4.5 Article

Labile fractions of soil organic matter, their quantity and quality

期刊

PLANT SOIL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 245-251

出版社

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/87/2009-PSE

关键词

primary soil organic matter; labile fraction; quality and quantity; degree of hydrolyzability; oxidation; reaction rate

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [MSM 6007665806]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the present paper is to contribute to the evaluation of quantity and quality of non-humified part of soil organic matter (SOM). In samples of soil organic matter from the humus profile of Sumava forest soils and forest meadows, taxonomically designated as mor and moder forms, the fractions of labile soil carbon C-cws, C-hws, C-PM and fraction of stable carbon represented by carbon of humus acids C-HA and C-FA were determined. Organic matter of samples was fractionated according to the degrees of hydrolyzability by two different methods in particle-size fractions of 2.00-0.25 mm and < 0.25 mm. The quality of labile fraction C-hws was expressed on the basis of reaction kinetics as the rate constant of biochemical oxidation K-bio and rate constant of chemical oxidation K-chem of the first order reaction from a reduction in the concentration of C-compounds. The highest values of labile forms of carbon were determined in samples with the least favorable conditions for transformation processes of SOM, and these samples also had the highest content of labile forms in hydrolyses by both methods and the most labile fractions at the same time. The degree of SOM humification was strictly indirectly proportional to the lability of SOM and its hydrolyzability. The quality of labile fraction C-hws can be expressed by both K-bio and K-chem while the sensitivity of K-bio is higher but the reproducibility of K-chem is better. K-bio corresponds with the degree of SOM transformation, K-chem with the proportion of C-PM in total C-ox.

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

4.5
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