4.6 Article

Carbon and Nitrogen Losses from Soil Depend on Degradation of Tibetan Kobresia Pastures

Journal

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 1253-1262

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2522

Keywords

Kobresia pygmaea pasture; CO2 efflux; NO3- leaching; grassland degradation; dissolved organic carbon

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [KU 1184/14-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Degradation of Kobresia pygmaea pastures has strongly increased on the Tibetan Plateau over the last few decades and contributed to a high loss of soil organic carbon and nutrients. The pathways of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) losses from degraded K. pygmaea pastures are still unclear, but this is a prerequisite to assess the recovery of Tibetan grasslands. We investigated the response of day- and nighttime CO2 efflux and leaching of dissolved organic C and N, NH4+ and NO3- from K. pygmaea root mats in three degradation stages: living root mat, dying root mat and dead root mat. Dying root mat had the highest C loss as CO2 and as leached dissolved organic carbon. This indicates K. pygmaea pastures shift from a C sink to a C source following plant death. In contrast, living root mat had the lowest daytime CO2 efflux (038 +/- 01 mu gCg(-1)h(-1)) because CO2 was assimilated via photosynthesis. Nighttime CO2 efflux positively correlated with soil moisture for living and dead root mats. It indicates that increasing precipitation might accelerate C losses due to enhanced soil organic carbon decomposition. Furthermore, dead root mat had the highest average NO3- loss (23 +/- 26mgNL(-1)) from leaching compared with other root mats. Consequently, leaching increases the negative impacts of pasture degradation on N availability in these often N limited ecosystems and thus impedes the recovery of K. pastures following degradation. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available