<?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">GMD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</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/gmd-11-4779-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Modeling the effects of litter stoichiometry and soil<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> mineral N availability
on soil organic matter<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> formation using CENTURY-CUE (v1.0)</article-title><alt-title>Effects of litter quality and soil nutrients on litter decomposition</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Effects of litter quality and soil nutrients on litter decomposition}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{H. Zhang et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Haicheng</given-names></name>
          <email>haicheng.zhang@lsce.ipsl.fr</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9313-5953</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Goll</surname><given-names>Daniel S.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9246-9671</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Manzoni</surname><given-names>Stefano</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5960-5712</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ciais</surname><given-names>Philippe</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Guenet</surname><given-names>Bertrand</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4311-8645</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Yuanyuan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Le Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, IPSL-LSCECEA/CNRS/UVSQ Saclay,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Gif-sur-Yvette, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Haicheng Zhang (haicheng.zhang@lsce.ipsl.fr)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>30</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>4779</fpage><lpage>4796</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>10</day><month>July</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>9</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>19</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <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://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e145">Microbial decomposition of plant litter is a crucial process for the land
carbon (C) cycle, as it directly controls the partitioning of litter C
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" 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> released to the atmosphere versus the formation of new
soil organic matter (SOM). Land surface models used to study the C cycle
rarely considered flexibility in the decomposer C use efficiency
(CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) defined by the fraction of decomposed litter C that is
retained as SOM (as opposed to be respired). In this study, we adapted a
conceptual formulation of CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> based on assumption that litter
decomposers optimally adjust their CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of litter
substrate C to nitrogen (N) stoichiometry to maximize their growth rates.
This formulation was incorporated into the widely used
CENTURY soil biogeochemical
model and evaluated based on data from laboratory litter incubation
experiments. Results indicated that the CENTURY model with new
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> formulation was able to reproduce differences in respiration
rate of litter with contrasting C : N ratios and under different levels of
mineral N availability, whereas the default model with fixed CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
could not. Using the model with flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, we also
illustrated that litter quality affected the long-term SOM formation. Litter
with a small C : N ratio tended to form a larger SOM pool than litter with
larger C : N ratios, as it could be more efficiently incorporated into SOM
by microorganisms. This study provided a simple but effective formulation to
quantify the effect of varying litter quality (N content) on SOM formation
across temporal scales. Optimality theory appears to be suitable to predict
complex processes of litter decomposition into soil C and to quantify how
plant residues and manure can be harnessed to improve soil C sequestration
for climate mitigation.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e221">Plant litter decomposition plays a key role in the global carbon (C) cycle
and thus needs to be well represented in land surface models. The
decomposition and transformation processes of plant litter control the
formation of soil organic matter (SOM) (Prescott, 2010; Schmidt et al.,
2011; Walela et al., 2014; Cotrufo et al., 2015) and associate
immobilization and mineralization of essential plant nutrients (Moorhead and
Sinsabaugh, 2006; Parton et al., 2007; Manzoni et al., 2008; Manzoni and
Porporato, 2009). Hence, a reliable litter decay model is necessary for
estimating soil C balance and turnover of ecosystem C (Allison, 2012; Bonan
et al., 2013; Wieder et al., 2013; Campbell and Paustian, 2015). In
particular, a realistic representation of litter decomposition in land
surface models is helpful to decrease the uncertainties in predicted effects
of climate change and anthropogenic management on ecosystems (Gholz et al.,
2000; Campbell and Paustian, 2015; Luo et al., 2016). As litter
decomposition is a very complex process determined by climate (e.g.,
temperature and moisture), litter quality (e.g., nitrogen (N) concentration),
soil nutrients and the physiological characteristics of microorganisms
(Lekkerkerk et al., 1990; Prescott, 2010; Manzoni et al., 2012; Frey et
al., 2013; Sinsabaugh et al.,<?pagebreak page4780?> 2013; García-Palacios et al., 2016),
there remain large uncertainties in existing litter decay models (Zhang et
al., 2008; Bonan et al., 2013; Campbell and Paustian, 2015). Many litter
decay models, especially those incorporated in global land surface models,
have ignored stoichiometric constraints to microbial processes (Bonan et
al., 2013; Cotrufo et al., 2013; Wieder et al., 2013, 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e224">Microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE), defined as the ratio of microbial
biomass production to material uptake from substrates (Lekkerkerk et al.,
1990; Manzoni et al., 2012), is an important parameter constraining litter
decay, but it has rarely been represented as a flexible quantity in land
surface models. During litter decomposition, only a part of the decomposed
litter C is being transferred into SOM, while the remaining C is being
released as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" 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> to the atmosphere by microbial respiration
(Campbell and Paustian, 2015; Cotrufo et al., 2015). While CUE is a
physiological property of each decomposer community, it also determines the
ecosystem-level efficiency at which litter C is transferred into SOM a step
further from simple microbial incorporation. We denote this efficiency as
carbon use efficiency of litter decomposition (CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). With higher
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, more plant-produced litter is transformed biologically into
SOM, and soil C storage can reach higher values (Six et al., 2006;
Sinsabaugh et al., 2013). In most existing soil biogeochemical models,
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is assumed to be the same as microbial CUE and considered as a
fixed parameter. The Verberne model (Verberne et al., 1990) assumes, for
instance, CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the Yasso model (Liski et al.,
2005), the CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is set to 0.2. The CENTURY model sets the
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for decomposition of surface and belowground metabolic
litter to 0.55 and 0.45, respectively (Parton et al., 1988). In Daisy
(Hansen et al., 1991), NCSOIL (Molina et al., 1983) and ICBM
(Kätterer and Andrén, 2001), CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the labile
litter pools and takes a lower value for recalcitrant substrates. Only a few
models account for variable CUE, letting it vary in response to substrate
stoichiometry (Schimel and Weintraub, 2003) or temperature (Allison et al.,
2010).</p>
      <p id="d1e312">The increasing evidence for a variable microbial CUE leads to a conceptual
CUE model which can explain trends in CUE of microorganisms along
stoichiometric gradients (Manzoni et al., 2017). The values of CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> used in
existing litter decay models are mostly derived from CUE obtained in
laboratory studies on microbial physiology or limited observations in
certain ecosystems and thus show large variations without a dynamic link to
environmental conditions (Parton et al., 1988; Verberne et al., 1990; Hansen et al., 1991; Liski et al.,
2005; Manzoni et al., 2012). Recent studies (Manzoni et al.,
2008, 2012) suggested that the microbial CUE in terrestrial ecosystems
ranges from less than 0.1 for wood decomposers to about 0.5 for
decomposition of N-rich and high-quality litter. To explain those
differences, Manzoni et al. (2017) proposed a conceptual model of microbial CUE
based on the assumption that decomposers adapt their metabolism (and hence
CUE) to maximize their growth rate. This model based on optimality theory
links CUE to substrate and decomposer stoichiometry, where the optimal CUE
decreases with increasing substrate C-to-nutrient ratio and increases with
soil nutrient availability. The predictions of this theoretical model have
been verified by empirical evidence from CUE estimates for different
microorganisms in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Manzoni et al., 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e324">Besides variable CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, many previous studies have also indicated
the necessity for litter decomposition models to consider soil mineral N
availability as a driver of litter decomposition rates, in particular under
low N availability (Wieder et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2016; Averill and
Waring, 2018). Microbial biomass is nearly homeostatic (Cleveland and
Liptzin, 2007; Franklin et al., 2011; Allison, 2012). When the supply of N
from substrates is lower than the demand of microbes to fulfill their
specific stoichiometric C : N ratio, microbes will utilize mineral N
(immobilization) (Manzoni et al., 2012). Thus, low availability of mineral
N can limit microbial activity and in turn litter decay rate (Manzoni and
Porporato, 2009; Fujita et al., 2014). Although there are fertilization
experiments reporting insignificant or even negative impacts of added N on
litter decay rate (Fog, 1988; Hobbie and Vitousek, 2000; Finn et al.,
2015), many incubation experiments showed a significant decrease of litter
decomposition rate with declining mineral N availability (Recous et al.,
1995; Hobbie and Vitousek, 2000; Guenet et al., 2010). Moreover, recent
modeling studies have indicated that including the limiting effect of low
mineral N on decomposition improved predictions of C and N fluxes (Bonan et
al., 2013; Fujita et al., 2014). Therefore, soil mineral N can alter
litter C flux by affecting both the litter decay rate and the partition of
decayed litter C (via flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e348">Schematic diagram of the C flows in the litter decay model used in
this study. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the fraction of metabolic compounds in plant
litter. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>lit-met</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>lit-str</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are the decomposition
rates (g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of metabolic or structural litter,
respectively. LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the lignin-to-C ratio (on a mass basis) of
plant litter; CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">met</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">str</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">act</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">slow</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the C : N ratio of metabolic litter pool,
structural litter pool, active SOM pool and slow SOM pool, respectively;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the concentration of mineral N in solution
(g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a factor reducing litter
decay rate when soil mineral N availability is limiting; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) and
SWC (%) are temperature and soil water content, respectively;
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is C use efficiency of the transformation from litter to
soil organic matter (SOM); CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum microbial CUE
(dimensionless) when growth is limited by C from the organic substrate;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the fractions of
decomposed structural litter C that is transferred to active SOM pool, slow
SOM pool and released to atmosphere in forms of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" 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>, respectively.
As in the algorithms in the CENTURY model (Parton et al., 1988), here
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lig</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lig</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SR</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lig</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the lignin fraction (0–1, dimensionless) in the structural litter pool, and
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the CUE of C
transformation from structural litter pool to active and slow SOM pools,
respectively.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f01.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e736">Some detailed microbial decomposition models actually have included variable
microbial CUE and the limitation of low mineral N availability on litter
decay rate (Ingwersen et al., 2008; Pagel et al., 2013; Campbell et
al., 2016; Huang et al., 2018); however, the parameterization and
evaluation of these models pose significant challenges due to their
complexity and limited verification data (Wieder et al., 2013; Campbell and
Paustian, 2015). There is still scope for implementing the effects of litter
stoichiometry and soil mineral N availability on litter decomposition in
litter decay models with more generalizable structure. In particular, it is
important to test the role of these effects in models that have already been
incorporated into land surface models for long-term and large-scale
applications (e.g., CENTURY; Parton et al., 1988). In this study, we
incorporated flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> based on substrate C : N ratios and
mineral N limitations into a soil biogeochemical model based on the CENTURY
equations to simulate the decomposition and transfer processes of litter C.
