4.7 Article

Long-term fencing improved soil properties and soil organic carbon storage in an alpine swamp meadow of western China

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 332, Issue 1-2, Pages 331-337

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-010-0299-0

Keywords

Alpine swamp meadow; Fencing; Grazing; Soil properties; Soil carbon storage

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC30900177]
  2. West Light Foundation of CAS [2009]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau of ISWC of CAS [10502-Q5]
  4. NWSUAF [22050205]
  5. Ministry of Agriculture China [200903060]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Overgrazing significantly affects alpine meadows in ways similar to grasslands in other areas. Fencing to exclude grazers is one of the main management practices used to protect alpine meadows. However, it is not known if fencing can improve soil properties and soil organic carbon storage by restraining grazing in alpine meadows. We studied the long-term (nine-year) effects of fencing on soil properties, soil organic carbon and nitrogen storage compared with continued grazing in an alpine swamp meadow of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, NW China. Our results showed that fencing significantly improved vegetation cover and aboveground biomass. There were significant effects of fencing on pH value, soil bulk density, and soil moisture. Long-term fencing favored the increase of soil total nitrogen, soil organic matter, soil organic carbon, soil microbial biomass carbon and soil carbon storage compared with grazed meadows. Our study suggests that long-term fencing to prevent disturbance could greatly affect soil organic carbon and nitrogen storage with regard to grazed meadows. Therefore, it is apparent from this study that fencing is an effective restoration approach of with regard to the soil's storage ability for carbon and nitrogen in alpine meadow of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available