Next Article in Journal
Weather Based Strawberry Yield Forecasts at Field Scale Using Statistical and Machine Learning Models
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling Investigation of Diurnal Variations in Water Flux and Its Components with Stable Isotopic Tracers
Previous Article in Journal
Objective Center-Finding Algorithm for Tropical Cyclones in Numerical Models
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Stable Isotopes in Greenhouse Gases from Soil: A Review of Theory and Application

1
Research Base of Karst Eco-Environments at Nanchuan in Chongqing of Ministry of Nature Resources & Chongqing Engineering Research Center for Remote Sensing Big Data, School of Geographical Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University, Tokyo 102-8554, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2019, 10(7), 377; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10070377
Submission received: 8 May 2019 / Revised: 27 June 2019 / Accepted: 5 July 2019 / Published: 6 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Stable Isotopes in Atmospheric Research)

Abstract

:
Greenhouse gases emitted from soil play a crucial role in the atmospheric environment and global climate change. The theory and technique of detecting stable isotopes in the atmosphere has been widely used to an investigate greenhouse gases from soil. In this paper, we review the current literature on greenhouse gases emitted from soil, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). We attempt to synthesize recent advances in the theory and application of stable isotopes in greenhouse gases from soil and discuss future research needs and directions.

1. Introduction

Climate change impacts on human lives and environmental safety, and has received considerable attention all over the world over the past few decades. Greenhouse gas emissions, principally changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) concentrations, play an important role in global climate change, [1,2,3]. These greenhouse gases account for a lower proportion of the atmospheric composition than oxygen and nitrogen, but are important because they increase the energy input to the surface of the lower atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface [4]. CO2, CH4, and N2O are the three primary greenhouse gases exchanged between the soil and the atmosphere [5], contributing about 80% of the current global radiative forcing [6], and these greenhouse gas emissions can be further enhanced by the impact of natural emissions (e.g., volcanic and hydrothermal) and human activities (e.g., fossil fuel combustion and agricultural practice) [7,8].
Soil is a major source of greenhouse gases [9], where emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O related to soil account for 35%, 47%, and 53% of total annual CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, respectively, including industry, agriculture, and so on [10]. Reducing soil greenhouse gas emissions is an effective pathway for global climate change mitigation [11,12]. However, the amount of greenhouse gas emission from soils, which needs to be determined the contribution to global carbon (C) budgets, is still not clear [10,13]. Stable isotope technologies will be necessary to enhance the quantitative assessment of soil constituents and reduce uncertainty in estimating the source of C in the soil or atmosphere, and for assessing the different responses of soil and plants to environmental conditions. As one of the most powerful tools for understanding ecological and environmental processes, many stable isotope methods have been used to record environmental information and monitor the ecological process at different spatial and temporal scales, or address issues that are intractable using other methods [14]. The use of stable isotopes (12C and 13C, 14N and 15N, 16O and 18O) allows the identification of greenhouse gas components and drivers. Carbon isotopes are only a little fractionated in trophic chains and are therefore more suitable as a marker, whereas nitrogen (N) isotopes are considerably fractionated in trophic chains, which makes them less convenient but allows their use as an integral index of many ecological processes [15,16]. Therefore, in this review, we will offer some insight into the greenhouse gases, including CO2, CH4, and N2O, emitted from soil based on the perspective of stable isotopes, and integrate our knowledge on greenhouse gas exchange between the soil and atmosphere.

2. Theory of Stable Isotope Techniques

2.1. Stable Isotopic Compositions

Stable isotope ratios of elements in the C, N and O components of plants and the soil environment often record and integrate ecological information relating to: (1) the identity of the ecological cycle processes that formed those elements’ components; (2) the turnover rates of those formed elements’ components processes; and (3) the environmental factor response during the decomposition or formation of organic and inorganic matter [17]. Many biogeochemical processes are often accompanied by changes in the concentration ratio between the stable isotopes of the elements C, N, and O (e.g., δ13C, δ15N, and δ18O, respectively) [18]. Using C, N, and O stable isotope ratios of CO2, CH4, and N2O may be an effective way of tracing the sources of fugitive emissions from soil respiration. Furthermore, isotope measurements can help in the attribution and quantification of surface sources because the magnitude of isotopic fractionation associated with each production pathway may differ [19]. Multiple stable isotopes exist for most chemical elements, and stable isotope ratios are expressed, using the δ-notation in per mil (‰), as the deviation of the sample’s isotope ratio from the respective isotope ratio of the reference material [20], where
δ 13 C ,   δ 15 N   and   δ 18 O = [ ( R SAMPLE R STANDARD ) / R STANDARD ] × 1000
where RSAMPLE = 13C/12C, 15N/14N, or 18O/16O of the sample and RSTANDARD = 13C/12C of the PDB standard (0.0112372), Air-N2 for N (0.003676) or Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (V-SMOW) for O [21].
All plants discriminate against 13C during photosynthesis but the extent of this discrimination is a function of the photosynthetic pathway type [22,23,24]. Terrestrial plants can be divided into two types of plants, C3 and C4, depending on the type of photosynthetic pathway [25]. Terrestrial plants that utilize the C3 (Calvin cycle) pathway have δ13C values ranging from approximately −35‰ to −20‰, plants the utilize the C4 (Hatch–Slack) photosynthesis pathway have higher δ13C values ranging from about −19‰ to −9‰, and the average δ13C values of C3 and C4 plants are approximately −27‰ and −13‰, respectively [26,27]. Soil microbial and bacterial decomposition is one of the most important sources of greenhouse gases, using stable isotopes to trace soil nitrification and denitrification processes [28]. Therefore, the source of greenhouse gas components in the soil and atmosphere can be easily traced by using stable isotopes in the process of the ecosystem C cycle.

