Abstract
The rapid climatic and environmental changes observed in the Arctic and across the globe in general call for reliable model projections. In recent years our understanding of ongoing and future changes through ecosystem modelling has increased tremendously. Yet, most ecosystem models do not consider many of the feedback loops at play in natural ecosystems. Particularly those influenced by biota, beyond vegetation and to some extent microbes, are often neglected. As a first step towards a better integration of biotic influences into ecosystem models, we provide a broad overview of the various ways biota may influence feedback loops between the high-latitude biosphere and the atmosphere. We focus specifically on three key feedback loops between tundra and atmosphere (carbon dynamics, albedo and permafrost thaw) and the influences of three key ecosystem compartments (vegetation, decomposers and herbivores) on these. The influences of biota on ecosystem feedback loops are multifaceted and may appear patchy in both space and time. However, biota may still play important roles in modulating ecosystem feedback loops, and by including these dynamics into ecosystem models, magnitude, accuracy and credibility of model projections are likely to improve.
1 Introduction
Nowhere else is climate change more apparent than in the Arctic (IPCC, 2021). Because of the long-term and gradual increase in surface air temperatures, loss of snow cover, and permafrost thaw associated with arctic amplification concentrating heat at the poles (Previdi et al., 2021), the arctic biophysical system is now experiencing unprecedented change (; Post et al., 2019). In addition to the gradual changes in climate, the Arctic is also experiencing an increase in the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme or erratic events that are directly or indirectly related to weather and climate (; ; Landrum and Holland, 2020; van Beest et al., 2022). The combined impacts of gradual and erratic climate change on the structure and functioning of the biotic components in tundra ecosystems is suspected to have repercussions that extend far beyond the Arctic (), not least due to the vast amounts of carbon stored in the circumarctic permafrost region (Palmtag et al., 2022). Over the past few decades, observations and modeling studies have provided compelling evidence that the northernmost regions of the world are experiencing some of the most pronounced and rapid changes in climatic conditions, resulting in pervasive changes to the structure and functioning of the biotic components of the ecosystems. Such changes can in turn influence the magnitude of the feedback loops between the tundra ecosystem and the climate system (; Post et al., 2019) that may either amplify or diminish the warming trend. The changes observed in high-latitude ecosystems may therefore have global implications.
Tundra ecosystems are characterized by low productivity, low nutrient availability and low species diversity (), yet biotic interactions in the Arctic may still be rather complex (Schmidt et al., 2017). Exposed to the dramatic climatic changes in the northernmost parts of the world, the impacts on tundra ecosystems are numerous, ubiquitous and well-documented, and include changes in phenology (Parmesan, 2007; Roslin et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2023), demographic rates (; Iler et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2019) and shifts in distributional ranges (Gilg et al., 2012; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; van Beest et al., 2023). High-latitude organisms, however, are not only responding to the changing climatic conditions: their physical properties, life histories and behaviors are also influencing processes of importance to the interplay between the tundra ecosystem and the atmosphere. However, compared to other parameters influencing feedback loops, such as the general global warming and changes in precipitation patterns (; Rantanen et al., 2022), biotic influences are oftentimes patchier in both space and time. Yet, biotic interactions are still key determinants of how ecosystems respond to climate change (; Post et al., 2023).
In this paper, we highlight the importance of biotic processes in amplifying or diminishing feedback loops between tundra ecosystems and the climate system. In doing so, we hope to guide future climate and ecosystem modelling studies in developing more accurate predictions of potential future trajectories of arctic ecosystems, which are currently hampered by our inability to adequately integrate the bidirectional and highly dynamic interplay between biotic and abiotic ecosystem components (Ripple et al., 2023). We synthesize current knowledge on key feedback loops between tundra ecosystems and the climate system operating in high-latitude regions, focusing on how these may be influenced by biotic processes. Specifically, we target three key feedback loops (albedo, carbon dynamics and permafrost thaw), each representing critical components of the high-latitude system and to its overall dynamics of change. In the following sections, we explore how biotic processes may influence each of these key feedback loops, directly as well as indirectly. By providing a broad overview of these processes, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the key roles biotic interactions play in shaping tundra ecosystem responses to climatic changes, with particular focus on key processes that feed back to the global climate system.
2 Biotic processes relevant to feedback loops
The interplay between biota and albedo, carbon dynamics, and permafrost thaw in arctic ecosystems has profound implications for the global climate system. In the Arctic, surface reflectivity (i.e., albedo) is particularly important for this dynamic relationship, as diminishing ice and snow cover, as well as shifts in vegetation types towards taller, darker vegetation, contribute to increased absorption of solar radiation and increasing soil temperature, which in turn accelerates permafrost thaw. As the permafrost thaws, organic carbon sequestered over thousands of years becomes accessible to soil organisms. Organic matter decomposition in cold environments responds exponentially to increasing temperatures, hence driving a very effective conversion of soil organic matter to carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4), depending on the oxygen availability to the microbes, which is ultimately released to the atmosphere (; Maes et al., 2024). This creates a positive feedback loop that further amplifies warming. Simultaneously, surface reflectance is influenced by vegetation dynamics such as shifts in vegetation composition and plant phenology, which affects the energy balance directly (albedo, exchange of latent and sensible heat) and indirectly through the exchange of carbon across the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Hence, it is evident that biotic influences on ecosystem feedback loops are multifaceted and interlinked and that biotic influences may cascade through the ecosystem. Figure 1 summarizes the main interactions between the three main biotic compartments of the tundra ecosystem (decomposers, vegetation and herbivores) and their influences on the three key feedback loops examined in this paper.
FIGURE 1
3 Effects of vegetation on climate feedback loops
Arctic vegetation is characterized by low diversity, low stature and low productivity, owing to the generally harsh climatic conditions, short growing seasons and low availability of nutrients (). Still, arctic vegetation plays a key role in the sequestration of carbon and forms a key interface between the ecosystem and the climate system (; Pearson et al., 2013), acting both as a carbon sink (photosynthesis) and as a carbon source (respiration).
3.1 Vegetation and carbon dynamics
During the growing season, the vegetation absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide and converts it into organic carbon through the dominance of photosynthesis over respiratory losses (Figure 1: process 1). Arctic vegetation encompasses a diverse array of taxa, including mosses, lichens, shrubs, and graminoids, each exhibiting distinct carbon sequestration capacities and mechanisms (Huemmrich et al., 2013). Mosses and lichens, often forming a substantial part of arctic vegetation communities, both in terms of species richness and cover, have relatively low growth rates and biomass compared to vascular plants, such as shrubs and graminoids. As a result, they typically sequester less carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis during the main growing season. However, their ability to photosynthesize even at low ambient temperatures () and ability to supply themselves with nitrogen directly from the atmosphere (Rousk et al., 2017), suggests that they contribute significantly to the overall carbon balance in the Arctic (Street et al., 2012). Conversely, with their higher growth rates and biomass compared to mosses and lichens (Mekonnen et al., 2021), shrubs have a higher capacity to take-up carbon during the growing season (). Because of the changing climatic conditions and the concomitant environmental changes (), shrubs are currently expanding across the Arctic (Myers-Smith et al., 2011), particularly in the low arctic regions () and at the boundary between the low and high Arctic (Myers-Smith et al., 2015), where permafrost thaw is most extensive (IPCC, 2021). The expansion of shrubs is oftentimes at the expense of lichens and mosses as well as bare ground (; ). This may affect the tundra carbon balance by enhancing ecosystem carbon uptake and altering ecosystem respiration (Figure 1: process 1), but also through complex feedback mechanisms involving snowpack dynamics and root-microbe interactions accelerating permafrost degradation (Mekonnen et al., 2021; Parker et al., 2021) (Figure 1: process 3). Overall, vegetation carbon stock has increased with global warming, and is predicted to increase further over the coming decades as warming continues. The increase, sometimes referred to as arctic greening, is however by no means homogeneous in space and time. In fact, significant portions of the Arctic have seen a browning trend (i.e., decrease in productivity) over the last 2 decades (Myers-Smith et al., 2020).
