Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management
Subscribe to JSSEM
Full Name*
Email Address*

Article Number - 7A4356255851


Vol.9(1), pp. 13-20 , January 2018
https://doi.org/10.5897/JSSEM2017.0664
ISSN: 2141-2391


 Total Views: 0
 Downloaded: 0

Full Length Research Paper

Comparison of bulk density methods in determining soil organic carbon storage under different land use types



Abrha Brhan Gebre
  • Abrha Brhan Gebre
  • Tigray Agricultural Research Institute, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar







 Received: 20 October 2017  Accepted: 28 November 2017  Published: 31 January 2018

Copyright © 2018 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0


The different methods used for determining soil bulk density make the result of soil organic carbon (SOC) estimation vary. The study was conducted on five land use types in Gergera watershed, Tigray, Ethiopia. This study investigates two methods (Core and Excavation methods) of soil bulk density and their relative consequence on SOC; it also evaluates which method is better for estimating SOC stock. Both methods were undertaken in top 0 to 30 cm soil depth. For comparison of bulk density methods, statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 23 was used. The result revealed that using core method, SOC was 59.30, 74.70, 64.18, 45.35 and 54.61 Mg/ha in pasture land, homestead agroforestry, crop land and woodlot respectively. Whereas, land use types were scored 56.40, 69.08, 62.20, 43.86 and 52.83 Mg/ha in exclosure, pasture land, homestead agroforestry, crop land and woodlot respectively using excavation method of bulk density determination. Although SOC stock exhibits statistically significant difference among land use types in the bulk density methods, the statistical effect was not because of bulk density methods but because of other variables in the land use types. SOC of bulk density results and mean SOC difference in each land use types were calculated using core and excavation methods. In conclusion, soil excavation method of bulk density determinations used for SOC estimation is the lower standard error. Furthermore, this work provides new insights into improving the bulk density methods and assists in the accurate estimation of soil carbon stock management.

Key words: Bulk density methods, land use types, soil organic carbon stock.

 

Ahukaemere C, Akamigbo F, Onweremadu E, Ndukwu B, Osisi F (2015). Carbon and nitrogen forms and sequestration in relation to agricultural land use types in a humid agro-ecosystem. J. Glob. Biosci. pp. 1655-1665.

 

Bajigo A, Tadesse M (2015). Woody Species Diversity of Traditional Agroforestry Practices in Gununo Watershed in Wolayitta Zone, Ethiopia. For. Res. 4:155.

 
 

Corral‐Nu-ez G, Opazo‐Salazar D, Gebre-Samuel G, Tittonell P, Gebretsadik A, Gebremeskel Y, Tesfay G, Beek VC (2014). Soil organic matter in Northern Ethiopia, current level and predicted trend: A study case of two villages in Tigray. Soil Use Manage. 30:487-495.
Crossref

 
 

Dawson JJC, Smith P (2007). Carbon losses from soil and its consequences for land-use management. Sci. Total Environ. 382:165-190.
Crossref

 
 

Hazelton PA, Murphy BW (2007). Interpreting soil test results: what do all the numbers mean?, CSIRO publishing.

 
 

Hunde KK (2015). Evaluation of Soil Carbon Pool potential under different Land use system and Its Correlation with different Soil Properties in North Wales, UK. History 1:54-61.

 
 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006). Good practice guidelines for National Greenhouse gas inventories. Switzerland: Intergovernmental panel on climate change. 

View

 
 

Kuyah S, Rosenstock TS (2015). Optimal measurement strategies for aboveground tree biomass in agricultural landscapes. Agrofor. Syst. 89:125-133.
Crossref

 
 

Lichter J, Costello L (1994). An evaluation of volume excavation and core sampling techniques for measuring soil bulk density. J. Arboric. 20:160-160.

 
 

Neill C, Melillo JM, Steudler PA, Cerri CC, de Moraes JF, Piccolo MC, Brito M (1997). Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following forest clearing for pasture in the southwestern Brazilian Amazon. Ecol. Appl. 7:1216-1225.
Crossref

 
 

Palta JP, Parkash A, Abroi IP (1969). Comparison of several methods for evaluating bulk density of field soils, department of soils. Punjab Agricultural University, Hissar, Haryana.

 
 

Pearson TR, Brown SL, Birdsey RA (2007). Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon. General Technical Report (GTR)

 
 

Petrokofsky G, Kanamaru H, Achard F, Goetz SJ, Joosten H, Holmgren P, Lehtonen A, Menton MC, Pullin AS, Wattenbach M (2012). Comparison of methods for measuring and assessing carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in terrestrial carbon pools. How do the accuracy and precision of current methods compare? A systematic review protocol. Environ. Evid. 1:1.
Crossref

 
 

Sakin E (2012). Relationships between of carbon, nitrogen stocks and texture of the Harran plain soils in Southeastern Turkey. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.18:626-634.

 
 

VandenBygaart AJ, Angers DA (2006). Towards accurate measurements of soil organic carbon stock change in agroecosystems. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86:465-471.
Crossref

 
 

Venkanna K, Mandal UK, Raju AJS, Sharma KL, Adake RV, Pushpanjali Reddy BS, Masane RN, Venkatravamma K, Babu BP (2014). Carbon stocks in major soil types and land-use systems in semiarid tropical region of southern India. Curr. Sci. 106:4-25.

 
 

Wiesmeier M, Sporlein P, Geuss U, Hangen E, Haug S, Reischl A, Schilling B, vonLutzow M, Kogel-Knabner I (2012). Soil organic carbon stocks in Southeast Germany (Bavaria) as affected by land use, soil type and sampling depth. Glob. Change Biol. 18:2233-2245.
Crossref

 
 

Wuest SB (2009). Correction of bulk density and sampling method biases using soil mass per unit area. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73:312-316.
Crossref

 
 

Xu L, He N, Yu G (2016). Methods of evaluating soil bulk density: Impact on estimating large scale soil organic carbon storage. Elsevier; Catena 144:94-101.
Crossref

 
 

Xu L, He NP, Yu GR, Wen D, Gao Y, He HL (2015). Differences in pedo-transfer functions of bulk density lead to high uncertainty in soil organic carbon estimation at regional scales: evidence from Chinese terrestrial ecosystems. J. Geophys. Res: Biogeosci. 120:1567-1575
Crossref

 
 

Yitaferu B, Abewa A, Amare T (2013). Expansion of Eucalyptus Woodlots in the Fertile Soils of the Highlands of Ethiopia: Could It Be a Treat on Future Cropland Use? J. Agric. Sci. 5:97.
Crossref

 
 

 


APA Gebre, A. B. (2018). Comparison of bulk density methods in determining soil organic carbon storage under different land use types. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, 9(1), 13-20.
Chicago Abrha Brhan Gebre  . "Comparison of bulk density methods in determining soil organic carbon storage under different land use types." Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management 9, no. 1 (2018): 13-20.
MLA Abrha Brhan Gebre  . "Comparison of bulk density methods in determining soil organic carbon storage under different land use types." Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management 9.1 (2018): 13-20.
   
DOI https://doi.org/10.5897/JSSEM2017.0664
URL http://academicjournals.org/journal/JSSEM/article-abstract/7A4356255851

Subscription Form