Show simple item record

Evaluation of three field-based methods for quantifying soil carbon

Author: Izaurralde, R.C.
Author: Rice, C.W.
Author: Wielopolski, L.
Author: Ebinger, M.H.
Author: Reeves III, J.B.
Author: Thomson, A.M.
Author: Harris, R.
Author: Francis, B.
Author: Mitra, S.
Author: Rappaport, A.G.
Author: Etchevers, J.D.
Author: Sayre, K.D.
Author: Govaerts, B.
Author: McCarty, G.W.
Year: 2013
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10883/1607
Abstract: 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.
Format: PDF
Language: English
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Copyright: CIMMYT manages Intellectual Assets as International Public Goods. The user is free to download, print, store and share this work. In case you want to translate or create any other derivative work and share or distribute such translation/derivative work, please contact CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org indicating the work you want to use and the kind of use you intend; CIMMYT will contact you with the suitable license for that purpose.
Type: Article
Region: Global
Pages: e55560
Issue: 1
Volume: 8
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055560
Publisher URI: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055560
Agrovoc: SOIL ORGANIC CARBON
Agrovoc: ANALYTICAL METHODS
Journal: PLoS ONE


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Sustainable Intensification
    Sustainable intensification agriculture including topics on cropping systems, agronomy, soil, mechanization, precision agriculture, etc.

Show simple item record