<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">SOIL</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>SOIL</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">SOIL</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">SOIL</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2199-398X</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/soil-6-115-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Depletion of soil carbon and aggregation after<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> strong warming of a subarctic Andosol under<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> forest and grassland cover </article-title><alt-title>Strong warming of a subarctic Andosol</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Strong warming of a subarctic Andosol}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C. Poeplau et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Poeplau</surname><given-names>Christopher</given-names></name>
          <email>christopher.poeplau@thuenen.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Sigurðsson</surname><given-names>Páll</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Sigurdsson</surname><given-names>Bjarni D.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4784-5233</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Thünen Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture, Bundesallee 68,
38116 Braunschweig, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Agricultural University of Iceland, Hvanneyri 311, Borgarnes,
Iceland</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Christopher Poeplau (christopher.poeplau@thuenen.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>23</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>6</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>115</fpage><lpage>129</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>6</day><month>July</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>29</day><month>July</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>5</day><month>February</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>19</day><month>February</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Christopher Poeplau et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020.html">This article is available from https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e108">The net loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) from terrestrial ecosystems
is a likely consequence of global warming and may affect key soil
functions. The strongest changes in temperature are expected to occur at high
northern latitudes, with forest and tundra as prevailing land cover types.
However, specific soil responses to warming in different ecosystems are currently
understudied. In this study, we used a natural geothermal soil warming gradient (0–17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warming intensity) in an Icelandic spruce forest on Andosol to
assess changes in the SOC content between 0 and 10 cm (topsoil) and between 20 and 30 cm (subsoil)
after 10 years of soil warming. Five different SOC fractions were isolated,
and their redistribution and the amount of stable aggregates were
assessed to link SOC to changes in the soil structure. The results were compared to an
adjacent, previously investigated warmed grassland. Soil warming
depleted the SOC content in the forest soil by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the topsoil and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the
subsoil. The distribution of SOC in different fractions was significantly
altered, with particulate organic matter and SOC in sand and stable
aggregates being relatively depleted and SOC attached to silt and clay being
relatively enriched in warmed soils. The major reason for this shift was
aggregate breakdown: the topsoil aggregate mass proportion was reduced from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in the unwarmed reference to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in
the most warmed soil. Across both depths, the loss of one unit of SOC caused a
depletion of 4.5 units of aggregated soil, which strongly affected the bulk density
(an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.91 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when correlated with SOC, and an
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.51 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when correlated with soil mass in
stable aggregates). The proportion of water-extractable carbon increased
with decreasing aggregation, which might indicate an indirect protective
effect of aggregates larger than 63 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m on SOC. Topsoil changes in the
total SOC content and fraction distribution were more pronounced in the
forest than in the adjacent warmed grassland soils, due to higher and more
labile initial SOC. However, no ecosystem effect was observed on the warming response of the
subsoil SOC content and fraction distribution. Thus, whole profile
differences across ecosystems might be small. Changes in the soil structure upon warming should be studied more deeply and taken into consideration when interpreting or modelling biotic responses to warming.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<?pagebreak page116?><sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e358">Global warming is inexorably progressing, with the largest expected changes to
occur in the high northern latitudes (Diffenbaugh and Giorgi, 2012). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
worst-case scenario (RCP8.5) predicts an air temperature increase of up to
11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in areas north of 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude by the end of
this century (IPCC, 2013). This will lead to strong responses from ecosystems,
one of which will be increased microbial activity and, thus, oxidation of carbon
(Melillo et al., 2002). Predicted alterations in soil organic carbon (SOC),
as the largest terrestrial carbon (C) pool (Scharlemann et al., 2014), are
inducing a positive climate–carbon cycle feedback loop. The highest SOC
stocks are located in high northern ecosystems (Tarnocai et al., 2009). This
spatial coherence of the strongest warming and the highest SOC stocks is
expected to turn the vast land masses at high northern latitudes into a
major C source. The simple extrapolation of short-term soil warming experiments has
predicted a global SOC loss of up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">203</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">161</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pg C with a 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warming by 2050 (Crowther et al., 2016), which equals one-fourth of the
current atmospheric C pool. More conservative estimates from the same authors
still predict losses of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">55</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Pg C. This range of possible SOC
changes, as well as the large standard errors associated with each of the
estimates, points towards the high uncertainty of potential changes in carbon
fluxes from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere (van Gestel et al.,
2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e412">One of the major uncertainties in predicting SOC responses to warming is due
to an incomplete mechanistic understanding of the temperature sensitivity of
different functional SOC pools. For example, owing to different
methodological approaches and partly also to misinterpretations (Conant et al.,
2011), slow-cycling SOC is found to be more (Lefevre et al., 2014) or
equally (Fang et al., 2005) sensitive to warming compared with fast-cycling SOC. As a
consequence, SOC models frequently use the same temperature sensitivity for
all SOC functional pools. However, it has been recently suggested that the
implementation of carbon turnover and stabilisation in many models is
outdated (Bradford et al., 2016) and that more wholistic experimental
knowledge on warming-induced mechanisms related to carbon turnover in soils
is necessary (Conant et al., 2011). Thus, isolated quantifications of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
fluxes, bulk SOC or even SOC fractions might not yield enough insights
to understand and predict SOC dynamics under global warming. Furthermore,
individual soil warming experiments are mostly restricted to one ecosystem
type and differ strongly with respect to methodology, i.e. the type and degree of warming.
Therefore, comparisons across ecosystems are hampered (Crowther et al., 2016), but they
might be critically important to (i) foster the understanding of underlying
processes driving the SOC responses to warming and (ii) inform land surface
models to increase their accuracy.</p>
      <p id="d1e426"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Apart from its significant role in the global carbon cycle, soil organic
matter has numerous functions related to soil fertility and soil health: it
is an important food source for soil biota (Barrios, 2007), contains and
binds major plant nutrients and trace elements, has a large water storage
capacity and is directly linked to soil structure, i.e. the
three-dimensional arrangement of soil particles and pore space (Larsbo et
al., 2016). The soil structure drives water and gaseous fluxes through the soil
matrix, root growth and nutrient uptake, and the susceptibility of
soils to compaction and erosion (Johnston et al., 2009; Chepil, 1951; Horn et
al., 1994). Thus, in addition to the enrichment of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, soil
carbon loss upon warming might also deteriorate the soil quality, with
potential consequences for net primary production. To date, such effects,
and the mechanisms involved, have been shown little attention, which might be related to
the fact that most warming experiments have only been run for a relatively short
period of time and with moderate warming treatments (Rustad, 2001; Conant et
al., 2011).</p>
      <p id="d1e441">In essence, long-term multi-ecosystem warming studies with strong soil
warming gradients that might even exceed realistic temperature changes are
ideal for advancing our understanding of carbon cycling and related changes
in soil function under global change (Kreyling et al., 2014). An
experiment such as this has been established in southern Iceland, where an earthquake shifted geothermal channels within the bedrock in
2008, resulting in strong
gradients in soil warming (up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) in
previously unwarmed grassland and forest soils. A growing community of
scientists has been investigating the warming effects in permanent monitoring plots on
virtually all ecosystem aspects since 2013 (<uri>https://www.forhot.is</uri>, last access: 3 February 2020). In a previous
study, Poeplau et al. (2017) quantified the effect of soil warming on bulk
SOC and five different SOC fractions with distinct turnover rates in the
unmanaged grassland soil. The authors found a strong decline in soil mass
and C in the stable aggregate fraction, indicating that either (i) warming-induced SOC depletion led to a destabilisation of aggregates or (ii) warming-induced aggregate breakdown led to a destabilisation of SOC.</p>
      <p id="d1e467">In this study, we isolated the identical SOC fractions from an equally
warmed adjacent forest soil to (i) advance our understanding of the
temperature response of different SOC fractions representing kinetic pools,
(ii) assess the role of the ecosystem type in the temperature response of SOC,
and (iii) investigate potential links between SOC loss and soil structure
changes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Study site and experimental design</title>
      <p id="d1e485">In May 2008, a major earthquake in southern Iceland affected geothermal
channels close to its epicenter (Halldórsson and Sigbjörnsson, 2009). Due to this event, a
geothermal system in Reykir, close to the village of Hveragerði
(64.008<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 21.178<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) was moved to a previously
unwarmed area,<?pagebreak page117?> which is now constantly warmed with strong temperature
gradients of up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (O'Gorman et al., 2014).
This recently warmed area is covered by a Sitka spruce forest (<italic>Picea sitchensis</italic> (Bong.)
Carr.) that was planted in 1966 and an adjacent unmanaged treeless
grassland dominated by common bent (<italic>Agrostis capillaris</italic>, L.). These two ecosystems are located
on a southwest sloping hillside (83–163 m a.s.l.). The mean annual temperature
and precipitation between 2003 and 2015, as measured at the closest weather
station, were 5.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and 1457 mm respectively (Sigurdsson et al.,
2016). According to the world reference base, the soil is characterised as a
silandic Andosol with a silt loam texture (clay : silt : sand ratio of 8 : 61 : 31
in the forest and 6 : 53 : 41 in the grassland) (Sigurdsson et al., 2016). The soil
pH is slightly acidic (5.3 in the forest and 5.7 in the grassland), and the
average SOC content at a soil depth of between 0 and 10 cm in the unwarmed soils is 75 g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the forest (present study) and 54 g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
grassland (Poeplau et al., 2017). Between autumn 2012 and spring 2014, a
total of 30 permanent plots were installed in each ecosystem, comprising six
different degrees of warming along five different transects. In 2014, the
permanently monitored average soil temperature changes due to geothermal
warming were 0, 1.0, 1.9, 2.7, 5.8 and 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in the forest and
0, 0.5, 2.1, 3.9, 10.5 and 17.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in the grassland (Sigurdsson et
al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Soil sampling, fractionation and analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e591">In late April 2018, i.e. almost exactly 10 years after the warming was
initiated, mineral soils of all permanent forest plots (six warming
intensities and five replicates each) were sampled. Before sampling, the litter
layer was carefully removed. Sampling was carried out with a thin auger (3 cm
diameter) to a depth of 30 cm in direct proximity of the plot. For each
plot, three individual soil cores were taken, split into 0–10, 10–20 and
20–30 cm depth increments, and pooled per depth. In case of soil compaction
within the auger, the increment depth was adjusted linearly. For example, a
compaction of 3 cm over the whole soil core resulted in the sampling of
0–9, 9–18 and 18–27 cm increments. For this study, only the 0–10 and 20–30 cm
depth increments were used, which will hereafter be referred to as “topsoil”
and “subsoil”. After sampling, soils were oven dried at 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and
sieved to less than 2 mm.</p>
      <p id="d1e603">Fractionation of SOC was performed as initially described by Zimmermann et
al. (2007) and refined by Poeplau et al. (2013). A scheme can be found at
<uri>https://www.somfractionation.org/combined-meth/part-dens-oxid-zimmermann/</uri> (last access: 3 February 2020).
