High School Biology (Next Generation Science Standards) • Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics

Use evidence to support ecosystem cycling explanations.

Trace atoms through biogeochemical cycles using real-world data to explain how matter moves through living and nonliving systems.

High School Biology emblem with a microscope, leaf, and DNA helix
Inside this lesson 10 sections 5 questions 6 figures

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

Long before modern ecology emerged, scientists noticed that the same chemical elements appear again and again in soil, water, air, and living organisms. In the early nineteenth century, chemists began to wonder why carbon and nitrogen never seemed to run out despite being consumed constantly by life. This question — where do the atoms go, and how do they return? — launched centuries of investigation into biogeochemical cycles. Understanding these cycles requires more than a diagram on a textbook page; it demands real evidence from field measurements, isotope tracers, and long-term data sets. The history of ecosystem cycling science is, at its core, a story about learning to follow individual atoms through systems that span the entire planet.

1840 • Liebig's Law of the Minimum

Justus von Liebig showed that plant growth is limited by the scarcest essential nutrient, establishing that chemical elements cycle through organisms and soil in measurable quantities.

1926 • Vernadsky's Biosphere Concept

Vladimir Vernadsky published The Biosphere, arguing that living organisms drive global geochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus.

1958 • Keeling Curve Begins

Charles David Keeling started continuous atmospheric CO₂ measurements at Mauna Loa, providing the first direct evidence that carbon cycles between the atmosphere and biosphere on seasonal and annual timescales.

1970 • Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study

Gene Likens and colleagues measured nutrient loss after clear-cutting a New Hampshire forest, providing watershed-scale evidence for how vegetation controls nutrient cycling in ecosystems.

2000s • Stable Isotope and Satellite Era

Advances in stable isotope analysis (δ¹³C, δ¹⁵N) and remote sensing allow scientists to trace individual atoms through food webs and monitor global-scale cycling from space.

Each milestone above shares a common thread: scientists needed quantitative evidence to move from speculation to understanding. Today, ecologists continue to ask the same fundamental question that Liebig and Vernadsky raised — how can we use measurable data to explain the movement and transformation of matter through ecosystems? This lesson teaches you to evaluate and construct such evidence-based explanations, connecting directly to NGSS Performance Expectation HS-LS2-4.

SECTION 2

Core Principles of Ecosystem Cycling

Matter cannot be created or destroyed — this principle from chemistry governs every ecosystem on Earth. When a deer eats grass, the carbon atoms in the grass do not vanish; they are reorganized into deer tissue, exhaled as CO₂, or excreted and recycled by decomposers. The same is true for nitrogen, phosphorus, water, and every other element essential to life. Ecosystem cycling refers to the continuous movement of matter through biotic (living) and abiotic (nonliving) components of an ecosystem. To explain these cycles scientifically, you must identify the reservoirs where matter is stored, the processes that move matter between reservoirs, and the evidence — data, measurements, or observations — that supports your claims.

1

Conservation of Matter

Atoms are neither created nor destroyed in ecosystems. Every carbon atom in your body has been recycled billions of times through the atmosphere, oceans, rocks, and other organisms.
2

Reservoirs and Fluxes

A reservoir is where matter accumulates (e.g., atmosphere, ocean, soil). A flux is the rate at which matter moves between reservoirs, measured in units like grams per year.
3

Evidence-Based Explanation

A scientific explanation of cycling links a claim (what happens) to evidence (data or observations) through reasoning (scientific principles that connect the two).
4

Photosynthesis and Cellular Respiration

These two processes form the biological engine of the carbon cycle. Photosynthesis converts CO₂ into organic molecules, and cellular respiration releases CO₂ back into the atmosphere.
5

Decomposition Closes the Loop

Decomposers (bacteria, fungi) break down dead organic matter and return nutrients to the soil and atmosphere, ensuring that elements remain available for new organisms.
✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of an ecosystem like a busy city recycling program. Glass bottles (atoms) move from factories (producers) to homes (consumers) to recycling centers (decomposers) and back to factories again. No glass is created or destroyed — it just changes location and form. Evidence-based explanations of ecosystem cycling are like audits of this recycling program: you need receipts (data) showing how much material moved where, and why the totals balance.

