| Literature DB >> 29138466 |
Johan Stendahl1, Björn Berg2, Björn D Lindahl3.
Abstract
class="Chemical">Carbon sequestratioclass="Chemical">n below grouclass="Chemical">nd depeclass="Chemical">nds oclass="Chemical">n orgaclass="Chemical">nic matter iclass="Chemical">nput aclass="Chemical">nd decompositioclass="Chemical">n, but regulatory bottleclass="Chemical">necks remaiclass="Chemical">n uclass="Chemical">nclear. The relative importaclass="Chemical">nce of placlass="Chemical">nt productioclass="Chemical">n, climate aclass="Chemical">nd edaphic factors has to be elucidated to better predictEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29138466 PMCID: PMC5686207 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-15801-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Area of investigation and sampling plot design. Location of Sweden in the Boreal forest/Taiga biome[39] (map access via https://databasin.org) (a) and sites from the Swedish Forest Soil Inventory charted by climate regions (b). Maps were produced using ArcGIS 10.2.2 (www.esri.com).
Stepwise GLM (general linear model) of the humus layer C (t ha−1) explained by site variables and humus layer chemistry (n = 2378). Concentrations of exchangeable nutrients in the humus (mmol kg C−1) were log transformed before analysis.
| Significant variables* | Classes | Estimate | SE | t-value | P-value | F-value | Cum. adj-R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.23 | 0.099 | 22.6 | <0.001 | 0.0 | 0.00 | |
| Mn | −0.31 | 0.019 | −16.6 | <0.001 | 815.7 | 0.26 | |
| K | −0.49 | 0.035 | −13.9 | <0.001 | 220.7 | 0.32 | |
| Ca | 0.29 | 0.028 | 10.6 | <0.001 | 151.1 | 0.36 | |
| Spruce (%BA) | 7.86E-04 | 1.44E-04 | 5.5 | <0.001 | 93.3 | 0.38 | |
| Moisture | 31.7 | 0.40 | |||||
| Dry | −0.20 | 0.024 | −8.4 | <0.001 | |||
| Mesic | −0.11 | 0.013 | −8.1 | <0.001 | |||
| Moist/Wet | 0 | ||||||
| TSum (°days) | 1.12E-04 | 2.42E-05 | 4.6 | <0.001 | 44.9 | 0.41 | |
| pH | −0.13 | 0.019 | −6.6 | <0.001 | 46.9 | 0.42 | |
| HumusForm | 26.2 | 0.43 | |||||
| Mor type 1 | −0.11 | 0.018 | −6.3 | <0.001 | |||
| Mor type 2 | −0.04 | 0.019 | −2.3 | 0.022 | |||
| Moder | 0 | ||||||
| Na | 0.10 | 0.023 | 4.4 | <0.001 | 19.4 | 0.44 | |
| Al | −0.05 | 0.016 | −3.0 | 0.003 | 12.9 | 0.44 | |
| MAP (mm) | 1.03E-04 | 3.81E-05 | 2.7 | 0.007 | 6.0 | 0.44 | |
| N:C | −1.80 | 0.866 | −2.1 | 0.038 | 4.3 | 0.44 |
*All variables are listed in Supplementary Table S1.
Figure 2Relationship between Mn and C in humus. Storage of C in humus layers (Sweden), as related to concentrations of exchangeable Mn in the same layers; (a) plot of Y-averages for 10 X-percentile classes with Y-error bars representing 95% confidence intervals, and (b) log-log regression of C storage vs. Mn in the humus layer for individual plots (n = 2378) including 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3PLS model of C in the humus. Partial least squares (PLS) correlation loadings plot for model explaining C stored in the humus layer. The 1:st PLS axis explains 26.7% and 2:nd PLS axis 12.0% variation and circled areas are proportional to the Variable Importance in Projection. Concentrations of exchangeable nutrients in the humus (mmol kg C−1) were log transformed before analysis.