The procedure involves chemical (oxidation) and physical (size and density
separation) fractionation steps, based on the current understanding of
prevailing SOC stabilisation mechanisms in soils. In a recent comprehensive
method comparison, this method was among the most efficient for isolating SOC
fractions with varying turnover rates (Poeplau et al., 2018). In brief, 20 g of sieved soil was suspended in 150 mL of deionised water and subjected to a
light ultrasonic treatment of 21 J mL<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 30 W to disperse the most
unstable aggregates and associations. Subsequently, the soil was wet-sieved with
a fixed amount of water over 63 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m to separate silt- and clay-sized
particles from sand-sized particles. Several pretests with the most extreme
warming treatments and the unwarmed reference revealed that 1400 mL of
deionised water was sufficient for a complete separation of the coarse
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and fine fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)
particles, as indicated by clear rinsing water. The fine fraction containing
silt- and clay-sized particles (SC) was centrifuged for 15 min at 1000 g, and an aliquot of the supernatant was filtered over 0.45 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m to derive
the dissolved organic carbon fraction (DOC). Fine and coarse fractions were
oven-dried at 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and weighed. Sodium polytungstate (SPT) with a
density of 1.8 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was used to separate the coarse light fraction,
i.e. particulate organic matter (POM), from the coarse heavy fraction, i.e.
the sand and stable aggregates fraction (SA). To do so, about 40 mL of SPT
was added to the coarse fraction in a centrifuge tube and stirred gently.
The stirred samples were left standing for several hours at room temperature so
that particles could float or sink and were subsequently centrifuged for 15 min at 1000 g for the complete separation of the light and heavy fractions. The
supernatant was decanted into a sieve bag with a 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m mesh size. The
density fractionation procedure was repeated once to ensure the complete
separation of the light and heavy fractions. After the second SPT treatment, the
remaining heavy fraction was transferred to a sieve bag with a 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m mesh
size, and both the heavy and light fractions were washed thoroughly to remove all
SPT, dried at 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and weighed. Based on this procedure, we use
the term aggregates in the following for the 63–2000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m aggregate
size fraction, which comprises larger microaggregates as well as
macroaggregates (Totsche et al., 2018). Finally, the SC fraction was
subjected to sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) oxidation, which is undertaken to mimic
strong enzymatic decay and isolate the oxidation-resistant SOC fraction
(rSOC). To do so, NaOCl with 6 % Cl was first adjusted to a pH of 8 using
concentrated HCl. A 1 g aliquot of the SC fraction was then mixed with 40 mL
NaOCl. After a 17 h reaction time, samples were centrifuged, decanted and
washed once with deionised water. The whole procedure was repeated twice to
ensure complete oxidation of NaOCl-oxidizable SOC (SC-rSOC). Thereafter,
soil was dried at 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and weighed to determine the mass loss
caused by oxidation. All solid fractions and the bulk soil were ball-milled
and measured for the respective C and N content via dry combustion (LECO TruMac, St
Joseph, MI, USA). The DOC fraction was measured using a liquid analyser
(DIMATOC, Dimatec, Essen, Germany). The average mass recovery was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">97</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, and the average C recovery was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">99</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %. In the following, two
different<?pagebreak page118?> measures of SOC in the isolated fractions will be used, depending
on the context: (i) the SOC concentration, which indicates the amount of SOC in
each fraction per fraction mass (g C kg fraction<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), and (ii) the SOC
content, which indicates the amount of SOC in each fraction per bulk soil
mass (g C kg soil<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e787">To determine the total amount of soil in stable aggregates, i.e. to separate
the SA fraction into sand and stable aggregates, another 4 g of each bulk
soil sample was subsequently used. Instead of the soft ultrasonic treatment of
21 J mL<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, we applied 500 J mL<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at a high amplitude (70 %) to
completely disperse all aggregates (Schmidt et al., 1999). After subsequent
wet sieving, the mass proportion of the coarse fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) containing POM and pure sand grains was determined and subtracted
from the earlier coarse fraction to determine the mass proportion of stable
aggregates.</p>
      <p id="d1e832">To evaluate the effect of bulk SOC and SOC fractions on soil structure, we
determined the poured bulk density in the bulk soil as well as the coarse
(SA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> POM) and fine (SC) fractions of each sample. The poured bulk density is
also known as the aerated bulk density and is a measure of the structural strength
of loose material (Abdullah and Geldart, 1999). This was done by pouring
material of known weight into a scaled cylindric flask to measure the volume
of the sample. The poured bulk density of each individual sample (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was then calculated as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M67" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mass</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">volume</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mass</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total soil mass of the individual fraction (g) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">volume</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the volume of the individual fraction (cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). We
assumed that a higher poured bulk density would indicate less structure and
hypothesised that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would be negatively correlated with the SOC content
in the SA fraction in particular.</p>
      <p id="d1e941">Soil sampling of the adjacent grassland SOC (data from previous study) was
carried out in December 2014, 6 years after the warming was initiated, and
involved the same experimental design and analyses as that undertaken on the forest soil
(Poeplau et al., 2017).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Statistics</title>
      <p id="d1e952">The balanced design of the experiment, i.e. the six warming intensities, five
transects (replicates) and two different sampling depths, allowed for the use of an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the differences between warming intensities
in the bulk SOC and SOC fractions for significance. Moreover, a nonparametric
analysis of similarity (ANOSIM), as implemented in the vegan R package
(Oksanen et al., 2019), was used to test if warming significantly altered the SOC
composition, i.e. its distribution in different fractions. Finally, an analysis
of covariance was used to assess whether forest SOC (data from this study)
and grassland SOC (data from a previous study) would differ in their response
to soil warming. This was done using an ANOVA including ecosystem, warming
intensity and their interaction. Linear or logarithmic regression models
were used to describe the warming response of bulk SOC and SOC fractions.
The Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to select the most suitable
model for each individual case. Despite the fact that some temperature
responses were non-linear, we used linear regressions to derive absolute and
relative changes in SOC concentration per degree Celsius as a proxy in order to
compare the different fractions. Whenever necessary, data were
log-transformed to an approximate normal distribution, which was visually
assessed using histograms. Significance was assessed at a level of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. All statistical tests and plots were carried out in R (R
Development Core Team, 2010). The ggplot2 package was used for plots
(Wickham, 2016).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Warming-induced changes in forest soil organic carbon</title>
      <p id="d1e983">After 10 years of soil warming, the bulk SOC content in the forest soil had
dropped severely in all of the investigated warming treatments. In the forest soil,
warming-induced SOC losses increased linearly with the degree of warming
(Fig. 1a, b, Table 1) in both depth increments. Absolute losses in the
topsoil (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, Table 1) were more pronounced
than absolute losses in the subsoil (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, Table 1).
In the topsoil, SOC dropped from 75.1 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the unwarmed soil to
26.5 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the most warmed soil; in the subsoil it dropped from
36.2 to 4.0 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Thus, relative losses were even more
pronounced in the subsoil (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % SOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) compared
with the topsoil (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % SOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Despite these strong
linear trends, the SOC content in the bulk soil was only significantly
different from the unwarmed reference at warming intensities of
5.8 and 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (topsoil) as well as 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (subsoil) (Table 1). The same was true for the SOC content in SA and POM; however,
for SC and rSOC, only a warming intensity of 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C was
enough to significantly decrease the SOC content at both depths after 10 years.
For DOC, significant changes with warming were only observed in the subsoil.
In the topsoil, relative changes in the SOC content were in the following order: POM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> bulk soil <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> rSOC. This order is in agreement with the concept of the
fractionation method, i.e. a stronger decline in the most labile fractions
and a slower decline in the more stable fractions. However, this was not the
case for the subsoil, in which the order of relative SOC changes almost
reversed to rSOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> POM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> bulk soil <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DOC (Table 1). Nevertheless, the strong changes in rSOC and SC
were mainly driven by the 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warming intensity.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1283">Areal plots of <bold>(a)</bold> the soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the topsoil
and <bold>(b)</bold> the SOC content in the subsoil as well as <bold>(c)</bold> the SOC proportion in each fraction of the
topsoil and <bold>(d)</bold> the SOC proportion in each fraction of the subsoil as a function
of warming intensity. Fractions were dissolved organic carbon (DOC),
particulate organic matter (POM), SOC in sand and aggregates (SA),
non-oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized SOC (SC-rSOC), and oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized SOC (rSOC).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1307">The average soil organic carbon (SOC) content (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of all fractions
and the bulk soil including their standard errors. The letters following the numbers in the table indicate significant
differences (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) across warming intensities (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)
within one soil depth. Absolute and relative changes in the SOC content as
derived from linear regression models are also displayed for both of the
investigated soil depths. Although this was not the best model in all cases,
we used this value as a proxy to compare the warming response among
fractions. Fractions were dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate
organic matter (POM), SOC in sand and aggregates (SA), total silt- and
clay-sized SOC (SC), and oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized SOC (rSOC).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Warming</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Bulk soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">DOC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">POM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">SC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">rSOC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">intensity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(g C kg soil<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(g C kg soil<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(g C kg soil<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(g C kg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(g C kg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(g C kg</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">fraction<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">fraction<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">fraction<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Topsoil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">71.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">65.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>abc</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">64.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>bc</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">26.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>c</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>c</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Absolute change</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.84</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Relative change</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.49</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(% <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Subsoil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">36.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">29.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>a</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>c</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>b</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Absolute change</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Relative change</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(% <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3145">The depletion of the bulk SOC content led to altered relative distributions of
SOC in the isolated fractions (Fig. 1c,<?pagebreak page119?> d). The ANOSIM revealed that
warming intensities of 5.8 and 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C were necessary to
significantly change the topsoil SOC distribution (Table 2). In the subsoil,
the fraction distribution was significantly different from the unwarmed
reference at warming intensities of 2.7 and 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.
