warming can change the microbial community and physiology and this can also affect B, probably in a similar strong manner as changes in SOC recalcitrance. This needs to be considered in the whole discussion and interpretation of the data. If B really is a measure for SOC recalcitrance, why is there no difference in the NMR results among the treatments? If the chemical composition of SOC does not change, why should the SOC have become that recalcitrant during the long-term warming? This does not really fit together. Since the B values are largely driven by the CO2 efflux at 40°C, it rather looks like as if microbial physiology plays a role. There already is a lot of literature on the warming effects on soil microbial physiology.

It is interesting that forest floor C composition and concentrations did not change during 9 years of warming (C concentrations are even higher in the warmed plots). For a reader it would be interesting to understand why this is the case. To do so, a reader would need much more information of what’s going on in the field warming experiment. Was there more litter input at the warmed plots? Was there higher soil CO2 efflux? Was there a combination of both? How much C was lost due to warming (rough estimate) already? Was there a massive stock change in forest floor mass and/or C already? Why shall the forest floor material become more recalcitrant (which I doubt a bit)? Is the fresh litter becoming more recalcitrant? I don’t mean that the results of the field warming study should be shown in much detail – just some basic information would be nice to understand what’s going on in the field.

Literature survey could be a bit more extensive. There are quite similar studies available from other long-term experiments e.g. Schindlbacher et al. Global Change Biology 2015 or by the group of Frank Hagedorns group in a high alpine forest. A further long-term warming study took place in a boreal forest in Sweden. See Lim et al Nature Climate Change 2019 and related.

Specific comments:

As mentioned above, I suggest to never assign B totally as “C recalcitrance” and to change this in all headers, text, figures… probably simply change it to “basal respiration”

I have no idea why FTIR was used to measure CO2 concentrations. There would have been much easier ways of doing that.

Abstract last sentence and hypotheses: This is all rather spongy. Which effects are anticipated and why?

Slope aspect is an important and novel part of the experiment (e.g. NMR results). It is however not mentioned in the introduction at all.

L 186: diameter of the cores?

I find it cool that cores where taken additionally outside the plots. This really strengthens the control treatment.

The different incubation time at different soil temperatures will be seen critically.

L331 and elsewhere: in contrast to Q10, B actually has a unit (same as RR). This unit should always be shown with the numbers

L391: well, the difference in RR at 16°C, which best describes field conditions, was very small when compared to the difference in B, which was calculated from 16-40°C…

L475: avoid “quite similar” and terms like this. The statement is incorrect. Curve shape and B and Q10 values are different! (Suppl Fig4).

L480 onwards: in almost all studies which reported an increase in recalcitrance and Q10, warming had decreased C contents and stocks (labile C was respired). In your study c concentrations in warmed plots were higher. How can this fit together? Were C stocks reduced? How responded RR in the field?

That N application had little effects on RR is interesting. Probably this is due to the fact that authors had added reasonable amounts of future N deposition in this study. In many N fertilization studies much higher amounts of N were added, producing unrealistic outcome.

In Fig.2 error bars should be added. Authors may think over exchanging this figure with current Suppl Fig. S3

Fig 3 error bars as well.

Fig 4 and 6 B unit?

Reviewer #4: In this manuscript, a boreal forest site was subjected to soil warming (+2–4 °C) and canopy nitrogen addition (CNA) (+0.30–0.35 kg N ha-1 yr-1) during the growing period to assess the long-term effects of warming and N deposition on the forest floor organic C molecular composition, recalcitrance and temperature sensitivity. The study found that both soil warming and CNA had no significant effect on forest floor chemistry. Soil warming increased Q10 and decreased organic C lability (B). The study also indicated that CNA had no significant effect on the measured soil parameters. This manuscript will be acceptable for publication after revision.

Detailed comments:

1. Line 148. Why was soil warming conducted from April to July? Is this period the main growing season?

2. Lines 155-156. What is the depth of measured soil temperature?

3. Lines 190-191. Why were cores kept at 4 °C in the dark for five months until incubation?

4. The incubation temperature (16, 24, 32, and 40 °C) was not in the general range of temperature in the study site. Was it practical?

5. Did the error bars in figures represent SD or SE?

6. I suggest analyzing the correlation between soil properties (i.e., chemistry, temperature sensitivity, and organic C lability) considering different treatments or all treatments.

7. The C quality-temperature (CQT) hypothesis indicates that Q10 decreases logarithmically with the increase in C quality given the justification of activation energy conditions (e.g., Fierer et al. 2006). Discuss the difference between their logarithmic function and the linear model used in this study.

Fierer N, Colman BP, Schimel JP, Jackson RB (2006) Predicting the temperature dependence of microbial respiration in soil: A continental-scale analysis. Global Biogeochem Cy 20(3):GB3026, doi:10.1029/2005GB002644

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Robert Jandl

Reviewer #2: Yes: Grace Pold

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Dec 26;14(12):e0226909. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226909.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Sep 2019

Reviewer #1: The submitted manuscript has been prepared by an expert group of authors. The data base is exceptional and the consequences of soil warming are described. It is surprising that two soil warming experiments in Central Europe are not referenced. Hagedorn (Switzerland) and Schindlbacher (Austria) published many articles on soil warming and had conclusions that are totally in line with the presented data.

Response: Thank you for the advice. We have included some of Hagedorn’s group publications and Schindelbacher’s 2015 article in our references.

Gonzalez-Dominguez, B., Niklaus, P.A., Studer, M.S., Hagedorn, F., Wacker, L., Haghipour, N., Zimmermann, S., Walthert, L., McIntyre, C., Abiven, S., 2019. Temperature and moisture are minor drivers of regional-scale soil organic carbon dynamics. Sci. Rep. 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42629-5

Lim, H., Oren, R., Näsholm, T., Strömgren, M., Lundmark, T., Grip, H., Linder, S., 2019. Boreal forest biomass accumulation is not increased by two decades of soil warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0373-9

Melillo, J.M., Frey, S.D., Deangelis, K.M., Werner, W.J., Bernard, M.J., Bowles, F.P., Pold, G., Knorr, M.A., Grandy, A.S., 2017. Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science (80-. ). 358, 101–105.

Schinlbacher, A., Schnecker, G., Takriti, M., Borken, W., Wanek, W., 2015. Microbial physiology and soil CO2 efflux after 9 years of soil warming in a temperate forest – no indications for thermal adaptations. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 4265–4277. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12996

The data analysis is very good. I could not think of a reason how to improve the ms.

