
- Journal of Geographical Sciences
- Vol. 30, Issue 6, 921 (2020)
Abstract
1 Introduction
Soils hold a large proportion of the world’s carbon (C) in terrestrial ecosystems, and soils account for two-thirds of this amount, equivalent to 2-3 times the amount of C in the atmosphere (
Soil depth has a distinct influence on the amount of SOC storage (
Similarly, land use also greatly influences soil C stocks (
Most studies involving C-stock evaluation in different land-use types are currently based on data acquired from indirect sources, such as soil-series maps, agriculture-related reports, and the like (
There is a large area and thick package of loess (640,000 km2) in northwest China, called the Chinese Loess Plateau (CLP), which holds 1239.85 Tg of C to a depth of 20 cm (
Therefore, the objective of this research is to investigate deep SOC and SIC stocks under cropland, forestland, grassland, shrubland and gully land types over 70 years following reclamation of croplands. In particular, we address the following key questions:
1) How do SOC and SIC stocks change with soil depth under five land-use types?
2) How do these deep-soil C stocks respond to different land-use types?
3) Which land use is optimal for C storage in our study area?
4) How do these stocks vary with time?
2 Material and methods
2.1 Study site
The Gutun watershed (36°46ʹ39ʹʹ-37°03ʹ34ʹʹN, 109°41ʹ02ʹʹ-109°56ʹ58ʹʹE) on the Chinese Loess Plateau (CLP) covers approximately 24 km2, 46 km east of Yan’an city in Shaanxi Province (
Figure 1.
In all, 21 representative profiles within the Gutun watershed were categorized based on predominant land use as grassland (two profiles), shrubland (one profile), forestland (two profiles), cropland (14 profiles), and gully land (two profiles), through field surveys, a work of time consuming and costly.
2.2 Soil sampling and laboratory analysis
Soil samples were collected from 1 m × 1 m quadrats located by GPS from March to April in 2017. The litter in each site was cleared before sampling. Every site was excavated to a depth of 500 cm, or until the calcification layer or overflow layer was reached. We used 421 sampling points located on the ridges to determine bulk density (BD) at 10 cm intervals in the 0-20 cm top-soil layer, and at 20 cm intervals at depths from 20 to 500 cm. Another 421 samples were collected to determine total carbon (TC), SIC, soil water content (SWC), and particle composition.
A portion of each soil sample was used to measure SWC gravimetrically from weight loss after drying at 105℃ (
2.3 Calculation of SOC storage and SIC storage
Stored SOC and SIC (kg m-2) were calculated using the following equations (
where, SOCstock and SICstock represent SOC and SIC storage, respectively; SOC and SIC are the SOC and SIC contents (g kg-1), respectively; BD is the soil bulk density (g cm-3); the occurrence of coarse fragments in the loessal soils of the Chinese Loess Plateau is rare, therefore, Fcontent is usually negligible in the CLP; Δd represents the soil layer thickness (cm).
Two-way ANOVA analysis was applied to determine the significance of any effects from land use and cropland reclamation time on SOC, SIC and the other parameters under study. All the differences were evaluated at a significance level of 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using Origin 2018b, SPSS 22, Sigmaplot 12.5 and Figures of sampling sites were drawn by ArcMap 10.2 software.
3 Results
3.1 Soil basic characteristics
Land-use type | Texture (%) | BD*(g cm-3) | SWC(g kg-1) | SOC(g kg-1) | SIC(g kg-1) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sand | Silt | Clay | |||||
Grassland | 19.2±3.8ab | 78.2±3.6a | 2.6±0.3bc | 1.3±0.1b | 126.0±20.3b | 2.96±2.22a | 16.77±3.00a |
Shrubland | 19.7±3.0ab | 77.6±2.8a | 2.7±0.4bc | 1.3±0.1b | 92.8±47.5c | 2.76±1.75ab | 13.79±2.40bc |
Forestland | 22.3±4.5a | 75.4±4.3a | 2.3±0.4c | 1.3±0.1b | 71.7±19.4c | 2.58±1.22ab | 14.82±1.81ab |
Cropland | 22.1±5.4a | 75.1±5.0a | 2.8±0.7b | 1.5±0.2ab | 177.2±51.6a | 2.04±1.10ab | 12.38±3.18c |
Gully land | 18.6±4.2b | 78.2±3.8a | 3.2±0.6a | 1.4±0.1a | 197.7±31.0a | 1.84±1.29b | 14.22±2.65bc |
Table 1.
