4.5 Article

Free and intra-aggregate organic matter as indicators of soil quality change in volcanic soils under contrasting crop rotations

期刊

SOIL USE AND MANAGEMENT
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 531-539

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sum.12070

关键词

soil organic matter; physical fractionation; NaI; Andisols; arable; pasture

资金

  1. Conicyt (Fondecyt) [1990456]
  2. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
  3. BBSRC [BB/J000671/1, BBS/E/C/00005198] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil physical fractionation techniques may provide indicators of changing soil organic carbon (SOC) content; however, they have not been widely tested on volcanic soils (Andisols). In this study, we assessed two fractions as potential indicators in volcanic soils, using two sites in Chile converted from natural grassland to arable and mixed crop rotations, 8 and 16yr previously. In the 8-yr experiment, SOC had declined under all rotations, with smaller changes where the rotation included 3 or 5yr of perennial pasture. Whereas the average SOC was only 76% of the level in the preceding natural grassland, the corresponding value after 16yr for the second site was 98% (and 93% under continuous arable), probably reflecting its high allophane clay content. The fractionation procedure tested proved applicable to both Andisols, but the intra-aggregate light fraction (IA-SOM, isolated in sodium iodide solution at 1.80g/cm(3) after ultrasonic dispersion) accounted for a very small proportion of total SOC (<1%). We suggest that in Andisols, the free light fraction (FR-SOM, isolated in sodium iodide at solution of the same density, but prior to ultrasonic dispersion) is stabilised to a greater extent than in nonvolcanic soils, and the intra-aggregate fraction plays a more minor role as a pool of intermediate turnover. The relative value of each fraction needs to be confirmed through dynamic experiments, using more sites, and including situations where SOC content is initially low.

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