The study was organized as follows. First, the new model was calibrated and
tested against data from laboratory litter incubation experiments for its
ability to capture the effect of variable litter quality and soil mineral<?pagebreak page4781?> N
on litter respiration rates (short-term simulations). Second, the model
parameterized assuming flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and mineral N limitations
was used to explore the consequences of such stoichiometric constraints on
the production of soil organic carbon (SOC) (long-term simulations). With
these two modeling analyses, we aimed at linking stoichiometric constraints
acting on short-term (months to years) decomposition dynamics to their
consequences on SOC accumulation occurring at decadal to centennial
timescales.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>The CENTURY decomposition model</title>
      <p id="d1e768">The basis of the litter decay model used in this study is the CENTURY model
(Fig. 1), a first-order decay model that describes decomposition as a
function of substrate availability and quality, clay content, soil moisture
and soil temperature (Parton et al., 1988). Most land surface models (e.g.,
Kucharik et al., 2000; Sitch et al., 2003; Krinner et al., 2005)
adopted a similar structure to simulate the litter and soil biogeochemical
processes. Dead organic matter in CENTURY is separated into structural and
metabolic litter and three SOM pools (active, slow, passive) with different
turnover times. There is no explicit representation of microbial biomass in
CENTURY; instead, the biomass of microbes is assumed to be in equilibrium
with labile SOM and thus implicitly included in the active SOM pool. When
litter is being decomposed, a fraction of the decomposed C is respired to the
atmosphere and the remaining fraction (CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> conceptually equal to
microbial CUE) enters the acceptor SOM pool. Three of such fractions are
defined to characterize the transfer of C from litter to SOM:
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ma</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for transfer of the metabolic litter to the active SOM
pool, and CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sa</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ss</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for transfer of
structural litter to active and slow SOM pools, respectively (Fig. 1). These
fractions are set to be time invariant in the original version of CENTURY, so
that a fixed fraction of decomposed C is retained in the acceptor pool
regardless of environmental conditions and changes in the quality of the
donor pool. The N flows in CENTURY follow the C flows and are equal to the
product of C flow by the N : C ratio of the acceptor SOM
pool. N mineralization is defined as the difference between N obtained from
the donor pools and N stoichiometric demand of the acceptor pool (Parton et
al., 1988; Metherell et al., 1993). In this way, net N mineralization occurs
when the donor pool has a low C : N ratio, but N is immobilized (taken up
by microbes) when the donor pool has a high C : N ratio.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Optimal CUE</title>
      <p id="d1e813">To quantify how microbial CUE varies along gradients of nutrient
availability, it can be hypothesized that microorganisms maximize their
growth rate, and hence their ecological competitiveness, by adapting
resource (C and nutrients) use efficiencies. This follows the growth
maximization hypothesis (Mooshammer et al., 2014; Manzoni et al., 2017). Based<?pagebreak page4782?> on this
hypothesis, Manzoni et al. (2017) formulated a theoretical model expressing
microbial CUE as a function of the stoichiometric difference between
decomposers and their substrate. The CUE for which growth rate is maximized
is the optimal CUE (CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) given by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M53" display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum microbial CUE (dimensionless) when growth is
limited by C from the organic substrate. CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the C : N ratio
(in mass, dimensionless) of decomposer and their substrate, respectively.
Although Manzoni et al. (2017) indicated that mineral phosphorus (P) could also
affect optimal CUE, we only considered N as a limiting nutrient. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) is the maximum rate at which mineral N can be taken up by
microbes, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) is the C-limited uptake rate
(corresponding to the decomposition rate at optimal mineral N
concentration). When litter C : N is low or soil mineral N is in excess, the
second term in the minimum function (Eq. 1) is higher than 1, and
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (C-limited conditions, as in nutrient-rich litter). In
contrast, when mineral N is scarce, CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases with increasing
substrate C : N ratio (N-limited conditions, N-poor litter). Lack of N in the
organic substrates can be compensated by mineral N being immobilized by
microorganisms from the soil solution. Immobilization meets the nutrient
demands as long as it is lower than the maximum supply rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, at which
point microbial CUE starts being downregulated. Thus, for any given C : N
ratio in the substrate, CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> increases with inorganic N concentration in
the soil solution until CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is reached. It should also be noted that
Eq. (1) is interpreted at the microbial community scale, not for individual
organisms.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Adaption of the optimal CUE model in the CENTURY model</title>
      <p id="d1e1037">CUE of decomposition (CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) is also assumed to be equivalent to
microbial CUE in this study. Then we followed the theory from Manzoni et al. (2017) (Eq. 1) to parameterize CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> during litter decomposition into
CENTURY (Fig. 1). Due to the implicit representation of microbial growth in
CENTURY, we replaced the original optimality CUE model (Eq. 1) by a
simpler equation that involves the C : N ratios of the donor and acceptor
pools, rather than microbial C : N ratios:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M68" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">min⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the C : N ratio
(dimensionless) of litter (metabolic or structural) and SOM pools (active,
slow or passive), respectively. The C : N ratio of SOM (around 9 : 1 on a
mass basis in CENTURY) is representative of the decomposer biomass, its value
being between the average C : N ratio of soil microbial communities
including fungi and bacteria (7.4 : 1 in Cleveland and Liptzin, 2007) and
the C : N ratio of soil fungi (13.4 : 1 in Zhang and Elser, 2017), which
are probably largely responsible for fresh litter decomposition.
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (dimensionless) is the maximum CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> achieved when
nutrients are not limiting, and it is set to 0.8 based on a synthesis of
observed CUE of soil microbes (Manzoni et al., 2012). The exponent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) captures the effect of mineral N uptake by microbes
on CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Because CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is expected to increase with
mineral N availability (Eq. 1), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is assumed to be a linear function of the
mineral N concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M80" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) are two
coefficients that need to be calibrated. Equations (2) and (3) modulate the
decrease in CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with decreasing litter quality when mineral N
availability changes: the exponent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increases with increasing mineral N
availability, causing an increase in CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at any given litter C : N
ratio. Hence, increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> mimics an increase in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (1). Figure 2a
illustrates how CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from Eq. (2) varies as a function of mineral N
concentration for different values of litter C : N.</p>
      <p id="d1e1346">Equations (2) and (3) were implemented in CENTURY to modify the originally fixed
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 1). With this change, the fractions of C from litter that
remain in SOM are mediated by stoichiometric constraints and mineral N
availability, at the expense of additional parameters to fit. The CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
values for C transfers between SOC pools (active, slow and passive) are not
modified.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Constraint of soil nutrient availability on litter decomposition
rate</title>
      <p id="d1e1373">CENTURY is a first-order decay model in which decomposition rates of
metabolic and structural litter are modulated by scaling factors of soil
temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(tem)) and moisture (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(water)) (Parton et al., 1988).
Here, we introduced an additional mineral N scaling factor
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0–1, dimensionless) to account for the limitation
imposed by low mineral N availability on litter decay rate
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M97" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tem</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">water</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the C (g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) in the litter pool (metabolic or
structural) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the potential maximum turnover rate (day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) at
optimal soil temperature, moisture and nutrient conditions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e1536">Schematic plot of <bold>(a)</bold> the optimal carbon use efficiency
(CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) as a function of soil mineral nitrogen for different
litter C : N ratios (from Eq. 2) in the main text (with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <bold>(b)</bold> the N limitation function
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> applied to litter decomposition rates (from Eq. 5) in
the main text. CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the C : N
ratios of the litter and SOM pools, respectively. CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
maximum CUE under optimal nutrient condition (C limitation only). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the parameters of Eq. (3) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the parameter of
Eq. (5).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page4783?><p id="d1e1675">In this study, we assumed that the scaling factor of mineral N increases
linearly with increasing soil mineral N concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;
Eq. 5) below a threshold value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a positive coefficient which needs to be calibrated (Fig. 2b). The
inhibition effect of mineral N only occurs in the case of immobilization
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The specific function
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be expressed as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M118" display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><mml:mtable class="array" rowspacing="8.535827pt" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo movablelimits="false">min⁡</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Existing studies have adopted approaches that differ from our definition to
explicitly represent the N inhibition effects on microbial processes (Manzoni
and Porporato, 2009; Bonan et al., 2013; Fujita et al., 2014; Averill and
Waring, 2018). In these previous studies, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was assumed
equal to the ratio between immobilized mineral N and the N deficit for
maintaining a stable C : N of decomposer biomass or other receiver pools.
Using the notation of Sect. 2, this definition of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be
expressed as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M121" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable rowspacing="11.381102pt 11.381102pt" class="array" columnalign="left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo movablelimits="false">min⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CUE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a coefficient that needs to be optimized. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the C uptake rate (equivalent to the
litter decomposition rate in absence of leaching) when soil mineral N is
fully adequate for litter decay (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and can be
calculated from Eq. (7) as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M127" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tem</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">water</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          In this study, we also tested this formulation in the CENTURY-based model,
in addition to Eq. (5) (see model M4 in Table A3).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2211">Optimized parameter values for the five versions of the litter
decomposition model used in this study. cue<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the optimized
value of CUE, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the coefficients in Eq. (3), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the coefficient in Eq. (5), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the coefficient in Eq. (6). Values
in brackets following each parameter are the means (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> standard
deviations) of the fitted parameter values based on “leave-one-out”
cross-validation (see Sect. 2.5 for more details).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Version</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CUE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Parameters</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">cue<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.57</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Eqs. (2), (3)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Eq. (5)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.61</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.34</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.53</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">297.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">38.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Eqs. (2), (3)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.96</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Eq. (5)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">cue<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">396.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Eqs.(2), (3)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Eq. (6)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.91</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Model parameterization and validation</title>
      <p id="d1e2656">To determine the respective impacts of including flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and N availability constraining decay rates, we built four conceptual litter
decay models (Table 1). Model M0 corresponds to the default CENTURY
parameterization of a fixed CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and no constraints of N
availability on litter decay rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Model
M1 accounts for flexibility in CUE from Eq. (2) and N constraints on decay
rates by Eq. (5). Model M2 has flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> but no N constraints
on decay rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Model M3 has N constraints on decay
rates but a fixed CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 1). All of these four models are
run at a daily time step. Finally, model M4 also accounts for flexibility in
CUE and N constraints on decays (Table A3), but it uses Eq. (6) to represent
the N constraints on decays rate rather than Eq. (2). Results from model M4
are presented in the main text, but only shown in the Appendix. This range of
models allows identifying which mechanisms are at play during decomposition: flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> only (M3), mineral N limitation only (M2), both
mechanisms (M1, M4), or none (M0).</p>
      <p id="d1e2749">For calibrating model parameters and evaluation of their results, we
collected data of laboratory litter incubation experiments from Recous
et al. (1995) (five experiments) and Guenet et al. (2010) (nine experiments; Table A2). The
incubation experiments of Recous et al. (1995) and Guenet et al. (2010) continued 80
and 124 days, respectively. Recous et al. (1995) used corn residues (C : N ratio of 130)
and Guenet et al. (2010) used wheat straw (C : N ration of 44) in their incubation
experiments. The C : N ratios of the corn residue and wheat straw span the
range of litter C : N ratios among different ecosystems (Harmon et al., 2009;
Brovkin et al., 2012; Manzoni et al., 2010). In the incubation experiments, plant
litter was firstly cut into fine fragments before it was mixed with mineral
soil. Soil temperature and moisture condition were kept constant during the
experiment. Respired C from the incubated litter and SOC as well as the
soil mineral N concentrations were measured continuously across the
incubation period. To distinguish the litter- and SOC-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" 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> flux,
Guenet et al. (2010) used straw from wheat grown under <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" 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> labeled
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" 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>, and they were therefore able to track the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" 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> coming from litter and the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" 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> coming from soil. In the experiments by Recous et al. (1995),
litter-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" 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> flux is calculated as the difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" 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>
flux between the incubation samples with both soil and litter, and the
control samples without added litter. More detailed information about the
incubation experiments of Recous et al. (1995) and Guenet et al. (2010) can be found
in Table A2.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4784?><p id="d1e2831">The initial C storage and C : N ratios of litter and SOM pool, as well as
soil temperature and moisture conditions for decomposition in all of the five
versions of the model (M0–M4), were set based on observations (Table A2).
