4.7 Article

Impact of topographic aspect and vegetation (native and reforested areas) on soil organic carbon and nitrogen budgets in Mediterranean natural areas

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 544, 期 -, 页码 963-970

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.022

关键词

Forest soil; Soil quality; Reforestation; Carbon stock; Nitrogen stock; Stratification ratio; Topographic aspect

资金

  1. Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain) Cartografia y delimitacion de unidades geomorfoedaficas de los Parques Naturales Sierras de Cardena-Montoro y Despenaperros [1994000120]
  2. Office of Integrative Activities
  3. Office Of The Director [1355466] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil organic carbon (SOC) plays a critical role in the global carbon (C) cycle, and C sequestration in forest soils can represent a C sink. A relevant question is how does SOC changes in space and time; consequently, the study of the influence of topographic aspect on SOC stocks (SOCS) is very important to build a complete understanding of the soil system. In this line, four topographic aspects, north (N), south (S), east (E) and west (W) were studied under two different plant communities; native forests (NF) and reforested areas (RF) in the Despenaperros Natural Park (S Spain). Five soil profiles were sampled at each of six different sites, 2 sites for NF (N and E) and 4 sites for RF (N, S, E and W). Soil properties were studied at different depths using soil control sections (S1: 0-25 cm; S2: 25-50 cm; S3: 50-75 cm). The results indicate that RF (N: 147.1 Mg ha(-1); E: 137.3 Mg ha(-1); W: 124.9 Mg ha(-1) and S: 87.0 Mg ha(-1)) had increased total SOCS compared to NF (N: 110.4 Mg ha(-1) and E: 80.9 Mg ha(-1)), and that SOCS in the N position were higher than in the other topographic aspects. Therefore, the results suggest that topographic aspect should be included in SOCS models and estimations at local and regional scales. (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