<?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" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-12-4373-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>Convergent modelling of past soil organic carbon stocks but divergent
projections</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Uncertainty in soil C projections}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{Z. Luo et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name>
          <email>zhongkui.luo@csiro.au</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name>
          <email>enli.wang@csiro.au</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Zheng</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6410-8326</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Baldock</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>O. J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Shao</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>CSIRO Agriculture Flagship, GPO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601,
Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, GPO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601,
Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>CSIRO Agriculture Flagship, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Institute of Forestry and Climate Change Research, Beijing Forestry
University, Beijing 100083, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>CSIRO Digital Productivity &amp; Services Flagship, Private Bag 5,
Wembley, WA 6913, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Z. Luo (zhongkui.luo@csiro.au)  and E. Wang (enli.wang@csiro.au)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>28</day><month>July</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>14</issue>
      <fpage>4373</fpage><lpage>4383</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>5</day><month>January</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>10</day><month>March</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>13</day><month>June</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>July</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Soil carbon (C) models are important tools for understanding soil C balance and
projecting C stocks in terrestrial ecosystems, particularly under global
change. The initialization and/or parameterization of soil C models can vary
among studies even when the same model and data set are used, causing
potential uncertainties in projections. Although a few studies have assessed
such uncertainties, it is yet unclear what these uncertainties are
correlated with and how they change across varying environmental and
management conditions. Here, applying a process-based biogeochemical model
to 90 individual field experiments (ranging from 5 to 82 years of
experimental duration) across the Australian cereal-growing regions, we
demonstrated that well-designed optimization procedures enabled the model to
accurately simulate changes in measured C stocks, but did not guarantee
convergent forward projections (100 years). Major causes of the projection
uncertainty were due to insufficient understanding of how microbial
processes and soil C pool change to modulate C turnover. For a given site,
the uncertainty significantly increased with the magnitude of future C input
and years of the projection. Across sites, the uncertainty correlated
positively with temperature but negatively with rainfall. On average, a
331 % uncertainty in projected C sequestration ability can be inferred in
Australian agricultural soils. This uncertainty would increase further if
projections were made for future warming and drying conditions. Future
improvement in soil C modelling should focus on how the microbial community and
its C use efficiency change in response to environmental changes, and better
conceptualization of heterogeneous soil C pools and the C transformation
among those pools.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Soil is the largest carbon (C) reservoir in the terrestrial biosphere, and
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission from soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition accounts for
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 35 % of the global CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (Schlesinger and
Andrews, 2000). Due to the large amount of soil organic carbon (SOC), carbon
sequestration in soils represents a great potential for mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change as well as maintaining soil
fertility (Lal, 2004). Accurate projections of future change in SOC are
therefore needed for C and greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories to guide the
development of future policies and land management practices (Janssens et
al., 2003). Due to the complex and dynamic interactions between SOC,
climate, soil and land management practices, process-based SOM models have
become an important tool to investigate SOC change and project SOC trends
under different land uses (Jenkinson et al., 1991; Friedlingstein et al.,
2006; Smith et al., 2007; Piao et al., 2009). Some studies have suggested
that the uncertainties in such projections should be systematically
addressed in order to judge the credibility of the underlying projections
and develop appropriate polices for carbon sequestration and climate change
mitigation (Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Tang and Zhuang, 2008; Todd-Brown et
al., 2013; Nishina et al., 2014). A better understanding of these uncertainties
and their drivers will help identify knowledge gaps and improve
process-based models (Luo et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>Uncertainty in simulation results derived from dynamic models can arise from
inaccuracies in input data, deficiencies in model structure and
inappropriate optimization of model parameters. For SOM models,
initialization of the SOM pools can also be a major cause of divergent model
projections. Most SOM models divide SOM into several conceptual pools (e.g.
fast, slow and recalcitrant pools) and simulate the decomposition of each
pool as a first-order decay process (Smith et al., 1997; Davidson and
Janssens, 2006; Schmidt et al., 2011). In many cases, measurements are only
available for total SOC, and there is no agreed-on procedure for
initialization of these model pools using total SOC (Basso et al., 2011). As
a result, model optimization was often conducted based on limited SOC
measurements (usually at temporal scales less than decades) together with
empirical initialization. The optimized model was then used to project SOC
change at wider spatiotemporal scales (Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Thornton
et al., 2007). Such projection is subject to unknown uncertainty
(Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2013), because
it does not properly address the inaccuracies in both model initialization
and model parameters, with the latter potentially caused by imperfect
knowledge and model structure (Schmidt et al., 2011).</p>
      <p>To illustrate the uncertainty propagation in SOC projections caused by
initialization and parameterization and to understand what correlates with the
change in the patterns of projection uncertainty, we used the Agriculture
Production System sIMulator (APSIM) (Keating et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2002;
Holzworth et al., 2014) together with data from 90 agricultural experiments
at 26 sites across the Australian cereal-growing regions. The data include
measurements of total SOC stock (0–30 cm), C input (i.e. amount of residue
retention), crop yield, and records of management practices. The APSIM model
uses a very similar SOM pool structure and first-order decay approach to simulate
SOM dynamics to other common Earth system models (Smith et al., 1997;
Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Thornton et al., 2007). We firstly conducted
sensitivity analysis to identify the model parameters whose change impacted
most on simulated SOC dynamics. We then used Bayesian optimization approach
to derive the posterior joint distribution of the identified parameters that
enabled best match between measured and observed SOC. These ensembles of
parameters were used to run APSIM for each of the 90 experiments, and
simulations were continued for a further 100 years after the end of the
experiment to produce SOC projections for uncertainty analysis. We
quantified the uncertainty in SOC projections induced by both initialization
of SOC pools and parameterization of algorithms for simulation of process
dynamics. While the uncertainty obviously increases with years of
projections, we further hypothesized that it is also influenced by
site-specific climate, soil and management conditions, in addition to the
impact of model initialization and parameterization. We further investigated
how the projection uncertainty can be quantified by using these drivers, so
that future SOC projections can become more useful with attached and well-quantified uncertainties.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Study sites and data sets</title>
      <p>Data from a total of 90 experimental plots located within 26 different sites
(Fig. S1 in the Supplement) and compiled and described by Skjemstad and
Spouncer (2003) were used in this study. The experimental duration of these
trials ranged from 5 to 82 years; the experiments cover diverse climate, soil and
agricultural management conditions and are representative of Australian
cereal-growing regions (Table S1 in the Supplement). The
data set included detailed records on crop sequence, crop yield, crop residue
production (estimated according to harvest index) and agricultural management
practices such as residue management (removal or retention) and fertilizer
application over each year. SOC stock was determined for representative
0–30 cm soil samples at least at the beginning and end of the each
experiment, with some experiments having as many as six temporal
measurements. Other soil properties at the start of the experiment were also
measured, including total nitrogen content, bulk density, clay content and pH,
and were used to initialize the APSIM model.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>The APSIM model</title>
      <p>APSIM was developed to simulate biophysical process in agricultural systems,
and has been comprehensively verified and used to study productivity,
nutrient cycling and environmental impacts of farming systems as influenced
by climate variability and management practice (Keating et al., 2003; Wang
et al., 2002; Holzworth et al., 2014). APSIM simulates crop growth and soil
processes on a daily time step in response to climate (i.e. temperature,
rainfall, and radiation) and soil conditions (water availability, nutrient status, etc.). The model allows flexible specification of management
options like crop and rotation type, tillage, residue management,
fertilization and irrigation. The ability of APSIM to simulate SOC dynamics
under different cropping and management practices has been verified (Probert
et al., 1998; Luo Z. et al., 2011).</p>
      <p>APSIM simulates the dynamics of both soil C and N stocks in each soil layer.
