HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Eshel, G. Articles by Singer, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Eshel, G. Articles by Singer, M. J. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Eshel, G. Articles by Singer, M. J. Related Collections Water Quality Dryland Soils Carbon Sequestration

Total Soil Carbon and Water Quality: An Implication for Carbon Sequestration

^a Inst. of Soil, Water and Environ. Sciences ARO, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
^b Dep. of Land, Air and Water Resources, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Carbonate distribution in soils irrigated with fresh water (FW), treated effluent (TE), and nonirrigated (NI). Filled symbols represent samples that were dated by 14C analysis.

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Changes in the particle size distribution (PSD) due to carbonate removal, determined by comparing the clay content (volume percentage) of (a) fresh water irrigated and (b) treated effluent irrigated soils before carbonate removal (filled symbols) and after carbonate removal (open symbols); and changes () in the clay, silt, and sand contents of (c) fresh water irrigated and (d) treated effluent irrigated soils due to carbonate removal.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. The total organic C of selected samples from two profiles irrigated with fresh water (FW), two profiles irrigated with treated effluent (TE), and one nonirrigated profile (NI).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The stable C isotope ratio of soil organic C (13Corg) from selected samples from two profiles irrigated with fresh water (FW), two profiles irrigated with treated effluent (TE), and one nonirrigated profile (NI).

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. The depth distribution of the (a) stable C isotope ratio of soil inorganic C (13Ccarb) and (b) the stable O isotope ratio (18Ocarb) of selected samples from two profiles irrigated with fresh water (FW), two profiles irrigated with treated effluent (TE), and one nonirrigated profile (NI).

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. The relationship between the stable O isotope ratio and the stable C isotope ratio of soil inorganic C (18Ocarb and 13Ccarb) from Bakersfield soils irrigated with fresh water (circles), treated effluent (triangles), and nonirrigated (squares). The solid lines represent a "normal" carbonate precipitate in arid and subhumid climates with 0, 10, and 30% atmospheric CO2 contribution. The dashed lines represent the range of vegetation type (100% C3 plants vs. 100% C4 plants), as suggested by Cerling (1984).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The estimated pedogenic carbonate calculated by Eq. [3] as a function of depth: (a) the fraction (percentage) of the pedogenic carbonate from the total carbonate and (b) expressed as mass of carbonate per mass of soil. Soils were irrigated by fresh water (FW), treated effluent (TE), or nonirrigated (NI). The error bars represent the range of calculated values applying ±1 in the 13Cparent.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. The 14C age (from Table 2) as a function of the percentage of carbonate for soils irrigated with fresh water (circle) or treated effluent (triangles) and the estimated value of 90 yr ago (the time before irrigation started) with 100% pedogenic carbonate (X).