4.3 Article

CHANGES IN SOIL ORGANIC CARBON AND ITS FRACTIONS AFTER 13 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS STRAW RETURN IN A SOYBEAN-MAIZE CROPPING SYSTEM

期刊

APPLIED ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 8267-8284

出版社

ALOKI Applied Ecological Research and Forensic Inst Ltd
DOI: 10.15666/aeer/1806_82678284

关键词

labile fraction carbons; Mollisol; soil density fractionation; long term fertilization; soil organic carbon storage

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0200309]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41807094, 41771327, 41807085]
  3. China Agriculture Research System [CARS-04]
  4. applied Technology Research and Development Program of Heilongjiang [GY2017ZB006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Straw return to the soil is proposed as an effective practice to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) storage in croplands. Based on a 13-year field experiment with soybean-maize cropping system, we studied the changes of total SOC and SOC fractions under no fertilizer (NF), mineral fertilizers (NPK) and mineral fertilizers with straw return (NPKS). Compared with the initial soil, SOC storage in the bulk soil significantly increased by 7.19% in the NPKS treatment, with an annual increase of 0.32 Mg ha(-1); while the SOC storage significantly decreased by 3.47% in the NF treatment, and no significant change was recorded in NPK treatment after 13 years. The NPKS treatment significantly increased the storage of free light fraction carbon (fLFC), occluded light fraction carbon (oLFC), heavy fraction (HFC), humic acid carbon (HAC) and fulvic acid carbon (FAC) by 44.4, 31.8, 5.47 10.5 and 3.92%, respectively. The HAC contributed the highest percentage (47.0%) of carbon to the improvement of SOC after 13 years of straw return. Therefore, straw return was conducive to the accumulation of labile fractions (fLFC and oLFC) which were in favor of soil fertility. Simultaneously, the increased HAC after straw return are beneficial to carbon sequestration.

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

4.3
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