2.2. Soil CO2, CH4 and N2O Stable Isotope Signatures

CO2. The total emission of CO2 from soils is one of the most important fluxes in the terrestrial ecosystem C cycle, controlling global C budgets and the ecological balance [29]. Soil C sequestration is also an effective method of reducing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, defined as the process of removing C from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir (Figure 1) [30,31]. There are two different ways to exchange C between the soil and atmosphere, including direct and indirect exchange. First, the direct exchange of atmospheric greenhouse gases transforms these gases into soil inorganic carbon (SIC) compounds, and soil C is absorbed by roots and discharged directly into the atmosphere through plants. Second, in the indirect exchange of atmospheric CO2, atmospheric CO2 is incorporated into plant tissue through the photosynthetic process, and subsequently, part of the plant biomass is indirectly sequestered as soil organic carbon (SOC) during decomposition processes [1]. SOC is decomposed by microorganisms to form CO2, which is returned to the atmosphere [32]. CO2 is produced in the soil through a series of microbial processes and residual soil organic matter (SOM) enriches 13C. CO2 is continuously transported to the overlying atmosphere via molecular diffusion and enriches 12C [33]. However, the CO2 emitted by the soil is not all derived from the decomposition of SOM, due to the soil C cycle being a complex and slow process, and other soil C sources, including C pools in the soil, heterotrophic or autotrophic organisms, root respiration, and turnover rates of C pools [26]. Therefore, using the information provided by the soil, it is still difficult to determine whether the soil is a C source or a C sink for atmospheric CO2. Previous research has reported the δ13CO2 (the isotope ratio of CO2) values of C3 plants varied between −23‰ and −40‰, and C4 plants varied between −9‰ and −19‰ [34]. Drewer et al. [35] estimated that the δ13CO2 values of Miscanthus (C4 plants) ranged from −9‰ to −11‰, and the farmland ranged from −22‰ to −29‰ after one year of Miscanthus removal. Pendall and King [36] found that the decomposition rate of SOM is high and the δ13C values are low in the initial stage of topsoil C sequestration, and high δ13C values were observed in subsoils. In addition, the subsoil isotope values were generally higher than the topsoil in CO2 respiration. They suggested that microbial activity first consumes fresh residue in the topsoil, resulting in 13C depletion, and 13C enrichment of the subsoil.
CH4. Rice fields are one of the most important anthropogenic emission sources of atmospheric CH4 and contribute about 11%–13% of the total global emissions [37,38,39]. Rice fields play a key role in the increase of atmospheric CH4 concentration and proper management can result in the soil acting as a C sink [40,41]. Stable isotope fractionation happens in the production, oxidation, and transport of CH4 emission processes: (1) the preferential consumption of 12CH4 by methanotrophic bacteria for CH4 production; (2) the 12CH4 is utilized faster than 13CH4 by methanotrophic bacteria for CH4 oxidation, and the enrichment of 13C in the residual CH4; (3) 13CH4 is transported significantly slower than 12CH4, leading to an isotope ratio difference [42,43,44]. Zhang et al. [37] observed the changes in the processes of CH4 emission and the δ13C value from fields and via paddy plants during the rice season in China (Figure 2). The rice growing season lasts about 113 days, and the CH4 emission changed significantly over different periods. The CH4 flux value with different days (D) appeared in the following order: D50 > D70 > D88 > D20 > D108. However, δ13C had the opposite trend in CH4 flux, with the highest and lowest values appearing on D108 (−68.7‰) and D50 (−61.5‰), respectively. It is most noticeable that there was a significant negative correlation between CH4 emissions and the δ13C value. Similar δ13C values and patterns of variation were also observed in previous studies (Table 1). The change of δ13C occurs in the CH4 emission processes, including production, oxidation and transport. The 13C is enriched at the beginning of the season. Subsequently, a rapid depletion in 13C occurs and reaches the lowest value, being mostly depleted in 13C in the middle of the season. During the late period of the season, 13C becomes enriched again.
N2O. N2O is a potent greenhouse gas, and its content in the atmosphere affects the recovery of the ozone layer and contributes to about 6% of the global greenhouse effect [55,56]. Among the sources of anthropogenic N2O emissions, roughly 58% are related to agricultural production systems [57]. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) [13], soil ecosystems are the most important source of global N2O emissions, representing about 65% of the total amount of N2O emitted into the atmosphere, especially, farmland N fertilizer, which accounts for the largest proportion. An important source of N2O in soils is related to microbiological processes: bacterial nitrification (N2O as a byproduct) and denitrification (N2O as an intermediate product) [28,58]. Nitrification includes autotrophic nitrification (microbes use CO2 as a C source) and heterotrophic nitrification (microorganisms use organic carbon as a C source), and the heterotrophic nitrification substrate is organic nitrogen or inorganic nitrogen. N2O production in soil during autotrophic nitrification is traditionally considered to be minor in comparison with denitrification [59]. Nitrification is a multistep process, involving the continuous oxidation of ammonia (NH3) under aerobic conditions: NH3 → NH2OH → (N2O) → NO 2 NO 3 , and denitrification is a series of processes involving a successive reduction of nitrate under anaerobic conditions: NO 3 NO 2 → NO → N2O → N2 [60,61,62]. The atmospheric concentration of N2O has been growing exponentially, mainly due to the growing food demand of the human population and increased use of chemical fertilizers, especially the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers, stimulating soil microbial nitrification and denitrification [63]. Stable isotopes have become a useful research tool for N2O production processes, for inferring the sources, production and consumption processes, and better estimating the atmosphere N2O budget [62]. The stable isotope ratio of N2O quantifies the contribution of denitrification to N2O flux and provides the basis for determining the proportion of N2O derived from aerobic nitrifying versus anaerobic denitrifying bacteria [64]. The δ15N composition is considered to be a relative contribution of nitrification and denitrification to the soil N2O emission. Previous research estimates of the 15N isotope effect (ε) (product–substrate) for N2O production by the soil denitrification process vary from −10‰ to −45‰ [65,66,67,68]. Snider et al. [69] reported that for the upland and wetland temperate forest soils’ stable isotopic composition of δ15N-N2O by denitrification under different moisture and temperature conditions, the wetland soil exhibited consistently larger N2O production rates compared to upland soils, and the 15N isotope effect ranged from −20‰ to −29‰.

