How deep should we go to understand roots at the top of the world?
Harsh environmental conditions and the short summers of northern, high-latitude biomes impose unique constraints on the plants that live in the arctic tundra and the boreal forest. To escape the harsh aboveground environment, plants in these habitats often allocate a large portion of their biomass belowground to facilitate nutrient acquisition. In turn, the proximity of living plant roots to vast stores of sequestered soil carbon in these biomes means that shifts in rooting depth distribution and the size of the root–soil interface could significantly contribute to ongoing climate change. Indeed, plant ‘priming’ of rhizosphere decomposition via root exudation, particularly from shallowly distributed roots, can lead to losses of carbon from tundra soils. While we have a hard-won understanding of the distribution of plant communities across the arctic tundra and the boreal forest from direct field observations scaled to the landscape level using climate-informed mapping techniques (i.e. the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM); Walker et al. , 2005), these vegetation maps are only the tip of the iceberg (Iversen et al. , 2015). Root form and function remain hidden beneath the land surface. In an article recently published in New Phytologist , Blume-Werry et al. (2023, 10.1111/nph.18998) asked whether rooting depth distribution, and ensuing carbon emissions, could be inferred from commonly used vegetation mapping classifications across the pan-Arctic. An important question to guide our understanding, mapping, and prediction of belowground characteristics and ecosystem feedbacks at the top of the world. Unfortunately, they found that the answer was ‘not quite’. While rooting depth distribution varied demonstrably, in turn causing substantial changes in modeled carbon emissions via rhizosphere ‘priming’, variation across rooting depth profiles did not correspond with vegetation mapping classes. If we are unable to predict belowground rooting depth distributions across large spatial scales by leveraging aboveground vegetation community distributions, how then should belowground researchers proceed?