Literature DB >> 11401268

Effect of land use on methane flux from soil.

A S Chan1, T B Parkin.   

Abstract

The precise effects of natural and disturbed terrestrial systems on the atmospheric CH4 pool are uncertain. This study was conducted to quantify and compare CH4 fluxes from a variety of ecosystems in central Iowa. We investigated agricultural systems under different management practices, a hardwood forest site, native and restored prairies, and a municipal landfill. Flux measurements were obtained using a closed-chamber method, and measurements were compiled by sampling over the 1993 and 1994 growing seasons. In 1993, most of the agricultural sites were net CH4 producers with cumulative CH4 fluxes ranging from -0.02 to 3.19 g m(-2) over the 258-d sampling season, while the natural ecosystems were net CH4 consumers, with cumulative seasonal fluxes ranging from -0.27 to -0.07 g m-2 258 d(-1). In 1994, only the landfill and the agricultural site treated with broadcast liquid swine manure (LSM) were net CH4 producers, while the remainder of the natural and agricultural ecosystems were net CH4 consumers, with mean seasonal flux rates ranging from -0.43 to -0.008 g m(-2) 271 d(-1). We hypothesize that the differences in CH4 fluxes between the two years are due to differences in rainfall. To illustrate the integration between land use and CH4 flux, we computed an area-weighted soil CH4 flux for the state of Iowa. Our calculations yielded a net average soil CH4 flux of 139,000 Mg CH4 for 1993 and 1994.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11401268     DOI: 10.2134/jeq2001.303786x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Qual        ISSN: 0047-2425            Impact factor:   2.751


  7 in total

1.  How do methane rates vary with soil moisture and compaction, N compound and rate, and dung addition in a tropical soil?

Authors:  Abmael da Silva Cardoso; Bruna Giovani Quintana; Estella Rosseto Janusckiewicz; Liziane de Figueiredo Brito; Eliane da Silva Morgado; Ricardo Andrade Reis; Ana Claudia Ruggieri
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 3.787

2.  Methane production and consumption in loess soil at different slope position.

Authors:  Małgorzata Brzezińska; Magdalena Nosalewicz; Marek Pasztelan; Teresa Włodarczyk
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-05-02

3.  Soil Methane Sink Capacity Response to a Long-Term Wildfire Chronosequence in Northern Sweden.

Authors:  Niall P McNamara; Ruth Gregg; Simon Oakley; Andy Stott; Md Tanvir Rahman; J Colin Murrell; David A Wardle; Richard D Bardgett; Nick J Ostle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Summary of performance data for technologies to control gaseous, odor, and particulate emissions from livestock operations: Air management practices assessment tool (AMPAT).

Authors:  Devin L Maurer; Jacek A Koziel; Jay D Harmon; Steven J Hoff; Angela M Rieck-Hinz; Daniel S Andersen
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2016-04-12

5.  Greenhouse gas flux with reflooding of a drained salt marsh soil.

Authors:  Jan T Wollenberg; Asim Biswas; Gail L Chmura
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Ecosystem-scale biosphere-atmosphere interactions of a hemiboreal mixed forest stand at Järvselja, Estonia.

Authors:  Steffen M Noe; Veljo Kimmel; Katja Hüve; Lucian Copolovici; Miguel Portillo-Estrada; Ulle Püttsepp; Kalev Jõgiste; Ulo Niinemets; Lukas Hörtnagl; Georg Wohlfahrt
Journal:  For Ecol Manage       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 3.558

7.  Ranking factors affecting emissions of GHG from incubated agricultural soils.

Authors:  S García-Marco; S R Ravella; D Chadwick; A Vallejo; A S Gregory; L M Cárdenas
Journal:  Eur J Soil Sci       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 4.949

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.