4.3 Article

Effects of land-cover type and topography on soil organic carbon storage on Northern Loess Plateau, China

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/09064710902988672

关键词

Grain-for-Green Policy; land-cover change; slope aspect; soil erosion; soil organic carbon pool

资金

  1. Japanese Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  3. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Changes in land cover from cropland to conservation can sequester carbon in soil. On the Loess Plateau of China, vast areas of sloping cropland were converted into forest and grassland to control soil erosion. The northern plateau is a topographically heterogeneous, semi-arid region. A good understanding of the change of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage on the plateau in the process of land-cover change is important for assessing environmental changes and planning future land cover. We selected four land-cover types (cropland, planted grassland, abandoned orchard, and secondary grassland), and two vegetation covers (Stipa bungeana and Caragana korshinskii) on shady and sunny slopes, to analyse the effects of land cover and slope aspect on SOC storage. Soil C in the top 100 cm was significantly (P0.05) greater in artificial grassland (2.49 kg m-2) and secondary grassland (2.98 kg m-2) than in cropland (1.69 kg m-2). The SOC pool in the surface soil and throughout the 1-m profile followed the order secondary grasslandartificial grasslandabandoned orchardscropland. Sequestration extended to deep soil (80-100 cm). Slope aspect affected SOC concentration: wind erosion of the shady slope marginally reduced surface SOC relative to the sunny slope. In deep soil, responses of SOC concentration to slope aspect differed between vegetation covers: under C. korshinskii, SOC concentration was significantly greater on the shady slope (P0.05), but no difference was found under S. bungeana.

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

4.3
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