| Literature DB >> 23226376 |
Zhi-guo Li1, Run-hua Zhang, Xiu-jun Wang, Fang Chen, Chang-yan Tian.
Abstract
There is much interest in the role that agricultural practices might play in sequestering carbon to help offset rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. However, limited information exists regarding the potential for increased carbon sequestration of different management strategies. The objective of this study was to quantify and contrast carbon dioxide exchange in traditional non-mulching with flooding irrigation (TF) and plastic film mulching with drip irrigation (PM) cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) fields in northwest China. Net primary productivity (NPP), soil heterotrophic respiration (R(h)) and net ecosystem productivity (NEP) were measured during the growing seasons in 2009 and 2010. As compared with TF, PM significantly increased the aboveground and belowground biomass and the NPP (340 g C m⁻² season⁻¹) of cotton, and decreased the R(h) (89 g C m⁻² season⁻¹) (p<0.05). In a growing season, PM had a higher carbon sequestration in terms of NEP of ∼ 429 g C m⁻² season⁻¹ than the TF. These results demonstrate that conversion of this type of land use to mulching practices is an effective way to increase carbon sequestration in the short term in cotton systems of arid areas.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23226376 PMCID: PMC3511375 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Soil temperature and soil water content measured at 10 cm depth in the traditional cultivation system of flood irrigation with no mulching (TF) and the modern cultivation system using plastic film mulching with drip irrigation (PM) in the cotton growing season of 2009 and 2010.
Figure 2Daily net primary productivity (NPP) and heterotrophic respiration (R h) measured using a closed chamber at the PM site and the TF site in the cotton growing season of 2009 and 2010 (mean±SE).
Crop management details for the two cultivation systems in the cotton growing season of 2009 and 2010 (±standard deviation where computed, n = 3).
| Treatment | Year | Tillage date | Planting date | Applied N (kg N ha−1) | Harvest date | Cotton yield (Mg ha−1) |
| PM | 2009 | Dec.20, 2008 | Apr. 21, 2009 | 110 | Oct. 18 | 4.41±0.37 |
| 2010 | Dec. 15, 2009 | Apr. 29, 2009 | 110 | Oct. 20 | 3.89±0.58 | |
| TF | 2009 | Dec.20, 2008 | Apr. 21, 2009 | 110 | Oct. 18 | 3.34±0.64 |
| 2010 | Dec. 15, 2009 | Apr. 29, 2009 | 110 | Oct. 20 | 2.85±0.23 |
PM = plastic film mulching with drip irrigation; TF = non-mulching with flooding irrigation.
Carbon balance components for the PM and TF fields in the cotton growing season of 2009 and 2010 (±SD, n = 3).
| Date | Site |
|
|
|
| 2009.4–2009.11 | PM | 1030±155 a | 214±33 b | 816±49 a |
| TF | 648±96 b | 311±29 a | 337±21 b | |
| 2010.4–2010.11 | PM | 689±97 a | 271±19 b | 418±15 a |
| TF | 391±73 b | 352±32 a | 39±19 b | |
| Total | PM | 1719±121 a | 485±31 b | 1234±72 a |
| TF | 1039±78 b | 663±49 a | 376±49 b |
NPP = net primary productivity;
R = heterotrophic respiration;
NEP = net ecosystem productivity; In a row, values with the different letters are significant different at 5% level based on Fisher’s least significant difference tests.