Vegetation change can also fundamentally reshape soil food webs (Figure 1: process 4). As the gatekeeper of carbon entering the system, vegetation composition determines the amount and composition of plant-derived carbon inputs, both through litter and root-exudates (). As dead plant material constitutes the major component of the energy-base of the decomposer community, changes in plant litter availability and quality alter soil microbial community composition and decomposition rates (; ; McLaren et al., 2017; Saunders et al., 2023) (Figure 1: process 4). For example, shrub-expansion can increase carbon flows through the decomposer food web to higher trophic levels. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘browning’ of the soil food web (Manlick et al., 2024), and is partly a consequence of the chemical composition and amounts of litter entering the soil. The mere amount of litter is important for the decomposer community composition and energy flows (). An often-overlooked pathway of plant-soil carbon transfer is root exudation, although it can constitute up to half of the soil respiration in arctic ecosystems during the growing season (Parker et al., 2021), and has been estimated to amplify the soil carbon respiration by 12% from permafrost-affected ecosystems (Keuper et al., 2020). While similar dramatic losses of soil carbon have been found as a response to fertilizer-addition (Mack et al., 2004), arctic ecosystems also possess compensatory mechanisms, and over long timespans the carbon lost in one pool may be gained in others. For instance, a study from the Alaskan tundra showed warming resulted in a restructuring of carbon from the upper soil horizon towards the mineral horizon underneath, resulting in no net loss in soil carbon (Sistla et al., 2013). Seeing these two studies together (Sistla et al., 2013; Mack et al., 2004), highlights the importance of accounting for carbon dynamics below the topsoil horizon to establish reliable long-term ecosystem carbon balances to validate models. Further, they highlight the caution needed when making general inferences about a process with multiple interacting knock-on effects, such as global warming, to its single components, e.g., increased nutrient availability (Mack et al., 2004). While studying the pathways separately is important for our mechanistic understanding, Sistla et al. (2013) clearly show that by doing so, we risk missing some important compensatory long-term feedbacks.
3.2 Vegetation and surface albedo
Vegetation change affects the surface energy budget of arctic landscapes through changing surface reflectance because of vegetation penetrating the snow surface and altered snow characteristics (Loranty and Goetz, 2012) (Figure 1: process 2). As compared to snow, vegetation has a much lower albedo, and tall shrubs protruding the snowpack increase the absorption of solar radiation (Sturm et al., 2005). During the snow-free season, surface albedo depends on the community composition of the vegetation (Riedel et al., 2005), the relative abundance of different vegetation types (Oehri et al., 2022) and their phenology (Williamson et al., 2016). However, the contribution of vegetation changes to summer albedo, and ultimately to arctic summer warming, is limited compared to changes in duration of the snow-covered period ().
Other biologically induced changes in albedo have received less attention, yet they may still have profound effects on the energy balance. For instance, the presence of pigmented algae on ice and snow reduces the albedo markedly and contributes to enhanced melting rates (Hotaling et al., 2021).
3.3 Vegetation and permafrost thaw
Changes in vegetation structure and composition can affect permafrost thaw (Figure 1: process 3) through their influence on surface thermal regimes via shading in summer (Schuuring et al., 2024) and through snow accumulation in winter (Heijmans et al., 2022). For example, tall shrubs tend to accumulate more snow (Sturm et al., 2001), which in turn alters the temperature regime in the soil (Zhang, 2005) and snow depletion patterns, thereby altering permafrost thaw but also plant phenology (Wilcox et al., 2019). Thawing permafrost in itself can influence tundra vegetation change, with gradual permafrost thaw promoting plant growth through increased soil nutrient availability (Keuper et al., 2012). The development of thermokarsts creates landscape deformations and alters ground surface conditions, like soil temperature and moisture or depth of the active layer, promoting shrub growth (Mekonnen et al., 2021). However, in some cases abrupt permafrost thaw may lead to local plant mortality due to increased draining (Osterkamp et al., 2009).
4 Effects of decomposers on climate feedback loops
The main impacts of the decomposer community on climate feedback loops are on the carbon flux (Figure 1: process 6) and to some extent the permafrost thaw feedback loop (Figure 1: process 7), whereas direct impacts on albedo are absent.
4.1 Decomposers and carbon dynamics
The Arctic holds vast amounts of carbon (Hugelius et al., 2014), but also nutrients such as nitrogen (Palmtag et al., 2022), locked in permafrost. During the growing season the thaw of the uppermost parts of the soil, the active layer, allows for biological processes to unfold, including the mineralization of organic matter by decomposers with resulting respiratory carbon dioxide release to the atmosphere. These processes will only be amplified as warming progresses (Maes et al., 2024). As described above, shrubification may fuel the decomposition of old carbon accumulated over millennia by increased root growth expanding the root zone and associated rhizosphere processes into soil layers that were previously free of or poor in active roots. This boost of the rhizosphere microbes can both drive a reduction in soil carbon (Keuper et al., 2020) or restructuring of soil carbon with no net loss (Sistla et al., 2013), depending on the context. Microbes are also essential for the overall nitrogen cycle through nitrogen fixation (Rousk et al., 2018), as well as nitrification and denitrification processes (; Wang et al., 2020). Thawing permafrost can also increase the water saturation of soils over varying spatiotemporal scales, which can inhibit immediate mineralization of organic matter, but drive an increase in methane emissions (Rößger et al., 2022). Thus overall, nutrient and water availability and their spatiotemporal distributions are key parameters for predicting the land-atmosphere exchange of greenhouse gases as ecosystems continue to warm (See et al., 2024). This results in a feedback of accelerated decomposition of organic matter and release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere ().
Most of the organic matter assimilated by decomposers is respired back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide relatively fast (Figure 1: process 6). In cold systems, typically only a small fraction of the assimilated carbon is turned into microbial biomass (Hicks et al., 2022). Nonetheless, over long periods over time, this seemingly small fraction is an important source of carbon ending up in association with mineral particles. Mineral-associated organic carbon covers carbon that is chemically protected against decomposers due to adsorption to secondary minerals, e.g., iron-oxides and clay, and physically protected in soil aggregates leading to effective long-term carbon preservation. As chemical weathering rates are slow in cold regions (), concentrations of secondary minerals, such as clay and iron-oxides, are typically low. Further, the lack of soil engineering meso- and macrofauna, such as earthworms, across large parts of the Arctic () leads to limited formation of protective aggregates (; ). Consequently, arctic soils are dominated by particulate organic matter relatively vulnerable to perturbations and changing abiotic conditions (). Thus, the observed warming-induced increase in arctic ecosystem respiration (Maes et al., 2024) and soil respiration () is attributed to the combination of improved kinetics under warming and increased availability of highly decomposable carbon in thawing permafrost (Trumbore, 2009). Functional limitations of the decomposer community can occur when old organic compounds ‘exotic’ to the present community thaw from the permafrost, yet, the community usually adjusts relatively fast (Monteux et al., 2020). Hence, thawed permafrost carbon is generally quite bioavailable and hence vulnerable to decomposition (; Kuhry et al., 2020).
4.2 Decomposers and permafrost thaw
Decomposer animals and microbes in soils obtain energy by breaking down dead organic matter from, e.g., plant litter (Figure 1: process 4) or animal excreta and carcasses (Figure 1: process 12). Gradually, organic material is broken down into simple organic compounds (e.g., simple sugars, amino acids, etc.) or all the way to inorganic minerals (mineralization). This releases important plant nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, to the soil solution, where it is available for plant uptake via roots and/or their symbiotic microbes (Figure 1: process 5). However, the activity of soil microbes produce heat, which in itself may accelerate permafrost degradation further (Hollesen et al., 2015) (Figure 1: process 7), and may even be sufficient to sustain the decomposition process during periods of low ambient temperatures (Khvorostyanov et al., 2008).
5 Effects of herbivores on climate feedback loops
How interactions between animals, plants and soils shape ecosystem ecology, biogeochemical processes and climate feedback loops have long been a subject of interest and dispute. Generally, animals affect elemental cycling via two direct and one indirect pathway: directly through physical disturbance (e.g., trampling, Tuomi et al., 2021), and deposition of waste products like dung and urine (Van Der Wal et al., 2004), and indirectly by restructuring the vegetation community (e.g., by selective feeding, Post et al., 2023; Post et al., 2022). Herbivores can counteract climate-induced changes in the Arctic, such as the release of nutrients (Petit Bon et al., 2023), changes to plant community composition (Post and Pedersen, 2008), and the expansion of woody species and the advancement of the tree line (; Olofsson et al., 2009; Speed et al., 2010), leading to complex interactions. The indirect effects of herbivores on climate feedback loops through vegetation are well established, for example, the climate-effects of reducing shrub expansion into the tundra (reviewed in Olofsson and Post, 2018), but less attention has been given to the direct pathways.
