4.1 Article

Changes in the Pools of Total and Labile Soil Organic Carbon during Post-Fire Succession in the Khibiny Mountain Tundra Ecosystems

期刊

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 330-338

出版社

PLEIADES PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1134/S1064229320030047

关键词

carbon stocks; labile organic matter; microbial biomass; potentially mineralizable organic matter; Entic Folic Podzols

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [18-34-00292 mol_a]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The changes in the total soil carbon storage and the pools of labile and potentially mineralizable organic matter in Entic Folic Podzols of the Khibiny Mountains (Murmansk region, NW Russia) caused by wildfires of high and moderate intensity and during the post-fire succession are discussed. Although a moderate-intensity wildfire has no statistically significant impact on the total soil carbon pool, it triggers the active erosion processes leading to the carbon losses comparable to the direct pyrogenic carbon losses in a high-intensity fire. In the postfire soil restoration, the type of organic carbon accumulation changes: the surface carbon accumulation in the form of peat is characteristic of the control site, while up to half of soil carbon is accumulated in the mineral horizons at late stages of the postpyrogenic succession. A high-intensity fire leads to almost complete destruction of labile, microbial, and potentially mineralizable carbon pools in both the organic (pyrogenic) and mineral horizons. A moderate-intensity fire does not cause any statistically significant changes in these pools as compared to the control. The restoration dynamics of the labile and potentially mineralizable pools of organic matter in the pyrogenic horizons of soil differ: the trend of a steady increase in the pools of labile and microbial carbon is observed for three years after the fire and later, while the pool of potentially mineralizable carbon reaches its maximum three years after the fire and then becomes stabilized at this level.

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

4.1
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