Reviewer #2:

The authors used an unreplicated full-factorial slope*warming*N-addition experiment to evaluate how these factors impact respiration temperature sensitivity and SOM chemistry in a boreal forest site. This paper is very well written and the experimental design is very well thought out. However, some of the results are inconsistent, and I believe additional space would be well-spent addressing why this may be. I provide a few comments below:

Abstract: How can there be increased recalcitrance of the forest floor based on B and Q10, but not on NMR? What kind of changes in SOM composition would there be, and what would it take to see them? Or is this just a statistical power issue?

Response:

The decrease in B values, supposedly reflecting an increased recalcitrance, was not supported by the NMR analysis. This may indeed result from a lack of statistical power. The observed increasing trend in the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio (P = 0.09) in warmed plots may have been significant with a larger number of replicates.

The observed negative relationship between B and the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio supports the hypothesis that B is a good proxy for organic C recalcitrance/quality. However, as mentioned by the reviewer, the lack of significant change in NMR analyses may also result from a switch to a microbial community that has a higher respiration rate at higher temperatures, and which is respires less at lower temperatures (explaining lower B values).

We now discuss this point in the abstract (L. 49-58), in the discussion (L. 516, L. 527, L. 651) and in the conclusion (L. 730).

L. 49-58: “The NMR and chemical analyses did not show evidence of significant changes in the forest floor organic C quality and concentration, suggesting that the observed changes in Q10 may have resulted from a switch in microbial communities rather than by a change in organic C recalcitrance per se.”

L. 516: “The recalcitrance of organic C in the soil is however increasingly seen as the result of microenvironmental conditions rather than the result of organic C chemical composition (recalcitrance per se) [59,60]. Low B parameter values can indeed potentially result from the type of microbial communities present in the soil, substrate and nutrient availability and other abiotic factors.”

L. 527: “Therefore, the possibility of a shift in the microbial community characterized by a different temperature optimum (less efficient at low temperature) over the nine years of the experiment cannot excluded as a cause for the observed decrease in the B parameter.”

L. 651: “This also supports the hypothesis that part of the decrease in B values in warmed plots resulted from a switch in the microbial composition, whose respiratory activity at low temperature was lower.”

L. 730: “However, the absence of a significant change in the molecular composition of the forest floor organic C suggests that a switch in the microbial community contributed to this result”

L100 - if N inputs are low, why add more? Is N deposition expected to increase in coming years? Or is the idea that warming may increase N-mineralization (ex as seen in Melillo PNAS 2011), and so adding N helps parse out the direct warming from indirect nutrient availability effects? Reference 35 doesn't seem like it addresses N deposition rates.

Response:

Nitrogen deposition is generally low in remote ecosystems such as boreal forests. Although several recent studies have shown that this low N deposition is stabilizing or even decreasing, it was not the case a decade ago when we started the experiment (e.g., Houle et al., 2015). There was still uncertainty regarding the level of future N deposition in the area. We were therefore interested in assessing the interaction between these factors because increased temperatures may be coupled with increased N deposition in this particular ecosystem.

The reference 35 indeed deals with temperatures only. We have modified the sentence (L. 110).

L104 - there are in fact a number of other studies which extended >5 years, including Kessler Farm, Abisko, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, and two studies in Alaska. Perhaps a stronger argument here would be to say that the C-loss and/or respiration dynamics are non-linear through time (ex Melillo 2017), so longer studies are needed to see this.

Response: Thanks for the references. We have added this argument in the introduction and now cite the following studies:

Gonzalez-Dominguez, B., Niklaus, P.A., Studer, M.S., Hagedorn, F., Wacker, L., Haghipour, N., Zimmermann, S., Walthert, L., McIntyre, C., Abiven, S., 2019. Temperature and moisture are minor drivers of regional-scale soil organic carbon dynamics. Sci. Rep. 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42629-5

Lim, H., Oren, R., Näsholm, T., Strömgren, M., Lundmark, T., Grip, H., Linder, S., 2019. Boreal forest biomass accumulation is not increased by two decades of soil warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0373-9

Melillo, J.M., Frey, S.D., Deangelis, K.M., Werner, W.J., Bernard, M.J., Bowles, F.P., Pold, G., Knorr, M.A., Grandy, A.S., 2017. Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science (80-. ). 358, 101–105.

Schinlbacher, A., Schnecker, G., Takriti, M., Borken, W., Wanek, W., 2015. Microbial physiology and soil CO2 efflux after 9 years of soil warming in a temperate forest – no indications for thermal adaptations. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 4265–4277. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12996

L148 - why warm April to July? why not May through September?

Response:

The reason is that we wanted to anticipate snow melting and focus on the beginning of the growing season (initiation of wood cells production) rather than at the end. At this site, snow starts melting in late April/early May some years.

L203 - I understand that you want a strong respiration response (and that other people use these really high temperatures to try and fit the curve), but wouldn't it be better to focus more on the temperature range the soils experience?

Response:

Soil temperature values do not (and probably will not) reach 40°C in the Canadian boreal forest. We used an incubation at 40°C because we wanted strong and rapid CO2 efflux responses. In addition, having a large range of incubation temperatures allows to test the robustness of our fitting curves. The R2 of the models are indeed higher with the incubation at 40°C (Fig 2). We are confident that this temperature is not a problem for at least two reasons:

First, all soil samples were incubated at the same temperatures and were therefore “biased” in the same way. Although the absolute Q10 and B values must be taken with caution, the comparison of these parameters among treatments is totally justified because there is no reason to think that some treatments would be more biased than others. Some studies (e.g., Fierer et al., 2006) compared Q10 and B values of different soils from different ecosystems with the same method. These authors used the same range of incubation temperature for all soils, although the natural temperature range of the sites differed widely.

Second, we totally agree that a switch in microbial community may have happened. But this switch certainly occurred in the field due to 9 years of soil warming, not during the incubation which lasted for only a few hours. A switch to a new microbial community with higher respiration potential at high temperatures may have occurred in warmed plots. This would explain the combination of lower B (respiration rate at low temperature) and higher Q10 (driven by high respiration rate at high temperature) in these plots. Therefore, having a large range of incubation temperature like in our study was not a problem but rather an advantage, because it allowed to reveal this switch (the RR difference among treatments is more marked at 40°C than at 24°C).

Reference:

Fierer, N., Colman, B.P., Schimel, J.P., Jackson, R.B., 2006. Predicting the temperature dependence of microbial respiration in soil : A continental-scale analysis. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB3026. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002644

There are no error bars in figure 2, but it seems like the model doesn't fit that well at the lower temperatures the soils experience, and so I question the usefulness of the model or conclusions for boreal forests. In my own data, I see a different shaped response temperatures above vs. below the long-term incubation temperature. So I think caution is needed here.

