4.5 Article

Evaluation of phosphorus mobilization potential in rewetted fens by an improved sequential chemical extraction procedure

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
卷 59, 期 6, 页码 1191-1201

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01081.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
  2. European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After rewetting of peatlands, phosphorus (P) pore-water concentrations were up to three orders of magnitude greater than under pristine conditions. It was hypothesized that different mobilization processes such as ion-exchange reactions, biotic/abiotic redox reactions, acidification and ongoing anaerobic decomposition of particulate organic matter by hydrolytic cleavage and fermentation might be responsible. To identify P pools in peat samples of varying degrees of decomposition, we modified and improved a sequential chemical extraction method that allowed conclusions on potential mobilization mechanisms in rewetted peatlands. The results indicated that the earlier drainage of rewetted fens strongly increased the P mobilization potential in the upper decomposed peat layers. Accordingly, the amount of P bound to redox-sensitive (bicarbonate/dithionite soluble) compounds (BD-P) was, on average, one order of magnitude greater in decomposed peat of rewetted fens (5.4-14.3 mu mol P g(-1) dry matter or DM) than in underlying less-decomposed peat layers (0.2-1.9 mu mol P g(-1) DM) or slightly decomposed peat derived from pristine fens (0.4-2.0 mu mol P g(-1) DM). The BD-P fraction found in the upper very decomposed peat layers appears to be most important for P mobilization in rewetted fens and accounted for 85% of the variability of P mobilization rates. Despite uncertainties regarding P diagenetic processes in peat, as well as the development of microbial decomposition processes, in the long-term, high pore-water P concentrations can be expected in rewetted fens for decades to come.

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

4.5
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