4.6 Article

Evaluation of Three Field-Based Methods for Quantifying Soil Carbon

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055560

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development, Global Climate Change Office
  2. United States Department of Energy's Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
  3. Consortium of Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS)
  4. Robertson Foundation
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1043393] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Office of Integrative Activities
  8. Office Of The Director [903806] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three advanced technologies to measure soil carbon (C) density (g C m(-2)) are deployed in the field and the results compared against those obtained by the dry combustion (DC) method. The advanced methods are: a) Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), b) Diffuse Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (DRIFTS), and c) Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS). The measurements and soil samples were acquired at Beltsville, MD, USA and at Centro International para el Mejoramiento del Maiz y el Trigo (CIMMYT) at El Batan, Mexico. At Beltsville, soil samples were extracted at three depth intervals (0-5, 5-15, and 15-30 cm) and processed for analysis in the field with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. The INS instrument determined soil C density to a depth of 30 cm via scanning and stationary measurements. Subsequently, soil core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for soil bulk density (kg m(-3)), C concentration (g kg(-1)) by DC, and results reported as soil C density (kg m(-2)). Results from each technique were derived independently and contributed to a blind test against results from the reference (DC) method. A similar procedure was employed at CIMMYT in Mexico employing but only with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. Following conversion to common units, we found that the LIBS, DRIFTS, and INS results can be compared directly with those obtained by the DC method. The first two methods and the standard DC require soil sampling and need soil bulk density information to convert soil C concentrations to soil C densities while the INS method does not require soil sampling. We conclude that, in comparison with the DC method, the three instruments (a) showed acceptable performances although further work is needed to improve calibration techniques and (b) demonstrated their portability and their capacity to perform under field conditions.

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