Published online 29 September 2005
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1711-1721 (2005)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0040
© 2005 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
Mineral Assemblage and Aggregates Control Carbon Dynamics in a California Conifer Forest
Craig Rasmussena,*,
Margaret S. Tornb and
Randal J. Southardc
a Dep. of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science, Univ. of Arizona, 1177 E. Fourth St., P.O. Box 210038, Shantz Bldg. #38, Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
b Lawrence Berkeley National Lab., Center for Isotope Geochemistry, One Cyclotron Road MS 90-1116, Berkeley, CA 94720
c Land, Air and Water Resources Dep., Univ. of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616

View larger version (37K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. X-ray diffractograms for the clay fractions of selected horizons from (top) AN and (bottom) GR soils. Drop lines indicate d-spacing in nanometers.
|
|

View larger version (34K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Aggregate stability model for (top) andesite granite (AN) and (bottom) granite (GR) soils. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean for the average of one replicate from each horizon of three pedons. Lines represent the best-fit model of the percentage of clay released with increasing ultrasonic energy.
|
|

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. 14C values for each density/aggregate fraction by morphologic horizon. Circles, triangles, and squares represent the free, occluded, and mineral fractions, respectively. Gray and black fill represents andesite-granite (AN) and granite (GR) soils, respectively.
|
|
Copyright © 2005 by the Soil Science Society of America.