4.7 Article

Carbon losses from pyrolysed and original wood in a forest soil under natural and increased N deposition

期刊

BIOGEOSCIENCES
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 5199-5213

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-11-5199-2014

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
  2. Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate and Environmental Science Division of the US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  3. University of Zurich Research Priority Program (URPP) Global Change and Biodiversity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pyrogenic organic matter (PyOM) plays an important role as a stable carbon (C) sink in the soils of terrestrial ecosystems. However, uncertainties remain about in situ turnover rates of fire-derived PyOM in soil, the main processes leading to PyOM-C and nitrogen (N) losses from the soil, and the role of N availability on PyOM cycling in soils. We measured PyOM and native soil organic carbon losses from the soil as carbon dioxide and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) using additions of highly C-13-labelled PyOM (2.03 atom %) and its precursor pinewood during 1 year in a temperate forest soil. The field experiment was carried out under ambient and increased mineral N deposition (+60 kg N-NH4NO3 ha(-1) year(-1)). The results showed that after 1 year: (1) 0.5% of PyOM-C and 22% of wood-C were mineralized as CO2, leading to an estimated turnover time of 191 and 4 years, respectively; (2) the quantity of PyOM and wood lost as dissolved organic carbon was negligible (0.0004 +/- 0.0003% and 0.022 +/- 0.007 % of applied-C, respectively); and (3) N additions decreased cumulative PyOM mineralization by 43 %, but did not affect cumulative wood mineralization and did not affect the loss of DOC from PyOM or wood. We conclude that mineralization to CO2 was the main process leading to PyOM losses during the first year of mineralization in a forest soil, and that N addition can decrease PyOM-C cycling, while added N showed no effect on wood C 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

4.7
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