Soil & Water Res., 2007, 2(4):149-155 | DOI: 10.17221/2107-SWR

Stand heterogeneity of total carbon and nitrogen, and C/N ratio in soil of mountain meadowsOriginal Paper

Valerie Vranová1, Pavel Formánek1, Klement Rejšek1, Dalibor Janouš2
1 Department of Geology and Soil Science, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
2 Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Laboratory of Plants Ecological Physiology, Academy of Sciences the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic

This study was aimed at monitoring the relative and absolute stand heterogeneity of total carbon, total nitrogen and C/N ratio in Ah-Ae-Btg-Bt horizons of Gleyic Luvisol on one mountain meadow divided into two study plots: one moderately (once a season) mown (plant community of the Nardo-Callunetea class) and one abandoned for about 12 years (plant community of the Molinio-Arrhenatheretea class). The heterogeneities were evaluated more than 2 months after the mowing of the moderately mown meadow at the end of July 2005. Relative stand heterogeneity was expressed using coefficient of variation (CV), absolute stand heterogeneity using the differences between maximum and minimum value. When both meadows were taken into account, the relative stand heterogeneity of total carbon in individual horizons was < 65%, < 73% (total nitrogen), and < 93% (C/N). Lower relative and absolute stand heterogeneity of these parameters was mostly on the abandoned meadow. Relatively higher differences of stand heterogeneity between the meadows were evident in deeper parts of the soil (horizon Btg) and the lowest mainly in horizon Ah (or Bt). The accelerated accumulation of dead organic matter in the autumn caused the natural difference of these inputs not to be substantially eliminated by the presence or absence of mowing. Accelerated eluviation of organic compounds of higher nitrogen content significantly (P < 0.05) decreased the C/N ratio in the Bt horizon (n = 6-8) of the abandoned meadow.

Keywords: carbon; nitrogen; C, N ratio; mountain meadow

Published: December 31, 2007  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Vranová V, Formánek P, Rejšek K, Janouš D. Stand heterogeneity of total carbon and nitrogen, and C/N ratio in soil of mountain meadows. Soil & Water Res. 2007;2(4):149-155. doi: 10.17221/2107-SWR.
Download citation

References

  1. Blair N., Faulkner R.D., Till A.R., Korschens M., Schulz E. (2006): Long-term management impacts on soil C, N and physical fertility: Part II: Bad Lauchstadt static and extreme FYM experiments. Soil & Tillage Research, 91: 39-47. Go to original source...
  2. Cannell M.G.R., Thornley J. H.M. (1998): N-poor ecosystems may respond more to elevated (CO2) than N-rich ones in the long term. A model analysis of grassland. Global Change Biology, 4: 431-442. Go to original source...
  3. Cannell M.G.R., Thornley J.H.M. (2000): Nitrogen states in plant ecosystems: a viewpoint. Annals of Botany, 86: 1161-1167. Go to original source...
  4. Fiala K. (1997): Underground plant biomass of grassland communities in relation to mowing intensity. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae Scientiarum Bohemicae, 31: 1-54.
  5. Formánek P., Rejšek K., Vranova V., Marek M.V. (2007): Bio-available amino acids and mineral nitrogen forms in soil of moderately mown and abandoned mountain meadows. Amino Acids, 33. (submitted) Go to original source...
  6. Green R.N., Rowbridge R.L., Klinka K. (1993): Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. Supplement to Forest Science, 39, Monograph 29: 1-49. Go to original source...
  7. Holub P., Tůma I. (2005): Biomass production and nutrient uptake of mountain meadows with different management. The Beskids Bulletin, 18: 69-72.
  8. Hutchings N.J., Kristensen I.S. (1995): Modelling mineral nitrogen accumulation in grazed pasture: will more nitrogen leach from fertilized grass than unfertilized grass/clover? Grass Forage Science, 50: 300-313. Go to original source...
  9. ISSS-ISRIC-FAO (2006): World Reference Base for Soil Resources. A framework for international Classification, Correlation and Communication. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103, Rome, FAO.
  10. Moravec J., Blažková D., Husová M. et al. (1994): Fytocenologie. Academia, Praha.
  11. Shukla M.K., Lal R., Ebinger M. (2006): Determing soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil & Tillage Research, 87: 194-204. Go to original source...
  12. Thornley J.H.M., Cannell M.G.R. (2001): Soil carbon storage response to temperature: an hypothesis. Annals of Botany, 87: 591-598. Go to original source...
  13. USDA-NRCS (1999): Soil Taxonomy. Agricultural Handbook, US Government Printing Office, Washington.
  14. Vranová V., Formánek P., Rejšek K., Kisza L. (2008): Selected kinetic parameters of soil microbial respiration in the A horizon of differently managed mountain forests and meadows of Moravian-Silesian Beskids Mts. Euroasian Soil Science, 41. (submitted) Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.