Similar to other SOM models like RothC and Century, SOM in APSIM is divided
into six conceptual pools (i.e. microbial biomass, humic organic matter and
inert organic matter, together with three fresh organic matter pools;
Fig. S2). Inert organic matter is considered to be non-susceptible to
decomposition, i.e. indecomposable, due to physicochemical and/or biological
protections. The amount of inert organic C is initialized at the start of the
simulation and dos not change during the simulation. The decomposition of
other pools is treated as a first-order decay process modified by soil
temperature, moisture and nitrogen availability (for fresh organic matter
pool only), leading to the release of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to the atmosphere and transfer
of the remaining decomposed C to other pools. Microbial carbon use efficiency
(CUE), i.e. the efficiency of microbial community to assimilate the
decomposed SOC, determines the fraction of decomposed C transferred to other
pools. The model assumes a constant CUE for all C pools. The flow of N
depends on the C : N ratio of the receiving pool. The C : N ratio of each
pool is assumed to be constant through time. The decomposition of surface
residues is modified by the degree of contact of the residue with soil
(Thorburn et al., 2001).</p>
      <p>The model requires values for initial SOC content, total soil N content,
bulk density, and soil hydraulic parameters for each soil layer simulated.
In the Skjemstad and Spouncer (2003) data set, measured values for SOC
content, bulk density and total soil nitrogen content were provided for the
0–30 cm layer. For the deeper soil layers and hydraulic parameters in the
whole soil profile, values from a measured soil profile nearest to the site
were selected from the Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit (APSRU)
reference sites soil database (<uri>http://www.asris.csiro.au/mapping/hyperdocs/APSRU/</uri>). Daily weather data
(from 1889 to present) for each site including radiation, maximum and
minimum temperatures, and rainfall were obtained from the SILO Patched Point
Dataset (<uri>https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/</uri>).</p>
      <p>The APSIM model was first set up for each experiment. Agricultural
management including crops, residue management and fertilizer application
was set according to available historical records. Crops were sown depending
on rainfall (&gt; 20 mm in five successive days) and soil water
content (90 % of saturation water content in the top 20 cm soil). Crop
cultivars were assigned according to sowing date, i.e. the earlier the
sowing date, the later the maturity type of the crop cultivar. For
simplification, three cultivars for each crop representing early, middle and
later maturity cultivars were selected from the default cultivars in the
files released with the APSIM model. For pasture, however, there was no
record on the species and cultivar. Here, perennial lucerne (<italic>Medicago sativa</italic>, a commonly used species in Australian pasture) was used to
represent pasture and only one cultivar – Trifecta – was used in the
simulation. Lucerne was sown and removed after harvesting and before sowing
of annual crops in the corresponding rotations, respectively. Harvest to the
height of 10 cm was assumed each time lucerne reached the flowering stage to
mimic possible grazing and/or haying.</p>
      <p>In the experiments included in this study, C from assimilation of crop
growth was the only source of C input to the soil. In the APSIM model, crop
growth is simulated using light interception and radiation use efficiency,
modified by water and nitrogen supply. In order to achieve credible
simulation of crop growth, plant available water capacity (PAWC) of the soil
was adjusted. This adjusted PAWC at each site was used throughout the
simulations. Despite the reliability of the APSIM model to simulate crop
growth (both belowground and aboveground), we did not use the simulated
aboveground C input during the simulation. Alternatively, the recorded
aboveground C input (as crop residue) was manually incorporated into the
model at the time of crop harvesting, whilst the simulated crop residue was
removed. This manipulation eliminated the effect of imperfect match of
modelled with observed crop residue on SOC dynamics.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Sensitivity analysis of SOC dynamics</title>
      <p>A total of eight parameters (Table S2) that directly link
to the SOC dynamics in the model were selected for sensitivity analysis in
order to identify the most important ones regulating SOC dynamics. One model
input for model initialization, i.e. the fraction of inert organic carbon
in the total SOC at the start of the simulation (finert), was also included in the
sensitivity analysis, due to a lack of observed data of finert and its great effect
on simulated soil C changes. To inspect the response of simulated SOC to
variations of those parameters (finert was also called as a parameter for
convenience hereafter), a univariate local sensitivity analysis was
conducted by looking at the impact of one parameter at a time and fixing all
other parameters. As the purpose was to identify the most influential
parameter(s), a continuous wheat system with 100 % residue retention (the
dominant crop in the studied experiments; see Table S1) and
a nitrogen application of 200 kg N ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math 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> were used and
simulated for 100 years. The default model parameters were first used (Table S2), and then each parameter was sequentially increased by
10 % of its default value. For each parameter, the sensitivity function
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was calculated to represent the sensitivity of model output, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
(i.e. total 0–30 cm SOC stock) to changes in a single parameter, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Soetaert and Herman, 2008):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the default parameter value, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the model output
using <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the altered parameter value
(increased by 10 %) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the model output using <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Finally, the importance index of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th parameter
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e. the overall sensitivity of the output with respect to this
parameter, was calculated by summarizing the sensitivities for the 100-year
outputs (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 100):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sensitivity function for parameter <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at the
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th year of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 100) years of each simulation. The greater the
magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is, the more sensitive the model output was to the parameter
(Soetaert and Herman, 2008). The importance indices were compared among the
nine parameters, and the most important parameters were identified and
optimized to obtain the best agreement between simulated and observed SOC
dynamics for each of the 90 experiments. As the relative importance of those
parameters was independent of soil and climate conditions, the typical soil
and climate at Wagga Wagga (a major cropping area in Australia, and one of
the 26 sites used in the main text), New South Wales, Australia, were
selected to conduct above analyses.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Model optimization</title>
      <p>The differential evolution (DE) algorithm (which belongs to the class of genetic
algorithms) was used to optimize the most influential parameters identified.