Response: There is no error bar because each point corresponds to a single value. It is not clear why the reviewer says the models do not fit values at low temperatures. Values at 16°C (temperatures close to forest floor temperatures during the growing season) are very close to predicted values by the models. Our R2 values are high, especially with the four incubation temperatures.

Also, does it really take that long to get detectable CO2 production from this soil at lower temperatures?

Response:

CO2 effluxes are low compared to other soil types, especially at low temperatures (see Fig 2). It was actually difficult to have a strong and quick response at temperatures lower than 16°C.

The authors address this in Fig S/43, but only a quick approximation and no statistics confirming similar fits are completed (ie some of the parameters are half in the 16-32C model versus the 16-40C model...and 32C is still hotter than even temperate forest soils get with 5C of warming).

Response:

We now provide a thorough comparison between the parameters obtained from the two sets of data (16-32°C vs. 16-40°C) (L. 395, L. 406). The data with and without T=40°C are also shown in Fig 2 and S1 Table.

L. 395: “The removal of RR values obtained from the incubation at 40°C had little impact on Q10 values, which averaged 2.86 � 0.70, 3.26 � 0.70 in W+ and W+N+ plots, and 2.49 � 0.50 and 2.71 � 0.79 in C and N+ plots.”

L. 406: “Mean B was significantly lower in warmed than in unwarmed plots (1.87 � 1.35 vs. 4.94 � 2.87 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-) (Fig. 4B; S1 Table). The removal of RR values from the incubation at 40°C decreased the differences among treatments although B remained 30% lower in warmed than in unwarmed plots (1.98 � 0.73 vs. 3.03 � 1.67 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1; S1 Table). When all incubation temperatures were included in the analysis, B averaged 1.23 � 0.9 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h- in W+ and 2.51 � 1.6 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in W+N+, whereas the values were 4.43 � 4.0 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in C plots, 5.45 � 1.96 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in N+ plots (S1 Table) and 5.78 � 2.49 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in samples from outside the experimental plots (S2 Table). Without RR values from the incubation at 40°C, B averaged 2.23 � 0.74 and 1.74 � 0.77 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in W+ and W+N+ plots, and 3.05 � 0.83 and 3.00 � 2.50 µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 in C and N+ plots (S1 Table).”

L234 - I don't think this is Q10 (or at least it is not the standard definition of Q10 as (r2/R1)^(T2-T1)/10C. If so, it is confusing that it is called Q10, but is not actually Q10.

Response:

Q10 was obtained from the k parameter of the first-order exponential model used to fit the data (Q10=exp(10k)). This method is commonly utilized in soil science studies (see for instance Luo et al., 2001; Tang et al., 2017; Fierer et al., 2006) and is actually more robust than using 2 rate values with a 10°C difference.

L262- did you test the ANOVA assumptions? From figure 3 it seems like your data violates both normality and equal variances assumptions, although it is hard to tell with 3 replicates.

Response: We did test normality and equal variance assumptions. We added a sentence about that in the M&M section (L. 255).

L266 - what is on the x-axis of this regression?

Response: The x-axis on Fig 3 is log(B) value. On the PCA figure (Fig 5), it is the value of the first principal component.

L287 and throughout - please report degrees of freedom with the F statistic.

Response: Ok.

L394,386 - typo

Response: Ok.

L422 - Or maybe evidence of direct thermal acclimation (ie shift of respiration optimum) to a higher temperature. Can you parse these drivers? I mean, I guess you could have if you followed Mark Bradford's protocol for looking at the Harvard Forest warming plots with and without substrate addition. This alternative biological explanation seems like it should be particularly discussed in light of there being no observable change in soil chemistry.

Response:

The reviewer is probably suggesting that the thermal physiological acclimation (downregulation of respiration rate) was higher in samples from warmed plots than from unwarmed plots, explaining the lower B value (driven by lower respiration rates at low incubation temperatures) in warmed plots. Lower respiration rates are indeed observed at intermediate temperatures after acclimation at high temperatures than at low temperatures (e.g., Crowther and Bradford, 2013). However, we do not think that this phenomenon had an impact in our case because i) all soil samples were kept in the fridge at 4°C for several months before incubations; ii) a short acclimation period at ambient temperature was used before incubations; and iii) there is no reason to think that this physiological phenomenon would be higher in warmed than in unwarmed samples (given the storage period in the fridge); and iv) this kind of thermal acclimation generally results in a decreased Q10, which is not what we observed.

We think that a shift in the soil microbial community during the soil warming period is more likely to explain our results. The higher Q10 and lower B in warmed than in unwarmed plots may be due to a new microbial community with different temperature optimums (higher respiration rate at high temperatures and lower respiration rate at low temperatures).

We now mention the possibility of a shift in soil microbial community in the abstract (L. 47), in the discussion and in the conclusion (see above) and have added 3 references to support this hypothesis:

Zhang, W., Parker, K.M., Luo, Y., Wan, S., Wallace, L.L., Hu, S., 2005. Soil microbial responses to experimental warming and clipping in a tallgrass prairie. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00902.x

Zogg, G.P., Zak, D.R., Ringelberg, D.B., Macdonald, N.W., Pregitzer, K.S., White, D.C., 1993. Compositional and functional shifts in microbial communities due to soil warming. Soil sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 475–481.

Hartley, I.P., Heinemeyer, A., Ineson, P., 2007. Effects of three years of soil warming and shading on the rate of soil respiration : substrate availability and not thermal acclimation mediates observed response. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13, 1761–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01373.x

However, if the decrease in B after soil warming was entirely due to a shift in microbial composition, we would rather observe a decrease in Q10, due for instance to C substrate depletion after soil warming (as reported in other studies; see references above). Therefore, the C quality-Temperature sensitivity hypothesis is still valid to explain our Q10 response.

The choice of using high incubation temperatures (32-40°C) is explained in the M&M section (L. 248 and 286).

L. 248:

“Temperatures as high as 32°C and 40°C are not commonly experienced in boreal forests but this incubation temperature range was chosen in order to have a rapid and strong RR response [49]. Although these temperatures are higher than those experienced in boreal forests, we believe they did not significantly biased our results because i) all samples were submitted to the same temperature range, ii) using a large incubation temperature range allows detecting RR differences that would otherwise not be detected, and iii) using a large range of incubation temperatures likely results in stronger relationships (RR = f(T)) and more robust model parameters (see below).”

