4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Association of organic matter with iron and aluminum across a range of soils determined via selective dissolution techniques coupled with dissolved nitrogen analysis

期刊

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
卷 112, 期 1-3, 页码 95-109

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10533-011-9652-5

关键词

Soil organic matter stabilization; Organo-mineral interaction; Sorption; Dithionite; Oxalate; Pyrophosphate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strong correlations of soil total organic carbon (OC) with iron and aluminum phases reported frequently make it important to quantify these organic matter (OM) associations, but selective extractants sometimes contain OC. Soil nitrogen is often predominantly organic and might serve as a proxy for OM. We therefore investigated nitrogen associations with Fe and Al using several selective extractants that use reductive, complexation, and alkaline approaches. Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) correlated strongly with extracted Fe and Al across seventeen samples, including highly- and weakly-weathered soils, iron-rich ultrabasic soils, podzolic, and volcanic soils. Typically a quarter to a third of total soil nitrogen was dissolved by the various extractions, though higher fractions (up to 60%) were found in spodic-horizon and volcanic surface-horizon samples. Similar proportions were found for OC, using three OC-free extractants, indicating that TDN provides a useful surrogate for assessing OM partitioning via extractants that contain OC. Use of TDN:metal ratios in extractant solutions allows estimation of extracted OM that could have been sorptively associated with metal oxide/hydroxides and poorly-crystalline aluminosilicates. These ratios were often high in extractions targeted at these adsorbents, and imply that usually most of the extracted TDN consists instead of organo-metal complexes. The dynamics of these complexes may have stronger control on accumulation/remobilization of soil OM than those of metal oxyhydroxides and poorly-crystalline aluminosilicates.

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