In the topsoil, the unwarmed reference soil was strongly dominated by SOC in
the POM and SA fractions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % combined), which were
strongly depleted with warming (Fig. 1). This led to a relative increase in
SOC stored in the fine fractions (SC-rSOC and rSOC). In the topsoil, even an
absolute increase of SOC in these fractions was observed upon warming (Fig. 1a), which strongly indicated a redistribution of fraction masses. Indeed,
the soil mass of the SA fraction decreased with warming, while the mass of
the SC fraction increased (Fig. 2). This was true for both of the investigated soil
depths, with the mass distribution of the subsoil at the 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
warming intensity being an exception. As expected, the second ultrasonic
step revealed that only the aggregates depleted within the SA fraction,
while the proportion of sand-sized mineral particles remained stable across
warming levels (Fig. 2). Therefore, the aggregate mass proportion in the topsoil
decreased from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in the unwarmed reference to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in the 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warmed soil. In the subsoil, it decreased
from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in the unwarmed reference to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %
in the 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C warmed soil, while at a warming intensity of
17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, the mass proportion of aggregates amounted to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %. The average sand content of 28 % determined after the second
ultrasonic treatment (Fig. 2) concurred well with the 31 % sand content
of the texture analysis.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3276">Areal plots of the soil mass distribution in the particulate
organic matter (POM), sand and stable aggregates (SA), and silt and clay (SC) fractions as a function of warming intensity.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3288">Summary of the analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) that tested the differences
in the distribution of SOC in the investigated fractions for all warming
intensities against the unwarmed reference. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05
indicate significant differences, whereas “n.s.” indicates nonsignificant
differences. An <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value close to 1 suggests dissimilarity between groups.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Warming</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Topsoil </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">Subsoil </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.260</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.040</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.044</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.168</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.116</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.380</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.044</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.272</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.036</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.840</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.011</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">17.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.868</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.196</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3483">Within the fine fraction, the relative mass proportion of rSOC was expected
to increase with warming due to its proposed higher biogeochemical
stability compared with the NaOCl-oxidised part of the SC fraction. However, this
was not the case: across all warming intensities and both soil
depths, we found a significant linear correlation between rSOC and total SOC
in the SC fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.319</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Thus, the NaOCl treatment constantly oxidised two-thirds of the
SC fraction across all warming intensities, indicating that no relative
accumulation of rSOC occurred within the silt- and clay-sized soil fraction.</p>
      <?pagebreak page120?><p id="d1e3527">Interestingly, the proportion of SOC that was water soluble (DOC) tended to
increase with warming in both of the investigated depth increments (Fig. 1c, d),
which was not significant. However, for the topsoil, we detected a
significantly negative relationship of the percentage of total SOC in SA and
the percentage of total SOC in DOC (Fig. 3), which might point towards the
SOC-stabilising function of aggregates.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3533">Correlation between the proportion of soil organic carbon (SOC) in
the sand and aggregates (SA) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) fractions in
the topsoil with the 95 % confidence interval.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=162.180709pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Forest vs. grassland soil carbon responses to warming</title>
      <p id="d1e3550">The observed changes in the bulk and fraction SOC in the forest soil were
generally comparable with those in the adjacent grassland soils (Figs. 4,
5). Especially in the subsoil, the interaction effect of ecosystem and
warming on SOC was not significant for four out of five fractions and the
bulk soil, indicating the same SOC response to warming in both ecosystem
types (Fig. 5, Table 3). Moreover, the difference between ecosystems with respect to the subsoil
SOC content was less pronounced than in the topsoil. This might be partly
related to the fact that the forest was planted on an unmanaged grassland
and that the forest subsoil SOC was still grassland-derived to a high
extent. However, for the topsoil, we found significant interactive effects of
ecosystem and warming for four out of five fractions and the bulk soil (Table 3). The forest soil, which had a considerably higher bulk SOC content in the
unwarmed reference than in the grassland, showed a stronger response to
warming. The predominant SOC fraction in the forest topsoil was the SA
fraction,<?pagebreak page121?> which responded most strongly to warming (Fig. 1). This was generally
observed in both ecosystems. However, the stronger redistribution of soil
mass across fractions in the forest soil compared with the grassland soil
led to very distinct responses from SC-rSOC and rSOC, with stronger warming-induced increases of these fractions in the forest soil (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the
POM fraction of the forest soil responded more negatively to warming than
that in the grassland soil. With respect to the warming response of DOC alone, we did not
detect any differences between the ecosystems in the topsoil. Interestingly,
despite the differences in the initial SOC and warming duration, i.e. 10 years for
the forest and 6 years for the grassland, the SOC in both ecosystems
approached an almost equal SOC content in the most extreme warming
intensities (Fig. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3555">Soil organic carbon (SOC) mass in the bulk soil and fractions of the
forest and grassland topsoils (0–10 cm) as a function of warming intensity
with linear and logarithmic fits and the 95 % confidence intervals. Fractions
were dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate organic matter (POM), SOC
in sand and aggregates (SA), non-oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized
SOC (SC-rSOC), and oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized SOC (rSOC).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3566">Scatter plots showing the soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the bulk
soil and fractions of the forest and grassland subsoils (20–30 cm) as a
function of warming intensity with linear and logarithmic fits and the 95 %
confidence intervals. Fractions were dissolved organic carbon (DOC),
particulate organic matter (POM), SOC in sand and aggregates (SA),
non-oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized SOC (SC-rSOC), and oxidation-resistant silt- and clay-sized SOC (rSOC).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3579">Summary of the linear regression models (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values) assessing the effects
of warming, ecosystem (grassland vs. forest) and their interaction on soil
organic carbon (SOC) for the bulk soil and all isolated fractions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">Topsoil </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center">Subsoil </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Warming</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ecosystem</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Interaction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Warming</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Ecosystem</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Interaction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Bulk soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.029</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.038</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DOC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">POM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.023</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SC-rSOC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">n.s.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">rSOC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">n.s.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.042</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Structural changes following soil carbon loss</title>
      <p id="d1e3938">As expected, we found a strong negative correlation between the SOC content and the
poured bulk density (Fig. 6a, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
A very similar relationship with an identical slope was observed for the coarse
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) soil fraction, comprising SA and POM (Fig. 6b).
In contrast, we did not detect any correlation between the SOC content and the
poured bulk density in the silt and clay fraction (data not shown). A direct
link between the poured bulk density and aggregates is given in Fig. 6c. Finally, in
agreement with the strong decline in SOC and soil mass in the SA fraction
with warming intensity (Figs. 1, 2), we found a strong positive correlation
between the SOC mass and soil mass in the coarse soil fraction comprising SA and POM
(Fig. 6d). The slope of the regression was 4.5, indicating that one unit of SOC
was causing the aggregation of 4.5 units of soil. The effects of SOC on soil
structure were equally observed in the topsoil and subsoil. Furthermore, for all of the
structure-related parameters shown in Fig. 6, observations of both of the
investigated soil depths scattered approximately around the same regression
line. This might indicate that SOC depletion, rather than soil
warming, induced the breakdown of aggregates.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3988">Poured bulk density as a function of the soil organic carbon (SOC)
content in <bold>(a)</bold> the bulk soil and <bold>(b)</bold> the coarse (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)
soil fraction (sand and stable aggregates, SA, and particulate organic
matter, POM); <bold>(c)</bold> the poured bulk density as a function of soil mass in
aggregates and <bold>(d)</bold> soil mass in the coarse soil fraction as a function of SOC
mass in the coarse soil fraction with regression models fitted to all
observations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all models).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/115/2020/soil-6-115-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Warming effects on forest soil organic carbon and its fractions</title>
      <p id="d1e4056">A total of 10 years of forest soil warming caused a strong decline in the SOC content.
Along the temperature gradient, SOC changes followed a linear response, with a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> change in topsoil and subsoil
respectively. Thus, under the most extreme warming intensity treatment of 17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C,
SOC was depleted by 65 % and 89 % in the topsoil and subsoil
respectively. Considering that an air temperature
increase of up to 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C by the end of the century is within the
possible range of IPCC climate change projections (IPCC, 2013), we assume
that a soil warming intensity of up to 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C can be considered
realistic. For example, Zhang et al. (2005) showed that soil temperature
increase (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) generally followed the air temperature
increase (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) in Canada during the 20th century. At a
warming intensity of 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, the investigated soil lost 29 %
(topsoil) and 37 % (subsoil) of the SOC in 10 years. This is in line with other
studies, which also reported significant losses of SOC upon warming
(Crowther et al., 2016, and papers cited therein). In the investigated
experiment, there is no doubt that potential warming-induced changes in net
primary productivity (NPP; Sigurdsson et al., 2014) did not offset increased
soil microbial activity. In fact, root biomass between 0 and 10 cm decreased in both
ecosystems (data not shown), leading to weak positive correlations
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for forest and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.29</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
grasslands) between SOC and root biomass. Moreover, aboveground plant litter tended to
decline in both ecosystems. This suggests that SOC losses were partly driven
by decreasing C input with warming and not by increased microbial activity
alone. However, a clear picture of absolute C inputs in the experimental
plots is not available yet, as NPP and biomass
turnover need to be simultaneously taken into account.</p>
      <p id="d1e4227">Similar or relatively even more pronounced losses of SOC from the subsoil
compared with the topsoil are confirmed by the results of a recent whole profile
forest soil warming study, which concluded that subsoils will be an important
source of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under climate change (Hicks Pries et al., 2017). Higher
relative losses of SOC in the subsoil could potentially be driven by
warming-induced changes in C input patterns. Indeed, especially fine root
production and turnover of trees in the boreal zone has previously been found to
increase with moderate warming (Leppälammi-Kujansuu et al., 2014; Majdi
and Öhrvik, 2004), and fine roots are primarily located in the
uppermost centimetre of forest soils (Hansson et al., 2013; Leppälammi-Kujansuu
et al., 2013). However, at the investigated site, the amount of fine roots
and mycorrhizal production has been found to decrease at the more extreme
warming levels (Parts et al., 2019; Rosenstock et al., 2019). In addition, in
this geothermal warming experiment, heat was coming from below, leading to
slightly more intense soil warming in the subsoil. This is likely to explain
the stronger relative SOC depletion in the subsoil to a certain extent.
