the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

# Information content in time series of litter decomposition studies and the transit time of litter in arid lands

### Agustín Sarquis

Plant litter decomposition stands at the intersection between
carbon (C) loss and sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. During this
process organic matter experiences chemical and physical transformations
that affect decomposition rates of distinct components with different
transformation fates. However, most decomposition studies only fit one-pool
models that consider organic matter in litter as a single homogenous pool
and do not incorporate the dynamics of litter transformations and transfers
into their framework. As an alternative, compartmental dynamical systems are
sets of differential equations that serve to represent both the
heterogeneity in decomposition rates of organic matter and the
transformations it can undergo. This is achieved by including parameters for the initial proportion of mass in each compartment, their respective
decomposition rates, and mass transfer coefficients between compartments.
The number of compartments as well as their interactions, in turn,
determine the model structure. For instance, a one-pool model can be considered
a compartmental model with only one compartment. Models with two or more
parameters, in turn, can have different structures, such as a parallel one if each
compartment decomposes independently or in a series if there is mass transfer
from one compartment to another. However because of these differences in
model parameters, comparisons in model performance can be complicated. In
this context we introduce the concept of transit time, a random variable
defined as the age distribution of particles when they are released from a
system, which can be used to compare models with different structures. In
this study, we first asked what model structures are more appropriate to
represent decomposition from a publicly available database of decomposition
studies in arid lands: *aridec*. For this purpose, we fit one- and two-pool
decomposition models with parallel and series structures, compared their
performance using the bias-corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) and
used model averaging as a multi-model inference approach. We then asked what
the potential ranges of the median transit times of litter mass in arid lands
are and what their relationships with environmental variables are. Hence, we
calculated a median transit time for those models and explored patterns in the
data with respect to mean annual temperature and precipitation, solar
radiation, and the global aridity index. The median transit time was 1.9 years
for the one- and two-pool models with a parallel structure and 5 years for
the two-pool series model. The information in our datasets supported all
three models in a relatively similar way and thus our decision to use a
multi-model inference approach. After model averaging, the median transit time
had values of around 3 years for all datasets. Exploring patterns of
transit time in relation to environmental variables yielded weak correlation
coefficients, except for mean annual temperature, which was moderate and
negative. Overall, our analysis suggests that current and historical litter
decomposition studies often do not contain information on how litter quality
changes over time or do not last long enough for litter to entirely
decompose. This makes fitting accurate mechanistic models very difficult.
Nevertheless, the multi-model inference framework proposed here can help to
reconcile theoretical expectations with the information content from field
studies and can further help to design field experiments that better
represent the complexity of the litter decomposition process.

Plant litter decomposition is the process through which plant-derived organic matter is broken down into smaller components. The main biotic driver of decomposition is the metabolic activity of fungi and bacteria (Bradford et al., 2017), but soil fauna can be important too (García-Palacios et al., 2013; Zanne et al., 2022). The magnitude of biotic decomposition is further determined by climate (Gholz et al., 2000) and litter quality (Cornwell et al., 2008). Additionally, abiotic drivers of decomposition like solar radiation can have a large contribution to this process (Méndez et al., 2022). Altogether, plant litter decomposition releases carbon that was fixed by plants back to the atmosphere and mediates soil organic-matter formation (Cotrufo et al., 2015). This puts decomposition at a crucial intersection between C loss and sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. It is thus of great interest to gain a better understanding on how decomposition influences the terrestrial C balance and how this process would be affected by global change.

Plant litter is composed of material of different physical and chemical properties that decays at different rates (Adair et al., 2008; Tuomi et al., 2009). However, litter decomposition models commonly assume a single pool that considers the decomposition of organic matter as if it was a homogenous mass pool with a single decomposition constant (Adair et al., 2010). Alternatively, organic-matter dynamics can be modeled using compartmental dynamical systems, which are sets of differential equations that serve to represent both the heterogeneity of organic-matter chemical quality and the transformations plant residues can undergo (Sierra and Müller, 2015). This is achieved with the inclusion of different pools that decompose at different rates. This allows us to model the dynamics of labile C compounds that are more readily available for microbial consumption like sugars and other compounds that have a longer persistence in the litter pool like tannins or lignin. Additionally, it is possible to include interactions between these pools, like C transfers from one pool to another. This mass transfer between pools represents the transformation of molecules in litter without actual mass loss from the litter system (Prescott and Vesterdal, 2021). The number of compartments as well as their interactions finally determine model structure. Compartmental models of decomposition have been successfully applied for decades (Chappelle et al., 2023; Parton et al., 1987; Tuomi et al., 2009), and it has been proven many times that they can be an improvement on the traditional one-pool model (Adair et al., 2008; Cornwell and Weedon, 2014; Derrien and Amelung, 2011; Manzoni et al., 2012).

Despite the richness of information that can be learned from compartmental models, there are still limitations for their widespread application. One main limitation is parameter identifiability. This happens because more complex models usually have more parameters, and, in some cases, the information contained in time series of litter mass loss may not be enough to estimate those parameters unambiguously (Brun et al., 2001). Depending on the resolution and extension of the time series, it might be possible to obtain different number of parameters from the available data (Sarquis et al., 2022a; Sierra et al., 2015). Consequently, different studies developed under different methodologies and sampling schemes may provide information on different model structures. Further, this limits the application of compartmental models to data from extensive heterogenous databases, since not all parameters might be identifiable for all datasets (Sarquis et al., 2022a).

