<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">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 Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-16-917-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Evaluating the simulated mean soil carbon transit times by Earth system
models using observations</article-title><alt-title>Evaluating the simulated mean soil carbon transit times</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Evaluating the simulated mean soil carbon transit times}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J.~Wang et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Jing</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2330-2787</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Xia</surname><given-names>Jianyang</given-names></name>
          <email>jyxia@des.ecnu.edu.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Xuhui</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2038-9901</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Kun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Jian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Yuanyuan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>Lifen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>Xia</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Liang</surname><given-names>Junyi</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-5502</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Ying-Ping</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4614-6203</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff8">
          <name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>Xiaoli</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff9">
          <name><surname>Luo</surname><given-names>Yiqi</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Zhejiang Tiantong Forest Ecosystem National Observation and Research
Station, Shanghai Key Lab for Urban Ecological Processes and
Eco-Restoration, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China
Normal University,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Shanghai 200241, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal Research, Research
Center for Global Change and Ecological Forecasting, East China Normal
University, Shanghai 200241, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, 91191
Gif-sur-Yvette, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Center for ecosystem science and society, Northern Arizona University,
Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University,
Nanjing 210037, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Environmental Sciences Division &amp; Climate Change Science Institute,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>CSIRO Ocean and Atmosphere, PMB 1, Aspendale, Victoria 3195,
Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>8</label><institution>Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074,
Hubei Province, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff9"><label>9</label><institution>Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing
100084, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Jianyang Xia (jyxia@des.ecnu.edu.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>16</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>917</fpage><lpage>926</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>16</day><month>July</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>15</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>5</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>15</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Jing Wang et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e240">One known bias in current Earth system models (ESMs) is the underestimation
of global mean soil carbon (C) transit time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which quantifies
the age of the C atoms at the time they leave the soil. However, it remains
unclear where such underestimations are located globally. Here, we
constructed a global database of measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across 187 sites to
evaluate results from 12 ESMs. The observations showed that the
estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was dramatically shorter from the soil incubation
studies in the laboratory environment (median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 years; interquartile
range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 to 25 years) than that derived from field in situ
measurements (31; 5 to 84 years) with shifts in stable isotopic C
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or the <italic>stock-over-flux</italic> approach. In comparison with the
field observations, the multi-model ensemble simulated a shorter median (19 years) and
a smaller spatial variation (6 to 29 years) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
across the same site locations. We then found a significant and negative
linear correlation between the in situ measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
mean annual air temperature. The underestimations of modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are mainly located in cold and dry biomes, especially tundra and desert.
Furthermore, we showed that one ESM (i.e., CESM) has improved its
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimate by incorporation of the soil vertical profile. These
findings indicate that the spatial variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a useful
benchmark for ESMs, and we recommend more observations and modeling efforts
on soil C dynamics in regions limited by temperature and moisture.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e369">Carbon (C) cycle feedback to climate change is highly uncertain in current
Earth system models (ESMs) (Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Bernstein et al.,
2008; Ciais et al., 2013; Bradford et al., 2016), which largely stems from
their diverse simulations of C exchanges among the atmosphere, vegetation,
and soil (Luo et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2016; Mishra et al., 2017). Soil
organic carbon (SOC) represents the largest terrestrial carbon pool, which
stores at least 3 times as much as the atmospheric and vegetation C
reservoirs (Parry et al., 2007; Bloom et al., 2016). However, a 5- to<?pagebreak page918?> 6-fold
difference in soil C stocks among ESMs or offline global land surface models
has been found (Todd-Brown et al., 2013; Luo et al., 2016). It is difficult
to reduce or even diagnose this uncertainty, as many processes collectively
affect the time of C atoms' transit in the soil system (i.e., transit time,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Sierra et al., 2017; Spohn and Sierra, 2018). Some
recent attempts at evaluating and diagnosing the modeled SOC in ESMs have
shown significant simulation uncertainties in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Todd-Brown et al., 2013; Carvalhais et al., 2014; He et al., 2016; Koven et
al., 2017). For example, there is a 4-fold difference in the simulated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> among the ESMs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) (Todd-Brown et al., 2013). A recent data-driven
analysis has suggested that the current ESMs have substantially
underestimated the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by 16–17 times at the global scale
(He et al., 2016). Therefore, identifying the locations of such
underestimations is critical to improve the predictive ability of ESMs for
the terrestrial C cycle, and the construction of a benchmarking database of
available observations is urgently needed (Koven et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e416">The terms of transit time, turnover time, and age of soil C have been muddled
in diagnosing the models (Sierra et al., 2017). The diagnostic times derived
from observational data are based on the different assumptions and mainly
derived from four approaches. The first approach is commonly defined as
“turnover time”, calculated by the division of SOC stock by C fluxes such
as net primary productivity (NPP) or heterotrophic respiration
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). It assumes the soil system is a time-invariant linear
system in a steady state (Bolin et al., 1973; Sanderman et al., 2003; Six and
Jastrow, 2012). The second approach is based on the shifts in stable isotopic
C (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) after successive changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
vegetation, together with additional information from the disturbed and
undisturbed soils (Balesdent et al., 1987; Zhang et al., 2015). The third
approach is based on simulating soil C dynamics with linear models by
assimilating the observational data from laboratory incubations of soil
samples (Xu et al., 2016). The last approach derives the weighted inverse of
the first-order cycling rate by fitting a one- or multiple-pool linear model
to field observations of radiocarbon (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Trumbore et al., 1993;
Fröberg et al., 2011). The diagnostic times derived from the first three
approaches indicate the transit times, which are the mean ages of C atoms
leaving the carbon pools during a certain time (Rasmussen et al., 2016). Lu
et al. (2018) has evaluated the deviation between C transit and turnover
times with the CABLE model. Their results have shown that the global
latitudinal pattern of C transit and turnover times is consistent under a
steady-state assumption and autonomous conditions except for 8 % of
divergence in the northern high latitudes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N).
However, the diagnostic time calculated by the radiocarbon signal indicates
the average age of C atoms stored in the C pools. Although radiocarbon has
been widely used to quantify the age or transit time of soil C, its validity
has been challenged by some recent theoretical analyses (Sierra et al., 2017;
Metzler et al., 2018). Rasmussen et al. (2016) has marked off the transit
time and mean system age in a mathematic way and further applied it in the
Carnegie–Ames–Stanford approach (CASA) model. Also, the
methodological uncertainty is large, especially when these approaches are
applied to estimate the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of different soil fractions
(Feng et al., 2016). Thus, this study mainly collects the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values from the approaches of <italic>stock over flux</italic>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes, and lab incubations in further analyses.</p>
      <p id="d1e532">In this study, we first construct a database from the literatures which
reported <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1a, Supplement on Text S1).