However, except for the highest warming level, the vertical gradients within the top
30 cm of soil were not substantial (Sigurdsson et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e4241">A major strength of a warming gradient approach is the identification of
potential tipping points, which may mark abrupt changes in ecosystem
functionality (Kreyling et al., 2014). However, the present study did not
reveal such tipping points for bulk SOC content, which changed in a surprisingly
linear manner with increasing temperature in both of the investigated depth increments.
Despite certain methodological drawbacks of the geothermal (or any other
manipulated) soil warming experiment, such as very abrupt initial
temperature changes and soil warming from below instead of whole ecosystem
warming from above, it can be inferred that climate change is likely to
strongly affect SOC stocks of subarctic forests. These forests cover an area of
approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> or one-third of the global forest
area (Bonan, 2008). The analysis of the soil warming gradient also revealed
detection limits for warming effects on SOC that are intrinsically very
heterogeneous in space and respond slowly to environmental change (Smith,
2004): even after 10 years of chronic soil warming, changes in topsoil SOC
were only significant at a warming intensity of at least 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C,
when<?pagebreak page123?> assessed using the ANOVA approach. An ANOVA, instead of a regression
analysis, is required when only one warming treatment is investigated
(e.g. Schnecker et al., 2016). If this treatment is relatively mild, e.g.
below 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, changes might easily be undetectable against the
background heterogeneity of SOC. This is an important insight considering
the ongoing debate regarding whether SOC is lost upon warming or not (Crowther et al.,
2016; van Gestel et al., 2018). The majority of currently available datasets
are based on such experiments with relatively short, mild and singular
warming treatments (van Gestel et al., 2018). However, the transferability
of the results in this study to the SOC response to global warming is still
rather limited and can only slightly reduce the following given uncertainties: (i) we
studied the soil temperature, not the air temperature increase; (ii) the warming
occurred abruptly and not gradually; and (iii) we studied an Andosol.
Thus, extrapolations to larger areas or longer time periods should be undertaken
carefully and were not intended in this study.</p>
      <p id="d1e4286">The fractionation method used in this study isolates SOC pools of different
biogeochemical stabilities (Zimmermann et al., 2007). Turnover rates are
estimated to range from several years in the POM fraction to<?pagebreak page124?> centuries in
the oxidation-resistant rSOC fraction that is associated with silt and clay
particles (von Lützow et al., 2007). Such differences are mainly related
to different degrees of physicochemical stabilisation in the soil, such as
the interaction with the mineral phase or occlusion into aggregates (von
Lützow et al., 2007). Due to differences in composition and the
bioavailability of these SOC fractions, distinct responses to warming were
expected in the following order: POM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> bulk <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> soil <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SC-rSOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> rSOC. Indeed, the average relative
decrease in the SOC content, which might be the best indicator to describe a
fraction's sensitivity to warming, was observed to follow a similar order in
the topsoil: POM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> bulk soil <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SC-rSOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> rSOC. This concurs well with the
sensitivity of these fractions to land use change as observed across
different land use changes by Poeplau and Don (2013). However, the difference in the
warming response between SC-rSOC (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and rSOC
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was negligible, which was also
reflected in the stable proportion of rSOC in the total SC fraction
throughout the warming gradient. This indicated that NaOCl oxidation did not
yield a meaningful fraction with regard to biogeochemical resistance. This
has been observed before and calls the notion that this
oxidation-resistant pool can be linked to a centennially persistent or even
inert SOC pool into question (Lutfalla et al., 2014; Poeplau et al., 2019,
2017; Zimmermann et al., 2007). At the same time, NaOCl-resistant SOC has
often been described as substantially older and, thus, slower cycling as bulk
SOC (Helfrich et al., 2007) and has also been found to correlate with the abundance
of Al and Fe oxides in the soil (Mikutta et al., 2005). Therefore, the strong
warming response of this fraction is somewhat in contrast with the slow
responses observed in other treatments, such as C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> vegetation changes
(Poeplau et al., 2018). In the subsoil, the average relative depletion in
rSOC was even strongest across all fractions and the bulk soil. However, this was related to the very low carbon content of the highest warming
intensity (17.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) driving the slope of the regression. Only
when the highest warming intensity was excluded, the sensitivity of
fractions followed the observed order in the topsoil, with DOC being an
exception: POM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> bulk soil <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SC-rSOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> rSOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> DOC.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Is aggregate breakdown induced by soil organic carbon losses or vice versa?</title>
      <p id="d1e4502">The most significant warming effect on the distribution of SOC in the
isolated fractions was the strong decrease in SA. In the unwarmed reference
soil, it accounted for the highest proportion of soil mass and SOC content.
However, with warming, aggregates collapsed, leading to strong mass
increases in the fine SC fractions, which even increased the carbon mass upon
warming. The second ultrasonic step, which was used to distinguish sand from
aggregates in the SA fraction, provided evidence that the
aggregate size fraction investigated (63–2000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) was strongly reduced. A tipping
point for aggregate breakdown appears to be located between the warming
intensities of 2.7 and 5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The same mechanism, although less
pronounced, was observed for the adjacent grassland (Poeplau et al., 2017).
Observing SOC depletion and aggregate breakdown at the same time raises the
question of cause and effect: aggregates – at least microaggregates
smaller than 250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m – are acknowledged to protect organic matter from
microbial decomposition (Six et al., 2002). At the same time, organic
matter, especially mucilage, polysaccharides and fungal hyphae, acts as an
aggregate binding agent (Tisdall and Oades, 1982). Answering the question of
whether warming has intrinsically fostered aggregate breakdown via changes in
biotic and abiotic environmental conditions might be of critical importance
for conceptualising and modelling warming effects on SOC dynamics. However, the
results of the present study suggest that the major cause of aggregate
breakdown was not necessarily warming and could instead be well described by
loss of SOC: we found a very strong positive correlation of SOC mass and
total soil mass in the coarse soil fraction (comprising POM and SA) – 1 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of SOC was keeping 4.5 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of soil aggregated. Topsoil and
subsoil samples scattered approximately around the same regression line.
This indicates that the abundance of young and coarse SOC, rather
than the degree of soil warming, is driving the amount of stable aggregates
in the soil. This is well known and, thus, in accordance with the literature
(Franzluebbers, 2002; Oades, 1984; Shepherd et al., 2002). Another reason to
doubt that warming-induced aggregate breakdown caused the destabilisation of
SOC is the fact that the SOC protection capacity of macroaggregates is
debatable (Six et al., 2004). For example, Bischoff et al. (2017) found
higher heterotrophic respiration in uncrushed soil compared with the same
soil with crushed macroaggregates. To some extent, a positive feedback
loop, i.e. SOC depletion causing aggregate breakdown which in turn causes the
mineralisation of accessible C, might indeed be possible. The fact that
the proportion of water soluble SOC in the topsoil increased with decreasing
aggregation points in this direction. The desorption of carbon compounds from
the mineral phase is likely to be fostered by increased surface area, which
is the case when aggregates disintegrate. However, soil pH is also
acknowledged to affect DOC formation (Kalbitz et al., 2000), which might be
another possible explanation for the observed increase in the proportion of
DOC: in both ecosystems, the soil pH increased by up to 0.5 units under the highest
warming intensity treatment (Sigurdsson et al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Linking losses in soil organic carbon to changes in soil structure</title>
      <p id="d1e4562">As a consequence of SOC loss, the total pore space decreased strongly as indicated
by the poured bulk density. The poured bulk density was used as a proxy for the in situ
bulk density in<?pagebreak page125?> the undisturbed soil, which was unfortunately not determined
in the present study. However, the relationship between SOC and the poured bulk
density was in the range of established pedotransfer functions (PTFs) for
field bulk density estimation using SOC content. In a literature review
comparing different PTFs (De Vos et al., 2005), the slopes of regression
models using SOC content (g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to predict soil bulk density (g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) ranged from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.011</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the slope in the present
study was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for both the bulk soil and the SA fraction. This negative
correlation is due to the much lower specific gravity of organic matter
compared with mineral particles and also to the effect of organic matter
on aggregation (De Vos et al., 2005). The variation in slopes, i.e. the effect
of SOC on bulk density, is most likely related to the soil's capability to
form aggregates. In very sandy soils with a single grain structure, even
high organic matter contents do not lead to the considerable formation of
aggregates, and the organic matter effect on the bulk density is mainly
restricted to a gravity effect. Using a two-pool mixing model of mineral
particles with a density of 2.5 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and soil organic matter with a
density of 1, i.e. ignoring the structural effect of organic matter, we
found a slope of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0026</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Accordingly, Callesen et al. (2003) reported a PTF
for sandy forest soils with a slope of approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0028</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the range
of 0–80 g SOC kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (non-linear function). Thus, the slope of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
found in this study might indicate that approximately 50 % of the
SOC effect on the poured bulk density can be assigned to a structural effect.
