4.7 Article

Trees increase soil carbon and its stability in three agroforestry systems in central Alberta, Canada

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 328, 期 -, 页码 131-139

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.031

关键词

Nitrogen; Physical fractionation; Hedgerow; Shelterbelt; Silvopasture

类别

资金

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) - Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program (AGGP) Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agroforestry land-use systems have significant potential for increasing soil carbon (C) storage and mitigating increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. We studied the impact of three agroforestry systems (hedgerow, shelterbelt, and silvopasture) on soil organic C (SOC) and nitrogen (N) in the 0-10 cm mineral layer, by comparing SOC and N distributions in whole soils and three particle-size fractions (<53, 53-250, 250-2000 mu m) to assess the potential role of physical protection on soil C and N storage. We assessed thirty-five sites (12 hedgerows, 11 shelterbelts and 12 silvopastures), each comprised of 2 paired plots (forest and adjacent agricultural herbland), that were distributed along a 270 km long north-south soil/climate gradient in central Alberta, Canada. Across all sites, 48.4%, 28.5%, and 23.1% of SOC was found in the fine (<53 mu m), medium (53-250 mu m) and coarse fractions (250-2000 mu m), respectively. Mean SOC in the whole soil was 62.5, 47.7 and 81.3 g kg(-1) in hedgerow, shelterbelt and silvopasture systems, respectively. Soil C in the more stable fine fraction was 34.3, 28.8 and 29.3 g kg(-1) in the hedgerow, shelterbelt and silvopasture systems, respectively. Within each agroforestry system, the forested land-use consistently had greater total SOC and SOC in all size fractions than the agricultural component. Our results demonstrate the potential for trees to increase soil C sequestration in agroforestry systems within the agricultural landscape. (C) 2014 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