The optimization was performed in R 3.0.3 using the DEoptim function in the
“DEoptim” package (Mullen et al., 2011). DE is a global optimization
algorithm for continuous numerical minimization problems, which use
biology-inspired operations of crossover, mutation, and selection on
population in order to minimize an objective function over the course of
successive generations.</p>
      <p>To use DE, each parameter was first assumed to exhibit a uniform
distribution bounded within a range (i.e. the prior distribution; see Table S2) that was biologically and physically possible based on
previous knowledge about the process, thereby eliminating solutions in
conflict with prior knowledge. The optimization performed a quasi-random
walk through the multi-dimensional parameter space to find the parameter set
that caused the model to generate the best match between predicted and
observed SOC. The “best match” was defined as the model output that
minimized the criteria selected for model evaluation (Table S3). Seven criteria that are commonly used in the literature were
selected to assess the possible effects of criterion selection on modelling
results. Using each criterion, the optimization was conducted 100 times
(i.e. 100 ensembles of initial parameter values through quasi-random
walk), which generated 100 ensembles of parameters (i.e. the joint
posterior distribution of the most influential parameters), giving
simulation results with approximately equally good matches to the observed
data. Consequently, 700 ensembles of parameters (from using seven criteria)
for each experiment were produced. The optimizing procedure and related
simulations were operated on Bragg and Dell CPUs of CSIRO clusters.</p>
      <p>However, the required computing time (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 days for one
experiment and one selection criterion using 100 computer cores) has posed a
significant challenge even using the high-performance computing clusters
(Bragg and Dell CPUs) for this multi-parameter optimization of the
process-oriented APSIM model. To complete all optimizations using seven
criteria for the 90 experiments, a run time of 4 months was expected
assuming that 1000 cores could be continuously available on the clusters.
For this reason, the global optimization DE was only applied for two sites,
i.e. Brigalow and Tarlee, providing two cases of DE optimization as
compared to an alternative and faster Bayesian sampling approach as
described below.</p>
      <p>For all the experiments, a Bayesian sampling approach was substituted for
the DE optimization in order to complete the work within a reasonable time
but without much sacrificing of model performance. The APSIM model was run
for each experiment for 100 000 times using 100 000 ensembles of parameters
that were randomly sampled from their prior distributions. The best 100
ensembles of parameters were selected as their posterior distributions
through using each criterion listed in Table S3. At
Brigalow and Tarlee, the distributions of parameters “optimized” through
this Bayesian sampling approach were compared with those optimized through
DE optimization. The identified parameter ensembles by Bayesian sampling
approach were referred to as “optimized parameters” in the following text
and used to assess the uncertainty in projected SOC.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Uncertainty in projected SOC</title>
      <p>After obtaining the 700 ensembles of optimized parameters (i.e. after
“optimization period”), the APSIM model was run continuously from the
start to the end of each experiment and then for an additional 100 years
after the end of each experiment using each parameter set (i.e. 700
simulations for each experiment). For the last 100-year simulations (i.e.
projection period), a continuous wheat system was assumed together with
100 % residue retention, which is the same as that used in sensitivity
analysis. Carbon input through crop residue retention was expected to be an
important factor regulating SOC dynamics in the projection period. As
residue (or biomass) production is dominantly controlled by fertilizer
application rates under natural rainfall condition at each site, scenarios
with nitrogen application rates ranging from 0 to 300 kg N ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math 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> with increments of 20 kg N ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math 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> were modelled.
These scenarios made it possible to mimic different management practices
that influence C input to the soil and to assess its impact on the
uncertainty of simulated SOC induced by model initialization and
parameterization.</p>
      <p>Climate data from the start year of each experiment through to 2013 were used
for the corresponding simulation period. For all years from 2014 onwards,
the corresponding years of the latest historical climate data were used. For
example, for the possible simulations from 2014 to 2104 (91 years), the
historic climate data of 91 years from 1923 to 2013 were used. As we focused
on the potential uncertainty induced by model parameterization and
initialization, we did not consider the uncertainty related to climate
change.</p>
      <p>SOC content in the 0–30 cm soil layer was output at the start of projection
(excluding the optimization period) and at the end of each year of projection
(C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th year of projection, the mean (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOC</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the 700 estimates was calculated, and the range
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOC</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the 95 % confidence interval was calculated as
the difference between 97.5th and 2.5th percentile of the 700 estimates.
