Beneath every step we take, soils hold one of the planet’s largest reservoirs of carbon, a vast, slow-moving bank of organic matter that quietly regulates how much of the world’s carbon stays locked away and how much escapes into the atmosphere as greenhouse gas. Now a sweeping new review warns that climate-driven extremes, droughts, floods, and wildfires, are rewriting the rules of that subterranean economy in ways that conventional models and land-management practices have not yet caught up with. The analysis, led by environmental scientist Nanthi Bolan of the University of Western Australia and colleagues, including a corresponding authorship by Bolan himself, synthesizes a substantial body of global evidence on how extreme weather reshapes carbon inputs to soil, microbial processing, erosion, and the sequestration of carbon that underpins soil health, water retention, nutrient cycling, and agricultural productivity.

The work, published in the journal Carbon Research, is notable for the scale of its underlying evidence base. On 14 January 2026, the authors searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science using terms spanning climate change, extreme weather, soil carbon, microbial activity, decomposition, erosion, dissolved organic matter, and leaching. The initial sweep returned 14,218 records; after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 3,754 articles remained for bibliometric and qualitative analysis. From those, 187 publications were selected for detailed synthesis based on relevance, methodological rigor, and the substantive quality of their findings. Keyword co-occurrence patterns were mapped with VOSviewer, a bibliometric tool that reveals the intellectual architecture of a research field. The result is a critical review grounded in structured literature screening rather than new experimental data, but its synthesis offers one of the most comprehensive maps yet of how extremes rearrange the soil carbon cycle.

The review’s central finding is that no two extremes act alike. Drought, the most widespread disturbance, operates largely through the plant side of the equation. When rainfall fails, photosynthesis slows, plant biomass production falls, and the total flux of carbon entering soils through roots, residues, and litter declines. There is a nuance here: under moderate water stress, plants may temporarily shift a greater proportion of their fixed carbon belowground, investing in roots to chase moisture. But prolonged drought overwhelms that compensatory response. Microbial biomass shrinks, litter decomposition stalls, and the living engine of the soil carbon cycle idles. Then comes the deceptive twist: when rain finally returns, rewetting triggers a rapid pulse of carbon dioxide as starved soil microbes seize upon the accumulated substrates left behind by months of suspended activity. That post-drought CO₂ flush, the review emphasizes, can erase much of the apparent “savings” that accumulated during the dry period. Across the assembled evidence, repeated and multi-year drought was consistently associated with declining soil organic carbon, with grasslands and arable croplands showing particularly pronounced losses, ecosystems that happen to anchor much of the world’s food production.

Flooding tells the opposite story, but it ends in many of the same places. Water saturation chokes off oxygen diffusion through soil pores, forcing microbial metabolism into anaerobic pathways. That shift changes everything downstream. Prolonged waterlogging can drive the chemical reduction of iron oxyhydroxides, minerals that in oxygenated conditions act as microscopic glues binding organic carbon to soil particles. When those minerals dissolve, the carbon they held is released as dissolved organic carbon, which can then be stripped away by erosion and leaching and exported to rivers, lakes, and ultimately the ocean. The review stresses, however, that flooding is not unambiguously a carbon loss story. Wetlands and other periodically inundated ecosystems can accumulate and retain enormous carbon stocks precisely because water constrains decomposition. Whether a flood event releases carbon or banks it depends on the interplay between plant inputs, oxygen availability, and hydrological transport, a delicate balance that shifting rainfall regimes are actively destabilizing.

Wildfire is the most dramatic and immediately visible of the three forces, and its effects cascade on multiple timescales. Combustion directly strips vegetation, litter, and soil organic matter, transferring carbon to the atmosphere in hours. But fire also rearranges the physical and biological landscape of the soil in subtler ways: it can increase erosion by removing protective ground cover, alter soil wettability in ways that change hydrological behavior, restructure microbial communities, and expose previously protected carbon, once shielded inside aggregates or mineral associations, to fresh decomposition. There is a paradoxical bright spot. Pyrogenic carbon, the charcoal-like residue of incomplete combustion, is chemically recalcitrant and can persist in soils for centuries or millennia, functioning as a long-term carbon sink. Whether a fire leaves a landscape as a net carbon source or stabilizes some of its carbon in pyrogenic form depends on fire severity, soil moisture, fuel load, ecosystem type, and the trajectory of post-fire recovery. The review is clear that this balance cannot be predicted from fire alone; it is contingent, site by site, on conditions that vary widely across the globe.

