## 3 Results
### Temperature Sensitivity of \(R_{\rm s}\)  
The seasonal trend of Q\({}_{10}\) and other climatic factors differed. Specifically, the monthly \(T_{\rm s}\) and \(R_{\rm s}\) increased from April (5.18 \(\pm\) 2.34 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.93 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)) to July (17.38 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.68 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)), after which they decreased to the lowest values in November (0.91 \(\pm\) 0.48 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.12 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)) (Figure 6). The Q\({}_{10}\) seasonal trend was contrary to the corresponding \(T_{\rm s}\) and \(R_{\rm s}\) trends, presenting a concave type distribution. Moreover, its value was higher in cold months and lower in warm months. The Q\({}_{10}\) value decreased from April (4.31) to September (1.27), then increased dramatically until peaking in November (7.03). The seasonal R\({}_{10}\) trend fluctuated, but its values basically remained around 4 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\) during each month.  
Under different temperature conditions, Q\({}_{10}\) presented obviously different values (Figure 7). Specifically, as temperatures decreased, Q\({}_{10}\) became higher. At the temperature interval of \(-\)1 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the Q\({}_{10}\) value was 7.61, with a mean \(T_{\rm s}\) of 1.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C and a mean \(R_{\rm s}\) of 1.25 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\). The Q\({}_{10}\) then decreased dramatically with the same temperature interval, i.e., Q\({}_{10}\) value of 0.67 for a temperature interval of 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C-11 \({}^{\circ}\)C (mean \(T_{\rm s}\) of 9.53 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(R_{\rm s}\) of 3.21 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)), 1.79 for a temperature interval of 11 \({}^{\circ}\)C-16 \({}^{\circ}\)C (mean \(T_{\rm s}\) of 13.18 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(R_{\rm s}\) of 4.86 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)), and 1.28 for 16 \({}^{\circ}\)C-21 \({}^{\circ}\)C (mean \(T_{\rm s}\) of 17.84 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(R_{\rm s}\) of 6.29 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)). Overall, \(R_{\rm s}\) was extremely sensitive to temperature changes at lower temperatures.  
Figure 5: The relationship between measured soil respiration (measured \(R_{\rm s}\)) and (**a**) \(T_{\rm s}\) exponential model estimated soil respiration (estimated \(R_{\rm s}\)), and (**b**) LST exponential model estimated soil respiration (estimated \(R_{\rm s}\)). ** correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).  
Figure 6: Seasonal variation of the monthly mean temperature sensitivity (Q\({}_{10}\)) with (**a**) soil respiration (\(R_{\rm s}\)), reference soil respiration (R\({}_{10}\)), and (**b**) soil temperature (\(T_{\rm s}\)) from 2007 to 2015 in study site. Error bars indicate the standard error.  
The R\({}_{10}\) values in each year presented a fluctuating trend, ranging from a minimum of 2.57 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\) in 2014 to a maximum of 3.39 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\) in 2013. The CV value was 9% during the nine-year observation period (Figure 8). Additionally, the mean annual R\({}_{10}\) was 3.01 \(\pm\) 0.27 \(\upmu\)mol CO\({}_{2}\) m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\). The annual Q\({}_{10}\) values showed a trend of fluctuation as well, but its range was greater than that of R\({}_{10}\), with a minimum of 1.84 being observed in 2009 and a maximum of 3.78 in 2011. The yearly CV was 20% and the mean value of Q\({}_{10}\) during the study year was 2.90 \(\pm\) 0.59. Overall, although the R\({}_{10}\) and Q\({}_{10}\) values differed during each observed year, they were close to the mean values, except in 2009, when there was a water stress during the summer. This water shortage led to especially strong variations in Q\({}_{10}\).