Soil properties under five land-use types in the Gutun watershed on the Chinese Loess Plateau
3.2 Carbon content under different land uses and various times of cropland cultivation
The variability of BD was small (<10%) throughout the soil profile under each land-use type, but overall, it increased with depth. Cropland showed the highest BD values, ranging from 1.01 to 1.82 g cm-3, followed by gully land. Shrubland, forestland, and grassland were comparable in BD, with uniformly low levels (
Land use significantly affected SWC (p < 0.05), with the following ranking: gully land > cropland > grassland > shrubland > forestland (
The mean SOC of all 21 soil profiles and the 0-500 cm soil profile was 2.24±1.39 g kg-1 (n=421), which is lower than values measured at other sites in the CLP (
Figure 2.
Factor of | BD | SWC | SOC | SIC | SOCS | SICS | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | F | F | F | F | F | |||||||
Land-use types | 24.32 | 0.000 | 79.060 | 0.000 | 11.852 | 0.000 | 25.320 | 0.000 | 3.452 | 0.009 | 6.222 | 0.000 |
Soil depth | 2.310 | 0.033 | 6.080 | 0.000 | 4.434 | 0.000 | 2.121 | 0.000 | 4.651 | 0.000 | 17.781 | 0.000 |
Time | 112.59 | 0.000 | 36.283 | 0.000 | 18.082 | 0.000 | 31.666 | 0.000 | 21.867 | 0.000 | 13.365 | 0.000 |
Table 2.
Two-way ANOVA* F and p-values for land-use type, cultivation time, and soil depth effects on soil BD (g cm-3), SWC (g kg-1), SOC content (g kg-1), SIC content (g kg-1), SOC stocks (kg m-2), and SIC stocks (kg m-2) in Gutun watershed
Depth (cm) | 0-20 | 20-60 | 60-100 | 100-200 | 200-300 | 300-400 | 400-500 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SOC | Grassland | 7.26±4.56aA | 3.93±3.05aAB | 2.38±0.93aB | 2.51±1.12aB | 3.09±1.68aB | 2.27±0.61aB | 1.88±1.35bB |
Shrubland | 3.79±1.52abA | 1.55±0.8aB | 1.07±0.2aB | 2.89±2.71aA | 2.71±1.25abA | 1.77±0.58aB | 4.40±1.33aA | |
Forestland | 3.29±0.94abA | 2.90±1.57aA | 2.38±1.49aA | 2.08±0.89aA | 2.39±0.84abA | 3.19±1.61aA | 2.03±0.51bA | |
Cropland | 2.52±1.25bA | 1.81±1.25aAB | 1.46±0.63aB | 1.99±1.05aAB | 1.89±0.86bAB | 2.34±1.07aAB | 2.22±1.30bAB | |
Gully land | 1.68±1.27bA | 1.61±1.14aA | 2.03±1.57aA | 2.26±1.77aA | 1.42±0.39bA | |||
SIC | Grassland | 14.97±1.39abB | 17.2±2.0abAB | 17.4±2.2abAB | 16.25±0.92aB | 14.18±1.86aB | 17.45±3.7aAB | 20.18±2.58aA |
Shrubland | 16.91±0.01aA | 16.55±0.21aA | 16.45±0.07aA | 14.3±2.9abAB | 13.31±1.13aB | 13.21±1.01bB | 10.96±1.44bB | |
Forestland | 14.27±1.37abA | 13.97±1.96abA | 14.42±1.61abA | 14.75±1.12abA | 14.57±1.20aA | 14.76±2.63aA | 17.01±0.53abA | |
Cropland | 13.40±1.61bA | 13.39±1.44bA | 13.05±2.77bA | 12.68±1.69bA | 11.99±3.47aA | 11.52±4.16bA | 11.34±5.04bA | |
Gully land | 15.10±1.40abA | 15.66±1.72abA | 14.91±1.07abA | 14.17±2.86abA | 11.88±3.68aA |
Table 3.
