4.6 Article

Beyond clay: towards an improved set of variables for predicting soil organic matter content

期刊

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
卷 137, 期 3, 页码 297-306

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10533-018-0424-3

关键词

Soil organic matter; Biogeochemistry; Carbon cycle

资金

  1. John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis
  2. U.S. Geological Survey
  3. NSF [EAR-1331408, EAR-1123454]
  4. NSF CAREER [BCS-1349952]
  5. US Department of Agriculture [NIFA 2015-67003-23485]
  6. US Department of Energy [TES DE-SC0014374]
  7. USDA-NIFA Hatch project [HAW01130-H]
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H02810] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improved quantification of the factors controlling soil organic matter (SOM) stabilization at continental to global scales is needed to inform projections of the largest actively cycling terrestrial carbon pool on Earth, and its response to environmental change. Biogeochemical models rely almost exclusively on clay content to modify rates of SOM turnover and fluxes of climate-active CO2 to the atmosphere. Emerging conceptual understanding, however, suggests other soil physicochemical properties may predict SOM stabilization better than clay content. We addressed this discrepancy by synthesizing data from over 5,500 soil profiles spanning continental scale environmental gradients. Here, we demonstrate that other physicochemical parameters are much stronger predictors of SOM content, with clay content having relatively little explanatory power. We show that exchangeable calcium strongly predicted SOM content in water-limited, alkaline soils, whereas with increasing moisture availability and acidity, iron- and aluminum-oxyhydroxides emerged as better predictors, demonstrating that the relative importance of SOM stabilization mechanisms scales with climate and acidity. These results highlight the urgent need to modify biogeochemical models to better reflect the role of soil physicochemical properties in SOM cycling.

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

4.6
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