4.4 Article

Invasion of Praxelis clematidea increases the chemically non-labile rather than labile soil organic carbon in a tropical savanna

期刊

ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 441-447

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2017.1359412

关键词

Global change; biological invasion; SOC fractions; C sequestration; soil fertility

资金

  1. Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [20124404110009]
  2. Department of Education of Guangdong Province [246, 2014WQNCX02]
  3. Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology [2015B090903077]
  4. Bureau of Science and Technology of Guangzhou [201506010042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil organic carbon (SOC) consists of various classes of organic substances that can be pooled as labile and non-labile fractions. Previous studies have suggested that plant invasion increases SOC content, but whether invasion consistently alters SOC fractions remains unclear. Consequently, the present study was conducted to observe the effects of Praxelis clematidea invasion on SOC fractions in a tropical savanna of southern China. Soil samples were collected in two surface soil layers (0-10 and 10-20 cm) from non-, slightly and severely invaded plots to analyse the total SOC, readily oxidizable SOC (ROC), and non-readily oxidizable SOC (NROC) content. The results showed that severe P. clematidea invasion significantly increased the SOC content by 47% in the surface soil (p < 0.001). The increase in SOC content largely originated from the accumulation of NROC (the non-labile fraction), rather than ROC which typically is regarded as the labile OC fraction. This change may be beneficial to long-term soil C stabilization because chemical recalcitrance is an important pathway to prevent SOC from decomposition. Although the mechanisms for NROC accumulation have not been thoroughly elucidated to date, our results suggest that P. clematidea invasion may facilitate soil C sequestration in this tropical savanna.

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

4.4
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