3.9 Article

Root effects on soil carbon and nitrogen cycling in a Pinus radiata D. Don plantation on a coastal sand

期刊

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 1027-1039

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/SR00058

关键词

gross nitrogen mineralisation; microbial biomass; nitrification; soil respiration; trenching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the contribution of roots to soil carbon (C) fluxes and biochemical processes is recognised, it is difficult to quantify. One approach to assess their importance is the use of trenched plots, in which C inputs to the soil and respiration by living roots has ceased. We give here an account of C and nitrogen (N) pools and mineralisation in samples taken 27 months after trenching in a 26-year-old Pinus radiata D. Don plantation on a coastal sand (an Aquic Udipsamment); above-ground litter inputs continued throughout the 27-month period. Moisture contents were higher in FH material and mineral soil from the trenched than from the control plots. Trenching had no effect on total organic C and N concentrations, but led to decreases in extractable C, microbial C and N, and CO2-C production values at some depths in the soil profile. Mineral-N concentrations and gross nitrification rates were, in contrast, initially higher in the trenched-plot samples, but were similar in both treatments after incubation of the samples at 25 degreesC for 57 days. Mineral-N concentrations were also higher in the trenched than control mineral soil after in situ incubation. On an area basis (to 20 cm depth of mineral soil), inputs from roots were estimated to account for about 40% of the extractable C pool, 28% of microbial C, 26% of microbial N, and 23% of heterotrophic CO2-C production (0-7 days at 25 degreesC) in the control soil. Overall, our results suggest a tight connection between N cycling rates and the labile C pools derived from below-ground inputs, with nitrification in particular increasing as C availability declined as a result of trenching.

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

3.9
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