2.3. Environmental Factors Affect the Isotope Signal of Soil Greenhouse Gases

2.3.1. Temperature and Precipitation

The formation of SOM is mainly derived from plant litter and rhizomes, and the isotope ratio values of SOM records information on vegetation and soil C cycle processes, where plant and soil δ13C and δ15N signals are closely related. The positive relationship between soil δ13C and plant δ13C revealed that plant litter and rhizomes may be sources of SOM [70]. The distribution of plants is mostly determined by climate, such as the C3 plant, which dominates in the high latitude tundra and grassland, while C4 plants are often distributed in high light intensity and semiarid environments, and crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) plants are only present in desert ecosystems [71]. Climatic factors control the growth and survival of plants and influence the isotopic signature of ecosystem respiration. Zhang et al. [72] recognized that the δ13C of soil CO2 emissions was negatively correlated with temperature after farmland was afforested in central China. According to Vitória et al. [73], precipitation and δ15N values are negatively correlated until the point of soil waterlogging. Lee et al. [71] suggested that changes of δ13C in SOM obviously follow those of the plant zone in arid and semiarid central East Asia. The climate in central East Asia is mainly controlled by northern moisture, especially precipitation. Although temperature plays an important role in plant growth, the latter has not been caused by the higher temperature, but by the higher precipitation, in the central East Asia region. In addition, besides temperature and precipitation, parameters that influence the isotopic composition of soils include the plant photosynthetic efficiency, sunlight duration, altitude, and concentration of atmospheric CO2 [74]. Knowledge of the response of soil greenhouse gas production, transport, emissions, and sequestration pathways to environmental conditions affords the potential for controlling global warming by, for example, control of the timing and scale of land use change, and mitigating changes in the regional microclimate.

2.3.2. Soil Physical Factors

The physical and chemical properties of soil are mainly affected by land use changes, which affect soil aggregate formation and stimulate soil microbial community repeated processing. For example, the conversion of degraded farmland to vegetation usually increases inputs of fresh organic matter and rhizome exudates, which in turn can change the underground soil structure and eventually affect the stable isotope ratio of soil [75]. Soil texture (coarse and fine particle size) is one of the most important controls of δ13C. Wynn and Bird [76] reported that the <63 μm (percent of mineral particles) fraction is more 13C enriched than bulk soil, and the >63 μm fractions are more 13C depleted in Australia. Koch and Fox [77] investigated the relationship between δ13C and δ15N values and soil depth changes after grazing exclusion on the central Californian coast, and found that the δ13C values did not change with depth and there was an increase in δ15N values with depth in the fine soil. However, this conclusion is inconsistent with the results of previous studies [36], which may be due to significant differences in the soil respiration rates and subsurface soil structure for various vegetation types.

2.3.3. Soil Microbial Process

Soil microorganism metabolic processes are responsible for driving the belowground biogeochemical cycling of elements in the terrestrial biosphere [78]. However, soil microorganism communities’ growth and activities are often limited by environmental change, and they are more sensitive to changes in temperature and precipitation [76]. Microbial growth also depends on resource availability, for instance, the input of SOM is closely associated with aboveground plant types. Plants further affect the microbial community composition and function by affecting available soil aggregate, nutrients, temperature, and moisture [79]. For instance, previous research indicated that the δ13C of soil CO2 emissions was positively correlated with the δ13C of microbial biomass and negatively correlated with soil temperature [70,71]. Namely, the contribution of soil microbes to soil greenhouse gas production and emissions changes seasonally. Hornibrook et al. [80], based on a trace of δ13CH4 in temperate zone wetlands, confirmed that microbial methanogenics obtained by the acetate fermentation pathway are more predominant in certain anoxic, organic-rich soils. Morse and Bernhardt [81] also noted that hypoxia provides the ideal low oxygen conditions conducive to microbial N2O production by using 15N tracers from nitrification and denitrification. Therefore, an anaerobic environment may be one of the most important conditions in the process of the soil microbial production of greenhouse gases.

3. Stable Isotope Application

3.1. Stable Isotope Tracer

Generally, stable isotope fractionation is achieved through the transition from one phase to another by organic and inorganic compounds, and the long-term dynamics of the ecosystem are reconstructed using stable isotope ratio differences [18]. Stable isotopes can record information on changes in greenhouse gas production, transport, and emissions by isotope fractionation during the soil ecosystem process [82]. Stable isotopes in greenhouse gas from soil are considered a promising option for tracking the source of atmospheric greenhouse gases [17]. The stable isotope is a potentially powerful tool for studying exchange processes of greenhouse gases between the soil and atmosphere. Isotopes can be used as evidence of CO2, CH4, and N2O production and oxidation [83], organic matter and inorganic matter accumulation [84], and environmental conditions affecting the fractionation during greenhouse gas generation [85]. Stable isotopes have been widely used in biological processes in ecosystems over the past few decades, and we have a clear understanding of the mechanisms of isotopic fractionation.