Then, the database is used to evaluate the simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by the
ESMs in CMIP5. The SOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values were calculated under a
homogenous one-pool assumption at steady state for all studies. Data
from observations and the CMIP5 ensemble were then used to calculate the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> based on both one-pool and three-pool models. Many ESMs, e.g.,
CESM, have released new versions in recent years, so we also evaluate
whether the simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been improved. In the case of
CESM, one of its major developments in soil C cycling is the vertically
resolved soil biogeochemical scheme (Koven et al., 2013). Thus, we employ a
matrix approach developed by Huang et al. (2017) to examine the impact of
the vertically resolved soil biogeochemical scheme on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> simulated by CESM.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{A global database of site-level $\tau _{\mathrm{soil}}$}?><title>A global database of site-level <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e624">We collected the literatures that reported the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> based on
measurements (Text S1 in the Supplement): (1) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
shifts after successive changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> vegetation, (2)
measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> production in laboratory SOC incubation over at
least 7 months, and (3) simultaneous measurements of SOC stock and
heterotrophic respiration (stock over flux). We constructed a database containing the
measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 187 sites across the globe (Fig. 1). Based on
the homogenous assumption, the soil system is a time-invariant linear system
at the steady state. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from this database is
under a one-pool assumption. The information of climate (e.g., mean annual
temperature and precipitation) was also collected from the literature or
extracted from the WorldClim database version 1.4 (<uri>http://worldclim.org/</uri>, last access: 1 June 2019, Hijmans et al., 2005) if literature was not available. The WorldClim dataset
provided a set of free global climate data for ecological modeling and
Geographic Information System analysis with a spatial resolution of 0.86 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Hutchinson et al., 2004). We extracted the mean temperature and
precipitation by averaging the monthly climate data over 1990–2000 for
those observational sites with missing climate information. The classes of
biomes were processed to match the seven biome classifications adopted by
the MODIS land cover product MCD12C1 (NASA LP DAAC, 2008; Friedl<?pagebreak page919?> et al.,
2010) and Todd-Brown et al. (2013) (Fig. S1): (1) tropical forest including
evergreen broadleaf forest between 25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S; (2)
temperate forest including deciduous broadleaf, evergreen broadleaf outside
of 25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, and mixed forest south of
50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N; (3) boreal forest including evergreen needleleaf forest,
deciduous needleleaf forest, and mixed forest north of 50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N; (4)
grassland and shrubland including woody savanna south of 50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and
savanna and grasslands south of 55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N; (5) deserts and savanna
including barren or sparsely vegetated open shrubland south of
55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and closed shrubland south of 50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N; (6) tundra;
and (7) croplands. Other land cover types like permanent wetland, urban, and
bare land were not included in this study.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Outputs of Earth system models from CMIP5</title>
      <p id="d1e817">The <italic>historical</italic> simulation outputs of 12 ESMs participating in CMIP5 from 1850 to 1860
(<uri>https://esgf-data.dkrz.de/search/cmip5-dkrz/</uri>, last access: 11 January 2016) were analyzed in
this study (Table S1). For each model, the SOC, litter C, NPP, and heterotrophic respiration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were
extracted from the outputs in historical simulations (<italic>cSoil, cLitter, npp</italic>,  and <italic>rh</italic>, respectively,
from the CMIP5 variable list). The litter and soil carbon were summed as the
bulk soil carbon stock. Among the 12 models, only the inmcm4 model did not
output NPP, so we calculated it as gross primary production minus
autotrophic respiration. Due to the diverse spatial resolutions among the
models, we aggregated the results of different models to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the nearest interpolation method (Fig. S2). The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of SOC was calculated as the ratio of carbon stock over
flux (NPP or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M55" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">flux</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e908">Spatial distributions of observational sites for estimates of SOC
transit time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, year). <bold>(a)</bold> The site locations of
measurements with different approaches. <bold>(b)</bold> Probability density functions
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured with different approaches. Note that the left
axis is for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and stock-over-flux approaches, and the right axis is for laboratory
incubation studies.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Estimating the SOC $\tau _{\mathrm{soil}}$ with a three-pool model}?><title>Estimating the SOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a three-pool model</title>
      <p id="d1e975">To examine whether the major findings of this data–model comparison are
affected by the one-pool homogenous assumption, we fitted a three-pool model
with observational data and model ensemble outputs at the biome level. In
this study, a three-pool C model consisted of fast, slow, and passive pools
and carbon transfers among three pools (Fig. S3a). This model shares the
same framework with the CENTURY and the terrestrial ecosystem models
(Bolker et al., 1998; Liang et al., 2015). The dynamics of soil carbon pools follow
first-order differential kinetics. The total C stocks and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> efflux
from observations and the CMIP5 ensemble were separated into pool-specific
decomposition rates by the deconvolution analysis (Fig. S3a, Liang et al.,
2015). We assumed the total soil carbon input equals total soil
respiration at the steady state.</p>
      <p id="d1e989">Based on the theoretical analysis, the dynamics of the three-pool model can be
mathematically described by the matrix equation (Luo et al., 2003; Xia et al., 2013)
as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M61" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">AKC</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the matrix <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used to describe soil carbon pool sizes. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a matrix given by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M66" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="right right right"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The elements <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are carbon transfer coefficients, indicating the
fractions of the carbon entering
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th (row) pool from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th (column) pool. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> diagonal matrix indicating the decomposition rates (the amounts of
carbon per unit mass
leaving each of the pools per year). The matrix of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is given by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">K</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">diag</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <?pagebreak page920?><p id="d1e1281">The parameters in the three-pool model were estimated based on Bayesian
probabilistic inversion (Eq. 4). The posterior probability density
function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of model
parameters (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) can be represented by the prior probability density
function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a likelihood function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Liang et al.,
2015; Xu et al., 2016). The likelihood function was calculated by the minimum error
between observed and modeled values with Eq. (5). In this study, we
adopted the prior ranges of model parameters from Liang et al. (2015).
