利用最小扰动微环境和干筛土壤评估迁地土壤呼吸;土壤健康评价方法的比较

IF 1.5 4区 农林科学 Q4 SOIL SCIENCE Canadian Journal of Soil Science Pub Date : 2022-07-05 DOI:10.1139/cjss-2021-0143
L. Comeau, Kyle MacKinley, Adrian Unc, J. Vallotton
{"title":"利用最小扰动微环境和干筛土壤评估迁地土壤呼吸;土壤健康评价方法的比较","authors":"L. Comeau, Kyle MacKinley, Adrian Unc, J. Vallotton","doi":"10.1139/cjss-2021-0143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Soil respiration measurements are commonly used as soil health indicators. Several ex situ soil respiration methods exist, but comparative performances between them have rarely been analyzed. Specifically, there is a lack of comparisons between intact microcosms and destructive methods. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare three different ex situ soil respiration methodologies: minimally disturbed microcosms using fresh soil, dried–sieved 24 h burst test, and dried–sieved 10-day incubation. We hypothesized that (i) the respiration rates for the three methods are correlated to each other; (ii) the respiration rates are strongly correlated with soil physico-chemical parameters; (iii) disturbance caused by drying and sieving reduces regression coefficients compared with microcosms; and (iv) drying and sieving soil produces larger respiration rates. Soil was collected in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. Total carbon and nitrogen (C:N), pH, aggregate stability, total dissolved C and N, NO3 and NH4, texture, and labile C were determined prior to incubations. Our results showed that the three methods had CO2 efflux in similar ranges. However, all the methods had low to no significant correlations between soil physico-chemical parameters and respiration. Total dissolved N had the strongest correlation with CO2 efflux. The results of the microcosm method significantly correlated with the results for 24 h burst test but not with the 10-day incubation method. We conclude that drying and sieving soil prior to performing ex situ soil heterotrophic respiration measurements using the 24 h burst tests can produce cautiously reliable results. Despite the disturbance, results from the 24 h burst tests are comparable with the results of the microcosm method.","PeriodicalId":9384,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Soil Science","volume":"103 1","pages":"143 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ex situ soil respiration assessment using minimally disturbed microcosms and dried–sieved soils; comparison of methods to assess soil health\",\"authors\":\"L. Comeau, Kyle MacKinley, Adrian Unc, J. Vallotton\",\"doi\":\"10.1139/cjss-2021-0143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Soil respiration measurements are commonly used as soil health indicators. Several ex situ soil respiration methods exist, but comparative performances between them have rarely been analyzed. Specifically, there is a lack of comparisons between intact microcosms and destructive methods. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare three different ex situ soil respiration methodologies: minimally disturbed microcosms using fresh soil, dried–sieved 24 h burst test, and dried–sieved 10-day incubation. We hypothesized that (i) the respiration rates for the three methods are correlated to each other; (ii) the respiration rates are strongly correlated with soil physico-chemical parameters; (iii) disturbance caused by drying and sieving reduces regression coefficients compared with microcosms; and (iv) drying and sieving soil produces larger respiration rates. Soil was collected in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. Total carbon and nitrogen (C:N), pH, aggregate stability, total dissolved C and N, NO3 and NH4, texture, and labile C were determined prior to incubations. Our results showed that the three methods had CO2 efflux in similar ranges. However, all the methods had low to no significant correlations between soil physico-chemical parameters and respiration. Total dissolved N had the strongest correlation with CO2 efflux. The results of the microcosm method significantly correlated with the results for 24 h burst test but not with the 10-day incubation method. We conclude that drying and sieving soil prior to performing ex situ soil heterotrophic respiration measurements using the 24 h burst tests can produce cautiously reliable results. Despite the disturbance, results from the 24 h burst tests are comparable with the results of the microcosm method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Soil Science\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"143 - 151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Soil Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2021-0143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Soil Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2021-0143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要土壤呼吸测量通常被用作土壤健康指标。