It is common to compare model parameters like the decomposition constant when the same model has been applied to many datasets. But comparing the behavior of models with different structures in the same way is not possible because decomposition constants of single homogenous pools are not comparable to decomposition constants of specific pools, such as those in compartmental models. Thus, a metric that can be used to compare models with different structures is the transit time of mass in a complex heterogenous system. Transit time represents the mean age of particles when they are released from a system (Sierra et al., 2017). In the context of litter decomposition studies, transit time can tell us about how long it has taken for mass to exit litter since the start of an experiment. Transit time is a random variable with its own probability distribution, and thus mean and median transit times can be calculated (Sierra et al., 2018). Unlike a single decomposition rate, transit time can be calculated for the bulk of litter when using compartmental models. Transit time contains information from all different mass compartments (Lu et al., 2018), and so it becomes a more useful parameter when making comparisons from models that have different structures.

In this study we used the *aridec* database, which is an open-access database of
published decomposition studies in arid lands from around the world
(Sarquis et al., 2022a). The focus of this database on
arid lands stems from how widespread arid lands are, since around 41 % of
the land surface is classified as arid to some extent
(Safriel and Adeel, 2005). This large area represents
a wide range of diverse ecosystems, with many shared functional
characteristics. For instance, arid lands are usually more sparsely vegetated
(Guttal and Jayaprakash, 2007), and this produces
a shift in the importance of decomposition drivers in comparison to humid
ecosystems. Plant litter under these conditions is more susceptible to solar
radiation (Austin and Vivanco, 2006) and desiccation by
wind (D'Odorico et al., 2019). Further, water sources
other than rain can become more relevant when mean annual precipitation is
low (Evans et al., 2020). These
unique traits of arid ecosystems probably explain why decomposition rates
are not correlated to mean annual precipitation in these systems
(Austin, 2011), contrary to what was proposed in the
traditional literature
(e.g., Meentemeyer, 1978).
Furthermore, arid-land processes are thought to become more widespread in the
future because of arid-land expansion (Feng and Fu,
2013) and drought intensification of humid ecosystems
(Grünzweig et al., 2022).

Hence, we used the *aridec* database to address the following questions: given the
information content in time series of litter decomposition studies, what
model structures are more appropriate to represent decomposition from arid
ecosystems? From the set of models obtained, what are the potential ranges
of the median transit times of litter mass? Moreover, what are the potential
relationships between the median transit time and environmental variables? We
fit one- and two-pool decomposition models with parallel and series
structures, compared their performance using AICc, and used model averaging
as a multi-model inference approach. We further calculated transit times for
those models and explored patterns in the data in relation to environmental
variables.

## 2.1 Model fitting

First, we used the *aridec* database to fit a group of candidate decomposition
models. The *aridec* database is a publicly available database of decomposition
studies from arid lands across the world (Sarquis et al.,
2022a). This database contains bulk litter mass loss data, but it lacks mass
loss dynamics of different litter organic-matter pools that decompose at
different rates (e.g., soluble carbohydrates, cellulose, lignin). Because of
this, we took an inverse-modeling approach that allowed us to estimate the
parameters of these unknown pools by fitting the models to mass loss data.
This model calibration procedure constitutes a non-linear optimization
problem, where the objective is to find parameter values that minimize a
measure of badness of fit, like a weighted sum of squared residuals
(Soetaert and Petzoldt, 2010). Following this
procedure, we obtained a group of parameters for each dataset and fit the
dynamics of mass loss for different pools. We did this with the SoilR
(Sierra et al., 2012) and the FME
(Soetaert and Petzoldt, 2010) packages in R
(R Core Team, 2020).

SoilR is a modeling framework that contains a wide set of functions and tools to model soil organic-matter decomposition within the R computing platform. Organic-matter decomposition in SoilR is represented by systems of linear differential equations that generalize most compartment-based models. A simple general structure to represent litter decay with no inputs follows Eq. (1):

where ** C**(

*t*) is a

*m*×1 vector with

*m*pools of litter mass observed at time

*t*and

**A**is a square

*m*×

*m*matrix that contains decomposition rates (

*k*

_{m}) for each pool and transfer rates (

*a*

_{ij}) between them. These different pools may correspond to different ways in which the quality of the litter is expressed in different studies. For example, they may correspond to different compounds obtained from a specific extraction method (e.g., water-soluble sugars or acid detergent lignin), or they can be defined by general decay classes such as fast- and slow-decay compounds. The linear dynamical system represented by Eq. (1) has many different solutions, but we are only interested in the solution that satisfies

where *C*_{0} is a *m*×1 vector with the value of initial litter mass
content in the different compartments *m*. We set total initial *C*_{0} to be
100 % for this analysis, and the resulting *p*_{m} parameters are the
initial proportions of litter in *m* pools.

