Search

Response to the editor. In response to Korell, L., et al. (2020). We need more realistic climate change experiments for understanding ecosystems of the future. Global Change Biology 26(2): 325-327.

Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (eCO2) and climate change may substantially alter soil carbon (C) dynamics and thus feedback to future climate. However, only very few field experiments world‐wide have combined eCO2 with both warming and changes in precipitation in order to study the potential combined effects of changes in these fundamental drivers of C cycling in ecosystems. We exposed a temperate heath/grassland to eCO2, warming, and drought, in all combinations for 8 years. At the end of the study, soil C stocks were on average 0.927 kg C m−2 higher across all treatment combinations with eCO2 compared to ambient CO2 treatments (equal to an increase of 0.120 ± 0.043 kg C m−2 y−1), and showed no sign of slowed accumulation over time. However, if observed pre‐treatment differences in soil C are taken into account, the annual rate of increase caused by eCO2 may be as high as 0.177 ± 0.070 kg C m−2 y−1. Further, the response to eCO2 was not affected by simultaneous exposure to warming and drought. The robust increase in soil C under eCO2 observed here, even when combined with other climate change factors, suggests that there is continued and strong potential for enhanced soil carbon sequestration in some ecosystems to mitigate increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations under future climate conditions. The feedback between land C and climate remains one of the largest sources of uncertainty in future climate projections, yet experimental data under simulated future climate, and especially including combined changes, are still scarce. Globally coordinated and distributed experiments with long‐term measurements of changes in soil C in response to the three major climate change‐related global changes, eCO2, warming, and changes in precipitation patterns, are therefore urgently needed.

Well-defined productivity–precipitation relationships of ecosystems are needed as benchmarks for the validation of land models used for future projections. The productivity–precipitation relationship may be studied in two ways: the spatial approach relates differences in productivity to those in precipitation among sites along a precipitation gradient (the spatial fit, with a steeper slope); the temporal approach relates interannual productivity changes to variation in precipitation within sites (the temporal fits, with flatter slopes). Precipitation–reduction experiments in natural ecosystems represent a complement to the fits, because they can reduce precipitation below the natural range and are thus well suited to study potential effects of climate drying. Here, we analyse the effects of dry treatments in eleven multiyear precipitation–manipulation experiments, focusing on changes in the temporal fit. We expected that structural changes in the dry treatments would occur in some experiments, thereby reducing the intercept of the temporal fit and displacing the productivity–precipitation relationship downward the spatial fit. The majority of experiments (72%) showed that dry treatments did not alter the temporal fit. This implies that current temporal fits are to be preferred over the spatial fit to benchmark land-model projections of productivity under future climate within the precipitation ranges covered by the experiments. Moreover, in two experiments, the intercept of the temporal fit unexpectedly increased due to mechanisms that reduced either water loss or nutrient loss. The expected decrease of the intercept was observed in only one experiment, and only when distinguishing between the late and the early phases of the experiment. This implies that we currently do not know at which precipitation–reduction level or at which experimental duration structural changes will start to alter ecosystem productivity. Our study highlights the need for experiments with mu