An overlooked mechanism underlying the attenuated temperature response of soil heterotrophic respiration.

Biogeochemical reactions occurring in soil pore space underpin gaseous emissions measured at macroscopic scales but are difficult to quantify due to their complexity and heterogeneity. We develop a volumetric-average method to calculate aerobic respiration rates analytically from soil with microscopic soil structure represented explicitly. Soil water content in the model is the result of the volumetric-average of the microscopic processes, and it is nonlinearly coupled with temperature and other factors. Since many biogeochemical reactions are driven by oxygen (O2) which must overcome various resistances before reaching reactive microsites from the atmosphere, the volumetric-average results in negative feedback between temperature and soil respiration, with the magnitude of the feedback increasing with soil water content and substrate quality. Comparisons with various experiments show the model reproduces the variation of carbon dioxide emission from soils under different water content and temperature gradients, indicating that it captures the key microscopic processes underpinning soil respiration. We show that alongside thermal microbial adaptation, substrate heterogeneity and microbial turnover and carbon use efficiency, O2 dissolution and diffusion in water associated with soil pore space is another key explanation for the attenuated temperature response of soil respiration and should be considered in developing soil organic carbon models.

Caffeine metabolites are associated with different forms of caffeine supplementation and with perceived exertion during endurance exercise.

This investigation compared the urine caffeine metabolites produced from different forms of caffeine supplementation given to runners 15 minutes before a series of 5-km running trials. Fourteen amateur competitive runners completed a series of self-paced outdoor time trials following ingestion of placebo or one of three alternate forms of caffeine supplement. Trials were randomized in a crossover design with equivalent doses of caffeine (4.0 mg.kg-1) administered 15 minutes before each trial via chewing gum, a novel dissolvable mouth strip or tablet. Runners produced a urine sample following each caffeinated trial that was tested for caffeine and its metabolites by high-performance liquid chromatography. The tablet form of caffeine produced a lower (p = 0.04) urinary ratio of the metabolite paraxanthine to caffeine compared with either gum or strip. Independently of caffeine delivery mode, subjects who metabolized a higher proportion of caffeine to paraxanthine recorded a lower (p = 0.01) perceived exertion. We demonstrate that oral swallowed caffeine administered 15 minutes before 5-km running is less metabolized compared with caffeinated products designed to be chewed or dissolved in the mouth. We suggest the metabolism of caffeine to paraxanthine has an inverse relationship with perceived exertion independently of caffeine delivery mode.

The Effects of Different Forms of Caffeine Supplement on 5-km Running Performance.

PURPOSE: Caffeine is frequently used by athletes as an ergogenic aid. Various alternate forms of caffeine administration are available, which may produce different effects. This investigation compares the effects of different forms of caffeine supplementation on 5-km running performance, and the relationship between athlete ability and degree of enhancement attained. METHODS: Fourteen amateur runners completed a series of self-paced outdoor time trials following unknown ingestion of a placebo (P) or one of 3 alternate forms of caffeine supplement. Trials were randomized in a crossover design with caffeine (approximately 3-4.5 mg·kg-1) administered 15 minutes before each trial via chewing gum (CG), dissolvable mouth strips (CS), or tablet (CT). RESULTS: Compared with P, all caffeine supplements led to worthwhile enhancements in running performance with a mean (±95% confidence limit) overall effect across all supplements of 1.4% ± 0.9%. Individual caffeine treatment effects (CG = 0.9% ± 1.4%, CS = 1.2% ± 1.0%, and CT = 2.0% ± 1.1%) were not significantly different (P > .05) from each other; however, CT trials produced the largest gain and was significantly different (P = .02) compared with P. There was no significant difference in heart rate or rate of perceived exertion across the performance trials. The magnitude of caffeine enhancement was also strongly correlated (r = .87) with no-treatment performance time. CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that irrespective of delivery form, moderate dose of caffeine supplementation produces worthwhile gains in 5-km running performance compared with a P. Furthermore, the magnitude of caffeine enhancement is highly individualized, but it appears related to athlete performance ability.