Indeed, we also found a strong negative correlation between the soil mass stored
in aggregates and the poured bulk density. To conclude, the slope of the
regression between SOC and bulk density, at least in unmanaged soils, might
be a good indicator of the aggregation affinity of a soil. However, the poured
bulk density of disturbed and sieved soil can only express a potential and
should be treated as such. Conversely, factors like position in the
soil profile that strongly influence the packing density of the soil are
cancelled out, enabling a direct comparison of topsoil and subsoil samples.</p>
      <p id="d1e4674">Strong systematic gradients in the SOC content in the same soil, such as those
created by the soil warming in our study, are rare and extremely valuable for
improving our understanding of organic matter functions. Larsbo et al. (2016)
used a natural SOC gradient to evaluate its effect on pore networks,
influencing solute and gaseous transport in the soil. Changes in soil
structure induced by large SOC loss might also affect other key
ecosystem properties, such as NPP (Oldfield et al., 2019), microbial biomass
(Walker et al., 2018) or other soil biota. For example, in the adjacent
warmed grassland plots, Holmstrup et al. (2018) detected a warming-induced
shift in Collembola species abundance towards species with smaller body
size. An increase in the bulk density with the associated decrease in pore space
might have fostered this physiological response, although this was not
explicitly mentioned by the authors. Moreover, a positive correlation between pore
volume and microbial and nematode biomass was found by Hassink et al. (1993). In the present study, aggregation and poured bulk density were
assessed on sieved soils, which provided valuable initial information on
warming-induced changes in basic soil structural parameters. A follow-up study should investigate soil structure and other
physical parameters in undisturbed soil samples for two major
reasons: (i) the gradient in the SOC
content is unique and can be used to improve the general understanding of
the link between organic matter and soil functions; (ii) the warming
responses of many ecosystem aspects are studied along the investigated
warming gradients and knowledge on changes in soil physical properties might
be central to interpret such responses. Moreover, these structural changes
most likely led to a certain sampling bias and, thus, a slight overestimation
of SOC losses: sampling fixed depth increments ignores the fact that
depth increments change with changes in bulk density. Therefore, the depth
increments sampled under the higher warming intensity treatments do not exactly match
the depth increments sampled under the lower warming intensity treatments. However, this
effect is expected to be more pronounced in the topsoil, where the SOC depth
gradient is largest and a shift in reference soil depth would, therefore, have the
strongest impact on the bulk SOC content. However, relative losses in SOC were
even more pronounced in the subsoil, indicating that the sampling bias
might have been small. However, it should be mentioned that mass-based
instead of depth-based sampling (Don et al., 2019) or at least an
a posteriori soil mass correction (Ellert and Bettany, 1995) would be
indispensable to accurately estimate SOC stock changes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>Comparing forest and grassland soil carbon responses to warming</title>
      <?pagebreak page126?><p id="d1e4685">To date, warming experiments have mostly focused on one single type of
ecosystem. However, the warming response could be ecosystem specific (Shaver
et al., 2000), which can only be investigated using a paired ecosystem
approach. In the present study, we investigated a small stretch of forest
located directly adjacent to a similarly warmed grassland. Changes in the SOC
content and the relative distribution of fraction masses in the grassland
soils have been previously investigated (Poeplau et al., 2017). Both
ecosystems showed a similarly strong response to warming. The fact that no
difference in subsoil SOC dynamics in the bulk soil or any isolated
fractions were observed might indicate that the same mechanisms of SOC
depletion were involved in both ecosystems. For example, aggregate
breakdown and an equal decrease in rSOC and SC-rSOC were also observed
in the grassland. However, the initial SOC content and fraction distribution
in the topsoil differed across ecosystems, leading to distinct responses to
warming: the unwarmed forest had about 50 % more SOC in the topsoil
compared with the grassland, and about 150 % more SOC was stored in the SA
fraction. Furthermore, the POM fraction in the forest was almost twice that  in the grassland, with
proportionally less SOC stored in more stable fractions. The shift in
the fraction mass distribution, i.e. aggregate breakdown, was more pronounced
in the forest topsoil, leading to the increase in the fine-fraction SOC with
warming, which was not observed in the grassland. Crowther et al. (2016)
reported that SOC loss upon warming is a function of initial SOC, and the
present study confirms this. In fact, to some extent, the explanation for
this might be the higher proportion of labile SOC in soils with higher SOC
stocks (Besnard et al., 1996). It has been previously reported that forest
SOC is more labile than grassland SOC (Poeplau and Don, 2013). The forest
was sampled after 10 years of warming, and the grassland was sampled after 6 years.
However, (i) subsoils showed an almost identical response to warming and (ii) there were indications that the grassland had already reached a new SOC steady state after 6 years of warming (Walker et al., 2018). Therefore,
it seems likely that amount and fraction distribution of SOC drove the
ecosystem-specific warming response in the topsoil. This difference in the
topsoil SOC and fraction distribution has been found before and is related to the
different sources and qualities of fresh organic matter inputs (Poeplau and
Don, 2013; Huang et al., 2011). In particular, needle litter is acknowledged to
decompose slowly (Prescott et al., 2000). Differences in POM as well as
total SOC stocks are observed to level off with increasing soil depth (Davis
and Condron, 2002; Poeplau and Don, 2013). This might also be true for the
response to warming, as indicated by the present study. Finally, the SOC
content in both ecosystems approaches a similar baseline under the highest
warming intensity. This might indicate that the specific amount of
biogeochemical persistent SOC does not depend on land cover or vegetation
type but is rather controlled by mineralogy.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e4698">Using a strong geothermal warming gradient, we found a clear link between
SOC losses and soil structural changes. A total of 10 years of soil warming created a
steep gradient in the SOC content that is rare and should be used to study the
links between organic matter and soil structure and soil function more deeply.
The results of the present study reveal that the effects of warming on
biogeochemical cycles are most likely not restricted to direct effects on
biotic processes and that changes in the microbial habitat and possibly
abiotic soil properties should be considered. These factors are likely to exert a
strong indirect influence on any biotic response. Differences in the warming
response of the bulk SOC and SOC fractions between ecosystems have only been
found in the topsoil, which might be related to the fact that the
forest was planted on unmanaged grassland half a century ago. In the forest,
the depletion of SOC was more pronounced in the subsoil, which calls for more
whole soil profile warming studies.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4705">The dataset is stored on the Center For Open Science data repository and is
available at <uri>https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SGUZ2</uri> (Poeplau, 2019).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4714">CP designed the study, carried out parts of the lab work and prepared the
paper with contributions from all co-authors. PS sampled the soils and
BDS initiated the entire field experiment.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4720">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4726">We thank Tatjana Saevici for conducting the fractionation work. This work
contributes to the Nordic CAR-ES and ForHot (<uri>https://www.forhot.is</uri>, last access: 3 February 2020) network
projects and the Icelandic Research Fund project no. 163272-053.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4734">This research has been supported by the Icelandic Research Fund project (grant no. 163272-053).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4740">This paper was edited by Cornelia Rumpel and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Abdullah, E. C.  and Geldart, D.: The use of bulk density measurements as
flowability indicators, Powder Technol., 102, 151–165, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Barrios, E.: Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity,
Ecol. Econ., 64, 269–285, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Besnard, E., Chenu, C., Balesdent, J., Puget, P., and Arrouays, D.: Fate of
particulate organic matter in soil aggregates during cultivation, Eur.
J. Soil Sci., 47, 495–503, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bischoff, N., Mikutta, R., Shibistova, O., Puzanov, A., Silanteva, M., Grebennikova, A., Fuß, R., and Guggenberger, G.: Limited protection of macro-aggregate-occluded organic carbon in Siberian steppe soils, Biogeosciences, 14, 2627–2640, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2627-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-14-2627-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bonan, G. B.: Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the
climate benefits of forests, Science, 320, 1444–1449, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bradford, M. A., Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., Fierer, N., Raymond, P. A.,
and Crowther, T. W.: Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to
climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 751, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate3071</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Callesen, I., Liski, J., Raulund-Rasmussen, K., Olsson, M., Tau-Strand, L.,
Vesterdal, L., and Westman, C.: Soil carbon stores in Nordic well-drained
forest soils – Relationships with climate and texture class, Glob. Change
Biol., 9, 358–370, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Chepil, W.: Properties of soil which influence wind erosion: IV. State of
dry aggregate structure, Soil Sci., 72, 387–402, 1951.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Conant, R. T., Ryan, M. G., Ågren, G. I., Birge, H. E., Davidson, E. A.,
Eliasson, P. E., Evans, S. E., Frey, S. D., Giardina, C. P., an<?pagebreak page127?>d Hopkins, F.
M.: Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates–synthesis of
current knowledge and a way forward, Glob. Change Biol., 17, 3392–3404,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Crowther, T. W., Todd-Brown, K. E., Rowe, C. W., Wieder, W. R., Carey, J.
C., Machmuller, M. B., Snoek, B., Fang, S., Zhou, G., and Allison, S. D.:
Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming, Nature, 540,
104–108, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Davis, M.  and Condron, L.: Impact of grassland afforestation on soil carbon
in New Zealand: a review of paired-site studies, Soil Res., 40, 675–690,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
De Vos, B., Van Meirvenne, M., Quataert, P., Deckers, J., and Muys, B.:
Predictive quality of pedotransfer functions for estimating bulk density of
forest soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69, 500–510, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Diffenbaugh, N. S.  and Giorgi, F.: Climate change hotspots in the CMIP5
global climate model ensemble, Climatic Change, 114, 813–822, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Don, A., Hagen, C., Grüneberg, E., and Vos, C.: Simulated wild boar bioturbation increases the stability of forest soil carbon, Biogeosciences, 16, 4145–4155, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4145-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-16-4145-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Ellert, B. H.  and Bettany, J. R.: Calculation of organic matter and
nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes, Can.
