Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2023, Vol. 15 Issue (3): 344-358    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-023-0093-5
Research article     
Reclamation during oasification is conducive to the accumulation of the soil organic carbon pool in arid land
YANG Yuxin1,2, GONG Lu1,2,3,*(), TANG Junhu1,2
1College of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
2Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Ministry of Education, Urumqi 830017, China
3Xinjiang Jinghe Observation and Research Station of Temperate Desert Ecosystem, Ministry of Education, Urumqi 830017, China
Download: HTML     PDF(1075KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Soil organic carbon (SOC) and its stable isotope composition reflect key information about the carbon cycle in ecosystems. Studies of carbon fractions in oasis continuous cotton-cropped fields can elucidate the SOC stability mechanism under the action of the human-land relationship during the oasification of arid land, which is critical for understanding the carbon dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems in arid lands under global climate change. In this study, we investigated the Alar Reclamation Area on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China, in 2020. In original desert and oasis farmlands with different reclamation years, including 6, 10, 18, and 30 a, and different soil depths (0-20, 20-40, 40-60 cm), we analyzed the variations in SOC, very liable carbon (CVL), liable carbon (CL), less liable carbon (CLL), and non-liable carbon (CNL) using the method of spatial series. The differences in the stable carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) and beta (β) values reflecting the organic carbon decomposition rate were also determined during oasification. Through redundancy analysis, we derived and discussed the relationships among SOC, carbon fractions, δ13C, and other soil physicochemical properties, such as the soil water content (SWC), bulk density (BD), pH, total salt (TS), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK). The results showed that there were significant differences in SOC and carbon fractions of oasis farmlands with different reclamation years, and the highest SOC was observed at the oasis farmland with 30-a reclamation year. CVL, CL, CLL, and CNL showed significant changes among oasis farmlands with different reclamation years, and CVL had the largest variation range (0.40-4.92 g/kg) and accounted for the largest proportion in the organic carbon pool. The proportion of CNL in the organic carbon pool of the topsoil (0-20 cm) gradually increased. δ13C varied from -25.61‰ to -22.58‰, with the topsoil showing the most positive value at the oasis farmland with 10-a reclamation year; while the β value was the lowest at the oasis farmland with 6-a reclamation year and then increased significantly. Based on the redundancy analysis results, the soil physicochemical properties, such as TN, AP, AK, and pH, were significantly correlated with CL, and TN and AP were positively correlated with CVL. However, δ13C was not significantly influenced by soil physicochemical properties. Our analysis advances the understanding of SOC dynamics during oasification, revealing the risk of soil carbon loss and its contribution to terrestrial carbon accumulation in arid lands, which could be useful for the sustainable development of regional carbon resources and ecological protection in arid ecosystem.

