Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Evaluation of three field-based methods for quantifying soil carbon

By: Izaurralde, R.C.
Contributor(s): Rice, C | Wielopolski, L | Ebinger, M.H | Reeves, J | Thomson, A.M | Harris, R | Francis, B | Mitra, S | Rappaport, A.G | Etchevers Barra, J.D | Sayre, K.D | Govaerts, B | McCarty, G.W.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticlePublisher: San Francisco, CA (USA) : Public Library of Science, 2013ISSN: 1932-6203 (Online).Subject(s): Soil Organic Carbon | Soil Density | Chemical MethodsOnline resources: Open Access through Dspace In: PLoS ONE v. 8, no. 1, art. e55560Summary: Three advanced technologies to measure soil carbon (C) density (g C m−2) are deployed in the field and the results compared against those obtained by the dry combustion (DC) method. The advanced methods are: a) Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), b) Diffuse Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (DRIFTS), and c) Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS). The measurements and soil samples were acquired at Beltsville, MD, USA and at Centro International para el Mejoramiento del Maíz y el Trigo (CIMMYT) at El Batán, Mexico. At Beltsville, soil samples were extracted at three depth intervals (0?5, 5?15, and 15?30 cm) and processed for analysis in the field with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. The INS instrument determined soil C density to a depth of 30 cm via scanning and stationary measurements. Subsequently, soil core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for soil bulk density (kg m−3), C concentration (g kg−1) by DC, and results reported as soil C density (kg m−2). Results from each technique were derived independently and contributed to a blind test against results from the reference (DC) method. A similar procedure was employed at CIMMYT in Mexico employing but only with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. Following conversion to common units, we found that the LIBS, DRIFTS, and INS results can be compared directly with those obtained by the DC method. The first two methods and the standard DC require soil sampling and need soil bulk density information to convert soil C concentrations to soil C densities while the INS method does not require soil sampling. We conclude that, in comparison with the DC method, the three instruments (a) showed acceptable performances although further work is needed to improve calibration techniques and (b) demonstrated their portability and their capacity to perform under field conditions.Collection: CIMMYT Staff Publications Collection
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Item type Current location Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode Item holds
Article CIMMYT Knowledge Center: John Woolston Library

Lic. Jose Juan Caballero Flores

 

CIMMYT Staff Publications Collection CIS-7075 (Browse shelf) Available
Total holds: 0

Peer review

Open Access

Peer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1932-6203

Three advanced technologies to measure soil carbon (C) density (g C m−2) are deployed in the field and the results compared against those obtained by the dry combustion (DC) method. The advanced methods are: a) Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), b) Diffuse Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (DRIFTS), and c) Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS). The measurements and soil samples were acquired at Beltsville, MD, USA and at Centro International para el Mejoramiento del Maíz y el Trigo (CIMMYT) at El Batán, Mexico. At Beltsville, soil samples were extracted at three depth intervals (0?5, 5?15, and 15?30 cm) and processed for analysis in the field with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. The INS instrument determined soil C density to a depth of 30 cm via scanning and stationary measurements. Subsequently, soil core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for soil bulk density (kg m−3), C concentration (g kg−1) by DC, and results reported as soil C density (kg m−2). Results from each technique were derived independently and contributed to a blind test against results from the reference (DC) method. A similar procedure was employed at CIMMYT in Mexico employing but only with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. Following conversion to common units, we found that the LIBS, DRIFTS, and INS results can be compared directly with those obtained by the DC method. The first two methods and the standard DC require soil sampling and need soil bulk density information to convert soil C concentrations to soil C densities while the INS method does not require soil sampling. We conclude that, in comparison with the DC method, the three instruments (a) showed acceptable performances although further work is needed to improve calibration techniques and (b) demonstrated their portability and their capacity to perform under field conditions.

Conservation Agriculture Program

Text in English

CIMMYT Informa No. 1830

INT2813

CIMMYT Staff Publications Collection

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Click on an image to view it in the image viewer

baner

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2015. Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
If you have any question, please contact us at CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2015. Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
Si tiene cualquier pregunta, contáctenos a CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org