Herbivores depend on plants as a resource (Figure 1: process 8), and one of the main mechanisms through which herbivores influence climate feedback loops is through the removal or damage of plant material while foraging (Tanentzap and Coomes, 2012). Plant consumption not only impacts the plants themselves but also influences plant traits, such as height, cover, biomass and the composition of plant communities (Figure 1: process 9), which in turn affects the carbon dynamics. By selective foraging and by altering the competitive interactions between plant species, herbivores influence the species composition of plant communities. This is for instance seen as a reduction in the abundance of the most palatable plants (Olofsson et al., 2001), or reduced shrub dominance increasing the plant diversity (Post et al., 2023). Nonetheless, in heavily grazed areas, grazing tends to reduce plant species richness, shifting towards a graminoid-dominated vegetation (Ylänne et al., 2018). Hence, tundra ecosystems appear to follow the general predictions of the intermediate grazing hypothesis predicting the highest plant diversities at intermediate grazing pressure. Yet, a recent meta-analysis suggests that a more climate-specific relationship might better catch differences in the grazing-diversity relationship between dry (decreasing) and wet (hump-shaped) areas (). Further, the effects of herbivores on plant communities are not only determined by the grazing intensity but is highly dependent on the functional traits of the herbivore community (; Lundgren et al., 2024).
Herbivores not only impact the organisms they consume, but they also move around biomass, nutrients, seeds and more (Figure 1: process 12). For instance, when herbivores forage in one area and urinate and defecate in another area, nutrients are redistributed around the landscape. In the nutrient-limited Arctic, such translocation of nutrients can be considerable (Mosbacher et al., 2016) and can, at least at the local scale, impact vegetation composition markedly (Van Der Wal et al., 2004). During the process of decomposing the feces, nutrients become available to both soil microbes and plants () (Figure 1: process 12). Nutrients in urine on the other hand are directly accessible to both the soil microbes () and the plants () (Figure 1: process 12). Depending on the size and ecology of the animal, nutrients may be relocated only locally or across large distances. For example, small animals like lemmings, only move short distances and utilize latrine sites (Klein and Bay, 1991), which creates very localized hotspots of nutrients (Roy et al., 2022). Ultimately, when an herbivore dies, the parts of the carcass that are not consumed by predators or scavengers (Johnson-Bice et al., 2023; Schmidt et al., 2022) are decomposed (Figure 1: process 12). Locally, this results in a substantial release of nutrients (). The impact of larger carcasses may last for several years and may increase the nutrient levels in the soil (Steger, 2023), which in the nutrient-poor arctic tundra leads to increased vegetation surrounding the carcass () and to changes in the community composition of the vegetation (Steger, 2023). Calving also releases nutrients into the environment and has recently been suggested as an important feedback mechanism for the creation of fertile, revisited calving grounds for reindeer (). Nutrient-translocation effects, however, are not limited to herbivores. For instance, the contribution of excreta and prey remains turns Arctic fox den complexes into green islands on the tundra (Johnson-Bice et al., 2023), and marine birds nesting in colonies on land bring in large amounts of “new” nutrients to the terrestrial ecosystem (Otero et al., 2018). The impacts of nutrient additions cascade through the terrestrial food web (González-Bergonzoni et al., 2017), affecting other biotic components (Figure 1: process 12), ultimately influencing climate feedback loops.
Most of our knowledge on the impacts of herbivory in tundra ecosystems refers to vertebrate herbivores, whilst invertebrate herbivory has received far less attention (; Soininen et al., 2021). Invertebrate herbivory at non-outbreak densities, i.e., background herbivory, is widespread across the tundra biome (; Rheubottom et al., 2019), yet removes only a small proportion of leaf biomass (Kozlov et al., 2015) and its impact on carbon cycling is minor (Kristensen et al., 2020a). However, during population outbreaks invertebrate herbivores can significantly accelerate soil nutrient and carbon cycling resulting in substantial decreases in plant productivity (Kristensen et al., 2020b; Lund et al., 2017). The same is true for, e.g., cyclic populations of small mammals (Roy et al., 2022). Another important aspect to consider regarding the impacts of herbivores on climate feedbacks is that many animals move around and undertake long-distance migrations, carrying along the processes by which they influence the environment (Lundberg and Moberg, 2003; Schmitz et al., 2018). We therefore need a better characterization of the spatial and temporal variability of herbivore impacts to fully understand the changing functional roles of herbivores in arctic ecosystems (Koltz et al., 2022).
5.1 Herbivores and carbon dynamics
The effects of herbivores on vegetation can be substantial (; Koltz et al., 2022; Vaisanen et al., 2014) (Figure 1: process 9), ultimately affecting carbon dynamics within the ecosystem through changing carbon stocks and greenhouse gas exchange (; ; Min et al., 2021; Petit Bon et al., 2023) (Figure 1: process 1). However, in addition to the effects mediated by their impacts on other biotic components, herbivores have a direct impact on carbon fluxes through the methane they produce as part of their digestive processes (). Ruminants, such as reindeer and musk, in particular produce large amounts of methane, thereby releasing carbon directly back to the atmosphere (Figure 1: process 13). In addition, arctic ruminants excrete methane-producing microbes in their feces (; ; ), which can increase methane production in the soil () (Figure 1: process 5).
5.2 Herbivores and surface albedo
Through their impacts on vegetation, herbivores can also contribute to changes in surface albedo (Figure 1: process 10). For example, grazing by reindeer can reduce shrub height and abundance, which increases albedo during the summer (Te Beest et al., 2016). Shorter and sparser vegetation in heavily grazed areas results in delayed snowmelt and increased surface albedo during the snowmelt season () (Figure 1: process 2). Higher albedo reduces net energy absorption and the resulting latent and sensible heat fluxes, contributing to a cooling effect. However, herbivore impacts on albedo are mainly detected in areas with high herbivore densities where strong shifts in vegetation from shrub tundra to graminoid tundra have taken place (Te Beest et al., 2016). Heavy grazing by lemmings (Lara et al., 2017) and intense grubbing by geese (Peterson et al., 2013) can lead to the destruction of vegetation cover, exposing bare ground and resulting in lower albedo (Figure 1: process 2) and increased soil temperatures feeding back to enhanced decomposition and permafrost thaw rates.
5.3 Herbivores and permafrost thaw
Herbivores can indirectly influence climate feedback loops in tundra ecosystems through permafrost thaw (Figure 1: process 11). In the snow-covered period, animals may crater through the snowpack to access the vegetation underneath (; Schaefer and Messier, 1995), thereby reducing snow cover and depth whilst increasing its density (). This reduces the insulative capacity of snow, thereby lowering soil temperatures during the arctic winter (Rixen et al., 2022). Indeed, evidence from Pleistocene Park in Siberia suggests that high densities of herbivores reduce permafrost thaw, by reducing snow depth and keeping soil temperatures low (; Zimov, 2005). During the snow-free season, herbivore-induced changes in plant structure and community composition may also alter the temperature regime in the soil, with direct effects on permafrost thaw (Figure 1: process 3). Most obviously due to the shading-effects of woody vegetation during summers (Kropp et al., 2021), but herbivores can also significantly reduce the depth of the moss layer through trampling (Mosbacher et al., 2019). Both have implications for the temperatures in the soil and microbial activity (Gornall et al., 2007). Trampling can also compact soils, thereby altering the moisture regime in the soil (Tuomi et al., 2021). This in turn may reduce soil respiration and the release of carbon from the soil (Figure 1: process 6). Trampling and digging by animals may in some cases be (locally) pronounced, resulting in the destruction of the vegetation and exposure of bare ground, which in turn may influence several feedback loops. Hence, while animal trampling and digging alone may not directly cause permafrost thaw, they can exacerbate existing environmental factors that lead to thawing soils (Hall and Lamont, 2003).
