# Frequent Droughts Reduce Carbon Stabilisation in Organo‐Mineral Soils

**Authors:** Fabrizio Albanito, Sabine Reinsch, Mark Richards, Amanda M. Thomson, Bernard J. Cosby, Bridget A. Emmett, David A. Robinson

PMC · DOI: 10.1111/gcb.70657 · Global Change Biology · 2026-01-06

## TL;DR

Frequent droughts weaken soil's ability to store carbon by disrupting the balance between decomposition and stabilization, especially in deeper soil layers.

## Contribution

The study introduces new metrics to assess soil carbon dynamics under drought and reveals drought frequency as the dominant factor in soil carbon stability.

## Key findings

- Frequent droughts reduced microbial and humified soil carbon pools by up to 15% and 8%, respectively.
- Drought frequency disrupted the transfer of carbon from active to stable pools, reducing soil carbon storage efficiency.
- Stabilization efficiency dropped to 40%, showing reduced conversion of microbial carbon into stable forms.

## Abstract

Climate change is increasing drought frequency, threatening the stability of soil carbon sinks. While droughts are known to accelerate soil organic matter decomposition and enhance CO2 emissions, the long‐term effects of recurrent droughts on soil remain unclear. We addressed this pressing issue by modelling long‐term drought events in a temperate heathland on organo‐mineral soil using the ECOSSE biogeochemical model and developing new metrics to assess changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration and stabilisation. Across all scenarios, drought events decreased the size of microbial (BIO) and humified (HUM) SOC pools by up to 15% and 8% respectively. Short‐interval droughts weakened the BIO‐to‐HUM transfer, leading to incomplete recovery after rewetting, whereas prolonged droughts increased decomposition of stable pools at depth but allowed only partial re‐equilibration during recovery. These changes were mirrored by contrasting responses in the carbon use efficiencies of labile (CUEI) and stable (CUES) pools. During frequent droughts, CUEI remained relatively stable, while the contribution of CUES increased indicating a higher contribution of stable SOC pools under soil moisture stress. The carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE = CUEI/CUES) declined by up to 15% under prolonged droughts compared with more frequent drought‐rewetting cycles, signalling a progressive reduction in soil carbon sequestration. The stabilisation efficiency (SE = ΔHUM/ΔBIO) declined to about 40%, implying that recurrent droughts reduced the efficiency with which microbial carbon was stabilized into the HUM pool. Collectively, these metrics revealed a reversal in the CSE‐water relationship: CSE increased with soil water during drought but declined after rewetting, indicating a persistent post‐drought decoupling between decomposition and stabilisation processes. Recurrent droughts thus reshape SOC dynamics reducing CSE and altering the balance between decomposition and stabilisation with depth. Drought frequency rather than duration, emerges as the dominant control on long‐term soil carbon stability in organo‐mineral systems.

Climate change is increasing drought frequency, threatening the stability of soil carbon sinks. Using a biogeochemical soil model, we simulated carbon cycling in an organo‐mineral soil to understand how repeated drought and subsequent moisture recovery affect long‐term carbon storage. The results show that frequent droughts disrupt the balance between carbon decomposition and stabilisation, reducing the transfer of carbon from active to stable pools. As a result, less carbon remains locked in the soil after drought, weakening storage especially at depth. The study reveals that drought frequency ‐ rather than duration ‐ plays the dominant role in soil carbon stability, gradually reducing the ability of soils to act as carbon sinks.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** Drought (MESH:C536747)
- **Chemicals:** CO2 (MESH:D002245), Carbon (MESH:D002244), SOC (-)

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12771270/full.md

## Figures

5 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12771270/full.md

## References

65 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12771270/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12771270