SECTION 3

Visual Explanation — The Carbon Cycle

The carbon cycle is the most frequently studied biogeochemical cycle because carbon is the backbone of all organic molecules. The diagram below shows the major reservoirs (boxes) and fluxes (arrows) of carbon in a terrestrial-aquatic ecosystem. Pay close attention to the direction and size of each arrow — they represent evidence-based estimates of how much carbon moves between compartments each year.

Carbon Cycle: Major Reservoirs and FluxesATMOSPHERECO₂ ~420 ppmPRODUCERS(Plants, Algae)CONSUMERS(Herbivores, Carnivores)DECOMPOSERS(Bacteria, Fungi)SOIL ORGANIC C~1,500 Gt COCEAN~38,000 Gt CFOSSIL FUELS~4,000 Gt CPhotosynthesis~120 Gt C/yrPlant Respiration~60 Gt C/yrFeedingDeath/WasteRespirationDecomp. Resp.LitterOcean exchange ~90 Gt C/yrCombustion ~9 Gt C/yr
Major reservoirs of carbon (boxes) and fluxes (arrows) in a simplified global carbon cycle. Reservoir sizes are in gigatonnes of carbon (Gt C). Flux rates are approximate annual averages. Note that photosynthesis and respiration fluxes nearly balance, while fossil fuel combustion adds a net flux to the atmosphere.

Several key patterns emerge from the diagram. First, photosynthesis and respiration form the dominant biological fluxes, each moving roughly 60–120 Gt of carbon per year between the atmosphere and producers. Second, the ocean is the largest active reservoir at approximately 38,000 Gt C, meaning it plays a critical role in buffering atmospheric CO₂. Third, fossil fuel combustion introduces about 9 Gt C per year into the atmosphere — a flux that did not exist before industrialization. This imbalance is the evidence scientists use to explain rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. When you construct a cycling explanation, you should trace the path of specific atoms through reservoirs and reference quantitative flux data like the values shown above.

SECTION 4

How It Works — Tracing Atoms and Building Arguments

Constructing an evidence-based explanation of ecosystem cycling requires a structured approach. Scientists use the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework to organize their arguments. A claim is a testable statement about how matter cycles. The evidence consists of specific data points, measurements, or observations that support the claim. The reasoning explains why the evidence supports the claim by connecting it to scientific principles such as conservation of matter, the laws of thermodynamics, or the biochemistry of photosynthesis and respiration.

The Claim-Evidence-Reasoning Framework Applied to Cycling

Suppose you observe the following data: atmospheric CO₂ at Mauna Loa drops by about 6 ppm each summer and rises by about 6 ppm each winter. You also know that the Northern Hemisphere has more land (and therefore more vegetation) than the Southern Hemisphere. From these observations, you can build a CER argument. Your claim: seasonal photosynthesis by Northern Hemisphere vegetation causes the annual oscillation in atmospheric CO₂. Your evidence: the Keeling Curve data showing the timing of peaks and troughs. Your reasoning: during Northern Hemisphere summer, increased photosynthesis removes CO₂ from the atmosphere faster than respiration and decomposition return it, creating a net drawdown.

Quantitative Flux Analysis

While high school biology does not typically require calculus, understanding the concept of a mass balance is essential. A mass balance states that the change in the amount of matter in a reservoir equals the total input minus the total output over a given time period.

MASS BALANCE EQUATION

ΔReservoir=ΣInputs−ΣOutputsΔReservoir = Σ Inputs − Σ Outputs

ΔReservoir = change in the amount of matter stored (e.g., grams of carbon). Σ Inputs = sum of all fluxes adding matter. Σ Outputs = sum of all fluxes removing matter. If ΔReservoir = 0, the system is in steady state (inputs balance outputs).

EXAMPLE — ATMOSPHERIC CO₂ BUDGET

ΔAtmosphericCO2=(Respiration+Combustion+OceanOutgassing)−(Photosynthesis+OceanUptake)ΔAtmospheric CO₂ = (Respiration + Combustion + Ocean Outgassing) − (Photosynthesis + Ocean Uptake)

If the sum of inputs exceeds the sum of outputs, atmospheric CO₂ increases. Current data show ΔAtmospheric CO₂ ≈ +4.7 Gt C/yr, meaning approximately 4.7 gigatonnes more carbon enter the atmosphere each year than leave it.