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M81" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∝</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M82" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∝</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="{" close="}"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:msup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the observed
and modeled transit times, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of
measurements. The posterior probability density function of the parameters
was constructed with two steps: a proposing step and a moving step. In the
first step, the dataset was generated based on the previously accepted data
with a proposal distribution:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M86" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">new</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">new</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
the maximum and minimum values of the given parameters, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the random
variable between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0.5 with uniform distribution, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is used to control
the proposing step size in this study. In the moving step, the new data
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">new</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is tested against the Metropolis criteria to quantify
whether it should be accepted or rejected. The parameters of posterior
probability density function were constructed with the Metropolis–Hastings
algorithm. The Metropolis–Hastings algorithm was run 50 000 times for
observed data. Accepted parameter values were used in further analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e1636">Based on the concepts of mean age and mean transit time published by
Rasmussen et al. (2016) and Lu et al. (2018), the mean carbon age defined
as the whole time carbon atoms are stored in the carbon pools and
then the mean age of carbon <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in a certain
carbon pool <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> could be calculated with Eq. (7):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M95" display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values are the carbon fraction transfer coefficients from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th pools, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the external input into the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th carbon
pool. The transit time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was defined as
the mean age of carbon atoms leaving the carbon pool at a specific time:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M102" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of carbon with mean age
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Matrix approach through CLM4.5 and CLM4.5\_noV}?><title>Matrix approach through CLM4.5 and CLM4.5_noV</title>
      <p id="d1e1948">The Community Land Model version 4.5 (CLM4.5) is the terrestrial component
of the Community Earth System Model (CESM). This version mainly consists of
exchanges among different carbon and nitrogen pools and other biogeochemical
cycles and includes a vertical dimension of soil carbon and nitrogen
transformations (Koven et al., 2013). The matrix approach was applied
to extract the soil module from the original CLM4.5, which could evaluate which
processes influence <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the model (Huang et al., 2017). Once
we obtain the total carbon pool and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in each pool, we can calculate the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with Eq. (1). We represented the structure of SOC as seven
carbon pools as (i) one coarse woody debris (CWD) pool, (ii) three litter pools
(litter1, litter2, and litter3), and (iii) three soil carbon pools (soil1, soil2,
and soil3). In this matrix, carbon is transferred from three litter pools and CWD
to three soil pools with different transfer rates. In each layer, these
transfer rates are regulated by the transfer coefficients and fractions. C
inputs from litterfall were allocated into different C compartments by
modifications by soil environmental factors (temperature, moisture, nitrogen,
and soil oxygen) and vertical transfer process. To understand whether the
incorporation of soil vertical profile affects the simulation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we compared the results based on the matrix approach with (i.e.,
CLM4.5) or without (i.e., CLM4.5_noV) the soil vertical
transfer process.</p>
      <?pagebreak page921?><p id="d1e1995">In CLM4.5, soil C dynamics was simulated with 10 soil layers, and the
same organic matter pools among different vertical soil layers are allowed
to mix mainly through diffusion and advection. The matrix approach
determines the soil dynamic of each SOC pool by simulating the first-order
kinetics as Eq. (9):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M109" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">B</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">KC</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">C</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the organic carbon pool size at time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total organic carbon inputs while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the vector of partitioning coefficients. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a diagonal matrix
that
represents the intrinsic decomposition rate of each carbon pool. The
decomposition rate in the matrix approach is modified by the transfer matrix
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and environmental scalars <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The scalar matrix <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> shown in Eq. (10) is the environmental factor to modify the SOC
intrinsic decomposition rate. Each scalar matrix combines temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), water (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), oxygen (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), depth
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and nitrogen (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) controlled scalars for SOC decay.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M123" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">W</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the horizontal carbon transfer matrix, which quantifies C movement among
different carbon pools shown as matrix (10). The non-diagonal entries <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
shown in matrix (10) represent the fraction of carbon that moves from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th to the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th pools. In CLM4.5 and CLM4.5_noV, transfer coefficients are
the same in each soil layer.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M128" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center center center center center center center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">52</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">53</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">55</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">56</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">57</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">64</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">65</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">76</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">77</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vertical carbon transfer coefficient matrix among
different soil layers, and each of the diagonal blocks is a tridiagonal matrix
that describes transfer coefficients with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In this section,
CLM4.5_noV assumes no vertical transfers in all pools.
Therefore, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for CLM4.5_noV is a blank
matrix in the simulation. In contrast, CLM4.5 was assigned by a matrix
with vertical transfers in each C pool. The vertical transfer rates among
different C pool categories in CLM4.5 are matrix (12).
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M132" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E12"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="center center center center center center center"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">55</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">66</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><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:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">77</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Statistical analyses</title>
      <p id="d1e2784">The median and interquartile were used for the quantification of both
observational and modeling results due to the fact that the probability distribution of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is not normal. To test the difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
among three approaches, we first normalized the data with the
log-transformation and then applied the one-way ANOVA with a multi-comparison
technique (Fig. 1b insert). The linear regression and correlation analyses
were performed in R  (3.2.1; R development Core team, 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e2809">The Gaussian kernel density estimation was used to obtain the distributions
of observed transit times (Sheather and Marron, 1990; Saoudi et al., 1997). The
Gaussian kernel density estimation is a nonparametric approach to estimate
the probability density function of a random variable. Let
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">⋯</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
denote the observed SOC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with density function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as below:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M139" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the nonnegative function than integrates to one and has a mean
of
zero, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth. The
bandwidth for approaches of stable isotope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, stock over flux, and incubation are
48.61, 35.13, and 2.62, respectively.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{$\tau _{\mathrm{soil}}$ and its spatial variation using different approaches}?><title><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and its spatial variation using different approaches</title>
      <p id="d1e2978">The one-way ANOVA with multi-comparison analysis showed no significant
difference in the log-transformed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the methods of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 years; interquartile range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8 to 29 years) and
stock over flux (16; 3 to 156 years, Fig. 1b). The range of these field in situ measurements (31;
5 to 84 years) is comparable to a former estimate of mean SOC turnover time
(48 with 24 to 107 years) across 20 long-term experiments in temperate
ecosystems using the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> labeling approach (Schmidt et al.,
2011). However, the estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from laboratory studies
(4; 1 to 15 year) were significantly shorter than those from the other two methods (Fig. 1b). It suggests that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could be underestimated by the
measurements from the laboratory incubation studies. Thus, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values from the laboratory incubation studies were excluded in the
following analyses.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3066">Global spatial variation of SOC transit time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
with climate and the difference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimation between
observations and models. <bold>(a)</bold> Spatial variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP). <bold>(b)</bold>
Comparisons of modeled against observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Details for the
classification of biomes are provided in the method section.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3126">We then integrated the estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> based on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and stock-over-flux approaches to examine the inter-biome difference. As shown by
Fig. 2b, the longest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was found in desert and shrubland (170; 58
to 508) and tundra (159; 39 to 649 years). Boreal forest (58; 25 to 170
years) has a longer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than the temperate (44; 13 to 89 years)
and tropical forests (15; 9 to 130 years). Grassland and savanna had short <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(35; 21 to 57 years) and croplands had moderate (62; 21 to 120 years) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in comparison with other biomes (Fig. 2).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Modeled $\tau _{\mathrm{soil}}$ in the CMIP5 ensemble and its estimation
biases}?><title>Modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the CMIP5 ensemble and its estimation
biases</title>
      <p id="d1e3215">The longest ensemble mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of multiple models were found in
dry and cold regions (Fig. 2). In comparison with the integrated
observations from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and stock over flux, the modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values were significantly shorter across all biomes (Fig. 2b insert).
The negative bias was larger in dry (desert, grassland, and savanna) and
cold (tundra and boreal forest) regions than tropical and temperate forests.
