Limited effects of early snowmelt on plants, decomposers, and soil nutrients in Arctic tundra soils

• Published in: Ecology and Evolution
• Main Authors: Darrouzet‐Nardi, Anthony, Steltzer, Heidi, Sullivan, Patrick F., Segal, Aliza, Koltz, Amanda M., Livensperger, Carolyn, Schimel, Joshua P., Weintraub, Michael N.
• Other Authors: National Science Foundation
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2019
• Subjects: Climate change; Tundra
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4870; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fece3.4870; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.4870; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/ece3.4870; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002%2Fece3.4870

Abstract In addition to warming temperatures, Arctic ecosystems are responding to climate change with earlier snowmelt and soil thaw. Earlier snowmelt has been examined infrequently in field experiments, and we lack a comprehensive look at belowground responses of the soil biogeochemical system that includes plant roots, decomposers, and soil nutrients. We experimentally advanced the timing of snowmelt in factorial combination with an open‐top chamber warming treatment over a 3‐year period and evaluated the responses of decomposers and nutrient cycling processes. We tested two alternative hypotheses: (a) Early snowmelt and warming advance the timing of root growth and nutrient uptake, altering the timing of microbial and invertebrate activity and key nutrient cycling events; and (b) loss of insulating snow cover damages plants, leading to reductions in root growth and altered biological activity. During the 3 years of our study (2010–2012), we advanced snowmelt by 4, 15, and 10 days, respectively. Despite advancing aboveground plant phenology, particularly in the year with the warmest early‐season temperatures (2012), belowground effects were primarily seen only on the first sampling date of the season or restricted to particular years or soil type. Overall, consistent and substantial responses to early snowmelt were not observed, counter to both of our hypotheses. The data on soil physical conditions, as well interannual comparisons of our results, suggest that this limited response was because of the earlier date of snowmelt that did not coincide with substantially warmer air and soil temperatures as they might in response to a natural climate event. We conclude that the interaction of snowmelt timing with soil temperatures is important to how the ecosystem will respond, but that 1‐ to 2‐week changes in timing of snowmelt alone are not enough to drive season‐long changes in soil microbial and nutrient cycling processes.