This mass balance concept applies to any biogeochemical cycle — nitrogen, phosphorus, or water. The key skill is identifying all inputs and outputs for a given reservoir and then using data to determine whether the system is in steady state or experiencing a net gain or loss. When you cite flux values from research studies or field measurements, you are using evidence to support your cycling explanation.

SECTION 5

Detailed Breakdown — The Nitrogen Cycle as a Case Study

The nitrogen cycle offers an excellent second example for practicing evidence-based explanations because it involves biological, chemical, and geological processes. Nitrogen makes up about 78% of Earth's atmosphere as N₂ gas, yet most organisms cannot use it in that form. Instead, specialized bacteria convert atmospheric N₂ into ammonium (NH₄⁺) through a process called nitrogen fixation. Other bacteria transform ammonium into nitrite (NO₂⁻) and nitrate (NO₃⁻) through nitrification, and still others return nitrogen to the atmosphere via denitrification. Plants absorb nitrate from the soil, consumers eat the plants, and decomposers release ammonium from dead organisms in a process called ammonification.

The Nitrogen CycleATMOSPHERE (N₂)78% of atmosphereN₂-FIXING BACTERIA(Rhizobium, etc.)PLANTS(Assimilation of NO₃⁻)CONSUMERSNH₄⁺ (Ammonium)in soilNO₃⁻ (Nitrate)in soilDENITRIFYINGBACTERIAN₂ Fixationproduces NH₄⁺NitrificationPlant UptakeFeedingDeath → AmmonificationinputDenitrificationSolid arrows = biological processes · Dashed arrow = decomposition pathwayEvidence sources: soil core nitrate/ammonium assays, ¹⁵N isotope tracer studies, atmospheric N₂O measurements
The nitrogen cycle showing key reservoirs and transformation processes. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria convert atmospheric N₂ into ammonium (NH₄⁺). Nitrifying bacteria oxidize NH₄⁺ to nitrate (NO₃⁻), which plants absorb. Consumers eat plants, and decomposers convert dead organic matter back to NH₄⁺ (ammonification). Denitrifying bacteria return nitrogen to the atmosphere as N₂, closing the cycle.

Scientists gather evidence for the nitrogen cycle using several techniques. Soil core analysis measures ammonium and nitrate concentrations at different depths, revealing where nitrification is most active. Stable isotope tracing uses ¹⁵N-labeled fertilizer to track how added nitrogen moves through plants, soil microbes, and groundwater over time. Atmospheric monitoring of nitrous oxide (N₂O), a potent greenhouse gas produced during denitrification, provides global-scale evidence of nitrogen cycling rates. Each type of evidence supports a different part of the cycle explanation. When constructing your own arguments, identify which reservoir or flux your data addresses and explain why the observed pattern is consistent with the mechanism you describe.

ℹ

NGSS CONNECTION

This lesson integrates three NGSS dimensions. DCI LS2.B (Cycles of Matter and Energy Transfer): Matter cycles through ecosystems via photosynthesis, cellular respiration, and decomposition. SEP: Constructing Explanations: Use valid and reliable evidence and scientific reasoning to support explanations. CCC: Energy and Matter: Matter is conserved because atoms are conserved in physical and chemical processes.

SECTION 6

Worked Example — Constructing a CER Argument from Data

The following worked example walks through how to construct a complete evidence-based explanation of ecosystem cycling using real data from the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire.

Explain why deforestation increases nutrient loss from a watershed

  1. 1

    Step 1 — Identify the Phenomenon

    In 1965, researchers clear-cut all vegetation from a small watershed at Hubbard Brook and applied herbicides to prevent regrowth. They measured nitrate (NO₃⁻) concentrations in the stream draining the watershed for several years before and after the cut. The phenomenon: stream nitrate concentrations increased dramatically after deforestation.
  2. 2

    Step 2 — State Your Claim

    Claim: Removing vegetation disrupts the nitrogen cycle by eliminating plant uptake, causing excess nitrate to leach from the soil into stream water.
    Claim: Deforestation disrupts the nitrogen cycle, increasing nitrate loss to streams.
  3. 3