Then, the percentage uncertainty (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for that year of
projection was estimated based on half of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOC</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> divided by
the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOC</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOC</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SOC</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>100</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn>100.</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <title>Attributes controlling the variability in the uncertainty</title>
      <p>After estimating <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we further addressed the following question:
how and why does the uncertainty (i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in projected SOC
change across space and time? We hypothesized that <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
associated with the management in terms of residue C inputs. At the same
time, we assumed that the detailed relationship between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and C
inputs is different not only across experiments but also across time periods
of the projection. As the hierarchy of the relationships (i.e.
individual-level C inputs group in experiments and time periods of the
projection), a hierarchical regression model, also called a multilevel model
(Gelman and Hill, 2006), was fitted to estimate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on C input (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, applied to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 experiments and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 time periods of projection. The multilevel model was written as a
data-level model (the predicted <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> belonging to experiment <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
years of projection), allowing the model coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to vary by experiment (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and time period of
projection (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Gelman and Hill, 2006):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext> for </mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          and a decomposition of its intercepts and slopes into terms for experiment,
the time period of projection and their interaction,

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext> year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            and models for variation,

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Σ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext> for </mml:mtext><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Σ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E7"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext> for </mml:mtext><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>expt</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mtext>year</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E8"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mtext> for </mml:mtext><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 covariance matrix
representing the variation in the intercepts and slopes in the population of
groups (experiments and time periods of projection). In essence, there is a
separate regression model for each experiment and time period combination
with the coefficients estimated by the weighted average of pooled (which do not
consider groups) and unpooled (which consider each group separately) estimates,
i.e. partial pooling. This hierarchical structure of the model allows the
assessment of the variation in individual-level coefficients across groups
and accounting for group-level variation in the uncertainty for
individual-level coefficients.</p>
      <p>To assess the variation in individual-level coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across different experiments, a classic
linear regression was conducted to identify the effects of different sources
of variation. At the experiment level, we assumed that two groups of
attributes influence <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: (1) uncertainty in model
parameters, i.e. the three optimized parameters based on
experiment-specific data set, and (2) climate including mean annual rainfall
and temperature, which are predominant factors controlling SOC dynamics
during model optimization as well as during projection. The generalized
variance (GV) was calculated as an indicator of the overall variation in
model parameters, which is defined as the determinant of the
variance–covariance matrix of the three parameters and is a scalar measure
of overall multidimensional scatter. The two groups of attributes including
all interactions were selected through a stepwise regression model selection
by the Akaike information criterion. Before fitting the model, GV was
logarithmically transformed to satisfy additivity and linearity assumptions
and then centred by subtracting the mean of the data, and rainfall and
temperature were also centred. For coefficients over the time spans of
projection (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">year</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">year</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, their relationship with the
time span of projection were presented. All the statistical analyses
including the multilevel model fitting were conducted using R software
version 3.0.3 (R Core Team, 2013).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Sensitivity analysis and model performance</title>
      <p>Three parameters were identified as most influential on simulated SOC (Fig. S3). Microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE) had the biggest
impact. This highlights the key role of microbial process to control SOM
decomposition, and the need for better capturing the dynamics and impact of
microbial process in SOM models (Allison et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2010;
Sinsabaugh et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2014). As CUE was treated as a constant in
most SOM models, a framework is needed to incorporate microbial data (e.g.
community, activity, and their responses and feedbacks to biotic and abiotic
factors) into SOM models to provide robust estimations and predictions.
Potential decomposition rate constant of humic organic matter (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranked the second, followed by the fraction of the humic carbon
that is recalcitrant to decomposition (finert). This result further indicates the
importance of better quantifying the decomposability of the heterogeneous SOM
(Schmidt et al., 2011; Sierra et al., 2011). It should be noted that the
actual decomposition rate is simulated through modifying <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by a
series of biotic and abiotic variables at different spatiotemporal scales,
and different models simulate the responses differently (Todd-Brown et al,
2013; Exbrayat et al., 2014). Although we did not quantify the relative
importance of these modifiers (e.g. soil moisture ad temperature), the
results indicated that <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has to be constrained, implying the
importance of determining how it responses to environmental factors. The
wide distributions of CUE, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and finert parameters (derived by constraining
the model against the measurement data, Fig. 1b) imply deficiencies in our
understanding of the microbial community and its activity and how they
change with environmental conditions to modulate the SOM decomposition
processes.</p>
      <p>Our optimization procedure enabled accurate simulation of SOC change during
the optimization period (Fig. 1a) using distinct ensembles of model
parameters for each experiment (Fig. 1b). Pooling together all data of the
90 experiments, the modelled average SOC of the 700 simulations could explain
96 % (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) of the variance in observed SOC (Fig. 1a). For
each experiment, model performance was nearly identical (Fig. 1a) when the
simulations (using different parameter sets) were intercompared. At the
Tarlee site (Fig. 2a), for example, the RMSE between modelled and observed
SOC ranged from 0.44 to 0.52 t ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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 range of 3.11 to
3.12 t ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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 the Brigalow site (Fig. 2b). This high level of consistency
highlights significant equifinality, i.e. different parameter ensembles
leading to similar simulation results (Figs. 1b, 2c and d), in process-based
SOM models, which must be addressed in modelling studies aimed at enhanced
process understanding and hypothesis testing (Tang and Zhuang, 2008; Luo Y. et al.,
2011).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Model performance in simulating soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics
<bold>(a)</bold> and the corresponding optimized model parameters
<bold>(b)</bold> across the 90 studied experiments. Circles and bars
<bold>(a)</bold> indicate the average and 95 % confidence interval of the
simulations for each experiment using different parameter ensembles. Red and
blue symbols in <bold>(a)</bold> highlight the data at Tarlee and Brigalow,
respectively, corresponding to the data in Fig. 2. Dashed line is the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
line in <bold>(a)</bold>. The parameter ensembles at Tarlee and Brigalow are
highlighted in <bold>(b)</bold>. See Fig. 2 for the means of the coloured symbols
in <bold>(b)</bold>, showing the different ranges of optimized fraction of inert
organic carbon (finert).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Uncertainty in SOC projections</title>
      <p>The accurate simulations of past SOC, however, do not guarantee convergent
projections beyond the model optimization period. In contrast, running the
model with the same parameter ensembles generated very divergent future
projections (Fig. 2a and b), indicating significant uncertainty propagation
with time of projection (Luo Y. et al., 2011; Tang and Zhuang, 2008). Furthermore,
the uncertainty is also related to management in terms of C input level and
