Data Package Metadata View Summary

Data for: Soil Nutrients Increase Long-term Soil Carbon Gains Threefold on Retired Farmland

General Information

Data Package:
Local Identifier:	edi.370.1
Title:	Data for: Soil Nutrients Increase Long-term Soil Carbon Gains Threefold on Retired Farmland
Alternate Identifier:	DOI PLACE HOLDER
Abstract:	These data report soil C for almost four decades following intensive agricultural soil disturbance along an experimentally imposed gradient in nitrogen (N) added annually in combination with other macro- and micro-nutrients. Data were collected at the Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (CCESR), a U.S. Long Term Ecological Research (USLTER) site located in central Minnesota, USA. Soil % C accumulated over the course of the study in unfertilized control plots leading to a gain of 6.1 Mg C ha-1 in the top 20 cm of soil. Nutrient addition increased soil % C accumulation leading to a gain of 17.8 Mg C ha-1 in fertilized plots, nearly a threefold increase over the control plots. These results demonstrate that substantial increases in soil C in successional grasslands following agricultural abandonment occurs over decadal timescales, and that C gain is increased by high supply rates of soil nutrients. In addition, soil % C continued to increase for decades under elevated nutrient supply, suggesting that short-term nutrient-addition experiments underestimate the effects of soil nutrients on soil C accumulation.
Publication Date:	2021-07-20

Time Period

Begin:

1982-01-01

End:

2019-01-01

People and Organizations
Contact:	Seabloom, Eric W (University of Minnesota, Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior) [ email ]
Creator:	Seabloom, Eric W (University of Minnesota, Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior)
Creator:	Borer, Elizabeth T (University of Minnesota, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior)
Creator:	Hobbie, Sarah E (University of Minnesota, Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior)
Creator:	MacDougall, Andrew S (Dept. of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph)

Data Entities
Data Table Name:	cdr-e002-output-data-soils-plants.csv
Description:	Soil, aboveground plant data, and belowground plant data over time

Detailed Metadata

Data Entities

Data Table


Data:	https://pasta-s.lternet.edu/package/data/eml/edi/370/1/5a6c50b29fddc6f56b1f998ec3e98d7a
Name:	cdr-e002-output-data-soils-plants.csv
Description:	Soil, aboveground plant data, and belowground plant data over time
Number of Records:	4335
Number of Columns:	21

Table Structure

Object Name:

cdr-e002-output-data-soils-plants.csv

Size:

382280 bytes

Authentication:

62b39b213a98abf0abb57a0d602b5068 Calculated By MD5

Text Format:

Number of Header Lines:

Record Delimiter:

\r\n

Orientation:

column

Simple Delimited:

Field Delimiter:

Table Column Descriptions

Column Name:

field

plot

yr.plowed

year

ntrt

nadd

other.add

mass.above

mass.root

ens.pie

rich

even

pct.c

pct.n

om.pct

p.ppm

k.ppm

ca.ppm

mg.ppm

s.ppm

Definition:

Experimental Field

Experimental Plot

Last year field was plowed for agriculture

Sampling year

Nutrient treatment code (See Table S1 in publication)

Nitrogen additon rate (g/m2/yr)

Other nutrient treatment

Aboveground biomass (g/m^2)

Belowground biomass (g/m^2)

Effective Number of Species, Probability of Interspecific Encounter, Equivalent to Inverse Simpson's Diversity

Species richness (species/0.3 m^2)

Simpson's Evenness

Percent soil carbon

Percent soil nitrogen

Percent organic matter

Soil pH

Soil phosphorus (ppm)

Soil potassium (ppm)

Soil calcium (ppm)

Soil magnesium (ppm)

Soil sulfur (ppm)

Storage Type:

string

date

string

float

string

float

Measurement Type:

nominal

dateTime

nominal

ratio

nominal

ratio

Measurement Values Domain:

Definition

Experimental Field

Definition

Experimental Plot

Format	YYYY
Precision

Format	YYYY
Precision

Allowed Values and Definitions

Enumerated Domain

Code Definition

Code	1
Definition	Control (No Nutrients added)
Source

Code Definition

Code	2
Definition	0 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	3
Definition	1 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	4
Definition	2 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	5
Definition	3.4 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	6
Definition	5.4 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	7
Definition	9.5 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	8
Definition	17 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients 27.2 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Code Definition

Code	9
Definition	27.2 g N m-2 yr-1 & Other Nutrients
Source

Unit	gramsPerMeterSquaredPerYear
Type	real
Min	0
Max	27.2

Allowed Values and Definitions

Enumerated Domain

Code Definition

Code	0
Definition	Control
Source

Code Definition

Code	1
Definition	Other nutrients added
Source

Unit	gramPerMeterSquared
Type	real
Min	7.667
Max	1381.333

Unit	gramsPerMeterSquaredPerYear
Type	real
Min	279.01
Max	2621.382

Unit	number
Type	real
Min	1
Max	8.180043473

Unit	numberPerThreeTenthsMeterSquared
Type	natural
Min	1
Max	24

Unit	number
Type	real
Min	0.076601389
Max	1

Unit	percent
Type	real
Min	0.2555
Max	1.984

Unit	percent
Type	real
Min	0.0255
Max	0.188

Unit	percent
Type	real
Min	0.666666667
Max	3.033333333

Unit	dimensionless
Type	real
Min	5.9
Max	7.7

Unit	partPerMillion
Type	real
Min	19
Max	254.6666667

Unit	partPerMillion
Type	real
Min	70
Max	270.6666667

Unit	partPerMillion
Type	real
Min	415
Max	1656

Unit	partPerMillion
Type	real
Min	100
Max	264

Unit	partPerMillion
Type	real
Min	6
Max	29

Missing Value Code:

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Code	NA
Expl	no data

Accuracy Report:

Accuracy Assessment:

Coverage:

Methods:

Data Package Usage Rights

This data package is released to the "public domain" under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 "No Rights Reserved" (see: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). It is considered professional etiquette to provide attribution of the original work if this data package is shared in whole or by individual components. A generic citation is provided for this data package on the website https://portal.edirepository.org (herein "website") in the summary metadata page. Communication (and collaboration) with the creators of this data package is recommended to prevent duplicate research or publication. This data package (and its components) is made available "as is" and with no warranty of accuracy or fitness for use. The creators of this data package and the website shall not be liable for any damages resulting from misinterpretation or misuse of the data package or its components. Periodic updates of this data package may be available from the website. Thank you.

