4.6 Article

CH4 uptake flux of Leymus chinensis steppe during rapid growth season in Inner Mongolia, China

Journal

SCIENCE CHINA-EARTH SCIENCES
Volume 53, Issue 7, Pages 977-983

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11430-010-3082-4

Keywords

CH4 uptake flux; Leymus chinensis steppe; affecting factors; static opaque chamber/gas chromatography method

Funding

  1. National High Technology R & D Program during the 11th Five-year Plan of China [2006BAJ10B04]
  2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS [200905009, 066U0605SZ]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The influence of near ground atmosphere CH4 concentration, soil water content, soil Eh, plants, soil temperature, and pH on CH4 uptake flux of Leymus chinensis steppe during rapid growth season was studied using field in-situ measurement in Xilin River basin of Inner Mongolia, China. The results showed that CH4 uptake flux was positively correlated with near ground atmosphere CH4 concentration and soil Eh but negatively correlated with soil water content. Precipitation may decrease the CH4 flux by increasing the soil water content. The average fluxes of three treatments during the observation period were 1.52 (natural conditions, 1.51 (aboveground plants were excluded), and 2.00 mg m(-2) d(-1) (all plants were removed), respectively. The difference between the CH4 flux of natural condition treatment and that of removing aboveground plants treatment is small, whereas the flux of removing all plants treatment is larger than the other two treatments. This means that the contribution of aboveground plants to CH4 uptake flux is smaller than that of roots or roots-removing process. CH4 uptake flux is not sensitive to soil temperature and the narrow-ranged soil pH (6.36-7.86). The Leymus chinensis steppe acts as a sink for CH4, and thus more studies should be focused on its affecting factors and related mechanisms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available