4.7 Article

Nitrogen addition stimulated soil respiration more so than carbon addition in alpine meadows

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 233, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116501

关键词

Carbon availability; Carbon balance; CO 2 emission; Fertilizer; Nitrogen availability; Northern Tibet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of fertilizers on carbon balance in grassland restoration is uncertain and requires further research. In an experiment conducted in an alpine meadow on the Tibetan Plateau, the addition of carbon and/or nitrogen stimulated soil respiration, with nitrogen having a greater effect. Therefore, the application of fertilizer in restoring degraded grassland should be re-evaluated.
The soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) availability are important in the regulation of soil C cycling under climate change. Fertilizers alter soil C and N availability, which can affect C balance. However, the impact of fertilizers on C balance in grassland restoration has been equivocal and warrants more research. We determined the direct and indirect effects of the addition of three levels of C (sucrose) (0, 60, and 120 kg C ha-1 yr- 1), three levels of N (urea) (0, 50, and 100 kg N ha-1 yr- 1), and a combination of C plus N at each of the levels on soil respiration (Rs) dynamics and C balance in an alpine meadow in northern Tibet (4700 m above sea level). This study was undertaken during the middle of the growing season in 2011-2012. The addition of C and/or N stimulated CO2 emission, which was 2-fold greater in 2011 (102-144 g C m- 2) than in 2012 (43-54 g C m- 2). The rate of Rs increased with the addition of N, but was not affected with the addition of C plus N. Microbial biomass C, dissolved organic C and inorganic N were the main drivers of Rs. We concluded that N addition stimulated Rs to a greater extent than C addition in the short term. The application of fertilizer in the restoration of degraded grassland should be re-considered.

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