Plant litter was firstly separated into metabolic and structural litter pools
based on its lignin-to-C ratio (LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, dimensionless). The
fraction of metabolic litter C (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0–1, dimensionless) is
calculated by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M173" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a coefficient to be calibrated; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
maximum fraction of metabolic litter (i.e., the default value in CENTURY;
Parton et al., 1988). The fraction of structural litter C is thus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
C : N ratios of both metabolic and structural pools are assumed to be equal to
the C : N ratio of litter input.</p>
      <p id="d1e2930">In the M1 and M3 models, the observed mineral N concentrations across the
incubation period were used to calculate the daily N inhibition effect
(Eq. 5). The observed cumulative respired litter C (g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil)
measured in the incubation experiments was used to calibrate the model
parameter values. Moreover, to quantify the simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" 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> flux
derived from the litter, we also performed a set of control simulations with
only SOM (initial litter pools were set to 0 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) using the
four model versions. The simulated litter-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" 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> flux is
calculated as the difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" 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> flux between the simulation
with both litter and SOM inputs and the simulation with only SOM input.</p>
      <p id="d1e2991">Parameter calibration was performed for each model with the shuffled complex
evolution (SCE) algorithm developed by Duan et al. (1993). The SCE algorithm
relies on a synthesis of four concepts that have proved successful for
global optimization: combination of probabilistic and deterministic
approaches; clustering; systematic evolution of a complex of points spanning
the space in the direction of global improvement and competitive
evolution (Duan et al., 1993). A more detailed description of this SCE
optimization method can be found in Duan et al. (1993, 1994). In this study, the
RMSE (root mean square error; Eq. 9) between simulated and measured
cumulative respired litter C (%) on all observation days (Table A2) of
each incubation experiment was used as the objective function, and the
parameters minimizing RMSE between simulated and observed cumulative
respired litter C were regarded as optimal parameter values.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M182" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RMSE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</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:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Sim</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of observation days, and Sim<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and Obs<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (%) are the
simulated and observed percent of cumulative litter-C flux on day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e3075">We used leave-one-out cross-validation (Kearns and Ron, 1997;
Tramontana et al., 2016) to evaluate each of the four models (i.e., M0–M3), a
cross-validation method used when data are scarce. The number of cross-validations
corresponds to the number of incubation experiments (14). Each time, one of
the 14 incubation experiments was left out as the validation sample, and the
remaining 13 experiments were used to train model parameters. In addition to
RMSE, we also adopted the Akaike information criterion (AIC; Bozdogan, 1987;
Eq. 10) to determine the relative quality of the four version models on
estimating cumulative respired litter C.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M187" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AIC</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</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:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Sim</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Obs</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of model parameters. The evaluation of AIC is
important here because depending on the model version, different numbers of
parameters have to be determined (Table 1), requiring us to weigh both model
accuracy and robustness.</p>
      <p id="d1e3153">Note that the turnover times of SOM pools (active, slow and passive) used in
this study are obtained from Organising Carbon and Hydrology In Dynamic Ecosystems – aMeliorated Interactions between Carbon and Temperature (ORCHIDEE-MICT v8.4.1; Guimberteau et al.,
2018). The turnover times of litter pools (metabolic and structural), as
well as the coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (8), were optimized against the
observed cumulative respired litter C from all of the 14 incubation
experiments using the M0 and M1 models (Table A3). A previous study has
shown that litter decomposability is negatively correlated to its physical
size (for example, Tuomi et al., 2011). Therefore, the turnover times of the fine
litter fragments used in the incubation experiments of Recous et al. (1995) and
Guenet et al. (2010) are expected to be shorter than the values set in
ORCHIDEE-MICT, which are representative of the turnover times of natural
plant residues. In addition, the mixing of soil and litter particles in the
incubation experiment likely enhances decomposition as spatial disconnection
of decomposer and<?pagebreak page4785?> substrate, which can occur under natural soil conditions
(Barnes et al., 2012; Hewins et al., 2013), is prevented. The calibrated turnover
times of the metabolic and structural pools and the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (8) are 3.5 and 30 days and 0.5, respectively.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <title>Impacts of litter stoichiometry and mineral N availability on SOM
accumulation</title>
      <p id="d1e3184">We used model M1, with flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and decomposition rate
function of available N to study the impacts of litter stoichiometry (C : N
ratio) and soil mineral N availability on the formation and accumulation of
SOM. In total, 24 idealized simulation experiments with different values of
litter C : N ratios and soil mineral N availabilities were conducted
(Table A4). The assumed litter C : N ratios (CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 10,
15, 30, 60, 120 and 200 span the variation among most natural substrates and
soil amendments from organic matter input in agriculture (Harmon et al.,
2009; Brovkin et al., 2012; Manzoni et al., 2010). The assumed range of
mineral N availability (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 0.001, 0.005, 0.01 and
0.05 g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil spans the observed concentrations of soil mineral N
in major terrestrial ecosystems (Metherall et al., 1993).</p>
      <p id="d1e3229">In each simulation experiment, model M1 was run for 5000 years to bring the
litter and SOM pools in equilibrium with the prescribed litter input flux.
The daily input rate of plant litter was set to 0.006 g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and the initial C stock of litter and SOM pools was all set to
be 0 g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil. During the simulation, soil temperature and soil
water content were assumed to be 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and 60 % of water holding
capacity, respectively. We emphasized that our goal with this simplified
scenario was to single out the effects of stoichiometric constraints, not to
simulate the effects of a realistic climatic regime. Parameter values for M1
(with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">296.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) used here were
optimized based on all of the 14 incubation experiments from Recous et al. (1995)
and Guenet et al. (2010) (see above). More detailed information about the
specific settings of our simulation experiments can be found in Table A4.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Evaluation of different models</title>
      <p id="d1e3335">Results of leave-one-out cross-validation suggest that model M1 provides
more accurate prediction of cumulative respired litter C than other models
(Fig. 3). The differences between simulated and observed cumulative respired
litter C from M1 are mostly less than 6 % for over 93 % of the data
(Fig. A1b). The average RMSE of predicted cumulative respired litter C from
M1 (3.0 %) is lower than that of model M0 (4.1 %). Models M2 and M3 have
slightly lower RMSE values than M0 (3.7 % and 3.8 %, respectively) but
perform worse than M1 (Fig. 4). However, the average AIC values of all the models
are comparable, suggesting that models with more fitted parameters do not
overfit the observations (Fig. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e3340">Comparison of the
predicted cumulative respired litter C to observed values at different times
during the litter decomposition process. Each dot denotes an observation of
cumulative respired litter C on a certain day. In total, there are
149 points. M0–M3 are the four versions of litter decay models tested in
this study (Table 1).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e3351">The RMSE and AIC of the simulated cumulative respired litter C from
the four versions of litter decay model used in this study. Error bars denote
the standard deviation of RMSE or AIC for different incubation experiments.
M0–M3 denote the four models tested in this study (Table 1).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=142.26378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3361">Model M1 captures the differences in respiration rates due to different
C : N ratios of substrate and varying levels of mineral N availability
across the 14 incubation experiments (Fig. 5). While model M3 can reproduce
the observed effect of soil mineral N availability on litter respirations
rates (Fig. 5d), it underestimates the cumulative respired <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" 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> from
low quality litter (CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">130</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at high mineral N
concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil). Models M0 and M2 cannot
represent the effects of soil mineral N on litter respiration rate (Fig. 5a,
c), and their predictions are more biased from the observed values compared
to M1. Model M4, which uses the alternative formulation for N constraints
on litter decay (Eq. 6), reproduces the different respiration rates of
substrates with contrasting C : N ratios and at different levels of<?pagebreak page4786?> mineral
N availability (Fig. A2) but with a slightly higher average RMSE of
cumulative respired litter C than model M1.</p>
      <p id="d1e3411">The predicted CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and the limitation effects of soil mineral N
availability on litter decay rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function; Eq. 5) are
different among the four tested models (Fig. A3). In models M0 and M3, which
used a fixed CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, the fitted values of CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
calculated with optimized parameters during the incubation period are about
0.57 and 0.54, respectively (Fig. A3a, d). In models M1 and M2, the
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> varies with the C : N ratios of plant litter and is only
slightly affected by soil mineral N concentrations (Fig. A3b, c). For very
low quality litter with a C : N ratio of 130, the CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values in
models M1 and M2 are 0.40 and 0.44, respectively, which are lower than for
better-quality litter with a C : N ratio of 44 (approximately 0.55 and 0.56
in M1 and M2, respectively). Models M0 and M2 do not include the N inhibition
effects on litter decay rate; thus, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in these two
models is always 1 (Fig. A3e, g). In M1 and M3, the N inhibition effect
changes with both the litter C : N ratio and the mineral N availability
(Fig. A3f, h).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e3498">Time series of the simulated (lines) and observed (dots) cumulative
respired litter C (% of initial litter C) at four different levels of soil
mineral N availability (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil).
CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the C : N ratio of plant litter. M0–M3 denote the
four models tested in this study (Table 1). Here, the simulation results of
each model were calculated with parameters optimized based on all of the
14 samples of incubation experiments (Table A2).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3540">CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from Eq. (2), calibrated with the data of the two incubation
experiments, decreases with increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6). The
average CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> value is larger than the average of data compiled for
microbial CUE of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems by Manzoni
et al. (2017). This is shown by the gray circles in Fig. 6. Our optimized values
of CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given C : N ratio are more comparable with microbial CUE
observed in incubations of soil mixed with litter (Gilmour and Gilmour,
1985; Devêvre and Horwáth, 2000; Thiet et al.,2006), shown as black
squares in Fig. 6.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>The effect of litter quality vs. quantity on equilibrium SOM
stocks</title>
      <p id="d1e3594">Model M1 predicts that the size of the SOM pool at equilibrium is mainly
determined by litter stoichiometry, with a minor effect of soil mineral N
(Fig. 7). The lower the C : N ratio of litter is, the higher the equilibrium SOC
stock. For litter with a specific C : N ratio, high soil mineral N
concentration (e.g., above 0.05 g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) generally produces a
slightly larger equilibrium SOC stock than a low mineral N concentration
(Fig. 7). Further analysis suggests that the SOC at equilibrium increases
with decreasing litter C : N because the SOC pool is positively related to the
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; however, the limitation of soil mineral N on litter decomposition
rate almost shows no impact on SOC (Fig. A4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e3620">Comparison of CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (lines) predicted by Eq. (2) with
parameter values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) calibrated based on the
incubation experiments (Table A2) of Recous et al. (1995) and Guenet et
al. (2010) to observed CUE of terrestrial microorganisms along a gradient
of CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CN</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For observed CUE (dots),
CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the C : N ratio of decomposers
and their substrates, respectively. For simulated CUE (lines),
CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> correspond to the C : N ratio of
donor (litter pool) and acceptor (the active SOM pool of the CENTURY),
respectively. Gray dots are the estimated microbial CUE of litter
decomposition in natural terrestrial ecosystems from Manzoni et al. (2017).