Vertical distribution of SOC and SIC contents (g kg-1) under five land-use types
Cultivation time influenced SOC content significantly (p < 0.05) (
Depth (cm) | 0-20 | 20-60 | 60-100 | 100-200 | 200-300 | 300-400 | 400-500 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SOC | RC5 | 2.02±1aAB | 1.41±0.94bB | 1.63±0.78aAB | 2.35±0.96abAB | 1.87±0.35bcAB | 2.96±0.48abA | 2.6±0.77aAB |
RC15 | 1.82±0.5bA | 1.51±1.82bA | 1.13±0.66aA | 1.45±0.88bA | 1.3±0.89cA | 1±0.76cA | 0.72±0.53bA | |
RC35 | 3.3±0.83aA | 2.4±1.07aAB | 1.69±0.26aB | 2.12±0.43abAB | 2.34±0.53abAB | 2.49±0.43abAB | 2.9±1.5aAB | |
RC60 | 2.61±1.96aA | 1.61±1.14bA | 1.4±0.75aA | 1.69±0.45bA | 1.79±0.6cA | 2.35±1.28bA | 2.03±1.31abA | |
RC70 | 3.04±1.18aAB | 2.26±1.25aAB | 1.50±0.57aB | 2.66±1.90aAB | 3.03±1.02aAB | 3.45±0.77aA | ||
SIC | RC5 | 11.95±1.41bA | 12.47±2.5aA | 12.66±2.9abA | 12.29±1.67bA | 13.56±1.45aA | 12.9±1.64aA | 12.75±2.99aA |
RC15 | 14.07±2.21abA | 14.29±1.2aA | 14.31±1.11aA | 12.83±1bAB | 10.46±5.41aAB | 6.16±5.2bBC | 0.94±0.63bC | |
RC35 | 13.64±0.37abA | 13.44±0.73aA | 14.39±1.09aA | 13.5±0.51bA | 13.12±1aA | 12.99±1.82aA | 14.13±3.16aA | |
RC60 | 14.65±1.39aA | 13.52±0.93aAB | 13.32±0.83abAB | 13.17±0.94bAB | 12.33±0.9aB | 13.26±1.93aAB | 12.9±1.26aAB | |
RC70 | 12.35±0.25abA | 13.13±0.82aA | 9.65±5.08bA | 16.43±3.24aA | 10.53±3.87aA | 13.09±1.48aA |
Table 4.
Vertical distribution of SOC and SIC contents (g kg-1) from RC5 to RC70 croplands in Gutun watershed
In general, SIC was found to be much higher than SOC in this study, ranging from 0.17 to 27.4 g kg-1. Average SIC was 13.4 g kg-1, with a relatively small coefficient of variation of 24.8%; further, the mean SIC content was approximately six times greater that of the corresponding SOC content. Mean SIC content decreased with depth along the 0-500 cm profile, with deeper soil layers containing slightly lower amounts of SIC than the overlying layers (
3.3 Carbon storage under different land uses and various reclamation times of croplands
3.3.1 SOC stocks
Overall, SOC reserves were relatively small in the 0-500 cm soil profile; accounting for 11-16% of the TC stocks, and decreasing abundances as follows: shrubland (17.2 kg m-2) > grassland (16.2 kg m-2) > forestland (15.2 kg m-2) > cropland (14.1 kg m-2) > gully land (6.37 kg m-2) (
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
The integral SOC stocks under RC5, RC15, RC35, RC60, and RC70 were 17.2, 8.77, 13.5, 13.2, and 18.1 kg m-2, respectively, and the SOC stocks at 100 cm intervals followed the same pattern: RC70 > RC5 > RC35 > RC60 > RC15 (
Figure 6.
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p<0.05) among croplands under five different cultivation times.
Cultivation time significantly affected SOC stocks in reclaimed croplands, according to the two-way ANOVA (p<0.05) (
Figure 7.
