4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Underestimation of boreal forest soil carbon stocks related to soil classification and drainage

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 12, Pages 1413-1425

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2015-0466

Keywords

drainage; national forest inventory (NFI); SOC simulation; soil classification; soil-forming factors; soil moisture regime; soil survey; podsolization; Yasso07

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil organic carbon (C), accumulated over millennia, comprise more than half of the C stored in boreal and temperate forest landscapes. We used the Norwegian national forest inventory and soil survey network (n = 719, no deep organic soils) to explore the validity of a deterministic model representation of this pool (Yasso07). We statistically compared simulated and measured soil C stocks and related differences (measured - simulated) to site factors (drainage, topography, climate, vegetation, C-to-N ratio, and soil classification). Median C stocks were 5.0 kg C.m(-2) (model) and 14.5 kg C.m(-2) (measurements). Soil C differences related to site factors (r(2) of 0.16 to 0.37). For Brunisols, Gleysols, and wet Organic soils, differences related primarily to topographic wetness. For Regosols, Podzols, and Dystric Eluviated Brunisols, they related to climate, profile depth, and, in some cases, drainage class and site index. We argue that soil moisture regimes in our study area overrule tree productivity effects in the determination of soil C stocks and present conditions for soil formation that the model cannot (and does not explicitly) account for. These are processes such as humification and podsolization that involve eluviation and illuviation of dissolved organic C (DOC) with sesquioxides to form spodic B horizons and carbon enrichment due to hampered decomposition in frequently anoxic conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available