Black squares are the microbial CUE measured via laboratory incubation
experiments of Gilmour and Gilmour (1985), Devêvre and Horwáth (2000)
and Thiet et al. (2006). Error bars represent the standard deviations.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) is the concentration of soil
mineral N.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f06.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3748"><bold>(a)</bold> Accumulation of soil organic carbon (SOC) for constant
substrates input (plant litter) with different C : N ratios
(CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) at different levels of soil mineral N concentrations
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil), <bold>(b)</bold> change trends of
equilibrium SOC stock and <bold>(c)</bold> carbon use efficiency of
decomposed litter (CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) with increasing litter C : N ratio.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e3815">We hypothesized that stoichiometric constraints (flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or
inhibition of decomposition under N-limited conditions) played a role in
shaping the trajectory of litter decomposition, with potential consequences
on predicted SOC stocks. Our results suggest that flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
inhibition<?pagebreak page4787?> effects of soil mineral N on litter decay rate improve prediction
of litter decomposition when using a modified version of the CENTURY model
(denoted as M1). Evaluation of model M1 using data from incubation
experiments indicates that this modified model captures the effects of both
variable litter quality (stoichiometry) and mineral N availability on
respiration rates (Fig. 5), without strongly inflating the complexity of
CENTURY (Table 1). As the stoichiometric constraints are implemented in the
generalizable and widely used structure of CENTURY and require only three
parameters to be calibrated, they can also be easily implemented into land
surface models for large-spatial-scale applications.</p>
      <p id="d1e3836">Accurately representing N control of microbial processes during litter
decomposition has been suggested to be important for modeling the connection
between the litter inputs, CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and soil C dynamics (Gerber et
al., 2010; Manzoni et al., 2012; Cotrufo et al., 2013; Sinsabaugh et
al., 2013). In model M1, soil mineral N affects the litter-C flux via two
mutually different pathways: (1) mineral N availability affects the litter
decay rate and (2) flexible CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> determining the partition of
decomposed C into SOC products and respired <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" 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> (Fig. 1).
Therefore, an increase in soil mineral N concentration enhances litter decay
rates, which alone will increase the flux of litter-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" 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>
(Eq. 5 and Fig. A5). However, as higher N concentration also results in a
higher CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 2), more C is transferred to SOC and less C is
respired. In this way, SOC is predicted to accumulate with increasing mineral
N availability when using model M1 (Fig. 7). In addition, model M4, which is
comparable to model M1 but uses an alternative formulation for N effects on
the decomposition rate (Eq. 6), performed slightly worse than model M1
(Fig. A2). Arguably, Eq. (6) represents the underlying mechanisms of N
inhibition effects (Manzoni and Porporato, 2009, Bonan et al., 2013; Fujita
et al., 2014; Averill and Waring, 2018) better than Eq. (5) and due to the
minor differences in RMSE and AIC (Fig. A2b) between these formulations it
can serve as an alternative to M1.</p>
      <p id="d1e3888">Our results indicate that the observed diversity of responses of litter
respiration rate to mineral N additions (Hobbie and Vitousek, 2000;
Guenet et al., 2010; Janssens et al., 2010) is likely due to the combined effects of
changes in litter decay rate and CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. A5). Thus, N addition
effects can differ among fertilization experiments if litter quality and
background N availability vary. In addition to altering litter decay rate
and CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, mineral N addition can induce abiotic formation of compounds
that resist microbial attack, inhibit oxidative enzymes involved in lignin
degradation, stimulate microbial biomass production early in decomposition
or lead to the accumulation of microbial residues that are resistant to
decay (Fog, 1988; Hobbie, 2015). All these effects might decrease litter
respiration rate by inhibiting the decomposition process but have not been
considered in our current model.</p>
      <p id="d1e3909">This study provides insights on processes leading to increased SOM
sequestration. Enhancing the efficiency at which plant residuals are
transformed into stable SOM has been suggested as an effective strategy to
sequester C in soil (Prescott, 2010; Cotrufo et al., 2013). Simulation
results from our model suggest a positive linear relationship between
equilibrium SOC stock and CUE of decomposed litter (Fig. A4), in line with
the earlier findings with a similar model (for example, Frey et al., 2013).
In fact, with linear models such as CENTURY it can be shown that the
steady-state SOC scales linearly with CUE, different from nonlinear models
predicting that higher CUE can trigger SOC loss (Allison et al., 2010). Our
model goes beyond earlier attempts (Bonan et al., 2013; Fujita et al.,
2014; Averill and Waring, 2018) by adapting the optimal metabolic regulation
hypothesis of Manzoni et al. (2017) to link CUE, litter quality and SOM
formation in a process-oriented way.</p>
      <p id="d1e3913">The importance of litter quality for SOM formation as found here is in line
with recent experiments (Bahri et al., 2008; Rubino et al., 2010; Walela et al., 2014) and
modeling studies (Grandy and Neff, 2008; Cotrufo et al., 2013). SOM is mainly
formed though the partial decomposition of plant debris by microorganisms
(Paul, 2007; Knicker, 2011;<?pagebreak page4788?> Cotrufo et al., 2013). The conceptual model
developed by Cotrufo et al. (2013) suggested that although labile litter was
decomposed faster than recalcitrant litter, a higher fraction of this labile
litter C would be incorporated into microbial biomass and subsequently
incorporated into SOM pool (corresponding to a higher CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). Therefore,
labile litter inputs tend to form a larger SOM pool than the poor-quality
(high C : N ratio) litter that is generally used by microbes at lower
efficiency. Our simulations of decomposition process of plant litter with
different C : N ratios also suggest that litter of good quality (with low C : N
ratio) can induce a larger SOM pool than the poor-quality litter (Fig. 7).
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> plays a more important role than the inhibition effect of low
mineral N concentration in determining the size of the stable SOM pool (Fig. A4).</p>
      <p id="d1e3934">The predictions from Cotrufo et al. (2013) and this study contrast with
the conventional hypothesis whereby the poor-quality litter with low decay
rate and small CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are preferential to be accumulated in SOM
(Berg and Mcclaugherty, 2008; Walela et al., 2014). This view of SOM
stabilization, however, seems to apply to N-limited systems with high C : N
litter and where microbial remains are recalcitrant to decomposition (e.g.,
boreal forests); in these systems, SOC does accumulate despite its low
quality (Kyaschenko et al., 2017). Moreover, one could argue that higher
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> implies larger microbial biomass, allowing faster
decomposition (Allison et al., 2010). These feedbacks between microbial
biomass and decomposition rate were not implemented in the current model, but
could offer additional flexibility – again at the expense of more difficult
model parameterization.</p>
      <p id="d1e3955">The CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> formulation from Eq. (2) with parameters calibrated from the
two sets of incubation experiments might underestimate the impacts of litter
quality on microbial CUE under natural conditions, in particular in the case of
SOM decomposition. In both incubation experiments, litter is firstly cut
into fine fragments and then fully mixed with mineral soil (Recous et al.,1995;
Guenet et al., 2010). Thus, the nutrient accessibility, air permeability and some
other environmental factors (e.g., pH) of incubated litter are different from
those of decaying litter in more natural, heterogeneous soil conditions.
Those different decomposition conditions might be responsible for the
differences observed in Fig. 6 between our CUE estimates and previously
reported values. We speculate that more heterogeneous conditions reduce
nutrient availability and thus might cause lower CUE. Similarly, CUE of
surface litter decomposers may be lower than we estimated (Fig. 6), because
litter not mixed with soil is probably subject to stronger nutrient
limitation.</p>
      <p id="d1e3967">Further validation and development of our model are still necessary to
decrease the model uncertainties. Soil mineral N which affects both litter
decay rate and CUE of decayed litter is seldom monitored in litter incubation
experiments (e.g., Walela et al., 2014; Stewart et al., 2015) and field
litter decay experiments (e.g., Gholz et al., 2000; Harmon et al., 2009),
with few exceptions (Recous et al., 1995; Guenet et al., 2010). An
increasing number of land surface models (Wang et al., 2010; Zaehle et
al., 2014; Goll et al., 2017) have representations of the terrestrial N
cycle. By incorporating our newly developed formulations of
CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in these land surface models that
simulate the dynamics of soil mineral N concentration, it will be possible to
test and validate our developments with more extensive data from laboratory
and field experiments. Moreover, similar to N, P has also been suggested as
another important factor for litter decomposition and SOM formation
(Güsewell and Verhoeven, 2006; Talkner et al., 2009; Manzoni et al.,
2010; Prescott, 2010), especially in regions with highly weathered soil (Goll
et al., 2012, 2017; Yang et al., 2014). So, it might be necessary to
include the effects of P on litter decay rate and CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in our
model in order to further decrease the simulation uncertainties.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4013">By adapting the hypothesis of optimal microbial CUE proposed by
Manzoni et al. (2017) for use in a CENTURY-based model and also introducing
a N scaling function to represent the limits of mineral N availability on
litter decay rate, we developed a simple but effective litter decomposition
model that accounts for key stoichiometric constraints during decomposition.
Validation using observation data obtained from laboratory incubation
experiments indicated that our model could well predict the respiration rates
of litter in different qualities at various levels of mineral N availability.
Idealized simulations using our model revealed that the quality of litter
inputs plays an important role in determining the soil C stock at
equilibrium. High-quality litter (i.e., with low C : N ratio) tends to form
a larger SOM pool, as it can be more efficiently utilized by microorganisms
than recalcitrant litter (e.g., high C : N ratio). Overall, the developed
model captures the microbial mechanisms mediating litter stoichiometry and
soil mineral N effects on litter decomposition and SOM formation. Due to the
simple and generalizable structure of our model, it can be incorporated into
existing land surface models for further long-term and large spatial-scale
applications.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability">

      <p id="d1e4020">The CENTURY-based model used here is programmed in
MATLAB language. The source code is available online
(<uri>https://github.com/hchzhang/CENYUTY_CUE/tree/v1.0</uri> from 8 July 2018).
All the data used in this study can be obtained from published literature.