Perhaps the most consequential theme running through the synthesis is that carbon responses cannot be inferred from the type of extreme event alone. Land use, soil mineralogy, hydrology, salinity, vegetation composition, microbial community makeup, and the timing of events within a season all determine whether carbon ends up stored, mobilized, or released. Iron and aluminum oxyhydroxides and clay minerals, for instance, provide mineral protection that can shield organic matter even under stress, while sandy or low-clay soils offer little such refuge. Managed croplands respond differently from native grasslands; saline coastal soils behave differently from acidic forest soils. And compound events, drought followed by wildfire, or alternating drought and flooding in rapid succession, may produce effects that are qualitatively different from those of isolated disturbances, as when a dried landscape burns more intensely, or when post-fire soils, stripped of vegetation, wash away in the first heavy rain. The review argues that the climate science and soil science communities have largely studied these disturbances one at a time, while the real world increasingly delivers them in combination.

The implications for climate mitigation and adaptation are substantial. Soil organic carbon is frequently invoked in national climate pledges and voluntary carbon markets as a bankable sink, yet the review suggests that the security of that bank depends heavily on how often and how severely extremes strike. If multi-year droughts steadily drain carbon from grasslands and croplands, or if fires repeatedly reset accumulation cycles, the effective permanence of soil carbon storage becomes far more fragile than many accounting frameworks assume. Conversely, protecting and rebuilding soil carbon delivers benefits well beyond climate: it improves water retention in drought-prone regions, supports nutrient cycling, stabilizes soil structure against erosion, and sustains the microbial diversity on which fertility depends. Carbon stewardship, in other words, is not separable from food security or ecosystem resilience; it is the same problem viewed from different angles.

The authors are candid about the limits of the current evidence base. The article does not report newly generated datasets and does not present a dedicated limitations section, and its conclusions rest on a qualitative synthesis of selected publications. Consequently, they call for improved and more consistent evidence across soil types, land uses, and both terrestrial and aquatic environments, and across multiple temporal scales, from the instantaneous CO₂ pulse after rewetting to the multi-decadal trajectory of carbon storage. Standardizing measurements of carbon pools, microbial functions, and event intensity, they argue, would make results comparable across ecosystems and enable more confident generalization, something the field currently struggles to achieve given heterogeneous methods and site-specific reporting.

Looking forward, the review sketches a research agenda that is as technologically ambitious as it is mechanistically focused. The authors recommend integrating high-resolution remote sensing with ground observations, advanced spectroscopy, molecular analyses, and integrated modeling to track carbon as it moves through soils and into waterways. They single out several priorities: characterizing microbial genomic and functional diversity as it responds to stress, quantifying carbon stoichiometry, probing the interactions between organic matter and iron and aluminum oxyhydroxides, understanding clay-mineral protection mechanisms, tracking long-term storage outcomes, and systematically studying the sequencing of compound extreme events. Each of these threads addresses a gap in the mechanistic chain that links a weather event in the atmosphere to a molecule of carbon, stabilized or released, in the soil.

What emerges from the review is a picture of the soil carbon cycle not as a stable background process but as a dynamic, contested system whose behavior under climate extremes is far less predictable than once assumed. The same storm that floods a rice paddy and exports carbon to a river delta may, a few hundred kilometers away, end a drought and briefly green a grassland, with opposite consequences for the atmosphere. As extremes grow more frequent and more compound, the review makes the case that understanding, and safeguarding, the carbon held beneath our feet will require science that is as interconnected and as restless as the weather itself.