We have rewritten the paragraph (L. 520):

“Our data show that B tended to be negatively correlated with the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio (r = -0.49; P = 0.10), i.e., a relative index of SOC degradation [54,61], which, in our case, tends supports the validity of the B parameter as a proxy for organic C recalcitrance. However, the ~70% decrease in the B parameter caused by soil warming alone (W+ treatment) was not accompanied by a strong change in FF organic C chemical composition, although the soil warming treatment tended to enhance the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio (P = 0.09; Table 1), which reflects a higher degree of C recalcitrance. It has been shown that soil warming can induce shifts in soil microbial populations and species, which impact the respiration rate-temperature relationship [62–64]. Therefore, the possibility of a shift in the microbial community characterized by a different temperature optimum (lower respiration rate at low temperature) over the nine years of the experiment cannot be excluded as a cause for the observed decrease in the B parameter.”

Reviewer #3: Long-term warming studies are still rare and the field warming experiment is impressive. Accordingly the paper will receive attention. The combination of an incubation study and NMR measurements makes sense. The whole setup of the incubation study is rather critical, as well as the interpretation of the results. Regarding the setup, authors are quite self-critical in the discussion – with good reason. Below I provide some critical points and probably helpful suggestions for the authors to re-think their interpretation of the results. Before publishing, quite a huge overhaul of the manuscript would be necessary.

Mayor comments:

As mentioned by the authors themselves, incubation of soil or forest floor at temperatures far outside natural site conditions makes interpretation of the results difficult (and are not really comprehensible). A special problem here is that the observed soil respiration at 40°C (which will hopefully never be reached in a boreal forest) strongly influences the target values (Q10, B). Authors also calculated Q10 and B for the temperature range 16-30°C (Suppl. Fig. 3 and 4) and argue that the outcome is similar. I strongly doubt that. In Fig S3 and S4, which show the results, it looks like as if there is no significant difference any more between the treatments Q10 and B (statistical results are not provided here). This, however, would completely change the outcome of the study (no effect on Q10 and only a slight trend towards decreasing B). To my feeling, this outcome is not so spectacular but fits better with the NMR results and the unchanged overall C concentrations.

Response:

The reviewer #2 made similar comments regarding the high incubation temperature. We therefore invite the reviewer #3 to read the responses above for complementary information.

Briefly, we agree that 40°C does not naturally occur in the boreal forest. However, all samples (W-, W+, CNA-, CNA+) were incubated at the same temperatures and were therefore biased in the same way. Although the absolute Q10 and B values may not be entirely reliable because of this bias, we strongly believe that the comparison between treatments (which is what we intended to do in this study) is reliable. Therefore, we think that our Q10 and B values obtained with the 40°C incubation can be used to compare the different treatments. When the 40°C incubation was removed from the data set, the differences among treatments were lower but the same trend were observed. The R2 values were also higher with the four incubation temperatures (Fig 2).

In addition, the incubation at 40°C was short (a few hours long). Any change in the microbial community or in C quality was therefore induced by the soil warming in the field. This treatment may have induced a switch to a microbial community with higher respiration rate at high temperatures, which would explain the difference in CO2 efflux at high (40°C) and low (0°C) temperatures between warmed and unwarmed plots. This large range of incubation temperatures allowed us to detect the switch that occurred in the soil microbial community. Therefore, we do not think that the incubation at T=40°C was a problem but rather an asset. The change in Q10 and B would have not been as clear without the incubation at 40°C.

Therefore, we have decided to keep the original Q10 and B values, although we moderate our conclusion. We however provide a detailed comparison between the parameter values obtained with and without the T=40°C (Fig 2, S1 Table, L. 395, 406) and discuss this issue (e.g., L. 568):

“This discrepancy may stem from methodological differences, such as the duration of the study and the method of soil warming (soil transplantation versus heating cables in the present study) as well as from the range of incubation temperatures chosen in the present study. The effect of soil warming on B was indeed less marked (although 30% lower in warmed plots) when forest floor RR values obtained from the incubation at 40°C were not included in the analysis.”.

The interpretation of B (the basal respiration at 0°C) is misleading. In the abstract already, B is denoted as a measure for the recalcitrance of the SOC. This is not correct. B is the CO2 efflux at 0°C and can, for sure, be related to SOC recalcitrance. However, there are also other similar important factors that can influence B. Long term soil warming can change the microbial community and physiology and this can also affect B, probably in a similar strong manner as changes in SOC recalcitrance. This needs to be considered in the whole discussion and interpretation of the data.

Response:

We thought we had made it clear in the manuscript that B was a “proxy” for SOC recalcitrance, rather than recalcitrance per se (L. 414-420). We acknowledge that the term “recalcitrance” is ambiguous in the context of our study because the NMR analysis did not show a significant change in the molecular composition of the forest floor C. We have replaced the term “recalcitrance” by other terms such as “relative organic C quality”, “labile C availability” as much as possible throughout the text.

We have added a paragraph dealing with this particular point (L. 513-530).

“The B parameter, i.e. the respiration rate at 0°C inferred from the intercept of the regression curve with 0 °C, is thought to be a good indicator of organic C quality [1,17,36,58]. The lower the B parameter, the higher the recalcitrance of the SOC substrate. The recalcitrance of organic C in the soil is however increasingly seen as the result of microenvironmental conditions rather than the result of organic C chemical composition (recalcitrance per se) [59,60]. Low B parameter values can indeed potentially result from the type of microbial communities present in the soil, substrate and nutrient availability and other abiotic factors. Our data show that B tended to be negatively correlated with the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio (r = -0.49; P = 0.10), i.e., a relative index of SOC degradation [54,61], which, in our case, tends supports the validity of the B parameter as a proxy for organic C recalcitrance. However, the ~70% decrease in the B parameter caused by soil warming alone (W+ treatment) was not accompanied by a strong change in FF organic C chemical composition, although the soil warming treatment tended to enhance the alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratio (P = 0.09; Table 1), which reflects a higher degree of C recalcitrance. Therefore, the possibility of a shift in the microbial community characterized by a different temperature optimum (lower respiration rate at low temperature) over the nine years of the experiment cannot be excluded as a cause for the observed decrease in the B parameter.”

That being said, other studies have interpreted decreased B values after soil warming by the exhaustion of labile C, which ends up increasing relative recalcitrance and reducing microbial activity (L. 435, L. 538).

We agree that the decrease in B and increase in Q10 due to soil warming may have resulted from a switch in microbial communities. A new community, with higher respiration rate at high temperature (leading to higher Q10) and lower respiration rate at lower temperatures (leading to lower B values) could explain the observed patterns.

We now discuss this point more deeply (L. 527): “Therefore, the possibility of a shift in the microbial community characterized by a different temperature optimum (lower respiration rate at low temperature) over the nine years of the experiment cannot be excluded as a cause for the observed decrease in the B parameter.”

