Next Article in Journal
Application of HSMAAOA Algorithm in Flood Control Optimal Operation of Reservoir Groups
Previous Article in Journal
Measures and Policies for Reducing PM Exceedances through the Use of Air Quality Modeling: The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/su15020928
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Freeze–Thaw Cycles Have More of an Effect on Greenhouse Gas Fluxes than Soil Water Content on the Eastern Edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

by
Shanshan Zhao
1,2,3,
Mingsen Qin
2,
Xia Yang
1,
Wenke Bai
2,
Yunfeng Yao
1,* and
Junqiang Wang
2,*
1
College of Desert Control Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010011, China
2
Key Laboratory of Southwest China Wildlife Resources Conservation (Ministry of Education), China West Normal University, Nanchong 637009, China
3
College of Management, China West Normal University, Nanchong 637009, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(2), 928; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020928
Submission received: 28 November 2022 / Revised: 26 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 4 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, 2nd Volume)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) is sensitive to global climate change. This is because it is characterized by irregular rainfall and freeze–thaw cycles resulting from its high elevation and low temperature. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) mainly contribute to the warming of the QTP, but few studies have investigated and compared the effects of irregular rainfall and freeze–thaw cycles on GHGs. In this study, we conducted a laboratory experiment under four types of freeze–thaw treatments with three soil water content levels to simulate the irregular freeze–thaw and rainfall conditions. The results showed that both the soil water content and freeze–thaw treatment influenced the soil properties, soil enzyme activities, and the microbial biomass; however, the freeze–thaw treatment had significantly higher influences on GHG fluxes than soil water content. In order to explore other biotic and abiotic factors in an attempt to establish the main factor in determining GHG fluxes, a variation partition analysis was conducted. The results revealed that freeze–thaw treatments were the strongest individual factors in predicting the variance in N2O and CO2 fluxes, and the pH, which was only significantly affected by freeze–thaw treatment, was the strongest individual factor in predicting CH4 flux. Across the water content levels, all the freeze–thaw treatments increased the N2O flux and reduced the CH4 flux as compared to the CK treatment. In addition, long-term freezing reduced the CO2 flux, but the treatment of slowly freezing and quickly thawing increased the CO2 flux. In summary, these results suggest that the freeze–thaw treatments had quite different effects on N2O, CH4, and CO2 fluxes, and their effects on GHG fluxes are more significant than those of soil water content on the eastern edge of the QTP.

1. Introduction

The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) is known as the “roof of the world” as it is the highest plateau on earth. It is also known as the “Asian water tower”, as it is the origin of many major Asian rivers [1]. In addition, the QTP is China’s “ecological security barrier” due to its function in soil and water conservation, as a carbon sink, and in biodiversity protection [2]. However, as a result of the high elevation and harsh environment, the QTP has been confirmed as the most sensitive region to global climate changes [3,4,5], especially global warming. The mean annual air temperature growth rate on the QTP is 0.04 °C, which is twice that of the global average [1], and hard evidence indicates that this warming is mainly contributed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) [6], including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) [7]. For this reason, more investigations should be conducted to clarify the potential factors influencing the GHGs on the QTP.
Precipitation is one of the most important environmental factors that determines the biodiversity and functions of the QTP ecosystem [8]. A significant mechanism that regulates the effect of precipitation on soil biological function may be soil water content, as it can influence the soil oxidation reduction potential, microbial activities, soil aeration, and soil aggregates [9,10,11,12]. The effects of soil water content on soil abiotic and biotic factors can also indirectly impact GHG fluxes [13]; for example, Yang et al. [14] found that the soil temperature was the most correlated factor in influencing the GHG fluxes rather than soil water content under a simulated rainfall experiment on the QTP. Previous studies found that the soil water content could also directly increase the GHG fluxes [15,16]. Darenova et al. [15] found that soil water content determined the CO2 flux in an oak coppice forest. Combining these results demonstrates that water content might, directly and indirectly, influence soil GHG fluxes on the QTP. However, there are no studies that have detailed the distinction between the direct and/or indirect effects of soil water content on GHG fluxes on this area.
Soil freeze–thaw fluctuations are common on the QTP due to the low temperature at such a high elevation [17]. This is another important factor for QTP ecosystem stability besides the water content, as it can enhance nutrient release, which promotes plant growth [18,19]. Risk et al. [20] and Xu [21] reviewed that freeze–thaw cycles can also impact the GHG fluxes in various ways. On the QTP, the soil incubation experiment from Wu et al. [22] demonstrated that the GHG fluxes were higher during soil thawing. The results from Chen et al. [23] revealed that a lower thawing temperature had a significantly higher N2O flux in a QTP alpine meadow, and this study suggested that different freeze–thaw cycle types with, for example, different thawing temperatures, might impact the GHG fluxes, but no recent studies have focused on that on the QTP. Therefore, a study of the effect of freeze–thaw cycle types on GHGs is necessary for the QTP.
In this study, in order to test the effects of water content and freeze–thaw cycles on GHG fluxes on the QTP, we conducted a two-factor microcosm interaction experiment with three soil water content levels and four different freeze–thaw cycles. Furthermore, we also measured another 17 variables related to soil properties, soil enzyme activities, and soil microbes in order to explore the direct and/or indirect effects of the aforementioned two factors via various biotic and/or abiotic factors using variance partition analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Soil Collection

