| Literature DB >> 25078458 |
Xianni Chen1, Xudong Wang1, Matt Liebman2, Michel Cavigelli3, Michelle Wander4.
Abstract
To improve our ability to predict SOC mineralization response to residue and N additions in soils with different inherent and dynamic organic matter properties, a 330-day incubation was conducted using samples from two long-term experiments (clay loam Mollisols in Iowa [IAsoil] and silt loam Ultisols in Maryland [MDsoil]) comparing conventional grain systems (Conv) amended with inorganic fertilizers with 3 yr (Med) and longer (Long), more diverse cropping systems amended with manure. A double exponential model was used to estimate the size (Ca, Cs) and decay rates (ka, ks) of active and slow C pools which we compared with total particulate organic matter (POM) and occluded-POM (OPOM). The high-SOC IAsoil containing highly active smectite clays maintained smaller labile pools and higher decay rates than the low-SOC MDsoil containing semi-active kaolinitic clays. Net SOC loss was greater (2.6 g kg(-1); 8.6%) from the IAsoil than the MDsoil (0.9 g kg(-1), 6.3%); fractions and coefficients suggest losses were principally from IAsoil's resistant pool. Cropping history did not alter SOC pool size or decay rates in IAsoil where rotation-based differences in OPOM-C were small. In MDsoil, use of diversified rotations and manure increased ka by 32% and ks by 46% compared to Conv; differences mirrored in POM- and OPOM-C contents. Residue addition prompted greater increases in Ca (340% vs 230%) and Cs (38% vs 21%) and decreases in ka (58% vs 9%) in IAsoil than MDsoil. Reduced losses of SOC from residue-amended MDsoil were associated with increased OPOM-C. Nitrogen addition dampened CO2-C release. Clay type and C saturation dominated the IAsoil's response to external inputs and made labile and stable fractions more vulnerable to decay. Trends in OPOM suggest aggregate protection influences C turnover in the low active MDsoil. Clay charge and OPOM-C contents were better predictors of soil C dynamics than clay or POM-C contents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25078458 PMCID: PMC4117633 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of the management, inherent and dynamic soil properties at Marsden and the Farming Systems Project.
| Iowa (Marsden) | Maryland (Farming Systems Project) | |||||||
| Site mean | Conv | Med | Long | Site mean | Conv | Med | Long | |
| Crop sequence | C-S | C-S-oat/rc | C-S-oat/A-A | C-r/S-W/S | hv/C-r/S-W | C-r/S-W/A-A-A | ||
| Tillage | Ch | Ch, MB | Ch, MB | Ch | D, Ch or MB | D, Ch or MB | ||
| Fertilizer sources | N | GM, AM, N | GM, AM, N | N, P, K | GM, AM, K | GM, AM, K | ||
| Sand (%) | 35.2±3.6 A | 35.4±4.0 a | 35.3±4.4 a | 34.8±3.7 a | 20.6±6.7 B | 23.6±11.6 a | 19.0±2.2 a | 19.3±3.5 a |
| Silt (%) | 38.5±2.7 B | 38.5±4.1 a | 38.5±2.3 a | 38.4±2.4 a | 59.3±5.3 A | 55.9±7.4 a | 59.5±4.7 a | 62.4±1.4 a |
| Clay (%) | 26.4±2.3 A | 26.2±2.7 a | 26.4±2.9 a | 26.8±2.2 a | 20.1±3.8 B | 20.5±4.7 a | 21.5±4.4 a | 18.4±2.8 a |
| pH | 7.2±0.4 A | 6.9±0.4 a | 7.3±0.4 a | 7.4±0.3 a | 6.4±0.3 B | 6.3±0.7 a | 6.4±0.1 a | 6.4±0.1 a |
| SOC (g kg−1) | 28.0±5.6 A | 26.4±2.8 a | 28.0±9.3 a | 29.6±4.1 a | 14.1±2.0 B | 12.2±2.3 a | 15.1±1.0 a | 14.9±1.3 a |
| C:N | 12.7±0.6 A | 12.9±0.7 a | 12.5±0.7 a | 12.8±0.5 a | 10.7±0.7 B | 11.3±0.4 a | 10.1±0.3 b | 10.7±0.8 b |
| POM-C (g kg−1) | 2.8±0.9 A | 2.4±0.4 a | 3.5±1.4 a | 2.7±0.3 a | 3.6±0.8 A | 2.7±0.5 b | 3.7±0.6 a | 4.4±0.5 a |
| POM-C:N | 15.7±2.1 A | 16.3±1.9 a | 15.0±1.9 a | 15.9±2.8 a | 17.7±3.9 A | 21.9±4.3 a | 15.0±1.5 b | 16.3±1.3 b |
| OPOM-C (g kg−1) | 2.2±0.5 B | 2.0±0.1 a | 2.2±0.2 a | 2.3±0.8 a | 3.2±0.6 A | 2.4±0.4 b | 3.2±0.2 a | 3.8±0.6 a |
| OPOM-C:N | 12.1±0.6 B | 12.7±0.2 a | 11.5±0.2 b | 12.4±0.8 ab | 13.7±0.9 A | 14.6±0.5 a | 12.9±0.3 b | 13.6±1.1 ab |
Variables include texture, pH and soil organic carbon(SOC), soil carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N), particulate organic matter-carbon (POM-C) and POM-C:N ratio, occluded-POM carbon (OPOM-C), and POM-C:N ratio. Data in table are means ± standard deviation.
