4.7 Article

Soil organic matter in podzol horizons of the Amazon region: Humification, recalcitrance, and dating

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 613, 期 -, 页码 160-167

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.068

关键词

Amazon podzols; Organic matter; Humic acids; Humification index

资金

  1. Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2011/03250-2, 2012/51469-6, 2013/07276-1, 2013/13013-3]
  2. Brazilian National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) [303478/2011-0, 306674/2014-9, 150087/2017-9, 232225/2014-1-SWE]
  3. French ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) [ANR-12-IS06-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characteristics of soil organic matter (SOM) are important, especially in the Amazon region, which represents one of theworld's most relevant carbon reservoirs. In this work, the concentrations of carbon and differences in its composition (humification indexes) were evaluated and compared for several horizons (0 to 390 cm) of three typical Amazonian podzol profiles. Fluorescence spectroscopy was used to investigate the humic acid (HA) fractions of SOM isolated from the different samples. Simple and labile carbon structures appeared to be accumulated in surface horizons, while more complex humified compounds were leached and accumulated in intermediate and deeper Bh horizons. The results suggested that the humic acids originated from lignin and its derivatives, and that lignin could accumulate in some Bh horizons. The HA present in deeper Bh horizons appeared to originate from different formation pathways, since these horizons showed different compositions. There were significant compositional changes of HA with depth, with four types of organic matter: recalcitrant, humified, and old dating; labile and young dating; humified and young dating; and little humified and old dating. Therefore, the humification process had no direct relation with the age of the organic matter in the Amazonian podzols. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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