A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.

As CO2 concentrations continue to rise and drive global climate change, much effort has been put into estimating soil carbon (C) stocks and dynamics over time. However, the inconsistent methods employed by researchers hamper the comparability of such works, creating a pressing need to standardize th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Litong Chen, Dan F B Flynn, Xin Jing, Peter Kühn, Thomas Scholten, Jin-Sheng He
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4422439?pdf=render
_version_ 1819213215907708928
author Litong Chen
Dan F B Flynn
Xin Jing
Peter Kühn
Thomas Scholten
Jin-Sheng He
author_facet Litong Chen
Dan F B Flynn
Xin Jing
Peter Kühn
Thomas Scholten
Jin-Sheng He
author_sort Litong Chen
collection DOAJ
description As CO2 concentrations continue to rise and drive global climate change, much effort has been put into estimating soil carbon (C) stocks and dynamics over time. However, the inconsistent methods employed by researchers hamper the comparability of such works, creating a pressing need to standardize the methods for soil organic C (SOC) quantification by the various methods. Here, we collected 712 soil samples from 36 sites of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau covering different soil depths and vegetation and soil types. We used an elemental analyzer for soil total C (STC) and an inorganic carbon analyzer for soil inorganic C (SIC), and then defined the difference between STC and SIC as SOCCNS. In addition, we employed the modified Walkley-Black (MWB) method, hereafter SOCMWB. Our results showed that there was a strong correlation between SOCCNS and SOCMWB across the data set, given the application of a correction factor of 1.103. Soil depth and soil type significantly influenced on the recovery, defined as the ratio of SOCMWB to SOCCNS, and the recovery was closely associated with soil carbonate content and pH value as well. The differences of recovery between alpine meadow and steppe were largely driven by soil pH. In addition, statistically, a relatively strong correlation between SOCCNS and STC was also found, suggesting that it is feasible to estimate SOCCNS stocks through the STC data across the Tibetan grasslands. Therefore, our results suggest that in order to accurately estimate the absolute SOC stocks and its change in the Tibetan alpine grasslands, adequate correction of the modified WB measurements is essential with correct consideration of the effects of soil types, vegetation, soil pH and soil depth.
first_indexed 2024-12-23T06:55:20Z
format Article
id doaj.art-9ee27a8b73c14623af01ea19f5b1a026
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-23T06:55:20Z
publishDate 2015-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-9ee27a8b73c14623af01ea19f5b1a0262022-12-21T17:56:20ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01105e012637210.1371/journal.pone.0126372A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.Litong ChenDan F B FlynnXin JingPeter KühnThomas ScholtenJin-Sheng HeAs CO2 concentrations continue to rise and drive global climate change, much effort has been put into estimating soil carbon (C) stocks and dynamics over time. However, the inconsistent methods employed by researchers hamper the comparability of such works, creating a pressing need to standardize the methods for soil organic C (SOC) quantification by the various methods. Here, we collected 712 soil samples from 36 sites of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau covering different soil depths and vegetation and soil types. We used an elemental analyzer for soil total C (STC) and an inorganic carbon analyzer for soil inorganic C (SIC), and then defined the difference between STC and SIC as SOCCNS. In addition, we employed the modified Walkley-Black (MWB) method, hereafter SOCMWB. Our results showed that there was a strong correlation between SOCCNS and SOCMWB across the data set, given the application of a correction factor of 1.103. Soil depth and soil type significantly influenced on the recovery, defined as the ratio of SOCMWB to SOCCNS, and the recovery was closely associated with soil carbonate content and pH value as well. The differences of recovery between alpine meadow and steppe were largely driven by soil pH. In addition, statistically, a relatively strong correlation between SOCCNS and STC was also found, suggesting that it is feasible to estimate SOCCNS stocks through the STC data across the Tibetan grasslands. Therefore, our results suggest that in order to accurately estimate the absolute SOC stocks and its change in the Tibetan alpine grasslands, adequate correction of the modified WB measurements is essential with correct consideration of the effects of soil types, vegetation, soil pH and soil depth.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4422439?pdf=render
spellingShingle Litong Chen
Dan F B Flynn
Xin Jing
Peter Kühn
Thomas Scholten
Jin-Sheng He
A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.
PLoS ONE
title A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.
title_full A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.
title_fullStr A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.
title_short A comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau.
title_sort comparison of two methods for quantifying soil organic carbon of alpine grasslands on the tibetan plateau
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4422439?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT litongchen acomparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT danfbflynn acomparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT xinjing acomparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT peterkuhn acomparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT thomasscholten acomparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT jinshenghe acomparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT litongchen comparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT danfbflynn comparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT xinjing comparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT peterkuhn comparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT thomasscholten comparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau
AT jinshenghe comparisonoftwomethodsforquantifyingsoilorganiccarbonofalpinegrasslandsonthetibetanplateau