| Literature DB >> 33799380 |
Na Li1,2,3, Yanqing Zhang1,2, Zhanxiang Sun4, John Yang5, Enke Liu2, Chunqian Li3, Fengming Li3.
Abstract
Understanding the deposition and tracking the source of soil organic carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) within agricultural watersheds are critical for assessing soil C and N budgets and developing watershed-specific best management practices. Few studies have been conducted and reported on highly eroded hilly-gully watersheds. In this field study, a constructed dam-controlled hilly-gully watershed in northeastern China was selected to identify the sources of soil C and N losses. Soils at various land uses and landscape positions, and sediments near the constructed dam, were collected and analyzed for selected physiochemical properties, total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and stable isotopes (13C and 15N). Soil C and N loss and deposition in the watershed were assessed and the relative contributions of each source quantified by a stable isotope mixing model (SIAR). Results indicated that soil C loss was primarily from cropland, accounting for 58.75%, followed by gully (25.49%), forest (9.2%), and grassland (6.49%). Soil N loss was similar to soil C, with cropland contribution of 80.58%, gully of 10.30%, grassland of 7.54%, and forest of 1.59%. The C and N deposition gradually decreased along the direction of the runoff pathway near the constructed dam, and the deposited C and N from cropland and gullies showed an order: middle-dam > bottom-dam > upper-dam and upper-dam > bottom-dam > middle-dam, respectively. A high correlation between soil TOC or TN and the sediment properties suggested that the deposition conditions could be the major factors affecting the C and N pools in the sedimentary zones. This study would provide a scientific insight to develop effective management practices for soil erosion and nutrient loss control in highly eroded agriculture watersheds.Entities:
Keywords: hilly-gully watershed; soil carbon; soil erosion; soil nitrogen; source tracking
Year: 2021 PMID: 33799380 PMCID: PMC8001151 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18062971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Site location, land uses, and sampling points (dots) of studied watershed.
Selected soil physiochemical properties at various land uses and landscape locations.
| Land Use Type | Landscape Locations | Soil BD | pH | Soil WC | Soil Texture (g 100 g−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | Silt | Sand | |||||
| Forests | Upper | 1.35 ± 0.21 a | 7.51 ± 0.98 a | 6.51 ± 0.21 ab | 16.38 ± 1.23 a | 34.23 ± 5.32 a | 49.39 ± 8.63 bc |
| Middle | 1.36 ± 0.08 a | 7.68 ± 1.23 a | 6.70 ± 0.25 bc | 15.23 ± 2.36 a | 33.41 ± 4.02 a | 51.36 ± 9.54 b | |
| Lower | 1.38 ± 0.21 a | 7.74 ± 1.03 ac | 7.31 ± 0.17 b | 19.87 ± 3.84 ab | 35.78 ± 3.98 a | 44.35 ± 4.53 b | |
| Cropland | Upper | 1.21 ± 0.11 bc | 7.98 ±1.27 bc | 5.23 ± 0.36 a | 21.35 ± 1.68 b | 41.28 ± 6.56 c | 37.37 ± 1.69 a |
| Middle | 1.19 ± 0.12 c | 7.86 ± 1.36 ab | 5.21 ± 0.26 a | 23.56 ± 3.65 bc | 40.23 ± 4.32 bc | 36.21 ± 2.67 a | |
| Lower | 1.25 ± 0.09 bc | 7.47 ± 0.96 a | 4.62 ± 0.16 a | 24.18 ± 4.65 bc | 39.42 ± 5.63 b | 36.4 ± 3.42 | |
| Grassland | Upper | 1.2± 0.13 bc | 8.1 ± 2.98 c | 7.65 ± 0.42 bc | 22.32 ± 2.36 b | 41.36 ± 9.82 c | 36.32 ± 5.49 a |
| Middle | 1.2 ± 0.18 bc | 7.9 ± 2.10 bc | 7.58 ± 0.26 bc | 26.31 ± 2.42 c | 41.32 ± 4.45 c | 32.37 ± 6.31 a | |
| Lower | 1.27 ± 0.05 bc | 8.2 ± 1.63 c | 8.2 ± 0.35 c | 26.35 ± 5.61 c | 39.23 ± 6.23 bc | 34.42 ± 5.22 a | |
| Gully | Plain | 1.18 ± 0.15 c | 8.03 ± 0.65 c | 12.21 ± 0.65 d | 26.31 ± 4.36 c | 38.56 ± 6.26 b | 35.13 ± 3.43 a |
Note: all values represented mean ± standard deviation. Different letters indicated significant differences among land uses and landscape positions at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 2Measurement of bulk density and pH in sediment cores near the constructed dam. (S1: upper-dam; S2: middle-dam; S3: bottom-dam positions).
Measurement of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), C:N ratio and stable isotope composition in various source soils and sediments.
| Types | TOC | TN | δ13C | δ15N | C/N Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | 16.86 ± 0.06 a | 2.33 ± 0.06 a | −24.9 ± 0.25 a | 1.25 ± 0.06 d | 7.24 c |
| Cropland | 7.35 ± 0.04 b | 0.52 ± 0.04 c | −23.85 ± 0.43 b | 3.05 ± 0.05 ab | 14.14 a |
| Grassland | 6.43 ± 0.09 b | 0.86 ± 0.09 b | −19.2 ± 0.25 bc | 2.63 ± 0.03 c | 7.48 b |
| Gully | 4.21 ± 0.07 c | 0.65 ± 0.02 c | −24.9 ± 0.4 a | 3.65 ± 0.02 a | 6.48 c |
| Sediments | 5.79 ± 0.05 bc | 0.40 ± 0.09 d | −25.2 ± 0.3 a | 2.92 ± 0.02 c | 14.48 a |
Note: all values represented mean ± standard deviation. Different letters indicated significant differences among source soils and sediments at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 3Depth-distributions of TOC and TN in sediment cores near the constructed dam (S1: upper-dam; S2: middle-dam; S3: bottom-dam positions).
Figure 4Depth-distributions of δ13C and δ15N in sediment cores near the constructed dam. (S1: upper-dam; S2: middle-dam; S3: bottom-dam positions).
Figure 5Correlations of TOC vs. δ13C and TN vs. δ15N in the source soils and sediments (Horizontal and vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 6Correlation between δ13C and δ15N in the source soils and sediments. (Horizontal and vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 7Percentage contributions of each source soils to C and N contents in sediment profiles deposited at three dam positions.
Figure 8Principal component analysis showing two components associated with sediment C and N pools.