    Step 3 — Present the Evidence

    Before clear-cutting, stream nitrate concentrations averaged about 0.9 mg/L. Within two years after deforestation, nitrate concentrations rose to approximately 53 mg/L — nearly a 60-fold increase. A nearby uncut reference watershed showed no change in nitrate concentrations during the same period.
    Evidence: ~60× increase in stream NO₃⁻ after deforestation vs. no change in reference watershed.
  4. 4

    Step 4 — Provide Scientific Reasoning

    In an intact forest, living trees and shrubs absorb nitrate from the soil through their roots, incorporating nitrogen into proteins, nucleic acids, and chlorophyll. This biological uptake acts as a sink that prevents excess nitrate from reaching streams. When vegetation is removed, the uptake flux drops to zero, but decomposers and nitrifying bacteria continue to convert organic nitrogen into nitrate. Because matter is conserved, the nitrate that plants would have absorbed must go somewhere else — in this case, it dissolves in soil water and flows into the stream. The reference watershed data serve as a control, ruling out weather or other confounding variables as the cause of the increase.
    Reasoning: Conservation of matter + removal of plant uptake flux = net nitrate export to streams.
  5. 5

    Step 5 — Evaluate and Extend

    This explanation could be strengthened with additional evidence: δ¹⁵N isotope data could confirm that the stream nitrate originated from soil microbial processes rather than atmospheric deposition. The mass balance equation ΔSoil N = (Decomposition + Atmospheric Deposition) − (Plant Uptake + Stream Export + Denitrification) can be applied quantitatively if flux values are measured for each term.
    Extension: Isotope data and full mass balance calculations would strengthen the argument.

SECTION 7

Strengths and Limitations of Different Evidence Types

Not all evidence is equally useful for every cycling question. The table below compares four common types of evidence used to support ecosystem cycling explanations, noting what each type does well and where it falls short.

Evidence TypeStrengthsLimitations
Concentration Measurements (e.g., soil nitrate levels, atmospheric CO₂)Direct, quantitative, easy to collect repeatedly over time. Reveals trends and seasonal patterns.Shows the state of a reservoir but does not directly measure fluxes. Correlation with other variables does not prove causation.
Stable Isotope Tracers (e.g., δ¹³C, δ¹⁵N, ¹⁸O)Can trace the actual path of specific atoms through the cycle. Distinguishes between sources (e.g., industrial vs. biological nitrogen).Requires expensive equipment (mass spectrometry). Interpretation depends on knowing isotope fractionation factors for each process.
Controlled Experiments (e.g., Hubbard Brook deforestation study)Establishes cause-and-effect relationships by manipulating one variable while controlling others. Strong reasoning support.Often limited in spatial and temporal scale. Difficult to replicate entire ecosystems. May not represent natural conditions.
Remote Sensing / Satellite Data (e.g., NDVI vegetation index, ocean color)Covers large spatial scales (continental to global). Provides continuous time series. Non-destructive sampling.Indirect — measures proxies (e.g., greenness) rather than actual element concentrations. Resolution may miss local variation.

Comparison of evidence types for supporting ecosystem cycling explanations

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of evidence types like tools in a mechanic's toolbox. A wrench (concentration data) is great for tightening bolts (measuring reservoir sizes), but you need a diagnostic scanner (isotope tracers) to figure out which engine component (flux pathway) is malfunctioning. The strongest explanations combine multiple evidence types, just as a good mechanic uses several tools to diagnose a complex problem.

SECTION 8

Connection to Advanced Theory — Systems Thinking and Feedback

At the introductory level, biogeochemical cycles are often presented as simple loops with arrows connecting reservoirs. Advanced ecology, however, treats ecosystems as complex adaptive systems with feedback loops, tipping points, and nonlinear responses. For example, increased atmospheric CO₂ can stimulate plant photosynthesis (a negative feedback that partially offsets the increase), but it also raises temperatures, which can accelerate decomposition and release more CO₂ from soil (a positive feedback that amplifies the increase). Understanding which feedback dominates requires sophisticated evidence — long-term flux tower measurements, eddy covariance data, and Earth system models.