C-corn, S-soybean, rc-red clover, A-alfalfa, r-rye cover crop, W-wheat, hv-hairy vetch, W/S-wheat followed by double-cropped soybean. Conv in Maryland followed a 2 yr C-W/S rotation from 1996–1999, Long in Maryland followed a 4 yr C-r/S-W/(r+ orchard grass hay) rotation from 1996–1999.
Ch-chisel plow, MB-moldboard plow, D-disk.
N-urea ammonium nitrate, GM-green manure, AM-animal manures, P-triple super phosphate, K-potassium sulfate. For Iowa site, N fertilization rate was 100 kg N ha−1 with side dressing (0–100 kg N ha−1) as needed based on standard soil tests; green manure was red clover (15.7 Mg ha−1, fresh weight basis) for Med system and was second-year alfalfa for Long system; composted beef cattle manure (on average 128 kg N ha−1) was supplied to both Med and Long systems. For Maryland site, the Conv system received on average 160 kg N ha−1 each year; Med and Long systems received green manure (hairy vetch for Med system, and alfalfa for Long system) and cattle manure (on average 150 kg N ha−1) as N sources.
Values not followed by the same upper case letter differ between two sites (Iowa, Maryland), values not followed by the same lower case letter differ among cropping systems (Conv, Med, Long) within each site. Statistical significances were performed at p<0.05.
Figure 1Cumulative CO2-C release from the IAsoil and the MDsoil after 330 days incubation.
Control: treatments with no residue or N fertilizer added. N: treatments with N fertilization. R: treatments with residue application. RN: treatments applied with both residue and N fertilizer. Different letters above bars suggest significant differences at p<0.05, comparisons were made for the interaction of cropping system (Conv, Med, Long) by treatments (Control, N, R, RN) within each site (IAsoil, MDsoil).
Influence of site, management and treatment on active (C a) and slow (C s) carbon pool sizes and their decomposition rate constants (k a, k s, respectively).
| Factors |
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Site | Treatment | (g C kg−1 soil) | (day−1) | (g C kg−1 soil) | (day−1) | (g C kg−1 soil) | |
| Iowa | Control | 0.16±0.03 B | 0.16±0.02 A | 1.07±0.18 B | 0.0047±0.0010 A | 25.2±3.9 A | |
| (IAsoil) | Conv | 0.14±0.02 b | 0.18±0.01 a | 1.17±0.15 a | 0.0036±0.0008 a | 25.1±2.7 a | |
| Med | 0.17±0.01 ab | 0.15±0.01 a | 1.02±0.14 a | 0.0054±0.0005 a | 22.2±3.4 a | ||
| Long | 0.19±0.02 a | 0.16±0.02 a | 1.01±0.23 a | 0.0051±0.0009 a | 28.3±4.2 a | ||
| All trts | Conv | 0.43±0.30 a | 0.15±0.07 a | 1.27±0.26 a | 0.0042±0.0007 a | 25.0±2.4 a | |
| Med | 0.48±0.32 a | 0.13±0.05 a | 1.29±0.25 a | 0.0051±0.0007 a | 22.1±2.6 a | ||
| Long | 0.47±0.29 a | 0.13±0.05 a | 1.19±0.28 a | 0.0050±0.0008 a | 27.9±4.0 a | ||
| Control, N | 0.17±0.03 b | 0.19±0.03 a | 1.05±0.16 b | 0.0046±0.0009 a | 25.2±3.7 a | ||
| R, R+N | 0.75±0.06 a | 0.08±0.01 b | 1.45±0.18 a | 0.0049±0.0007 a | 24.8±4.0 b | ||
| Control, R | 0.47±0.31 a | 0.12±0.04 b | 1.28±0.25 a | 0.0049±0.0009 a | 24.9±3.8 a | ||
| N, R+N | 0.45±0.29 a | 0.15±0.06 a | 1.22±0.27 a | 0.0046±0.0007 a | 25.0±3.9 a | ||
| Maryland | Control | 0.23±0.02 A | 0.13±0.02 B | 1.29±0.16 A | 0.0038±0.0011 B | 12.5±1.9 B | |