If B really is a measure for SOC recalcitrance, why is there no difference in the NMR results among the treatments? If the chemical composition of SOC does not change, why should the SOC have become that recalcitrant during the long-term warming? This does not really fit together.

Response:

As mentioned in our response to the reviewer #2, we think that there may have been a statistical power issue as well as a microbial community issue. But see above (response to the previous comment).

Since the B values are largely driven by the CO2 efflux at 40°C, it rather looks like as if microbial physiology plays a role. There already is a lot of literature on the warming effects on soil microbial physiology.

Response: See our previous responses.

It is interesting that forest floor C composition and concentrations did not change during 9 years of warming (C concentrations are even higher in the warmed plots). For a reader it would be interesting to understand why this is the case. To do so, a reader would need much more information of what’s going on in the field warming experiment. Was there more litter input at the warmed plots? Was there higher soil CO2 efflux? Was there a combination of both? How much C was lost due to warming (rough estimate) already? Was there a massive stock change in forest floor mass and/or C already?

Response:

There is no evidence that the integrated CO2 efflux was higher in warmed than in unwarmed plots in the field. Our CO2 effluxes were measured in the lab and probably do not reflect what’s going on in the field over a whole year.

Based on our incubation results, soil warming induced an increase in respiration rate at high temperatures and a decrease at low temperature (lower B). These opposite effects may offset and result in no change in CO2 effluxes over long periods of time, explaining the absence of change in C concentrations. Other factors such as DOC leaching or litter inputs may also contribute.

We have added a paragraph to discuss this particular point (L. 554):

“This possible loss of labile C was not reflected by a significant decline in the forest floor total C concentration (Table 2), probably because the integrated net CO2 efflux over the nine years of the experiment was not impacted significantly by soil warming at field temperatures. Our incubation data show that soil warming did not strongly impact forest floor RR at field temperatures (<32°C). This treatment indeed particularly impacted forest floor RR at high temperatures (Fig 2), which rarely occur in the field. In addition, the size of the easily decomposable C pool is probably low relative to the total C pool and C inputs through litterfall. However, the absence of changes in total C concentration does not mean that the size of the forest floor C pool did not change over the study period. Recently, a study reported that 26 years of soil warming has caused a net decrease of 800 g C m-2 in the forest floor of a temperate forest [4]. A thorough investigation of other soil properties (e.g., horizon density and thickness) would be necessary to clarify this point.”

Why shall the forest floor material become more recalcitrant (which I doubt a bit)? Is the fresh litter becoming more recalcitrant? I don’t mean that the results of the field warming study should be shown in much detail – just some basic information would be nice to understand what’s going on in the field.

Response:

The main explanation that we mention in the text (and that is mentioned in other studies) is a more rapid decrease in the amount of labile C. When integrated over a medium/long-term period of time, it results in a higher proportion of “more recalcitrant” C, as reflected by the slightly higher Alkyl:O-alkyl ratio in warmed plots. We think that the same mechanism explained the lower “recalcitrance” (higher B) and lower alkyl:O-alkyl ratio in lower slope plots.

Our data do not allow to identify the causes of these changes but this will certainly be tested in the future.

Literature survey could be a bit more extensive. There are quite similar studies available from other long-term experiments e.g. Schindlbacher et al. Global Change Biology 2015 or by the group of Frank Hagedorns group in a high alpine forest. A further long-term warming study took place in a boreal forest in Sweden. See Lim et al Nature Climate Change 2019 and related.

Response: Thanks for the references. The following references have been added to the ms:

Gonzalez-Dominguez, B., Niklaus, P.A., Studer, M.S., Hagedorn, F., Wacker, L., Haghipour, N., Zimmermann, S., Walthert, L., McIntyre, C., Abiven, S., 2019. Temperature and moisture are minor drivers of regional-scale soil organic carbon dynamics. Sci. Rep. 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42629-5

Lim, H., Oren, R., Näsholm, T., Strömgren, M., Lundmark, T., Grip, H., Linder, S., 2019. Boreal forest biomass accumulation is not increased by two decades of soil warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0373-9

Melillo, J.M., Frey, S.D., Deangelis, K.M., Werner, W.J., Bernard, M.J., Bowles, F.P., Pold, G., Knorr, M.A., Grandy, A.S., 2017. Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science (80-. ). 358, 101–105.

Schinlbacher, A., Schnecker, G., Takriti, M., Borken, W., Wanek, W., 2015. Microbial physiology and soil CO2 efflux after 9 years of soil warming in a temperate forest – no indications for thermal adaptations. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 4265–4277. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12996

Specific comments:

As mentioned above, I suggest to never assign B totally as “C recalcitrance” and to change this in all headers, text, figures… probably simply change it to “basal respiration”

Response: We have replace the term “recalcitrance” as much as possible through the ms. However, some studies we cite used this particular term. In this case, we kept it.

I have no idea why FTIR was used to measure CO2 concentrations. There would have been much easier ways of doing that.

Response: FTIR is the method we commonly use at our lab.

Abstract last sentence and hypotheses: This is all rather spongy. Which effects are anticipated and why?

Response: We have removed the last sentence of the abstract and slightly modified our conclusions.

Slope aspect is an important and novel part of the experiment (e.g. NMR results). It is however not mentioned in the introduction at all.

Response: We now put emphasis on this aspect in the title of the manuscript and have added a paragraph in the introduction (L. 134):

“In addition, the interactive effects of the topography on the one hand and both soil warming and N addition on the other hand on the temperature sensitivity and the quality of soil organic C has to our knowledge never been investigated in boreal forests, although soil organic C in lower slope areas of Arctic ecosystems has been shown to be more labile than in the upper slope locations”.

L 186: diameter of the cores?

Response: We added the diameter in the text: 8 cm.

I find it cool that cores where taken additionally outside the plots. This really strengthens the control treatment.

The different incubation time at different soil temperatures will be seen critically.

Response: Ok.

L331 and elsewhere: in contrast to Q10, B actually has a unit (same as RR). This unit should always be shown with the numbers

Response: We have added the unit µg C-CO2 g-1 C h-1 throughout the ms and in the figures.

L391: well, the difference in RR at 16°C, which best describes field conditions, was very small when compared to the difference in B, which was calculated from 16-40°C…

Response: As mentioned above, we do not think that it is a problem. The switch in microbial community due to soil warming is best seen with this high temperature incubation.

L475: avoid “quite similar” and terms like this. The statement is incorrect. Curve shape and B and Q10 values are different! (Suppl Fig4).