The experimental soil samples were collected from Hongyuan County (31°51′–33°33′ N, 101°51′–103°22′ E) on the eastern edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, China (Figure 1a). The mean temperature in this area is 1.0 °C, the mean annual precipitation is 735 mm, and the soil type is mainly alpine meadow soil. The natural vegetation is dominated by alpine meadow vegetation types, including Elymus nutans, Koeleria litwinowii, and Care xenervis, and the artificially cultivated vegetation includes conventional forage grasses such as Lotus corniculatus, Phalaris arundinacea, and E. sibiricus. Hongyuan County is located in the watershed of the Yangtze River and Yellow River systems, which play a great role in water conservation and biodiversity maintenance of the QTP and basins of the Yangtze River and Yellow River [24].
Soil samples were collected from four different land-use types to represent the local condition, including the artificial forage grassland of L. corniculatus and P. arundinacea and pasture land grazed by sika deer and yak. The forage grasslands were established by Sichuan Academy of Grassland Sciences and have been governed by them for 7 years. Each forage grassland area was nearly 100 × 100 m2. The pastures belong to the local pastoralists and have a low grazing level for sika and a high grazing level for deer. Soil samples were collected in August 2021. Three 10 × 10 m2 plots were randomly set at least 5 m apart for each land-use type, and three cores were randomly taken at a 20 cm depth from each plot and totally mixed into a soil sample, resulting in a total of 12 samples. The visible roots and rocks were removed at this step.

2.2. Microcosm Experiment

Soil samples were air-dried at 4 °C and sieved through a 2 mm mesh. To stimulate the soil water content and freeze–thaw cycles on the QTP, three soil water content levels combining four freeze–thaw types were established. We first stored 250 g air-dried soil in a 500 mL glass culture flask for 7 days under 25 °C to restore the activity of the soil microbes. Thereafter, sterile water was added to the soil by weighing it to establish the soil water content, which included 30%, 60%, and 100% of field capacity. Four different types of freeze–thaw treatments were used: control (CK), which was incubated at 10 °C for 36 days; long-term freezing (LF), which was incubated at −10 °C for 36 days; slowly freeze and quickly thaw (SFQT), which was incubated at −4 °C for 7 days then incubated at 10 °C for 2 days with four cycles; and quickly freeze and slowly thaw (QFST), which was incubated at −10 °C for 2 days then incubated at 4 °C for 7 days with four cycles (Figure 1b–d). A total of 144 pots were prepared for this experiment. For measuring the GHG fluxes, the air exchange through the microcosm flask was stopped on the 34th day. All the pots were transported at 4 °C and incubated for 24 h on the 36th day. Then, 50 mL of the air in the flask was drawn using a syringe and then transferred for storage into a 100 mL foil bag. After the soil incubation, microcosm soil was stored at 4 °C for enzyme activity measurements and freeze-dried for the analyses of the soil properties and microbial biomass.