Before fitting the models, we run a collinearity test following the
procedure by Soetaert and Petdzolt (2010), and the
results are presented in Sarquis et al. (2022a). Briefly,
when parameters are functionally related, changes in one of them can be
compensated for by changes in others. This produces different parameter sets
that have similar probability distributions; thus it is impossible to
determine a single parameter set for a model
(Brun et al., 2001; Sierra et
al., 2015). From this analysis, we were able to choose three models: a
one-pool model, a two-pool parallel model, and a two-pool series model (Fig. 1). The one-pool model represents mass loss data as a single homogenous
mass compartment and has a single parameter, the decomposition rate *k*. The
two-pool model with parallel structure considers litter mass as two distinct
compartments that decompose at different rates. Hence, its parameters are
the two decompositions rates (*k*_{1} and *k*_{2}) and the initial proportion
of litter mass in pool 1 (*p*_{1}, from which the proportion of mass in
pool 2 can be calculated as ${p}_{\mathrm{2}}=\mathrm{1}-{p}_{\mathrm{1}}$). Finally, the two-pool series
model is similar to the parallel model, but it incorporates the transfer of
matter from pool 1 to pool 2 after its transformation. This is indicated
in the model by the parameter *a*_{12} (i.e., the transfer rate from pool 1
to pool 2).

Specifically for the two-pool series model our collinearity analysis showed
that only 20.1 % of the datasets produced identifiable results for this
model and only did so when we restricted parameter *p*_{1}. Restricting or
fixing parameters to known values is a way of avoiding collinearity issues.
For this purpose, we decided to use initial litter lignin content as a proxy
for the *p*_{2} parameter (the initial proportion of mass in pool 2), which is
complementary to *p*_{1} (${p}_{\mathrm{1}}+{p}_{\mathrm{2}}=\mathrm{1}$). We were limited by the number
of datasets that provided initial lignin values in *aridec*. We searched for this
missing information in the TRY database, which contains plant trait data for
ecology and earth system sciences
(Kattge
et al., 2020). We could only find information for three of these datasets in
the TRY database. We then completed some of the missing values by averaging
lignin data of the same litter types that were already present in *aridec*. Having
all the data ready, we proceeded to fit the models mentioned above. All time
variables were transformed to monthly timescales to achieve more consistent
comparisons.

## 2.2 Transit time

For each model, we calculated litter mass transit time (Sierra et al., 2017). This concept represents the mean age of the particles when they are released from the bulk litter. Another way to interpret this is the time it has taken particles to transit the litter system since the beginning of the experiment. We used a modified version of the mean transit time (MTT) from Sierra et al. (2017) without new litter inputs:

For both two-pool models, we used the function transitTime in the SoilR package. This function calculates the mean and median of the distribution of the transit time as well as other quantiles of the distribution. The transit time median is interpreted as the time it takes half the litter mass in a sample to decompose. As a special case, for the one-pool model the MTT can be simply calculated as

while the median transit time (mTT) can be calculated as

We found that MTT was usually overestimated in our models (Supplement S4 in Sarquis and Sierra,
2023, pre-averaging
results table), possibly due to the already slow decomposition rates of arid
lands and the inclusion of the *a*_{12} parameter that prolonged the time
that molecules remained in the litter system in the two-pool series models.
Instead, values of mTT were usually lower, so we decided to only work with
mTT hereafter. However, some of the mTT values obtained were also
overestimated and so we decided to make a cutoff at an mTT of 14.5 years.
This value came from fitting the two-pool series model to the longest dataset in *aridec*, which is 10 years long and corresponds to average data of
different species at the Central Plains Experimental Range in
Adair et al. (2017) (Supplement S1 in Sarquis and Sierra,
2023). We excluded
from this study the datasets that exceeded this median transit time cutoff.
Finally, after accounting for collinearity, the availability of initial
litter lignin data, and the mTT cutoff, we were left with 128 datasets from
12 *aridec* entries (Table A1).

## 2.3 Model selection and multi-model inference

As a first attempt at model selection, we calculated the bias-corrected Akaike information criterion, which is used for small sample sizes (AICc; Burnham and Anderson, 2002). We used the formula from Shumway and Stoffer (2017):

where *σ*2*k* is the variance of the model (in this case the mean squared
residuals, i.e., sum of squared residuals divided by sample size), *k* is the
number of parameters in the model, and *n* is the sample size or the number of
points in each time series. We accounted for the variance as one of the
parameters in the formula as Burnham and Anderson (2002)
recommend.

A common way of choosing the model with the best fit is by looking at the
model with the lowest Akaike information criterion (AIC) value. We did this by using the akaike.weights function from the
qpcR package. Additionally, we calculated the difference in AICc between the
model with the lowest AICc and the other two candidate models (ΔAICc). Since we did not have enough information to choose a single model
structure based on AICc (see the Results section), we decided to follow a
multi-model inference approach (Burnham and Anderson, 2002).
We first calculated Akaike weights using the function weights from the MuMin R
package for each model. Akaike weights can be interpreted as the probability
that a model *j* is the best of all *i* candidate models given the data
(Lukacs et al., 2010), and they are calculated as

We then calculated new average estimators for the mean and the median transit times as

where ${\widehat{\mathit{\beta}}}_{ij}$ is the *i* parameter estimator $\widehat{\mathit{\beta}}$ for
each *j* model. This results in estimators of mean (avgMTT) and median (avgmTT) transit
times averaged across models for each database entry.

We also calculated the unconditional variance for each averaged estimator (Burnham and Anderson, 2002; Lukacs et al., 2010) as

Finally, we estimated 95 % confidence intervals as

where *c**v* stands for the critical value of a *t* distribution for a particular
number of degrees of freedom.

