Elsa Abs

🎉 I'm thrilled to share that I've started a permanent research position as Chargée de Recherche (CR) at the CNRS!
@cnrs-insu.bsky.social

I'm super thankful to all my amazing colleagues and friends who gave feedback and encouragement during the application process 💚

Congratulations Kyle!!! (love the soil mates 🤣🥰)

Thank you for sharing Brian!

Link to submit your abstract: lnkd.in/gkDzqqaX

Wondering where to submit your abstract for #AGU25 @agu.org?

Check out our session co-organized with @kristenobacter.bsky.social (UMass), Ulas Karaoz and Nicola Falco (Berkeley Lab).

In-person invited speakers: @andreasrichter.bsky.social (U of Vienna) & Amilcare Porporato (Princeton) 🤩

I'd love that! I'm based in Paris. Would that work for you?

Working on microscale microbial functions and/or scaling up?

Submit to our Elementa special feature!

🔗 lnkd.in/gChyjaiM
📝 Rolling publication
📅 Final deadline: Sept 20, 2025
🌍 Contributions welcome from soil, ocean & human systems.

🙏 co-authors: @scott-saleska.bsky.social , Steve Allison, Philippe Ciais, @chopinyang.bsky.social , Mike Weintraub and Régis Ferrière.

6. Conclusion

Microbial eco-evolution could destabilize soil carbon.
Models that ignore it risk underestimating climate-carbon feedbacks.
We hope this work opens the door to more theory-driven, evolution-aware Earth system models. (7/7)

5. Global heterogeneity of the eco-evolutionary effect

We wondered if we could replace eco-evolution with a constant correction. Answer: no. Its effect is uneven—negligible in warm regions, but up to 2× more soil C loss in cold ones. Why? Optimal enzyme allocation responds nonlinearly. (6/7)

4. Implication for global soil C projections

We thought that microbial adaptation would buffer warming-induced soil C loss. But because it amplifies enzyme production (as shown above), we found that adaptation aggravates the loss—by x1.8 globally. (5/7)

3. Experimental validation

We reviewed 13 warming studies:
✅ 9 matched our predictions (6 eco-evolution, 3 physio)
❌ 3 didn’t show increased enzyme production (though evidence was weaker).
Overall, warming tends to increase microbial investment in resource acquisition. (4/7)

2. Evolutionary result

We found that in hostile environments (e.g. high mortality, slow uptake), selection favors direct investment in biomass over the riskier strategy of enzyme production. Since warming mainly increases uptake rate, we predicted it would favor stronger enzyme producers. (3/7)

1. The eco-evolutionary model

We added a trade-off to a classic microbe-soil C model and used adaptive dynamics to evolve enzyme allocation. To prevent freeloaders from taking over, we included implicit spatial structure. Bonus: enzyme production emerges—it’s no longer a free parameter. (2/7)

New paper out in Global Change Biology 🤩

doi.org/10.1111/gcb....

We built the first soil carbon model that includes microbial eco-evolution using game theory — and found that adaptation could nearly double global soil carbon loss by 2100. Here is how👇(1/7)

🙏 co-authors: @scott-saleska.bsky.social, Steve Allison, Philippe Ciais, @chopinyang.bsky.social, Mike Weintraub and Régis Ferrière.

6. Conclusion

Microbial eco-evolution could destabilize soil carbon.
Models that ignore it risk underestimating climate-carbon feedbacks.
We hope this work opens the door to more theory-driven, evolution-aware Earth system models. (7/7)

5. Global heterogeneity of the eco-evolutionary effect

We wondered if we could replace eco-evolution with a constant correction. Answer: no. Its effect is uneven—negligible in warm regions, but up to 2× more soil C loss in cold ones. Why? Optimal enzyme allocation responds nonlinearly. (6/7)

4. Implication for global soil C projections

We thought that microbial adaptation would buffer warming-induced soil C loss. But because it amplifies enzyme production (as shown above), we found that adaptation aggravates the loss—by x1.8 globally. (5/7)

3. Experimental validation

We reviewed 13 warming studies:
✅ 9 matched our predictions (6 eco-evolution, 3 physio)
❌ 3 didn’t show increased enzyme production (though evidence was weaker).
Overall, warming tends to increase microbial investment in resource acquisition. (4/7)

2. Evolutionary result

We found that in hostile environments (e.g. high mortality, slow uptake), selection favors direct investment in biomass over the riskier strategy of enzyme production. Since warming mainly increases uptake rate, we predicted it would favor stronger enzyme producers. (3/7)

1. The eco-evolutionary model

We added a trade-off to a classic microbe-soil C model and used adaptive dynamics to evolve enzyme allocation. To prevent freeloaders from taking over, we included implicit spatial structure. Bonus: enzyme production emerges—it’s no longer a free parameter. (2/7)

Simpler, Smarter, Stronger: Workshop on Incorporating EEO into Land Surface Models - Lemontree The LEMONTREE team and invited guests recently met at Dartington Hall to explore how Eco-Evolutionary Optimality theory can simplify and strengthen Land Surface Models.

🚨 New blog! 🌱🌍
What happens when 18 scientists gather in a medieval hall to rethink Land Surface Models using Eco-Evolutionary Optimality?
Find out 👉 research.reading.ac.uk/lemontree/si...
#EEO #LandSurfaceModels #LEMONTREE

Gorgeous place to think about eco-evolution. Thanks @lemontree-uofr.bsky.social for the invite!

📣 Our special feature highlighting cutting-edge microbial eco-evolutionary research is now live and open for submissions! online.ucpress.edu/elementa/pag.... Submission deadline: September 20, 2025 (but accepted papers will be published on a rolling basis starting immediately).

Yayy! Just added you!

Thank you for your amazing talk!

If you loved (or missed!) our AGU24 session, don’t miss our
#EGU25 session, "Advancing Soil Carbon Predictions"! 🥁 Invited speaker: Elena Shevliakova (Princeton), a leader in integrating microbes into land surface models. Submit abstracts by Jan 15 🗓️: meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU25/sessio...

Of course! you’re in 🥰

Just did!