Keywords

By Thesaurus:
LTER Controlled Vocabulary	ecosystem ecology, grasslands, disturbance, recovery
(No thesaurus)	global change, LTER

Methods and Protocols

These methods, instrumentation and/or protocols apply to all data in this dataset:

Methods and protocols used in the collection of this data package

Description:

Study System This work was conducted at the Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (CCESR), a U.S. Long Term Ecological Research (USLTER) site located in central Minnesota, USA (Latitude 45.4 N, Longitude 93.2 W). The site has a mean annual precipitation of 750 mm and a mean annual temperature of 6o C (1970-2000)(Borer et al., 2014, Hijmans et al., 2005). Its soils are classified as marginal, given the dominance of sand (> 90 % sand in upland soils), rapid drainage, and low N levels compared to other grasslands (Fay et al., 2015, Grigal et al., 1974). Sand-dominated soils are widespread in North America especially in glacial outwash areas including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ontario, and the coastal plains of the southwestern USA (Liu et al., 2013). These soils are some of the least productive agricultural land on the continent, typically with low yield-to-input ratios, and are commonly targeted for land retirement (e.g., Plantinga, 1996). Accordingly, many of the areas at this site are abandoned agricultural fields (Isbell et al., 2019, Knops & Tilman, 2000). At our study site, previous work has shown that long-term nutrient addition increased plant biomass and soil C, while reducing plant richness and shifting species composition from native C4 grasses to exotic agronomic C3 grasses (Clark & Tilman, 2008, Fornara & Tilman, 2012, Isbell et al., 2013). The reduction in plant richness was associated with a weakening effect of nutrient addition on plant biomass over the first 25 years of the experiment (Isbell et al., 2013). While nutrient addition had increased soil C by 27 years after tilling (Fornara & Tilman, 2012), the rate at which the gains in soil C accrued over this period remains unknown. In addition, it remains unknown whether the weakened fertilization effect on plant biomass – and continued decline in plant diversity – has slowed the accumulation of soil C during the decade since Fornara and Tilman (2012) examined the soils in these fields (years 25-37).

Description:

Experimental Design The experiment was replicated in three abandoned agricultural fields that were last tilled and farmed in 1968 (Field A), 1957 (Field B), and 1934 (Field C). All fields in this experiment are located on soils of the Sartell or Zimmerman series (Typic or Alfic Udipsamments, respectively) (Grigal et al., 1974). Detailed field descriptions are available in Tilman (1987). These timelines of abandonment for Fields A-C follow widely observed trends of land retirement of sand-dominated soils in North America; many areas were abandoned soon after cultivation (e.g., 1930s) while others maintained crop production for decades supported by higher-than-average nutrient inputs, more fine-tuned crop selection (e.g., tobacco), and periods of high crop prices that made these lands profitable (Feng et al., 2006). Ultimately, however, sandy soils like those in this study are often targeted for retirement given the high chemical input costs to maintain crop productivity and associated environmental impacts, erosion risks, and sensitivity to drought (Rey Benayas et al., 2007). Prior to the experiment, each of the fields was enclosed by a 1.8 m tall wire fence with 10 cm openings. In addition, woven wire fence with 6 mm openings was buried 84 cm in the ground and extended 60 cm above the ground. In April 1982, two 35 x 55 m areas were designated in each of the three fields (A, B, and C). These areas were tilled with a 45 cm diameter disk harrow pulled by a tractor 20 times in one direction, 20 times perpendicularly, and 5 times diagonally. Following the disking, the soil was raked smooth and all remaining vegetation was removed. After tilling, the area was divided into 54 4 x 4 m plots with 1 m buffers between each plot. Aluminum flashing was buried to depth of 30 cm around each plot to prevent horizontal movement of nutrients and spreading of plants through vegetative growth. There have been no manipulations of the plant community (e.g., seeding or removal of plants) in any of the plots. Following soil disturbance, a nutrient addition treatment was initiated with nine levels representing different combinations of nitrogen (0 – 27.2 g N m-2 yr-1 added as NH4NO3) and other non-N nutrients (20 g m-2 yr-1 P205; 20 g m-2 yr-1 K20; 40 g m-2 yr-1 CaCO3; 30.0 g m-2 yr-1 MgSO4; 18 microgram m-2 yr-1 CuSO4; 37.7 microgram m-2 yr-1 ZnSO4; 15.3 microgram m-2 yr-1 CoCO2; 322 microgram m-2 yr-1 MnCl2; and 15.1 microgram m-2 yr-1 NaMoO4) applied annually. In this design, there was one treatment with no nutrients (Control) and eight treatments that received non-N nutrients in combination with eight different levels of N (0 – 27.2 g N m-2 yr-1). The complete list of treatments is presented in Table S1. All nutrient treatments were replicated on the tilled and disked soils six times in a completely randomized design in each of the three fields (Figure S1).

Description:

This method step describes provenance-based metadata as specified in the LTER EML Best Practices.