| Literature DB >> 26792069 |
Feng Jiao1,2, Xin-Rong Shi1,2, Feng-Peng Han1,2, Zhi-You Yuan1,2.
Abstract
Due to the different degrees of controls exerted by biological and geochemical processes, climate changes are suggested to uncouple biogeochemical C, class="Chemical">N aclass="Chemical">nd P cycles, iclass="Chemical">nflueclass="Chemical">nciclass="Chemical">ng biomass accumulatioclass="Chemical">n, decompositioclass="Chemical">n aclass="Chemical">nd storage iclass="Chemical">n terrestrial ecosystems. However, the possible exteclass="Chemical">nt of such disruptioclass="Chemical">n iclass="Chemical">n grasslaclass="Chemical">nd ecosystems remaiclass="Chemical">ns uclass="Chemical">nclear, especially iclass="Chemical">n Chiclass="Chemical">na's steppes which have uclass="Chemical">ndergoclass="Chemical">ne rapid climate chaclass="Chemical">nges with iclass="Chemical">ncreasiclass="Chemical">ng drought aclass="Chemical">nd warmiclass="Chemical">ng predicted moviclass="Chemical">ng forward iclass="Chemical">n these drylaclass="Chemical">nd ecosystems. Here, we assess how soilEntities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26792069 PMCID: PMC4726211 DOI: 10.1038/srep19601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The soil characteristics of 65 grassland sampling sites.
| Soil type | AI | AB | pH | SOC | TN | TP | AN | AP | TC:N | TC:P | TN:P | AN:P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthrosol | 0.20 | 194 ± 22b | 8.0 ± 0.1a | 0.1 ± 0.02c | 0.01 ± 0.00d | 0.2 ± 0.01b | 5.2 ± 0.3ab | 3.8 ± 0.3ab | 10.0 ± 2.0a | 7 ± 2c | 0.7 ± 0.04c | 1.4 ± 0.1abc |
| Arenosol | 0.31 | 201 ± 39b | 7.6 ± 0.1ab | 1.3 ± 0.3abc | 0.11 ± 0.02abcd | 0.3 ± 0.03b | 7.6 ± 0.6ab | 4.0 ± 0.4ab | 21.2 ± 2.8a | 35 ± 5bc | 2.9 ± 0.5bc | 3.1 ± 0.5abc |
| Calcisol | 0.25 | 169 ± 36c | 7.9 ± 0.1a | 0.7 ± 0.1c | 0.06 ± 0.01cd | 0.3 ± 0.02b | 6.1 ± 0.3ab | 4.1 ± 0.3ab | 21.1 ± 6.7a | 27 ± 4bc | 2.2 ± 0.3bc | 1.9 ± 0.3abc |
| Cambisol | 0.42 | 149 ± 35c | 6.4 ± 0.1c | 2.5 ± 0.3ab | 0.26 ± 0.02ab | 0.4 ± 0.02b | 12.4 ± 2.0a | 1.6 ± 0.2b | 9.7 ± 0.6a | 66 ± 6ab | 6.9 ± 0.4ab | 7.9 ± 0.9a |
| Chernozem | 0.48 | 269 ± 11bc | 6.5 ± 0.1bc | 2.5 ± 0.3ab | 0.23 ± 0.03abc | 0.3 ± 0.01b | 11.6 ± 1.1ab | 2.8 ± 0.9ab | 10.7 ± 0.1a | 95 ± 11a | 8.9 ± 1.1a | 5.6 ± 2.2ab |
| Gleysol | 0.17 | 20 ± 3d | 8.5 ± 0.1a | 0.4 ± 0.03c | 0.02 ± 0.00d | 0.2 ± 0.04b | 6.0 ± 0.4ab | 3.4 ± 0.6ab | 17.4 ± 0.8a | 18 ± 3c | 1.0 ± 0.2c | 1.9 ± 0.2abc |
| Greyzem | 0.42 | 325 ± 19bc | 7.6 ± 0.02ab | 1.4 ± 0.1abc | 0.11 ± 0.01abcd | 0.7 ± 0.13a | 2.5 ± 0.1b | 2.8 ± 0.3ab | 12.9 ± 0.3a | 21 ± 7bc | 1.6 ± 0.5c | 0.9 ± 0.1bc |
| Kastanozem | 0.33 | 253 ± 27c | 7.5 ± 0.1abc | 1.2 ± 0.1abc | 0.11 ± 0.01abcd | 0.3 ± 0.01b | 8.7 ± 0.6ab | 3.5 ± 0.2ab | 12.3 ± 0.3a | 44 ± 2bc | 3.8 ± 0.2bc | 4.4 ± 0.6abc |
| Leptosol | 0.37 | 280 ± 21bc | 7.7 ± 0.1a | 1.2 ± 0.03abc | 0.10 ± 0.00bcd | 0.4 ± 0.01b | 3.0 ± 0.4b | 5.1 ± 0.2ab | 12.3 ± 0.5a | 33 ± 1bc | 2.7 ± 0.1bc | 0.6 ± 0.1c |
| Phaeozem | 0.48 | 296 ± 61bc | 6.6 ± 0.1bc | 2.9 ± 0.2a | 0.28 ± 0.02a | 0.5 ± 0.05ab | 9.2 ± 0.6ab | 4.3 ± 0.4ab | 10.2 ± 0.3a | 67 ± 4ab | 6.7 ± 0.5ab | 3.1 ± 0.5abc |
| Solonchack | 0.44 | 462 ± 33a | 6.6 ± 0.02bc | 2.0 ± 0.1abc | 0.18 ± 0.01abcd | 0.5 ± 0.01ab | 12.9 ± 0.7a | 5.8 ± 1.2a | 11.2 ± 0.3a | 45 ± 1bc | 4.0 ± 0.1bc | 2.4 ± 0.4abc |
| mean | 0.35 | 241 ± 19 | 7.4 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.4 ± 0.01 | 8.2 ± 0.3 | 3.8 ± 0.1 | 14.5 ± 1.0a | 44 ± 2.0 | 4.0 ± 0.2 | 3.5 ± 0.3 |
Data are means ± 1 SE. The soils are classified according to the Harmonised World Soil Database (HWSD, version 1.21) released by FAO. Different letters indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences among soil types. Abbreviations: AI, aridity index (unitless); AB, aboveground biomass (g m−2); SOC, soil organic carbon (%); TN, soil total nitrogen (%); TP, soil total phosphorus (%); AN, available nitrogen (ppm); AP, available phosphorus (ppm); TC:N, ratio of total carbon to nitrogen; TC:P, ratio of total carbon to phosphorus; TN:P, ratio of total nitrogen to phosphorus; AN:P, ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus.