J. Soil Sci., 75, 529–538, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fang, C., Smith, P., Moncrieff, J. B., and Smith, J. U.: Similar response of
labile and resistant soil organic matter pools to changes in temperature,
Nature, 433, 57, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03138" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature03138</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Franzluebbers, A. J.: Water infiltration and soil structure related to
organic matter and its stratification with depth, Soil Till. Res.,
66, 197–205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00027-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00027-2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Halldórsson, B. and Sigbjörnsson, R.: The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.3 Ölfus earthquake
at 15:45 UTC on 29 May 2008 in South Iceland: ICEARRAY strong-motion
recordings, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29, 1073–1083, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hansson, K., Fröberg, M., Helmisaari, H.-S., Kleja, D. B., Olsson, B.
A., Olsson, M., and Persson, T.: Carbon and nitrogen pools and fluxes above
and below ground in spruce, pine and birch stands in southern Sweden, Forest
Ecol. Manag., 309, 28–35, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hassink, J., Bouwman, L., Zwart, K., and Brussaard, L.: Relationships between
habitable pore space, soil biota and mineralization rates in grassland
soils, Soil Biol. Biochem., 25, 47–55, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Helfrich, M., Flessa, H., Mikutta, R., Dreves, A., and Ludwig, B.:
Comparison of chemical fractionation methods for isolating stable soil
organic carbon pools, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 58, 1316–1329,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00926.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00926.x</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hicks Pries, C. E., Castanha, C., Porras, R. C., and Torn, M. S.: The
whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming, Science, 355, 1420–1423,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Holmstrup, M., Ehlers, B. K., Slotsbo, S., Ilieva-Makulec, K., Sigurdsson,
B. D., Leblans, N. I. W., Ellers, J., and Berg, M. P.: Functional diversity
of Collembola is reduced in soils subjected to short-term, but not
long-term, geothermal warming, Funct. Ecol., 32, 1304–1316, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Horn, R., Taubner, H., Wuttke, M., and Baumgartl, T.: Soil physical properties
related to soil structure, Soil  Till. Res., 30, 187–216, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Huang, Z., Davis, M. R., Condron, L. M., and Clinton, P. W.: Soil carbon
pools, plant biomarkers and mean carbon residence time after afforestation
of grassland with three tree species, Soil Biol. Biochem., 43,
1341–1349, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., and Coleman, K.: Soil organic matter: its
importance in sustainable agriculture and carbon dioxide fluxes, Adv.
Agron., 101, 1–57, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Kalbitz, K., Solinger, S., Park, J. H., Michalzik, B., and Matzner, E.:
Controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in soils: A review,
Soil Sci., 165, 277–304, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Kreyling, J., Jentsch, A., and Beier, C.: Beyond realism in climate change
experiments: gradient approaches identify thresholds and tipping points,
Ecol. Lett., 17, 125-e1, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Larsbo, M., Koestel, J., Kätterer, T., and Jarvis, N.: Preferential
Transport in Macropores is Reduced by Soil Organic Carbon, Vadose Zone
J., 15, 1–7, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.03.0021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2136/vzj2016.03.0021</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Lefevre, R., Barre, P., Moyano, F. E., Christensen, B. T., Bardoux, G.,
Eglin, T., Girardin, C., Houot, S., Kaetterer, T., and Oort, F.: Higher
temperature sensitivity for stable than for labile soil organic
carbon–Evidence from incubations of long-term bare fallow soils, Glob.
Change Biol., 20, 633–640, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Leppälammi-Kujansuu, J., Ostonen, I., Strömgren, M., Nilsson, L. O.,
Kleja, D. B., Sah, S. P., and Helmisaari, H.-S.: Effects of
long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation on Norway spruce fine roots
and mycelia production, Plant  Soil, 366, 287–303, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Leppälammi-Kujansuu, J., Salemaa, M., Kleja, D. B., Linder, S., and
Helmisaari, H.-S.: Fine root turnover and litter production of Norway spruce
in a long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation experiment, Plant
Soil, 374, 73–88, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Lutfalla, S., Chenu, C., and Barré, P.: Are chemical oxidation methods
relevant to isolate a soil pool of centennial carbon?, Biogeochemistry, 118,
135–139, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Majdi, H. and Ohrvik, J.: Interactive effects of soil warming and fertilization
on root production, mortality, and longevity in a Norway spruce stand in
Northern Sweden, Glob. Change Biol., 10, 182–188, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Melillo, J., Steudler, P., Aber, J., Newkirk, K., Lux, H., Bowles, F.,
Catricala, C., Magill, A., Ahrens, T., and Morrisseau, S.: Soil
warming and carbon-cycle feedbacks to the climate system, Science, 298, 2173–2176,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Mikutta, R., Kleber, M., Kaiser, K., and Jahn, R.: Review: Organic matter
removal from soils using hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, and
disodium peroxodisulfate, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69,
120–135, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Oades, J. M.: Soil organic matter and structural stability: mechanisms and
implications for management,
Plant Soil, 76,  319–337, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
O'Gorman, E. J., Benstead, J. P., Cross, W. F., Friberg, N., Hood, J. M.,
Johnson, P. W., Sigurdsson, B. D., and Woodward, G.: Climate change and
geothermal ecosystems: natural laboratories, sentinel systems, and future
refugia, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 3291–3299, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R.,
O'hara, R., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., and Wagner, H.:
vegan: Community ecology Package R packag<?pagebreak page128?>e version 2.5-4, available at: <uri>http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan</uri> (last access: 17 March 2020), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oldfield, E. E., Bradford, M. A., and Wood, S. A.: Global meta-analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields, SOIL, 5, 15–32, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-15-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/soil-5-15-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Parts, K., Tedersoo, L., Schindlbacher, A., Sigurdsson, B. D., Leblans, N.
I. W., Oddsdóttir, E. S., Borken, W., and Ostonen, I.: Acclimation of fine
root systems to soil warming: comparison of an experimental setup and a
natural soil temperature gradient, Ecosystems, 22, 457–472, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Poeplau, C.: Geothermal forest soil warming, OSF Home, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SGUZ2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.17605/OSF.IO/SGUZ2</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C.  and Don, A.: Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and
fractions to different land-use changes across Europe, Geoderma, 192,
189–201, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Don, A., Dondini, M., Leifeld, J., Nemo, R., Schumacher, J.,
Senapati, N., and Wiesmeier, M.: Reproducibility of a soil organic carbon
fractionation method to derive RothC carbon pools, Eur. J. Soil
Sci., 64, 735–746, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Kätterer, T., Leblans, N. I., and Sigurdsson, B. D.:
Sensitivity of soil carbon fractions and their specific stabilization
mechanisms to extreme soil warming in a subarctic grassland, Glob. Change
Biol., 23, 1316–1327, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Don, A., Six, J., Kaiser, M., Benbi, D., Chenu, C., Cotrufo, M.
F., Derrien, D., Gioacchini, P., Grand, S., Gregorich, E., Griepentrog, M.,
Gunina, A., Haddix, M., Kuzyakov, Y., Kühnel, A., Macdonald, L. M.,
Soong, J., Trigalet, S., Vermeire, M.-L., Rovira, P., van Wesemael, B.,
Wiesmeier, M., Yeasmin, S., Yevdokimov, I., and Nieder, R.: Isolating
organic carbon fractions with varying turnover rates in temperate
agricultural soils – A comprehensive method comparison, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 125, 10–26, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Barré, P., Cécillon, L., Baudin, F., and Sigurdsson, B.
D.: Changes in the Rock-Eval signature of soil organic carbon upon extreme
soil warming and chemical oxidation – A comparison, Geoderma, 337, 181–190,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prescott, C. E., Zabek, L. M., Staley, C. L., and Kabzems, R.: Decomposition
of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of
litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures, Can. J. Forest
Res., 30, 1742–1750, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-097" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1139/x00-097</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical
computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Rosenstock, N., Ellström, M., Oddsdottir, E., Sigurdsson, B. D., and
Wallander, H.: Carbon sequestration and community composition of
ectomycorrhizal fungi across a geothermal warming gradient in an Icelandic
spruce forest, Fungal Ecol.,  40, 32–42, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Rustad, L.: Global change: Matter of time on the prairie, Nature, 413, 578–579,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Scharlemann, J. P., Tanner, E. V., Hiederer, R., and Kapos, V.: Global soil
carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool,
Carbon Manag., 5, 81–91, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Schmidt, M. W. I., Rumpel, C., and Kögel-Knabner, I.: Evaluation of an
ultrasonic dispersion procedure to isolate primary organomineral complexes
from soils, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 50, 87–94, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Schnecker, J., Borken, W., Schindlbacher, A., and Wanek, W.: Little effects
on soil organic matter chemistry of density fractions after seven years of
forest soil warming, Soil Biol. Biochem., 103, 300–307, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Shaver, G. R., Canadell, J., Chapin, F. S., Gurevitch, J., Harte, J., Henry,
G., Ineson, P., Jonasson, S., Melillo, J., and Pitelka, L.: Global Warming
and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis: Ecosystem
responses to global warming will be complex and varied. Ecosystem warming
experiments hold great potential for providing insights on ways terrestrial
ecosystems will respond to upcoming decades of climate change. Documentation
of initial conditions provides the context for understanding and predicting
ecosystem responses, BioScience, 50, 871–882, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, M., Harrison, R., and Webb, J.: Managing soil organic
matter–implications for soil structure on organic farms, Soil Use
Manage., 18, 284–292, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Sigurdsson, B. D., Leblans, N., Oddsdottir, E. S., Maljanen, M., and Janssens,
I. A.: Effects of geothermal soil warming on soil carbon and nutrient
processes in a Sitka spruce plantation, Working Papers of the Finnish Forest
Research Institute,  316, 11–13, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Sigurdsson, B. D., Leblans, N. I., Dauwe, S., Gudmundsdottir, E., Gundersen,
P., Gunnarsdottir, G. E., Holmstrup, M., Ilieva-Makulec, K., Katterer, T.,
and Marteinsdottir, B.-S.: Geothermal ecosystems as natural climate change
experiments: The ForHot research site in Iceland as a case study, Iceland.
