4.6 Article

Effect of tillage system on distribution of aggregates and organic carbon in a Hydragric Anthrosol

期刊

PEDOSPHERE
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 574-581

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1002-0160(08)60051-X

关键词

aggregates; Hydragric Anthrosol; organic carbon; tillage system

资金

  1. National Key Technology MID Program of China [2006BAD05B01, 2007BAD87B10-02]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China [9066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of different tillage systems on the size distribution of aggregates and organic carbon distribution and storage in different size aggregates in a Hydragric Anthrosol were studied in a long-term experiment in Chongqing, China. The experiment included three tillage treatments: conventional tillage with rotation of rice and winter fallow (CT-r) system, no-till and ridge culture with rotation of rice and rape (RT-rr) system, and conventional tillage with rotation of rice and rape (CT-rr) system. The results showed that the aggregates 0.02-0.25 turn in diameter accounted for the largest portion in cacti soil layer under all treatments. Compared with the CT-r system, in the 0-10 cm layer, the amount of aggregates > 0.02 turn was larger under the RT-rr system, but smaller under the CT-rr system. In tire 0-20 cm layer, the organic carbon content of all fractions of aggregates was the highest under the RT-rr system and lowest under the CT-rr system. The total organic carbon content showed a positive linear relationship with the amount of aggregates with diameter ranging from 0.25 to 2 mm. The storage of organic carbon in all fractions of aggregates under the RT-rr system was higher than that under the CT-r system in the 0-20 cm layer, but in the 0-60 cut soil layer, there was no distinct difference. Under the CT-rr system, the storage of organic carbon in all fractions of aggregates was lower than that under the CT-r system; most of the newly lost organic carbon was front the aggregates 0.002-0.02 and 0.02-0.25 mm in diameter.

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