4.5 Article

Soil carbon improvement under long-term (36 years) no-till sorghum production in a sub-tropical environment

期刊

SOIL USE AND MANAGEMENT
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 37-48

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sum.12636

关键词

active carbon; carbon mineralization; CO(2)emission; conservation tillage; intermediate carbon; soil organic carbon

资金

  1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that long-term conservation tillage is beneficial for improving soil organic carbon stock and reducing carbon loss, thus positively impacting soil health and sustainability.
Soil organic matter (SOM) is considered an important indicator of soil quality, which can be impacted by crop production practices such as tillage. In this study, two long-term tillage regimes (conventional tillage [CT] and no tillage [NT], conducted for 36 years) were compared in continuous sorghum production in a sub-tropical environment in southeast Texas. The positive effects of long-term NT practice were more conspicuous at the soil surface compared with the deeper soil profiles. The SOC was greater (1.5 t C ha(-1)greater) in the NT system compared with the CT system. Results from an incubation study indicate that the rate of C-min at 0-5 cm soil depth was significantly greater (164 mu g of CO2-C g(-1)of soil greater) in NT than that of CT, but this trend was reversed at 10-20 cm depth wherein the C-min rates were 106 mu g of CO2-C g(-1)of soil greater in CT compared with NT, which is likely because of soil disturbance during the study. Soil cumulative CO2-C emissions were greater in the CT system (7.28 g m(-2)) than in the NT system (5.19 g m(-2)), which is primarily attributed to high soil temperature conditions in the CT system. Sorghum grain yield however was not influenced by the differences in SOC content in this long-term experiment. Overall, the present study found that long-term conservation tillage improved SOC stock and reduced carbon loss, thus had a positive impact on soil health and sustainability.

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