3.2. Application of Stable Isotopes in a Soil System

Ecosystem respiration partitioning. Ecosystem C exchange flux is the result of C uptake during the daytime by net photosynthesis and C losses by net respiration [86]. Photosynthesis can sequester 55% of the C in terrestrial ecosystems per year, and soil respiration accounts for approximately 69% of the total ecological respiration [87]. The total ecological respiration is a composite flux, including plant respiration (leaves and canopy) and soil respiration (autotrophic respiration and heterotrophic respiration) [88]. Partitioning total ecological respiration into plant (leaves and canopy) and soil respiration is important for evaluating the relative contribution of plants and soils to C sinks and presenting an accurate quantification of plant–soil–climate interactions. Because photosynthesis changes isotopic fractionation, plant and soil respiration have different CO2 isotope signatures [89,90,91,92], and using 13C–CO2 and 18O–CO2 measurements, combined with C eddy flux and concentration measurements, for the partitioning may be a good option [88,90]. Isoflux-based isotopic flux partitioning (IFP) can potentially be used to conduct the partitioning for separate soil respiration from ecological respiration [86]. In addition, isotope ratio infrared spectroscopy (IRIS) and isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) also provide an effective method for measuring trends in the isotopic compositions of plant respiration and soil respiration [93]. Stable isotopes make up for the shortcomings of eddy covariance techniques that cannot separate ecological respiration components. As a tracer, stable isotopes provide a unique method for discriminating plant respiration and soil respiration in total ecological respiration.
Soil respiration component. The soil C cycle is strongly linked to plant metabolism (e.g., recent production of plant litter) and soil microbial activity. Soil produces CO2 primarily through rhizosphere respiration and microbial respiration (e.g., autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration). Although the eddy covariance technique and micrometeorological techniques can achieve total CO2 efflux, it is difficult to determine CO2 from different sources, especially CO2 produced by the rhizosphere and microbial respiration [26]. This is also one of the main challenges facing current ecosystem C cycle research. Stable isotope technology is an alternative method of measuring CO2 that reduces soil and plant disturbances. Pulsed or continuous labeling of plants and soil using stable isotopes can accurately distinguish between CO2 produced by the rhizosphere and microbial respiration. Generally, the rhizosphere and microbial respiration processes are often accompanied by changes in the concentration ratio between the stable isotopes of the element C [18]. This carbon stable isotope ratio difference can be used to quantify and distinguish between rhizosphere and microbial respiration. It is advantageous to distinguish soil respiration components in the short term. However, 13C may deplete rapidly and the isotope signatures of organic matter become similar to labeled plants over time [94]. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat the labeling of stable isotopes of soil and plants over a relatively long period of soil respiration.
Rhizosphere process. The rhizosphere process is one of the most important pathways for CH4 emissions and the CH4 produced by the soil is transported to the atmosphere by entering the roots of the plant [95]. CH4 production in soil is very sensitive to changes in rhizosphere oxygen concentration, and CH4 emissions change with the seasons. Therefore, an accurate understanding of the soil CH4 nutrient community structure and its activity is of great significance for the exploration of CH4 production and emission processes [96]. Methanogen requires strict anaerobic conditions, and rice fields are an important source of methane emissions. The phospholipid fatty acid-stable isotope probing (PLFA-SIP) methodology has been widely used in the tracking of rhizosphere microbial community structure changes [78]. The plant rhizosphere is closely related to soil C sequestration, which also depends on photosynthesis intensity, and rhizosphere microorganisms have different absorption characteristics for photosynthesis production [97]. Therefore, continuous pulse labeling of rice using 13C–CO2 is used to track bacteria that affect the production of CH4 by the rhizosphere microbial community. In addition, the microbial community is primarily regulated by nutrient availability in the soil and roots [98]. N addition and nutrient use efficiency are important factors affecting rhizosphere microbial activity [99]. Changes in stable isotope ratios (δ15N) can reflect soil N availability and plant nutrient use efficiency due to differences in the N fixation capacity of microbes and plant roots.
Rhizosphere priming effects. Plant leaves and root litter are the main sources of SOM, providing a labile substrate for soil microbial decomposition. The addition of organic matter causes rapid changes in the SOM turnover rate in the short term, and this change generally occurs in the rhizosphere (rhizosphere priming effects) [100]. Root exudates accelerate the decomposition of organic matter by increasing microbial activity, releasing more inorganic nitrogen, and thereby forming a priming effect [101,102]. Namely, there is a positive feedback relationship between SOM and the rhizosphere [103], and the effectiveness of SOM decomposition depends on microbial biomass mediated conversion [104]. Through the continuous and repeated labeling of plants with 13C-depleted CO2 and 15N-enriched soil, we can differentiate root N sequestration and microbial nitrogen sequestration effectiveness, and root-derived CO2 from SOM-derived CO2 [105]. The difference in stable isotope ratios clarifies the relative importance of microbes, SOM, and roots to rhizosphere priming effects [106]. In addition, the rhizosphere priming effect may be affected by changes in abiotic factors in the soil environment (e.g., elevated CO2, soil type, and temperature) [107,108,109,110]. Abiotic factors further influence the rate and intensity of rhizosphere priming effects by affecting biological factors [108]. The rhizosphere priming effect is a complex multi-factor correlation process, and the stable isotope continuous labeling method is essential for estimating the contribution of CO2 emissions from individual sources [26].

4. Future Research for Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This review may provide a bridge to determine the strength of coupling between soil greenhouse gas emissions and atmosphere change, by tracking the gas exchange processes of terrestrial ecosystems with stable isotope signatures (Figure 3). The production, transport, and emission of greenhouse gases in the soil is a complex chemical and microbiological process, which is affected by temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, soil properties, soil erosion, and manual management. In addition, the feedback effect of vegetation types on soil C and N sequestration is not clear, due to the complexity of the vegetation community composition and succession [111]. Isotopic monitoring of soil C and N fractionations, as well as greenhouse gas tracking, has been widely applied over most of the soil–atmospheric gas cycle. However, we still need to consider the interaction of soil temporal–spatial changes, microbial species distribution and tectonically active areas [112,113]. Therefore, at least three issues have been proposed that need to be focused on in future studies, including: (1) addressing the fact that the time-lag response of stable isotope signals to environmental changes during soil–atmosphere C exchange is rarely studied; (2) estimating the greenhouse gas from soil evolved by the rhizosphere priming effect, especially the separation of rhizosphere SOM and N fertilizer in farmland, where using C and N isotope labeling may be the best option; (3) exploring the relationship between changes in rhizosphere priming effects and N use efficiency (N competition between tree species and microorganisms); and (4) based on greenhouse gas exchange of soil 13C measurements, determining whether the plant C sink capacity is the determinant of the soil C sink. The deeply derived gasses composition could affect soil gas composition in tectonically active areas, and our review focuses only on earth’s surface. Therefore, we need to discuss deeply derived gasses further.

Author Contributions

All of the authors were involved in the preparation, revision and review of the manuscript. Conceptualization, W.-y.S., and D.-r.D.; Writing—original draft preparation, X.-c.Z.; Writing—review and editing, M.-g.M. and W.-y.S.; help and discussion, M.-g.M. and W.-y.S.