FeatureIntroductory LevelAdvanced Level
Cycle ModelSimple box-and-arrow diagrams with steady-state assumptionDynamic systems models with differential equations and feedback loops
Evidence UsedConcentration measurements, single-variable experimentsMulti-variable datasets, isotope time series, satellite-derived flux estimates
Reasoning FrameworkClaim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) with conservation of matterCER plus systems thinking: feedbacks, thresholds, resilience, and uncertainty analysis
MathSimple mass balance: ΔR = Inputs − OutputsDifferential equations: dC/dt = f(inputs, outputs, feedbacks, stochastic variation)

Introductory vs. advanced approaches to ecosystem cycling explanations

As you progress in biology and environmental science, you will encounter these more sophisticated models. For now, the essential foundation is the same: every scientific explanation of cycling must be grounded in specific, relevant evidence connected to scientific principles through clear reasoning. The skills you develop constructing CER arguments about carbon and nitrogen cycling will serve you well when you encounter feedback loops, climate models, and systems ecology in college-level courses.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

Question 1: CONCEPTUAL

Which of the following best explains why the total mass of carbon in the biosphere does not increase indefinitely, even though photosynthesis continuously converts CO₂ into organic molecules? A) Carbon is destroyed during cellular respiration. B) Cellular respiration and decomposition return carbon to the atmosphere as CO₂, balancing photosynthetic uptake. C) Carbon atoms are converted into energy during metabolism. D) Plants store carbon permanently in wood, preventing it from returning to the atmosphere.
Show answer
Correct answer: B. The carbon cycle is maintained by the balance between photosynthesis (which removes CO₂ from the atmosphere) and cellular respiration plus decomposition (which return CO₂). Option A is wrong because atoms are never destroyed — conservation of matter is a fundamental principle. Option C confuses matter and energy; carbon atoms are not converted into energy, though chemical energy is released when bonds are rearranged. Option D is partially true (wood stores carbon for long periods), but it ignores that trees eventually die and decompose, returning carbon to the atmosphere.

Question 2: BASIC CALCULATION

A small forest ecosystem has the following annual carbon fluxes: Photosynthesis removes 50,000 kg C from the atmosphere. Plant respiration returns 20,000 kg C. Consumer respiration returns 8,000 kg C. Decomposition returns 18,000 kg C. What is the net change in the forest's carbon reservoir (ΔForest C) per year? A) +4,000 kg C/yr (net carbon gain) B) −4,000 kg C/yr (net carbon loss) C) 0 kg C/yr (steady state) D) +50,000 kg C/yr (net carbon gain)
Show answer
Correct answer: A. Using the mass balance: ΔForest C = Input − Output = 50,000 − (20,000 + 8,000 + 18,000) = 50,000 − 46,000 = +4,000 kg C/yr. The forest gains 4,000 kg of carbon annually, meaning it is acting as a carbon sink. Option B reverses the sign. Option C incorrectly assumes balance. Option D ignores all output fluxes and counts only photosynthetic input.

Question 3: INTERMEDIATE

Researchers measured stream nitrate concentrations from two adjacent watersheds over five years. Watershed A was left intact; Watershed B was clear-cut in year 2. Both watersheds have similar soil types and receive similar rainfall. The data show that nitrate in Watershed B's stream increased from 1.2 mg/L to 48 mg/L within 18 months of cutting, while Watershed A remained at 1.0–1.4 mg/L. Which evidence-based explanation is best supported by these data? A) Rainfall dissolved bedrock minerals in Watershed B, releasing nitrate. B) Decomposing root systems in Watershed B released nitrate that plants would normally have absorbed, and the intact Watershed A serves as a control showing that climate did not cause the change. C) Nitrifying bacteria only exist in clear-cut watersheds. D) The increase was caused by atmospheric nitrogen deposition from nearby industrial sources.
Show answer
Correct answer: B. This answer correctly identifies the mechanism (loss of plant uptake), cites the comparative evidence (Watershed A as control), and applies the reasoning that matter is conserved — nitrate produced by decomposition and nitrification must go somewhere when plants no longer absorb it. Option A fails because both watersheds have similar bedrock and rainfall, so mineral dissolution cannot explain a change only in Watershed B. Option C is factually wrong; nitrifying bacteria exist in all soils. Option D is contradicted by the unchanged nitrate levels in Watershed A, which receives the same atmospheric deposition.