6 Discussion and concluding remarks
Given the importance of biotic interactions in shaping ecosystem processes and responses (; ; Koltz et al., 2022) and the multifaceted ways by which biota influence ecosystem feedback loops with the climate (this study), accurate predictions of the future trajectories of arctic ecosystems are hampered by our ability to adequately integrate the two-way interplay between biotic and abiotic components into climate and ecosystem models. Over the past decades, significant progress has indeed been made in climate and ecosystem modelling (see, e.g., ; ). Vegetation and microbial communities have long been recognized as an important bridge between the ecosystem and the climate and thus important components in climate and ecosystem models, but other biotic influences on key feedback loops are rarely incorporated into the models (but see Rizzuto et al., 2024). Many of the biotic influences examined in this study may indeed appear patchy in both space and time, yet their role in modulating feedback loops between the tundra ecosystems and the atmosphere can be important, particularly at long timescales. Indeed, the importance of zoogeochemical processes is increasingly documented and recognized (Schmitz et al., 2018), and natural biogeochemical processes are estimated to remove as much as half of anthropogenic carbon emissions across terrestrial and marine ecosystems globally (Schmitz et al., 2023). Inclusion of biotic influences in ecosystem models may therefore improve the accuracy of ecosystem-climate models.
Many of the biotic drivers and processes influencing feedback loops highlighted here can operate on time scales ranging from short (e.g., months or years) to very long (e.g., millennia) and on spatial scales ranging from fine (e.g., km2) to very large (e.g., continental) (Ripple et al., 2024). As an analogue, arctic climate change generates disturbances that can manifest themselves as ‘press driver’ (i.e., disturbances or stressors that operate over large spatial scales and remain in place for a long time, or slowly increase in pressure) and those that act as ‘pulse driver’ (i.e., sudden and short events that often operate on local spatial scales, though their effects may be long lasting). A press driver can be described as extensive, pervasive, or subtle (e.g., rising mean temperature) and a pulse driver as infrequent, sudden event (rain-on-snow or insect outbreaks) (Ratajczak et al., 2017). The impacts and consequences of large-scale press drivers have historically received most scientific focus, yet the accelerating stress levels associated with increasing frequencies of extreme events in the Arctic may suggest that conventional modelling approaches based on incremental changes in a single long-term stress provide poor estimates of the impact of climate on ecosystems. In developing and evaluating climate and ecosystem models of real-world systems, it is imperative to capture complex feedback networks and feedback loops, as well as the effects of multiple drivers of change operating on different spatiotemporal scales. In fact, a multi-scale integration of press and pulse drivers in feedback network analyses can reveal novel insights into antagonistic or synergistic relationships but also provide more realistic trajectories on potential ecosystem tipping points and/or collapse (Willcock et al., 2023).
As a first step towards a better integration into ecosystem models, we have provided here a broad overview of the many ways in which biota may influence key feedback loops between the ecosystem and the climate system. As a necessary next step, we propose to conduct a thorough meta-analysis on biotic influences on feedback loops in high-latitude ecosystems, focusing specifically on the magnitude and direction of the impact. Understanding the intricate interplay between biota and feedback loops between the tundra and the atmosphere is crucial for understanding and predicting the consequences of climate change in the Arctic and beyond.
Statements
Author contributions
NS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. IB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. JK: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. EL-B: Writing–review and editing. FB: Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was financially supported by the Danish Energy Agency for the joint AMAP/CAFF initiative (grant no. TAS 4005-520975) and by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency for supporting CBMP (grant no. MST 2022–86635). This work is a contribution to IB’s NordForsk project NordBorN (grant no. 164079), which also includes contributions from NS and EL-B. JAK was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation (CARBONZOO, grant no. CF23_0641). EL-B considers this study a contribution to GreenFeedBack (Greenhouse gas fluxes and earth system feedbacks) funded by the European Union’s HORIZON research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101056921.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Arctic Council Working Groups AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program) and CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna) as well as Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring for their continued efforts to unravel high latitude ecosystem dynamics.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AdamczykM.Perez-MonC.GunzS.FreyB. (2020). Strong shifts in microbial community structure are associated with increased litter input rather than temperature in High Arctic soils. Soil Biol. biochem.151, 108054. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108054
2
AggerbeckM. R.NielsenT. K.MosbacherJ. B.SchmidtN. M.HansenL. H. (2022). Muskoxen homogenise soil microbial communities and affect the abundance of methanogens and methanotrophs. Sci. Total Environ.827, 153877. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153877
3
AltshulerI.HamelJ.TurneyS.MagnusonE.LévesqueR.GreerC. W.et al (2019). Species interactions and distinct microbial communities in high Arctic permafrost affected cryosols are associated with the CH4 and CO2 gas fluxes. Environ. Microbiol.21, 3711–3727. 10.1111/1462-2920.14715
4
Andersen-RanbergE. U.BarnesC. J.RasmussenL.Salgado-FloresA.GrøndahlC.MosbacherJ. B.et al (2018). A comparative study on the faecal bacterial community and potential zoonotic bacteria of muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in northeast Greenland, northwest Greenland and Norway. Microorganisms6, 76. 10.3390/microorganisms6030076
5
Andreu-HaylesL.GagliotiB. V.BernerL. T.LevesqueM.AnchukaitisK. J.GoetzS. J.et al (2020). A narrow window of summer temperatures associated with shrub growth in Arctic Alaska. Environ. Res. Lett.15, 105012. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab897f
6
AngstG.MuellerK. E.CastellanoM. J.VogelC.WiesmeierM.MuellerC. W. (2023). Unlocking complex soil systems as carbon sinks: multi-pool management as the key. Nat. Commun.14, 2967. 10.1038/s41467-023-38700-5
7
AngstG.PotapovA.JolyF.-X.AngstŠ.FrouzJ.GanaultP.et al (2024). Conceptualizing soil fauna effects on labile and stabilized soil organic matter. Nat. Commun.15, 5005. 10.1038/s41467-024-49240-x
8
Barbero-PalaciosL.BarrioI. C.García CriadoM.KaterI.Petit BonM.KolariT. H. M.et al (2024). Herbivore diversity effects on Arctic tundra ecosystems: a systematic review. Environ. Evid.13, 6. 10.1186/s13750-024-00330-9
9
BarrioI. C.LindénE.Te BeestM.OlofssonJ.RochaA.SoininenE. M.et al (2017). Background invertebrate herbivory on dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa-nana complex) increases with temperature and precipitation across the tundra biome. Polar Biol.40, 2265–2278. 10.1007/s00300-017-2139-7
10
BartákM. (2014). Lichen photosynthesis. Scaling from the cellular to the organism level. Netherlands: Springer, 379–400.
11
BarthelemyH.NobelL. A.StarkS.VäisänenM.OlofssonJ.MichelsenA. (2024). Short- and long-term plant and microbial uptake of 15N-labelled urea in a mesic tundra heath, West Greenland. Polar Biol.47, 1–15. 10.1007/s00300-023-03209-6
12
BarthelemyH.StarkS.MichelsenA.OlofssonJ. (2018). Urine is an important nitrogen source for plants irrespective of vegetation composition in an Arctic tundra: insights from a 15N-enriched urea tracer experiment. J. Ecol.106, 367–378. 10.1111/1365-2745.12820
13
BeardK. H.KelseyK. C.ChoiR. T.WelkerJ. M.LefflerA. J. (2023). Goose feces effects on subarctic soil nitrogen availability and greenhouse gas fluxes. Ecosystems26, 187–200. 10.1007/s10021-022-00752-x
14
BeerC.ZimovN.OlofssonJ.PoradaP.ZimovS. (2020). Protection of permafrost soils from thawing by increasing herbivore density. Sci. Rep.10, 4170. 10.1038/s41598-020-60938-y
15
BeumerL. T.VarpeØ.HansenB. B. (2017). Cratering behaviour and faecal C:N ratio in relation to seasonal snowpack characteristics in a High-Arctic ungulate. Polar Res.36, 1286121. 10.1080/17518369.2017.1286121
16
BintanjaR.AndryO. (2017). Towards a rain-dominated Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change7, 263–267. 10.1038/nclimate3240
17
BloisJ. L.ZarnetskeP. L.FitzpatrickM. C.FinneganS. (2013). Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions. Science341, 499–504. 10.1126/science.1237184
18
Blume-WerryG.KrabE. J.OlofssonJ.SundqvistM. K.VäisänenM.KlaminderJ. (2020). Invasive earthworms unlock arctic plant nitrogen limitation. Nat. Commun.11, 1766. 10.1038/s41467-020-15568-3
19
BoxJ. E.ColganW. T.ChristensenT. R.SchmidtN. M.LundM.ParmentierF. J.et al (2019). Key indicators of Arctic climate change: 1971-2017. Environ. Res. Lett.14, 045010. 10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b
20
BrantleyS. L.ShaughnessyA.LebedevaM. I.BalashovV. N. (2023). How temperature-dependent silicate weathering acts as Earth’s geological thermostat. Science379, 382–389. 10.1126/science.add2922
21
CahoonS. M. P.SullivanP. F.PostE.WelkerJ. M. (2012). Large herbivores limit CO2 uptake and suppress carbon cycle responses to warming in West Greenland. Glob. Change Biol.18, 469–479. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02528.x
22
CallaghanT. V.BjörnL. O.ChernovY.ChapinT.ChristensenT. R.HuntleyB.et al (2004). Effects on the structure of arctic ecosystems in the short-and long-term perspectives. Ambio33, 436–447. 10.1579/0044-7447-33.7.436
23
CallaghanT. V.MatveyevaN.ChernovY.SchmidtN. M.BrookerR.JohanssonM. (2013) “Arctic terrestrial ecosystems,” in Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Volume 1, Second ed. Waltham, MA: Academic Press, 227–244.
