Ecosystems

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 1217–1231 | Cite as

Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in Upper Montane Riparian Meadows

  • Jay B. Norton
  • Laura J. Jungst
  • Urszula Norton
  • Hayley R. Olsen
  • Kenneth W. Tate
  • William R. Horwath
Article

Abstract

Though typically limited in aerial extent, soils of high-elevation riparian wetlands have among the highest density of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) of terrestrial ecosystems and therefore contribute disproportionally to ecosystem services such as water retention, forage production, wildlife habitat, and reactive N removal. Because much soil C and N is stored in labile forms in anaerobic conditions, management activities or environmental changes that lead to drying cause mineralization of labile soil organic matter, and loss of C and N. Meadows are focal points of human activities in mountain regions, often with incised stream channels from historically heavy grazing exacerbated by extreme runoff events. To quantify soil C and N stores in montane riparian meadows across hydrologic conditions, 17 meadows between 1950- and 2675-m elevation were selected in the central Sierra Nevada Range, California, that were classified using the proper functioning condition (PFC) system. Results indicate that C and N density in whole-solum soil cores were equivalent at forest edge positions of properly functioning, functioning at-risk, and nonfunctioning condition. Soils under more moist meadow positions in properly functioning meadows have at least twice the C, N, dissolved organic C, and dissolved organic N (DON) than those under nonfunctioning meadows. Densities of total N and DON, but not C, of functioning at-risk meadows are significantly lower (P < 0.05) than those of properly functioning meadows at mid-slope and stream-bank positions, suggesting accelerated loss of N early in degradation processes. Though variable, the soil attributes measured correspond well to the PFC riparian wetland classification system.

Keywords

soil organic matter riparian meadows wetlands soil organic carbon carbon and nitrogen storage Sierra Nevada wet meadows 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Kearney Foundation of Soil Science, the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources analytical lab advisory committee, and the University of Wyoming College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. We thank Alex Janicki, soil scientist, and Jim Frazier, forest hydrologist, at the Stanislaus National Forest for help with the meadow classification and selection. Also thanks to Timothy Doane, Mary Innes, Jocelyn Glatthaar, Heather Enloe and Zachary Faulkner for their field and laboratory support.