The longest modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> appeared in the tundra ecosystem with a median of 64 years. The modeled median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values were also
shorter than observations in tropical forest (9 years), temperate forests
(13 years), boreal forest (24 years), grassland/savanna (25 years), desert
and shrubland (58 years), and croplands (27 years) (Fig. 2). In comparison
with the observations, the models obviously underestimated the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the cold and dry biomes (Fig. 2b). A recent global data–model
comparison study at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution also detected a similar spatial pattern of underestimation bias in
ecosystem C turnover time (Carvalhais et al., 2014), but its magnitudes of
bias in the cold regions are much smaller than those found in this study.</p>
      <p id="d1e3306">By grouping the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into different climatic categories, we
found that the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> significantly covaried with MAT
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.28</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">156.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and MAP (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">68.19</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1222.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. 3). These results
support the previous findings of negative covariations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature at both the site and global levels (Trumbore et
al.,
1996). Although there is no significant correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and MAP in the observations, the models produced negative correlations of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with MAT (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and MAP
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. 3).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3516">Relationships between SOC transit time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
climate factors in both observations and CIMP5 models. The black solid lines
show the negative correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(a)</bold> mean annual
temperature and <bold>(b)</bold> mean annual precipitation. The black dots indicate the
aggregated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over each category of MAT (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.47</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1971.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.49</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or MAP (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">68.19</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1222.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The red and blue dots
present the mean value of multiple models based on the ratios of carbon
stock over NPP and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Estimation of the $\tau _{\mathrm{soil}}$ with a three-pool model}?><title>Estimation of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a three-pool model</title>
      <p id="d1e3689">With the three-pool model, the total C stocks and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> efflux from
observations and the CMIP5 ensemble were separated into pool-specific
decomposition rates by the<?pagebreak page922?> deconvolution analysis (Fig. S3a; Liang et al.,
2015). Seven out of 11 parameters were constrained for tropical forest
and cropland (Fig. S4, Fig. S9). Eight out of 11 parameters were
constrained for temperate, boreal forest, and desert and shrubland (Figs. S5,
S6, S8). Five out of 11 parameters were constrained for the tundra ecosystem
(Fig. S7). For grassland and savanna, seven out of 11 parameters were
constrained (Fig. S10).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3705">The SOC transit time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) calculated from the one-
and three-pool models under the steady-state assumption.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3725">The longest simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> appeared in tundra (167 years) and
desert (135 years) (Fig. 4, Table S3). Temperate forest (79 years) has a
longer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than the boreal (66 years) and tropical forests
(29 years). Grassland and savanna had short <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (53.8 years) and croplands had
moderate (77 years) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in comparison with other biomes. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated from the one- and three-pool models did not
show a
large difference across all biomes. Also, estimates based on these two model
structures showed the largest underestimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
tundra and desert (Fig. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3798">Simulated SOC transit time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) by CLM4 (<bold>a</bold>, median
global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> years), CLM4.5 (<bold>b</bold>, median global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">127.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> years), and CLM4.5_noV (<bold>c</bold>, median global
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> years). Panel <bold>(d)</bold> shows the latitudinal
spatial distribution of the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of different models in
desert and tundra. The inserts in  <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(c)</bold> compare the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between models and observations. The bottom and top of the box
represent the first and third quartiles.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/917/2019/bg-16-917-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Improved modeling of $\tau _{\mathrm{soil}}$ with vertically resolved SOC
dynamics}?><title>Improved modeling of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with vertically resolved SOC
dynamics</title>
      <p id="d1e3923">Given that many ESMs have further developed their representations of the
soil biogeochemistry in recent years, we also examined whether the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates have been improved by one of the CMIP5 models (i.e.,
CESM). It is encouraging that the biases of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in dry and cold
regions have been substantially reduced in the new land version of CESM
(i.e., version 4.5 of the Community Land Model, CLM4.5). One major
improvement in CLM4.5 is the vertically resolved SOC dynamics (Koven et al.,
2013). The soil organic carbon is allowed to transfer through diffusion and
advection up to 3.8 m within 10 layers. In each layer, the transfer rates
are regulated by the environmental scalars (i.e., temperature, soil moisture,
and available oxygen). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values simulated by CLM4.5 are longer
than those in CLM4 (with<?pagebreak page923?> median value 137 years and 21 years), especially in northern
high-latitudinal regions. By turning off the vertical C movements with a
matrix approach (i.e., there is no vertical C transfer; thus, the
vertical matrix is a zero matrix in Eq. 12), we showed a similar
pattern of underestimation on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by CLM4.5 (i.e.,
CLM4.5_noV in Fig. 5). Huang et al. (2017) also reported the
longer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and high carbon storage capacity in northern high
latitudes. These results suggest that the vertically resolved soil
biogeochemistry is promising in improving the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates by
ESMs. However, it should be noted that the spatial variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is still largely underestimated by the CLM4.5 (Fig. 5b insert).</p>
      <p id="d1e4004">Higher NPP values simulated by ESMs in the cold and dry regions have been
reported by previous studies (Shao et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2016; Xia et
al., 2017). The models produce high NPP in cold regions largely because they
overestimate the efficiency of plants transferring assimilated C to
growth (Xia et al., 2017). The CMIP5 models overestimate the
precipitation and underestimate the dryland expansion 4-fold during
1996–2005 (Ji et al., 2015), which could lead to high NPP and fast
SOC turnover rates. These results suggest that once the NPP simulation is
improved without the correction of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> underestimation, the
models will produce smaller SOC stock in the cold and dry ecosystems.</p>
      <p id="d1e4018">This study shows that adding the vertical resolved biogeochemistry is a
promising approach to correct the bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in current
models. However, other processes such as microbial dynamics, SOC
stabilization, and nutrient cycles could affect the estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but are so far fully considered by the CMIP5 models (Luo et al.,
2016). For example, adding soil microbial dynamics could increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in cold regions by lowering the transfer proportion of decomposed
SOC to the atmosphere (Wieder et al., 2013). By contrast, the
incorporation of nitrogen cycles might shorten <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by
increasing plant C transfers to short-lived litter pools (e.g., O-CN and
CABLE models) (Gerber et al., 2010) or reducing litter C transfers to the
slow soil C pools (e.g., LM3V model) (Xia et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e4065">Large challenges still exist in using observations derived from different
methods to constrain the modeled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Laboratory incubation
studies report much shorter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than other methods, mainly due
to the optimized soil moisture and/or temperature during the soil incubation
(Stewart et al., 2008; Feng et al., 2016). This suggests that the ESM models
will largely underestimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> if its turnover parameters are
derived from laboratory incubation studies. It should be noted that the
observations from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the stock-over-flux approaches in this study are derived
for the bulk soil. However, SOC is commonly represented as multiple pools
with different cycling rates in most of the CMIP5 models (Luo et al.,
2016; Sierra et al., 2017, 2018; Metzler and Sierra, 2018). As synthesized
by Sierra et al. (2017), the observations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are useful for
a specific model once its pool<?pagebreak page924?> structure is identified. This study also
detects a difference in the estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the one- and
three-pool models (Fig. 4). Thus, model databases, such as bgc-md
(<uri>https://github.com/MPIBGC-TEE/bgc-md</uri>, last access: 2 February 2019), are a useful tool to
improve the integration of observations and soil C models. An enhanced
transparency of C-cycle model structure in ESMs is highly recommended,
especially when they participate in the future model intercomparison
projects such as CMIP6 (Jones et al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4146">This study detected large underestimation biases of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in ESMs
in cold and dry biomes, especially the tundra and desert. Improving the
modeling of SOC dynamics in these regions is important because the cold
ecosystems (e.g., the permafrost regions) are critical for global C feedback
to future climate change (Schuur et al., 2015) and the dry regions strongly
regulate the interannual variability of land <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sink (Poulter et al.,
