Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 1016162

Carbon distribution in subalpine forests and meadows of the Olympic Mountains, Washington

S.J. Prichard·D. L. Peterson·R.D. Hammer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

stimates of C storage in mountainous regions are rare. Forest–meadow ecotones in subalpine ecosystems, which contain a mosaic of forests and meadows, may be particularly sensitive to future changes in climate and are therefore important to include in estimates of terrestrial C storage. In this study, we quantified soil C and ecosystem C pools in subalpine forest and meadow soils of the northeastern (NE, dry climate) and southwestern (SW, wet climate) Olympic Mountains. Carbon concentrations of mineral soil are relatively high in upper horizons, ranging from 43 to 142 g kg −1 in NE soils and 27 to 162 g kg −1 in SW soils. Northeastern meadow soils store more C than NE forests ( P = 0.009) , while SW forest soils store more C than SW meadows ( P = 0.038) Ecosystem C storage is greater in forests than in meadows. Under a warmer climatic scenario with drier summers and wetter winters, subalpine C storage may decrease in the NE and increase in the SW, and changes in C storage will be closely related to vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, decomposition rates, and local disturbance regimes. Because ecosystem processes and associated C storage differ between high- and low-elevation ecosystems, it is important that data from both high- and low-elevation sites are included in estimates of C storage in terrestrial ecosystems.

Explore related subjects

Soil Science Society of America JournalArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S.J. Prichard, D. L. Peterson, R.D. Hammer. 2000. Carbon distribution in subalpine forests and meadows of the Olympic Mountains, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6451834x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2021

The processes of preferential flow in the unsaturated zone

Preferential flow, a major influence in unsaturated soil and rock almost everywhere, occurs by multiple phenomenologically distinct hydraulic processes. For the mode known as funneled flow, concentrated in particularly conductive portions of the medium, the surface-tension/viscous-flow processes of traditional unsaturated flow theory predominate. Fingered flow, through conductive paths of higher water content than surrounding material, requires amendments to traditional theory concerning instabilities and dynamic flow-regime boundaries. Macropore flow, the most recognized preferential flow mode, poses unanswered questions and major difficulties in practice. Accumulated evidence shows that water flows preferentially mostly through macropores that are (a) only partially filled with water, and (b) surrounded by matrix material that is drier, sometimes much drier, than saturation. With partial filling, geometric characteristics such as aperture have much less influence than was previously thought, and the intra-macropore configuration of the flowing water phase, about which little is conclusively known, is then a dominant controlling influence. With unsaturated surroundings, macropore/matrix exchange interactions control, for given input and medium, the initiating circumstances, conveyed flux, and duration of macropore flow. The multiple processes in play during such interactions have different sensitivities to the matrix water state and different directions of influence. The net influence of matrix water content on macropore flow is thus highly complex and a major research need. Additional high-priority topics are: flowpath connectivity, for watersheds as well as small scales; intra-macropore processes, to discern their importance and possible means of quantification; and the identification of measurable soil and rock properties that can be utilized predictively.

Soil Science Society of America Journal↗
USGS2020

A hybrid approach for predictive soil property mapping using conventional soil survey data

Soil property maps are important for land management and earth systems modeling. A new hybrid point-disaggregation predictive soil property mapping strategy improved mapping in the Colorado River Basin, and can be applied to other areas with similar data (e.g. conterminous United States). This new approach increased sample size ~6-fold over past efforts. Random forests related environmental raster layers representing soil forming factors to samples to predict 15 soil properties (pH, texture fractions, rock, electrical conductivity, gypsum, CaCO3, sodium adsorption ratio, available water capacity, bulk density, erodibility, organic matter) at 7 depths, depth to restrictive layer, and surface rock size and cover. Cross-validations resulted in coefficient of determinations averaging 0.52, with a range of 0.20 to 0.76; and mean absolute errors ranged from 3% to 98% of training data averages with a mean of 41%. Uncertainty estimates were also developed by creating relative prediction intervals (RPIs) for the entire study area, which allow end users to evaluate uncertainty relative to original data distributions. Average error increased with higher RPI values (higher uncertainty), and areas with the highest RPI are consistently under-sampled, suggesting that additional sampling in these areas may improve prediction accuracy. Greater uncertainty was also observed in areas with shale parent materials and physiographic settings uncommon relative to the broader study area.

New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizo↗
USGS2018

Approaches for improving field soil identification

Use of soil survey information by non-soil-scientists is often limited by their inability to select the correct soil map unit component (COMP). Here, we developed two approaches that can be deployed to smartphones for non-soil-scientists to identify COMP from the location alone or location together with easily observed field data (i.e., slope, depth to the restrictive layer, and soil texture by depth). In addition, we also compared the two newly developed approaches with a traditional approach identifying COMP based on the dominant COMP (DC-based approach). All three approaches were tested with the Rapid Assessment of US Soil Carbon database and the combined USDA- NRCS Soil Survey Geographic database and the USDA-NRCS State Soil Geographic Database. The results indicated that the observation-based approach performed significantly better than the other two approaches, suggesting that a small set of easy-to-measure site-specific observations could significantly improve COMP identification. The location- and DC-based approaches had similar low performance overall. However, the location-based approach slightly improved identifications over the DC-based approach for cases where (i) there were multiple possible components within the soil map unit and (ii) the components were located in close proximity to a boundary of a different soil map unit polygon. The benefit of using the location-based approach may be greater in specific soil survey areas where topography was the major factor leading to the creation of the map unit legend.

Soil Science Society of America Journal↗