24
ChapinF. S.SturmM.SerrezeM. C.McFaddenJ. P.KeyJ. R.LloydA. H.et al (2005). Role of land-surface changes in arctic summer warming. Science310, 657–660. 10.1126/science.1117368
25
ChristensenT. R.LundM.SkovK.AbermannJ.López-BlancoE.SchellerJ.et al (2021). Multiple ecosystem effects of extreme weather events in the arctic. Ecosystems24, 122–136. 10.1007/s10021-020-00507-6
26
ChristieK. S.BryantJ. P.GoughL.RavolainenV. T.RuessR. W.TapeK. D. (2015). The role of vertebrate herbivores in regulating shrub expansion in the arctic: a synthesis. Bioscience65, biv137–1133. 10.1093/biosci/biv137
27
ClaussM.DittmannM.-T.VendlC.HagenK. B.FreiS.OrtmannS.et al (2020). Review: comparative methane production in mammalian herbivores. Animal14, s113–s123. 10.1017/S1751731119003161
28
ClevelandC. C.ReedS. C.KellerA. B.NemergutD. R.O’NeillS. P.OstertagR.et al (2014). Litter quality versus soil microbial community controls over decomposition: a quantitative analysis. Oecologia174, 283–294. 10.1007/s00442-013-2758-9
29
CohenJ.PulliainenJ.MénardC. c.B.JohansenB.OksanenL.LuojusK.et al (2013). Effect of reindeer grazing on snowmelt, albedo and energy balance based on satellite data analyses. Remote Sens. Environ.135, 107–117. 10.1016/j.rse.2013.03.029
30
CrowtherT. W.ThomasS. M.MaynardD. S.BaldrianP.CoveyK.FreyS. D.et al (2015). Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.112, 7033–7038. 10.1073/pnas.1502956112
31
DanellK.BerteauxD.BrathenK. A. (2002). Effect of musk carcasses on nitrogen concentration in tundra vegetation. Arctic55, 389–392. 10.14430/arctic723
32
DescalsA.GaveauD. L. A.VergerA.SheilD.NaitoD.PeñuelasJ. (2022). Unprecedented fire activity above the Arctic Circle linked to rising temperatures. Science378, 532–537. 10.1126/science.abn9768
33
DescampsS.AarsJ.FugleiE.KovacsK. M.LydersenC.PavlovaO.et al (2017). Climate change impacts on wildlife in a High Arctic archipelago − Svalbard, Norway. Glob. Change Biol.23, 490–502. 10.1111/gcb.13381
34
ElmendorfS. C.HenryG. H. R.HollisterR. D.BjörkR. G.BjorkmanA. D.CallaghanT. V.et al (2012a). Global assessment of experimental climate warming on tundra vegetation: heterogeneity over space and time. Ecol. Lett.15, 164–175. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01716.x
35
ElmendorfS. C.HenryG. H. R.HollisterR. D.BjorkR. G.Boulanger-LapointeN.CooperE. J.et al (2012b). Plot-scale evidence of tundra vegetation change and links to recent summer warming. Nat. Clim. Change2, 453–457. 10.1038/nclimate1465
36
EpsteinH. E.RaynoldsM. K.WalkerD. A.BhattU. S.TuckerC. J.PinzonJ. E. (2012). Dynamics of aboveground phytomass of the circumpolar Arctic tundra during the past three decades. Environ. Res. Lett.7, 015506. 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015506
37
EyringV.BonyS.MeehlG. A.SeniorC. A.StevensB.StoufferR. J.et al (2016). Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev.9, 1937–1958. 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016
38
FalkJ. M.SchmidtN. M.ChristensenT. R.StrömL. (2015). Large herbivore grazing affects the vegetation structure and greenhouse gas balance in a high arctic mire. Environ. Res. Lett.10, 045001. 10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/045001
39
FerraroK. M.AlbrechtD.HendrixJ. G.WalE. V.SchmitzO. J.WebberQ. M. R.et al (2024). The biogeochemical boomerang: site fidelity creates nutritional hotspots that may promote recurrent calving site reuse. Ecol. Lett.27, e14491. 10.1111/ele.14491
40
FischerW.ThomasC.ZimovN.GöckedeM. (2022). Grazing enhances carbon cycling but reduces methane emission during peak growing season in the Siberian Pleistocene Park tundra site. Biogeosci. Disc.19, 1611–1633. 10.5194/bg-19-1611-2022
41
FisherJ. B.HayesD. J.SchwalmC. R.HuntzingerD. N.StofferahnE.SchaeferK.et al (2018). Missing pieces to modeling the Arctic-Boreal puzzle. Environ. Res. Lett.13, 020202. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa9d9a
42
FritzeH.PenttiläT.MäkirantaP.LaihoR.TuomivirtaT.ForsmanJ.et al (2021). Exploring the mechanisms by which reindeer droppings induce fen peat methane production. Soil Biol. biochem.160, 108318. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108318
43
GaoJ.CarmelY. (2020). Can the intermediate disturbance hypothesis explain grazing–diversity relations at a global scale?Oikos129, 493–502. 10.1111/oik.06338
44
García-PalaciosP.BradfordM. A.Benavente-FerracesI.De CelisM.Delgado-BaquerizoM.García-GilJ. C.et al (2024). Dominance of particulate organic carbon in top mineral soils in cold regions. Nat. Geosci.17, 145–150. 10.1038/s41561-023-01354-5
45
García-PalaciosP.CrowtherT. W.DacalM.HartleyI. P.ReinschS.RinnanR.et al (2021). Evidence for large microbial-mediated losses of soil carbon under anthropogenic warming. Nat. Rev. Earth and Environ.2, 507–517. 10.1038/s43017-021-00178-4
46
GilgO.KovacsK. M.AarsJ.FortJ.GauthierG.GremilletD.et al (2012). Climate change and the ecology and evolution of Arctic vertebrates. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1249, 166–190. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06412.x
47
González-BergonzoniI.JohansenK. L.MosbechA.LandkildehusF.JeppesenE.DavidsonT. A. (2017). Small birds, big effects: the little auk (Alle alle) transforms high Arctic ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.284, 20162572. 10.1098/rspb.2016.2572
48
GornallJ. L.JónsdóttirI. S.WoodinS. J.Van Der WalR. (2007). Arctic mosses govern below-ground environment and ecosystem processes. Oecologia153, 931–941. 10.1007/s00442-007-0785-0
49
HallK.LamontN. (2003). Zoogeomorphology in the Alpine: some observations on abiotic–biotic interactions. Geomorphology55, 219–234. 10.1016/s0169-555x(03)00141-7
50
HeijmansM. M. P. D.MagnússonR. Í.LaraM. J.FrostG. V.Myers-SmithI. H.Van HuisstedenJ.et al (2022). Tundra vegetation change and impacts on permafrost. Nat. Rev. Earth and Environ.3, 68–84. 10.1038/s43017-021-00233-0
51
HicksL. C.YuanM.BrangaríA.RouskK.RouskJ. (2022). Increased above- and belowground plant input can both trigger microbial nitrogen mining in subarctic tundra soils. Ecosystems25, 105–121. 10.1007/s10021-021-00642-8
52
HollesenJ.MatthiesenH.MøllerA. B.ElberlingB. (2015). Permafrost thawing in organic Arctic soils accelerated by ground heat production. Nat. Clim. Change5, 574–578. 10.1038/nclimate2590
53
HotalingS.LutzS.DialR. J.AnesioA. M.BenningL. G.FountainA. G.et al (2021). Biological albedo reduction on ice sheets, glaciers, and snowfields. Earth-Sci. Rev.220, 103728. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103728
54
HuemmrichK. F.GamonJ. A.TweedieC. E.CampbellP. K. E.LandisD. R.MiddletonE. M. (2013). Arctic tundra vegetation functional types based on photosynthetic physiology and optical properties. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Observations Remote Sens.6, 265–275. 10.1109/jstars.2013.2253446
55
HugeliusG.StraussJ.ZubrzyckiS.HardenJ. W.SchuurE. A. G.PingC. L.et al (2014). Estimated stocks of circumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps. Biogeosciences11, 6573–6593. 10.5194/bg-11-6573-2014