We made non-parametric Kendall's rank correlation tests between study
duration in days and avgMTT and avgmTT, respectively. We also plotted data
against environmental variables to explore potential relationships between
avgmTT and calculated Pearson *r* correlation coefficients. We used data already
available in *aridec* like mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation. We
additionally used the global aridity index as calculated in Sarquis et al. (2022a) for *aridec* entries and annual downward shortwave radiation
(hereafter annual solar radiation) from the TerraClimate database
(Abatzoglou et al., 2018). We only used data
from litter decomposed in ambient conditions (without manipulative
treatments) for data exploration.

Further, to test whether the data fit an exponential distribution, we
calculated the ratio between avgmTT and *ln**2*×*avgMTT*. In an exponential distribution, the
median equals ln2 times the mean. So, if the ratio between the median from our
models (avgmTT) and the median calculated as *ln**2*×*avgMTT* equals 1, that would
imply that both medians are equal, and the model follows an exponential
distribution. All calculations, modeling, and figures were made using R
(R Core Team, 2020).

We fit three different candidate models for 128 time series of decomposition, which totaled 384 models. The information in our datasets supported all three models in a similar way. Most times the one-pool model had the lowest AICc values, but close to one-third of the times the two-pool series model had the best fit according to AICc (Fig. 2a and Supplement Table S2 in Sarquis and Sierra, 2023). Our ΔAICc values were very low (ΔAICc of the third quartile: 1.515), so we would have not been able to apply a ΔAICc = 2 cutoff criterion if we wanted to, even when this practice is not recommended (Anderson, 2008; Burnham and Anderson, 2002). All of this showed that the information available was not enough to choose a single model with the best fit. Additionally, we obtained root mean squared residuals for all 128 datasets. For the one-pool model this indicator ranged from 1.1 to 12.9, for the two-pool parallel model it ranged from 1.1 to 12.3, and for the two-pool series model it ranged from 0.3 to 6.6 (Fig. 2b). The first two models performed similarly according to this parameter, but the series model had considerably lower residuals. Following this, we decided to implement a multi-model inference approach using model averaging, which left us with 128 individual models (see Supplement Table S3 in Sarquis and Sierra, 2023 for model variance and confidence intervals).

The median transit time of plant litter in arid lands after model averaging was within the range of the original models (Fig. 3). In this analysis, we only used data from litter decomposed in ambient conditions (without manipulative treatments). One and two-pool parallel models had similar mTT (23.27 ± 9.28 and 23.04 ± 9.65 months, mean ± standard deviation, respectively). The two-pool series model had near 3-fold mTT values of 60.21 ± 45.80 months. After model averaging, mTT (i.e., avgmTT) dropped to 36.15 ± 22.20 months.

Looking at the avgmTT alone showed the wide range of time that litter takes
to decompose in arid ecosystems (Fig. 4). Correlation between the duration in
days and the avgMTT was positive (*τ* = 0.2, *p*=0.002) but it was not
significantly different from zero for avgmTT (*p*=0.3; Fig. B1). An exploration of patterns of transit time in relation to environmental variables yielded
weak correlation coefficients, except for mean annual temperature, which was
moderate but significative ($r=-\mathrm{0.56}$, *p*=0.047). Values of avgmTT at
the coldest end ranged between 37 and 65 months, while the warmest site
showed values of 8 months (Fig. 4a). This shows that plant litter in warmer
arid lands decomposes faster than at colder sites.

Calculating the quotient between the avgmTT and avgMTT times, the natural logarithm of 2 showed contrasting results (Fig. 5). Fourty-two percent of the models in this analysis had values near 0, which suggests that those models did not follow an exponential distribution. This is because in an exponential distribution the median equals ln2 times the mean, and the ratio of the median and ln2 times the mean, if equal, should result in 1. On the other hand, only 15 % of the models had values between 0.9 and 1.0. Complementarily, this suggests that those models did indeed have a near-exponential distribution.

We asked as our first question of what model structures are more appropriate
to represent decomposition in arid lands. After fitting three different
models to the data in *aridec* we found that there was not enough information
to choose a unique model judging by their AICc values (Fig. 2a). This
limitation comes from the information contained in the original datasets,
which constrains our capacity to distinguish between models. Simply put, we
cannot force a model to reveal information that is not contained in the
input data (Brun et al., 2001). As a workaround, we
took a multi-model inference approach (Burnham and Anderson,
2002) that allowed us to incorporate the dynamics of all three models in our
results by using AICc weights (Lukacs et al.,
2010). In this way, our predictions of transit time in arid lands include
the differences in litter chemistry and their effects on decomposition
instead of just considering the bulk of litter as a homogenous pool. This
type of information theoretical approach, like model averaging, is not novel but is still underused in ecological studies
(Grueber et al., 2011).

However, before fitting complex compartmental models, researchers should
take into consideration the issue of collinearity. In a previous study, we
found that most of the time series in the *aridec* database could only be fitted to
simpler models with less than three parameters (Sarquis et
al., 2022a). This was because the information contained in those time series
of litter decomposition was not sufficient to inform more complex models,
for example, models with three distinct litter mass pools with transfer
coefficients between them. This lack of information in the data caused
collinearity between parameters, which in turn made it impossible to
identify a single set of parameters for each model
(Brun et al., 2001; Sierra et
al., 2015). Some of these limitations probably come from the small number of
sampling points in most decomposition studies (Sarquis et
al., 2022a), which lowers the degrees of freedom available and limits our
capacity to model complex organic-matter dynamics. The fact that complex
models cannot be obtained from the data suggests that we should focus more
attention on designing field experiments that can provide better information about
model structures that are more consistent with our current understanding of
litter heterogeneity and transformations (Prescott and
Vesterdal, 2021).