2014; Ahlström et al., 2015). The current generation of ESMs represents
the soil C processes with a similar model formulation as first-order C
transfers among multiple pools (Sierra and Markus, 2015; Luo et al., 2016;
Metzler and Sierra, 2018). Thus, tremendous research efforts are still
required to attribute the underestimation biases of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
current ESMs to their sources, such as model structure,
parameterization, and climate forcing. Reducing these biases would largely
improve the accuracy of ESMs in the projection of the future terrestrial C cycle
and its feedback to climate change. Recent modeling activities aiming to
increase the soil heterogeneity, for example, soil vertical profile (Koven et al.,
2013, 2017) and microbial dynamics (Allison et al., 2010; Wieder et al.,
2013), are promising. Overall, this study shows the great spatial variation
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in natural ecosystems, and we recommend more
research efforts to improve its representation by ESMs in the future.</p>
</sec>

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

      <p id="d1e4198">The data are available from the
corresponding author by request.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e4201">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-917-2019-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-917-2019-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4210">JX designed
the study. JW collected and organized the data. LJ provided the CMIP5 and
HWSD data. XX provided the laboratory incubation data. YH provided
the CLM4.5 matrix module. JW and JX wrote the first draft, and all other
authors contributed to revision and discussion of the results.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4216">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4223">We appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We
also appreciate Katherine Todd-Brown for her support of the soil data in CMIP5
and Deli Zhai for valuable comments. The model simulations analyzed
in this study were obtained from the Earth System Grid Federation CMIP5
online portal hosted by the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (<uri>https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/</uri>, last access: 4 October 2018). This work was financially
supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (31722009, 31800400,
41630528), the National Key R&amp;D Program of China (2017YFA0604603), the Fok
Ying Tong Education Foundation for Young Teachers in the Higher Education
Institutions of China (grant no. 161016), and the National 1000 Young Talents
Program of China. <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Jens-Arne Subke<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Ahlström, A., Raupach, M. R., Schurgers, G., Smith, B., Arneth, A., Jung,
M., Reichstein, M., Canadell, J. G., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A. K., and
Kato, E.: The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and
variability of the land CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> sink, Science, 348, 895–899,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aaa1668</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Allison, S. D., Matthew, D. W., and Mark, A. B.: Soil-carbon response to
warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nat. Geosci., 3, 336–340, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo846" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo846</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Balesdent, J., Mariotti, A., and Guillet, B.: Natural <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> abundance
as a tracer for studies of soil organic matter dynamics, Soil Biol. Biochem.,
19, 25–30, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(87)90120-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0038-0717(87)90120-9</ext-link>, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bernstein, L., Bosch, P., Canziani, O., Chen, Z., Christ, R., and Riahi,
K.: IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bloom, A. A., Exbrayat, J. F., van der Velde, I. R., Feng, L., and Williams,
M.: The decadal state of the terrestrial carbon cycle: Global retrievals of
terrestrial carbon allocation, pools, and residence times, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 113, 1285–1290, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515160113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1515160113</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bolin, B. and Henning, R.: A note on the concepts of age distribution and
transit time in natural reservoirs. Tellus, 25, 58–62,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1973.tb01594.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.2153-3490.1973.tb01594.x</ext-link>, 1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bolker, B. M., Pacala, S. W., and Parton Jr., W. J.: Linear analysis of
soil decomposition: insights from the century model, Ecol.
Appl., 8, 425–439, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bradford, M. A., Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., Fierer, N., Raymond, P. A., and
Crowther, T. W.: Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate
change, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 751–758, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate3071</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., and Weber, U.: Global
covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems,
Nature, 514, 213–217, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature13731</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, J., and Thornton, P.:
Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K, Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge Univ. Press, 465–570,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.10),
FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Feng, W., Shi, Z., Jiang, J., Xia, J., Liang, J., Zhou, J., and Luo, Y.:
Methodological uncertainty in estimating carbon turnover times of soil
fractions, Soil Biol. Biochem., 100, 118–124,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.003</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Friedl, M. A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tan, B., Schneider, A., Ramankutty, N.,
Sibley, A., and Huang, X.: MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm
refinements and characterization of new datasets, Remote Sens. Environ., 114,
168–182, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V.,
Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., and Bala, G.: Climate-carbon cycle
feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison, J. Clim.,
19, 3337–3353, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3800.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3800.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Fröberg, M., Tipping, E., Stendahl, J., Clarke, N., and Bryant, C.: Mean
residence time of O horizon carbon along a climatic gradient in Scandinavia
estimated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements of archived soils, Biogeochemistry,
104, 227–236, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9497-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-010-9497-3</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Gerber, S., Hedin, L. O., Oppenheimer, M., Pacala, S. W., and Shevliakova,
E.: Nitrogen cycling and feedbacks in a global dynamic land model, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB1001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003336" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GB003336</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>He, Y., Trumbore, S. E., Torn, M. S., Harden, J. W., Vaughn, L. J., Allison,
S. D., and Randerson, J. T.: Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon
uptake by soils during the 21st century, Science, 353, 1419–1424,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4273" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aad4273</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Huang, Y., Lu, X., Shi, Z., Lawrence, D., Koven, C.D., Xia, J., Du, Z.,
Kluzek, E., and Luo, Y.: Matrix approach to land carbon cycle modeling: A
case study with Community Land Model, Glob. Change Biol.,  24, 1394–1404,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13948" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13948</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hutchinson, M. F. and Xu, T.: Anusplin version 4.2 user guide. Centre for
Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University,
Canberra, 54, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Ji, M., Huang, J., Xie, Y., and Liu, J.: Comparison of dryland climate change
in observations and CMIP5 simulations, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32, 1565–1574,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-015-4267-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00376-015-4267-8</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Jones, C. D., Arora, V., Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Dunne,
J., Graven, H., Hoffman, F., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Jung, M., Kawamiya, M.,
Koven, C., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Randerson, J. T., and Zaehle, S.: C4MIP
– The Coupled Climate-Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project:
experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2853–2880,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page926?><ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Subin, Z. M., Tang, J. Y., Torn, M. S., Collins,
W. D., Bonan, G. B., Lawrence, D. M., and Swenson, S. C.: The effect of
vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on
C dynamics of CLM4, Biogeosciences, 10, 7109–7131,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7109-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-7109-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Wieder, W. R.: Higher
climatological temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm
climates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 817–822, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate3421</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Liang, J., Li, D., Shi, Z., Tiedje, J. M., Zhou, J., Schuur, E. A. G.,
Konstantinidis, K. T., and Luo, Y.: Methods for estimating temperature
sensitivity of soil organic matter based on incubation data: A comparative
evaluation, Soil Biol. Biochem., 80, 127–135,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.005</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Lu, X., Wang, Y.-P., Luo, Y., and Jiang, L.: Ecosystem carbon transit versus
turnover times in response to climate warming and rising atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration, Biogeosciences, 15, 6559–6572,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6559-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-15-6559-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Luo, Y., White, L. W., Canadell, J. G., DeLucia, E. H., Ellsworth, D. S.,
Finzi, A., Lichter, J., and Schlesinger, W. H.: Sustainability of terrestrial
carbon sequestration: A case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 17, 12101–2113, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001923" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002GB001923</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Luo, Y., Ahlström, A., Allison, S. D., Batjes, N. H., Brovkin, V.,
Carvalhais, N., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Davidson, E. A., Finzi, A., and
Georgiou, K.: Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by
Earth system models, Glob. Biogeochem. Cy., 30, 40–56,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005239" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GB005239</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Metzler, H. and Sierra, C. A.: Linear autonomous compartmental models as
continuous-time Markov chains: transit-time and age distributions, Math.