Key words： oasification      soil organic carbon      carbon fractions      labile carbon      δ13C      arid land     
Received: 15 October 2022      Published: 31 March 2023
Corresponding Authors: * GONG Lu (E-mail: gonglu721@163.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YANG Yuxin
GONG Lu
TANG Junhu
Cite this article:

YANG Yuxin, GONG Lu, TANG Junhu. Reclamation during oasification is conducive to the accumulation of the soil organic carbon pool in arid land. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(3): 344-358.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-023-0093-5     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2023/V15/I3/344

Reclama-
tion year		 Soil depth
(cm)		 SWC (%) BD (g/cm3) pH TS (g/kg) TN (g/kg) AP (mg/kg) AK (mg/kg)
CK 0-20 10.62±1.50 1.37±0.04 8.66±0.14 18.31±14.26 0.25±0.03 2.99±0.35 164.53±19.42
20-40 12.18±1.60 1.36±0.05 8.39±0.14 9.98±1.65 0.20±0.04 3.73±0.95 170.22±18.46
40-60 13.69±1.73 1.43±0.05 8.31±0.04 6.28±0.73 0.24±0.03 3.59±0.50 162.49±22.87
6-a 0-20 18.68±1.32 1.29±0.04 8.07±0.05 6.53±3.54 0.37±0.03 18.33±5.89 185.81±31.15
20-40 24.96±1.79 1.27±0.03 8.04±0.03 2.23±1.26 0.32±0.03 19.85±4.94 177.88±16.29
40-60 26.25±1.41 1.40±0.04 8.15±0.11 1.59±0.50 0.26±0.03 11.15±2.09 171.90±21.23
10-a 0-20 21.29±1.57 1.25±0.02 7.96±0.12 7.41±4.68 0.56±0.03 28.27±3.99 229.31±49.75
20-40 26.09±1.49 1.27±0.03 7.98±0.03 2.51±0.71 0.46±0.07 21.20±4.45 201.76±96.14
40-60 28.69±2.61 1.28±0.04 8.01±0.07 1.98±0.80 0.37±0.09 17.84±3.95 211.91±65.23
18-a 0-20 20.88±0.99 1.28±0.02 7.92±0.21 14.01±5.37 0.55±0.06 30.53±5.09 213.26±23.62
20-40 25.49±1.53 1.27±0.05 7.82±0.23 6.76±2.77 0.54±0.04 22.80±5.41 227.52±27.83
40-60 28.59±2.35 1.26±0.02 7.81±0.19 2.14±0.22 0.41±0.05 14.85±2.11 211.34±17.06
30-a 0-20 21.80±1.56 1.32±0.04 7.80±0.13 16.29±5.33 0.58±0.05 31.30±1.66 211.08±42.75
20-40 24.62±1.15 1.33±0.02 7.81±0.04 8.35±3.85 0.47±0.09 21.54±4.17 208.82±31.43
40-60 24.72±1.69 1.36±0.02 7.82±0.17 4.24±0.53 0.33±0.04 15.51±2.80 205.05±20.43
Table 1 Variations of physicochemical properties in different reclamation years and soil depths
Source Controlled variable Sum of square df Mean square F value P value
SWC Reclamation year 1093.22 4 273.31 98.32 <0.01
Soil depth 259.77 2 129.88 46.72 <0.01
Reclamation year×Soil depth 44.19 8 5.52 1.99 0.08
BD Reclamation year 0.07 4 0.02 14.35 <0.01
Soil depth 0.01 2 0.01 4.68 0.02
Reclamation year×Soil depth 0.02 8 0.01 2.56 0.03
pH Reclamation year 2.40 4 0.60 35.73 <0.01
Soil depth 0.05 2 0.02 1.37 0.27
Reclamation year×Soil depth 0.20 8 0.03 1.51 0.19
TS Reclamation year 443.60 4 110.90 5.13 0.03
Soil depth 679.98 2 339.99 15.74 <0.01
Reclamation year×Soil depth 84.58 8 10.57 0.49 0.85
TN Reclamation year 0.49 4 0.12 49.93 <0.01
Soil depth 0.14 2 0.07 29.75 <0.01
Reclamation year×Soil depth 0.06 8 0.01 3.18 0.01
AP Reclamation year 2506.30 4 626.58 46.14 <0.01
Soil depth 705.92 2 352.96 25.99 <0.01
Reclamation year×Soil depth 343.52 8 42.94 3.16 0.01
AK Reclamation year 19450.03 4 4862.51 3.07 0.31
Soil depth 514.99 2 257.50 0.16 0.85
Reclamation year×Soil depth 1563.37 8 195.42 0.12 0.99