Keywords

soil organic carbon, extreme weather, drought, flooding, wildfire, carbon sequestration, microbial activity, dissolved organic carbon, erosion, pyrogenic carbon, climate change, soil health

Could radioactive atoms in a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) form a “superradiant neutrino laser”? According to a paper published last year by Benjamin Jones of the University of Manchester and  Joseph Formaggio of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology the answer is “yes”. We were intrigued by this proposal and commissioned the freelance physics writer Tim Wogan to write an article for us.

As part of his reporting, Wogan sought the opinion of a BEC expert – James Thompson of NIST, JILA and the University of Colorado in Boulder. Thompson told us that he was sceptical of the viability of such a device – in particular, he pointed out that the de Broglie wavelength of the emitted neutrinos is much too short for superradiance to occur.

Now, another physicist (Wolfgang Ketterle, who shared a Nobel prize for his pioneering work on BECs) has published two papers that cast doubt on Jones and Formaggio’s proposal. All three papers are published in a very prestigious journal, so this is a scientific debate of note.

So what is superradiance, and how could it be used to create a source of coherent neutrinos?

Coherent burst

Superradiance was originally envisioned in an ensemble of excited atoms, each of which can decay by emitting a photon. Normally, the rate at which photons are emitted from such an ensemble is simply proportional to the number of atoms present. Double the number of atoms, and the rate of emission will double. However, if the ensemble is dense enough that the wavelength of the emitted photons is much longer than the separation between neighbouring atoms, the emission of a single photon will involve all of the atoms. What is more, the superradiant emission rate is proportional to square of the number of atoms. The result is short, intense burst of coherent radiation. It is this coherence that has caused some to refer to superradiant lasers – although the physics of lasers is different.

Jones and Formaggio’s proposal involves radioactive atoms that decay with the emission of a neutrino, rather than a photon. Their idea is to cool an ensemble of these atoms to near absolute zero so that it forms a BEC. This is a unique form of matter that can be described as a macroscopic quantum state. Under this condition, the duo argued that neutrinos would be emitted rapidly from a superradiant state.

Now, Ketterle, Yu-Kun Lu and Hanzhen Lin at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argue in two papers that such a superradiant neutrino laser is an impossibility. As well as backing up Thompson’s concerns about the short wavelength of the neutrinos, they point out that the atoms produced by the neutrino decays are fermions, and this precludes superradiance. They also showed that the recoil of atoms after neutrino emission would not allow the coherent emission of neutrinos to occur.

I think this is a fascinating subject and I hope that Jones and Formaggio can revive their proposal, because a BEC-based neutrino laser would be very cool!

You can read more about the debate in an article in Physics by Thompson and colleagues.

The post Doubts cast on ‘superradiant neutrino laser’ proposal appeared first on Physics World.

Nickel disulfide, NiS₂, is an unusual material. Its interior behaves as an electrical insulator, blocking the flow of current, while certain parts of its surface conduct electricity freely. This contradiction has puzzled physicists for decades, and a recent study offers a detailed explanation. The conduction, it turns out, is confined to tiny one-dimensional steps on the surface, and these narrow conducting channels are a direct consequence of how electrons are arranged inside the crystal.

Mott insulator

NiS₂ shares its crystal structure with pyrite, the mineral sometimes called fool’s gold. At ordinary conditions, its electrons do not move freely through the lattice: the strong electrical repulsion between them opens an energy gap that keeps the bulk of the material insulating. This behaviour defines what physicists call a Mott, or charge-transfer, insulator, a category of materials that simple band theory cannot explain. Band theory predicts that any material with a partially filled outer electron shell should conduct electricity, yet compounds like nickel oxide obstinately insulate instead. In 1949, the physicist Nevill Mott showed why: if two electrons crowding the same atomic site cost more energy than is available, the electrons stay locked in place and no current flows, regardless of what band theory predicts. NiS₂ behaves in much the same way.

