4.7 Article

Litter quality assessed by solid state 13C NMR spectroscopy predicts decay rate better than C/N and Lignin/N ratios

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 40-48

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.003

关键词

C-cycle; C stocks; Decomposition; Litterbag; Litter quality; Principal component regression; Proximate cellulose and lignin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predictions of litter decomposition rates are critical for modelling biogeochemical cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and forecasting organic carbon and nutrient stock balances. Litter quality, besides climatic conditions, is recognized as a main factor affecting decay rates and it has been traditionally assessed by the C/N and lignin/N ratios of undecomposed materials. Here, solid state C-13 NMR spectroscopy and proximate chemical analysis have been used to characterize litter organic C in a litterbag experiment with 64 different litter types decomposing under controlled conditions of temperature and water content. A statistical comparative analysis provided evidence that C/N and lignin/N ratios, showing different trends of correlation with decay rates at different decomposition stages, can be used to describe the quality of undecomposed litter, but are unable to predict mass loss of already decomposed materials. A principal component regression (PCR) model based on C-13 NMR spectra, fitted and cross-validated by using either two randomly selected sets of litter types, showed highly fitting predictions of observed decay rates throughout the decomposition process. The simple ratio 70-75/52-57 corresponding to O-alkyl C of carbohydrates and methoxyl C of lignin, respectively, showed the highest correlation with decay rate among different tested parameters. These findings enhance our understanding of litter quality, and improve our ability to predict decomposition dynamics. The C-13 NMR-based 70-75/52-57 ratio is proposed as an alternative to C/N and lignin/N ratios for application in experimental and modelling work. (C) 2012 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