Table 2 Effects of reclamation year, soil depth, and their interaction on soil physicochemical properties
Reclamation year Soil depth (cm) CVL (g/kg) CL (g/kg) CLL (g/kg) CNL (g/kg) SOC (g/kg)
CK 0-20 0.66±0.12 0.21±0.05 0.40±0.08 0.29±0.07 1.44±0.21
20-40 0.53±0.17 0.19±0.01 0.24±0.14 0.36±0.18 0.93±0.24
40-60 0.40±0.08 0.08±0.01 0.12±0.03 0.77±0.33 1.20±0.32
6-a 0-20 1.56±0.06 0.72±0.30 0.08±0.02 0.60±0.28 2.99±0.20
20-40 1.04±0.14 0.28±0.08 0.04±0.01 0.64±0.01 1.88±0.38
40-60 0.61±0.05 0.16±0.08 0.05±0.02 0.48±0.07 1.30±0.18
10-a 0-20 2.13±0.39 0.56±0.36 0.45±0.20 0.72±0.28 3.86±0.83
20-40 1.46±0.60 0.74±0.44 0.19±0.09 0.51±0.18 2.90±1.12
40-60 0.82±0.05 0.64±0.24 0.32±0.18 0.29±0.07 2.07±0.08
18-a 0-20 1.80±0.28 0.84±0.28 0.13±0.05 0.96±0.14 3.67±0.21
20-40 1.24±1.07 1.44±0.90 0.29±0.18 0.66±0.28 3.24±1.02
40-60 0.74±0.70 0.59±0.33 0.37±0.14 0.37±0.12 2.07±1.75
30-a 0-20 4.34±0.47 1.97±0.41 0.56±0.08 3.62±0.59 10.48±0.59
20-40 4.92±0.64 0.98±0.51 0.64±0.14 3.08±0.53 9.63±0.53
40-60 0.60±1.12 1.49±0.48 0.64±0.14 2.15±1.19 7.74±2.15
Table 3 Variations of soil organic carbon (SOC) and carbon fractions in different reclamation years and soil depths
Source Controlled variable Sum of square df Mean square F value P value
CVL Reclamation year 76.03 4 19.01 79.73 <0.01
Soil depth 6.27 2 3.13 13.14 <0.01
Reclamation year×Soil depth 2.64 8 0.33 1.38 0.24
CL Reclamation year 9.57 4 2.39 21.07 <0.01
Soil depth 0.54 2 0.27 2.38 0.11
Reclamation year×Soil depth 2.66 8 0.33 2.93 0.02
CLL Reclamation year 1.44 4 0.36 8.50 <0.01
Soil depth 0.02 2 0.01 0.18 0.84
Reclamation year×Soil depth 0.31 8 0.04 0.93 0.51
CNL Reclamation year 41.56 4 10.39 47.35 <0.01
Soil depth 1.35 2 0.68 3.08 0.06
Reclamation year×Soil depth 3.18 8 0.40 1.81 0.12
SOC Reclamation year 370.84 4 92.71 118.04 <0.01
Soil depth 19.44 2 9.72 12.38 <0.01
Reclamation year×Soil depth 6.03 8 0.75 0.96 0.48
Table 4 Effects of reclamation year, soil depth, and their interaction on carbon fractions
Fig. 1 Relationships of soil organic carbon (SOC) with different carbon fractions. CVL, very liable carbon; CL, liable carbon; CLL, less liable carbon; CNL, non-liable carbon.
Fig. 2 Proportions of CVL, CL, CLL, and CNL in total SOC at the soil depth of 0-20 cm (a), 20-40 cm (b), and 40-60 cm (c). CK, original desert.
Fig. 3 Changes of stable carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) in different reclamation years and at different soil depths. Different lowercase letters represent the significant differences among the three soil depth in the same reclamation year (P<0.05), and different uppercase letters represent the significant difference among different reclamation years at the same soil depth (P<0.05). Bars mean standard errors.
Fig. 4 Changes of beta (β) value in different reclamation years. * denotes significant at P<0.05 level based on the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test. The top, middle, and bottom lines of the box represent the upper quartile, median, and lower quartile, respectively; the black dot in the box represents the mean; and the top bar and bottom bar represent the maximum and minimum, respectively.
Fig. 5 Redundancy analysis (RDA) of SOC, carbon fractions, and δ13C with soil physicochemical properties. SWC, soil water content; BD, bulk density; TS, total salt; TN, total nitrogen; AP, available phosphorus; AK, available potassium.