Geosci., 50, 1–34, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Metzler, H., Müller, M., and Sierra, C. A.: Transit-time and age
distributions for nonlinear time-dependent compartmental systems, P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 22, 201705296, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705296115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1705296115</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Mishra, U., Drewniak, B., Jastrow, J. D., Matamala, R. M., and Vitharana, U.
W. A.: Spatial representation of organic carbon and active-layer thickness of
high latitude soils in CMIP5 earth system models, Geoderma, 300, 55–63,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>NASA LP DAAC Land Cover Type Yearly L3 Global 0.05 Deg CMG (MCD12C1),
USGS/Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, available at: <uri>https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/modis products table/land cover/yearly l3 global 0.05 deg cmg/mcd12c1</uri> (last access: 14 April 2014), 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Parry, M., Parry, M. L., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., Van der Linden, P., and
Hanson, C.: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 211–272, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Poulter, B., Frank, D., Ciais, P., Myneni, R. B., Andela, N., Bi, J.,
Broquet, G., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Liu, Y. Y., and Running, S. W.:
Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global
carbon cycle, Nature, 509, 600–603, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13376" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature13376</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Rasmussen, M., Hastings, A., Smith, M. J., Agusto, F. B., Chen-Charpentier,
B. M., Hoffman, F. M., Jiang, J., Todd-Brown, K. E., Wang, Y., Wang, Y. P.,
and Luo, Y.: Transit times and mean ages for nonautonomous and autonomous
compartmental systems, J. Math. Biol., 73, 1379–1398,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-016-0990-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00285-016-0990-8</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Sanderman, J. Ronald, G. A., and Dennis, D. B.: Application of eddy
covariance measurements to the temperature dependence of soil organic matter
mean residence time, Glob. Biogeochem. Cy., 17, 301–3015,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001833" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001GB001833</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Saoudi, S., Ghorbel, F., and Hillion, A.: Some statistical properties of the
kernel – diffeomorphism estimator, Appl. Stoch. Model Data Anal., 13,
39–58,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0747(199703)13:1&lt;39::AID-ASM292&gt;3.0.CO;2-J" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/(SICI)1099-0747(199703)13:1&lt;39::AID-ASM292&gt;3.0.CO;2-J</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</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., Manning, D.
A., and Nannipieri, P.: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem
property, Nature, 478, 49–56, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature10386</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Schuur, E. A. G., McGuire, A. D., Schädel, C., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W.,
Hayes, D. J., Hugelius, G., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., Lawrence, D. M., and
Natali, S. M.: Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback, Nature,
520, 171–179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14338" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature14338</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Shao, P., Zeng, X., Sakaguchi, K., Monson, R. K., and Zeng, X.: Terrestrial
carbon cycle: climate relations in eight CMIP5 earth system models, J. Clim.,
26, 8744–8764, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00831.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00831.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Sheather, S. J. and Marron, J. S.: Kernel quantile estimators, J. Am. Stat.
Assoc., 85, 410–416, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476214" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/01621459.1990.10476214</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Sierra, C. A. and Markus, M.: A general mathematical framework for
representing soil organic matter dynamics, Ecol. Monogr., 85, 505–524,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0361.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1890/15-0361.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Sierra, C. A., Müller, M., Metzler, H., Manzoni, S., and Trumbore, S. E.:
The muddle of ages, turnover, transit, and residence times in the carbon
cycle, Glob. Change Biol., 23, 1763–1773, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13556" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13556</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Sierra, C. A., Ceballos-Núñez, V., Metzler, H., and Müler, M.:
Representing and understanding the carbon cycle using the theory of
compartmental dynamical systems, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1729–1734,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001360" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001360</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Six, J. and Jastrow, J. D.: Organic matter turnover, Encycl. of Soil Science,
2002,
936–942, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Smith, W. K., Reed, S. C., Cleveland, C. C., Ballantyne, A. P., Anderegg, W.
