4.3 Article

Comparison of three methods to determine C decomposition of organic materials in soils under controlled conditions

Journal

PEDOBIOLOGIA
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 61-68

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2008.03.001

Keywords

carbon dioxide flux; soil respiration; organic matter decomposition; static method; dynamic method; soil incubation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The carbon decomposition of crop residue and agro-industrial. effluent was measured under controlled conditions in a highly calcareous and a loamy soil using three different methods: the dynamic cylinder method (DCM), the static cylinder method (SCM) and the static incubation method (SIM). For the latter two static methods, the CO(2) trapped by NaOH was analyzed with continuous flow colorimetry, while the accumulated CO(2) accumulated in the closed chamber of the dynamic method was measured directly with an infrared gas analyzer. CO(2) emission fluxes obtained from the three methods were in good agreement and significantly correlated for both soils. Nevertheless, for fluxes ranging from 10 to 130 mu g C-CO(2) m(-2) s(-1), SCM overestimated CO(2) emission fluxes by about 15% in comparison to DCM in highly calcareous soil. For fluxes ranging from 0.007 to 1.3 mu g C-CO(2) kg(-1) s(-1), SIM slightly underestimated CO(2) fluxes from the decomposition of organic substrates. The calculated C mineralization rates of organic materials also confirmed that SIM underestimated C degradation of organic materials compared with SCM and DCM. This result was probably due to the poorer efficiency of the alkali trap. Finally, the static method appears to be inadequate for measuring CO(2) emissions in highly calcareous soils since it leads to overestimating C decomposition rates of organic materials due to equilibrium interactions between soil carbonates and bicarbonates. (c) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available