Abstract
Abstract Elevated tropospheric ozone (O 3 ) and nitrogen (N) deposition are concurrent atmospheric changes that strongly influence terrestrial carbon cycling, yet their combined effects on below‐ground decomposition remain poorly understood. Using a free‐air O 3 concentration enrichment system (O 3 ‐FACE), we investigated how O 3 –N interactions influence the decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter by separating growth stage changes in litter chemistry from environmental effects in the decomposition stage. Decomposition responses were strongly organ‐specific. Elevated O 3 and N addition had only minor effects on leaf litter decay, whereas fine root decomposition was markedly suppressed, indicating a synergistic inhibition of below‐ground carbon turnover. Lower quality substrates decomposed more slowly, released fewer nutrients (with phosphorus release reduced by up to 52.9%) and retained more mass (up to 10.6%), highlighting impaired nutrient recycling under concurrent atmospheric changes. Random forest modelling and path analyses identified starch concentration (leaves) and lignin/N ratios (fine roots) as the dominant controls on decomposition. Microbial community shifts influenced fine‐root decay but played a smaller role than substrate chemical traits. Substrate legacies formed during plant growth exerted stronger control over the dynamics of decomposition than the decomposition environment. Collectively, our results demonstrate that atmospheric O 3 and N inputs reprogram decomposition trajectories primarily through changes in substrate chemical quality, resulting in a decoupling between substrate chemistry and microbial regulation that constrains nutrient cycling and soil carbon stabilization. These findings provide mechanistic insight into how concurrent global atmospheric drivers regulate below‐ground processes and shape soil carbon feedbacks under global change. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated ozone and nitrogen addition had only minor effects on leaf litter decay.
PopulusNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e1“Elevated O 3 and N addition had only minor effects on leaf litter decay, whereas fine root decomposition was markedly suppressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated ozone and nitrogen addition markedly suppressed fine root decomposition.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e1“Elevated O 3 and N addition had only minor effects on leaf litter decay, whereas fine root decomposition was markedly suppressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower quality substrates decomposed more slowly.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e3“Lower quality substrates decomposed more slowly, released fewer nutrients (with phosphorus release reduced by up to 52.9%) and retained more mass (up to 10.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower quality substrates reduced phosphorus release by up to 52.9%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e3“Lower quality substrates decomposed more slowly, released fewer nutrients (with phosphorus release reduced by up to 52.9%) and retained more mass (up to 10.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower quality substrates retained more mass, by up to 10.6%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e3“Lower quality substrates decomposed more slowly, released fewer nutrients (with phosphorus release reduced by up to 52.9%) and retained more mass (up to 10.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Random forest and path analyses identified leaf starch concentration as a dominant control on decomposition.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e4“Random forest modelling and path analyses identified starch concentration (leaves) and lignin/N ratios (fine roots) as the dominant controls on decomposition”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial community shifts influenced fine-root decay less than substrate chemical traits did.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e5“Microbial community shifts influenced fine‐root decay but played a smaller role than substrate chemical traits”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate legacies formed during plant growth exerted stronger control over decomposition dynamics than the decomposition environment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decomposition of poplar leaf and fine root litter”
e6“Substrate legacies formed during plant growth exerted stronger control over the dynamics of decomposition than the decomposition environment”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · disease · Populus (poplar)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
ozone · disease · Populus (poplar)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.