Our second question was the following: what are the potential ranges of the median transit times of C in litter for arid lands? This part of our study yielded some new insights into the biogeochemistry of arid environments. The median transit time from one- and two-pool decomposition models without interactions were similar and showed that half of the litter mass is lost after almost 2 years in the field (Fig. 3). However, results from the two-pool model with a series structure were almost 3 times higher. This is explained by the mass transfer from the fast-decomposing pool to the slow-decomposing pool, which slows down mass loss from litter. After model averaging, we obtained intermediate values of the median transit times of around 3 years (Fig. 3). Previously, estimations were made of the mean transit time for litter of between 3.4 and 3.8 years for the same models as in this study (Manzoni et al., 2012). However, their data did not come from an arid land. To our knowledge, our study is the first attempt to estimate litter transit time in arid environments.

The discrepancy between estimations from the two-pool series model and the other two models connects back to the issue of model parameter identifiability. Most decomposition studies carried out in arid lands last for only 1 year (Sarquis et al., 2022a). But our results show that decomposition of litter in arid environments can take on average 6 times longer until all litter mass exits the system. This means that most field decomposition studies are not capturing the entire dynamics of mass release through time. Most decomposition studies must usually compromise between measurement resolution and study length. Usually, studies that describe fine-scale dynamics of chemical compounds in leaf litter do not last for the entire decomposition process. By contrast, longer studies usually focus on broad-scale processes and represent litter as a homogenous pool. In turn, this has consequences for potential future research because the information that is not contained in data cannot be retrieved by modeling techniques (Brun et al., 2001). Similar to this study, Derrien and Amelung (2011) concluded that future continuous isotope labeling studies should make more measurements in time and with a finer time resolution in order to make more reliable estimations of soil C fluxes and reservoirs from models. If we aim to incorporate field data into complex Earth system models, we need to take into consideration the study time length and resolution to capture both broad- and fine-scale mechanisms of decomposition. We acknowledge this might seem excessive given academic timescales are usually shorter than litter decomposition in arid lands. However, successful long-term litter decomposition projects exist and can be a potential solution to this issue (e.g., LIDET; Gholz et al., 2000).

We asked as our third question what the relationships between the median transit time and environmental variables are. From the set of four variables that we used to explore these relationships, only mean annual temperature showed a moderate correlation with the median transit time from average models (Fig. 4a). The importance of temperature as a climatic driver of decomposition is well documented (Zhang and Wang, 2015), both through its positive effects on microbial activity (Sinsabaugh et al., 1991) and its increase in photochemical emissions (Day and Bliss, 2020). Moreover, the correlation with mean annual precipitation was weak (Fig. 4b). This was more or less expected since it has been long known that precipitation fails to explain patterns of decomposition rates in arid lands (Austin, 2011).

As a final remark, we explored what transit time can teach us about the distribution of decomposition models. We calculated the quotient of the median transit time and the natural logarithm of 2 times the mean transit time from average models. Since the median of an exponential distribution equals ln2 times the mean, this ratio should equal 1 for models that are close to a single exponential distribution. But only 15 % of the models had values close to 1 (Fig. 5), which indicates that for most cases models did not follow an exponential distribution. The negative exponential model of decomposition has been the standard for litter and soil organic-matter decomposition studies for at least the last 5 decades (Olson, 1963). This connects back to our first results where the one-pool exponential model was not chosen by our information theoretical approach (Fig. 2). Previous studies found similar results where the negative exponential one-pool model did not rank first for the entirety of the datasets considered (Adair et al., 2008; Cornwell and Weedon, 2014; Manzoni et al., 2012). One alternative to exponential models has been a linear function relating mass loss and time, as it has performed statistically well in the past, especially in photodegradation experiments carried out in arid lands (Brandt et al., 2010). However, such linear functions lack any theoretical support as they imply that litter keeps losing mass even after all mass has decayed away in the long term. In contrast, the compartmental approach used here can account for chemical and physical transformations of litter as it decays and has strong theoretical support. Future studies could take advantage of the compartmental modeling framework to test multiple model structures that would represent a different mechanism of litter transformation and decay, having the one-pool model structure as a null model that can be contrasted against more complex structures suggested by the information content in the data.

Although our theoretical understanding of the litter decomposition process is based on the assumption that plant litter is chemically and physically heterogenous and undergoes multiple transformations, time series of litter decomposition studies contain only relatively little information on litter heterogeneity and its transformation rates. However, we have shown that a multi-model inference approach helps to reconcile theoretical understanding with information content in observed datasets of litter decomposition. In particular, the combination of AIC model averaging applied to a metric that is independent of model structure, the transit time, provides an inference framework that is useful to understand decomposition dynamics. This framework could help us get a better insight into the chemical transformations of organic matter in litter and soil and into how soil organic matter responds to changes in the environment.