Soil environmental factor Rank Proportion (%) F value P value
TN 1 26.1 4.6 0.016
pH 2 25.5 4.5 0.024
AP 3 24.3 4.2 0.020
AK 4 20.4 3.3 0.036
TS 5 12.1 1.8 0.162
SWC 6 6.4 0.9 0.432
BD 7 3.7 0.5 0.666
Table 5 Importance and significance level of soil environmental factors to SOC, carbon fractions, and δ13C
SWC BD pH TS TN AP AK
SOC 0.86 -0.51 -0.76 0.29 0.96 0.93 0.45
CVL 0.16 -0.19 -0.49 0.38 0.66** 0.63* 0.44
CL 0.37 -0.28 -0.72** 0.23 0.70** 0.66** 0.68**
CLL 0.11 0.00 -0.36 0.30 0.35 0.22 0.48
CNL 0.13 0.14 -0.51 0.35 0.44 0.45 0.31
δ13C 0.38 -0.29 -0.09 -0.47 0.09 0.25 0.12
Table 6 Correlation analysis of SOC, carbon fractions, and δ13C with soil physicochemical properties
[1]   Ahmed I U, Smith A R, Jones D L, et al. 2016. Tree species identity influences the vertical distribution of labile and recalcitrant carbon in a temperate deciduous forest soil. Forest Ecology and Management, 359: 352-360.
doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.07.018
[2]   Bai J, Li J L, Bao A M, et al. 2021. Spatial-temporal variations of ecological vulnerability in the Tarim River Basin, Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 13(8): 814-834.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-021-0079-0
[3]   Benbi D K, Brar K, Toor A S, et al. 2015. Total and labile pools of soil organic carbon in cultivated and undisturbed soils in northern India. Geoderma, 237-238: 149-158.
[4]   Blaser M, Conrad R. 2016. Stable carbon isotope fractionation as tracer of carbon cycling in anoxic soil ecosystems. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 41: 122-129.
doi: S0958-1669(16)30158-6 pmid: 27588565
[5]   Bossio D A, Cook-Patton S C, Ellis P W, et al. 2020. The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nature Sustainability, 3(5): 391-398.
doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z
[6]   Breecker D O, Bergel S, Nadel M, et al. 2015. Minor stable carbon isotope fractionation between respired carbon dioxide and bulk soil organic matter during laboratory incubation of topsoil. Biogeochemistry, 123(1): 83-98.
doi: 10.1007/s10533-014-0054-3
[7]   Bremer E, Janzen H H, Johnston A M. 1994. Sensitivity of total, light fraction and mineralizable organic matter to management practices in a Lethbridge soil. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 74(2): 131-138.
doi: 10.4141/cjss94-020
[8]   Brunn M, Spielvogel S, Sauer T, et al. 2014. Temperature and precipitation effects on δ13C depth profiles in SOM under temperate beech forests. Geoderma, 235-236: 146-153.
[9]   Calabrese S, Mohanty B P, Malik A A. 2022. Soil microorganisms regulate extracellular enzyme production to maximize their growth rate. Biogeochemistry, 158(3): 303-312.
doi: 10.1007/s10533-022-00899-8
[10]   Carvalhais N, Forkel M, Khomik M, et al. 2014. Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems. Nature, 514(7521): 213-217.
doi: 10.1038/nature13731
[11]   Chan K Y, Bowman A, Oates A. 2001. Oxidizible organic carbon fractions and soil quality changes in an Oxic Paleustalf under different pasture leys. Soil Science, 166(1): 61-67.
doi: 10.1097/00010694-200101000-00009
[12]   Chen J, Luo Y Q, van Groenigen K J, et al. 2018. A keystone microbial enzyme for nitrogen control of soil carbon storage. Science Advances, 4(8): eaaq1689, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq1689.
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq1689
[13]   Chen X, Gong L, Li Y M, et al. 2018. Spatial variation of soil organic carbon and stable isotopes in different soil types of a typical oasis. Environmental Science, 39(10): 4735-4743.
[14]   Cotrufo M F, Soong J L, Horton A J, et al. 2015. Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nature Geoscience, 8(10): 776-779.
doi: 10.1038/NGEO2520
[15]   de Rouw A, Soulileuth B, Huon S. 2015. Stable carbon isotope ratios in soil and vegetation shift with cultivation practices (Northern Laos). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200: 161-168.