Funding

This research was funded by the Chongqing Basic Research and Frontier Exploration Program (No. cstc2018jcyjAX0187), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Nos. SWU116087 and XDJK2017B013), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41830648).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Crutzen, P.J.; Heidt, L.E.; Krasnec, J.P.; Pollock, W.H.; Seiler, W. Biomass burning as a source of atmospheric gases CO, H2, N2O, NO, CH3Cl and COS. Nature 1979, 282, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gu, L.; Chen, J.; Xu, C.; Kim, J.; Chen, H.; Xia, J.; Zhang, L. The contribution of internal climate variability to climate change impacts on droughts. Sci Total Environ. 2019, 684, 229–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Bosch, P.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. In Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lashof, D.A.; Ahuja, D.R. Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Nature 1990, 344, 529–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, Y.; Chen, G.; Ye, Y. Coastal vegetation invasion increases greenhouse gas emission from wetland soils but also increases soil carbon accumulation. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 526, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Alexander, L.V.; Allen, S.K.; Bindoff, N.L.; Bréon, F.-M.; Church, J.A.; Cubasch, U.; Emori, S. Technical summary. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 33–115. [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderegg, W.R.; Prall, J.W.; Harold, J.; Schneider, S.H. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12107–12109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Venturi, S.; Tassi, F.; Magi, F.; Cabassi, J.; Ricci, A.; Capecchiacci, F.; Caponi, C.; Nisi, B.; Vaselli, O. Carbon isotopic signature of interstitial soil gases reveals the potential role of ecosystems in mitigating geogenic greenhouse gas emissions: Case studies from hydrothermal systems in Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Jensen, L.; Mueller, T.; Tate, K.; Ross, D.; Magid, J.; Nielsen, N. Soil surface CO2 flux as an index of soil respiration in situ: A comparison of two chamber methods. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 1297–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oertel, C.; Matschullat, J.; Zurba, K.; Zimmermann, F.; Erasmi, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils—A review. Chem. Erde Geochem. 2016, 76, 327–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, S.; Wang, H. Response of soil respiration to a severe drought in Chinese Eucalyptus plantations. J. For. Res. 2017, 28, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duarte, C.M.; Losada, I.J.; Hendriks, I.E.; Mazarrasa, I.; Marbà, N. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. IPCC. Climate Change 2007—The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cui, Y.Q.; Jianying, M.A.; Sun, W. Application of stable isotope techniques to the study of soil salinization. J. Arid Land 2011, 3, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Tiunov, A. Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in soil ecological studies. Biol. Bull. 2007, 34, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Robinson, D. δ15N as an integrator of the nitrogen cycle. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boutton, T.W.; Archer, S.R.; Midwood, A.J.; Zitzer, S.F.; Bol, R. δ13C values of soil organic carbon and their use in documenting vegetation change in a subtropical savanna ecosystem. Geoderma 1998, 82, 5–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Busari, M.; Salako, F.; Tuniz, C. Stable isotope technique in the evaluation of tillage and fertilizer effects on soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration and water use efficiency. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 73, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Snider, D.M.; Venkiteswaran, J.J.; Schiff, S.L.; Spoelstra, J. A new mechanistic model of δ18O-N2O formation by denitrification. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 112, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Coplen, T.B. Guidelines and recommended terms for expression of stable-isotope-ratio and gas-ratio measurement results. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2011, 25, 2538–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Koba, K.; Osaka, K.; Tobari, Y.; Toyoda, S.; Ohte, N.; Katsuyama, M.; Suzuki, N.; Itoh, M.; Yamagishi, H.; Kawasaki, M. Biogeochemistry of nitrous oxide in groundwater in a forested ecosystem elucidated by nitrous oxide isotopomer measurements. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 3115–3133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Farquhar, G.D.; Ehleringer, J.R.; Hubick, K.T. Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1989, 40, 503–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vogel, J.C. Fractionation of the carbon isotopes during photosynthesis. In Fractionation of the Carbon Isotopes During Photosynthesis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 5–29. [Google Scholar]
  24. O’Leary, M.H. Carbon isotopes in photosynthesis. Bioscience 1988, 38, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bernoux, M.; Cerri, C.C.; Neill, C.; de Moraes, J.F. The use of stable carbon isotopes for estimating soil organic matter turnover rates. Geoderma 1998, 82, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kuzyakov, Y. Sources of CO2 efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 425–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Y.; Ding, W.; Luo, J.; Donnison, A. Changes in soil organic carbon dynamics in an Eastern Chinese coastal wetland following invasion by a C4 plant Spartina alterniflora. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 1712–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wrage, N.; Velthof, G.; Van Beusichem, M.; Oenema, O. Role of nitrifier denitrification in the production of nitrous oxide. Soil. Boil. Biochem. 2001, 33, 1723–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shi, W.-Y.; Tateno, R.; Zhang, J.-G.; Wang, Y.-L.; Yamanaka, N.; Du, S. Response of soil respiration to precipitation during the dry season in two typical forest stands in the forest–grassland transition zone of the Loess Plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2011, 151, 854–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramachandran Nair, P.K.; Mohan Kumar, B.; Nair, V.D. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. de Stefano, A.; Jacobson, M.G. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: A meta-analysis. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Burras, C.L.; Kimble, J.M.; Lal, R.; Mausbach, M.J.; Uehara, G.; Cheng, H.; Kissel, D.E.; Luxmoore, R.J.; Rice, C.W.; Wilding, L.P. Carbon sequestration: Position of the Soil Science Society of America. Carbon 2001, 25, 10. [Google Scholar]
