4.7 Article

Differences in chemical composition of soil organic matter in natural ecosystems from different climatic regions - A pyrolysis-GC/MS study

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 568-579

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.023

关键词

Organic carbon; Biomes; Pyrolysis-GC/MS; Factor analysis; Molecular geochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil organic matter (SOM) is a key factor in ecosystem dynamics. A better understanding of the global relationship between environmental characteristics, ecosystems and SOM chemistry is vital in order to assess its specific influence on carbon cycles. This study compared the composition of extracted SOM in 18 topsoil samples taken under tundra, taiga, steppe, temperate forest and tropical forest using pyrolysis-GC/MS. Results indicate that SOM from cold climates (tundra, taiga) still resembles the composition of litter, evidenced by high quantities of levosugars and long alkanes relative to N-compounds and a clear odd-over-even dominance of the longer alkanes. Under temperate conditions, increased microbial degradation generally results in a more altered SOM chemistry. SOM formed under temperate coniferous forests shows an accumulation of aromatic and aliphatic moieties, probably induced by substrate limitations. Tropical SOM was characterized by an SOM composition rich in N-compounds and low in lignins, without any accumulation of recalcitrant fractions (i.e. aliphatic and aromatic compounds). Lignin composition moreover varies according to vegetation type. Results were validated against 13 new samples. The humic signature of topsoil organic matter formed under different biomes indicates a dominating effect of (i) SOM input composition related to vegetation, and (ii) SOM breakdown reflecting both climate and input quality. No evidence was found for a chemically stabilized SOM fraction under favorable decomposition conditions (temperate or warm climate with broadleaved vegetation). (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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