| Literature DB >> 33343597 |
Wanjie Lv1,2,3,4, Guomo Zhou1,2,3,4, Guangsheng Chen1,2,3,4, Yufeng Zhou1,2,3,4, Zhipeng Ge1,2,3,4, Zhengwen Niu1,2,3,4, Lin Xu1,2,3,4, Yongjun Shi1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Phytolith-occludedEntities:
Keywords: Moso bamboo forests; PhytOC; carbon sequestration; management practices; phytolith
Year: 2020 PMID: 33343597 PMCID: PMC7744606 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.591852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Location of the study region (red polygon) and the experimental site (yellow point) for Moso bamboo forests in Lin’an District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China.
Characteristics of soil physicochemical properties (means ± standard deviations) under different management treatments in Moso bamboo forests.
| Soil depth | Management measures | pH | Bulk density (g cm–3) | Hydrolyzable N | Available P | Available K |
| 0–20 cm | CF | 4.93 ± 0.17a | 1.077 ± 0.049a | 79.33 ± 16.17a | 18.30 ± 16.74a | 3.73 ± 0.60a |
| SiF | 5.35 ± 0.66a | 1.063 ± 0.097a | 105.00 ± 12.12a | 4.30 ± 3.00a | 3.90 ± 0.89a | |
| Cut | 4.85 ± 0.36a | 1.043 ± 0.358a | 86.33 ± 16.17a | 13.38 ± 9.01a | 3.70 ± 0.36a | |
| CK | 5.52 ± 0.43a | 0.957 ± 0.208a | 86.33 ± 17.62a | 14.51 ± 6.90a | 3.97 ± 1.12a | |
| 20–40 cm | CF | 4.91 ± 0.39a | 1.307 ± 0.248ab | 58.33 ± 16.17a | 11.87 ± 2.62a | 2.90 ± 0.46a |
| SiF | 5.60 ± 0.77a | 1.463 ± 0.083a | 56.00 ± 21.00a | 7.70 ± 3.00a | 2.73 ± 0.59a | |
| Cut | 4.87 ± 0.38a | 1.093 ± 0.110b | 51.33 ± 14.57a | 10.35 ± 4.59a | 3.03 ± 0.61a | |
| CK | 5.01 ± 0.11a | 1.310 ± 0.232ab | 56.00 ± 7.00a | 8.46 ± 2.36a | 2.87 ± 0.64a |
FIGURE 2Concentration and storage of soil organic carbon (SOC) under four management practices in Moso bamboo forests. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05; n = 3) differences between treatments based on least significant difference (LSD) test. CF, compound fertilizer treatment; SiF, silicon fertilizer treatment; CK, control.
FIGURE 3Phytolith content (g kg–1) under different management treatments for different forest components. (A) 0–20-cm soil layer. (B) 20–40-cm soil layer. (C) Litter. (D) First-degree leaves. (E) Second-degree leaves. (F) Third-degree leaves. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the means. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a significance level of p < 0.05 based on the LSD statistic test. CF, compound fertilizer treatment; SiF, silicon fertilizer treatment; CK, control.
FIGURE 4Carbon content in phytolith (g kg–1) under different management treatments for different forest components. (A) 0–20-cm soil layer. (B) 20–40-cm soil layer. (C) Litters. (D) First-degree leaves. (E) Second-degree leaves. (F) Third-degree leaves. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the means. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a significance level of p < 0.05 based on the LSD statistic test. CF, compound fertilizer treatment; SiF, silicon fertilizer treatment; CK, control.
FIGURE 5PhytOC content (g kg–1) under different management treatments for different forest components. (A) 0–20-cm soil layer. (B) 20–40-cm soil layer. (C) Litterfall. (D) First-degree leaves. (E) Second-degree leaves. (F) Third-degree leaves. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the means. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a significance level of p < 0.05 based on the LSD statistic test. CF, compound fertilizer treatment; SiF, silicon fertilizer treatment; CK, control.
FIGURE 6PhytOC storage (kg ha–1) under different management treatments for different forest components. (A) 0–20-cm soil layer. (B) 20–40-cm soil layer. (C) Litter. (D) First-degree leaves. (E) Second-degree leaves. (F) Third-degree leaves. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the means. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a significance level of p < 0.05 based on the LSD statistic test. CF, compound fertilizer treatment; SiF, silicon fertilizer treatment; CK, control.
FIGURE 7PhytOC storage of the entire Moso bamboo forest ecosystem (soil + litter + leaves) under four management treatments. CF, compound fertilizer treatment; SiF, silicon fertilizer treatment; CK, control. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments at a significance level of p < 0.05 based on the LSD statistic test.