Specific references to these data can be found in Sect. 2.5.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><app-group>

<?pagebreak page4789?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <title/>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?><caption><p id="d1e4038">List of symbols used in this study;
stoichiometric ratios are all expressed on a mass basis.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Symbol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Unit</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Description</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Exponent in Eq. (2)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">AIC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Akaike information criterion (Eq. 10)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">act</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of active soil organic matter pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of decomposer (Eq. 1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">met</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of metabolic litter pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">slow</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of slow soil organic matter pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">str</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of structural litter pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of substrate (Eq. 1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C stock of litter pool (Eq. 4)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of litter pool (metabolic or structural; Eq. 2)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C : N ratio of soil organic matter pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CUE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Microbial carbon use efficiency</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Carbon use efficiency of decomposition (C incorporated in SOC over litter C decomposed)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">cue<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Optimized value of fixed CUE in models M0 and M4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Maximum CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eqs. 1 and 2)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Optimal CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CUE of the transformation from structural litter to active SOM pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CUE of the transformation from structural litter to slow SOM pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>lit-met</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Decomposition rate of metabolic litter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>lit-str</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Decomposition rate of structural litter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Limit factor of soil mineral N on litter decomposition (Eqs. 4 and 5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(tem)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Limit factor of soil temperature on litter decomposition (Eq. 4)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(water)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Limit factor of soil water content on litter decomposition (Eq. 4)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fraction of metabolic plant litter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SA</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fractions of decomposed structural litter C that is transferred to active SOM pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SR</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fractions of decomposed structural litter C that is released to the atmosphere</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fractions of decomposed structural litter C that is transferred to slow SOM pool</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Maximum mineral N immobilization rate (Eq. 1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">potential maximum turnover rate (Eqs. 4 and 7)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dimensionless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lignin-to-C ratio of litter input</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Coefficients in Eq. (3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Coefficients in Eq. (3)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Coefficients in Eq. (5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">kg g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Coefficients in Eq. (6)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Soil mineral N concentration (Eq. 5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RMSE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">%</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Root mean square error (Eq. 9)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SOC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Soil organic carbon</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SOM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Soil organic matter</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C uptake rate when soil mineral N is fully adequate for litter decay (Eqs. 1 and 8)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?><caption><p id="d1e5071">Information about the 14 samples of
laboratory incubation experiment used in this study. CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the C : N ratio and lignin-to-C ratio of plant
litter, respectively. CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the C : N ratio of SOM pool.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the concentration of soil mineral N
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For the incubation
experiments of Guenet et al. (2010), cumulative respired litter C was
measured on days 1, 3, 7, 15, 22, 28, 35, 42, 49, 67 and 80, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was measured on days 3, 7, 17, 28 and 80. For the
incubation experiments of Recous et al. (1995), both cumulative respired
litter C and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were mostly measured on days 2, 3, 6, 11, 15,
18, 29, 40, 69 and 124.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.96}[.96]?><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sample</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Initial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Duration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Soil moisture</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Litter type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Reference</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(day)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(%, in volume)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.035</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Guenet et al.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.051</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">(2010)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.055</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.033</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.067</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.033</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.048</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.079</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (wheat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">130</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.010</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (Corn)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Recous et al.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">130</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.030</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (Corn)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">(1995)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">130</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.060</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (Corn)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">130</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.080</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (Corn)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">130</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">124</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Crop (Corn)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.T3"><?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?><caption><p id="d1e5803">List of parameters calibrated for two
versions of the litter decomposition model (M0, M1): <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">litm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lits</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are, respectively, the turnover rates of metabolic and
structural litter pools, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the coefficient in Eq. (8),
cue<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the optimized value of CUE, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
the coefficients in Eq. (3), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the coefficient in Eq. (5).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.94}[.94]?><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Version</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CUE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Parameters</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fixed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">cue<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">litm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lits</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">M1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Eqs. (2), (3)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Eq. (5)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">litm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lits</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.T4"><?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?><caption><p id="d1e6072">Specific setting of litter and SOM
properties, and soil conditions in the 16 idealized simulations for exploring
the impacts of litter stoichiometry (i.e., C : N ratio) and soil mineral N
on SOC accumulation. CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are the
C : N ratio and lignin-to-C ratio of plant litter, respectively.
Lit<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">inp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (g C kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the daily input
rate of plant litter. CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the C : N ratio of SOM pool.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil) is the concentration of soil
mineral N (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Temp
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) and SWC (%) are the temperature and soil water content,
respectively.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.86}[.86]?><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Experiment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">LC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Lit<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">inp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOM</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Temp</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">SWC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">120</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">120</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">120</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.005</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">120</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e6762">Distribution of the difference between the predicted cumulative
respired litter C (Rs<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sim</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, %) and the observed values
(Rs<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, %) for all experiments and points in time. SD is the
standard deviation of the biases. M0–M3 denote the four models tested in
this study (Table 1).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f08.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e6791">Comparison between simulated cumulative respired litter C with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (inhibition effect of soil mineral N on litter
decomposition) calculated by Eq. (6) and the observed results from incubation
experiments. In panel <bold>(b)</bold>, M0–M4 denote the five versions of litter
decay model in Table 1. M4 denotes the model which used Eq. (2) to calculate
the dynamic CUE and Eq. (6) to calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e6843">Dynamic of the simulated carbon use efficiency (CUE) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the incubation experiments (Table A4).
CN<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the C : N ratio of incubated litter, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the initial soil mineral N concentration
(g N kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> soil). M0–M3 are the four models in Table 1. Here, the
simulation results of each model were calculated with parameters optimized
based on all of the 14 samples of incubation experiments (Table A2).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e6905">Relationship between C stock of the potentially equilibrated SOM
pool and the carbon use efficiency of decomposed metabolic litter
(CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the dynamic equilibrium stage. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
denotes the inhibition factor (0–1) of soil mineral N on litter
decomposition.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f11.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e6944">Schematic plot for change trends of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (inhibition
effect of mineral N; Eq. 6), CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (carbon use efficiency of
decomposed litter; Eqs. 2, 3) and Rs_litt (litter respiration rate) with
increasing concentration of soil mineral N. CUE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (equal to 0.8) is the
maximum CUE set in this study. opt_<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes the
concentration of soil mineral N at which litter respiration is maximized.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the potential decomposition rate when mineral N is fully adequate
for litter decay.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/4779/2018/gmd-11-4779-2018-f12.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e7020">HZ led the model development, calibration and validation,
and performed all simulations and analysis. DSG, SM, and PC assisted with the
implementation of flexible CUE and the limit of soil mineral N availability
on litter decomposition rate in the CENTURY model, and contributed to model
validation and result analysis. BG provided a part of the calibration and
validation data from his laboratory incubation data. HY provided the original
source code of CENTURY model. All authors contributed with their comments to
the writing of the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e7026">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e7032">Haicheng Zhang, Daniel S. Goll, Philippe Ciais and Yuanyuan Huang are funded
by the IMBALANCE-P project of the European Research Council
(ERC-2013-SyG-610028). Stefano Manzoni acknowledges the support of the
Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet (grants 2016-04146 and
2016-06313) and Formas (grant 2015-468).<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: David Lawrence<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Allison, S. D.: A trait-based approach for modelling microbial litter
decomposition, Ecol. Lett., 15, 1058–1070,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01807.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01807.x</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D., and Bradford, M. A.: Soil-carbon response
to warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nat. Geosci., 3, 336–340,
<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>Averill, C. and Waring, B.: Nitrogen limitation of decomposition and decay:
How can it occur?, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 1417–1427, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13980" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13980</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bahri, H., Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C., Dignac, M. F., Bardoux, G., Mariotti,
A.: Lignin degradation during a laboratory incubation followed by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" 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> isotope analysis, Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 1916–1922, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Barnes, P. W., Throop, H. L., Hewins, D. B., Abbene, M. L., and Archer, S.
R.: Soil coverage reduces photodegradation and promotes the development of
soil microbial films on dryland leaf litter, Ecosystems, 15, 311–321, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Berg, B. and Mcclaugherty, C.: Plant Litter. Decomposition, Humus Formation,
Carbon Sequestration, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bonan, G. B., Hartman, M. D., Parton, W. J., and Wieder, W. R.: Evaluating
litter decomposition in earth system models with long-term litterbag
experiments: an example using the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4),
Glob. Change Biol., 19, 957–974, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bozdogan, H.: Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The
general theory and its analytical extensions, Psychometrika, 52, 345–370,
1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Brovkin, V., van Bodegom, P. M., Kleinen, T., Wirth, C., Cornwell, W. K.,
Cornelissen, J. H. C., and Kattge, J.: Plant-driven variation in
decomposition rates improves projections of global litter stock distribution,
Biogeosciences, 9, 565–576, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-565-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-9-565-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Campbell, E. E. and Paustian, K.: Current developments in soil organic matter
modeling and the expansion of model applications: a review, Environ. Res.
Lett., 10, 123004, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Campbell, E. E., Parton, W. J., Soong, J. L., Paustian, K., Hobbs, N. T., and
Cotrufo, M. F.: Using litter chemistry controls on microbial processes to
partition litter carbon fluxes with the Litter Decomposition and Leaching
(LIDEL) model, Soil Biol. Biochem., 100, 160–174,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.007</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Cleveland, C. C. and Liptzin, D.: C : N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a
“Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?, Biogeochemistry, 85, 235–252,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., and Paul, E.: The
Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant
litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant
inputs form stable soil organic matter?, Glob. Change Biol., 19, 988–995,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12113</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix,
Michelle 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, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2520</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Devêvre, O. C. and Horwáth, W. R.: Decomposition of rice straw and
microbial carbon use efficiency under different soil temperatures and
moistures, Soil Biol. Biochem., 32, 1773–1785, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K.: Optimal use of the SCE-UA global
optimization method for calibrating watershed models, J. Hydrol., 158,
265–284, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, Q. Y., Gupta, V. K., and Sorooshian, S.: Shuffled complex evolution
approach for effective and efficient global minimization, J. Optimiz. Theory
App., 76, 501–521, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Finn, D., Page, K., Catton, K., Strounina, E., Kienzle, M., Robertson, F.,
Armstrong, R., and Dalal, R.: Effect of added nitrogen on plant litter
decomposition depends on initial soil carbon and nitrogen stoichiometry, Soil
Biol. Biochem., 91, 160–168, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.001</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Fog, K.: The effect of added nitrogen on the rate of decomposition of organic
matter, Biol. Rev., 63, 433–462, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Franklin, O., Hall, E. K., Kaiser, C., Battin, T. J., and Richter, A.:
Optimization of Biomass Composition Explains Microbial Growth-Stoichiometry
Relationships, Am. Nat., 177, 29–42, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1086/657684" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1086/657684</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Frey, S. D., Lee, J., Melillo, J. M., and Six, J.: The temperature response
of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate, Nat. Clim. Change,
3, 395–398, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1796" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1796</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Fujita, Y., Witte, J.-P. M., and van Bodegom, P. M.: Incorporating microbial
ecology concepts into global soil mineralization models to improve
predictions of carbon and nitrogen fluxes, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 28,
223–238, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>García-Palacios, P., McKie, B. G., Handa, I. T., Frainer, A.,
Hättenschwiler, S., and Jones, H.: The importance of litter traits and
decomposers for litter decomposition: a comparison of aquatic and<?pagebreak page4794?> terrestrial
ecosystems within and across biomes, Funct. Ecol., 30, 819–829,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12589" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1365-2435.12589</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</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.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
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, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Gilmour, C. M., and Gilmour, J. T.: Assimilation of carbon by the soil
biomass, Plant Soil, 86, 101–112, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Goll, D. S., Brovkin, V., Parida, B. R., Reick, C. H., Kattge, J., Reich, P.
