4.2 Article

Estimating dissolved carbon concentrations in global soils: a global database and model

期刊

SN APPLIED SCIENCES
卷 2, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s42452-020-03290-0

关键词

Carbon leaching; Soil carbon; Vadose zone; DOC; DIC; Soil solution; Database; Global model

资金

  1. NWO New Delta 2014 project [869.15.015, 869.15.014]
  2. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency [869.15.015, 869.15.014]
  3. Earth and life sciences (ALW) Open Programme 2016 project [ALWOP.230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissolved carbon (C) leaching in and from soils plays an important role in C transport along the terrestrial-aquatic continuum. However, a global overview and analysis of dissolved carbon in soil solutions, covering a wide range of vegetation types and climates, is lacking. We compiled a global database on annual average dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in soil solutions, including potential governing factors, with 762 entries from 351 different sites covering a range of climate zones, land cover types and soil classes. Using this database we develop regression models to calculate topsoil concentrations, and concentrations versus depth in the subsoil at the global scale. For DIC, the lack of a proportional globally distributed cover inhibits analysis on a global scale. For DOC, annual average concentrations range from 1.7 to 88.3 (median = 25.27) mg C/L for topsoils (n = 255) and from 0.42 to 372.1 (median = 5.50) mg C/L for subsoils (n = 285, excluding lab incubations). Highest topsoil values occur in forests of cooler, humid zones. In topsoils, multiple regression showed that precipitation is the most significant factor. Our global topsoil DOC model (R-2 = 0.36) uses precipitation, soil class, climate zone and land cover type as model factors. Our global subsoil model describes DOC concentrations vs. depth for different USDA soil classes (overall (R-2=0.45). Highest subsoil DOC concentrations are calculated for Histosols.

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

4.2
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