2.3. Soil Properties, Enzyme Activities, and Soil Microbial Biomass

Soil pH was measured in water (1:5 w/v) using a pH electrode. Soil NH4+-N and NO3−-N were measured in 1 mol/L KCl (1:10 w/v) using an automatic continuous flow analyzer (AA3, Bran+Luebbe, Norderstedt, Germany). The soil was extracted in water (1:2.5 w/v) and filtered through a 0.45 μm Millipore filter. Then, the filtrate was assessed using a Multi N/C 3100 analyzer (Jena, Germany) to measure the concentration of total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Soil total nitrogen (TN) was measured using Kjeldahl methods, and soil organic carbon (SOC) was measured using the potassium dichromate sulfuric acid digestion method. The soil enzymes, including α-1,4-glucosidase (AG), β-1,4-glucosidase (BG), β-1,4-xylosidase (BX), cellobiohydrolase (CBH), leucine aminopeptidase (LA), and β-1,4-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG), were measured following the method of Saiya-Cork et al. [25]. The activity of urease was measured using the phenol-sodium hypochlorite colorimetric method. All the absorbance values within the measurement of soil enzyme activities were read using a multimode microplate reader (Fluoroskan ascent FL, Thermo Scientific, Boston, MA, USA). Soil microbes were extracted from the soil using the chloroform fumigation and extraction method [26], and then the microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and nitrogen (MBN) were measured using an elemental analyzer (Elementar Vario EL III CHNOS, Germany).

2.4. Analysis of GHG Fluxes

GHG concentrations were analyzed using a gas chromatograph (Varian CP-3800, Palo Alto, CA, USA) equipped with thermal conductivity (TCD), flame-ionization (FID), and electron capture (ECD) detectors, which assessed the carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) levels. The concentration of GHG was calculated using the following equation: F = β × (c/t) × v × 273/(W × (273 + T)), where F denotes CO2 (mg CO2-C kg−1 h−1), CH4 (ug CH4 kg−1 h−1), or N2O (ug N2O-N kg−1 h−1); β denotes CO2 (1.927), CH4 (0.717), or N2O (1.250) density in a standard state; c/t denotes the CO2 (ppm h−1), CH4 (ppm h−1), or N2O (ppb h−1) accumulation rate; v denotes the volume of the gas in the flask; W denotes the dry weight (Kg) of soil in the flask; T denotes the temperature inside the chamber during the sampling [27].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

All the statistical analyses were performed with the R language (version 4.1.3). For this experiment, as the data violated the normality, we used the nonparametric Wilcoxon paired test to compare the differences in the variables among the treatments [28]. We used the Scheirer–Ray–Hare test to calculate the significance of the effect of soil water content and freeze–thaw treatment [29]. To infer the direct and/or indirect impacts of the soil water content and freeze–thaw treatments on GHG fluxes, we analyzed the correlation between the 17 variables and the GHG fluxes using OLS regressions first, and then the significantly correlated variables combined with the water content and freeze–thaw treatments were used for variance partition based on the hierarchical partitioning theory using the rdacca.hp package [30]. To meet normality for these analyses, we transformed all the variables using the square root (sqrt), log, or BoxCox transformation method (Table S1).

3. Results

3.1. Soil Properties and Enzyme Activities

Our treatments had different influences on soil properties. Soil NH4+-N and TDN were significantly affected by both water content and freeze–thaw treatments, whereas DOC was only significantly affected by the soil water content, while soil pH, NO3−-N, and TN were only significantly affected by the freeze–thaw treatment. In addition, there was a significant effect of soil water content × freeze–thaw treatment interaction on NO3−-N. SOC was not affected by either soil water content or freeze–thaw treatment (Table 1). Across all the freeze–thaw treatments, TDN and DOC decreased with soil water content (Figure 2). As compared to other freeze–thaw treatments, LF had lower soil pH, NH4+-N, and TDN, but higher NO3−-N and TN under most of and across all the soil water content levels (Table 1; Figure 2).
Seven soil enzyme activities were investigated in this study. Soil water content had significant effects on all of them except the urease, and the AG, BG, BX, and CBH activities were increased with soil water content under each freeze–thaw treatment and across all freeze–thaw treatments (Table 2; Figure 3). The NAG activity was increased with soil water content under CK, SFQT, and QFST conditions (Table 2), and the trend between soil water content was positive across all freeze–thaw treatments. Freeze–thaw treatment had a significant effect on five types of soil enzyme activities but did not affect BX or urease (Table 2). Among the freeze–thaw treatments, the LF treatment had the most influence on the enzyme activities. LF had higher enzyme activities for AG, BG, and CBH under each soil water content and across all soil water content levels (Table 2; Figure 3), while it had lower NAG activity under 60% and 100% soil water contents and across all the water content levels (Table 2; Figure 3).