Response: Ok.

L480 onwards: in almost all studies which reported an increase in recalcitrance and Q10, warming had decreased C contents and stocks (labile C was respired). In your study c concentrations in warmed plots were higher. How can this fit together? Were C stocks reduced? How responded RR in the field?

Response: None of the variables had a significant impact on C concentration (Table 1). As mentioned previously, this may have been the result of:

- No effect of soil warming on the net CO2 efflux in the field

- Effects of litter inputs and DOC leaching.

That N application had little effects on RR is interesting. Probably this is due to the fact that authors had added reasonable amounts of future N deposition in this study. In many N fertilization studies much higher amounts of N were added, producing unrealistic outcome.

Response: Ok

In Fig.2 error bars should be added. Authors may think over exchanging this figure with current Suppl Fig. S3. Fig 3 error bars as well.

Response:

We have replaced Fig 2 with Fig S3. Each point represents a single value which explains why there is no error bar.

Reviewer #4: In this manuscript, a boreal forest site was subjected to soil warming (+2–4 °C) and canopy nitrogen addition (CNA) (+0.30–0.35 kg N ha-1 yr-1) during the growing period to assess the long-term effects of warming and N deposition on the forest floor organic C molecular composition, recalcitrance and temperature sensitivity. The study found that both soil warming and CNA had no significant effect on forest floor chemistry. Soil warming increased Q10 and decreased organic C lability (B). The study also indicated that CNA had no significant effect on the measured soil parameters. This manuscript will be acceptable for publication after revision.

Detailed comments:

1. Line 148. Why was soil warming conducted from April to July? Is this period the main growing season?

Response:

The reason is that we wanted to anticipate snow melting and focus on the beginning of the growing season (initiation of wood cells production) rather than at the end. At this site, snow starts melting in late April/early May some years.

2. Lines 155-156. What is the depth of measured soil temperature?

Response: At the depth of the cables (i.e. ~15-20 cm). We have added it in the text.

3. Lines 190-191. Why were cores kept at 4 °C in the dark for five months until incubation?

Response: For logistical reasons. The equipment was not available right after sampling.

4. The incubation temperature (16, 24, 32, and 40 °C) was not in the general range of temperature in the study site. Was it practical?

Response: Please see above for a detailed response.

5. Did the error bars in figures represent SD or SE?

Response: SDs.

6. I suggest analyzing the correlation between soil properties (i.e., chemistry, temperature sensitivity, and organic C lability) considering different treatments or all treatments.

Response: We have tried but nothing significant emerged from these analyses. The manuscript already provides many different results so we would rather not add more figures and tables.

7. The C quality-temperature (CQT) hypothesis indicates that Q10 decreases logarithmically with the increase in C quality given the justification of activation energy conditions (e.g., Fierer et al. 2006). Discuss the difference between their logarithmic function and the linear model used in this study.

Fierer N, Colman BP, Schimel JP, Jackson RB (2006) Predicting the temperature dependence of microbial respiration in soil: A continental-scale analysis. Global Biogeochem Cy 20(3):GB3026, doi:10.1029/2005GB002644

I think the reviewer refers to the parameters of Fierer’s regression model displayed on Fig 1. Our y-intercept (3.51) is similar to theirs (3.10), but our slope is steeper (-0.85 vs. -0.3). Therefore, our data indicate a stronger sensitivity of Q10 to changes in B (or the contrary). Fierer et al. (2005 in Ecology) also show that the slope of this relationship can vary widely among soil samples. The reasons for such a difference are not clear and have to our knowledge never been investigated. We agree that it would be interesting to study this particular issue.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebutal letter PlosONe.docx

Decision Letter 1

Julian Aherne

11 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-14747R1

Nine years of in situ soil warming and topography impact the temperature sensitivity and basal respiration rate of the forest floor in a Canadian boreal forest

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Pare,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The revised manuscript is much improved but still requires minor revision to the abstract. Please see the comments from Reviewers 2 and 3.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript requires minor revisions specifically with respect to the abstract. Please see comments from Reviewers 2 and 3.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has seen a rigorous review and the comments of the reviewers have been addressed with authority and patience. The text has the potential to be widely cited.

Reviewer #2: All comments made by previous reviewers have been addressed adequately in the rebuttal. However, the abstract is confusing and seems contradictory in places. Please ensure that the language used there is consistent with that of the rest of the manuscript. Specifically, the observation that there is no effect of treatments on soil chemistry is brought up in both lines 37-39 and 45-47. Remove one. On L49, it appears the authors have confused chemical quality/recalcitrance again, saying that in contrast slope position has an effect on FF organic C quality. But "Organic C quality" is also used on line 42 to talk about the B parameter (as distinct from NMR measurements of quality), and on line 53-54 the authors say topography and soil warming both affect soil C quality. It seems like the topology position overwhelmed the warming effect, so maybe this should be emphasized.

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript has improved, but there are still some issues. The abstract is long-winded and needs to be shortened and cleared (for an example see below). The text is more self-critical now with regard of findings with and without the 40°C step, but the most interesting info is missing -> Is the warming effect on Q10 and B still statistically significant if the 40°C step is not considered? This needs to be clearly stated! There are some typos in the new text (see below). More care needs to be taken when taking about temperature sensitivity (e.g. heading L447-448, heading L248-249 and elsewhere). Only the temperature sensitivity of RR was calculated – not the temperature sensitivity of forest floor organic C or anything else. Please reword and correct this. I am not sure if the ultimate conclusion is justified by the data. How can RR increase in future when 9 years of strong warming had no effects on forest floor C contents or quality and RR generally is lower at warmed plots (lower B means also lower respiration at low temperatures – and in boreal forests most of the year is low temperatures)? The higher temperature sensitivity seems to play a comparable little role… Still the reader has no idea if RR is measured in the field and if any field response to warming was observed.

The nee title is fine.