site conditions. At Brigalow (Fig. 2b), for example, the 95 % confidence
interval of projected SOC under optimal N input (i.e. no N stress for
crops) ranged from 37 to 56 t ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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> 10 years after the model
optimization period, which increased to 26–68 t ha<inline-formula><mml:math 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> for the projected
SOC after 50 years. Under the low N input scenario (0 kg N ha<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the
uncertainty was smaller. At Tarlee (Fig. 2a), the uncertainty propagation
followed a similar pattern to that at Brigalow, but the uncertainty under the
low N input scenario was much smaller. At Brigalow, in addition, we found
that the choice of criterion (objective functions) influenced the
distributions of the derived parameters (Fig. 2d) because a specific
criterion only focuses on a specific aspect (e.g. mean or variance) of the
data and the model results, of which the consequence for SOC simulations
(e.g. the bifurcation pattern of projected SOC shown in Fig. 2b) ought to
be carefully considered in future studies.</p>
      <p>It is important to note that the posterior distributions of model
parameters were apparently different across experiments (Fig. 1b, c and d,
and S4), confirming that model parameters are
sensitive to the data constraining the model (Keenan et al., 2012; Hararuk
et al., 2014; Luo  et al., 2015) Our results indicate that CUE was likely
higher for the site with a longer cultivation history (the Tarlee site) than
for the newly cleared site (the Brigalow site, Fig. 2c vs. 2d), implying the potential
importance of land use history for constraining model parameters such as
microbial carbon use efficiency because land use history has a direct effect
on the quantity and quality of carbon input as well as on soil properties.
However, such impact needs further confirmation with more data. The
distributions of the optimized model parameters were also influenced by the
choice of criteria to evaluate model performance (Figs. 2d, S5). The differences in parameter distributions subsequently impact
on the SOC projections as shown in Fig. 2b, albeit with near-identical model
performance in simulating historical SOC. In addition, finert and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
were
positively related (Fig. 2c and d), implying the importance of the
interactions and/or feedback between different C pools and their impacts on
soil C projection. These highlight the need for (1) improving the science
for capturing process interactions in the model such as the role of
microbial processes and conceptualization of heterogeneous C pools and their
transformation (Manzoni et al., 2012; Luo et al., 2014), (2) conducting model
optimization conditioned on all observed data from experiments together with
Bayesian inference technique, and (3) quantifying uncertainty in SOC
projections with ensemble model simulations (Post et al., 2008; Weng and Luo, 2011; Xia et al., 2013; Hararuk et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2015).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>Projected soil organic carbon dynamics at two case sites Tarlee
<bold>(a)</bold> and Brigalow <bold>(b)</bold> and the correspondingly used parameter
ensembles (<bold>c</bold> and <bold>d</bold>). Black symbols show the observations.
Seven criteria (RMSE, MAE, pMAE, IoA, rIoA, NSE and rNSE; see Table 3 in the
Supplement for details) are used to derive the posterior joint distribution
of model parameters (CUE, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and finert). CUE, microbial carbon
use efficiency; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hum</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the potential decomposition rate of humic
organic carbon; finert, the fraction of inert organic carbon.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Projected SOC (<bold>a</bold> and <bold>b</bold>) and its percentage
uncertainty (<bold>c</bold> and <bold>d</bold>) under high (<bold>a</bold> and
<bold>c</bold>) and low (<bold>b</bold> and <bold>d</bold>) carbon input scenarios after
100-year simulations in 90 experiments across 26 sites. Concentric circles
show the different experiments at the same site. The sizes of the circles
correspond to the projected average of SOC content (<bold>a</bold> and
<bold>b</bold>) and the corresponding percentage uncertainty (<bold>c</bold> and
<bold>d</bold>). Blue and red circles indicate that the average of the 700
simulations is increased and decreased, respectively, compared with the SOC
content at the start of the projection. Blue and red sectors of the circles in
<bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> indicate the fraction of 700 bootstrapping
simulations that shows an increase and a decrease in the projected SOC,
respectively, compared with the SOC content at the start of the projection
period.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p>Coefficients (estimate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SD) for the regression
model: <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> . The model is fitted
to estimate the effects of carbon input (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the percentage
uncertainty (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in soil organic carbon projections, applied to
90 experiments <bold>(a)</bold> and 100 time spans of projection <bold>(b)</bold>.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> show the data-level
coefficients (i.e. averaging over experiments <bold>(a)</bold> and time spans of projection <bold>(b)</bold>) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents model error. In <bold>(a)</bold>, experiments are sorted according
to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The coefficients at the experiment
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> time span level are not shown. See more details in the “Materials and methods” for
the regression model.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=176.407087pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/12/4373/2015/bg-12-4373-2015-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The effects of experiment-specific variance of model parameters and
climate on individual-level coefficients (i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Fig. 4a).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <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="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Factor<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col7" nameend="col10" align="center"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Estimate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">SE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Estimate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">SE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math 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">Model intercept</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">26.35</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.14</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.62</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.33</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">4.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GV</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.55</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.69</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.088</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.97</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.059</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.016</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.63</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0055</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.0026</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.95</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.35</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.77</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GV <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0018</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.00061</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.87</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GV  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.57</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.33</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.74</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.046</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.49</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.0021</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.0014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.46</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">0.15</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Whole-model <inline-formula><mml:math 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></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.44</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.1. <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
GV, generalized variance of the identified three model parameters including
microbial carbon use efficiency, decomposition rate of humic organic carbon
and the fraction of inert organic carbon; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the annual average rainfall;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the annual average temperature. GV was logarithmically transformed and
centred, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were also centred when fitting the model.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>If a continuous wheat system was practiced for 100 years after the end of
each experiment at the 26 sites, optimal N management was predicted to
result in an average increase in SOC (Fig. 3a), whereas a SOC decline would occur under
zero N input (Fig. 3b). The amount of potential SOC change depends on not
only the management level (N input) and the climate and soil conditions that
determine the potential productivity of crops but also the initial SOC
level at the start of the projections. Across the 90 experiments, the
percentage uncertainty in the SOC projections ranged from 2 to 140 %
with an average of 53 % under optimal N management (Fig. 3c), and from
0.8 to 108 % with an average of 40 % under zero N input (Fig. 3d).