References

  1. Beem KB, Raja S, Schwandner FM, Taylor C, Lee T, Sullivan AP, Carrico CM, McMeeking GR, Day D, Levin E, Hand J, Kreidenweis SM, Schichtel B, Malm WC, Collett JL Jr. 2010. Deposition of reactive nitrogen during the rocky mountain airborne nitrogen and sulfur (RoMANS) study. Environ Pollut 158:862–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake GR, Hartge KH. 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute A, Ed. Methods of soil analysis, part 1: physical and mineralogical methods. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. p 363–75.Google Scholar
  3. Blank RR, Svejcar T, Riegel G. 2006. Soil attributes in a Sierra Nevada riparian meadow as influenced by grazing. Range Ecol Manag 59:321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budge K, Leifeld J, Hiltbrunner E, Fuhrer J. 2010. Litter quality and pH are strong drivers of carbon turnover and distribution in alpine grassland soils. Biogeosci Discus 7:6207–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burcar S, Miller WW, Tyler SW, Blank RR. 1997. Moist- and dry-season nitrogen transport in Sierra Nevada soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:1774–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabrera ML. 1993. Modeling the flush of nitrogen mineralization caused by drying and rewetting soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:63–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabrera ML, Beare MH. 1993. Alkaline persulfate oxidation for determining total nitrogen in microbial biomass extracts. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:1007–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole DN, Van Wagtendonk JW, McClaran MP, Moore PE, McDougald NK. 2004. Response of mountain meadows to grazing by recreational pack stock. J Range Manag 57:153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cui M, Caldwell MM. 1997. A large ephemeral release of nitrogen upon wetting of dry soil and corresponding root responses in the field. Plant Soil 191:291–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daubenmire R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of plant synecology. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Doane TA, Horwath WR. 2003. Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate with a single reagent. Anal Lett 36:2713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmore W, Kauffman B. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: degradation and restoration. In: Vavra M, Laycock WA, Pieper RD, Eds. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west. Denver (CO): Society for Range Management. p 212–31.Google Scholar
  13. Erwin K. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetl Ecol Manag 17:71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC.: Cooperative Technical Publication. 76 pp plus appendices.Google Scholar
  15. Foote R, Grogan P. 2010. Soil carbon accumulation during temperate forest succession on abandoned low productivity agricultural lands. Ecosystems 13:795–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner WH (1986) Water content. In: Klute A, Ed. Methods of soil analysis Physical and mineralogical methods, part 1. Madison (WI): Agronomy Monograph 9. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp 503–7.Google Scholar
  17. Jordan S, Stoffer J, Nestlerode J. 2010. Wetlands as sinks for reactive nitrogen at continental and global scales: A meta-analysis. Ecosystems. DOI 10.1007/s10021-010-9400-z:1-12.
  18. Kattelmann R. 1996. Flooding from rain-on-snow events in the Sierra Nevada. In: Bathala C, Ed. North American water and environment congress & destructive water. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. p 1145–6.Google Scholar
  19. Kattelmann R, Embury M. 1996. Riparian areas and wetlands Status of the Sierra Nevada. Davis: University of California. p 66.Google Scholar
  20. Kayranli B, Scholz M, Mustafa A, Hedmark Å. 2010. Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater wetlands: a critical review. Wetlands 30:111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loheide S, Deitchman R, Cooper D, Wolf E, Hammersmark C, Lundquist J. 2009. A framework for understanding the hydroecology of impacted wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, USA. Hydrogeol J 17:229–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Menke J, Davis C, Beesley P. 1996. Rangeland assessment. Status of the Sierra Nevada. Davis: University of California. pp 901–72.Google Scholar
  23. Milliken GA, Johnson DE. 1992. Analysis of messy data, volume I: designed experiments. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Mitra S, Wassmann R, Vlek PLG. 2005. An appraisal of global wetland area and its organic carbon stock. Curr Sci 88:25–35.Google Scholar
  25. Montagne D, Cornu S, Le Forestier L, Cousin I. 2009. Soil drainage as an active agent of recent soil evolution: a review. Pedosphere 19:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Cooperative Soil Survey. 2011. National Cooperative Soil Characterization Database. Available at http://ssldata.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed July 02, 2011.
  27. National Riparian Service Team. 2008. A progress report on the creeks and communities strategy. Denver (CO): Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center.Google Scholar
  28. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks DL, Ed. Methods of soil analysis, part 3: chemical methods. Madison (WI): Agronomy Monograph 9. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp 961–1010.Google Scholar
  29. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, Tank JL, Marti E, Bowden WB, Valett HM, Hershey AE, McDowell WH, Dodds WK, Hamilton SK, Gregory S, Morrall DD. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potter DA. 2005. Riparian plant community classification: West slope Central and Southern Sierra Nevada, California, general technical report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany (CA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.Google Scholar
  31. Prichard D. 1998. Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition. Denver (CO): Bureau of Land Management.Google Scholar
  32. Purdy S. 2010. Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: a comparison of terrestrial and aquatic assessment methods. MS Thesis, University of California, Davis, p 45.Google Scholar
  33. Purdy S, Moyle P. 2006. Mountain meadows of the Sierra Nevada: an integrated means of determining ecological condition in mountain meadows, protocols and results from 2006. Center for Water Resources, University of California, Davis. Davis: Center for Water Resources, University of California. Department of Water Resources Contract No. 4600004497.Google Scholar
  34. Rasmussen C, Torn MS, Southard RJ. 2005. Mineral assemblage and aggregates control carbon dynamics in a California conifer forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1711–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ratliff RD. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada: state of knowledge. General technical report PSW-84. Berkeley: United States Forest Service.Google Scholar
  36. Retelas J, Crezee D, Schmitt G, Smith B, Janicki A. 1995. Soil survey of the Stanislaus National forest area, California. San Francisco: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.Google Scholar
  37. Rosgen D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs (CO): Wildland Hydrology.Google Scholar
  38. Sickman JO, Leydecker A, Chang CCY, Kendall C, Melack JM, Lucero DM, Schimel J. 2003. Mechanisms underlying export of N from high-elevation catchments during seasonal transitions. Biogeochemistry 64:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sickman JO, Melack JM, Stoddard JL. 2002. Regional analysis of inorganic nitrogen yield and retention in high-elevation ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains. Biogeochemistry 57–58:341–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sigua GC, Coleman SW, Albano J. 2009. Beef cattle pasture to wetland reconversion: impact on soil organic carbon and phosphorus dynamics. Ecol Eng 35:1231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sohi SP, Mahieu N, Arah JRM, Powlson DS, Madari B, Gaunt JL. 2001. A procedure for isolating soil organic matter fractions suitable for modeling. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1121–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soil Survey Staff. 1994. Keys to soil taxonomy. 6th edn. Washington, DC: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.Google Scholar
  43. Soil Survey Staff. 2011. Web soil survey. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  44. Stevens LE, Jones A, Stacey P, Duff D, Gourley C, Catlin JC. 2002. Riparian ecosystem evaluation: a review and test of BLM’s proper functioning condition assessment guidelines. A final report submitted to the National Riparian Service Team. Reston: U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
  45. Strahler AN. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–20.Google Scholar
  46. Sulak L, Huntsinger L. 2002. Sierra Nevada grazing in transition: the role of Forest Service grazing in the foothill ranches of California. A report to the Sierra Nevada Alliance, the California Cattlemen’s Association, and the California Rangeland Trust, p 35.Google Scholar
  47. Thomas GW. 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks, DL (Ed.). Methods of soil analysis, part 3: chemical methods. Madison (WI): Agronomy Monograph 9. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. pp 475–90.Google Scholar
  48. Trimble SW, Mendel AC. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent – A critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253.Google Scholar
  49. Veenstra JJ, Horwath WR, Mitchell JP. 2007. Tillage and cover cropping effects on aggregate-protected carbon in cotton and tomato. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:362–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walker JT, Vose JM, Knoepp J, Geron CD. 2009. Recovery of nitrogen pools and processes in degraded riparian zones in the southern Appalachians. J Environ Qual 38:1391–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ward TA, Tate KW, Atwill ER, Lile DF, Lancaster DL, McDougald N, Barry S, Ingram RS, George HA, Jensen W, Frost WE, Phillips R, Markegard GG, Larson S. 2003. A comparison of three visual assessments for riparian and stream health. J Soil Water Conserv 58:83–8.Google Scholar
  52. Weatherburn MW. 1967. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Anal Chem 39:971–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams M, Bales R, Brown A, Melack J. 1995. Fluxes and transformations of nitrogen in a high-elevation catchment, Sierra Nevada. Biogeochemistry 28:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay B. Norton
    • 1
  • Laura J. Jungst
    • 2
  • Urszula Norton
    • 3
  • Hayley R. Olsen
    • 1
  • Kenneth W. Tate
    • 4
  • William R. Horwath
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.Helena National ForestHelenaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  4. 4.Department of Plant ScienceUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Land, Air, and Water ResourcesUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations