the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A global dataset of soil organic carbon mineralization under various incubation conditions
Abstract. Microbial decomposition of soil organic carbon (SOC) is a major source of atmospheric CO2 and a key component of climate-carbon feedbacks. Understanding how SOC mineralization responds to temperature is essential for improving climate projections. Here, we compiled a global dataset of laboratory incubation experiments measuring SOC mineralization across diverse soils and temperature regimes. The dataset reveals that 84 % of samples originated from surface soils (0–30 cm), and 50 % of incubations lasted fewer than 50 days. Incubation temperatures ranged from –10 to 60 °C, with temperature intervals used to estimate temperature sensitivity (Q10) spanning 2–40 °C; notably, 81 % of Q10 estimates were based on intervals exceeding 5 °C. Moreover, in 61 % of cases, the lower incubation temperature for Q10 estimation differed from the mean annual temperature at the sampling site by more than 5 °C, indicating a mismatch with in situ conditions. Our analysis highlights critical gaps in current experimental designs, particularly the underrepresentation of subsoils (>30 cm) and the use of temperature ranges that deviate from field conditions. We further evaluated the ability of 16 temperature response functions used in 69 Earth System Models to capture SOC mineralization patterns. Most models failed to reproduce empirical temperature response, especially at higher temperatures, albeit multi-term exponential functions showed relatively better performance. By coupling our dataset with a two-pool carbon model, we found that external environmental constraints and the intrinsic temperature response (including SOC decomposability and microbial processes) similarly influence the temperature sensitivity of SOC mineralization at the global scale, with their relative importance varying across ecosystem types. Our findings underscore the need for incubation experiments that better represent field conditions—both in depth and temperature range—and call for improved model parameterizations to enhance SOC feedback projections under future climate scenarios. The dataset is archived and publicly available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25808698 (Zhang et al., 2025).
- Preprint
(1501 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(730 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Oct 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-434', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2025
reply
General comments
Nominally (see below), this manuscript describes a dataset of soil incubations focusing on carbon mineralization and temperature sensitivity (Q10) calculation. This is interesting and important for reasons well laid out in the introduction, as such incubations have been a major source of information about this process and informed models and understanding at many scales; an analysis-ready dataset of incubations is valuable. The authors’ dataset is publicly posted, has almost 22,000 rows, and seems clearly laid out (although see #2 below).
That said, there are several significant problems here. First, the ms is oddly structured. It essentially has three parts: (i) a description of the dataset; (ii) data summaries and comparison with ancillary data (in particular, incubation temperatures compared with the mean annual temperature of sampling location); and, very unexpectedly, (iii) an extended summary of earth system model approaches to decomposition and simple modeling exercise involving the dataset. From https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/about/aims_and_scope.html, the scope of ESSD is “Articles in the data section may pertain to the planning, instrumentation, and execution of experiments or collection of data. Any interpretation of data is outside the scope of regular articles.” Based on this, I think that (iii) above is clearly out of scope; it’s extremely odd to find this ESM algorithm analysis in an ESSD ms, and it should be removed. Even (ii) strikes me as marginal in terms of scope—it’s analysis, not data description!
Second, there’s no mention of SIDb (https://soilbgc-datashare.github.io/sidb/). The SIDb paper (Schädel et al. 2020) is cited but it’s bizarre not to note and discuss *at length* this pre-existing and seemingly very similar effort. How much overlap is there between the authors’ work and SIDb? Why not contribute these data to SIDb, rather than duplicate work and confuse researchers?
Finally, as already noted I have concerns about the structure of the data and how it doesn’t support easy reproducibility in terms of finding the source studies.
In summary, while I appreciate the large amount of work here, and believe this dataset will be valuable, the current ms should be rejected or subject to fundamental revisions.
Specific comments
- Line 35: “expressed as”
- The dataset structure as posted on Figshare is a little odd. The study information is combined with the observational data, i.e. it’s all in a single CSV file, so many rows are duplicated; having separate “data” and “studies” files might be clearer and cleaner. In addition, there’s no DOI, URL, or volume/issue information…to find a paper, are users supposed to search the title? Having a machine-searchable link or DOI seems crucial
- 492-498: duplicated reference
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-434-RC1
Data sets
A global dataset of soil organic carbon mineralization under various incubation conditions Shuai Zhang, Mingming Wang, Jinyang Zheng, Zhongkui Luo https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25808698
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
525 | 25 | 4 | 554 | 11 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 525
- PDF: 25
- XML: 4
- Total: 554
- Supplement: 11
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1