存在几种迁地土壤呼吸方法,但很少分析它们之间的比较性能。具体而言,完整的微观世界和破坏性的方法之间缺乏比较。本研究的目的是分析和比较三种不同的非原位土壤呼吸方法:使用新鲜土壤的最小扰动微宇宙、24小时干燥-筛分爆裂试验和10天干燥-筛分孵化。我们假设(i)这三种方法的呼吸速率是相互关联的;(ii)呼吸速率与土壤物理化学参数密切相关;(iii)与微观世界相比,干燥和筛分引起的扰动降低了回归系数;以及(iv)干燥和筛分土壤产生更大的呼吸速率。土壤采集于加拿大新不伦瑞克省。在孵育之前测定总碳和氮(C:N)、pH、聚集体稳定性、总溶解的C和N、NO3和NH4、质地和不稳定的C。我们的结果表明,这三种方法的CO2流出范围相似。然而,所有方法的土壤理化参数与呼吸之间的相关性都很低,甚至没有显著相关性。总溶解氮与CO2排放的相关性最强。微宇宙法的结果与24小时爆裂试验的结果显著相关,但与10天孵育法的结果不相关。我们得出的结论是,在使用24小时爆裂试验进行非原位土壤异养呼吸测量之前,对土壤进行干燥和筛选可以产生谨慎可靠的结果。尽管存在扰动,24小时爆破试验的结果与微观方法的结果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ex situ soil respiration assessment using minimally disturbed microcosms and dried–sieved soils; comparison of methods to assess soil health
Abstract Soil respiration measurements are commonly used as soil health indicators. Several ex situ soil respiration methods exist, but comparative performances between them have rarely been analyzed. Specifically, there is a lack of comparisons between intact microcosms and destructive methods. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare three different ex situ soil respiration methodologies: minimally disturbed microcosms using fresh soil, dried–sieved 24 h burst test, and dried–sieved 10-day incubation. We hypothesized that (i) the respiration rates for the three methods are correlated to each other; (ii) the respiration rates are strongly correlated with soil physico-chemical parameters; (iii) disturbance caused by drying and sieving reduces regression coefficients compared with microcosms; and (iv) drying and sieving soil produces larger respiration rates. Soil was collected in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. Total carbon and nitrogen (C:N), pH, aggregate stability, total dissolved C and N, NO3 and NH4, texture, and labile C were determined prior to incubations. Our results showed that the three methods had CO2 efflux in similar ranges. However, all the methods had low to no significant correlations between soil physico-chemical parameters and respiration. Total dissolved N had the strongest correlation with CO2 efflux. The results of the microcosm method significantly correlated with the results for 24 h burst test but not with the 10-day incubation method. We conclude that drying and sieving soil prior to performing ex situ soil heterotrophic respiration measurements using the 24 h burst tests can produce cautiously reliable results. Despite the disturbance, results from the 24 h burst tests are comparable with the results of the microcosm method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Soil Science
Canadian Journal of Soil Science 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
73
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Soil Science is an international peer-reviewed journal published in cooperation with the Canadian Society of Soil Science. The journal publishes original research on the use, management, structure and development of soils and draws from the disciplines of soil science, agrometeorology, ecology, agricultural engineering, environmental science, hydrology, forestry, geology, geography and climatology. Research is published in a number of topic sections including: agrometeorology; ecology, biological processes and plant interactions; composition and chemical processes; physical processes and interfaces; genesis, landscape processes and relationships; contamination and environmental stewardship; and management for agricultural, forestry and urban uses.
期刊最新文献
Gamma radiation for the estimation of mineral soil water content in a boreal forest Soil enzyme activities in heavily manured and waterlogged soil cultivated with ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) A Self-adjusting Parametric Model for Attenuation Characteristics of WUSN Signal Parameter calibration of discrete element simulation for the interaction between heavy soil and soil-engaging components in shellfish culture Loss of potentially toxic elements to snowmelt runoff from soils amended with alum, gypsum, and Epsom salt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1