4.7 Article

Evaluation of no-tillage impacts on soil respiration by 13C-isotopic signature in North China Plain

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 824, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153852

关键词

No-tillage; Soil respiration; delta C-13; Soil carbon storage; North China Plain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1906219, U2006212, 41771292, 42007155]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impacts of different tillage practices on soil carbon storage and CO2 emissions in the North China Plain using C-13 isotopic signature. The results showed that no-tillage (NT) had lower CO2 emissions compared to conventional tillage (CT), and NT facilitated enhanced soil carbon storage. This was attributed to the increased soil microbial carbon and nitrogen as well as soil moisture in NT, which inhibited soil respiration.
It is a challenge to characterize soil respiration of crop residue return systems in the North China Plain (NCP) under notillage (NT) and conventional tillage (CT) practices. In this study, we addressed the hot spot research challenge of impacts of tillage practices on soil carbon storage and soil CO2 emissions in the NCP by C-13-isotopic signature. A short-term (2018-2020) field experiment was conducted with two tillage practices: NT and CT. The results showed that in the tested area, NT had advantages of lower CO2 emissions compared to CT with average reduced CO2 emissions by 10.82%-19.14%. The results of this study suggested that the NT facilitated enhanced soil carbon storage by 2.80%, which was evidenced by the delta C-13 data. Based on the path analysis model, the main line of soil respiration reduced by NT was attributed to the increased of soil microbial carbon and nitrogen as well as soil moisture in NT, which further increased delta C-13 and eventually inhibited soil respiration. Overall, adopting NT in NCP is an effective means to improve soil carbon pool and decrease soil CO2 emissions in agriculture practices.

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