3.2. Soil Microbial Biomass and Soil GHG Fluxes

The soil water content had significant influences on the MBC and MBN and the microbial C/N (Table 3). The MBC decreased with the soil water content under each freeze–thaw treatment and across all the freeze–thaw treatments (Table 3; Figure 4), and MBN content was significantly higher under 30% water content across all the freeze–thaw treatments. The freeze–thaw treatment only had a significant influence on the MBN (Table 4). The soil water content × freeze–thaw treatment interaction significantly affected the MBN. Moreover, the MBN decreased with soil water content under the QFST condition but was significantly reduced by 60% soil water content under the CK condition (Table 3).
The soil water content significantly affected the fluxes of N2O and CO2. However, the trend between soil water content and GHG fluxes was not significant across all freeze–thaw treatments (Table 3; Figure 3). The freeze–thaw treatment significantly affected the fluxes of all the N2O, CH4, and CO2. Across all soil water contents and as compared to the CK, the LF, SFQT, and QFST treatments increased the N2O flux, the LF and QFST reduced the CH4 flux, and the LF decreased but SFQT increased the CO2 flux (Figure 4). The soil water content × freeze–thaw treatment interaction significantly affected the N2O flux (Table 3; Figure 4).
There were no significantly linear relationships found among GHG fluxes (Figure 5), but each GHG had different significantly related factors (Table 4). The N2O flux was negatively related to pH, NH4+-N, BG, and BX and positively related to NO3−-N and MBC. The CH4 flux was negatively related to pH, BG, and CBH and positively related to NH4+-N, SOC, LA, and urease. The CO2 flux was negatively related to TN, AG, BG, CBH, and MBN and positively related to NH4+-N, NAG, and microbial C/N. Considering these significant factors and the effects of the soil water content and freeze–thaw treatments, the variance partition model found that only freeze–thaw treatment, BX, NH4+-N, and BG were significant in terms of predicting the variance of N2O flux, and freeze–thaw treatment was the most important individual predictor (Figure 6a). The pH, LA, NH4+-N, and freeze–thaw treatment were significant in terms of predicting the variance of CH4 flux, and pH was the most important individual predictor (Figure 6b). For CO2 flux, there were eight significant prediction factors, excepting the microbial C/N, soil water content, and LA, and among these eight factors, the freeze–thaw treatment was the most important predictor (Figure 6c).