  33. Amundson, R.; Stern, L.; Baisden, T.; Wang, Y. The isotopic composition of soil and soil-respired CO2. Geoderma 1998, 82, 83–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Balesdent, J.; Mariotti, A.; Guillet, B. Natural 13C abundance as a tracer for studies of soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Drewer, J.; Dufossé, K.; Skiba, U.M.; Gabrielle, B. Changes in isotopic signatures of soil carbon and CO2 respiration immediately and one year after Miscanthus removal. Gcb Bioenergy 2016, 8, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pendall, E.; King, J.Y. Soil organic matter dynamics in grassland soils under elevated CO2: Insights from long-term incubations and stable isotopes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 2628–2639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, G.; Yu, H.; Fan, X.; Ma, J.; Xu, H. Carbon isotope fractionation reveals distinct process of CH4 emission from different compartments of paddy ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ciais, P.; Sabine, C.; Bala, G.; Bopp, L.; Brovkin, V.; Canadell, J.; Chhabra, A.; DeFries, R.; Galloway, J.; Heimann, M. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 465–570. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lelieveld, J.; Crutzen, P.J.; Dentener, F.J. Changing concentration, lifetime and climate forcing of atmospheric methane. Tellus B 1998, 50, 128–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, G.; Yu, H.; Fan, X.; Liu, G.; Ma, J.; Xu, H. Effect of rice straw application on stable carbon isotopes, methanogenic pathway, and fraction of CH4 oxidized in a continuously flooded rice field in winter season. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 84, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ogle, S.M.; Breidt, F.J.; Paustian, K. Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 2005, 72, 87–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bilek, R.S.; Tyler, S.C.; Sass, R.L.; Fisher, F.M. Differences in CH4 oxidation and pathways of production between rice cultivars deduced from measurements of CH4 flux and δ13C of CH4 and CO2. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1999, 13, 1029–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Whiticar, M.J. Carbon and hydrogen isotope systematics of bacterial formation and oxidation of methane. Chem. Geol. 1999, 161, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Krüger, M.; Eller, G.; Conrad, R.; Frenzel, P. Seasonal variation in pathways of CH4 production and in CH4 oxidation in rice fields determined by stable carbon isotopes and specific inhibitors. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Uzaki, M.; Mizutani, H.; Wada, E. Carbon isotope composition of CH4 from rice paddies in Japan. Biogeochemistry 1991, 13, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tyler, S.C.; Brailsford, G.W.; Yagi, K.; Minami, K.; Cicerone, R.J. Seasonal variations in methane flux andδl3CH4 values for rice paddies in Japan and their implications. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1994, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bergamaschi, P. Seasonal variations of stable hydrogen and carbon isotope ratios in methane from a Chinese rice paddy. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1997, 102, 25383–25393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chanton, J.; Whiting, G.; Blair, N.; Lindau, C.; Bollich, P. Methane emission from rice: Stable isotopes, diurnal variations, and CO2 exchange. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1997, 11, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tyler, S.; Bilek, R.; Sass, R.; Fisher, F. Methane oxidation and pathways of production in a Texas paddy field deduced from measurements of flux, δl3C, and δD of CH4. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1997, 11, 323–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marik, T.; Fischer, H.; Conen, F.; Smith, K. Seasonal variations in stable carbon and hydrogen isotope ratios in methane from rice fields. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16, 41-1–41-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Krüger, M.; Frenzel, P. Effects of N-fertilisation on CH4 oxidation and production, and consequences for CH4 emissions from microcosms and rice fields. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Conrad, R.; Klose, M. Effect of potassium phosphate fertilization on production and emission of methane and its 13C-stable isotope composition in rice microcosms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 2099–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, G.; Ji, Y.; Ma, J.; Xu, H.; Cai, Z.; Yagi, K. Intermittent irrigation changes production, oxidation, and emission of CH4 in paddy fields determined with stable carbon isotope technique. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 52, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, G.; Ji, Y.; Liu, G.; Ma, J.; Xu, H. Carbon isotope fractionation during CH4 transport in paddy fields. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2014, 57, 1664–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ravishankara, A.; Daniel, J.S.; Portmann, R.W. Nitrous oxide (N2O): The dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science 2009, 326, 123–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Montzka, S.A.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Butler, J.H. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature 2011, 476, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhang, W.; Li, Y.; Xu, C.; Li, Q.; Lin, W. Isotope signatures of N2O emitted from vegetable soil: Ammonia oxidation drives N2O production in NH4+-fertilized soil of North China. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Nishimura, S.; Sawamoto, T.; Akiyama, H.; Sudo, S.; Cheng, W.; Yagi, K. Continuous, automated nitrous oxide measurements from paddy soils converted to upland crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 1977–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bateman, E.; Baggs, E. Contributions of nitrification and denitrification to N2O emissions from soils at different water-filled pore space. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2005, 41, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lewicka-Szczebak, D.; Well, R.; Köster, J.R.; Fuß, R.; Senbayram, M.; Dittert, K.; Flessa, H. Experimental determinations of isotopic fractionation factors associated with N2O production and reduction during denitrification in soils. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2014, 134, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Firestone, M.; Davidson, E. Microbial basis of NO and N2O production and consumption. In Exchange of Trace Gases between Ecosystems and the Atmosphere: Report of the Dahlem Workshop; Andreae, M.O., Schimel, D.S., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 7–21. [Google Scholar]
  62. Toyoda, S.; Yoshida, N.; Koba, K. Isotopocule analysis of biologically produced nitrous oxide in various environments. Mass Spectr. Rev. 2017, 36, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schmidt, H.L.; Werner, R.A.; Yoshida, N.; Well, R. Is the isotopic composition of nitrous oxide an indicator for its origin from nitrification or denitrification? A theoretical approach from referred data and microbiological and enzyme kinetic aspects. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2004, 18, 2036–2040. [Google Scholar]