56
IlerA. M.CaradonnaP. J.ForrestJ. R. K.PostE. (2021). Demographic consequences of phenological shifts in response to climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.52, 221–245. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-011921-032939
57
IPCC (2021). Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
58
Johnson‐BiceS. M.GableT. D.RothJ. D.BumpJ. K. (2023). Patchy indirect effects of predation: predators contribute to landscape heterogeneity and ecosystem function via localized pathways. Oikos2023. 10.1111/oik.10065
59
KeuperF.Van BodegomP. M.DorrepaalE.WeedonJ. T.Van HalJ.Van LogtestijnR. S. P.et al (2012). A frozen feast: thawing permafrost increases plant‐available nitrogen in subarctic peatlands. Glob. Change Biol.18, 1998–2007. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02663.x
60
KeuperF.WildB.KummuM.BeerC.Blume-WerryG.FontaineS.et al (2020). Carbon loss from northern circumpolar permafrost soils amplified by rhizosphere priming. Nat. Geosci.13, 560–565. 10.1038/s41561-020-0607-0
61
KhvorostyanovD. V.KrinnerG.CiaisP.HeimannM.ZimovS. A. (2008). Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to global warming. Part I: model description and role of heat generated by organic matter decomposition. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorology60, 250. 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00333.x
62
KleinD. R.BayC. (1991). Diet selection by vertebrate herbivores in the high arctic of Greenland. Holarct. Ecol.14, 152–155. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1991.tb00646.x
63
KoltzA. M.GoughL.McLarenJ. R. (2022). Herbivores in Arctic ecosystems: effects of climate change and implications for carbon and nutrient cycling. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1516, 28–47. 10.1111/nyas.14863
64
KozlovM. V.FilippovB. Y.ZubrijN. A.ZverevV. (2015). Abrupt changes in invertebrate herbivory on woody plants at the forest–tundra ecotone. Polar Biol.38, 967–974. 10.1007/s00300-015-1655-6
65
KristensenJ. A.MichelsenA.MetcalfeD. B. (2020a). Background insect herbivory increases with local elevation but makes minor contribution to element cycling along natural gradients in the Subarctic. Ecol. Evol.10, 11684–11698. 10.1002/ece3.6803
66
KristensenJ. A.RouskJ.MetcalfeD. B. (2020b). Below‐ground responses to insect herbivory in ecosystems with woody plant canopies: a meta‐analysis. J. Ecol.108, 917–930. 10.1111/1365-2745.13319
67
KroppH.LorantyM. M.NataliS. M.KholodovA. L.RochaA. V.Myers-SmithI.et al (2021). Shallow soils are warmer under trees and tall shrubs across Arctic and Boreal ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 015001. 10.1088/1748-9326/abc994
68
KuhryP.BártaJ.BlokD.ElberlingB.FaucherreS.HugeliusG.et al (2020). Lability classification of soil organic matter in the northern permafrost region. Biogeosciences17, 361–379. 10.5194/bg-17-361-2020
69
LandrumL.HollandM. M. (2020). Extremes become routine in an emerging new Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change10, 1108–1115. 10.1038/s41558-020-0892-z
70
LaraM. J.JohnsonD. R.AndresenC.HollisterR. D.TweedieC. E. (2017). Peak season carbon exchange shifts from a sink to a source following 50+ years of herbivore exclusion in an Arctic tundra ecosystem. J. Ecol.105, 122–131. 10.1111/1365-2745.12654
71
LorantyM. M.GoetzS. J. (2012). Shrub expansion and climate feedbacks in Arctic tundra. Environ. Res. Lett.7, 011005. 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/011005
72
LundM.RaundrupK.Westergaard-NielsenA.López-BlancoE.NymandJ.AastrupP. (2017). Larval outbreaks in West Greenland: instant and subsequent effects on tundra ecosystem productivity and CO2 exchange. Ambio46, 26–38. 10.1007/s13280-016-0863-9
73
LundbergJ.MobergF. (2003). Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems6, 0087–0098. 10.1007/s10021-002-0150-4
74
LundgrenE. J.BergmanJ.TrepelJ.Le RouxE.MonsarratS.KristensenJ. A.et al (2024). Functional traits—not nativeness—shape the effects of large mammalian herbivores on plant communities. Science383, 531–537. 10.1126/science.adh2616
75
MackM. C.SchuurE. A. G.Bret-HarteM. S.ShaverG. R.ChapinF. S. (2004). Ecosystem carbon storage in arctic tundra reduced by long-term nutrient fertilization. Nature431, 440–443. 10.1038/nature02887
76
MaesS. L.DietrichJ.MidoloG.SchwiegerS.KummuM.VandvikV.et al (2024). Environmental drivers of increased ecosystem respiration in a warming tundra. Nature629, 105–113. 10.1038/s41586-024-07274-7
77
ManlickP. J.PerrymanN. L.KoltzA. M.CookJ. A.NewsomeS. D. (2024). Climate warming restructures food webs and carbon flow in high-latitude ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Change14, 184–189. 10.1038/s41558-023-01893-0
78
McLarenJ. R.BuckeridgeK. M.Van De WegM. J.ShaverG. R.SchimelJ. P.GoughL. (2017). Shrub encroachment in Arctic tundra: Betula nana effects on above‐ and belowground litter decomposition. Ecology98, 1361–1376. 10.1002/ecy.1790
79
MekonnenZ. A.RileyW. J.BernerL. T.BouskillN. J.TornM. S.IwahanaG.et al (2021). Arctic tundra shrubification: a review of mechanisms and impacts on ecosystem carbon balance. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 053001. 10.1088/1748-9326/abf28b
80
MinE.WilcotsM. E.NaeemS.GoughL.McLarenJ. R.RoweR. J.et al (2021). Herbivore absence can shift dry heath tundra from carbon source to sink during peak growing season. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 024027. 10.1088/1748-9326/abd3d0
81
MonteuxS.KeuperF.FontaineS.GavazovK.HallinS.JuhansonJ.et al (2020). Carbon and nitrogen cycling in Yedoma permafrost controlled by microbial functional limitations. Nat. Geosci.13, 794–798. 10.1038/s41561-020-00662-4
82
MosbacherJ. B.KristensenD. K.MichelsenA.StelvigM.SchmidtN. M. (2016). Quantifying musk plant biomass removal and spatial relocation of nitrogen in a High Arctic tundra ecosystem. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res.48, 229–240. 10.1657/AAAR0015-034
83
MosbacherJ. B.MichelsenA.StelvigM.Hjermstad-SollerudH.SchmidtN. M. (2019). Muskoxen modify plant abundance, phenology, and nitrogen dynamics in a High Arctic fen. Ecosystems22, 1095–1107. 10.1007/s10021-018-0323-4
84
Myers-SmithI. H.ElmendorfS. C.BeckP. S. A.WilmkingM.HallingerM.BlokD.et al (2015). Climate sensitivity of shrub growth across the tundra biome. Nat. Clim. Change5, 887–891. 10.1038/nclimate2697
85
Myers-SmithI. H.ForbesB. C.WilmkingM.HallingerM.LantzT.BlokD.et al (2011). Shrub expansion in tundra ecosystems: dynamics, impacts and research priorities. Environ. Res. Lett.6, 045509. 10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/045509
86
Myers-SmithI. H.KerbyJ. T.PhoenixG. K.BjerkeJ. W.EpsteinH. E.AssmannJ. J.et al (2020). Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change10, 106–117. 10.1038/s41558-019-0688-1
87
OehriJ.Schaepman-StrubG.KimJ.-S.GryskoR.KroppH.GrünbergI.et al (2022). Vegetation type is an important predictor of the arctic summer land surface energy budget. Nat. Commun.13, 6379. 10.1038/s41467-022-34049-3
