4.7 Article

Changes in soil respiration Q10 during drying-rewetting along a semi-arid elevation gradient

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 163, 期 3-4, 页码 171-177

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.04.003

关键词

Drying-rewetting; CO2; Q(10); Precipitation pulses; Elevation; Arid environment

资金

  1. Kearny Foundation for Soil Science Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wetting induced increases in soil CO2 efflux (R) from dry soils have been repeatedly reported, however little is known about the sensitivity of the pulse to temperature. To address this knowledge gap changes in temperature sensitivity of soil CO2 efflux (Q(10)) during repeated drying-rewetting (DW) events were experimentally quantified for soils collected both under canopy and interspace microenvironments at three elevations on Santa Rosa Mountain in southern California. Five field-replicated surface soil samples for each location were incubated at 13, 19, 25 and 31 degrees C. At each temperature, three consecutive DW cycles were performed by adding water to 40% water holding capacity. Instantaneous R was measured immediately after wetting and repeatedly until the soils were dry (<2% of added water). Soil R responses were averaged above and below 20% WHC and considered as wet and dry fluxes, respectively. Wet and dry soil R responses were separately modeled using the Arrhenius equation and activation energy (E-i) was determined using non-linear mixed-level modeling. Soil Rat 25 degrees C (flux25) increased with elevation gradient with a decrease in required E-i values. Negative relationship between flux25 and Q(10) supported the carbon-quality hypothesis, whereas, Q(10) values >2 supported a temperature sensitive metabolic pulse throughout repeated DW events for soils across the mountain. Including variation in Arrhenius temperature kinetics with precipitation patterns has the potential to improve predictions of the precipitation pulse induced C loss across large spatiotemporal scales. (C) 2011 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