3.3.2 SIC stocks
SIC stocks ranged from 50.3 to 104.1 kg m-2, accounting for 84%- 89% of TC stocks (
Cultivation time significantly affected SIC stocks (p < 0.05) (
4 Discussion
4.1 Sources of variation in SOC and SIC distributions under five land use types
The overall C stocks in grassland, forestland, and shrubland were 23.8, 15.0, and 11.4 kg m-2, respectively; all higher than the C stocks in cropland, and gully land, where they were the lowest (
Different land-use types are associated with diverse plant communities that influence SOC due to variability in plant productivity, soil quality, and soil C turnover time (
As
We also found that some SIC was stored in the subsoils of grassland and forestland (
4.2 Management strategy of carbon under reclaimed croplands
SOC stocks decreased from RC5 to RC15 and then steadily increased up to a maximum value in RC70 (
The integral stocks of SOC and SIC were consistently lower in cropland than in grassland, forestland or shrubland (
5 Conclusions
Both SOC and SIC should be estimated over broad areas to evaluate C stocks and their relationship with different land-use types on the CLP. 1) Grassland, shrubland, and forestland showed the greatest capacity to accumulate C in soil profiles from the surface to a depth of 500 cm, compared to either cropland or gully land. 2) SIC stocks in these five land-use types contributed to 84%-89% of TC stocks, which was much higher than SOC stocks. 3) Moreover, the amounts of SOC and SIC in deep soil layers (100-500 cm) were greater than those in the 0-100 cm soil depth range. Moreover, it is necessary to accurately quantify the amount of C sequestered and cycled with time. Our data clearly show that cultivation time significantly influenced SOC and SIC stocks. 4) Soils that were reclaimed 15 years ago for cropping are regarded as poor soils that can optimal for neither crop growth nor C fixation. 5) Planting a small nursery in the RC35 cropland is better than planting corn to sequester C. 6) Cultivation has led to C losses equivalent to approximately 60 years of C accumulation, with a TC loss of approximately 23% in the 0-500 cm soil profile on the CLP. Therefore, we suggest that local governments consider laying sod or establishing nurseries in newly reclaimed croplands for several years, prior to introducing grain cropping or developing an agroforestry system whereby grain production and C sequestration might be fostered.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express sincere thanks to the Belt & Road Center for Earth Environment Studies and CAS Key Technology Talent Program.
References
[3] S Ali, F Begum, R Hayat et al. Variation in soil organic carbon stock in different land uses and altitudes in Bagrot valley, northern Karakoram. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science, 67, 551-561(2017).
[4] N H Batjes. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal of Soil Science, 47, 151-163(1996).
[5] N H Batjes. Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (wise30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma, 269, 61-68(2016).
[6] X Bi, B Li, B Nan et al. Characteristics of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen under various grassland types along a transect in a mountain-basin system in Xinjiang, China. Journal of Arid Land, 10, 612-627(2018).
[7] R Cardinael, T Chevallier, A Cambou et al. Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: A survey of six different sites in France. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 236, 243-255(2017).
[8] G Civeira. Distribution of soil organic and inorganic carbon by soil taxa in the central eastern Pampas of Buenos Aires. Soil Science, 178, 120-127(2013).
[9] G Civeira. Soil inorganic carbon in pampean agroecosystems: Distribution and relationships with soil properties in Buenos Aires Province. Soil Research, 54, 777-786(2016).
[10] L Deng, G B Liu, Z P Shangguan. Land-use conversion and changing soil carbon stocks in China's 'Grain-for-Green' Program: A synthesis. Global Change Biology, 20, 3544(2014).
[11] J L Díaz-Hernández. Is soil carbon storage underestimated?. Chemosphere, 80, 346-349(2010).
[13] H Eswaran. Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil Scisocamj, 57, 269-273(1993).
[14] D L Fu, M Y Liu, L Liu et al. Organic carbon density and storage in different soils on the Loess Plateau. Arid Zone Research, 31, 44-50(2014).
[15] R Grimm, T Behrens, M Märker et al. Soil organic carbon concentrations and stocks on Barro Colorado Island: Digital soil mapping using random forests analysis. Geoderma, 146, 102-113(2008).
[16] X Y Han, G Y Gao, R Y Chang et al. Changes in soil organic and inorganic carbon stocks in deep profiles following cropland abandonment along a precipitation gradient across the Loess Plateau of China. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 258, 1-13(2018).
[17] R J Harper, M Tibbett. The hidden organic carbon in deep mineral soils. Plant and Soil, 368, 641-648(2013).
[18] S Jaiarree, A Chidthaisong, N Tangtham et al. Soil organic carbon loss and turnover resulting from forest conversion to maize fields in eastern Thailand. Pedosphere, 21, 581-590(2011).
[19] C L Li, Q Li, L Zhao et al. Land-use effects on organic and inorganic carbon patterns in the topsoil around Qinghai Lake Basin, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Catena, 147, 345-355(2016).
[20] Z B Lin, R D Zhang. Dynamics of soil organic carbon under uncertain climate change and elevated atmospheric CO2. Pedosphere, 22, 489-496(2012).
[21] S L Liu, Y H Tang, F W Zhang et al. Changes of soil organic and inorganic carbon in relation to grassland degradation in northern Tibet. Ecological Research, 32, 1-10(2017).
