4.5 Article

Spatial variability of soil N2O and CO2 fluxes in different topographic positions in a tropical montane forest in Kenya

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016JG003667

关键词

-

资金

  1. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security
  2. Climate Food and Farming Research Network (CLIFF)
  3. BMBF-Project (Forderzeichnen) [01DG13012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying and understanding the small-scale variability of nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission are essential for reporting accurate ecosystem greenhouse gas budgets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the spatial pattern of soil CO2 and N2O emissions and their relation to topography in a tropical montane forest. We measured fluxes of N2O and CO2 from 810 sampling locations across valley bottom, midslope, and ridgetop positions under controlled laboratory conditions. We further calculated the minimum number of samples necessary to provide best estimates of soil N2O and CO2 fluxes at the plot level. Topography exhibited a major influence on N2O emissions, with soils at midslope position emitting significantly less than at ridgetops and valley bottoms, but no consistent effect of topography on soil CO2 emissions was found. The high spatial variation of N2O and CO2 fluxes was further increased by changes in vegetation and soil properties resulting from human disturbance associated with charcoal production. Soil N2O and CO2 fluxes showed no spatial pattern at the plot level, with hot spots strongly contributing to the total emissions (10% of the soil cores represented 73 and 50% of the total N2O and CO2 emissions, respectively). Thus, a large number of samples are needed to obtain robust estimates of N2O and CO2 fluxes. Our results highlight the complex biogeochemical cycling in tropical montane forests, and the need to carefully address it in research experiments to robustly estimate soil CO2 and N2O fluxes at the ecosystem scale.

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

4.5
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