From applying this result to Australia's cereal-growing regions, the simulated
potential SOC stock of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.5 Pg (Luo et al., 2013) could be
subject to 53 % uncertainty under no N deficiency and 100 % residue
retention.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Attributes controlling the variability in the uncertainty</title>
      <p>The uncertainty propagation with time of prediction and across experiments
could be explained using a linear model by linking the percentage
uncertainty (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the C input from crop residue (C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> C<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> . However, both <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> changed significantly across experiments (Fig. 4a) and years of
projections (Fig. 4b), and were also impacted by their interactions. Across
the time periods of projection, the uncertainty increased with the number of
years for projection, reflected by the linear increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (model
intercepts) and asymptotic increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (model slope, Fig. 4b). The
asymptotic increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (model slope) also implies that the relative
contribution of C input to prediction uncertainty reduces with time. Across
experiments, there was a marked variation in the effect of C input on
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, indicating impact of site-specific conditions (e.g. climate and
soil as described later). Across sites and years of projections, the
majority of positive <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> implies increased uncertainty in SOC
projections with increasing C input, which has not been properly addressed
in previous modelling studies (Joos et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2005; Smith
et al., 2005; Ogle et al., 2010). The fate of C input has a direct effect on
the amount of soil C. The general positive effect of C input on uncertainty highlights the importance of understanding the consequences of
future C input changes on soil C dynamics.</p>
      <p>The variance in model parameters (GV) across experiments had a major effect
on the intercepts (positive at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) and slopes (positive at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.001) of the regression model
linking <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to C input (Table 1). As GV was logarithmically transformed when fitting the model, the
increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with GV was exponential across experiments. This result
highlights the crucial role to improve the representation of the sensitive
microbial processes (Zhou et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2014) and the
heterogeneous SOM (Sierra et al., 2011) in biogeochemical SOM models, and to
constrain the space of relevant model parameters. For example, we assumed a
relatively wide range of CUE (0.2–0.8) as the prior information for the
Bayesian optimization. Sinsabaugh et al. (2013) suggested that CUE prediction
should consider resource composition, stoichiometry constraints and biomass
composition, as well as environmental drivers. A more informative prior of
CUE could help reduce the uncertainty in soil C projections.</p>
      <p>Rainfall and temperature, together with their interaction, had a significant
impact on SOC projection uncertainty through their impact on the fitted model
intercepts across experiments (Table 1). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
increased with temperature, but tended to decrease with rainfall, implying
increased uncertainty in SOC projection under future warming and drying
conditions. Based on the results, the uncertainty in projected SOC will be
increased by 4.95 % if average temperature is increased by 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
under global warming. For the slopes <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">expt</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, rainfall
and its interaction with GV had a significant negative effect. These effects
may reflect the impact of rainfall on both primary productivity (and thus C
input) and soil moisture conditions (and thus microbial activity and
decomposition rate of SOC), emphasizing the importance of understanding the
interactions between soil processes and their responses to external drivers
and management such as temperature and rainfall (Davidson and Janssens, 2006;
Carvalhais et al., 2014).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>Our results demonstrate that great uncertainty exists in soil C projections
from process-based SOM models, due to deficiency in model initialization and
parameterization in capturing the process interactions, such as microbial C
use efficiency and its drivers, as well as a lack of detailed information to
initialize the model, e.g. the heterogeneous SOM with different
decomposability. The prediction uncertainty propagates with extended years
of projections and C input into soil. It is also influenced by site-specific
climate (temperature and rainfall) and soil conditions together with
management inputs, which determine both the C input (through primary
productivity) and the SOM decomposition processes. The results also suggest
that C projection into warming and drying future climate will be subject to
even greater uncertainty. For agricultural land uses, uncertainty caused
by management practices has to be carefully considered due to its impact on
microbial activity and subsequent projected SOC. For any future predictions
of SOC change, ensemble simulations conditioned on total observed data sets
together with a Bayesian inference technique should be used in order to
quantify the uncertainties in modelling results. Based on our results, future
improvement in SOM modelling should focus on how the microbial community and its
carbon use efficiency change in response to environmental changes, better
quantification of heterogeneous SOM and the effects of its change on total
soil C turnover.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4373-2015-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/bg-12-4373-2015-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p>Z. Luo collected data, ran simulations, and performed data analysis; Z. Luo, E. Wang,
J. A. Baldock designed the study; H. Zheng and Q. Shao were involved in statistical analysis;
Z. Luo, E. Wang and O. J. Sun wrote the paper. All authors discussed the results and
commented on the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was supported by funding from the Australian Government
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and the Grains
Research and Development Corporation (GRDC). Thanks to Yiqi Luo of the
University of Oklahoma and Petra Kuhnert and Jonathan Sanderman of
CSIRO for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: A. Ito</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D., and Bradford, M. A.:  Soil-carbon
