4.7 Article

Aggregation and soil organic carbon fractions under different land uses on the tableland of the Loess Plateau of China

期刊

CATENA
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 19-28

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2013.11.002

关键词

Land use types; Soil aggregates; Soil organic carbon fractions; Tableland of the Loess Plateau

资金

  1. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [30872073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land uses and cultivation are important factors controlling SOC storage on the Loess Plateau. These factors may also affect the relative importance of different mechanisms for the stabilization of organic matter in the soil. Easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC), aggregation and aggregate C fractions in the soil were measured under different land uses. Aggregates were fractionated using a wet-sieving procedure to obtain the distribution of water-stable aggregates. The fractions of aggregates, aggregate SOC and aggregate EOC in grassland and forestland were generally higher than those in farmland. Furthermore, because conventional cultivation destroyed aggregates, the dominant aggregate size fractions were <0.5 mm for farmland and >0.5 mm for other land uses. Compared to the corresponding values in farmland, the mean weight diameter (MWD) in forestland and grassland increased by 808%-417%, and the stability ratio of water-stable aggregate (WSAR) increased by 920%-553%. Aggregate formation and its dominant size fraction were associated closely with its carbon fractions. SOC and EOC in farmland tended to be concentrated in smaller-sized aggregates, whereas SOC and EOC under other land uses tended to concentrate in larger-sized aggregates. EOC tended to concentrate in larger aggregates than SOC. The small fractions of the aggregates formed large fractions by combining with fresh organic matter. So converting slope farmland to forestland and grassland could improve the storage and quality of SOC, and the tendency of SOC transfer. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by 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