We recognize that some limitations for modeling these complex structures arise from field study designs that do not capture the entire decomposition process. This limits the quantity and the quality of the information that can be extracted from empirical data. We recommend that future field decomposition studies incorporate in their designs some strategy to better capture the dynamics of different organic-matter pools in litter. This could be done by either measuring the proportion of each compound through time or by increasing sampling times and study length. The latter two can help gain a better fit and avoid collinearity when using an inverse-modeling approach as in this study. We further encourage researchers to fit models other than the one-pool model, when possible.

The *aridec* database version 1.0.2 is archived and publicly available at
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6600345 (Sarquis et al.,
2022b). Result tables and code are stored at
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7799585 (Sarquis and Sierra,
2023).

CAS supervised the study. CAS and AS conceptualized the study. AS curated the data and carried out the analysis. AS wrote the original draft of the paper. CAS and AS revised and edited further versions of the paper.

The contact author has declared that neither of the authors has any competing interests.

Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

We thank two anonymous referees, who made substantial contributions to the quality of this publication. We thank Mina Azizi-Rad for early discussions on model fitting and selection. We also thank Ignacio Siebenhart for providing annual solar radiation data. We thank Amy Austin, Soledad Méndez, and Ignacio Siebenhart for making revisions of early versions of this paper.

Financial support for the project came from the University of Buenos Aires
(grant no. UBACyT 2020) and the Agencia Nacional de Promoción
Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCyT; projects PICT 2015-1231, PICT
2016-1780, and PICT 2019-02645). Agustín Sarquis was funded by the
University of Buenos Aires (grant no. UBACyT 2018; res. no. 1245/18) and the German
Academic Exchange Service (DAAD; Research Grants – Short-Term Grants
program 2021, grant no. 57552337). Additional financial support was given by
the Max Planck Society.

The article processing charges for this open-access publication were covered by the Max Planck Society.

This paper was edited by Edzo Veldkamp and reviewed by two anonymous referees.

Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A., and Hegewisch, K. C.: TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015, Sci. Data, 5, 170191, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.191, 2018.

Adair, E. C., Parton, W. J., Del Grosso, S. J., Silver, W. L., Harmon, M. E., Hall, S. A., Burke, I. C., and Hart, S. C.: Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates, Glob. Change Biol., 14, 2636–2660, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01674.x, 2008.

Adair, E. C., Hobbie, S. E., and Hobbie, R. K.: Single-pool exponential decomposition models: potential pitfalls in their use in ecological studies, Ecology, 91, 1225–1236, https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0430.1, 2010.

Adair, E. C., Parton, W. J., King, J. Y., Brandt, L. A., and Lin, Y.: Accounting for photodegradation dramatically improves prediction of carbon losses in dryland systems, Ecosphere, 8, e01892, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1892, 2017.

Anderson, D. R.: Model Based Inference in the Life Sciences: A Primer on Evidence, Springer, New York, ISBN: 9780387740737, 2008.

Austin, A. T.: Has water limited our imagination for aridland biogeochemistry, Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 229–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.02.003, 2011.

Austin, A. T. and Vivanco, L.: Plant litter decomposition in a semi-arid ecosystem controlled by photodegradation, Nature, 442, 555–558, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05038, 2006.

Austin, A. T., Sala, O. E., and Jackson, R. B.: Inhibition of Nitrification Alters Carbon Turnover in the Patagonian Steppe, Ecosystems, 9, 1257–1265, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0039-0, 2006.

Berenstecher, P., Araujo, P. I., and Austin, A. T.: Worlds apart: Location above- or below-ground determines plant litter decomposition in a semi-arid Patagonian steppe, J. Ecol., 109, 1365–2745, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13688, 2021.

Bradford, M. A., Veen, G. F. (Ciska), Bonis, A., Bradford, E. M., Classen, A. T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Crowther, T. W., De Long, J. R., Freschet, G. T., Kardol, P., Manrubia-Freixa, M., Maynard, D. S., Newman, G. S., Logtestijn, R. S. P., Viketoft, M., Wardle, D. A., Wieder, W. R., Wood, S. A., and Van Der Putten, W. H.: A test of the hierarchical model of litter decomposition, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 1836–1845, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0367-4, 2017.

Brandt, L. A., King, J. Y., and Milchunas, D. G.: Effects of ultraviolet radiation on litter decomposition depend on precipitation and litter chemistry in a shortgrass steppe ecosystem, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 2193–2205, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01428.x, 2007.

Brandt, L. A., King, J. Y., Hobbie, S. E., Milchunas, D. G., and Sinsabaugh, R. L.: The Role of Photodegradation in Surface Litter Decomposition Across a Grassland Ecosystem Precipitation Gradient, Ecosystems, 13, 765–781, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9353-2, 2010.

Brun, R., Reichert, P., and Künsch, H. R.: Practical identifiability analysis of large environmental simulation models, Water Resour. Res., 37, 1015–1030, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900350, 2001.

Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R.: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference, edited by: Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R., Springer New York, New York, NY, ISBN: 978-0-387-95364-9, 2002.

Chappelle, G., Hastings, A., and Rasmussen, M.: Pool dynamics of time-dependent compartmental systems with application to the terrestrial carbon cycle, J. R. Soc. Interface, 20, 200, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2022.0843, 2023.

