Effect of sieving and sample storage on soil respiration and its temperature sensitivity (Q10) in mineral soils from Germany
| Autor: | Nele Meyer, Gerhard Welp, Wulf Amelung |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Soils and climate change, Department of Forest Sciences |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
1171 Geosciences
Soil test SURFACE Soil texture ORGANIC-MATTER DECOMPOSITION N-MINERALIZATION Sample (material) Carbon mineralization Q10 Soil Science MOISTURE Microbiology Soil respiration CARBON 03 medical and health sciences Animal science DEPENDENCE Drying and rewetting Soil pretreatment Heterotrophic soil respiration Water content 030304 developmental biology WATER-CONTENT 0303 health sciences Moisture Chemistry MICROBIAL BIOMASS 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences 15. Life on land 6. Clean water MODEL 415 Other agricultural sciences Soil water 040103 agronomy & agriculture PATTERNS 0401 agriculture forestry and fisheries Agronomy and Crop Science |
| Popis: | Knowledge about spatial patterns of soil respiration (SR) and its temperature sensitivity (Q10) is of emerging relevance for assessing carbon fluxes across the landscape. Related experiments are often conducted under controlled laboratory conditions and usually rely on soil samples, which are sieved and stored. Here, we investigated the effect of sieving and storage on SR and Q10. We took 14 samples from different land use types and soil textures. Samples were sieved to 2 mm at field-moist conditions and split into four treatments: sieved/no-storage, sieved/freeze-storage (−18 °C), sieved/cold-storage (+ 4 °C), and sieved/dry-storage (+ 40 °C). The storage time was 7 weeks. Intact soil cores were used as a control. The SR was not significantly affected by sieving/no-storage, sieving/freeze-storage, and sieving/cold-storage compared with the control. Yet, sieving/dry-storage significantly increased SR but all samples were similarly affected (r = 0.81 for the correlation between SR after sieving/dry-storage and SR in the control). The Q10 of sieving/no-storage (1.94 ± 0.28), sieving/freeze-storage (1.94 ± 0.23), sieving/cold-storage (2.37 ± 0.29), and sieving/dry-storage (2.29 ± 1.35) did not differ significantly from the control (2.12 ± 0.23). All samples responded similar to sieving and storage (r = 0.68–0.73 for the correlation between Q10 in each respective treatment and Q10 in the control), with the exception of sieved/dry-storage (r = 0.09). We conclude that sieving at field-moist conditions and subsequent freeze- or cold-storage is acceptable to derive SR and Q10 for the here reported storage time. Although dry-storage may be acceptable for the comparison of SR between samples, it should be avoided for realistic estimates of SR and for the determination of Q10. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|