An inter-laboratory comparison of soil organic carbon analysis on a farm with four agricultural management systems

IF 2 3区 农林科学 Q2 AGRONOMY
William Brinton, Bruno Basso, Neville Millar, Kris Covey, Charles Bettigo, Sindhu Jagadamma, Frank Loeffler
{"title":"An inter-laboratory comparison of soil organic carbon analysis on a farm with four agricultural management systems","authors":"William Brinton,&nbsp;Bruno Basso,&nbsp;Neville Millar,&nbsp;Kris Covey,&nbsp;Charles Bettigo,&nbsp;Sindhu Jagadamma,&nbsp;Frank Loeffler","doi":"10.1002/agj2.70018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil organic carbon (SOC) as a key soil health indicator is integral to the soil's capacity to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans. Accurate SOC estimation is essential to decision-making for an increasing number of stakeholders, such as farmers, industry professionals, and policymakers, to determine the environmental benefit of agricultural practices, and more recently, allocate financial rewards through carbon market initiatives. Our study examined SOC variability in soils from four different regenerative management systems on a single farm using stratification and sample compositing, and analyzed by four different laboratories using dry combustion, the recommended analytical method, but one which varied according to laboratory standard operating procedures (SOP). Results showed significant variation in SOC levels for the same soil samples at different laboratories (1.6 ± 0.2 g kg<sup>−1</sup>), variation comparable to that between the distinct management systems (1.5 ± 0.4 g kg<sup>−1</sup>). Our findings show that analytical variability within and between laboratories must be considered, that use of the same laboratory, and to the extent possible the same SOP for successive SOC measurements at the same location is necessary, and that rigorous stratification alongside minimal sample consolidation should be conducted to generate analytical sample numbers that cater to logistics, economics, and scientific rigor.</p>","PeriodicalId":7522,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy Journal","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/agj2.70018","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.70018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil organic carbon (SOC) as a key soil health indicator is integral to the soil's capacity to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans. Accurate SOC estimation is essential to decision-making for an increasing number of stakeholders, such as farmers, industry professionals, and policymakers, to determine the environmental benefit of agricultural practices, and more recently, allocate financial rewards through carbon market initiatives. Our study examined SOC variability in soils from four different regenerative management systems on a single farm using stratification and sample compositing, and analyzed by four different laboratories using dry combustion, the recommended analytical method, but one which varied according to laboratory standard operating procedures (SOP). Results showed significant variation in SOC levels for the same soil samples at different laboratories (1.6 ± 0.2 g kg−1), variation comparable to that between the distinct management systems (1.5 ± 0.4 g kg−1). Our findings show that analytical variability within and between laboratories must be considered, that use of the same laboratory, and to the extent possible the same SOP for successive SOC measurements at the same location is necessary, and that rigorous stratification alongside minimal sample consolidation should be conducted to generate analytical sample numbers that cater to logistics, economics, and scientific rigor.

Abstract Image

四种农业管理制度下一个农场土壤有机碳分析的实验室间比较
土壤有机碳(SOC)作为一项关键的土壤健康指标,是土壤作为维持植物、动物和人类生存的重要生态系统功能的组成部分。准确的SOC估算对于越来越多的利益相关者(如农民、行业专业人士和政策制定者)的决策至关重要,以确定农业实践的环境效益,以及最近通过碳市场倡议分配经济奖励。本研究采用分层和样品合成的方法,对单个农场4种不同再生管理系统土壤的有机碳变化进行了研究,并在4个不同的实验室使用干燃烧分析方法进行了分析,干燃烧是推荐的分析方法,但根据实验室标准操作程序(SOP)进行了不同的分析。结果表明,同一土壤样品在不同实验室的有机碳含量差异显著(1.6±0.2 g kg - 1),与不同管理制度之间的差异相当(1.5±0.4 g kg - 1)。我们的研究结果表明,必须考虑实验室内部和实验室之间的分析可变性,必须使用同一实验室,并尽可能在同一地点对连续的SOC测量使用相同的SOP,并且应该进行严格的分层和最小的样品合并,以产生符合物流,经济和科学严谨性的分析样品数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agronomy Journal
Agronomy Journal 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
265
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: After critical review and approval by the editorial board, AJ publishes articles reporting research findings in soil–plant relationships; crop science; soil science; biometry; crop, soil, pasture, and range management; crop, forage, and pasture production and utilization; turfgrass; agroclimatology; agronomic models; integrated pest management; integrated agricultural systems; and various aspects of entomology, weed science, animal science, plant pathology, and agricultural economics as applied to production agriculture. Notes are published about apparatus, observations, and experimental techniques. Observations usually are limited to studies and reports of unrepeatable phenomena or other unique circumstances. Review and interpretation papers are also published, subject to standard review. Contributions to the Forum section deal with current agronomic issues and questions in brief, thought-provoking form. Such papers are reviewed by the editor in consultation with the editorial board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信