B., van Bodegom, P. M., and Niinemets, Ü.: Nutrient limitation reduces
land carbon uptake in simulations with a model of combined carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus cycling, Biogeosciences, 9, 3547–3569,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-3547-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-9-3547-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Goll, D. S., Vuichard, N., Maignan, F., Jornet-Puig, A., Sardans, J.,
Violette, A., Peng, S., Sun, Y., Kvakic, M., Guimberteau, M., Guenet, B.,
Zaehle, S., Penuelas, J., Janssens, I., and Ciais, P.: A representation of
the phosphorus cycle for ORCHIDEE (revision 4520), Geosci. Model Dev., 10,
3745–3770, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3745-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-3745-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Grandy, A. S. and Neff, J. C.: Molecular C dynamics downstream: the
biochemical decomposition sequence and its impact on soil organic matter
structure and function, Sci. Total Environ., 404, 297–307, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Guenet, B., Neill, C., Bardoux, G., and Abbadie, L.: Is there a linear
relationship between priming effect intensity and the amount of organic
matter input?, Appl. Soil Ecol., 46, 436–442,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.09.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.09.006</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Guimberteau, M., Zhu, D., Maignan, F., Huang, Y., Yue, C.,
Dantec-Nédélec, S., Ottlé, C., Jornet-Puig, A., Bastos, A.,
Laurent, P., Goll, D., Bowring, S., Chang, J., Guenet, B., Tifafi, M., Peng,
S., Krinner, G., Ducharne, A., Wang, F., Wang, T., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Yin,
Z., Lauerwald, R., Joetzjer, E., Qiu, C., Kim, H., and Ciais, P.:
ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model
description and validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 121–163,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Güsewell, S. and Verhoeven, J. T. A.: Litter N : P ratios indicate
whether N or P limits the decomposability of graminoid leaf litter, Plant
Soil, 287, 131–143, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, S., Jensen, H. E., Nielsen, N. E., and Svendsen, H.: Simulation of
nitrogen dynamics and biomass production in winter wheat using the Danish
simulation model DAISY, Fert. Res., 27, 245–259, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Harmon, M. E., Silver, W. L., Fasth, B., Chen, H. U. A., Burke, I. C.,
Parton, W. J., Hart, S. C., and Currie, W. S.: Long-term patterns of mass
loss during the decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite
comparison, Glob. Change Biol., 15, 1320–1338,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01837.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01837.x</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Hewins, D. B., Archer, S. R., Okin, G. S., McCulley R. L., and Throop, H. L.:
Soil-litter mixing accelerates decomposition in a Chihuahuan Desert
grassland, Ecosystems, 16, 183–195, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Hobbie, S. E.: Plant species effects on nutrient cycling: revisiting litter
feedbacks, Trends Ecol. Evol., 30, 357–363, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Hobbie, S. E. and Vitousek, P. M.: Nutrient limitation of decomposition in
Hawaiian forests, Ecology, 81, 1867–1877, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Huang, Y., Guenet, B., Ciais, P., Janssens, I. A., Soong, J. L., Wang, Y.,
Goll, D., Blagodatskaya, E., and Huang, Y.: ORCHIMIC (v1.0), a
microbe-mediated model for soil organic matter decomposition, Geosci. Model
Dev., 11, 2111–2138, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2111-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-2111-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Ingwersen, J., Poll, C., Streck, T., and Kandeler, E.: Micro-scale modelling
of carbon turnover driven by microbial succession at a biogeochemical
interface, Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 864–878,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.10.018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.10.018</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Janssens, I. A., Dieleman, W., Luyssaert, S., Subke, J. A., Reichstein, M.,
Ceulemans, R., Ciais, P., Dolman, A. J., Grace, J., Matteucci, G., Papale,
D., Piao, S. L., Schulze, E. D., Tang, J., and Law, B. E.: Reduction of
forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition, Nat. Geosci., 3,
315–322, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo844" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo844</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Kätterer, T. and Andrén, O.: The ICBM family of analytically solved
models of soil carbon, nitrogen and microbial biomass dynamics –
descriptions and application examples, Ecol. Model., 136, 191–207, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Kearns, M. and Ron, D.: Algorithmic stability and sanity-check bounds for
leave-one-out cross-validation, Neural Comput., 11, 1427–1453, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Knicker, H.: Soil organic N – An under-rated player for C sequestration in
soils?, Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, 1118–1129, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Ogée, J., Polcher,
J., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic
global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere
system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB1015, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003gb002199" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003gb002199</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Kucharik, C. J., Foley, J. A., Delire, C., Fisher, V. A., Coe, M. T.,
Lenters, J. D., Young-Molling, C., Ramankutty, N., Norman, J. M., and Gower,
S. T.: Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water
balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure, Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
14, 795–825, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001138" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999gb001138</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Kyaschenko, J., Clemmensen, K. E., Karltun, E., and Lindahl, B. D.:
Below-ground organic matter accumulation along a boreal forest fertility
gradient relates to guild interaction within fungal communities, Ecol. Lett.,
20, 1546–1555, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12862" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ele.12862</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Lekkerkerk, L., Lundkvist, H., Ågren, G. I., Ekbohm, G., and Bosatta, E.:
Decomposition of heterogeneous substrates; An experimental investigation of a
hypothesis on substrate and microbial properties, Soil Biol. Biochem., 22,
161–167, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Liski, J., Palosuo, T., Peltoniemi, M., and Sievänen, R.: Carbon and
decomposition model Yasso for forest soils, Ecol. Model., 189, 168–182,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Luo, Y., Ahlström, A., Allison, S. D., Batjes, N. H., Brovkin, V.,
Carvalhais, N., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Davidson, E. A., and Finzi, A.:
Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system
models, Global 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.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Manzoni, S. and Porporato, A.: Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization:
Theory and models across scales, Soil Biol. Biochem., 41, 1355–1379,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4795?><ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Jackson, R. B., Trofymow, J. A., and Porporato, A.: The global
stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization, Science, 321, 684–686,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Trofymow, J. A., Jackson, R. B., and Porporato, A.:
Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in
decomposing litter, Ecol. Monogr., 80, 89–106, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Manzoni, S., Taylor, P., Richter, A., Porporato, A., and Agren, G. I.:
Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon-use efficiency
in soils, New Phytol., 196, 79–91, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04225.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04225.x</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Manzoni, S., Capek, P., Mooshammer, M., Lindahl, B. D., Richter, A., and
Santruckova, H.: Optimal metabolic regulation along resource stoichiometry
gradients, Ecol. Lett., 20, 1182–1191, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12815" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ele.12815</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Metherell, A. K., Harding, L. A., Cole, C. V., and Parton, W. J.: CENTURY
Soil Organic Matter Model Environment Technical Documentation, Agroecosystem
Version 4.0, Great Plains System Research Unit, Technical Report No. 4.
USDA-ARS, Ft. Collins, USA, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Molina, J. A. E., Clapp, C. E., Shaffer, M. J., Chichester, F. W., and
Larson, W. E.: NCSOIL, A Model of Nitrogen and Carbon Transformations in
Soil: Description, Calibration, and Behavior, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 47,
85–91, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Moorhead, D. L. and Sinsabaugh, R. L.: A Theoretical Model of Litter Decay
and Microbial Interaction, Ecol. Monogr., 76, 151–174, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Mooshammer, M., Wanek, W., Hammerle, I., Fuchslueger, L., Hofhansl, F.,
Knoltsch, A., Schnecker, J., Takriti, M., Watzka, M., Wild, B., Keiblinger,
K. M., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., and Richter, A.: Adjustment of microbial
nitrogen use efficiency to carbon:nitrogen imbalances regulates soil nitrogen
cycling, Nat. Commun., 5, 3694, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4694" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms4694</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Pagel, H., Ingwersen, J., Poll, C., Kandeler, E., and Streck, T.: Micro-scale
modeling of pesticide degradation coupled to carbon turnover in the
detritusphere: model description and sensitivity analysis, Biogeochemistry,
117, 185–204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9851-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-013-9851-3</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Parton, W., Silver, W. L., Burke, I. C., Grassens, L., Harmon, M. E., Currie,
W. S., King, J. Y., Adair, E. C., Brandt, L. A., Hart, S. C., and Fasth, B.:
Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term
decomposition, Science, 315, 361–364, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134853" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1134853</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B., and Cole, C. V.: Dynamics of C, N, P and S
in grassland soils: a model, Biogeochemistry, 5, 109–131, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, E. A.: Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biogeochemistry, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, USA, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Prescott, C. E.: Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter
it to sequester more carbon in forest soils?, Biogeochemistry, 101, 133–149,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9439-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-010-9439-0</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Recous, S., Robin, D., Darwis, D., and Mary, B.: Soil inorganic N
availability: Effect on maize residue decomposition, Soil Biol. Biochem., 27,
1529–1538, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Rubino, M., Dungait, J. A. J., Evershed, R. P., Bertolini, T., Angelis, P.
D., D'Onofrio, A., Lagomarsino, A., Lubritto, C., Merola, A., and Terrasi,
F.: Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter
mass loss: Evidences from a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" 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> labelled-leaf litter experiment,
Soil Biol. Biochem., 42, 1009–1016, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Schimel, J. P. and Weintraub, M. N.: The implications of exoenzyme activity
on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model,
Soil Biol. Biochem., 35, 549–563, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Schmidt, M. W., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G.,
Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kogel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A.,
Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D. P., Weiner, S., and Trumbore, S. E.: 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.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., and Richter, A.: Carbon use
efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and
modelling, Ecol. Lett., 16, 930–939, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ele.12113</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W.,
Kaplan, J. O., Levis, S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., and
Venevsky, S.: Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and
terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model, Glob.
Change Biol., 9, 161–185, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., and Batten, K. M.: Bacterial and Fungal
Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J., 70, 555–569, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Stewart, C. E., Moturi, P., Follett, R. F., and Halvorson, A. D.: Lignin
biochemistry and soil N determine crop residue decomposition and soil
priming, Biogeochemistry, 124, 335–351, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-015-0101-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-015-0101-8</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Talkner, U., Jansen, M., and Beese, F. O.: Soil phosphorus status and
turnover in central-European beech forest ecosystems with differing tree
species diversity, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 60, 338–346, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Thiet, R. K., Frey, S. D., and Six, J.: Do growth yield efficiencies differ
between soil microbial communities differing in fungal:bacterial ratios?
Reality check and methodological issues, Soil Biol. Biochem., 38, 837–844,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.07.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.07.010</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G.,
Ráduly, B., Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G.,
Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert, S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.:
Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with
regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Tuomi, M., Laiho, R., Repo, A., and Liski, J.: Wood decomposition model for
boreal forests, Ecol. Model., 222, 709–718, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Verberne, E. L. J., Hassink, J., Willigen, P. D., Groot, J. J. R., and Veen,
J. A. V.: Modelling organic matter dynamics in different soils, Neth. J. Agr.
Sci., 38, 221–238, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Walela, C., Daniel, H., Wilson, B., Lockwood, P., Cowie, A., and Harden, S.:
The initial lignin : nitrogen ratio of litter from above and below ground
sources strongly and negatively influenced decay rates of slowly decomposing
litter carbon pools, Soil Biol. Biochem., 77, 268–275,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.013</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y. P., Law, R. M., and Pak, B.: A global model of carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorus cycles for the terrestrial biosphere, Biogeosciences, 7,
2261–2282, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-2261-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-7-2261-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4796?><ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</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.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K., and Todd-Brown, K.: Future
productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability,
Nat. Geosci., 8, 441–444, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Yang, X., Thornton, P. E., Ricciuto, D. M., and Post, W. M.: The role of
phosphorus dynamics in tropical forests – a modeling study using CLM-CNP,
Biogeosciences, 11, 1667–1681, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1667-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-11-1667-2014</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Zaehle, S., Medlyn, B. E., De Kauwe, M. G., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C.,
Hickler, T., Luo, Y., Wang, Y.-P., El-Masri, B., Thornton, P., Jain, A.,
Wang, S., Warlind, D., Weng, E., Parton, W., Iversen, C. M., Gallet-Budynek,
A., McCarthy, H., Finzi, A., Hanson, P. J., Prentice, I. C., Oren, R., and
Norby, R. J.: Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models
against observations from two temperate Free-Air <inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" 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> Enrichment
studies, New Phytol., 202, 803–822, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, C. F., Meng, F. R., Bhatti, J. S., Trofymow, J. A., and Arp, P. A.:
Modeling forest leaf-litter decomposition and N mineralization in litterbags,
placed across Canada: A 5-model comparison, Ecol. Model., 219, 342–360,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.014</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, J. and Elser, J. J.: Carbon:Nitrogen:Phosphorus Stoichiometry in
Fungi: A Meta-Analysis, Front. Microbiol., 8, 1281,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fmicb.2017.01281</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Modeling the effects of litter stoichiometry and soil mineral N availability on soil organic matter formation using CENTURY-CUE (v1.0)</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Microbial decomposition of plant litter is a crucial process for the land
carbon (C) cycle, as it directly controls the partitioning of litter C
between CO<sub>2</sub> released to the atmosphere versus the formation of new
soil organic matter (SOM). Land surface models used to study the C cycle
rarely considered flexibility in the decomposer C use efficiency
(CUE<sub>d</sub>) defined by the fraction of decomposed litter C that is
retained as SOM (as opposed to be respired). In this study, we adapted a
conceptual formulation of CUE<sub>d</sub> based on assumption that litter
decomposers optimally adjust their CUE<sub>d</sub> as a function of litter
substrate C to nitrogen (N) stoichiometry to maximize their growth rates.
This formulation was incorporated into the widely used
CENTURY soil biogeochemical
model and evaluated based on data from laboratory litter incubation
experiments. Results indicated that the CENTURY model with new
CUE<sub>d</sub> formulation was able to reproduce differences in respiration
rate of litter with contrasting C&thinsp;:&thinsp;N ratios and under different levels of
mineral N availability, whereas the default model with fixed CUE<sub>d</sub>
could not. Using the model with flexible CUE<sub>d</sub>, we also
illustrated that litter quality affected the long-term SOM formation. Litter
with a small C&thinsp;:&thinsp;N ratio tended to form a larger SOM pool than litter with
larger C&thinsp;:&thinsp;N ratios, as it could be more efficiently incorporated into SOM
by microorganisms. This study provided a simple but effective formulation to
quantify the effect of varying litter quality (N content) on SOM formation
across temporal scales. Optimality theory appears to be suitable to predict
complex processes of litter decomposition into soil C and to quantify how
plant residues and manure can be harnessed to improve soil C sequestration
for climate mitigation.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Allison, S. D.: A trait-based approach for modelling microbial litter
decomposition, Ecol. Lett., 15, 1058–1070,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01807.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01807.x</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D., and Bradford, M. A.: Soil-carbon response
to warming dependent on microbial physiology, Nat. Geosci., 3, 336–340,
<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>
Averill, C. and Waring, B.: Nitrogen limitation of decomposition and decay:
How can it occur?, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 1417–1427, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13980" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13980</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bahri, H., Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C., Dignac, M. F., Bardoux, G., Mariotti,
A.: Lignin degradation during a laboratory incubation followed by
<sup>13</sup>C isotope analysis, Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 1916–1922, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Barnes, P. W., Throop, H. L., Hewins, D. B., Abbene, M. L., and Archer, S.
R.: Soil coverage reduces photodegradation and promotes the development of
soil microbial films on dryland leaf litter, Ecosystems, 15, 311–321, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Berg, B. and Mcclaugherty, C.: Plant Litter. Decomposition, Humus Formation,
Carbon Sequestration, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bonan, G. B., Hartman, M. D., Parton, W. J., and Wieder, W. R.: Evaluating
litter decomposition in earth system models with long-term litterbag
experiments: an example using the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4),
Glob. Change Biol., 19, 957–974, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bozdogan, H.: Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The
general theory and its analytical extensions, Psychometrika, 52, 345–370,
1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Brovkin, V., van Bodegom, P. M., Kleinen, T., Wirth, C., Cornwell, W. K.,
Cornelissen, J. H. C., and Kattge, J.: Plant-driven variation in
decomposition rates improves projections of global litter stock distribution,
Biogeosciences, 9, 565–576, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-565-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-565-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Campbell, E. E. and Paustian, K.: Current developments in soil organic matter
modeling and the expansion of model applications: a review, Environ. Res.
Lett., 10, 123004, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Campbell, E. E., Parton, W. J., Soong, J. L., Paustian, K., Hobbs, N. T., and
Cotrufo, M. F.: Using litter chemistry controls on microbial processes to
partition litter carbon fluxes with the Litter Decomposition and Leaching
(LIDEL) model, Soil Biol. Biochem., 100, 160–174,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.007</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Cleveland, C. C. and Liptzin, D.: C&thinsp;:&thinsp;N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a
“Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?, Biogeochemistry, 85, 235–252,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., and Paul, E.: The
Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant
litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant
inputs form stable soil organic matter?, Glob. Change Biol., 19, 988–995,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12113</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix,
Michelle 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, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Devêvre, O. C. and Horwáth, W. R.: Decomposition of rice straw and
microbial carbon use efficiency under different soil temperatures and
moistures, Soil Biol. Biochem., 32, 1773–1785, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K.: Optimal use of the SCE-UA global
optimization method for calibrating watershed models, J. Hydrol., 158,
265–284, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, Q. Y., Gupta, V. K., and Sorooshian, S.: Shuffled complex evolution
approach for effective and efficient global minimization, J. Optimiz. Theory
App., 76, 501–521, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Finn, D., Page, K., Catton, K., Strounina, E., Kienzle, M., Robertson, F.,
Armstrong, R., and Dalal, R.: Effect of added nitrogen on plant litter
decomposition depends on initial soil carbon and nitrogen stoichiometry, Soil
Biol. Biochem., 91, 160–168, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.001</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Fog, K.: The effect of added nitrogen on the rate of decomposition of organic
matter, Biol. Rev., 63, 433–462, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Franklin, O., Hall, E. K., Kaiser, C., Battin, T. J., and Richter, A.:
Optimization of Biomass Composition Explains Microbial Growth-Stoichiometry
Relationships, Am. Nat., 177, 29–42, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/657684" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1086/657684</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Frey, S. D., Lee, J., Melillo, J. M., and Six, J.: The temperature response
of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate, Nat. Clim. Change,
3, 395–398, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1796" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1796</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Fujita, Y., Witte, J.-P. M., and van Bodegom, P. M.: Incorporating microbial
ecology concepts into global soil mineralization models to improve
predictions of carbon and nitrogen fluxes, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 28,
223–238, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
García-Palacios, P., McKie, B. G., Handa, I. T., Frainer, A.,
Hättenschwiler, S., and Jones, H.: The importance of litter traits and
decomposers for litter decomposition: a comparison of aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems within and across biomes, Funct. Ecol., 30, 819–829,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12589" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12589</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</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.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
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, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Gilmour, C. M., and Gilmour, J. T.: Assimilation of carbon by the soil
biomass, Plant Soil, 86, 101–112, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Goll, D. S., Brovkin, V., Parida, B. R., Reick, C. H., Kattge, J., Reich, P.
