4.7 Article

Soil labile organic carbon fractions and soil enzyme activities after 10 years of continuous fertilization and wheat residue incorporation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68163-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFD0800301]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41877099]
  3. Anhui Provincial Science and Technology Major Project [18030701188]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Labile organic carbon (LOC) fractions and related enzyme activities in soils are considered to be early and sensitive indicators of soil quality changes. We investigated the influences of fertilization and residue incorporation on LOC fractions, enzyme activities, and the carbon pool management index (CPMI) in a 10-year field experiment. The experiment was composed of three treatments: (1) no fertilization (control), (2) chemical fertilizer application alone (F), and (3) chemical fertilizer application combined with incorporation of wheat straw residues (F+R). Generally, the F+R treatment led to the highest concentrations of the LOC fractions. Compared to the control treatment, the F+R treatment markedly enhanced potential activities of cellulase (CL), beta -glucosidase (BG), lignin peroxidase (LiP), and manganese peroxidase (MnP), but decreased laccase (LA) potential activity. Partial least squares regression analysis suggested that BG and MnP activities had a positive impact on the light-fraction organic carbon (LFOC), permanganate-oxidizable carbon (POXC), and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) fractions, whereas laccase activity had a negative correlation with those fractions. In addition, the F+R treatment significantly increased the CPMI compared to the F and control treatments. These results indicated that combining fertilization with crop residues stimulates production of LOC and could be a useful approach for maintaining sustainable production capacity in lime concretion black soils along the Huai River region of China.

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