1
|
- Gayoung Yoo* and Michelle M. Wander
- Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences
- University of Illinois
|
2
|
- No tillage (NT) does not always increase C sequestration.
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
|
7
|
- Investigate soil CO2 evolution patterns where tillage
practices have had varied influences on SOC
- Characterize site- and treatment-based differences in soil physical
factors that might control C dynamics
- Determine whether the soil structural quality explains differences in
SOC mineralization
|
8
|
- Soil CO2 efflux measurement
- Li Cor 6400 (from 2000 to 2002)
- Environmental variables
- Soil temperature, soil moisture,
penetration resistance (PR), bulk density, and pore size distribution
- Statistical method
- ANOVA using PROC MIXED
- Non-linear regression using PROC
NLIN (SAS Institute)
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
11
|
|
12
|
- Basic Q10 model with soil temperature and gravimetric water contents
- Soil CO2 evolution
-
= (b + r*SWC)*Q10 (Ts-10)/10
|
13
|
|
14
|
|
15
|
|
16
|
|
17
|
|
18
|
- Inherently high protective capacity soils
- High clay content, high SOC, high macroporosity, low BD, low LLWR
- Not likely to be affected much by practices that alter structure
- Intermediate protective capacity soils
- Medium clay content, medium SOC, medium macroporosity, high BD and LLWR
- Physical properties can be altered to affect biological activity and C
sequestration by tillage practice
|
19
|
- I would also like to thank Todd Nissen, Verónica Rodríquez, Inigo Virto,
and Iosu Garcia for their invaluable assistance in the field.
- Special thanks to Emily Marriott, Ariane Peralta, and Carmen Ugarte for
their helpful discussion, editing, and advice.
|