[22] W G Liu, J Wei, J M Cheng et al. Profile distribution of soil inorganic carbon along a chronosequence of grassland restoration on a 22-year scale in the Chinese Loess Plateau. Catena, 121, 321-329(2014).
[23] Y Liu, Z Q Dang, F P Tian et al. Soil organic carbon and inorganic carbon accumulation along a 30-year grassland restoration chronosequence in semi-arid regions (China). Land Degradation & Development, 28, 189-198(2017).
[24] X X Ma, M X Xu, K Yang. Soil organic carbon mineralization of black locust forest in the deep soil layer of the hilly region of the Loess Plateau, China. Environmental Sciences, 33, 3893-3900(2012).
[25] A Miltner, P Bombach, B Schmidt-Brücken et al. Som genesis: Microbial biomass as a significant source. Biogeochemistry, 111, 41-55(2012).
[26] C Rumpel, F Amiraslani, L S Koutika et al. Put more carbon in soils to meet paris climate pledges. Nature, 564, 32-34(2018).
[27] C Rumpel, I Kögel-Knabner. Deep soil organic matte: A key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant and Soil, 338, 143-158(2011).
[28] W H Schlesinger. Carbon storage in the caliche of arid soils: A case study from Arizona. Soil Science, 133, 247-255(1982).
[29] R Sommer, M Denich, P L G Vlek. Carbon storage and root penetration in deep soils under small-farmer land-use systems in the eastern Amazon region, Brazil. Plant and Soil, 219, 231-241(2000).
[30] S Trumbore. Radiocarbon and soil carbon dynamics. Annual Review of Earth & Planetary Sciences, 37, 47-66(2009).
[31] S E Trumbore. Potential responses of soil organic carbon to global environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94, 8284-8291(1997).
[32] K B Wang, Z P Ren, L Deng et al. Profile distributions and controls of soil inorganic carbon along a 150-year natural vegetation restoration chronosequence. Soilence Society of America Journal, 80, 193-202(2016).
[33] L Wang, M A Shao, Q F Zhang. Distribution and characters of soil dry layer in north Shaanxi Loess Plateau. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 15, 436-442(2004).
[34] T Wang, F F Kang, X Q Cheng et al. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks under different land uses in a hilly ecological restoration area of North China. Soil & Tillage Research, 163, 176-184(2016).
[36] Y Q Wang, X W Han, Z Jin et al. Soil organic carbon stocks in deep soils at a watershed scale on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Soil Science Society of American Journal, 80, 157-167(2016).
[37] Y Q Wang, M A Shao, C C Zhang et al. Soil organic carbon in deep profiles under Chinese continental monsoon climate and its relations with land uses. Ecological Engineering, 82, 361-367(2015).
[38] M Wiesmeier, P Sporlein, U Geuss et al. Soil organic carbon stocks in southeast Germany (Bavaria) as affected by land use, soil type and sampling depth. Global Change Biology, 18, 2233-2245(2012).
[39] H B Wu, Z T Guo, Q Gao et al. Distribution of soil inorganic carbon storage and its changes due to agricultural land use activity in China. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 129, 413-421(2009).
[40] L Xu, G Yu, N He. Increased soil organic carbon storage in Chinese terrestrial ecosystems from the 1980s to the 2010s. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29, 49-66(2019).
[41] F Yang, L M Huang, R M Yang et al. Vertical distribution and storage of soil organic and inorganic carbon in a typical inland river basin, Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 10, 183-201(2018).
[42] J Zeng, F-J Yue, Z-J Wang et al. Quantifying depression trapping effect on rainwater chemical composition during the rainy season in karst agricultural area, southwestern China. Atmospheric Environment, 218, 116998(2019).
[43] F Zhang, X Wang, T Guo et al. Soil organic and inorganic carbon in the loess profiles of Lanzhou area: Implications of deep soils. Catena, 126, 68-74(2015).
[44] S Zhang, M X Xu, Y F Zhang et al. Effects of land use change on storage of soil organic carbon in deep soil layers in the hilly Loess Plateau region, China. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 34, 3094-3101(2014).
[45] S R Zhang, B Sun, Q G Zhao et al. Temporal-spatial variability of soil organic carbon stocks in a rehabilitating ecosystem. Pedosphere, 14, 501-508(2004).

Set citation alerts for the article
Please enter your email address