Agr. Sci., 29, 53–71, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Six, J., Conant, R., Paul, E. A., and Paustian, K.: Stabilization mechanisms
of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils, Plant
Soil, 241, 155–176, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S., and Denef, K.: A history of research on the
link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter
dynamics, Soil  Till. Res., 79, 7–31, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Smith, P. J. G. C. B.: How long before a change in soil organic carbon can
be detected?, Glob. Change Biol., 10, 1878–1883, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J., Schuur, E. A., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G., and
Zimov, S.: Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost
region,  Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB2023, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003327" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GB003327</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Tisdall, J. M.  and Oades, J. M.: Organic matter and water-stable aggregates
in soils, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 33, 141–163, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Totsche, K. U., Amelung, W., Gerzabek, M. H., Guggenberger, G., Klumpp, E.,
Knief, C., Lehndorff, E., Mikutta, R., Peth, S., and Prechtel, A.:
Microaggregates in soils, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 181,
104–136, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
van Gestel, N., Shi, Z., van Groenigen, K. J., Osenberg, C. W., Andresen, L.
C., Dukes, J. S., Hovenden, M. J., Luo, Y., Michelsen, A., Pendall, E.,
Reich, P. B., Schuur, E. A. G., and Hungate, B. A.: Predicting soil carbon
loss with warming, Nature, 554, E4–E5, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
von Lützow, M., Kogel-Knabner, I., Ekschmittb, K., Flessa, H.,
Guggenberger, G., Matzner, E., and Marschner, B.: SOM fractionation methods:
Relevance to functional pools and to stabilization mechanisms, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 39, 2183–2207, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Walker, T. W. N., Kaiser, C., Strasser, F., Herbold, C. W., Leblans, N. I.
W., Woebken, D., Janssens, I. A., Sigurdsson, B. D., and Richter, A.: Microbial
temperature sensitivity and biomas<?pagebreak page129?>s change explain soil carbon loss with
warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 885–889, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Wickham, H.: ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis, Springer,  Berlin, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Chen, W., Smith, S. L., Riseborough, D. W., and Cihlar, J.: Soil
temperature in Canada during the twentieth century: Complex responses to
atmospheric climate change, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
110, D03112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004910" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004910</ext-link>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Zimmermann, M., Leifeld, J., Schmidt, M. W. I., Smith, P., and Fuhrer, J.:
Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC
model, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 58, 658–667, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Depletion of soil carbon and aggregation after strong warming of a subarctic Andosol under forest and grassland cover </article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The net loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) from terrestrial ecosystems
is a likely consequence of global warming and may affect key soil
functions. The strongest changes in temperature are expected to occur at high
northern latitudes, with forest and tundra as prevailing land cover types.
However, specific soil responses to warming in different ecosystems are currently
understudied. In this study, we used a natural geothermal soil warming gradient (0–17.5&thinsp;°C warming intensity) in an Icelandic spruce forest on Andosol to
assess changes in the SOC content between 0 and 10&thinsp;cm (topsoil) and between 20 and 30&thinsp;cm (subsoil)
after 10 years of soil warming. Five different SOC fractions were isolated,
and their redistribution and the amount of stable aggregates were
assessed to link SOC to changes in the soil structure. The results were compared to an
adjacent, previously investigated warmed grassland. Soil warming
depleted the SOC content in the forest soil by −2.7&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>&thinsp;°C<sup>−1</sup> (−3.6&thinsp;%&thinsp;°C<sup>−1</sup>) in the topsoil and −1.6&thinsp;g&thinsp;kg<sup>−1</sup>&thinsp;°C<sup>−1</sup> (−4.5&thinsp;%&thinsp;°C<sup>−1</sup>) in the
subsoil. The distribution of SOC in different fractions was significantly
altered, with particulate organic matter and SOC in sand and stable
aggregates being relatively depleted and SOC attached to silt and clay being
relatively enriched in warmed soils. The major reason for this shift was
aggregate breakdown: the topsoil aggregate mass proportion was reduced from
60.7±2.2&thinsp;% in the unwarmed reference to 28.9±4.6&thinsp;% in
the most warmed soil. Across both depths, the loss of one unit of SOC caused a
depletion of 4.5 units of aggregated soil, which strongly affected the bulk density
(an <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> value of 0.91 and <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 when correlated with SOC, and an
<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> value of 0.51 and <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 when correlated with soil mass in
stable aggregates). The proportion of water-extractable carbon increased
with decreasing aggregation, which might indicate an indirect protective
effect of aggregates larger than 63&thinsp;µm on SOC. Topsoil changes in the
total SOC content and fraction distribution were more pronounced in the
forest than in the adjacent warmed grassland soils, due to higher and more
labile initial SOC. However, no ecosystem effect was observed on the warming response of the
subsoil SOC content and fraction distribution. Thus, whole profile
differences across ecosystems might be small. Changes in the soil structure upon warming should be studied more deeply and taken into consideration when interpreting or modelling biotic responses to warming.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abdullah, E. C.  and Geldart, D.: The use of bulk density measurements as
flowability indicators, Powder Technol., 102, 151–165, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Barrios, E.: Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity,
Ecol. Econ., 64, 269–285, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Besnard, E., Chenu, C., Balesdent, J., Puget, P., and Arrouays, D.: Fate of
particulate organic matter in soil aggregates during cultivation, Eur.
J. Soil Sci., 47, 495–503, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bischoff, N., Mikutta, R., Shibistova, O., Puzanov, A., Silanteva, M., Grebennikova, A., Fuß, R., and Guggenberger, G.: Limited protection of macro-aggregate-occluded organic carbon in Siberian steppe soils, Biogeosciences, 14, 2627–2640, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2627-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2627-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bonan, G. B.: Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the
climate benefits of forests, Science, 320, 1444–1449, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bradford, M. A., Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., Fierer, N., Raymond, P. A.,
and Crowther, T. W.: Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to
climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 751, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Callesen, I., Liski, J., Raulund-Rasmussen, K., Olsson, M., Tau-Strand, L.,
Vesterdal, L., and Westman, C.: Soil carbon stores in Nordic well-drained
forest soils – Relationships with climate and texture class, Glob. Change
Biol., 9, 358–370, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chepil, W.: Properties of soil which influence wind erosion: IV. State of
dry aggregate structure, Soil Sci., 72, 387–402, 1951.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Conant, R. T., Ryan, M. G., Ågren, G. I., Birge, H. E., Davidson, E. A.,
Eliasson, P. E., Evans, S. E., Frey, S. D., Giardina, C. P., and Hopkins, F.
M.: Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates–synthesis of
current knowledge and a way forward, Glob. Change Biol., 17, 3392–3404,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Crowther, T. W., Todd-Brown, K. E., Rowe, C. W., Wieder, W. R., Carey, J.
C., Machmuller, M. B., Snoek, B., Fang, S., Zhou, G., and Allison, S. D.:
Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming, Nature, 540,
104–108, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Davis, M.  and Condron, L.: Impact of grassland afforestation on soil carbon
in New Zealand: a review of paired-site studies, Soil Res., 40, 675–690,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
De Vos, B., Van Meirvenne, M., Quataert, P., Deckers, J., and Muys, B.:
Predictive quality of pedotransfer functions for estimating bulk density of
forest soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69, 500–510, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Diffenbaugh, N. S.  and Giorgi, F.: Climate change hotspots in the CMIP5
global climate model ensemble, Climatic Change, 114, 813–822, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Don, A., Hagen, C., Grüneberg, E., and Vos, C.: Simulated wild boar bioturbation increases the stability of forest soil carbon, Biogeosciences, 16, 4145–4155, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4145-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4145-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Ellert, B. H.  and Bettany, J. R.: Calculation of organic matter and
nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes, Can.
J. Soil Sci., 75, 529–538, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Fang, C., Smith, P., Moncrieff, J. B., and Smith, J. U.: Similar response of
labile and resistant soil organic matter pools to changes in temperature,
Nature, 433, 57, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03138" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03138</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Franzluebbers, A. J.: Water infiltration and soil structure related to
organic matter and its stratification with depth, Soil Till. Res.,
66, 197–205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00027-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00027-2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Halldórsson, B. and Sigbjörnsson, R.: The <i>M</i><sub>w</sub> 6.3 Ölfus earthquake
at 15:45&thinsp;UTC on 29 May 2008 in South Iceland: ICEARRAY strong-motion
recordings, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29, 1073–1083, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hansson, K., Fröberg, M., Helmisaari, H.-S., Kleja, D. B., Olsson, B.
A., Olsson, M., and Persson, T.: Carbon and nitrogen pools and fluxes above
and below ground in spruce, pine and birch stands in southern Sweden, Forest
Ecol. Manag., 309, 28–35, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Hassink, J., Bouwman, L., Zwart, K., and Brussaard, L.: Relationships between
habitable pore space, soil biota and mineralization rates in grassland
soils, Soil Biol. Biochem., 25, 47–55, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Helfrich, M., Flessa, H., Mikutta, R., Dreves, A., and Ludwig, B.:
Comparison of chemical fractionation methods for isolating stable soil
organic carbon pools, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 58, 1316–1329,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00926.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00926.x</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hicks Pries, C. E., Castanha, C., Porras, R. C., and Torn, M. S.: The
whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming, Science, 355, 1420–1423,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Holmstrup, M., Ehlers, B. K., Slotsbo, S., Ilieva-Makulec, K., Sigurdsson,
B. D., Leblans, N. I. W., Ellers, J., and Berg, M. P.: Functional diversity
of Collembola is reduced in soils subjected to short-term, but not
long-term, geothermal warming, Funct. Ecol., 32, 1304–1316, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Horn, R., Taubner, H., Wuttke, M., and Baumgartl, T.: Soil physical properties
related to soil structure, Soil  Till. Res., 30, 187–216, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, Z., Davis, M. R., Condron, L. M., and Clinton, P. W.: Soil carbon
pools, plant biomarkers and mean carbon residence time after afforestation
of grassland with three tree species, Soil Biol. Biochem., 43,
1341–1349, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., and Coleman, K.: Soil organic matter: its
importance in sustainable agriculture and carbon dioxide fluxes, Adv.