Here comes an example for an comprehensive abstract – you may use it or parts of it if you agree. Not all details must be written there – for methodological details, the reader can look up the text…

Example:

The forest floor of boreal forest stores large amounts of organic C that may react to a warming climate and increased N deposition. It is therefore crucial to assess the impact of these factors on the temperature sensitivity of this C pool to help predict future soil CO2 emissions from boreal forest soils to the atmosphere. In this study, in-situ soil warming (+2–4 °C) and canopy N addition (CNA; +0.30–0.35 kg•N•ha-1•yr-1) plots were replicated along a topographic gradient (upper, back and lower slope) in a boreal forest in Quebec, Canada. After nine years of treatment, forest floor was collected from each plot, and its organic C quality was characterized through solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Forest floor samples were incubated at 16, 24, 32 and 40°C and respiration rates (RR) were measured to assess the temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal respiration rates (B) of RR. Both, soil warming and CNA had no significant effect on forest floor chemistry (e.g., C,N, Ca and Mg content, amount of soil organic matter, pH, chemical functional groups). The NMR analyses did not show evidence of significant changes in the forest floor organic C quality. Nonetheless, a significant effect of soil warming on both the Q10 and B was observed. On average, B was 72% lower and Q10 45% higher in the warmed, versus the control plots. CNA had no significant effect on the measured soil and respiration parameters and no interaction effects with warming. In contrast, slope position had a significant effect on forest floor organic C quality. Upper slope plots had higher soil alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratios and lower B values than those in the lower slope, across all different treatments. Our results point towards higher temperature sensitivity of RR under warmer conditions, accompanied by an overall down-regulation of RR at low temperatures (lower B). Since soil C quantity and quality were unaffected by the 9 years warming, the observed patterns could result from microbial adaptations to warming.

If you agree with the logic of that, the discussion and conclusion needed to be adopted a bit accordingly. If you disagree, you might at least take over the shortened passages at the beginning…

Intro is fine.

Materials and Methods – L22-229 belong to the discussion.

Discussion: (the line numbers belong to the version with corrections at the end of the pdf)

L470: delete “tends”

L472: ..decrease in B caused by…

L477: it might not solely be a matter of changes in microbial composition. Microbial physiology can as well change if composition does not shift. You may add a reference on proteomics here (62-64) e.g. Liu, Dong, et al. "Microbial functionality as affected by experimental warming of a temperate mountain forest soil—a metaproteomics survey." Applied soil ecology 117 (2017): 196-202. And change the text to ….shifts in soil microbial decomposition and/or physiology, which impact….

L481: … the nine years of the experiment could be an explanation of the observed decrease in B.

L573: issue with temperature sensitivity wording – see above

Conclusions might be adapted as mentioned above.

Table S1 and S2 – why still “recalcitrancy”? in th elegend

For the figures main figures, I could not find any captions in the pdf

Reviewer #4: The authors have answered all the questions. Thanks for making necessary changes. I recommend publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Robert Jandl

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Dec 26;14(12):e0226909. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226909.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Nov 2019

Reviewer #1:

The manuscript has seen a rigorous review and the comments of the reviewers have been addressed with authority and patience. The text has the potential to be widely cited.

Reviewer #2:

All comments made by previous reviewers have been addressed adequately in the rebuttal. However, the abstract is confusing and seems contradictory in places. Please ensure that the language used there is consistent with that of the rest of the manuscript. Specifically, the observation that there is no effect of treatments on soil chemistry is brought up in both lines 37-39 and 45-47. Remove one. On L49, it appears the authors have confused chemical quality/recalcitrance again, saying that in contrast slope position has an effect on FF organic C quality. But "Organic C quality" is also used on line 42 to talk about the B parameter (as distinct from NMR measurements of quality), and on line 53-54 the authors say topography and soil warming both affect soil C quality. It seems like the topology position overwhelmed the warming effect, so maybe this should be emphasized.

Response:

We have significantly modified the abstract in accordance with reviewer #3 comments. We have removed the term “C recalcitrance” from the text in most places and replaced it by C quality.

Reviewer #3:

The revised manuscript has improved, but there are still some issues. The abstract is long-winded and needs to be shortened and cleared (for an example see below). The text is more self-critical now with regard of findings with and without the 40°C step, but the most interesting info is missing -> Is the warming effect on Q10 and B still statistically significant if the 40°C step is not considered? This needs to be clearly stated!

Response: The same trend is observed when the incubation at 40°C is removed but the difference is not statistically significant anymore, probably because of the small number of replicates and the large variability among replicates. We have dedicated a full paragraph to this issue in the discussion:

L. 682: “Although our data show a clear impact of soil warming on both B and the Q10 of forest floor RR, our results may have been slightly different with another range of incubation temperatures. Boreal forest floors never experience temperatures as high as 40°C. These conditions may have somehow perturbed soil microorganisms and modified their metabolic activity. Therefore, parameter values may have been slightly different if the samples had been incubated at lower temperatures. As shown in Fig. 2, B and k parameters were sometimes significantly different when the incubations at 40°C were not included in the analysis. Although the trends were similar (i.e., higher Q10 and lower B in warmed plots as compared to unwarmed plots), the effect of soil warming on Q10 and B was not significant after the values of the incubation at 40°C were removed from the data set (S1 Table).”

There are some typos in the new text (see below). More care needs to be taken when taking about temperature sensitivity (e.g. heading L447-448, heading L248-249 and elsewhere). Only the temperature sensitivity of RR was calculated – not the temperature sensitivity of forest floor organic C or anything else. Please reword and correct this. I am not sure if the ultimate conclusion is justified by the data.

Response:

We agree with the reviewer. We have changed it throughout the text.

How can RR increase in future when 9 years of strong warming had no effects on forest floor C contents or quality and RR generally is lower at warmed plots (lower B means also lower respiration at low temperatures – and in boreal forests most of the year is low temperatures)? The higher temperature sensitivity seems to play a comparable little role…

Response:

We agree that it is speculative. This is however a theoretically possible given our results. Nine years of soil warming have resulted in an increase in the temperature sensitivity of forest floor RR, without perceptible change in C composition or recalcitrance per se. Ten additional years of warmer temperatures due to climate change may accentuate this trend and further increase RR temperature sensitivity. Higher CO2 efflux from the soil may therefore occur during hot summer days, which integrated over a long period of time, may eventually impact soil organic C content.

We also agree that cold temperatures prevail most of the year in boreal forests. However, CO2 fluxes during the cold period are probably negligible because the rates of biochemical processes are very slow. Our incubations show that the RR is several times higher at 24°C than at 0°C. In addition, climate models predict an extension of the growing season duration.

We however have agreed to remove this statement, which is probably too speculative.

… Still the reader has no idea if RR is measured in the field and if any field response to warming was observed.

We have added a sentence in the M&M section and one in the discussion:

(L. 243): “No RR measurements were conducted in the field. All measurements were performed in the laboratory after forest floor samples were incubated at different temperatures.”

(L. 528): “We cannot confirm this hypothesis from the present data as no RR were measured in situ.”

The new title is fine.