R., Wieder, W. R., Liu, Y. Y., and Running, S. W.: Large divergence of
satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
fertilization, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 306–310, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2879" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2879</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Spohn, M. and Sierra, C. A.: How long do elements cycle in terrestrial
ecosystems?, Biogeochemistry, 139, 69–83,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0452-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-018-0452-z</ext-link>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Stewart, C. E., Paustian, K., Conant, R. T., Plante, A. F., and Six, J.: Soil
carbon saturation: evaluation and corroboration by long-term incubations,
Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 1741–1750, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.014</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</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="https://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.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Trumbore, S. E.: Comparison of carbon dynamics in tropical and temperate
soils using radiocarbon measurements, Glob. Biogeochem. Cy., 7, 275–290,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/93GB00468" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/93GB00468</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Trumbore, S. E., Chadwick, O. A., and Amundson, R.: Rapid exchange between
soil carbon and atmospheric carbon dioxide driven by temperature change,
Science, 272, 393–396, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.272.5260.393" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.272.5260.393</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., and Allison, S. D.: Global soil carbon
projections are improved by modelling microbial processes, Nat. Clim. Change,
3, 909–912, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1951" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1951</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</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, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12172" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12172</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Xia, J., McGuire, A. D., Lawrence, D., Burke, E., Chen, G., Chen, X., Delire,
C., Koven, C., MacDougall, A., Peng, S., and Rinke, A.: Terrestrial ecosystem
model performance in simulating productivity and its vulnerability to climate
change in the northern permafrost region, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 430–446,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003384" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JG003384</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Xu, X., Shi, Z., Li, D., Rey, A., Ruan, H., Craine, J. M., Liang, J., Zhou,
J., and Luo, Y.: Soil properties control decomposition of soil organic
carbon: results from dataassimilation analysis, Geoderma, 262, 235–242,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.038</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, K., Dang, H., Zhang, Q., and Cheng, X.: Soil carbon dynamics following
landuse change varied with temperature and precipitation gradients: evidence
from stable isotopes, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 2762–2772,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12886" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12886</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Evaluating the simulated mean soil carbon transit times by Earth system models using observations</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>One known bias in current Earth system models (ESMs) is the underestimation
of global mean soil carbon (C) transit time (<i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub>), which quantifies
the age of the C atoms at the time they leave the soil. However, it remains
unclear where such underestimations are located globally. Here, we
constructed a global database of measured <i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub> across 187 sites to
evaluate results from 12 ESMs. The observations showed that the
estimated <i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub> was dramatically shorter from the soil incubation
studies in the laboratory environment (median  =  4 years; interquartile
range  =  1 to 25 years) than that derived from field in situ
measurements (31; 5 to 84 years) with shifts in stable isotopic C
(<sup>13</sup>C) or the <i>stock-over-flux</i> approach. In comparison with the
field observations, the multi-model ensemble simulated a shorter median (19 years) and
a smaller spatial variation (6 to 29 years) of <i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub>
across the same site locations. We then found a significant and negative
linear correlation between the in situ measured <i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub> and
mean annual air temperature. The underestimations of modeled <i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub>
are mainly located in cold and dry biomes, especially tundra and desert.
Furthermore, we showed that one ESM (i.e., CESM) has improved its
<i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub> estimate by incorporation of the soil vertical profile. These
findings indicate that the spatial variation of <i>τ</i><sub>soil</sub> is a useful
benchmark for ESMs, and we recommend more observations and modeling efforts
on soil C dynamics in regions limited by temperature and moisture.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Ahlström, A., Raupach, M. R., Schurgers, G., Smith, B., Arneth, A., Jung,
M., Reichstein, M., Canadell, J. G., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A. K., and
Kato, E.: The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and
variability of the land CO<sub>2</sub> sink, Science, 348, 895–899,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1668</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Allison, S. D., Matthew, D. W., and Mark, A. B.: Soil-carbon response to
warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nat. Geosci., 3, 336–340, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo846" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo846</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Balesdent, J., Mariotti, A., and Guillet, B.: Natural <sup>13</sup>C abundance
as a tracer for studies of soil organic matter dynamics, Soil Biol. Biochem.,
19, 25–30, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(87)90120-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(87)90120-9</a>, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bernstein, L., Bosch, P., Canziani, O., Chen, Z., Christ, R., and Riahi,
K.: IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bloom, A. A., Exbrayat, J. F., van der Velde, I. R., Feng, L., and Williams,
M.: The decadal state of the terrestrial carbon cycle: Global retrievals of
terrestrial carbon allocation, pools, and residence times, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 113, 1285–1290, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515160113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515160113</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bolin, B. and Henning, R.: A note on the concepts of age distribution and
transit time in natural reservoirs. Tellus, 25, 58–62,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1973.tb01594.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1973.tb01594.x</a>, 1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Bolker, B. M., Pacala, S. W., and Parton Jr., W. J.: Linear analysis of
soil decomposition: insights from the century model, Ecol.
Appl., 8, 425–439, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bradford, M. A., Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., Fierer, N., Raymond, P. A., and
Crowther, T. W.: Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate
change, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 751–758, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., and Weber, U.: Global
covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems,
Nature, 514, 213–217, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, J., and Thornton, P.:
Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K, Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge Univ. Press, 465–570,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.10),
FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, W., Shi, Z., Jiang, J., Xia, J., Liang, J., Zhou, J., and Luo, Y.:
Methodological uncertainty in estimating carbon turnover times of soil
fractions, Soil Biol. Biochem., 100, 118–124,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.003</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Friedl, M. A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tan, B., Schneider, A., Ramankutty, N.,
Sibley, A., and Huang, X.: MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm
refinements and characterization of new datasets, Remote Sens. Environ., 114,
168–182, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V.,
Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., and Bala, G.: Climate-carbon cycle
feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison, J. Clim.,
19, 3337–3353, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3800.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3800.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Fröberg, M., Tipping, E., Stendahl, J., Clarke, N., and Bryant, C.: Mean
residence time of O horizon carbon along a climatic gradient in Scandinavia
estimated by <sup>14</sup>C measurements of archived soils, Biogeochemistry,
104, 227–236, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9497-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9497-3</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gerber, S., Hedin, L. O., Oppenheimer, M., Pacala, S. W., and Shevliakova,
E.: Nitrogen cycling and feedbacks in a global dynamic land model, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB1001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003336" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003336</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
He, Y., Trumbore, S. E., Torn, M. S., Harden, J. W., Vaughn, L. J., Allison,
S. D., and Randerson, J. T.: Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon
uptake by soils during the 21st century, Science, 353, 1419–1424,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4273" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4273</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, Y., Lu, X., Shi, Z., Lawrence, D., Koven, C.D., Xia, J., Du, Z.,
Kluzek, E., and Luo, Y.: Matrix approach to land carbon cycle modeling: A
case study with Community Land Model, Glob. Change Biol.,  24, 1394–1404,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13948" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13948</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hutchinson, M. F. and Xu, T.: Anusplin version 4.2 user guide. Centre for
Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University,
Canberra, 54, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Ji, M., Huang, J., Xie, Y., and Liu, J.: Comparison of dryland climate change
in observations and CMIP5 simulations, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32, 1565–1574,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-015-4267-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-015-4267-8</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, C. D., Arora, V., Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Dunne,
J., Graven, H., Hoffman, F., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Jung, M., Kawamiya, M.,
Koven, C., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Randerson, J. T., and Zaehle, S.: C4MIP
– The Coupled Climate-Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project:
experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2853–2880,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Subin, Z. M., Tang, J. Y., Torn, M. S., Collins,
W. D., Bonan, G. B., Lawrence, D. M., and Swenson, S. C.: The effect of
vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on
C dynamics of CLM4, Biogeosciences, 10, 7109–7131,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7109-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7109-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Wieder, W. R.: Higher
climatological temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm
climates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 817–822, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Liang, J., Li, D., Shi, Z., Tiedje, J. M., Zhou, J., Schuur, E. A. G.,
Konstantinidis, K. T., and Luo, Y.: Methods for estimating temperature
sensitivity of soil organic matter based on incubation data: A comparative
evaluation, Soil Biol. Biochem., 80, 127–135,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.005</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Lu, X., Wang, Y.-P., Luo, Y., and Jiang, L.: Ecosystem carbon transit versus
turnover times in response to climate warming and rising atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>
concentration, Biogeosciences, 15, 6559–6572,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6559-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6559-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Y., White, L. W., Canadell, J. G., DeLucia, E. H., Ellsworth, D. S.,
Finzi, A., Lichter, J., and Schlesinger, W. H.: Sustainability of terrestrial
carbon sequestration: A case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 17, 12101–2113, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001923" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001923</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Y., Ahlström, A., Allison, S. D., Batjes, N. H., Brovkin, V.,
Carvalhais, N., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Davidson, E. A., Finzi, A., and
Georgiou, K.: Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by
Earth system models, Glob. Biogeochem. Cy., 30, 40–56,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005239" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005239</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Metzler, H. and Sierra, C. A.: Linear autonomous compartmental models as
continuous-time Markov chains: transit-time and age distributions, Math.
