English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. For decades, predominant soil biogeochemical models have used conceptual soil organic matter (SOM) pools and only simulated them to a shallow depthin soil. Efforts to overcome these limitations have prompted the development of the new generation SOM models, including MEMS 1.0, which representsmeasurable biophysical SOM fractions, over the entire root zone, and embodies recent understanding of the processes that govern SOM dynamics. Herewe present the result of continued development of the MEMS model, version 2.0. MEMS 2.0 is a full ecosystem model with modules simulating plantgrowth with above- and belowground inputs, soil water and temperature by layer, decomposition of plant inputs and SOM, and mineralization andimmobilization of nitrogen (N). The model simulates two commonly measured SOM pools – particulate and mineral-associated organic matter (POM andMAOM, respectively). We present results of calibration and validation of the model with several grassland sites in the US. MEMS 2.0 generallycaptured the soil carbon (C) stocks (R2 of 0.89 and 0.6 for calibration and validation, respectively) and their distributions between POM andMAOM throughout the entire soil profile. The simulated soil N matches measurements but with lower accuracy (R2 of 0.73 and 0.31 for calibrationand validation of total N in SOM, respectively) than for soil C. Simulated soil water and temperature were compared with measurements, and theaccuracy is comparable to the other commonly used models. The seasonal variation in gross primary production (GPP; R2 = 0.83), ecosystemrespiration (ER; R2 = 0.89), net ecosystem exchange (NEE; R2 = 0.67), and evapotranspiration (ET; R2 = 0.71) was wellcaptured by the model. We will further develop the model to represent forest and agricultural systems and improve it to incorporate newunderstanding of SOM decomposition.

Simulating measurable ecosystem carbon and nitrogen dynamics with the mechanistically defined MEMS 2.0 model