Here comes an example for an comprehensive abstract – you may use it or parts of it if you agree. Not all details must be written there – for methodological details, the reader can look up the text…

Example:

The forest floor of boreal forest stores large amounts of organic C that may react to a warming climate and increased N deposition. It is therefore crucial to assess the impact of these factors on the temperature sensitivity of this C pool to help predict future soil CO2 emissions from boreal forest soils to the atmosphere. In this study, in-situ soil warming (+2–4 °C) and canopy N addition (CNA; +0.30–0.35 kg•N•ha-1•yr-1) plots were replicated along a topographic gradient (upper, back and lower slope) in a boreal forest in Quebec, Canada. After nine years of treatment, forest floor was collected from each plot, and its organic C quality was characterized through solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Forest floor samples were incubated at 16, 24, 32 and 40°C and respiration rates (RR) were measured to assess the temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal respiration rates (B) of RR. Both, soil warming and CNA had no significant effect on forest floor chemistry (e.g., C,N, Ca and Mg content, amount of soil organic matter, pH, chemical functional groups). The NMR analyses did not show evidence of significant changes in the forest floor organic C quality. Nonetheless, a significant effect of soil warming on both the Q10 and B was observed. On average, B was 72% lower and Q10 45% higher in the warmed, versus the control plots. CNA had no significant effect on the measured soil and respiration parameters and no interaction effects with warming. In contrast, slope position had a significant effect on forest floor organic C quality. Upper slope plots had higher soil alkyl C:O-alkyl C ratios and lower B values than those in the lower slope, across all different treatments. Our results point towards higher temperature sensitivity of RR under warmer conditions, accompanied by an overall down-regulation of RR at low temperatures (lower B). Since soil C quantity and quality were unaffected by the 9 years warming, the observed patterns could result from microbial adaptations to warming.

If you agree with the logic of that, the discussion and conclusion needed to be adopted a bit accordingly. If you disagree, you might at least take over the shortened passages at the beginning…

Response:

Thank you very much for this. It’s excellent. We have replaced the previous abstract by this one and added a few sentences from the previous one.

Intro is fine.

Materials and Methods – L222-229 belong to the discussion.

Response:

Ok. We have moved this paragraph to the first section of the discussion (L. 461). We also added a paragraph here: “As shown on Fig 2, the removal of the incubation at 40°C had a sometimes a significant effect on the rate of increase of RR with incubation temperature and the RR at 0°C (k and B parameters, respectively), which suggests that the chosen range of incubation temperature can impact the results in this type of study.” (L. 457)

Discussion: (the line numbers belong to the version with corrections at the end of the pdf)

L470: delete “tends”

Ok

L472: ..decrease in B caused by…

Ok

L477: it might not solely be a matter of changes in microbial composition. Microbial physiology can as well change if composition does not shift. You may add a reference on proteomics here (62-64) e.g. Liu, Dong, et al. "Microbial functionality as affected by experimental warming of a temperate mountain forest soil—a metaproteomics survey." Applied soil ecology 117 (2017): 196-202. And change the text to ….shifts in soil microbial decomposition and/or physiology, which impact….

Response: We have added the reference and the following sentence:

(L. 537). “The decrease in B may instead have resulted from changes in abiotic factors such as substrate or nutrient availability, as well as from changes in soil microbial composition and activity. Soil warming can indeed induce shifts in soil microbial populations and species [61–63], as well as in microbial physiological functioning [64], which both impact the respiration rate-temperature relationship and C substrate use efficiency. Therefore, the possibility of a microbial shift, which reduced respiration rate at low temperature over the nine years of the experiment could be an explanation of the observed decrease in B in warmed plots.”

L481: … the nine years of the experiment could be an explanation of the observed decrease in B.

Ok.

L573: issue with temperature sensitivity wording – see above

Response:

We have changed it: “Effect of N addition on the temperature sensitivity of forest floor’s respiration rate and organic C chemistry”

Conclusions might be adapted as mentioned above.

Response:

The conclusion has been modified according to reviewer’s previous comments.

Table S1 and S2 – why still “recalcitrancy”? in the legend

Response:

Sorry for this error. We have changed the captions. “Temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal rate (B) of forest floor respiration”.

For the figures main figures, I could not find any captions in the pdf

Response:

In Plosone, the captions are included within the text rather than at the end of the manuscript.

Reviewer #4: The authors have answered all the questions. Thanks for making necessary changes. I recommend publication in PLOS ONE.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Julian Aherne

10 Dec 2019

Nine years of in situ soil warming and topography impact the temperature sensitivity and basal respiration rate of the forest floor in a Canadian boreal forest

PONE-D-19-14747R2

Dear Dr. Paré,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript addresses all comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Well done. I recommend that it be 'accepted' for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Julian Aherne

12 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-14747R2

Nine years of in situ soil warming and topography impact the temperature sensitivity and basal respiration rate of the forest floor in a Canadian boreal forest

Dear Dr. Paré:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal rate (B) of forest floor respiration.

    Q10 and B parameters values are shown for each landform unit of the four experimental plots (C, N+, W+ and W+N+) and in outside-plot samples after nine years of treatment. Mean values (± SD) for each treatment are shown in bold.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Temperature sensitivity (Q10) and basal rate (B) of forest floor respiration.

    Q10 and B parameters values for each landform unit outside the experimental plots after nine years of treatment. Mean values (± SD) for each treatment are shown in bold.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Forest floor chemical composition and characteristics.

    Values (mean ± SD; n = 3) are shown for samples collected from the four treatments (C, N+, W+ and W+N+) after nine years of the in-situ experiment. No significant differences were found between treatments for any of the studied variables (one-way ANOVA; P > 0.05). Organic matter (OM) content was measured by weight loss on ignition (360 °C), total N and C contents by combustion, and P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Fe and S concentrations by ICP-AES following Mehlich 3 extraction method.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Differences in soil temperature (Δ Temperature) between unwarmed and warmed plots.

    Differences on a daily basis in (a) the upper slope and (c) the back slope. Differences on a monthly basis (mean ± SD) in (b) the upper slope and (d) the back slope between 2008 and 2018. Months 1 and 12 are January and December, respectively.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Relationship between forest floor mean respiration rate (Forest floor RR, μg C-CO2·g-1·C·h-1) and incubation temperatures (°C) for soil samples collected outside the experimental plots.

    Relationships are shown for the four experimental treatments (C: control; N+: CNA; W+: soil warming; W+N+: combined soil warming and CNA). The rows and the columns show the treatments and replicates for each treatment, respectively. Curves were obtained by fitting a first-order exponential equation (RR = Bek.T).

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Data_PlosOne.xlsx.

    Respiration rates, B, Q10, C and N concentrations, and percentages of several chemical functional groups in the forest floor (FF) collected within and outside the experimental plots.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebutal letter PlosONe.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES