4.3 Article

Loss-on-Ignition Method to Assess Soil Organic Carbon in Calcareous Everglades Wetlands

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS
卷 39, 期 19-20, 页码 3074-3083

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00103620802432931

关键词

Everglades; loss on ignition; total C; wetlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurement of soil carbon (C) is important for determining the effects of Everglades restoration projects on C cycling and transformations. Accurate measurement of soil organic C by automated carbon-nitrogen-sulfur (CNS) analysis may be confounded by the presence of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in Everglades wetlands. The objectives of this study were to compare a loss-on-ignition (LOI) method with CNS analysis for assessment of soil C across a diverse group of calcareous Everglades wetlands. More than 3168 samples were taken from three soil depths (floc, 0-10, 10-30cm) in 14 wetlands and analyzed for LOI, total C, and total calcium (Ca). The LOI method compared favorably to CNS analysis for LOI contents ranging from 0 to 1000gkg-1 and for soil total Ca levels from 0 to 500gCakg-1. For all wetlands and soil depths, LOI was significantly related to total C (r2 = 0.957). However, LOI was a better predictor of total C when LOI exceeded 400gkg-1 because of less interference by CaCO3. Total C measurement by CNS analysis was problematic in soils with high total Ca and low LOI, as the presence of CaCO3 confounded C analysis for LOI less than 400gkg-1. Inclusion of total Ca in regression models with LOI significantly improved the prediction of total C. Estimates of total organic C by CNS analysis were obtained by accounting for C associated with CaCO3 by calculation, with results being similar to total organic C values obtained from LOI analysis. The proportion of C in organic matter measured by the LOI method (51%) was accurate and applicable across wetlands, soil depths, and total Ca levels; thus LOI was a suitable indicator of total organic C in Everglades wetlands.

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