4.6 Article

Soil Carbon Investigation in Three Pedoclimatic and Agronomic Settings of Northern Italy

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 12, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su122410539

关键词

soil organic matter; sustainable agriculture; isotopic analyses; humic substances; soil management; carbon sequestration

资金

  1. Rural Development Program (RDP
  2. Programma di Sviluppo Rurale-PSR) 2014-2020 of the Emilia-Romagna region [5015638]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sustainable agricultural management is needed to promote carbon (C) sequestration in soil, prevent loss of soil fertility, and reduce the release of greenhouse gases. However, the influence of agronomic practices on soil C sequestration depends on the existing pedoclimatic features. We characterized the soils of three farms far away each other in the Emilia-Romagna region (Northern Italy): an organic farm in the Northern Apennines, a biodynamic farm, and a conventional farm on the Po Plain. The total, inorganic, and organic carbon in soil, as well as the distinct humic fractions were investigated, analyzing both the elemental and isotopic (C-13/C-12) composition. In soils, organic matter appears to be variously affected by mineralization processes induced by microorganisms that consume organic carbon. In particular, organic carbon declined in farms located in the plain (e.g., organic carbon down to 0.75 wt%; carbon stock(0-30 cm) down to 33 Mg/ha), because of the warmer climate and moderately alkaline environment that enhance soil microbial activity. On the other hand, at the mountain farm, the minimum soil disturbance, the cold climate, and the neutral conditions favored soil C sequestration (organic carbon up to 4.42 wt%; carbon stock(0-30 cm) up to 160 Mg/ha) in humified organic compounds with long turnover, which can limit greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. This work shows the need for thorough soil investigations, to propose tailored best-practices that can reconcile productivity and soil sustainability.

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

4.6
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