English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Various 13CO2 labelling approaches exist to trace carbon (C)dynamics in plant-soil systems. However, it is not clear if the differentapproaches yield the same results. Moreover, there is no consistent way ofdata analysis to date. In this study we compare with the same experimentalsetup the two main techniques: pulse and continuous labelling. We evaluatehow these techniques perform to estimate the C transfer time, the Cpartitioning along time and the C residence time in different plant-soilcompartments. We used identical plant-soil systems (Populusdeltoides × nigra, Cambisol soil) to compare the pulselabelling approach (exposure to 99 atom % 13CO2 for threehours, traced for eight days) with a continuous labelling (exposure to10 atom % 13CO2, traced for 14 days). The experiments wereconducted in climate chambers under controlled environmental conditions.Before label addition and at four successive sampling dates, the plant-soilsystems were destructively harvested, separated into leaves, petioles, stems,cuttings, roots and soil and soil microbial biomass was extracted. The soilCO2 efflux was sampled throughout the experiment. To model the Cdynamics we used an exponential function to describe the 13C signaldecline after pulse labelling. For the evaluation of the 13Cdistribution during the continuous labelling we applied a logistic function. Pulse labelling is best suited to assess the minimum C transfer time from theleaves to other compartments, while continuous labelling can be used toestimate the mean transfer time through a compartment, including short-termstorage pools. The C partitioning between the plant-soil compartmentsobtained was similar for both techniques, but the time of sampling had alarge effect: shortly after labelling the allocation into leaves wasoverestimated and the soil 13CO2 efflux underestimated. The resultsof belowground C partitioning were consistent for the two techniques onlyafter eight days of labelling, when the 13C import and export was atequilibrium. The C mean residence times estimated by the rate constant of theexponential and logistic function were not valid here (non-steady state).However, the duration of the accumulation phase (continuous labelling) couldbe used to estimate the C residence time. Pulse and continuous labelling techniques are both well suited to assess Ccycling. With pulse labelling, the dynamics of fresh assimilates can betraced, whereas the continuous labelling gives a more integrated result of Ccycling, due to the homogeneous labelling of C pools and fluxes. The logisticmodel applied here, has the potential to assess different parameters of Ccycling independent on the sampling date and with no disputable assumptions

biogeosciences

Carbon transfer, partitioning and residence time in the plant-soil system: a comparison of two &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; labelling techniques