88
OlofssonJ.KittiH.RautiainenP.StarkS.OksanenL. (2001). Effects of summer grazing by reindeer on composition of vegetation, productivity and nitrogen cycling. Ecography24, 13–24. 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2001.240103.x
89
OlofssonJ.OksanenL.CallaghanT.HulmeP. E.OksanenT.SuominenO. (2009). Herbivores inhibit climate-driven shrub expansion on the tundra. Glob. Change Biol.15, 2681–2693. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01935.x
90
OlofssonJ.PostE. (2018). Effects of large herbivores on tundra vegetation in a changing climate, and implications for rewilding. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.373, 20170437. 10.1098/rstb.2017.0437
91
OsterkampT. E.JorgensonM. T.SchuurE. A. G.ShurY. L.KanevskiyM. Z.VogelJ. G.et al (2009). Physical and ecological changes associated with warming permafrost and thermokarst in Interior Alaska. Permafr. Periglac. Process.20, 235–256. 10.1002/ppp.656
92
OteroX. L.De La Peña-LastraS.Pérez-AlbertiA.FerreiraT. O.Huerta-DiazM. A. (2018). Seabird colonies as important global drivers in the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Nat. Commun.9, 246. 10.1038/s41467-017-02446-8
93
PalmtagJ.ObuJ.KuhryP.RichterA.SiewertM. B.WeissN.et al (2022). A high-spatial resolution soil carbon and nitrogen dataset for the northern permafrost region, based on circumpolar land cover upscaling. Earth Syst. Sci. Data14, 4095–4110. 10.5194/essd-2022-8
94
ParkerT. C.ThurstonA. M.RaundrupK.SubkeJ.-A.WookeyP. A.HartleyI. P. (2021). Shrub expansion in the Arctic may induce large‐scale carbon losses due to changes in plant‐soil interactions. Plant Soil463, 643–651. 10.1007/s11104-021-04919-8
95
ParmesanC. (2007). Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Glob. Change Biol.13, 1860–1872. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01404.x
96
ParmesanC.YoheG. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature421, 37–42. 10.1038/nature01286
97
PearsonR. G.PhillipsS. J.LorantyM. M.BeckP. S. A.DamoulasT.KnightS. J.et al (2013). Shifts in Arctic vegetation and associated feedbacks under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change3, 673–677. 10.1038/nclimate1858
98
PetersonS. L.RockwellR. F.WitteC. R.KoonsD. N. (2013). The legacy of destructive snow goose foraging on supratidal marsh habitat in the hudson Bay lowlands. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res.45, 575–583. 10.1657/1938-4246.45.4.575
99
Petit BonM.HansenB. B.LoonenM. J. J. E.PetragliaA.BråthenK. A.BöhnerH.et al (2023). Long‐term herbivore removal experiments reveal how geese and reindeer shape vegetation and ecosystem CO2‐fluxes in high‐Arctic tundra. J. Ecol.111, 2627–2642. 10.1111/1365-2745.14200
100
PostE.AlleyR. B.ChristensenT. R.Macias-FauriaM.ForbesB. C.GooseffM. N.et al (2019). The polar regions in a 2°C warmer world. Sci. Adv.5, eaaw9883. 10.1126/sciadv.aaw9883
101
PostE.KaarlejärviE.Macias-FauriaM.WattsD. A.BøvingP. S.CahoonS. M. P.et al (2023). Large herbivore diversity slows sea ice-associated decline in arctic tundra diversity. Science380, 1282–1287. 10.1126/science.add2679
102
PostE.PedersenC. (2008). Opposing plant community responses to warming with and without herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.105, 12353–12358. 10.1073/pnas.0802421105
103
PostE.PedersenC.WattsD. A. (2022). Large herbivores facilitate the persistence of rare taxa under tundra warming. Sci. Rep.12, 1292. 10.1038/s41598-022-05388-4
104
PrevidiM.SmithK. L.PolvaniL. M. (2021). Arctic amplification of climate change: a review of underlying mechanisms. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 093003. 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c29
105
RantanenM.KarpechkoA. Y.LipponenA.NordlingK.HyvärinenO.RuosteenojaK.et al (2022). The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Commun. Earth and Environ.3, 168. 10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3
106
RatajczakZ.D'OdoricoP.CollinsS. L.BestelmeyerB. T.IsbellF. I.NippertJ. B. (2017). The interactive effects of press/pulse intensity and duration on regime shifts at multiple scales. Ecol. Monogr.87, 198–218. 10.1002/ecm.1249
107
RheubottomS. I.BarrioI. C.KozlovM. V.AlataloJ. M.AnderssonT.AsmusA. L.et al (2019). Hiding in the background: community-level patterns in invertebrate herbivory across the tundra biome. Polar Biol.42, 1881–1897. 10.1007/s00300-019-02568-3
108
RiedelS. M.EpsteinH. E.WalkerD. A. (2005). Biotic controls over spectral reflectance of arctic tundra vegetation. Int. J. Remote Sens.26, 2391–2405. 10.1080/01431160512331337754
109
RippleW. J.WolfC.LentonT. M.GreggJ. W.NataliS. M.DuffyP. B.et al (2023). Many risky feedback loops amplify the need for climate action. One Earth6, 86–91. 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.004
110
RippleW. J.WolfC.van VuurenD. P.GreggJ. W.LenzenM. (2024). An environmental and socially just climate mitigation pathway for a planet in peril. Environ. Res. Lett.19, 021001. 10.1088/1748-9326/ad059e
111
RixenC.HøyeT. T.MacekP.AertsR.AlataloJ. M.AndersonJ. T.et al (2022). Winters are changing: snow effects on Arctic and alpine tundra ecosystems. Arct. Sci.8, 572–608. 10.1139/as-2020-0058
112
RizzutoM.LerouxS. J.SchmitzO. J. (2024). Rewiring the carbon cycle: a theoretical framework for animal‐driven ecosystem carbon sequestration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences129. 10.1029/2024jg008026
113
RoslinT.AntãoL.HällforsM.MeykeE.LoC.TikhonovG.et al (2021). Phenological shifts of abiotic events, producers and consumers across a continent. Nat. Clim. Change11, 241–248. 10.1038/s41558-020-00967-7
114
RouskK.SorensenP. L.MichelsenA. (2017). Nitrogen fixation in the High Arctic: a source of ‘new’ nitrogen?Biogeochemistry136, 213–222. 10.1007/s10533-017-0393-y
115
RouskK.SorensenP. L.MichelsenA. (2018). What drives biological nitrogen fixation in high arctic tundra: moisture or temperature?Ecosphere9, e02117. 10.1002/ecs2.2117
116
RoyA.GoughL.BoelmanN. T.RoweR. J.GriffinK. L.McLarenJ. R. (2022). Small but mighty: impacts of rodent‐herbivore structures on carbon and nutrient cycling in arctic tundra. Funct. Ecol.36, 2331–2343. 10.1111/1365-2435.14127
117
RößgerN.SachsT.WilleC.BoikeJ.KutzbachL. (2022). Seasonal increase of methane emissions linked to warming in Siberian tundra. Nat. Clim. Change12, 1031–1036. 10.1038/s41558-022-01512-4
118
SaundersT.AdkinsJ.BeardK. H.AtwoodT. B.WaringB. G. (2023). Herbivores influence biogeochemical processes by altering litter quality and quantity in a subarctic wetland. Biogeochemistry166, 67–85. 10.1007/s10533-023-01098-9
119
SchaeferJ. A.MessierF. (1995). Winter foraging by muskoxen: a hierarchical approach to patch residence time and cratering behaviour. Oecologia104, 39–44. 10.1007/BF00365560
120
SchmidtN. M.HardwickB.GilgO.HøyeT. T.KroghP. H.MeltofteH.et al (2017). Interaction webs in arctic ecosystems: determinants of arctic change?Ambio46, S12–S25. 10.1007/s13280-016-0862-x
121