4. Discussion

4.1. Freeze–Thaw Treatments Increase N2O Flux

In the variation partition analysis, we found that freeze–thaw treatments had the highest explanatory power. It revealed that irregular temperature changes around zero affect N2O flux more than irregular rainfall. Across all the soil water content levels, the freeze–thaw had increased the N2O flux, which is in accordance with the results of Libby et al. [31]. The traditional N2O emission pathways mainly exist in nitrification and denitrification, the substrates of which are NH4+-N and NO3−-N, respectively [32]. However, we found a negative correlation for N2O flux with NH4+-N, which is contrary to the findings of Horák et al. [33], while the positive correlation for N2O flux with NO3−-N is consistent with the findings of Horák et al. [33]. A reasonable explanation may be that the freeze–thaw treatment enhances the nitrification but weakens denitrification. Furthermore, this could also explain the significantly lower NH4+-N level and higher NO3−-N level under LF condition, which was most intense freezing treatment.
In this study, the N2O fluxes of the LF and QFST treatments were significantly higher than that of the CK treatment under 30% and 60% soil water contents, but not 100% soil water content. These results demonstrate that a high soil water content can reduce the effect of freeze–thaw cycles on N2O flux. We suppose the main reason for this is the fact that a high water content in soil can reduce nitrification rates by limiting the oxygen supply to nitrifiers, which may reduce difference among freeze–thaw treatments. This could also explain why the N2O flux for 100% soil water content was smaller than that of 60% soil water content. Moreover, the N2O flux for 30% soil water content was also lower than that of 60% soil water content. This may be because water films in under 30% soil water content conditions are discontinuous around soil particles, which makes substrate diffusion more difficult and limits the nitrification rates [32].
The enzymes BG and BX were significant in individually predicting N2O flux, and both were negatively correlated with N2O flux. These results were quite different to those in the previous studies [34,35,36]. This may be because the microbes were stimulated to produce the enzymes by low temperature [37], rather than being spontaneously produced for nutrient absorption as in field conditions. The more stimulation on microbes by low temperature, the more soil enzymes are produced, which is in contrast to the mechanism in which the N2O flux is increased by enhancing the nitrifiers’ activity. Thus, the correlations of N2O flux with BG and BX activities are negative. Furthermore, the explanation involving lower temperature stimulation could also explain why the activities of AG, BG, BX, CBH, and even urease were all higher for the LF treatment in most of or across all the soil water content levels (Table 2; Figure 3), because the LF treatment had the strongest stimulation on soil microbes.

4.2. Freeze–Thaw Treatments Reduce CH4 Flux

In this study, soil pH was the strongest individual predictor for CH4 flux in the variation partition analysis (Figure 5b), and the CH4 flux was negatively correlated with pH (Table 4). This result has been reported in other ecosystems [38,39,40] and is explained by the fact that microbial methanogenic activity is strongly affected by soil pH [38]. LA activity was positively correlated with CH4 flux and demonstrated significance in the variation partition analysis in explaining CH4 flux. This is because leucine aminopeptidase (LA) is important in carbon degradation [41], which might be significant for CH4 flux in this study.
As compared to soil water content, we found that freeze–thaw treatments had more significant effects on CH4 flux (Table 3; Figure 5b). However, across all the freeze–thaw treatments, CH4 flux was higher at 100% soil water content due to the higher CH4 flux under SFQT and QFST at 100% soil water content (Table 3). This result indicates that high soil water content could enhance CH4 flux during freeze–thaw cycling. This might be due to the soil water, which has a high specific heat capacity [42], and could alleviate the freeze–thaw cycles’ effect on methanogenic activity. Across all the soil water contents, the LF, SFQT, and QFST treatments had significantly lower CH4 fluxes than CK. This may be because the low temperature weakens the methanogenic activity [43,44], as methanogenic microbes are more sensitive to freeze–thaw cycles as compared to other microbes [45].