Geosci., 50, 1–34, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Metzler, H., Müller, M., and Sierra, C. A.: Transit-time and age
distributions for nonlinear time-dependent compartmental systems, P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 22, 201705296, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705296115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705296115</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Mishra, U., Drewniak, B., Jastrow, J. D., Matamala, R. M., and Vitharana, U.
W. A.: Spatial representation of organic carbon and active-layer thickness of
high latitude soils in CMIP5 earth system models, Geoderma, 300, 55–63,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
NASA LP DAAC Land Cover Type Yearly L3 Global 0.05 Deg CMG (MCD12C1),
USGS/Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, available at: <a href="https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/modis products table/land cover/yearly l3 global 0.05 deg cmg/mcd12c1" target="_blank">https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/modis products table/land cover/yearly l3 global 0.05 deg cmg/mcd12c1</a> (last access: 14 April 2014), 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Parry, M., Parry, M. L., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., Van der Linden, P., and
Hanson, C.: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 211–272, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Poulter, B., Frank, D., Ciais, P., Myneni, R. B., Andela, N., Bi, J.,
Broquet, G., Canadell, J. G., Chevallier, F., Liu, Y. Y., and Running, S. W.:
Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global
carbon cycle, Nature, 509, 600–603, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13376" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13376</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Rasmussen, M., Hastings, A., Smith, M. J., Agusto, F. B., Chen-Charpentier,
B. M., Hoffman, F. M., Jiang, J., Todd-Brown, K. E., Wang, Y., Wang, Y. P.,
and Luo, Y.: Transit times and mean ages for nonautonomous and autonomous
compartmental systems, J. Math. Biol., 73, 1379–1398,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-016-0990-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-016-0990-8</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Sanderman, J. Ronald, G. A., and Dennis, D. B.: Application of eddy
covariance measurements to the temperature dependence of soil organic matter
mean residence time, Glob. Biogeochem. Cy., 17, 301–3015,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001833" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001833</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Saoudi, S., Ghorbel, F., and Hillion, A.: Some statistical properties of the
kernel – diffeomorphism estimator, Appl. Stoch. Model Data Anal., 13,
39–58,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0747(199703)13:1&lt;39::AID-ASM292&gt;3.0.CO;2-J" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0747(199703)13:1&lt;39::AID-ASM292&gt;3.0.CO;2-J</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</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., Manning, D.
A., and Nannipieri, P.: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem
property, Nature, 478, 49–56, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Schuur, E. A. G., McGuire, A. D., Schädel, C., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W.,
Hayes, D. J., Hugelius, G., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., Lawrence, D. M., and
Natali, S. M.: Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback, Nature,
520, 171–179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14338" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14338</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Shao, P., Zeng, X., Sakaguchi, K., Monson, R. K., and Zeng, X.: Terrestrial
carbon cycle: climate relations in eight CMIP5 earth system models, J. Clim.,
26, 8744–8764, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00831.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00831.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Sheather, S. J. and Marron, J. S.: Kernel quantile estimators, J. Am. Stat.
Assoc., 85, 410–416, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476214" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10476214</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Sierra, C. A. and Markus, M.: A general mathematical framework for
representing soil organic matter dynamics, Ecol. Monogr., 85, 505–524,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0361.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0361.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Sierra, C. A., Müller, M., Metzler, H., Manzoni, S., and Trumbore, S. E.:
The muddle of ages, turnover, transit, and residence times in the carbon
cycle, Glob. Change Biol., 23, 1763–1773, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13556" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13556</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Sierra, C. A., Ceballos-Núñez, V., Metzler, H., and Müler, M.:
Representing and understanding the carbon cycle using the theory of
compartmental dynamical systems, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1729–1734,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001360" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001360</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Six, J. and Jastrow, J. D.: Organic matter turnover, Encycl. of Soil Science,
2002,
936–942, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, W. K., Reed, S. C., Cleveland, C. C., Ballantyne, A. P., Anderegg, W.
R., Wieder, W. R., Liu, Y. Y., and Running, S. W.: Large divergence of
satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO<sub>2</sub>
fertilization, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 306–310, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2879" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2879</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Spohn, M. and Sierra, C. A.: How long do elements cycle in terrestrial
ecosystems?, Biogeochemistry, 139, 69–83,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0452-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0452-z</a>, 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Stewart, C. E., Paustian, K., Conant, R. T., Plante, A. F., and Six, J.: Soil
carbon saturation: evaluation and corroboration by long-term incubations,
Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 1741–1750, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.014</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</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,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Trumbore, S. E.: Comparison of carbon dynamics in tropical and temperate
soils using radiocarbon measurements, Glob. Biogeochem. Cy., 7, 275–290,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/93GB00468" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/93GB00468</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Trumbore, S. E., Chadwick, O. A., and Amundson, R.: Rapid exchange between
soil carbon and atmospheric carbon dioxide driven by temperature change,
Science, 272, 393–396, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.272.5260.393" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.272.5260.393</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., and Allison, S. D.: Global soil carbon
projections are improved by modelling microbial processes, Nat. Clim. Change,
3, 909–912, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1951" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1951</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</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, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12172" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12172</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Xia, J., McGuire, A. D., Lawrence, D., Burke, E., Chen, G., Chen, X., Delire,
C., Koven, C., MacDougall, A., Peng, S., and Rinke, A.: Terrestrial ecosystem
model performance in simulating productivity and its vulnerability to climate
change in the northern permafrost region, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 430–446,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003384" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003384</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, X., Shi, Z., Li, D., Rey, A., Ruan, H., Craine, J. M., Liang, J., Zhou,
J., and Luo, Y.: Soil properties control decomposition of soil organic
carbon: results from dataassimilation analysis, Geoderma, 262, 235–242,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.038" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.038</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, K., Dang, H., Zhang, Q., and Cheng, X.: Soil carbon dynamics following
landuse change varied with temperature and precipitation gradients: evidence
from stable isotopes, Glob. Change Biol., 21, 2762–2772,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12886" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12886</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
