4.6 Article

Effects of afforestation on soil carbon turnover in China's subtropical region

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 118-134

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11442-011-0833-x

关键词

soil organic carbon; stable carbon isotope; plantation forest

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30670312]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-305-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Afforestation in China's subtropics plays an important role in sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere and in storage of soil carbon (C). Compared with natural forests, plantation forests have lower soil organic carbon (SOC) content and great potential to store more C. To better evaluate the effects of afforestation on soil C turnover, we investigated SOC and its stable C isotope (delta C-13) composition in three planted forests at Qianyanzhou Ecological Experimental Station in southern China. Litter and soil samples were collected and analyzed for total organic C, delta C-13 and total nitrogen. Similarly to the vertical distribution of SOC in natural forests, SOC concentrations decrease exponentially with depth. The land cover type (grassland) before plantation had a significant influence on the vertical distribution of SOC. The SOC delta C-13 composition of the upper soil layer of two plantation forests has been mainly affected by the grass biomass C-13 composition. Soil profiles with a change in photosynthetic pathway had a more complex C-13 isotope composition distribution. During the 20 years after plantation establishment, the soil organic matter sources influenced both the delta C-13 distribution with depth, and C replacement. The upper soil layer SOC turnover in masson pine (a mean 34% of replacement in the 10 cm after 20 years) was more than twice as fast as that of slash pine (16% of replacement) under subtropical conditions. The results demonstrate that masson pine and slash pine plantations cannot rapidly sequester SOC into long-term storage pools in subtropical China.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据