Cornwell, W. K. and Weedon, J. T.: Decomposition trajectories of diverse litter types: a model selection analysis, edited by: Oksanen, J., Method. Ecol. Evol., 5, 173–182, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12138, 2014.

Cornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Amatangelo, K., Dorrepaal, E., Eviner, V. T., Godoy, O., Hobbie, S. E., Hoorens, B., Kurokawa, H., Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Quested, H. M., Santiago, L. S., Wardle, D. A., Wright, I. J., Aerts, R., Allison, S. D., van Bodegom, P., Brovkin, V., Chatain, A., Callaghan, T. V., Díaz, S., Garnier, E., Gurvich, D. E., Kazakou, E., Klein, J. A., Read, J., Reich, P. B., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Vaieretti, M. V., and Westoby, M.: Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide, Ecol. Lett., 11, 1065–1071, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x, 2008.

Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix, M. L., Wall, D. H., and Parton, W. J.: Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss, Nat. Geosci., 8, 776–779, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520, 2015.

D'Odorico, P., Porporato, A., and Runyan, C. W.: Dryland Ecohydrology, edited by: D'Odorico, P., Porporato, A., and Wilkinson Runyan, C., Springer International Publishing, Cham, ISBN: 978-3-030-23268-9, 2019.

Day, T. A. and Bliss, M. S.: Solar Photochemical Emission of CO_{2} From Leaf
Litter: Sources and Significance to C Loss, Ecosystems, 23, 1344–1361,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00473-8, 2020.

Day, T. A., Bliss, M. S., Tomes, A. R., Ruhland, C. T., and Guénon, R.: Desert leaf litter decay: Coupling of microbial respiration, water-soluble fractions and photodegradation, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 5454–5470, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14438, 2018.

Derrien, D. and Amelung, W.: Computing the mean residence time of soil carbon fractions using stable isotopes: impacts of the model framework, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 62, 237–252, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01333.x, 2011.

Evans, S., Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Jacobson, K., and Jacobson, P.: Non-rainfall Moisture: A Key Driver of Microbial Respiration from Standing Litter in Arid, Semiarid, and Mesic Grasslands, Ecosystems, 23, 1154–1169, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00461-y, 2020.

Feng, S. and Fu, Q.: Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10081–10094, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10081-2013, 2013.

García-Palacios, P., Maestre, F. T., Kattge, J., and Wall, D. H.: Climate and litter quality differently modulate the effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition across biomes, edited by: Klironomos, J., Ecol. Lett., 16, 1045–1053, https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12137, 2013.

Gholz, H. L., Wedin, D. A., Smitherman, S. M., Harmon, M. E., and Parton, W. J.: Long-term dynamics of pine and hardwood litter in contrasting environments: toward a global model of decomposition, Glob. Change Biol., 6, 751–765, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00349.x, 2000.

Giese, M., Gao, Y. Z., Zhao, Y., Pan, Q., Lin, S., Peth, S., and Brueck, H.: Effects of grazing and rainfall variability on root and shoot decomposition in a semi-arid grassland, Appl. Soil Ecol., 41, 8–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.08.002, 2009.

Grueber, C. E., Nakagawa, S., Laws, R. J., and Jamieson, I. G.: Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions, J. Evol. Biol., 24, 699–711, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02210.x, 2011.

Grünzweig, J. M., De Boeck, H. J., Rey, A., Santos, M. J., Adam, O., Bahn, M., Belnap, J., Deckmyn, G., Dekker, S. C., Flores, O., Gliksman, D., Helman, D., Hultine, K. R., Liu, L., Meron, E., Michael, Y., Sheffer, E., Throop, H. L., Tzuk, O., and Yakir, D.: Dryland mechanisms could widely control ecosystem functioning in a drier and warmer world, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 6, 1064–1076, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01779-y, 2022.

Guttal, V. and Jayaprakash, C.: Self-organization and productivity in semi-arid ecosystems: Implications of seasonality in rainfall, J. Theor. Biol., 248, 490–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.05.020, 2007.

Huang, G., Zhao, H., and Li, Y.: Litter decomposition in hyper-arid deserts: Photodegradation is still important, Sci. Total Environ., 601–602, 784–792, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.213, 2017.

Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., et al.: TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access, Glob. Change Biol., 26, 119–188, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904, 2020.

Li, Y., Ning, Z., Cui, D., Mao, W., Bi, J., and Zhao, X.: Litter Decomposition in a Semiarid Dune Grassland: Neutral Effect of Water Supply and Inhibitory Effect of Nitrogen Addition, edited by: Hui, D., PLoS One, 11, e0162663, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162663, 2016.

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_{2}
concentration, Biogeosciences, 15, 6559–6572,
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6559-2018, 2018.

Lukacs, P. M., Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R.: Model selection bias and Freedman's paradox, Ann. Inst. Stat. Math., 62, 117–125, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10463-009-0234-4, 2010.

Manlay, R. J., Masse, D., Chevallier, T., Russell-Smith, A., Friot, D., and Feller, C.: Post-fallow decomposition of woody roots in the West African savanna, Plant Soil, 260, 123–136, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PLSO.0000030176.41624.d7, 2004.

Manzoni, S., Piñeiro, G., Jackson, R. B., Jobbágy, E. G., Kim, J. H., and Porporato, A.: Analytical models of soil and litter decomposition: Solutions for mass loss and time-dependent decay rates, Soil Biol. Biochem., 50, 66–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.029, 2012.