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.017
[16]   DeGryze S, Six J, Paustian K, et al. 2004. Soil organic carbon pool changes following land-use conversions. Global Change Biology, 10(7): 1120-1132.
doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00786.x
[17]   Finzi A C, Abramoff R Z, Spiller K S, et al. 2015. Rhizosphere processes are quantitatively important components of terrestrial carbon and nutrient cycles. Global Change Biology, 21(5): 2082-2094.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.12816 pmid: 25421798
[18]   Gao J, Li R, Li J J, et al. 2016. Grain size distribution, element migration, and stable carbon isotope characteristics of dolomite weathering profiles in Xinpu, North of Guizhou Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(5): 1409-1420. (in Chinese)
[19]   Gong L, Ran Q Y, He G X, et al. 2015. A soil quality assessment under different land use types in Keriya river basin, southern Xinjiang, China. Soil and Tillage Research, 146: 223-229.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2014.11.001
[20]   Guan J Q, Song C X, Wu Y D, et al. 2022. Responses of soil active organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities to freeze-thaw cycles in wetlands. Wetlands, 42(5): 36, doi: 10.1007/s13157-022-01553-7.
doi: 10.1007/s13157-022-01553-7
[21]   Gui D, Wu Y, Zeng F, et al. 2011. Study on the oasification process and its effects on soil particle distribution in the south rim of the Tarim Basin, China in recent 30 years. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 3: 69-74.
doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2011.02.013
[22]   He L Y, Lu S X, Wang C G, et al. 2021. Changes in soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities in response to tillage practices in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil and Tillage Research, 209: 104940, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.104940.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.104940
[23]   Huang F, Ochoa C G, Chen X, et al. 2021. Modeling oasis dynamics driven by ecological water diversion and implications for oasis restoration in arid endorheic basins. Journal of Hydrology, 593: 125774, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125774.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125774
[24]   Huntington T G, Johnson C E, Johnson A H, et al. 1989. Carbon, organic matter, and bulk density relationships in a forested spodosol. Soil Science, 148(5): 380-386.
doi: 10.1097/00010694-198911000-00009
[25]   Jobbágy E G, Jackson R B. 2000. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecological Applications, 10(2): 423-436.
doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2
[26]   Joly F-X, Coq S, Coulis M, et al. 2020. Detritivore conversion of litter into faeces accelerates organic matter turnover. Communications Biology, 3: 660, doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-01392-4.
doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-01392-4
[27]   Kan Z R, Liu W X, Liu W S, et al. 2022. Mechanisms of soil organic carbon stability and its response to no-till: A global synthesis and perspective. Global Change Biology, 28(3): 693-710.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.v28.3
[28]   Lal R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677): 1623-1627.
doi: 10.1126/science.1097396 pmid: 15192216
[29]   Li J Y, Yuan X L, Ge L, et al. 2020. Rhizosphere effects promote soil aggregate stability and associated organic carbon sequestration in rocky areas of desertification. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 304: 107126, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107126.
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107126
[30]   Li L D, Schaeffer S M. 2020. Stabilization mechanisms of isotope-labeled carbon substrates in soil under moisture pulses and conservation agricultural management. Geoderma, 380: 114677, doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114677.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114677
[31]   Li T N, Zhang G C, Wang S, et al. 2022. The isotopic composition of organic carbon, nitrogen and provenance of organic matter in surface sediment from the Jiangsu tidal flat, southwestern Yellow Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 182: 114010, doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114010.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114010
[32]   Ling H B, Guo B, Xu H L, et al. 2014. Configuration of water resources for a typical river basin in an arid region of China based on the ecological water requirements (EWRs) of desert riparian vegetation. Global and Planetary Change, 122: 292-304.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.09.008
[33]   Liu L Z, Chen L, Pang D B, et al. 2021. Soil organic carbon distribution patterns and influencing factors in Ningxia typical stand based on stable carbon isotope analysis. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 41(5): 846-853. (in Chinese)
[34]   Liu X, Li F M, Liu D Q, et al. 2010. Soil organic carbon, carbon fractions and nutrients as affected by land use in semi-arid region of Loess Plateau of China. Pedosphere, 20(2): 146-152.
doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(10)60002-1
[35]   Lu J Y, Yang J F, Keitel C, et al. 2020. Rhizosphere priming effects of Lolium perenne and Trifolium repens depend on phosphorus fertilization and biological nitrogen fixation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 150: 108005, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108005.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108005
[36]   Ma L X, Ju Z Q, Fang Y Y, et al. 2022. Soil warming and nitrogen addition facilitates lignin and microbial residues accrual in temperate agroecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 170: 108693, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108693.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108693
[37]   Malik A A, Puissant J, Buckeridge K M, et al. 2018. Land use driven change in soil pH affects microbial carbon cycling processes. Nature Communications, 9: 3591, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05980-1.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05980-1 pmid: 30181597
[38]   Nakamoto T, Komatsuzaki M, Hirata T, et al. 2012. Effects of tillage and winter cover cropping on microbial substrate-induced respiration and soil aggregation in two Japanese fields. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 58(1): 70-82.
doi: 10.1080/00380768.2011.650134
[39]   Nath P C, Sileshi G W, Ray P, et al. 2022. Variations in soil properties and stoichiometric ratios with stand age under agarwood monoculture and polyculture on smallholder farms. CATENA, 213: 106147, doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106174.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106174
[40]   Nissenbaum A, Schallinger K M. 1974. The distribution of the stable carbon isotope (13C/12C) in fractions of soil organic matter. Geoderma, 11(2): 137-145.
doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(74)90012-3
[41]   Nottingham A T, Turner B L, Stott A W, et al. 2015. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain labile and stable carbon turnover in lowland tropical forest soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 80: 26-33.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.012
[42]   O'Leary H M. 1981. Carbon isotope fractionation in plants. Phytochemistry, 20(4): 553-567.
doi: 10.1016/0031-9422(81)85134-5
[43]   Okolo C C, Gebresamuel G, Zenebe A, et al. 2020. Accumulation of organic carbon in various soil aggregate sizes under different land use systems in a semi-arid environment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 297: 106924, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106924.
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106924
[44]   Peng J, Biswas A, Jiang Q S, et al. 2019. Estimating soil salinity from remote sensing and terrain data in southern Xinjiang Province, China. Geoderma, 337: 1309-1319.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.08.006
[45]   Post W M, Kwon K C. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology, 6(3): 317-327.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x
[46]   Prommer J, Walker T W N, Wanek W, et al. 2019. Increased microbial growth, biomass, and turnover drive soil organic carbon accumulation at higher plant diversity. Global Change Biology, 26: 669-681.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.v26.2
[47]   Rakkar M K, Blanco-Canqui H. 2018. Grazing of crop residues: Impacts on soils and crop production. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 258: 71-90.
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.018
[48]   Rovira P, Vallejo V R. 2002. Labile and recalcitrant pools of carbon and nitrogen in organic matter decomposing at different depths in soil: an acid hydrolysis approach. Geoderma, 107(1-2): 109-141.
doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00143-4
[49]   Rovira P, Romanyà J, Duguy B. 2012. Long-term effects of wildfires on the biochemical quality of soil organic matter: A study on Mediterranean shrublands. Geoderma, 179-180: 9-19.
[50]   Schaub M, Alewell C. 2009. Stable carbon isotopes as an indicator for soil degradation in an alpine environment (Urseren Valley, Switzerland). Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 23(10): 1499-1507.
doi: 10.1002/rcm.4030 pmid: 19370551
[51]   Sharafatmandrad M. 2019. Soil carbon in arid and semiarid rangelands: Controlling factors. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12(9): 310, doi: 10.1007/s12517-019-4489-7.
doi: 10.1007/s12517-019-4489-7
[52]   Sokol N W, Slessarev E, Marschmann G L, et al. 2022. Life and death in the soil microbiome: How ecological processes influence biogeochemistry. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 20(7): 415-430.
doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00695-z pmid: 35228712
[53]   Tan W B, Wang G A, Huang C H, et al. 2017. Physico-chemical protection, rather than biochemical composition, governs the responses of soil organic carbon decomposition to nitrogen addition in a temperate agroecosystem. Science of the Total Environment, 598: 282-288.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.143
[54]   Trivedi P, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Trivedi C, et al. 2016. Microbial regulation of the soil carbon cycle: Evidence from gene-enzyme relationships. The ISME Journal, 10(11): 2593-2604.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2016.65
[55]   Vázquez C, Iriarte A G, Merlo C, et al. 2016. Land use impact on chemical and spectroscopical characteristics of soil organic matter in an arid ecosystem. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(10): 883, doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-5655-9.
doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-5655-9
[56]   Walkley A, Black I A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff Method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1): 29-38.
doi: 10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
[57]   Wang C, Wei H W, Liu D W, et al. 2017. Depth profiles of soil carbon isotopes along a semi-arid grassland transect in northern China. Plant and Soil, 417: 43-52.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-017-3233-x
[58]   Wang C, Houlton B Z, Liu D, et al. 2018. Stable isotopic constraints on global soil organic carbon turnover. Biogeosciences, 15(4): 987-995.
doi: 10.5194/bg-15-987-2018
[59]   Wiesmeier M, Urbanski L, Hobley E, et al. 2019. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils - A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma, 333: 149-162.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.026
[60]   Woittiez L S, Turhina S R I, Deccy D, et al. 2019. Fertiliser application practices and nutrient deficiencies in smallholder oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Experimental Agriculture, 55(4): 543-559.
doi: 10.1017/S0014479718000182
[61]   Wynn J G, Harden J W, Fries T L. 2006. Stable carbon isotope depth profiles and soil organic carbon dynamics in the lower Mississippi basin. Geoderma, 131: 89-109.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.005
[62]   Xiao D, Ye Y Y, Xiao S S, et al. 2019. Tillage frequency affects microbial metabolic activity and short-term changes in CO2 fluxes within 1 week in karst ecosystems. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 19(10): 3453-3462.
doi: 10.1007/s11368-019-02396-2
[63]   Xue J, Gui D W, Lei J Q, et al. 2019. Oasification: An unable evasive process in fighting against desertification for the sustainable development of arid and semiarid regions of China. CATENA, 179: 197-209.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.03.029
[64]   Xue J, Gui D W, Zeng F J, et al. 2022. Assessing landscape fragmentation in a desert-oasis region of Northwest China: patterns, driving forces, and policy implications for future land consolidation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(6): 394, doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10038-3.
doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10038-3 pmid: 35486217
[65]   Yu P J, Han K X, Li Q, et al. 2017. Soil organic carbon fractions are affected by different land uses in an agro-pastoral transitional zone in Northeastern China. Ecological Indicators, 73: 331-337.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.002
[66]   Zhang C M, Li L, Lockington D. 2014. Numerical study of evaporation-induced salt accumulation and precipitation in bare saline soils: Mechanism and feedback. Water Resources Research, 50(10): 8084-8106.
doi: 10.1002/2013WR015127
[67]   Zhang H, Wu J W, Zheng Q H, et al. 2003. A preliminary study of oasis evolution in the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, China. Journal of Arid Environments, 55(3): 545-553.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-1963(02)00283-5
[68]   Zhang J, Wang X J, Wang J P. 2014. Impact of land use change on profile distributions of soil organic carbon fractions in the Yanqi basin. CATENA, 115: 79-84.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2013.11.019
[69]   Zhang W. 2016. Analysis of cotton quality characteristics and influencing factors based on new cotton standard in Alar Reclamation Area. MSc Thesis. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[70]   Zhang Z X, Gao P, Li T, et al. 2021. Carbon isotopic measurements from coastal zone protected forests in northern China: Soil carbon decomposition assessment and its influencing factors. Journal of Environmental Management, 299: 113649, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113649.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113649
[71]   Zhao Y F, Wang X, Ou Y S, et al. 2019. Variations in soil δ13C with alpine meadow degradation on the eastern Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Geoderma, 338: 178-186.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.12.005
[72]   Zhong Z K, Han X H, Xu Y D, et al. 2019. Effects of land use change on organic carbon dynamics associated with soil aggregate fractions on the Loess Plateau, China. Land Degradation & Development, 30(9): 1070-1082.
doi: 10.1002/ldr.v30.9
[73]   Zhou Y, Zhang J W, Xu L, et al. 2022. Long-term fertilizer postponing promotes soil organic carbon sequestration in paddy soils by accelerating lignin degradation and increasing microbial necromass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 175: 108839, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108839.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108839
[74]   Zhu G F, Qiu D D, Zhang Z X, et al. 2021. Land-use changes lead to a decrease in carbon storage in arid region, China. Ecological Indicators, 127: 107770, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107770.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107770
[1] MA Xinxin, ZHAO Yunge, YANG Kai, MING Jiao, QIAO Yu, XU Mingxiang, PAN Xinghui. Long-term light grazing does not change soil organic carbon stability and stock in biocrust layer in the hilly regions of drylands[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(8): 940-959.