| (MDsoil) | Conv | 0.22±0.02 a | 0.11±0.02 a | 1.29±0.22 a | 0.0024±0.0006 b | 10.6±2.0 b | |
| Med | 0.23±0.03 a | 0.14±0.02 a | 1.35±0.14 a | 0.0040±0.0002 a | 13.5±0.8 a | ||
| Long | 0.23±0.03 a | 0.15±0.03 a | 1.21±0.09 a | 0.0049±0.0007 a | 13.4±1.1 a | ||
| All trts | Conv | 0.51±0.29 a | 0.11±0.01 b | 1.33±0.29 a | 0.0031±0.0008 c | 10.2±1.6 b | |
| Med | 0.53±0.28 a | 0.13±0.01 a | 1.38±0.23 a | 0.0050±0.0010 a | 13.3±0.8 a | ||
| Long | 0.51±0.28 a | 0.12±0.02 ab | 1.46±0.20 a | 0.0041±0.0009 b | 13.0±1.3 a | ||
| Control, N | 0.87±0.03 b | 0.12±0.02 a | 1.26±0.18 b | 0.0034±0.0010 b | 12.5±1.6 a | ||
| R, RN | 2.90±0.05 a | 0.11±0.01 b | 1.52±0.22 a | 0.0047±0.0010 a | 11.8±1.9 b | ||
| Control, R | 1.92±0.30 a | 0.12±0.02 a | 1.42±0.20 a | 0.0044±0.0012 a | 12.1±1.9 a | ||
| N, RN | 1.86±0.26 a | 0.12±0.01 a | 1.36±0.28 a | 0.0037±0.0010 b | 12.2±1.7 a | ||
All coefficients were estimated by modeling Ct = Ca (1-e–ka t)+ Cs (1-e–ks t) using cumulative CO2 emission data. Results are means ± standard deviation for unamend control soils (Control) and all treatments (All trts).
Control: treatments with no residue or N fertilizer added. N: treatments with N fertilization. R: treatments with residue application. RN: treatments applied with both residue and N fertilizer. “Control, N” and “R, RN” represent the treatments without or with residue addition respectively; “Control, R” and “N, RN” represent the treatments without or with N fertilization respectively.
Grand mean comparisons between sites were made with controls, values not followed by the same upper case letter differ at p<0.05. Means comparisons within each site were made within treatment groups, i.e. cropping system (Conv, Med, Long), residue addition (“Control, N”, “R, RN”), N fertilization (“Control, R”, “N, RN”), values not followed by the same lower case letter differ at p<0.05.
Figure 2Amount and percentage of SOC loss comparing with initial SOC content.
Control: treatments with no residue or N fertilizer added. N: treatments with N fertilization. R: treatments with residue application. RN: treatments applied with both residue and N fertilizer. Different letters above the bar suggest significant differences at p<0.05, comparisons were performed in different treatments within each site (IAsoil, MDsoil).
Figure 3Effect of cropping system and treatment on occluded POM-C (OPOM-C) dynamics during 330 day incubation.
Control: treatments with no residue nor N fertilizer added. N: treatments with N fertilized, R: treatments with residue applied. RN: treatments with both residue and N fertilizer added. Different letters suggest significant differences at p<0.05, comparisons were were made for the interaction of cropping system (Conv, Med, Long) by date (0, 180, 330 days), and treatments (Control, N, R, RN) by date within each site (IAsoil, MDsoil).
Figure 4Interactions between residue addition and cropping system or N fertilization on C mineralization coefficients.
Different letters above bars indicate statistically significant difference at p<0.05, comparisons were made within each sub-figure.