response to warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nat. Geosci.,
3, 336–340, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Basso, B., Gargiulo, O., Paustian, K., Robertson, G. P., Porter, C., Grace,
P.,
and Jones,  J. W.: Procedures for initializing soil organic carbon
pools in the DSSAT-CENTURY model for agricultural systems, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 75, 69–78, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M.,  Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca, M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, S.,
Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens, B., Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson, J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global covariation of
carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems, Nature,
514, 213–217, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Davidson, E. A. and Janssens, I. A.:  Temperature sensitivity of soil
carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change, Nature, 440,
165–173, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Exbrayat, J.-F., Pitman, A. J., and Abramowitz, G.: Response of microbial
decomposition to spin-up explains CMIP5 soil carbon range until 2100,
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2683–2692, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2683-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-2683-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V. Cadule, P., Doney, S.,
Eby, M., Fung, I., Bala, G., John, J., Jones, C., Joos, F., Kato, T., Kawamiya, M., Knorr, W.,
Lindsay, K., Matthews, H. D., Raddatz, T., Rayner, P., Reick, C., Roeckner, E., Schnitzler, K.-G.,
Schnur, R., Strassmann, K., Weaver, A. J., Yoshikawa, C., and Zeng, N.: Climate-carbon cycle
feedback analysis: Results from the (CMIP)-M-4 model intercomparison,
J. Climate, 19, 3337–3353, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Gelman, A. and  Hill, J.: Data analysis using regression and
multilevel/hierarchical models, Cambridge University Press, 625 pp., 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Hararuk, O., Xia,  J. Y., and Luo, Y. Q.: Evaluation and improvement of
a global land model against soil carbon data using a Bayesian Markov chain
Monte Carlo method, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo.,
119, 403–417, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Holzworth, D. P., Huth, N., deVoil, P. G., Zurcher, E. J., Herrmann, H. I.,
McLean, G., Chenu, K., van Oosterom, E. J., Snow, V., Murphy, C., Moore, A. D.,
Brown, H., Whish, J. P. M., Verrall, S., Fainges, J., Bell, L. W., Peake, A. S.,
Poulton, P. L., Hochman,  Z., Thorburn, P. J., Gaydon, D. S., Dalgliesh, N. P.,
Rodriguez, D., Cox,  H., Chapman, S., Doherty, A., Teixeira, E., Sharp, J.,
Cichota,  R., and Vogeler, I.: APSIM-Evolotion towards a new generation of
agricultural systems simulations, Environ. Modell. Softw.,
62, 327–350, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Janssens, I. A., Freibauer, A., Ciais, P., Smith, P., Nabuurs, G.-J., Folberth, G.,
Schlamadinger, B., Hutjes, R. W. A., Ceulemans, R., Schulze, E.-D., Valentini, R., and Dolman, A. J.: Europe's terrestrial
biosphere absorbs 7 to 12 % of European anthropogenic CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions,
Science, 300, 1538–1542, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Jenkinson, D., Adams, D., and Wild ,A.:  Model estimates of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions from soil in response to global warming, Nature, 351,
304–306, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, C., McConnell, C., Coleman, K., Cox, P., Falloon, P., Jenkinson, D., and
Powlson, D.: Global climate change and soil carbon stocks; predictions
from two contrasting models for the turnover of organic carbon in soil,
Glob. Change Biol., 11, 154–166, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Joos, F., Prentice, I. C., Sitch, S., Meyer, R., Hooss, G., Plattner, G. K.,
Gerber,  S., and Hasselmann, K.:  Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial
carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
emission scenarios, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 891–907, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Keating, B. A., Carberry, P. S., Hammer, G. L., Probert, M. E., Robertson, M. J., Holzworth, D., Huth, N. I.,
Hargreaves, J. N. G., Meinke, H., Hochman, Z., McLean, G., Verburg, K., Snow, V., Dimes, J. P., Silburn, M.,
Wang, E., Brown, S., Bristow, K. L., Asseng, S., Chapman, S., McCown, R. L., Freebairn, D. M., Smith, C. J.,
Keating, B. A., Carberry, P. S., Hammer, G. L., Probert, M. E., Robertson, M. J., Holzworth, D., Huth, N. I.,
Hargreaves, J. N. G., Meinke, H., Hochman, Z., McLean, G., Verburg, K., Snow, V., Dimes, J. P., Silburn, M., Wang, E.,
Brown, S., Bristow, K. L., Asseng, S., Chapman, S., McCown, R. L., Freebairn, D. M., and Smith, C. J.: An overview of
APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation, Eur. J. Agron., 18, 267–288, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Keenan, T. F., Davidson, E., Moffat, A. M., Munger, W., and Richardson, A. D.:
Using model-data fusion to interpret past trends, and quantify
uncertainties in future projections, of terrestrial ecosystem carbon
cycling, Glob. Change Biol., 18, 2555–2569, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Lal, R.: Soil Carbon sequestration impacts on global blimate bhange
and food security, Science, 304, 1623–1627, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Y., Ogle, K., Tucker, C., Fei, S., Gao, C., LaDeau, S., Clark, J., and
Schimel, D. S.: Ecological forecasting and data assimilation in a data-rich
era, Ecol. Appl., 21, 1429–1442, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Luo, Y., Keenan, T. F., and Smith, M.: Predictability of the
terrestrial carbon cycle, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 1737–1751, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12766" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12766</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Z., Wang,  E., Sun,  O. J., Smith, C. J., and  Probert, M. E.: Modeling
long-term soil carbon dynamics and sequestration potential in semi-arid
agro-ecosystems, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 151, 1529–1544, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Z., Wang, E., Bryan, B. A., King, D., Zhao, G., Pan, X., and Bende-Michl, U.:
Meta-modeling soil organic carbon sequestration potential and its
application at regional scale, Ecol. Appl., 23, 408–420, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Z., Wang, E., Fillery, I. R. P., Macdonald, L. M., Huth, N., and
Baldock, J.:
Modelling soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics using measurable and
conceptual soil organic matter pools in APSIM, Agriculture, Ecosys. Environ., 186, 94–104, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Taylor, P., Richter, A., Porporato, A., and Ågren, G. I.:
Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon use
efficiency in soils, New Phytol., 196, 79–91, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Mullen, K. M., Ardia, D., Gil, D. L., Windover, D., and Cline, J.:
