4.7 Article

Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen in the plant-soil system after afforestation of active sand dunes in China's Horqin Sandy Land

期刊

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 75-84

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.06.007

关键词

Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Litv.; Desertification; Carbon sequestration; Plant-soil system; Restoration of degraded ecosystems; Semiarid ecosystem

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271007, 31170413]
  2. Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-EW-QN313]
  3. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 Program) [2009CB421303]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Afforestation of drylands is a potentially effective option to sequester carbon and to restore degraded soils and ecosystems. In China's Horqin Sandy Land, we investigated the effects of afforestation using Mongolian pine (Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica Litv.) in areas with active sand dunes on carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) storage in the plant-soil system. The 28- and 38-year-old plantations had 72 and 160 times the ecosystem biomass C storage, respectively, of areas with active sand dunes; the corresponding ecosystem biomass N storage was 48 and 105 times the value for areas with active dunes, versus 1.8 and 2.3 times for soil total C (organic plus inorganic) storage and 1.4 and 1.5 times for soil total N storage. The C and N accumulation rates in the plant-soil system were 678 kg C ha(-1) y(-1) and 23 kg N ha(-1) y(-1), respectively, over 38 years. The remarkable effects of afforestation on soil C and N primarily appeared in the upper 20 cm of the soil. Our results indicated that afforestation of active sand dunes with Mongolian pine has high potential to sequester C and N in the plants and the soil. The biomass played a more important role than the soil for C sequestration, but the soil played a more important role than the biomass for N sequestration. (c) 2013 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