C-equivalent correction factor for soil organic carbon inventory by wet oxidation, dry combustion and loss on ignition methods in Himalayan region
- 56 Downloads
Soil organic carbon (SOC) is an important parameter to study the carbon cycle as soil carbon stock inventory as well as to serve as prime indicator in assessing soil health and soil quality. The present study was attempted to investigate C-equivalent correction factor for SOC by Walkley–Black (wet oxidation) and loss on ignition (LOI) methods in relation to TOC analyzer (dry combustion) method. TOC analyzer method supposed to be the best method of total soil organic carbon estimation. Soil sample from 77 sites representing dominant land use/land cover types of crop land, forest and scrub cover were collected in Himalayan region of Uttarakhand state, India. Surface (0–15 cm) and sub-surface (15–30 cm) soil samples were used for estimation of SOC by these three methods. C-equivalent correction factor ranged from 1.10 to 1.17 for SOC determination by Walkley and Black method to TOC analyzer method, whereas it varied from 0.257 to 0.417 for soil organic matter (SOM) by LOI method to TOC analyzer for soils under various land use/land cover types in the Himalayan region. The recovery of SOC by Walkley–Black method varied from 86.84 to 91.04% in the soils of various land use/land cover in the Himalayan landscape. Thus, there is need to develop specific correction factor for soils under various land use/land cover types for improved estimation of soil carbon stock. The regression models developed in the study can be directly used to obtain TOC analyzer equivalent total carbon contents in the soils (surface and sub-surface) for computation of soil carbon stock in Himalayan region.
KeywordsC-equivalent correction factor TOC analyzer LOI methods soil organic carbon (SOC) Himalayan soils
Authors are sincerely grateful for financial support provided under the ISRO–Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) of the Department of Space. Authors sincerely thank Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS) and Director, National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), Hyderabad, for their kind support and constant encouragement.
- Apolonia O and Grazyna P 2012 Assessment of TOC–SOM and SOM–TOC conversion in forest soil; Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 21 1767–1775.Google Scholar
- Bhattacharyya T, Chandran P, Ray S K, Mandal C, Tiwary P, Pal D K, Maurya U K, Nimkar A M, Kuchankar H, Sheikh S, Telpande B A and Kolhe A 2015 Walkley–Black recovery factor to reassess soil organic matter: Indo-Gangetic plains and black soil region of India case studies; Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 46 2628–2648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chua A M and Tokura T 2004 Total organic carbon in soil; Shimadzu Application news, May 2004.Google Scholar
- Florent T, Joao Carlos de Moraes Sa, Paulo R B, Philippe L, Clever B, Ademir O F, Josiane B dos Santos and Thiago Massao Inagaki 2011 Soil carbon inventory by wet oxidation and dry combustion methods: Effect of land use, soil texture, gradients and sampling depth on linear model of C-equivalent correction factor; Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76 1048–1059.Google Scholar
- Krishan G, Srivastav S K, Kumar S, Saha S K and Dadhwal V K 2009 Quantifying the underestimation of soil organic carbon by Walkley and Black technique-examples from Himalayan and Central Indian Soils; Curr. Sci. 96(8) 1133–1136.Google Scholar
- Nelson W and Sommers L E 1996 Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Method of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical methods (ed.) Sparks D L, SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 961–1010.Google Scholar
- Schumacher B A 2002 Methods for the determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in soils and sediments, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center, US EPA.Google Scholar
- Sidhu G S and Surya J N 2014 Soils of North-Western Himalayan eco-system and their land use constraints, productivity potentials and future strategies; Agropedology 24(01) 1–19.Google Scholar
- Soon Y K and Abboud S 1991 A comparison of some methods for soil organic carbon determination; Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 30 2299–2310.Google Scholar