Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 21.1.
Carbon stocks (average ± standard error) and texture (average ± standard error) of Cerrado
biome soils under different land use sampled at depths of 0-
20,
0-
30
and 0-40 cm. (From Corazza
et al
.,
1999; Freitas
et al
., 2000; Chapuis Lardy
et al
., 2002; Ruggiero
et al
., 2002; Machado
et al
., 2003; Roscoe
and Buurman, 2003; Bayer
et al
., 2004, 2006; D'Andréa
et al
., 2004; Neves
et al
., 2004; Silva
et al
., 2004;
Corbeels
et al
., 2006; Siqueira Neto, 2006; Araújo
et al
., 2007; Frazão, 2007; Jantalia
et al
., 2007; Machado
et al
., 2007; Metay
et al
., 2007; Paiva and Faria, 2007; Rangel and Silva, 2007; Luca
et al
., 2008; Maquère
et al
., 2008; Beutler
et al
., 2009; Carvalho
et al
., 2009; Czycza
et al
., 2009; Dieckow
et al
., 2009; Faria
et al
.,
2009; Leite
et al
., 2009; Maia
et al
., 2009; Matias
et al
., 2009; Moreira
et al
., 2009; Pulrolnik
et al
., 2009;
Rossi
et al
., 2009; Salton
et al
., 2011.)
C stock
Sand
Clay
Clay + silt
(Mg C ha
-1
)
(g kg
-1
)
(g kg
-1
)
(g kg
-1
)
0-20 cm
NV
44.09
± 2.72
371.35
± 9968
493.00
± 54.55
661.84
± 91.78
P
41.6
± 2.37
336.11
± 99.08
532.77
± 43.83
597.30
± 99.01
CT
32.02
± 1.78
431.57
± 88.83
453.88
± 52.60
579.47
± 95.13
NT
45.98
± 1.89
244.48
± 76.90
488.32
± 46.81
804.52
± 55.15
PF
41.36
± 4.72
205.17
± 17.98
571.00
± 84.94
928.25
± 18.86
0-30 cm
NV
49.91
± 2.82
387.79
± 186.65
470.00
± 71.89
609.77
± 144.28
P
46.35
± 2.76
455.58
± 181.28
513.64
± 55.90
541.75
± 179.39
CT
44.38
± 2.26
462.55
± 121.28
469.00
± 67.06
559.30
± 85.66
NT
56.48
± 3.42
453.33
± 230.96
430.00
± 108.64
572.53
± 127.56
PF
53.88
± 5.54
202.00
± 18.02
325.00
± 112.70
759.00
± 25.67
0-40 cm
NV
65.87
± 4.97
472.28
± 97.06
202.71
± 65.55
794.54
± 64.04
P
67.49
± 2.66
498.43
± 56.18
337.58
± 71.50
706.92
± 112.68
CT
53.09
± 3.67
386.07
± 85.02
370.15
± 82.26
616.09
± 92.57
NT
76.73
± 1.97
523.25
± 82.73
225.00
± 90.00
775.00
± 90.00
PF
72.09
± 7.99
466.00
± 188.98
291.00
± 68.58
740.00
± 77.57
NV, native vegetation; P, pasture; CT, conventional tillage; NT, no tillage; PF, planted forest.
a special emphasis on crop-livestock and
crop-livestock-forestry integrated systems
(Sisti
et al
., 2004; Bayer
et al
., 2006;
Bustamante
et al
., 2006; Corbeels
et al
., 2006;
Jantalia
et al
., 2007; Batlle-Bayer
et al
., 2010;
Carvalho
et al
., 2010b) (
Table 21.2
).
Conservation or NT agriculture can
also improve carbon sequestration in soils
under agricultural use in the semi-arid and
subhumid regions of the Pampas. Long-term
field experiments have shown that under
NT, significantly higher amounts of carbon
were sequestered in stabilized C fractions
than under conventional tillage (CT) (9.2
versus 11.3 Mg C ha
-
1
in the <
50
μm frac-
tion under CT and NT, respectively). This
finding indicates that soils under NT can
act as a carbon sink, while soils under CT
as a source (Quiroga
et al
., 2009). However,
this might not be the case in NT production
systems without crop rotation (Díaz Zorita
et al
., 2002; Steinbach and Alvarez, 2006;
Álvarez
et al
., 2009).
The response of SCSs to different agri-
cultural systems varies significantly accord-
ing to soil type, particularly regarding its
textural properties, which controls vegeta-
tion structure, biomass production and soil
carbon dynamics (Hassink, 1997; Zinn
et al
.,
2002; Noellemeyer
et al
., 2006; Luca
et al
.,
2008; Gili
et al
., 2010). Sandy soils are highly
susceptible to degradation under LUC and
will lose carbon faster than soils with finer
textures (Noellemeyer
et al
., 2006).
Enhancement of soil fertility has also
been associated with soil carbon build-up
and retention. Native grassland areas in the
Cerrado biome, converted to pastures, have
been shown to store significantly more carbon
in the soil profile when fertilized. Pastures
(
Brachiaria brizantha
) on soils enriched with
mineral (50 kg N ha
−
1
,
as ammonium sulfate)
Search WWH ::
Custom Search