A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils
Selecting a suitable physical fractionation method, to investigate soil organic matter dynamics, from the plethora that are available is a difficult task. Using five different physical fractionation methods, on soils either nontreated or with a history of amendment with a range of exogenous organic...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Applied and Environmental Soil Science |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3831241 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832567162060931072 |
|---|---|
| author | Sarah Duddigan Liz J. Shaw Paul D. Alexander Chris D. Collins |
| author_facet | Sarah Duddigan Liz J. Shaw Paul D. Alexander Chris D. Collins |
| author_sort | Sarah Duddigan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Selecting a suitable physical fractionation method, to investigate soil organic matter dynamics, from the plethora that are available is a difficult task. Using five different physical fractionation methods, on soils either nontreated or with a history of amendment with a range of exogenous organic matter inputs (Irish moss peat; composted horse manure; garden compost) and a resulting range of carbon contents (6.8 to 22.2%), we show that method selection had a significant impact on both the total C recovered and the distribution of the recovered C between unprotected, physically protected, or chemically protected conceptual pools. These between-method differences most likely resulted from the following: (i) variation in the methodological fractions obtained (i.e., distinguishing between aggregate size classes); (ii) their subsequent designation to conceptual pools (e.g., protected versus unprotected); and (iii) the procedures used in sample pretreatment and subsequent aggregate dispersion and fractionation steps. The performance of each method also varied depending on the amendment in question. The findings emphasise the need for an understanding of the nature of the soil samples under investigation, and the stabilisation mechanism of interest, both prior to method selection and when comparing and interpreting findings from literature studies using different fractionation methods. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-34d36f30ce7e432dbf0341314023dc29 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-7667 1687-7675 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied and Environmental Soil Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-34d36f30ce7e432dbf0341314023dc292025-02-03T01:02:13ZengWileyApplied and Environmental Soil Science1687-76671687-76752019-01-01201910.1155/2019/38312413831241A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended SoilsSarah Duddigan0Liz J. Shaw1Paul D. Alexander2Chris D. Collins3Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, UKDepartment of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, UKRoyal Horticultural Society, Wisley, UKDepartment of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, UKSelecting a suitable physical fractionation method, to investigate soil organic matter dynamics, from the plethora that are available is a difficult task. Using five different physical fractionation methods, on soils either nontreated or with a history of amendment with a range of exogenous organic matter inputs (Irish moss peat; composted horse manure; garden compost) and a resulting range of carbon contents (6.8 to 22.2%), we show that method selection had a significant impact on both the total C recovered and the distribution of the recovered C between unprotected, physically protected, or chemically protected conceptual pools. These between-method differences most likely resulted from the following: (i) variation in the methodological fractions obtained (i.e., distinguishing between aggregate size classes); (ii) their subsequent designation to conceptual pools (e.g., protected versus unprotected); and (iii) the procedures used in sample pretreatment and subsequent aggregate dispersion and fractionation steps. The performance of each method also varied depending on the amendment in question. The findings emphasise the need for an understanding of the nature of the soil samples under investigation, and the stabilisation mechanism of interest, both prior to method selection and when comparing and interpreting findings from literature studies using different fractionation methods.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3831241 |
| spellingShingle | Sarah Duddigan Liz J. Shaw Paul D. Alexander Chris D. Collins A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils Applied and Environmental Soil Science |
| title | A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils |
| title_full | A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils |
| title_short | A Comparison of Physical Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Methods for Amended Soils |
| title_sort | comparison of physical soil organic matter fractionation methods for amended soils |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3831241 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sarahduddigan acomparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT lizjshaw acomparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT pauldalexander acomparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT chrisdcollins acomparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT sarahduddigan comparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT lizjshaw comparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT pauldalexander comparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils AT chrisdcollins comparisonofphysicalsoilorganicmatterfractionationmethodsforamendedsoils |