Figure 1Relationships between aridity index and the ratios of soil C, N and P.
Aridity index is the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. The solid dark grey lines represent the fitted quadratic regressions. The ratio values are log-transformed. R2, proportion of variance explained. Generalized climate classification scheme for aridity values on the top is based on UNEP51.
Figure 2Relationships between mean temperature from May to August, 2013 and the ratios of soil C, N and P.
The solid dark grey lines represent the fitted quadratic regressions. The ratio values are log-transformed. R2, proportion of variance explained.
Figure 3Relationships between total rainfall from May to August, 2013 and the ratios of soil C, N and P.
The solid dark grey lines represent the fitted quadratic regressions. The ratio values are log-transformed. R2, proportion of variance explained.
Figure 4Relationships between soil pH values and the ratios of soil C, N and P.
The solid dark grey lines represent the fitted quadratic regressions. The ratio values are log-transformed. R2, proportion of variance explained.
r2 values in multiple regression analyses of soil carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and their ratios.
| Model | SOC | TN | TP | AN | AP | TC:N | TC:P | TN:P | AN:P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aridity (A) | 0.567*** | 0.520*** | 0.331*** | 0.184*** | 0.001 ns | 0.194*** | 0.324*** | 0.326*** | 0.100** |
| Temperature (T) | 0.761*** | 0.742*** | 0.306*** | 0.161*** | 0.040 ns | 0.353*** | 0.555*** | 0.568*** | 0.133** |
| Rainfall (R) | 0.419*** | 0.370*** | 0.275*** | 0.136** | 0.008 ns | 0.116** | 0.224*** | 0.212*** | 0.063* |
| Soil type (ST) | 0.336*** | 0.282** | 0.092 ns | 0.073 ns | 0.034 ns | 0.124 ns | 0.270** | 0.218** | 0.003 ns |
| Soil pH (pH) | 0.620*** | 0.642*** | 0.154*** | 0.308*** | 0.098* | 0.372*** | 0.542*** | 0.567*** | 0.268*** |
| Plant cover (PC) | 0.088* | 0.079* | 0.073* | 0.005 ns | 0.016 ns | 0.020 ns | 0.030 ns | 0.033 ns | 0.009 ns |
| T + R | 0.765*** | 0.747*** | 0.336*** | 0.161** | 0.041 ns | 0.359*** | 0.558*** | 0.576*** | 0.119** |
| T + R + ST | 0.779*** | 0.785*** | 0.419*** | 0.244*** | 0.010 ns | 0.371*** | 0.592*** | 0.572*** | 0.125* |
| T + R + ST + pH | 0.802*** | 0.827*** | 0.426*** | 0.321*** | 0.112 ns | 0.460*** | 0.663*** | 0.665*** | 0.268** |
| Overall | 0.810*** | 0.831** | 0.427*** | 0.289** | 0.097 ns | 0.458*** | 0.670*** | 0.667*** | 0.239* |
| stepAIC | −213 | −181 | −225 | −205 | −189 | −260 | −221 | −177 | −136 |
| TotalAIC | −211 | −170 | −214 | −200 | −180 | −252 | −210 | −170 | −126 |
ns (not significant, P > 0.05), *(P < 0.05), **(P < 0.01), ***(P < 0.001). The ‘+’ includes the relevant predictors and their interactions. The models labelled ‘Overall’ includes temperature, rainfall, soil pH and plant cover as explanatory variables. StepAIC: AIC value of model selected by the stepwise procedure. TotalAIC: AIC value of model with all parameters. AIC is the Akaike Information Criterion.
Figure 5The relative influence of climatic and soil variables and plant cover on soil C, N and P.
The relative importance values add to 100% for each model. In each model, predictors with large relative importance values have greater explanatory powers. See abbreviations in Table 1.