B., van Bodegom, P. M., and Niinemets, Ü.: Nutrient limitation reduces
land carbon uptake in simulations with a model of combined carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus cycling, Biogeosciences, 9, 3547–3569,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-3547-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-3547-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Goll, D. S., Vuichard, N., Maignan, F., Jornet-Puig, A., Sardans, J.,
Violette, A., Peng, S., Sun, Y., Kvakic, M., Guimberteau, M., Guenet, B.,
Zaehle, S., Penuelas, J., Janssens, I., and Ciais, P.: A representation of
the phosphorus cycle for ORCHIDEE (revision 4520), Geosci. Model Dev., 10,
3745–3770, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3745-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3745-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Grandy, A. S. and Neff, J. C.: Molecular C dynamics downstream: the
biochemical decomposition sequence and its impact on soil organic matter
structure and function, Sci. Total Environ., 404, 297–307, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Guenet, B., Neill, C., Bardoux, G., and Abbadie, L.: Is there a linear
relationship between priming effect intensity and the amount of organic
matter input?, Appl. Soil Ecol., 46, 436–442,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.09.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.09.006</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Guimberteau, M., Zhu, D., Maignan, F., Huang, Y., Yue, C.,
Dantec-Nédélec, S., Ottlé, C., Jornet-Puig, A., Bastos, A.,
Laurent, P., Goll, D., Bowring, S., Chang, J., Guenet, B., Tifafi, M., Peng,
S., Krinner, G., Ducharne, A., Wang, F., Wang, T., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Yin,
Z., Lauerwald, R., Joetzjer, E., Qiu, C., Kim, H., and Ciais, P.:
ORCHIDEE-MICT (v8.4.1), a land surface model for the high latitudes: model
description and validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 121–163,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-121-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Güsewell, S. and Verhoeven, J. T. A.: Litter N&thinsp;:&thinsp;P ratios indicate
whether N or P limits the decomposability of graminoid leaf litter, Plant
Soil, 287, 131–143, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, S., Jensen, H. E., Nielsen, N. E., and Svendsen, H.: Simulation of
nitrogen dynamics and biomass production in winter wheat using the Danish
simulation model DAISY, Fert. Res., 27, 245–259, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Harmon, M. E., Silver, W. L., Fasth, B., Chen, H. U. A., Burke, I. C.,
Parton, W. J., Hart, S. C., and Currie, W. S.: Long-term patterns of mass
loss during the decomposition of leaf and fine root litter: an intersite
comparison, Glob. Change Biol., 15, 1320–1338,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01837.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01837.x</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Hewins, D. B., Archer, S. R., Okin, G. S., McCulley R. L., and Throop, H. L.:
Soil-litter mixing accelerates decomposition in a Chihuahuan Desert
grassland, Ecosystems, 16, 183–195, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Hobbie, S. E.: Plant species effects on nutrient cycling: revisiting litter
feedbacks, Trends Ecol. Evol., 30, 357–363, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Hobbie, S. E. and Vitousek, P. M.: Nutrient limitation of decomposition in
Hawaiian forests, Ecology, 81, 1867–1877, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, Y., Guenet, B., Ciais, P., Janssens, I. A., Soong, J. L., Wang, Y.,
Goll, D., Blagodatskaya, E., and Huang, Y.: ORCHIMIC (v1.0), a
microbe-mediated model for soil organic matter decomposition, Geosci. Model
Dev., 11, 2111–2138, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2111-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2111-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Ingwersen, J., Poll, C., Streck, T., and Kandeler, E.: Micro-scale modelling
of carbon turnover driven by microbial succession at a biogeochemical
interface, Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 864–878,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.10.018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.10.018</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Janssens, I. A., Dieleman, W., Luyssaert, S., Subke, J. A., Reichstein, M.,
Ceulemans, R., Ciais, P., Dolman, A. J., Grace, J., Matteucci, G., Papale,
D., Piao, S. L., Schulze, E. D., Tang, J., and Law, B. E.: Reduction of
forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition, Nat. Geosci., 3,
315–322, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo844" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo844</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Kätterer, T. and Andrén, O.: The ICBM family of analytically solved
models of soil carbon, nitrogen and microbial biomass dynamics –
descriptions and application examples, Ecol. Model., 136, 191–207, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Kearns, M. and Ron, D.: Algorithmic stability and sanity-check bounds for
leave-one-out cross-validation, Neural Comput., 11, 1427–1453, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Knicker, H.: Soil organic N – An under-rated player for C sequestration in
soils?, Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, 1118–1129, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Ogée, J., Polcher,
J., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic
global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere
system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB1015, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003gb002199" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003gb002199</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Kucharik, C. J., Foley, J. A., Delire, C., Fisher, V. A., Coe, M. T.,
Lenters, J. D., Young-Molling, C., Ramankutty, N., Norman, J. M., and Gower,
S. T.: Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water
balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure, Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
14, 795–825, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001138" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999gb001138</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Kyaschenko, J., Clemmensen, K. E., Karltun, E., and Lindahl, B. D.:
Below-ground organic matter accumulation along a boreal forest fertility
gradient relates to guild interaction within fungal communities, Ecol. Lett.,
20, 1546–1555, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12862" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12862</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Lekkerkerk, L., Lundkvist, H., Ågren, G. I., Ekbohm, G., and Bosatta, E.:
Decomposition of heterogeneous substrates; An experimental investigation of a
hypothesis on substrate and microbial properties, Soil Biol. Biochem., 22,
161–167, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Liski, J., Palosuo, T., Peltoniemi, M., and Sievänen, R.: Carbon and
decomposition model Yasso for forest soils, Ecol. Model., 189, 168–182,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Y., Ahlström, A., Allison, S. D., Batjes, N. H., Brovkin, V.,
Carvalhais, N., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Davidson, E. A., and Finzi, A.:
Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system
models, Global 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.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S. and Porporato, A.: Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization:
Theory and models across scales, Soil Biol. Biochem., 41, 1355–1379,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Jackson, R. B., Trofymow, J. A., and Porporato, A.: The global
stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization, Science, 321, 684–686,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Trofymow, J. A., Jackson, R. B., and Porporato, A.:
Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in
decomposing litter, Ecol. Monogr., 80, 89–106, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Taylor, P., Richter, A., Porporato, A., and Agren, G. I.:
Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon-use efficiency
in soils, New Phytol., 196, 79–91, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04225.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04225.x</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Manzoni, S., Capek, P., Mooshammer, M., Lindahl, B. D., Richter, A., and
Santruckova, H.: Optimal metabolic regulation along resource stoichiometry
gradients, Ecol. Lett., 20, 1182–1191, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12815" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12815</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Metherell, A. K., Harding, L. A., Cole, C. V., and Parton, W. J.: CENTURY
Soil Organic Matter Model Environment Technical Documentation, Agroecosystem
Version 4.0, Great Plains System Research Unit, Technical Report No. 4.
USDA-ARS, Ft. Collins, USA, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Molina, J. A. E., Clapp, C. E., Shaffer, M. J., Chichester, F. W., and
Larson, W. E.: NCSOIL, A Model of Nitrogen and Carbon Transformations in
Soil: Description, Calibration, and Behavior, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 47,
85–91, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Moorhead, D. L. and Sinsabaugh, R. L.: A Theoretical Model of Litter Decay
and Microbial Interaction, Ecol. Monogr., 76, 151–174, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Mooshammer, M., Wanek, W., Hammerle, I., Fuchslueger, L., Hofhansl, F.,
Knoltsch, A., Schnecker, J., Takriti, M., Watzka, M., Wild, B., Keiblinger,
K. M., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., and Richter, A.: Adjustment of microbial
nitrogen use efficiency to carbon:nitrogen imbalances regulates soil nitrogen
cycling, Nat. Commun., 5, 3694, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4694" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4694</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Pagel, H., Ingwersen, J., Poll, C., Kandeler, E., and Streck, T.: Micro-scale
modeling of pesticide degradation coupled to carbon turnover in the
detritusphere: model description and sensitivity analysis, Biogeochemistry,
117, 185–204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9851-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9851-3</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Parton, W., Silver, W. L., Burke, I. C., Grassens, L., Harmon, M. E., Currie,
W. S., King, J. Y., Adair, E. C., Brandt, L. A., Hart, S. C., and Fasth, B.:
Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term
decomposition, Science, 315, 361–364, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134853" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134853</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B., and Cole, C. V.: Dynamics of C, N, P and S
in grassland soils: a model, Biogeochemistry, 5, 109–131, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Paul, E. A.: Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biogeochemistry, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, USA, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Prescott, C. E.: Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter
it to sequester more carbon in forest soils?, Biogeochemistry, 101, 133–149,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9439-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9439-0</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Recous, S., Robin, D., Darwis, D., and Mary, B.: Soil inorganic N
availability: Effect on maize residue decomposition, Soil Biol. Biochem., 27,
1529–1538, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Rubino, M., Dungait, J. A. J., Evershed, R. P., Bertolini, T., Angelis, P.
D., D'Onofrio, A., Lagomarsino, A., Lubritto, C., Merola, A., and Terrasi,
F.: Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter
mass loss: Evidences from a <sup>13</sup>C labelled-leaf litter experiment,
Soil Biol. Biochem., 42, 1009–1016, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Schimel, J. P. and Weintraub, M. N.: The implications of exoenzyme activity
on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model,
Soil Biol. Biochem., 35, 549–563, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Schmidt, M. W., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G.,
Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kogel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A.,
Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D. P., Weiner, S., and Trumbore, S. E.: 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.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., and Richter, A.: Carbon use
efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and
modelling, Ecol. Lett., 16, 930–939, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12113</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W.,
Kaplan, J. O., Levis, S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., and
Venevsky, S.: Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and
terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model, Glob.
Change Biol., 9, 161–185, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., and Batten, K. M.: Bacterial and Fungal
Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J., 70, 555–569, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Stewart, C. E., Moturi, P., Follett, R. F., and Halvorson, A. D.: Lignin
biochemistry and soil N determine crop residue decomposition and soil
priming, Biogeochemistry, 124, 335–351, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-015-0101-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-015-0101-8</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Talkner, U., Jansen, M., and Beese, F. O.: Soil phosphorus status and
turnover in central-European beech forest ecosystems with differing tree
species diversity, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 60, 338–346, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Thiet, R. K., Frey, S. D., and Six, J.: Do growth yield efficiencies differ
between soil microbial communities differing in fungal:bacterial ratios?
Reality check and methodological issues, Soil Biol. Biochem., 38, 837–844,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.07.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.07.010</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G.,
Ráduly, B., Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G.,
Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert, S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.:
Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with
regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Tuomi, M., Laiho, R., Repo, A., and Liski, J.: Wood decomposition model for
boreal forests, Ecol. Model., 222, 709–718, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Verberne, E. L. J., Hassink, J., Willigen, P. D., Groot, J. J. R., and Veen,
J. A. V.: Modelling organic matter dynamics in different soils, Neth. J. Agr.
Sci., 38, 221–238, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Walela, C., Daniel, H., Wilson, B., Lockwood, P., Cowie, A., and Harden, S.:
The initial lignin&thinsp;:&thinsp;nitrogen ratio of litter from above and below ground
sources strongly and negatively influenced decay rates of slowly decomposing
litter carbon pools, Soil Biol. Biochem., 77, 268–275,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.013</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y. P., Law, R. M., and Pak, B.: A global model of carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorus cycles for the terrestrial biosphere, Biogeosciences, 7,
2261–2282, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-2261-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-2261-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</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.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K., and Todd-Brown, K.: Future
productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability,
Nat. Geosci., 8, 441–444, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Yang, X., Thornton, P. E., Ricciuto, D. M., and Post, W. M.: The role of
phosphorus dynamics in tropical forests – a modeling study using CLM-CNP,
Biogeosciences, 11, 1667–1681, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1667-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1667-2014</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Zaehle, S., Medlyn, B. E., De Kauwe, M. G., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C.,
Hickler, T., Luo, Y., Wang, Y.-P., El-Masri, B., Thornton, P., Jain, A.,
Wang, S., Warlind, D., Weng, E., Parton, W., Iversen, C. M., Gallet-Budynek,
A., McCarthy, H., Finzi, A., Hanson, P. J., Prentice, I. C., Oren, R., and
Norby, R. J.: Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models
against observations from two temperate Free-Air CO<sub>2</sub> Enrichment
studies, New Phytol., 202, 803–822, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, C. F., Meng, F. R., Bhatti, J. S., Trofymow, J. A., and Arp, P. A.:
Modeling forest leaf-litter decomposition and N mineralization in litterbags,
placed across Canada: A 5-model comparison, Ecol. Model., 219, 342–360,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.014</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, J. and Elser, J. J.: Carbon:Nitrogen:Phosphorus Stoichiometry in
Fungi: A Meta-Analysis, Front. Microbiol., 8, 1281,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01281</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
