ArticlePloS one2015
Soil respiration under different land uses in Eastern China.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the phenology of soil organisms: Current knowledge and future steps.Ecology and evolution · 2023Review
- Variations in Soil Nutrient Dynamics and Bacterial Communities After the Conversion of Forests to Long-Term Tea Monoculture Systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Land-use change has a crucial influence on soil respiration, which further affects soil nutrient availability and carbon stock. We monitored soil respiration rates under different land-use types (tea gardens with three production levels, adjacent woodland, and a vegetable field) in Eastern China at weekly intervals over a year using the dynamic closed chamber method. The relationship between soil respiration and environmental factors was also evaluated. The soil respiration rate exhibited a remarkable single peak that was highest in July/August and lowest in January. The annual cumulative respiration flux increased by 25.6% and 20.9% in the tea garden with high production (HP) and the vegetable field (VF), respectively, relative to woodland (WL). However, no significant differences were observed between tea gardens with medium production (MP), low production (LP), WL, and VF. Soil respiration rates were significantly and positively correlated with organic carbon, total nitrogen, and available phosphorous content. Each site displayed a significant exponential relationship between soil respiration and soil temperature measured at 5 cm depth, which explained 84-98% of the variation in soil respiration. The model with a combination of soil temperature and moisture was better at predicting the temporal variation of soil respiration rate than the single temperature model for all sites. Q10 was 2.40, 2.00, and 1.86-1.98 for VF, WL, and tea gardens, respectively, indicating that converting WL to VF increased and converting to tea gardens decreased the sensitivity of soil respiration to temperature. The equation of the multiple linear regression showed that identical factors, including soil organic carbon (SOC), soil water content (SWC), pH, and water soluble aluminum (WSAl), drove the changes in soil respiration and Q10 after conversion of land use. Temporal variations of soil respiration were mainly controlled by soil temperature, whereas spatial variations were influenced by SOC, SWC, pH, and WSAl.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.