Question 4: APPLIED

A farmer adds 200 kg of nitrogen fertilizer to a wheat field. At the end of the growing season, analysis reveals: 90 kg N was taken up by wheat plants, 30 kg N remained in the soil as nitrate, 45 kg N was lost as N₂ through denitrification, and 15 kg N was lost in runoff to a nearby stream. The farmer asks whether the nitrogen budget balances. Which statement is correct? A) The budget balances: 90 + 30 + 45 + 15 = 180 kg N, so 20 kg N was converted to energy. B) The budget does not balance: 20 kg N is unaccounted for and may have been lost as ammonia gas (NH₃ volatilization) or leached below the root zone. C) The budget balances perfectly because 200 − 90 − 30 − 45 − 15 = 20, and 20 kg was destroyed by bacteria. D) The budget is irrelevant because nitrogen is not conserved in biological systems.
Show answer
Correct answer: B. The total accounted nitrogen is 90 + 30 + 45 + 15 = 180 kg N, but 200 kg was applied. The 20 kg difference must be accounted for because matter is conserved — nitrogen atoms cannot be destroyed (eliminating Options A and C). Likely pathways for the missing 20 kg include ammonia volatilization (NH₃ gas escaping from the soil surface) or leaching below the root zone into groundwater. Option D is fundamentally wrong; the law of conservation of matter applies to all systems, including biological ones. This problem illustrates why complete mass balance accounting is critical for evidence-based ecosystem explanations.

Question 5: CRITICAL THINKING

A research team proposes that rising ocean temperatures will increase the rate of decomposition of dissolved organic carbon in the deep ocean, releasing more CO₂ into the atmosphere and further warming the planet. A critic argues that warmer temperatures will also increase phytoplankton growth in surface waters, drawing down more CO₂ and offsetting the effect. Design a study that could help resolve this debate. Which approach would provide the strongest evidence? A) Measure atmospheric CO₂ for one year at a single coastal station and look for changes. B) Conduct controlled laboratory experiments varying temperature for both deep-ocean decomposer communities and surface phytoplankton cultures, and use the results to parameterize a computer model that calculates net carbon flux. C) Survey 100 scientists and report the majority opinion. D) Compare satellite images of ocean color in summer vs. winter to see when phytoplankton blooms occur.
Show answer
Correct answer: B. This approach combines controlled experiments (which establish cause-and-effect relationships between temperature and the rate of each process) with computational modeling (which integrates both processes to predict the net outcome). The debate is about which flux — deep decomposition or surface photosynthesis — responds more strongly to warming, so both must be measured independently and then combined. Option A is too limited in scale and duration to detect a signal amid natural variability. Option C is not scientific evidence — scientific conclusions are based on data, not consensus surveys. Option D provides useful correlational data about phytoplankton seasonality but does not address the deep-ocean decomposition component of the question or the causal role of temperature.

SUMMARY

Summary — Using Evidence to Support Ecosystem Cycling Explanations

Summary

Ecosystems cycle matter through biogeochemical cycles including the carbon cycle and nitrogen cycle. Because atoms are conserved (never created or destroyed), matter moves between reservoirs through measurable fluxes driven by processes like photosynthesis, cellular respiration, decomposition, nitrogen fixation, nitrification, and denitrification. The mass balance equation (ΔReservoir = Inputs − Outputs) provides the quantitative foundation for analyzing whether a reservoir is in steady state, gaining, or losing matter.

To construct a scientific explanation of cycling, use the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework: state a clear claim about how matter moves, support it with quantitative evidence (concentration data, isotope tracers, experimental results, or satellite observations), and connect them with scientific reasoning based on conservation of matter and the mechanisms of key biological and chemical processes. The strongest arguments use multiple evidence types and include controlled comparisons to rule out alternative explanations. Mastering this skill prepares you for both NGSS assessments and advanced study in ecology and environmental science.

Varsity Tutors • High School Biology (Next Generation Science Standards) • Use evidence to support ecosystem cycling explanations.