4.3. Freeze–Thaw Treatments Have Different Impacts on CO2 Flux

Soil CO2 is normally produced by soil respiration and represents the most important component of GHGs. Moreover, it has a much longer lifetime than other GHGs [46]. The variation partition analysis showed that the freeze–thaw treatment had the highest individual effect in predicting the CO2 flux (Figure 6c). The effect of different freeze–thaw treatments on CO2 flux was different to the effect on N2O and CH4 fluxes. Among the freeze–thaw treatments, LF had a significantly lower CO2 flux than the other treatments under each soil water content and across all the soil water content levels, and SFQT had a higher CO2 flux across all the soil water content levels. It is obvious that LF, as the long-term freezing treatment at −10 °C, reduces soil respiration [47,48]; however, this cannot properly explain the CO2 flux of SFQT, which also underwent a freezing incubation period during the experiment and was higher than that of CK, LF, and QFST across all the water content levels. Elberling [49] found that certain groups of soil microbes demonstrated activity around freezing; thus, the produced CO2 might be accumulated in freezing soil and, in our experimental setting, could be emitted after warming [50]. Despite QFST being a similar treatment to SFQT, we did not find its CO2 flux to be higher than that of CK. The main reason for that is the fact that the QFST treatment comprised lower temperature at freezing and warmer temperature at thawing, and the thawing had a much longer experimental duration. Hence, CO2 accumulation was low, and the emission time lasted long after thawing for QFST treatment.
We found that the higher CO2 flux for SFQT was obvious under 30% water content (higher than all other freeze–thaw treatments) and 60% water content (higher than LF and QFST); however, it was not obvious under 100% water content. This result demonstrates that a high water soil content can reduce the effect of SFQT on CO2 flux. We also found that across all freeze–thaw treatments, the CO2 flux under 60% water content was higher than that under 30% and 100% soil water contents. The explanation for this is similar to that of the N2O flux, i.e., a reduced substrate diffusion under 30% soil water content and a reduced oxygen supply to decomposers under 100% soil water content.
CO2 flux had eight significant individual explanation factors in the variation partition analysis, including the activities of four soil enzymes. Among these four enzymes, CO2 flux was negatively correlated with AG, BG, and CBH but positively correlated with NAG. NAG is an enzyme that degrades chitin, which is the main component of fungal cell walls and the second most abundant polysaccharide in natural soil [51]. A previous study found that the activity of NAG was positively correlated with fungal biomass [52] and that fungal biomass was also positively correlated with CO2 flux [53]. This can explain why the CO2 flux had a positive correlation with NAG. AG, BG, and CBH had a negative correlation with CO2 flux, as reported in the freeze–thaw experiment of Gao et al. [54]. The main reason for this is that freezing or low temperatures can stimulate the microbes to produce enzymes [37]; the stronger the stimulation, the more enzymes are produced by microbes, and the more microbial respiration is inhibited. This was why there was a negative correlation between CO2 flux and these three enzyme activities.

4.4. The Changes in Soil Nutrients, Enzyme Activities, and Soil Microbes

In this study, we found that soil TDN and DOC were decreased with soil water content. This was previously reported in Niboyet et al. [55] and Zhang et al. [56]. Because both TDN and DOC are dissolved matter, they are normally lost from the soil via leaching [57], and that leads to increasing soil water contents and reduces the TDN and DOC concentrations. The other three freeze–thaw treatments exhibited the same trend as CK, i.e., reduced DOC across all soil water content levels (Table 1; Figure 2). This might be because the freeze–thaw cycle can stimulate the soil carbon decomposition by carbon-source-decomposing bacteria, which accelerates the DOC consumption and adsorption [58,59].
Soil water content also significantly affected the NH4+-N concentration. The NH4+-N concentration was higher under 100% soil water content across all freeze–thaw treatments. This result is contrary to the results reported by Wu et al. [60], who found that precipitation decreased the soil NH4+-N. However, the increase in the NH4+-N concentration under 100% soil water content did not happen under CK, but was observed under the LF, SFQT, and QFST treatments, wherein the mean concentration increased approximately twofold as compared to under 30% and 60% soil water content levels. We supposed that a high water content enhances the positive effect of freezing on the NH4+-N concentration. Across all soil water content levels, LF reduced the NH4+-N and TDN concentrations as compared to other freeze–thaw treatments; however, this was to a lesser extent and was not significant as compared to SFQT. Moreover, LF increased the NO3−-N and TN concentrations. These results demonstrated that long-term freezing (LF) soil had a lower mineralization, which resulted in TN not being mineralized and lower TDN and NH4+-N concentrations. Furthermore, we also supposed that the denitrification of NO3−-N was weakened under the LF condition due to the extent of freezing leading to a higher NO3−-N concentration [61].
The activities of AG, BG, BX, and CBH increased with soil water content under most of and across all freeze–thaw treatments, and NAG also exhibited a similar trend. All these five enzymes are involved in the degradation of cellulose [62], which is the major component of plant litter. The QTP is characterized as having low amounts of available soil nutrients [63], which indicates that these soil enzyme activities are important in maintaining nutrient cycling in this ecosystem. Previous studies have found that water exclusion weakens soil enzyme activities [64,65], which is consistent with our results. The MBC decreased with soil water content under each freeze–thaw treatment and across all freeze–thaw treatments in this study (Table 3; Figure 4). This result conflicts with the field experiment results of Dietrich et al. [66] and Bhanwaria et al. [67]. A possible reason for this may be that our incubation experiment did not involve growing plants, which breaks the water–plant–microbe linkages under increasing soil water, causing no carbon resources to be secreted by plant roots for microbial growth when water-enriched [68]. Moreover, an excessive water content in soil can suppress the microbial oxygen supply for microbe and nutrient uptake, thus causing the microbial biomass carbon to decrease in this study.