SchmidtN. M.KankaanpääT.TiusanenM.ReneerkensJ.VersluijsT. S. L.HansenL. H.et al (2023). Little directional change in the timing of Arctic spring phenology over the past 25 years. Curr. Biol.33, 3244–3249.e3. 10.1016/j.cub.2023.06.038
122
SchmidtN. M.ReneerkensJ.ChristensenJ. H.OlesenM.RoslinT. (2019). An ecosystem-wide reproductive failure with more snow in the Arctic. PLoS Biol.17, e3000392. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000392
123
SchmidtN. M.RoslinT.HansenL. H.GilgO.LangJ.SittlerB.et al (2022). Spatio-temporal patterns in arctic fox (Vulpes alopex) diets revealed by molecular analysis of scats from Northeast Greenland. Polar Sci.32, 100838. 10.1016/j.polar.2022.100838
124
SchmitzO. J.SylvénM.AtwoodT. B.BakkerE. S.BerzaghiF.BrodieJ. F.et al (2023). Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Change13, 324–333. 10.1038/s41558-023-01631-6
125
SchmitzO. J.WilmersC. C.LerouxS. J.DoughtyC. E.AtwoodT. B.GalettiM.et al (2018). Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle. Science362, eaar3213. 10.1126/science.aar3213
126
SchuuringS.HalvorsenR.Bronken EidesenP.NiittynenP.KemppinenJ.LangS. I. (2024). High arctic vegetation communities with a thick moss layer slow active layer thaw. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences129. 10.1029/2023jg007880
127
SeeC. R.VirkkalaA.-M.NataliS. M.RogersB. M.MauritzM.BiasiC.et al (2024). Decadal increases in carbon uptake offset by respiratory losses across northern permafrost ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Change14, 853–862. 10.1038/s41558-024-02057-4
128
SistlaS. A.MooreJ. C.SimpsonR. T.GoughL.ShaverG. R.SchimelJ. P. (2013). Long-term warming restructures Arctic tundra without changing net soil carbon storage. Nature497, 615–618. 10.1038/nature12129
129
SoininenE. M.BarrioI. C.BjørkåsR.BjörnsdóttirK.EhrichD.HoppingK. A.et al (2021). Location of studies and evidence of effects of herbivory on Arctic vegetation: a systematic map. Environ. Evid.10, 25. 10.1186/s13750-021-00240-0
130
SpeedJ. D. M.AustrheimG.HesterA. J.MysterudA. (2010). Experimental evidence for herbivore limitation of the treeline. Ecology91, 3414–3420. 10.1890/09-2300.1
131
StegerB. (2023). Influence of musk carcasses on soil nutrients and vegetation in a High Arctic ecosystem in northeast Greenland. Borgarnes: Agricultural University of Iceland, 28.
132
StreetL. E.StoyP. C.SommerkornM.FletcherB. J.SloanV. L.HillT. C.et al (2012). Seasonal bryophyte productivity in the sub‐Arctic: a comparison with vascular plants. Funct. Ecol.26, 365–378. 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01954.x
133
SturmM.DouglasT.RacineC.ListonG. E. (2005). Changing snow and shrub conditions affect albedo with global implications. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences110, G01004. 10.1029/2005JG000013
134
SturmM.HolmgrenJ.McFaddenJ. P.ListonG. E.ChapinF. S.RacineC. H. (2001). Snow–shrub interactions in Arctic tundra: a hypothesis with climatic implications. J. Clim.14, 336–344. 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0336:ssiiat>2.0.co;2
135
TanentzapA. J.CoomesD. A. (2012). Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems: do browsing and grazing herbivores matter?Biol. Rev.87, 72–94. 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00185.x
136
Te BeestM.SittersJ.MénardC. B.OlofssonJ. (2016). Reindeer grazing increases summer albedo by reducing shrub abundance in Arctic tundra. Environ. Res. Lett.11, 125013. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa5128
137
TrumboreS. (2009). Radiocarbon and soil carbon dynamics. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.37, 47–66. 10.1146/annurev.earth.36.031207.124300
138
TuomiM.VäisänenM.YlänneH.BrearleyF. Q.BarrioI. C.BråthenK. A.et al (2021). Stomping in silence: conceptualizing trampling effects on soils in polar tundra. Funct. Ecol.35, 306–317. 10.1111/1365-2435.13719
139
VaisanenM.YlanneH.KaarlejarviE.SjogerstenS.OlofssonJ.CroutN.et al (2014). Consequences of warming on tundra carbon balance determined by reindeer grazing history. Glob. Change Biol.21, 384–388. 10.1038/NCLIMATE2147
140
van BeestF. M.BarryT.ChristensenT.HeiðmarssonS.McLennanD.SchmidtN. M. (2022). Extreme event impacts on terrestrial and freshwater biota in the arctic: a synthesis of knowledge and opportunities. Front. Environ. Sci.10. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.983637
141
van BeestF. M.López-BlancoE.HansenL. H.SchmidtN. M. (2023). Extreme shifts in habitat suitability under contemporary climate change for a high-Arctic herbivore. Clim. Change176, 31. 10.1007/s10584-023-03510-7
142
Van Der WalR.BardgettR. D.HarrisonK. A.StienA. (2004). Vertebrate herbivores and ecosystem control: cascading effects of faeces on tundra ecosystems. Ecography27, 242–252. 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03688.x
143
WangB.WuL.ChenD.WuY.HuS.LiL.et al (2020). Grazing simplifies soil micro-food webs and decouples their relationships with ecosystem functions in grasslands. Glob. Change Biol.26, 960–970. 10.1111/gcb.14841
144
WilcoxE. J.KeimD.JongT. d.WalkerB.SonnentagO.SniderhanA. E.et al (2019). Tundra shrub expansion may amplify permafrost thaw by advancing snowmelt timing. Arct. Sci.5, 202–217. 10.1139/as-2018-0028
145
WillcockS.CooperG. S.AddyJ.DearingJ. A. (2023). Earlier collapse of Anthropocene ecosystems driven by multiple faster and noisier drivers. Nat. Sustain.6, 1331–1342. 10.1038/s41893-023-01157-x
146
WilliamsonS. N.BarrioI. C.HikD. S.GamonJ. A. (2016). Phenology and species determine growing‐season albedo increase at the altitudinal limit of shrub growth in the sub‐Arctic. Glob. Change Biol.22, 3621–3631. 10.1111/gcb.13297
147
YlänneH.OlofssonJ.OksanenL.StarkS. (2018). Consequences of grazer‐induced vegetation transitions on ecosystem carbon storage in the tundra. Funct. Ecol.32, 1091–1102. 10.1111/1365-2435.13029
148
ZhangT. (2005). Influence of the seasonal snow cover on the ground thermal regime: an overview. Rev. Geophys.43. 10.1029/2004rg000157
149
ZimovS. A. (2005). Pleistocene Park: return of the mammoth's ecosystem. Science308, 796–798. 10.1126/science.1113442
Summary
Keywords
albedo, arctic, biotic interactions, carbon dynamics, decomposers, herbivores, permafrost, vegetation
Citation
Schmidt NM, Barrio IC, Kristensen JA, López-Blanco E and van Beest FM (2024) Highlighting the role of biota in feedback loops from tundra ecosystems to the atmosphere. Front. Environ. Sci. 12:1491604. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1491604
Received
05 September 2024
Accepted
06 December 2024
Published
20 December 2024
Volume
12 - 2024
Edited by
Per Fauchald, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Norway
Reviewed by
Michael M. Loranty, Colgate University, United States
Jeffrey Welker, University of Oulu, Finland
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Schmidt, Barrio, Kristensen, López-Blanco and van Beest.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Niels M. Schmidt, nms@ecos.au.dk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.