[2] HAI Xuying, LI Jiwei, LIU Yulin, WU Jianzhao, LI Jianping, SHANGGUAN Zhouping, DENG Lei. Manipulated precipitation regulated carbon and phosphorus limitations of microbial metabolisms in a temperate grassland on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(10): 1109-1123.
[3] Batande Sinovuyo NDZELU, DOU Sen, ZHANG Xiaowei. Corn straw return can increase labile soil organic carbon fractions and improve water-stable aggregates in Haplic Cambisol[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(6): 1018-1030.
[4] Juan M ZEBERIO, Carolina A PéREZ. Rehabilitation of degraded areas in northeastern Patagonia, Argentina: Effects of environmental conditions and plant functional traits on performance of native woody species[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(4): 653-665.
[5] LIU Xiaoju, PAN Cunde. Effects of recovery time after fire and fire severity on stand structure and soil of larch forest in the Kanas National Nature Reserve, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 811-823.
[6] SUN Lipeng, HE Lirong, WANG Guoliang, JING Hang, LIU Guobin. Natural vegetation restoration of Liaodong oak (Quercus liaotungensis Koidz.) forests rapidly increased the content and ratio of inert carbon in soil macroaggregates[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 928-938.
[7] Jun WU, STEPHEN Yeboah, Liqun CAI, Renzhi ZHANG, Peng QI, Zhuzhu LUO, Lingling LI, Junhong XIE, Bo DONG. Effects of different tillage and straw retention practices on soil aggregates and carbon and nitrogen sequestration in soils of the northwestern China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(4): 567-578.
[8] Yang YU, Yuanyue PI, Xiang YU, Zhijie TA, Lingxiao SUN, DISSE Markus, Fanjiang ZENG, Yaoming LI, Xi CHEN, Ruide YU. Climate change, water resources and sustainable development in the arid and semi-arid lands of Central Asia in the past 30 years[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(1): 1-14.
[9] Shaofei JIN, Xiaohong TIAN, Hesong WANG. Hierarchical responses of soil organic and inorganic carbon dynamics to soil acidification in a dryland agroecosystem, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(5): 726-736.
[10] Xu BI, Bo LI, Bo NAN, Yao FAN, Qi FU, Xinshi ZHANG. Characteristics of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen under various grassland types along a transect in a mountain-basin system in Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(4): 612-627.
[11] Xiaobo GU, Yuannong LI, Yadan DU. Film-mulched continuous ridge-furrow planting improves soil temperature, nutrient content and enzymatic activity in a winter oilseed rape field, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(3): 362-374.
[12] Dongyan JIN, J MURRAY Phil, Xiaoping XIN, Yifei QIN, Baorui CHEN, Gele QING, Zhao ZHANG, Ruirui YAN. Attribution of explanatory factors for change in soil organic carbon density in the native grasslands of Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(3): 375-387.
[13] Quanlin MA, Yaolin WANG, Yinke LI, Tao SUN, MILNE Eleanor. Carbon storage in a wolfberry plantation chronosequence established on a secondary saline land in an arid irrigated area of Gansu Province, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(2): 202-216.
[14] Wen SHANG, Yuqiang LI, Xueyong ZHAO, Tonghui ZHANG, Quanlin MA, Jinnian TANG, Jing FENG, Na SU. Effects of Caragana microphylla plantations on organic carbon sequestration in total and labile soil organic carbon fractions in the Horqin Sandy Land, northern China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2017, 9(5): 688-700.
[15] Jinling LYU, Hua LIU, Xihe WANG, OLAVE Rodrigo, Changyan TIAN, Xuejun LIU. Crop yields and soil organic carbon dynamics in a long-term fertilization experiment in an extremely arid region of northern Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2017, 9(3): 345-354.