DEoptim: An R package for global optimization by differential evolution,
J. Stat. Softw., 40, 1–26, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Nishina, K., Ito, A., Beerling, D. J., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B.,
Falloon, P., Friend, A. D., Kahana, R., Kato, E., Keribin, R., Lucht, W., Lomas, M.,
Rademacher, T. T., Pavlick, R., Schaphoff, S., Vuichard, N., Warszawaski, L., and
Yokohata, T.: Quantifying uncertainties in soil carbon responses to changes in global
mean temperature and precipitation, Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 197–209, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-197-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esd-5-197-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Ogle, S. M.,  Breidt, F. J., Easter, M., Williams, S., Killian, and
Pautian,  K.: Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil organic carbon stock
changes for US croplands using a process-based model, Glob. Change Biol.,
16, 810–822, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Piao, S. L., Fang, J. Y., Ciais, P., Peylin, P.,  Huang, Y., Sitch, S., and
Wang, T.: The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China, Nature,
458, 1009–1013, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Post, J., Hattermann, F. F., Krysanova,  V., and Sucko, F.: Parameter
and input data uncertainty estimation for the assessment of long-term soil
organic carbon dynamics, Environ. Modell. Softw., 3,
125–138, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Probert, M., Dimes, J., Keating, B., Dalal,  R., and  Strong, W.: APSIM's water
and nitrogen modules and simulation of the dynamics of water and nitrogen in
fallow systems, Agr. Syst., 56, 1–28, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>R Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at:
<uri>http://www.R-project.org/</uri> (last access: 27 July 2015),
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Schlesinger, W. and Andrews, J.:  Soil respiration and the global
carbon cycle, Biogeochemistry, 48, 7–20, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Schmidt, M. W., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kögel-Knabner, I.,
Lehmann, J., and Manning, D. A.: Persistence of soil
organic matter as an ecosystem property, Nature, 478, 49–56, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Sierra, C. A., Harmon, M. E., and  Perakis, S. S.: Decomposition of
heterogeneous organic matter and its long-term stabilization in soils,
Ecol. Monogr., 81, 619–634, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Singh, B. K.,  Bardgett, R. D., Smith, P., and Reay,  D.: Microorganisms
and climate change: terrestrial feedbacks and mitigation options, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 8, 779–790, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., and Richter,  A.: Carbon
use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and
modelling, Ecol. Lett., 16, 930–939, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Skjemstad, J. and Spouncer, L. R.: Integrated Soils Modelling for the
National Carbon Accounting System: estimating Changes in Soil Carbon
Resulting from Changes in Land Use, Australian Greenhouse Office, 649 pp.,  2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, J., Smith, P., Wattenbach, M., Zaehle, S., Hiederer, R., Jones, R. J. A., Montanarella, L.,
Rounsevell, M. D. A., Reginster, I., and Ewert, F.: Projected changes in
mineral soil carbon of European croplands and grasslands, 1990–2080, Glob. Change Biol., 11, 2141–2152,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, J. O., Smith, P., Wattenbach, M., Gottschalk, P. I. A., Romanenkov, V. A., Shevtsova, L. K.,
Sirotenko, O. D., Rukhovich, D. I., Koroleva, P. V., Romanenko, I. A., and Lisovoi, N. V.: Projected changes in the
organic carbon stocks of cropland mineral soils of European Russia and the
Ukraine, 1990–2070, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 342–356, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, P., Smith, J., Powlson, D., McGill, W., Arah, J., Chertov, O., Coleman, K., Franko, U., Frolking, S., and Jenkinson, D.: A comparison of the
performance of nine soil organic matter models using datasets from seven
long-term experiments, Geoderma, 81, 153–225, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Soetaert, K. and Herman, P. M.: A practical guide to ecological
modelling: using R as a simulation platform, Springer, 372 pp., 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Tang, J. and Zhuang, Q.:  Equifinality in parameterization of
process-based biogeochemistry models: A significant uncertainty source to
the estimation of regional carbon dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113,
G04010, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000757" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JG000757</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Thorburn, P. J., Probert, M. E., and Robertson, F. A.: Modelling
decomposition of sugar cane surface residues with APSIM-residue, Field Crop
Res., 70, 223–232, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Thornton, P. E., Lamarque, J. F., Rosenbloom, N. A., and Mahowald, N. M.:
Influence of carbon-nitrogen cycle coupling on land model response to
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fertilization and climate variability, Global Biogeochem. Cy.,  21, GB4018, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002868" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GB002868</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M.,
Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D.: Causes of variation in soil
carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations,
Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–1736, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Wang, E., Robertson, M. J., Hammer, G. L., Carberry, P. S., Holzworth, D.,
Meinke, H., Chapman, S. C., Hargreaves, J. N. G., Huth, N. I., and McLean,
G.: Development of a generic crop model template in the cropping system model
APSIM, Eur. J. Agron., 18, 121–140, 2002.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Weng, E. and Luo, Y.: Relative information contributions of model vs.
data to short- and long-term forecasts of forest carbon dynamics, Ecol. Appl., 21, 1490–1505,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Xia, J., Luo, Y.,  Wang, Y. P., and Hararuk,  O.:  Traceable components of
terrestrial carbon storage capacity in biogeochemical models, Glob. Change Biol., 19, 2104–2116,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, X., Schimel, J. P., Thornton, P. E., Song, X., Yuan, F. M., and Goswami,
S.:
Substrate and environmental controls on microbial assimilation of
soil organic carbon: a framework for Earth system models, Ecol. Lett.,
17, 547–555, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, J., Xue, K., Xie, J., Deng, Y., Wu, L., Cheng, X., Fei, S., Deng, S., He, Z., and Van Nostrand, J. D.: Microbial mediation of
carbon-cycle feedbacks to climate warming, Nature Climate Change, 2, 106–110, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