Meentemeyer, V.: Macroclimate and Lignin Control of Litter Decomposition Rates, Ecology, 59, 465–472, https://doi.org/10.2307/1936576, 1978.

Méndez, M. S., Ballaré, C. L., and Austin, A. T.: Dose–responses for solar radiation exposure reveal high sensitivity of microbial decomposition to changes in plant litter quality that occur during photodegradation, New Phytol., 235, 2022–2033, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18253, 2022.

Olson, J. S.: Energy Storage and the Balance of Producers and Decomposers in Ecological Systems, Ecology, 44, 322–331, https://doi.org/10.2307/1932179, 1963.

Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V., and Ojima, D. S.: Analysis of Factors Controlling Soil Organic Matter Levels in Great Plains Grasslands, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 51, 1173–1179, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100050015x, 1987.

Prescott, C. E. and Vesterdal, L.: Decomposition and transformations along the continuum from litter to soil organic matter in forest soils, Forest Ecol. Manag., 498, 119522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119522, 2021.

Qu, H., Zhao, X., Lian, J., Tang, X., Wang, X., and Medina-Roldán, E.: Increasing Precipitation Interval Has More Impacts on Litter Mass Loss Than Decreasing Precipitation Amount in Desert Steppe, Front. Environ. Sci., 8, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00088, 2020.

R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/ (last access: 9 May 2023), 2020.

Safriel, U. and Adeel, Z.: Dryland Systems, in: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1, edited by: Hassan, R., Scholes, R., and Ash, N., 623–662, Island Press, Washington, ISBN: 1559632283, 2005.

Santonja, M., Fernandez, C., Proffit, M., Gers, C., Gauquelin, T., Reiter, I. M., Cramer, W., and Baldy, V.: Plant litter mixture partly mitigates the negative effects of extended drought on soil biota and litter decomposition in a Mediterranean oak forest, edited by: McCulley, R., J. Ecol., 105, 801–815, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12711, 2017.

Sarquis, A. and Sierra, C. A.: Supplementary Material for Sarquis & Sierra 2023 (v1.0.1), Zenodo [data set and code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7799585, 2023.

Sarquis, A., Siebenhart, I. A., Austin, A. T., and Sierra, C. A.: Aridec: an open database of litter mass loss from aridlands worldwide with recommendations on suitable model applications, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 3471–3488, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-3471-2022, 2022a.

Sarquis, A., Siebenhart, I. A., Austin, A. T., and Sierra, C. A.: AgustinSarquis/aridec: aridec (v1.0.2), Zenodo [data set and code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6600345, 2022b.

Shumway, R. H. and Stoffer, D. S.: Time Series Analysis and Its Applications, 4th Edn., edited by: DeVeaux, R., Fienberg, S. E., and Olkin, I., Springer International Publishing, Cham, ISBN: 978-3-319-52451-1, 2017.

Sierra, C. A. and Müller, M.: A general mathematical framework for representing soil organic matter dynamics, Ecol. Monogr., 85, 505–524, https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0361.1, 2015.

Sierra, C. A., Müller, M., and Trumbore, S. E.: Models of soil organic matter decomposition: the SoilR package, version 1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1045–1060, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1045-2012, 2012.

Sierra, C. A., Malghani, S., and Müller, M.: Model structure and parameter identification of soil organic matter models, Soil Biol. Biochem., 90, 197–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.08.012, 2015.

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, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13556, 2017.

Sierra, C. A., Hoyt, A. M., He, Y., and Trumbore, S. E.: Soil Organic Matter Persistence as a Stochastic Process: Age and Transit Time Distributions of Carbon in Soils, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 32, 1574–1588, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005950, 2018.

Sinsabaugh, R. L., Antibus, R. K., and Linkins, A. E.: An enzymic approach to the analysis of microbial activity during plant litter decomposition, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 34, 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(91)90092-C, 1991.

Smith, J. G. and Throop, H. L.: Animal generation of green leaf litter in an arid shrubland enhances decomposition by altering litter quality and location, J. Arid Environ., 151, 15–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.11.003, 2018.

Soetaert, K. and Petzoldt, T.: Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity and Monte Carlo Analysis in R Using Package FME, J. Stat. Softw., 33, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i03, 2010.

Tuomi, M., Thum, T., Järvinen, H., Fronzek, S., Berg, B., Harmon, M., Trofymow, J. A., Sevanto, S., and Liski, J.: Leaf litter decomposition-Estimates of global variability based on Yasso07 model, Ecol. Modell., 220, 3362–3371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.05.016, 2009.

Wang, Y., Li, F. Y., Song, X., Wang, X., Suri, G., and Baoyin, T.: Changes in litter decomposition rate of dominant plants in a semi-arid steppe across different land-use types: Soil moisture, not home-field advantage, plays a dominant role, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 303, 107119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107119, 2020.

Zanne, A. E., Flores-Moreno, H., Powell, J. R., et al.: Termite sensitivity to temperature affects global wood decay rates, Science, 377, 1440–1444, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo3856, 2022.

Zhang, X. and Wang, W.: Control of climate and litter quality on leaf litter decomposition in different climatic zones, J. Plant Res., 128, 791–802, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-015-0743-6, 2015.