4.7 Review

Erosion, deposition and soil carbon: A review of process-level controls, experimental tools and models to address C cycling in dynamic landscapes

期刊

EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 102-122

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.12.005

关键词

Soil erosion; Soil deposition; Carbon redistribution; Terrestrial C sink

资金

  1. BELSPO IUAP project SOGLO - Soils under Global change (Belgium)
  2. Augsburg University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of soil erosion in terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration and release remains one of the most important uncertainties in our attempts to determine the potential of soils to mediate climate change. Despite its widely recognized importance for terrestrial C sequestration, to date, no Earth System Model (ESM) implements soil erosion effects on carbon cycling in sufficient detail. So far, available studies have mostly investigated the magnitude of erosional C transport and in-situ measurements of vertical C fluxes on the catchment or regional scale. Recognizing the need to adequately represent C erosion processes and controls in ESMs, we provide a comprehensive cross-disciplinary review on lateral C redistribution in the landscape and discuss the implications for bio-geochemical cycling of carbon. We present current knowledge on the role of erosional C distribution in controlling the stabilization and release of C in soils, taking into consideration the important geomorphic, ecological, hydrologic, pedologic and micro-climatic processes and controls that affect soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, fluxes, and persistence in dynamic landscapes. Further, we provide an overview on latest experimental and modelling approaches that are being used to investigate the role of erosion in the carbon cycle. Finally, to advance our understanding of the role of soil redistribution in biogeochemical cycles of essential elements, we discuss the most promising topics for future research in this field. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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