4.7 Article

Unambiguous evidence of old soil carbon in grass biosilica particles

Journal

BIOGEOSCIENCES
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 1269-1286

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-13-1269-2016

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Science Foundation [DEB-1144888]
  2. French FIR (Aix-Marseille Universite)
  3. ECCOREV
  4. AIR Archeometrie (CNRS)
  5. Labex OT-Med
  6. Durum experiment via the Fondazione in rete per la ricerca agroalimentare
  7. AGER program: agroalimentare e ricerca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Plant biosilica particles (phytoliths) contain small amounts of carbon called phytC. Based on the assumptions that phytC is of photosynthetic origin and a closed system, claims were recently made that phytoliths from several agriculturally important monocotyledonous species play a significant role in atmospheric CO2 sequestration. However, anomalous phytC radiocarbon (C-14) dates suggested contributions from a non-photosynthetic source to phytC. Here we address this non-photosynthetic source hypothesis using comparative isotopic measurements (C-14 and delta C-13) of phytC, plant tissues, atmospheric CO2, and soil organic matter. State-of-the-art methods assured phytolith purity, while sequential stepwise-combustion revealed complex chemical-thermal decomposability properties of phytC. Although photosynthesis is the main source of carbon in plant tissue, it was found that phytC is partially derived from soil carbon that can be several thousand years old. The fact that phytC is not uniquely constituted of photosynthetic C limits the usefulness of phytC either as a dating tool or as a significant sink of atmospheric CO2. It additionally calls for further experiments to investigate how SOM-derived C is accessible to roots and accumulates in plant biosilica, for a better understanding of the mechanistic processes underlying the silicon biomineralization process in higher plants.

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