Agron., 101, 1–57, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Kalbitz, K., Solinger, S., Park, J. H., Michalzik, B., and Matzner, E.:
Controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in soils: A review,
Soil Sci., 165, 277–304, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kreyling, J., Jentsch, A., and Beier, C.: Beyond realism in climate change
experiments: gradient approaches identify thresholds and tipping points,
Ecol. Lett., 17, 125-e1, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Larsbo, M., Koestel, J., Kätterer, T., and Jarvis, N.: Preferential
Transport in Macropores is Reduced by Soil Organic Carbon, Vadose Zone
J., 15, 1–7, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.03.0021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.03.0021</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lefevre, R., Barre, P., Moyano, F. E., Christensen, B. T., Bardoux, G.,
Eglin, T., Girardin, C., Houot, S., Kaetterer, T., and Oort, F.: Higher
temperature sensitivity for stable than for labile soil organic
carbon–Evidence from incubations of long-term bare fallow soils, Glob.
Change Biol., 20, 633–640, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Leppälammi-Kujansuu, J., Ostonen, I., Strömgren, M., Nilsson, L. O.,
Kleja, D. B., Sah, S. P., and Helmisaari, H.-S.: Effects of
long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation on Norway spruce fine roots
and mycelia production, Plant  Soil, 366, 287–303, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Leppälammi-Kujansuu, J., Salemaa, M., Kleja, D. B., Linder, S., and
Helmisaari, H.-S.: Fine root turnover and litter production of Norway spruce
in a long-term temperature and nutrient manipulation experiment, Plant
Soil, 374, 73–88, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Lutfalla, S., Chenu, C., and Barré, P.: Are chemical oxidation methods
relevant to isolate a soil pool of centennial carbon?, Biogeochemistry, 118,
135–139, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Majdi, H. and Ohrvik, J.: Interactive effects of soil warming and fertilization
on root production, mortality, and longevity in a Norway spruce stand in
Northern Sweden, Glob. Change Biol., 10, 182–188, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Melillo, J., Steudler, P., Aber, J., Newkirk, K., Lux, H., Bowles, F.,
Catricala, C., Magill, A., Ahrens, T., and Morrisseau, S.: Soil
warming and carbon-cycle feedbacks to the climate system, Science, 298, 2173–2176,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Mikutta, R., Kleber, M., Kaiser, K., and Jahn, R.: Review: Organic matter
removal from soils using hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, and
disodium peroxodisulfate, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69,
120–135, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Oades, J. M.: Soil organic matter and structural stability: mechanisms and
implications for management,
Plant Soil, 76,  319–337, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
O'Gorman, E. J., Benstead, J. P., Cross, W. F., Friberg, N., Hood, J. M.,
Johnson, P. W., Sigurdsson, B. D., and Woodward, G.: Climate change and
geothermal ecosystems: natural laboratories, sentinel systems, and future
refugia, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 3291–3299, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R.,
O'hara, R., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., and Wagner, H.:
vegan: Community ecology Package R package version 2.5-4, available at: <a href="http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan" target="_blank"/> (last access: 17 March 2020), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Oldfield, E. E., Bradford, M. A., and Wood, S. A.: Global meta-analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields, SOIL, 5, 15–32, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-15-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-15-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Parts, K., Tedersoo, L., Schindlbacher, A., Sigurdsson, B. D., Leblans, N.
I. W., Oddsdóttir, E. S., Borken, W., and Ostonen, I.: Acclimation of fine
root systems to soil warming: comparison of an experimental setup and a
natural soil temperature gradient, Ecosystems, 22, 457–472, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C.: Geothermal forest soil warming, OSF Home, <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SGUZ2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SGUZ2</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C.  and Don, A.: Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and
fractions to different land-use changes across Europe, Geoderma, 192,
189–201, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Don, A., Dondini, M., Leifeld, J., Nemo, R., Schumacher, J.,
Senapati, N., and Wiesmeier, M.: Reproducibility of a soil organic carbon
fractionation method to derive RothC carbon pools, Eur. J. Soil
Sci., 64, 735–746, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Kätterer, T., Leblans, N. I., and Sigurdsson, B. D.:
Sensitivity of soil carbon fractions and their specific stabilization
mechanisms to extreme soil warming in a subarctic grassland, Glob. Change
Biol., 23, 1316–1327, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Don, A., Six, J., Kaiser, M., Benbi, D., Chenu, C., Cotrufo, M.
F., Derrien, D., Gioacchini, P., Grand, S., Gregorich, E., Griepentrog, M.,
Gunina, A., Haddix, M., Kuzyakov, Y., Kühnel, A., Macdonald, L. M.,
Soong, J., Trigalet, S., Vermeire, M.-L., Rovira, P., van Wesemael, B.,
Wiesmeier, M., Yeasmin, S., Yevdokimov, I., and Nieder, R.: Isolating
organic carbon fractions with varying turnover rates in temperate
agricultural soils – A comprehensive method comparison, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 125, 10–26, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Poeplau, C., Barré, P., Cécillon, L., Baudin, F., and Sigurdsson, B.
D.: Changes in the Rock-Eval signature of soil organic carbon upon extreme
soil warming and chemical oxidation – A comparison, Geoderma, 337, 181–190,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Prescott, C. E., Zabek, L. M., Staley, C. L., and Kabzems, R.: Decomposition
of broadleaf and needle litter in forests of British Columbia: influences of
litter type, forest type, and litter mixtures, Can. J. Forest
Res., 30, 1742–1750, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-097" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-097</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical
computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenstock, N., Ellström, M., Oddsdottir, E., Sigurdsson, B. D., and
Wallander, H.: Carbon sequestration and community composition of
ectomycorrhizal fungi across a geothermal warming gradient in an Icelandic
spruce forest, Fungal Ecol.,  40, 32–42, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Rustad, L.: Global change: Matter of time on the prairie, Nature, 413, 578–579,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Scharlemann, J. P., Tanner, E. V., Hiederer, R., and Kapos, V.: Global soil
carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool,
Carbon Manag., 5, 81–91, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Schmidt, M. W. I., Rumpel, C., and Kögel-Knabner, I.: Evaluation of an
ultrasonic dispersion procedure to isolate primary organomineral complexes
from soils, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 50, 87–94, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Schnecker, J., Borken, W., Schindlbacher, A., and Wanek, W.: Little effects
on soil organic matter chemistry of density fractions after seven years of
forest soil warming, Soil Biol. Biochem., 103, 300–307, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Shaver, G. R., Canadell, J., Chapin, F. S., Gurevitch, J., Harte, J., Henry,
G., Ineson, P., Jonasson, S., Melillo, J., and Pitelka, L.: Global Warming
and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis: Ecosystem
responses to global warming will be complex and varied. Ecosystem warming
experiments hold great potential for providing insights on ways terrestrial
ecosystems will respond to upcoming decades of climate change. Documentation
of initial conditions provides the context for understanding and predicting
ecosystem responses, BioScience, 50, 871–882, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, M., Harrison, R., and Webb, J.: Managing soil organic
matter–implications for soil structure on organic farms, Soil Use
Manage., 18, 284–292, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Sigurdsson, B. D., Leblans, N., Oddsdottir, E. S., Maljanen, M., and Janssens,
I. A.: Effects of geothermal soil warming on soil carbon and nutrient
processes in a Sitka spruce plantation, Working Papers of the Finnish Forest
Research Institute,  316, 11–13, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Sigurdsson, B. D., Leblans, N. I., Dauwe, S., Gudmundsdottir, E., Gundersen,
P., Gunnarsdottir, G. E., Holmstrup, M., Ilieva-Makulec, K., Katterer, T.,
and Marteinsdottir, B.-S.: Geothermal ecosystems as natural climate change
experiments: The ForHot research site in Iceland as a case study, Iceland.
Agr. Sci., 29, 53–71, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Six, J., Conant, R., Paul, E. A., and Paustian, K.: Stabilization mechanisms
of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils, Plant
Soil, 241, 155–176, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S., and Denef, K.: A history of research on the
link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter
dynamics, Soil  Till. Res., 79, 7–31, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, P. J. G. C. B.: How long before a change in soil organic carbon can
be detected?, Glob. Change Biol., 10, 1878–1883, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J., Schuur, E. A., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G., and
Zimov, S.: Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost
region,  Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB2023, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003327" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003327</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Tisdall, J. M.  and Oades, J. M.: Organic matter and water-stable aggregates
in soils, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 33, 141–163, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Totsche, K. U., Amelung, W., Gerzabek, M. H., Guggenberger, G., Klumpp, E.,
Knief, C., Lehndorff, E., Mikutta, R., Peth, S., and Prechtel, A.:
Microaggregates in soils, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 181,
104–136, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
van Gestel, N., Shi, Z., van Groenigen, K. J., Osenberg, C. W., Andresen, L.
C., Dukes, J. S., Hovenden, M. J., Luo, Y., Michelsen, A., Pendall, E.,
Reich, P. B., Schuur, E. A. G., and Hungate, B. A.: Predicting soil carbon
loss with warming, Nature, 554, E4–E5, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
von Lützow, M., Kogel-Knabner, I., Ekschmittb, K., Flessa, H.,
Guggenberger, G., Matzner, E., and Marschner, B.: SOM fractionation methods:
Relevance to functional pools and to stabilization mechanisms, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 39, 2183–2207, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Walker, T. W. N., Kaiser, C., Strasser, F., Herbold, C. W., Leblans, N. I.
W., Woebken, D., Janssens, I. A., Sigurdsson, B. D., and Richter, A.: Microbial
temperature sensitivity and biomass change explain soil carbon loss with
warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 885–889, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Wickham, H.: ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis, Springer,  Berlin, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Y., Chen, W., Smith, S. L., Riseborough, D. W., and Cihlar, J.: Soil
temperature in Canada during the twentieth century: Complex responses to
atmospheric climate change, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
110, D03112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004910" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004910</a>, 2005.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Zimmermann, M., Leifeld, J., Schmidt, M. W. I., Smith, P., and Fuhrer, J.:
Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC
model, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 58, 658–667, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