Yet electrical-transport measurements had repeatedly found that crystals of NiS₂ conduct through their surfaces. Earlier scanning-tunnelling experiments helped explain part of the puzzle: the broad, flat surface remains insulating, but the electronic gap narrows sharply near atomic-scale steps, tiny cliffs just one or two atoms high where the surface abruptly changes level. A new study ¹ confirms this picture and examines the steps with much higher spatial resolution than before.

A not that smooth surface

A scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) works by bringing an extremely sharp needle close enough to a surface that electrons can leak across the gap between tip and sample. Measuring that leakage at different energies reveals both the surface’s shape and how easily electrons can enter or leave it. In NiS₂, these measurements uncovered electronic states concentrated tightly along the step edges: the states extend for a long distance parallel to a step but stay confined to roughly one to two nanometres across it. In other words, the electrons are effectively free to move in one direction while remaining trapped in the other two, forming genuine one-dimensional conduction channels.

Two distinct kinds of surface step were observed, depending on whether the outermost atomic layer exposes nickel or sulfur atoms. Both carry electronic states associated with their steps, but they are not equally important. The nickel-terminated steps host states that sit right at the energy where electrical conduction happens, making them the most likely explanation for the surface conductivity that transport experiments had measured for years. The sulfur-terminated steps also host states inside the insulating gap, but their energy is positioned further away, making them less directly responsible for carrying current.

The study also tested what happens when a magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the surface. The step-edge states survived fields as strong as 10 tesla, a field far stronger than any produced by a laboratory magnet used for everyday purposes. Their intensity weakened somewhat, particularly on the sulfur-terminated steps, but the states were never destroyed. This robustness matters because NiS₂ already displays complicated magnetic behaviour of its own, which might easily have disrupted a more fragile conducting state.

The deeper explanation lies in how electrons are distributed inside the crystal. In an ordinary insulator, the occupied electronic states can usually be pictured as clouds centred on the atoms themselves. NiS₂ is different: calculations show that part of its electron density is naturally centred at special positions between atoms, specifically near the midpoints of pairs of sulfur atoms, where no atom actually sits. Physicists call these obstructed charge centres, and materials built around them belong to a class known as obstructed atomic insulators, a concept that grew out of a broader effort over the past decade to classify materials by the geometry, and not just the energy, of their electron states.

Not ordinary metallic defects

This arrangement is not a chemical accident; it is protected by the symmetry of the crystal. When the crystal is cut to form a surface, though, the special positions that hosted this electron density can no longer fit together the way they did in the bulk. At a step edge, this mismatch creates what is known as a filling anomaly: an imbalance in how the available electronic states can be occupied, which leaves behind a state inside the insulating gap, localized right at the edge. Calculations of artificial step structures reproduce the main features seen under the microscope, including this localization, supporting the idea that the conducting channels are not ordinary metallic defects caused by broken chemical bonds, but a direct consequence of the crystal’s underlying electronic geometry.

The study also settles a long-standing question about NiS₂’s magnetism at low temperature. Below about 39 kelvin, the nickel magnetic moments arrange themselves into a non-collinear antiferromagnetic pattern, with neighbouring moments pointing in different directions that largely cancel out. Below about 30 kelvin, they rearrange again into a state that produces a small but measurable net magnetization. New neutron-diffraction measurements support a revised model of this low-temperature arrangement, resolving a debate about the material’s magnetic ground state that had lasted for roughly fifty years.

Taken together, the results give NiS₂ a significance well beyond its peculiar conducting surface. The material shows that strong repulsion between electrons, magnetism, and the geometry of electronic states can coexist within a single crystal. Such geometric protection is normally associated with topological materials, in which certain electronic states are shielded from disorder or defects by the crystal’s symmetry. The new results suggest that this protection can survive even when strong interactions push a material into being an insulator, making NiS₂ a rare setting for studying how the quantum-mechanical arrangement of electrons decides where electricity is allowed to flow within an otherwise insulating crystal.

Author: César Tomé López is a science writer and the editor of Mapping Ignorance

Disclaimer: Parts of this article may have been copied verbatim or almost verbatim from the referenced research paper/s.

The post Why an insulator can conduct electricity along its edges appeared first on Mapping Ignorance.