  64. Smemo, K.A.; Ostrom, N.E.; Opdyke, M.R.; Ostrom, P.H.; Bohm, S.; Robertson, G.P. Improving process-based estimates of N2O emissions from soil using temporally extensive chamber techniques and stable isotopes. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011, 91, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Toyoda, S.; Mutobe, H.; Yamagishi, H.; Yoshida, N.; Tanji, Y. Fractionation of N2O isotopomers during production by denitrifier. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 1535–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sutka, R.L.; Ostrom, N.; Ostrom, P.; Breznak, J.; Gandhi, H.; Pitt, A.; Li, F. Distinguishing nitrous oxide production from nitrification and denitrification on the basis of isotopomer abundances. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2006, 72, 638–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pérez, T.; Garcia-Montiel, D.; Trumbore, S.; Tyler, S.; de Camargo, P.; Moreira, M.; Piccolo, M.; Cerri, C. Nitrous oxide nitrification and denitrification 15N enrichment factors from Amazon forest soils. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16, 2153–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Barton, L.; McLay, C.; Schipper, L.; Smith, C. Annual denitrification rates in agricultural and forest soils: A review. Soil Res. 1999, 37, 1073–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Snider, D.M.; Schiff, S.L.; Spoelstra, J. 15N/14N and 18O/16O stable isotope ratios of nitrous oxide produced during denitrification in temperate forest soils. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2009, 73, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Peri, P.L.; Ladd, B.; Pepper, D.A.; Bonser, S.P.; Laffan, S.W.; Amelung, W. Carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) stable isotope composition in plant and soil in S outhern P atagonia’s native forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lee, X.; Feng, Z.; Guo, L.; Wang, L.; Jin, L.; Huang, Y.; Chopping, M.; Huang, D.; Jiang, W.; Jiang, Q. Carbon isotope of bulk organic matter: A proxy for precipitation in the arid and semiarid central East Asia. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2005, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, Q.; Wu, J.; Lei, Y.; Yang, F.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Cheng, X. Agricultural land use change impacts soil CO2 emission and its 13C-isotopic signature in central China. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 177, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vitória, A.P.; Ávila-Lovera, E.; de Oliveira Vieira, T.; do Couto-Santos, A.P.L.; Pereira, T.J.; Funch, L.S.; Freitas, L.; de Miranda, L.D.A.P.; Rodrigues, P.J.P.; Rezende, C.E. Isotopic composition of leaf carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) of deciduous and evergreen understorey trees in two tropical Brazilian Atlantic forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 2018, 34, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brüggemann, N.; Gessler, A.; Kayler, Z.; Keel, S.; Badeck, F.; Barthel, M.; Boeckx, P.; Buchmann, N.; Brugnoli, E.; Esperschütz, J. Carbon allocation and carbon isotope fluxes in the plant-soil-atmosphere continuum: A review. Biogeosciences 2011, 8, 3457–3489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dijkstra, P.; Ishizu, A.; Doucett, R.; Hart, S.C.; Schwartz, E.; Menyailo, O.V.; Hungate, B.A. 13C and 15N natural abundance of the soil microbial biomass. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 3257–3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wynn, J.G.; Bird, M.I. Environmental controls on the stable carbon isotopic composition of soil organic carbon: Implications for modelling the distribution of C3 and C4 plants, Australia. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2008, 60, 604–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Koch, P.L.; Fox, L.R. Browsing impacts on the stable isotope composition of chaparral plants. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Radajewski, S.; Ineson, P.; Parekh, N.; Murrell, J. Stable-isotope probing as a tool in microbial ecology. Nature 2000, 403, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Waldrop, M.; Firestone, M. Seasonal dynamics of microbial community composition and function in oak canopy and open grassland soils. Microb. Ecol. 2006, 52, 470–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Hornibrook, E.R.; Longstaffe, F.J.; Fyfe, W.S. Spatial distribution of microbial methane production pathways in temperate zone wetland soils: Stable carbon and hydrogen isotope evidence. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1997, 61, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Morse, J.L.; Bernhardt, E.S. Using 15N tracers to estimate N2O and N2 emissions from nitrification and denitrification in coastal plain wetlands under contrasting land-uses. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bowling, D.R.; Pataki, D.E.; Randerson, J.T. Carbon isotopes in terrestrial ecosystem pools and CO2 fluxes. New Phytol. 2008, 178, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Conrad, R. Quantification of methanogenic pathways using stable carbon isotopic signatures: A review and a proposal. Org. Geochem. 2005, 36, 739–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Andersson, R.A.; Meyers, P.; Hornibrook, E.; Kuhry, P.; Mörth, C.M. Elemental and isotopic carbon and nitrogen records of organic matter accumulation in a Holocene permafrost peat sequence in the East European Russian Arctic. J. Quat. Sci. 2012, 27, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Mu, C.; Zhang, T.; Wu, Q.; Peng, X.; Zhang, P.; Yang, Y.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, X.; Cheng, G. Dissolved organic carbon, CO2, and CH4 concentrations and their stable isotope ratios in thermokarst lakes on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. J. Limnol. 2016, 75, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chen, C.; Wei, J.; Wen, X.; Sun, X.; Guo, Q. Photosynthetic Carbon Isotope Discrimination and Effects on Daytime NEE Partitioning in a Subtropical Mixed Conifer Plantation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 272, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Cisneros-Dozal, L.; Trumbore, S.E.; Hanson, P. Partitioning sources of soil-respired CO2 and their seasonal variation using a unique radiocarbon tracer. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ogée, J.; Peylin, P.; Cuntz, M.; Bariac, T.; Brunet, Y.; Berbigier, P.; Richard, P.; Ciais, P. Partitioning net ecosystem carbon exchange into net assimilation and respiration with canopy-scale isotopic measurements: An error propagation analysis with 13CO2 and CO18O data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. 2003, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Badeck, F.W.; Tcherkez, G.; Nogues, S.; Piel, C.; Ghashghaie, J. Post-photosynthetic fractionation of stable carbon isotopes between plant organs—A widespread phenomenon. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2005, 19, 1381–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Bowling, D.R.; Tans, P.P.; Monson, R.K. Partitioning net ecosystem carbon exchange with isotopic fluxes of CO2. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2001, 7, 127–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fassbinder, J.J.; Griffis, T.J.; Baker, J.M. Evaluation of carbon isotope flux partitioning theory under simplified and controlled environmental conditions. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2012, 153, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Baldocchi, D.; Bowling, D. Modelling the discrimination of 13CO2 above and within a temperate broad-leaved forest canopy on hourly to seasonal time scales. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Griffis, T.J. Tracing the flow of carbon dioxide and water vapor between the biosphere and atmosphere: A review of optical isotope techniques and their application. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 174, 85–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Baggs, E. Partitioning the components of soil respiration: A research challenge. Plant Soil 2006, 284, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Conrad, R. Methanogenic microbial communities associated with aquatic plants. In Plant Surface Microbiology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  96. Shrestha, M.; Abraham, W.R.; Shrestha, P.M.; Noll, M.; Conrad, R. Activity and composition of methanotrophic bacterial communities in planted rice soil studied by flux measurements, analyses of pmoA gene and stable isotope probing of phospholipid fatty acids. Environ. Microb. 2008, 10, 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lu, Y.; Murase, J.; Watanabe, A.; Sugimoto, A.; Kimura, M. Linking microbial community dynamics to rhizosphere carbon flow in a wetland rice soil. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 2004, 48, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Zhang, Q.; Zhou, J.; Li, X.; Liu, C.; Lin, W.; Zheng, W.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Y. Nitrogen addition accelerates the nitrogen cycle in a young subtropical Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) plantation. Ann. For. Sci. 2019, 76, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vallano, D.M.; Sparks, J.P. Foliar δ15N is affected by foliar nitrogen uptake, soil nitrogen, and mycorrhizae along a nitrogen deposition gradient. Oecologia 2013, 172, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Cheng, W.; Parton, W.J.; Gonzalez-Meler, M.A.; Phillips, R.; Asao, S.; McNickle, G.G.; Brzostek, E.; Jastrow, J.D. Synthesis and modeling perspectives of rhizosphere priming. New Phytol. 2014, 201, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Craine, J.M.; Morrow, C.; Fierer, N. Microbial nitrogen limitation increases decomposition. Ecology 2007, 88, 2105–2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Paterson, E.; Gebbing, T.; Abel, C.; Sim, A.; Telfer, G. Rhizodeposition shapes rhizosphere microbial community structure in organic soil. New Phytol. 2007, 173, 600–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Subke, J.-A.; Hahn, V.; Battipaglia, G.; Linder, S.; Buchmann, N.; Cotrufo, M.F. Feedback interactions between needle litter decomposition and rhizosphere activity. Oecologia 2004, 139, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Murphy, C.J.; Baggs, E.M.; Morley, N.; Wall, D.P.; Paterson, E. Rhizosphere priming can promote mobilisation of N-rich compounds from soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 81, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pausch, J.; Loeppmann, S.; Kühnel, A.; Forbush, K.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Cheng, W. Rhizosphere priming of barley with and without root hairs. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 100, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Prévost-Bouré, N.C.; Soudani, K.; Damesin, C.; Berveiller, D.; Lata, J.-C.; Dufrêne, E. Increase in aboveground fresh litter quantity over-stimulates soil respiration in a temperate deciduous forest. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 46, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Xu, Q.; Wang, X.; Tang, C. Wheat and white lupin differ in rhizosphere priming of soil organic carbon under elevated CO2. Plant Soil 2017, 421, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lloyd, D.A.; Ritz, K.; Paterson, E.; Kirk, G.J. Effects of soil type and composition of rhizodeposits on rhizosphere priming phenomena. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Thurgood, A.; Singh, B.; Jones, E.; Barbour, M.M. Temperature sensitivity of soil and root respiration in contrasting soils. Plant Soil 2014, 382, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sun, Y.; Xu, X.; Kuzyakov, Y. Mechanisms of rhizosphere priming effects and their ecological significance. J. Plant Ecol. 2014, 38, 62–75. [Google Scholar]
  111. Lin, W.; Fang, F.; Zhang, W.; Ding, J.; Li, Y.; Xu, C.; Li, Q. A review on development of stable isotope technique in the studies of N2O formation mechanism. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 28, 2344–2352. [Google Scholar]
  112. Yin, L.; Dijkstra, F.; Wang, P.; Zhu, B.; Cheng, W. Rhizosphere priming effects on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics among tree species with and without intraspecific competition. New Phytol. 2018, 218, 1036–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Ciotoli, G.; Etiope, G.; Marra, F.; Florindo, F.; Giraudi, C.; Ruggiero, L. Tiber delta CO2-CH4 degassing: A possible hybrid, tectonically active sediment-hosted geothermal system near rome. J. Geophys. Res. Soil Eerth 2016, 121, 48–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Processes of soil greenhouse gas emissions (modified from Rastogi et al. [3]). O, oxidation; M, methanogenesis; N/D, nitrification and denitrification.
Figure 1. Processes of soil greenhouse gas emissions (modified from Rastogi et al. [3]). O, oxidation; M, methanogenesis; N/D, nitrification and denitrification.
Atmosphere 10 00377 g001
Figure 2. The relationship between CH4 and δ13C in time evolution mode (a) and the correlation between them (b) (from Zhang et al. [37]).
Figure 2. The relationship between CH4 and δ13C in time evolution mode (a) and the correlation between them (b) (from Zhang et al. [37]).
Atmosphere 10 00377 g002
Figure 3. Overview of processes determining the stable isotope signals of greenhouse gas from soil.
Figure 3. Overview of processes determining the stable isotope signals of greenhouse gas from soil.
Atmosphere 10 00377 g003
Table 1. Overview of δ13C values of CH4 emissions in different countries from rice fields a.
Table 1. Overview of δ13C values of CH4 emissions in different countries from rice fields a.
LocationSeasonal Coverageδ13CH4 (‰)Reference
Japanthroughout the season−68 to −48Uzaki et al., 1991 [45]
Japanthroughout the season−72 to −56Tyler et al., 1994 [46]
Chinathroughout the season−71 to −52Bergamaschi, 1997 [47]
throughout the season−71 to −58
Americathroughout the season−66 to −61Chanton et al., 1997 [48]
Americathroughout the season−58 to −53Tyler et al., 1997 [49]
Americathroughout the season−63 to −46Bilek et al., 1999 [42]
throughout the season−62 to −48
Italythroughout the season−67 to −47Marik et al., 2002 [50]
throughout the season−65 to −53
Italythroughout the season−73 to −58Krüger and Frenzel, 2003 [51]
Germanythroughout the season−68 to −61Conrad and Klose, 2005 [52]
Chinathroughout the season−71 to −47Zhang et al., 2012 [53]
Chinathroughout the season−61 to −59Zhang et al., 2014 [54]
a Adapted from the study of Marik et al. [50] and Zhang et al. [53].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhu, X.-c.; Di, D.-r.; Ma, M.-g.; Shi, W.-y. Stable Isotopes in Greenhouse Gases from Soil: A Review of Theory and Application. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10070377

AMA Style

Zhu X-c, Di D-r, Ma M-g, Shi W-y. Stable Isotopes in Greenhouse Gases from Soil: A Review of Theory and Application. Atmosphere. 2019; 10(7):377. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10070377

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Xiao-cong, Dong-rui Di, Ming-guo Ma, and Wei-yu Shi. 2019. "Stable Isotopes in Greenhouse Gases from Soil: A Review of Theory and Application" Atmosphere 10, no. 7: 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10070377

APA Style

Zhu, X. -c., Di, D. -r., Ma, M. -g., & Shi, W. -y. (2019). Stable Isotopes in Greenhouse Gases from Soil: A Review of Theory and Application. Atmosphere, 10(7), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10070377

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop