Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Water Transfer in Soils: Mechanisms and Crop Response

Patwardhan, Avinash S.; Nieber, John L.; Moore, Ian D.

doi:10.13031/2013.30874

Cited by 28 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For a reliable prediction of the water transport, the hydraulic parameters of four soil layers were inversely estimated. To reduce the number of Table 1 Heat (Chung and Horton 1987) and CO 2 transport parameters (Patwardhan et al 1988) Longitudinal dispersivity of CO 2 in water 1.5 cm estimated parameters, we assumed that the saturated and residual water contents were constant over the entire soil profile. This assumption is in good agreement with laboratory results for the same location, where the mean saturated water content is 0.39 cm 3 cm -3 with a standard deviation of only 0.03 cm 3 cm -3 .…”

Section: Model Parameterisation and Initialisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inverse determination of heterotrophic soil respiration response to temperature and water content under field conditions

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heterotrophic soil respiration is an important flux within the global carbon cycle. Exact knowledge of the response functions for soil temperature and soil water content is crucial for a reliable prediction of soil carbon turnover. The classical statistical approach for the in situ determination of the temperature response (Q 10 or activation energy) of field soil respiration has been criticised for neglecting confounding factors, such as spatial and temporal changes in soil water content and soil organic matter. The aim of this paper is to evaluate an alternative method to estimate the temperature and soil water content response of heterotrophic soil respiration. The new method relies on inverse parameter estimation using a 1-dimensional CO 2 transport and carbon turnover model. Inversion results showed that different formulations of the temperature response function resulted in estimated response factors that hardly deviated over the entire range of soil water content and for temperature below 25°C. For higher temperatures, the temperature response was highly uncertain due to the infrequent occurrence of soil temperatures above 25°C. The temperature sensitivity obtained using inverse modelling was within the range of temperature sensitivities estimated from statistical processing of the data. It was concluded that inverse parameter estimation is a promising tool for the determination of the temperature and soil water content response of soil respiration. Future synthetic model studies should investigate to what extent the inverse modelling approach can disentangle confounding factors that typically affect statistical estimates of the sensitivity of soil respiration to temperature and soil water content.

show abstract

Section: Model Parameterisation and Initialisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inverse determination of heterotrophic soil respiration response to temperature and water content under field conditions

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the acidity of the soil in this forest (pH % 5-6, Oh and Richter 2005), dissociated (bicarbonate and carbonate) forms of CO 2 in water are at least one order of magnitude lower than H 2 CO 3 (Flechard et al 2007) and are thus neglected. The gas-phase fluxes are assumed to follow Fick's law (e.g., Patwardhan et al 1988;Simunek and Suarez 1993;Chen et al 2005), given by…”

Section: Co 2 Fluxes and Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen amendments on subsurface CO2 production and concentration dynamics in a maturing pine forest

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Profiles of subsurface soil CO 2 concentration, soil temperature, and soil moisture, and throughfall were measured continuously during the years 2005 and 2006 in 16 locations at the free air CO 2 enrichment facility situated within a temperate loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) stand. Sampling at these locations followed a 4 by 4 replicated experimental design comprised of two atmospheric CO 2 concentration levels (ambient [CO 2 ] a , ambient ? 200 ppmv, [CO 2 ] e ) and two soil nitrogen (N) deposition levels (ambient, ambient ? fertilization at 11.2 g N m -2 year -1 ). The combination of these measurements permitted indirect estimation of belowground CO 2 production and flux profiles in the mineral soil. Adjacent to the soil CO 2 profiles, direct (chamber-based) measurements of CO 2 fluxes from the soil-litter complex were simultaneously conducted using the automated carbon efflux system. Based on the measured soil CO 2 profiles, neither [CO 2 ] e nor N fertilization had a statistically significant effect on seasonal soil CO 2 , the mineral soil over the study period. Soil moisture and temperature had different effects on CO 2 concentration depending on the depth. Variations in CO 2 were mostly explained by soil temperature at deeper soil layers, while water content was an important driver at the surface (within the first 10 cm), where CO 2 pulses were induced by rainfall events. The soil effluxes were equal to the CO 2 production for most of the time, suggesting that the site reached near steady-state conditions. The fluxes estimated from the CO 2 profiles were highly correlated to the direct measurements when the soil was neither very dry nor very wet. This suggests that a better parameterization of the soil CO 2 diffusivity is required for these soil moisture extremes.

show abstract

“…Some of these latter models have been extended to include a Since soil water content is one of the key variables regulating soil CO 2 production and efflux [Hanson et al, 1993;Davidson et al, 1998;Almagro et al, 2009;Liu et al, 2009;Carbone et al, 2011;Suseela et al, 2012;Balogh et al, 2015;Reynolds et al, 2015;Lellei-Kovács et al, 2016], root water uptake mechanisms might play an important role in controlling CO 2 fluxes. Mechanistic models have been developed for CO 2 production and transport to adequately describe vertical gaseous diffusion and dispersion as a function of soil water content and temperature [Patwardhan et al, 1988;Simunek and Suarez, 1993;Fang and Moncrieff , 1999]. These models have been calibrated and validated against experimental data Moncrieff and Fang, 1999;Goffin et al, 2015], have been coupled to soil water and temperature models at catchment scale [Welsch and Hornberger, 2004;Riveros-Iregui et al, 2011], and have been combined with experimental data of soil moisture, soil temperature, and air-phase soil CO 2 concentrations to estimate soil CO 2 production and surface efflux [Hirano et al, 2003;Chen et al, 2005;Jassal et al, 2008;Daly et al, 2009;Liang et al, 2010;Latimer and Risk, 2016].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between root water uptake and soil respiration: A modeling perspective

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil moisture affects and is affected by root water uptake and at the same time drives soil CO2 dynamics. Selecting root water uptake formulations in models is important since this affects the estimation of actual transpiration and soil CO2 efflux. This study aims to compare different models combining the Richards equation for soil water flow to equations describing heat transfer and air‐phase CO2 production and flow. A root water uptake model (RWC), accounting only for root water compensation by rescaling water uptake rates across the vertical profile, was compared to a model (XWP) estimating water uptake as a function of the difference between soil and root xylem water potential; the latter model can account for both compensation (XWPRWC) and hydraulic redistribution (XWPHR). Models were compared in a scenario with a shallow water table, where the formulation of root water uptake plays an important role in modeling daily patterns and magnitudes of transpiration rates and CO2 efflux. Model simulations for this scenario indicated up to 20% difference in the estimated water that transpired over 50 days and up to 14% difference in carbon emitted from the soil. The models showed reduction of transpiration rates associated with water stress affecting soil CO2 efflux, with magnitudes of soil CO2 efflux being larger for the XWPHR model in wet conditions and for the RWC model as the soil dried down. The study shows the importance of choosing root water uptake models not only for estimating transpiration but also for other processes controlled by soil water content.

show abstract

Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Water Transfer in Soils: Mechanisms and Crop Response

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Inverse determination of heterotrophic soil respiration response to temperature and water content under field conditions

Inverse determination of heterotrophic soil respiration response to temperature and water content under field conditions

The effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen amendments on subsurface CO2 production and concentration dynamics in a maturing pine forest

Relationship between root water uptake and soil respiration: A modeling perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About