5. Conclusions

This study has important implications for predicting the future impact of irregular climate change on the eastern edge of the QTP. Our findings demonstrated that both N2O and CO2 fluxes were significantly influenced by soil water content and freeze–thaw treatments, wherein the 60% soil water content level exhibited higher GHG fluxes. As compared to the control treatment, the LF, SFQT, and QFST freeze–thaw treatments exhibited higher N2O flux, and the LF treatment reduced but the SFQT increased the CO2 flux. CH4 flux was only significantly influenced by the freeze–thaw treatments, i.e., the LF, SFQT, and QFST freeze–thaw treatments reduced CH4 flux. We also found that soil water content and freeze–thaw treatment impacted various soil properties, enzyme activities, and microbial biomass values; however, the variation partition analysis revealed that the variance in N2O and CO2 fluxes could, for the most part, be individually predicted by freeze–thaw treatment, and the variance in CH4 flux could mostly be individually predicted by soil pH, which was also only significantly influenced by the freeze–thaw treatments. Therefore, our results demonstrate that the freeze–thaw cycles have more of an effect on GHG flux than soil water content on the eastern edge of the QTP, while the effects of freeze–thaw cycles on N2O, CH4, and CO2 were shown to be quite different.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15020928/s1, Table S1: The method for data transformation for each variable in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Z. and Y.Y.; methodology, S.Z. and J.W.; software, W.B.; validation, S.Z., J.W. and M.Q.; formal analysis, S.Z. and X.Y.; investigation, S.Z. and W.B.; resources, S.Z. and X.Y.; data curation, S.Z. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Z.; writing—review and editing, M.Q; visualization, S.Z. and M.Q.; supervision, Y.Y.; project administration, J.W.; funding acquisition, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2021YJ0338), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (lzujbky-2021-kb10), the Science and Technology Program of Tibet Autonomous Region (XZ202201ZY0005N), and the Fundamental Research Funds of China West Normal University (19E048 and 19E056).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

QTPQinghai-Tibetan Plateau
GHGgreenhouse gas
N2Onitrous oxide
CH4methane
CO2carbon dioxide
WCwater content
FTTfreeze–thaw treatment
CKcontrol
LFlong-term freezing
SFQTslow freeze and quick thaw
QFSTquick freeze and slow thaw
TDNtotal dissolved nitrogen
TNtotal nitrogen
DOCdissolved organic carbon
SOCsoil organic carbon
AGαG1,4-glucosidase
BGβG1,4-glucosidase
BXβX1,4-xylosidase
CBHcellobiohydrolase
LAleucine aminopeptidase
NAGβAG,4-N-acetylglucosaminidase
MBCmicrobial biomass carbon
MBNmicrobial biomass nitrogen
OLSordinary least squares

References

  1. He, J.; Dong, S.; Shang, Z.; Sundqvist, M.K.; Wu, G.; Yang, Y. Above-belowground interactions in alpine ecosystems on the roof of the world. Plant Soil 2021, 458, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, X.; Yu, H.; Liu, Q.; Xu, L. Land Use-Driven Changes in Ecosystem Service Values and Simulation of Future Scenarios: A Case Study of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, B.; Zu, J.; Zhang, H.; Ding, M.; Paudel, B. Increasing sensitivity of alpine grasslands to climate variability along an elevational gradient on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zhu, B.; Zhang, Z.; Tian, J.; Kong, R.; Chen, X. Increasing Negative Impacts of Climatic Change and Anthropogenic Activities on Vegetation Variation on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau during 1982–2019. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, J.; Yan, F.; Lu, Q. Spatiotemporal Variation of Vegetation on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau and the Influence of Climatic Factors and Human Activities on Vegetation Trend (2000–2019). Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Duan, A.; Wu, G.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y. New proofs of the recent climate warming over the Tibetan Plateau as a result of the increasing greenhouse gases emissions. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2006, 51, 1396–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Panchasara, H.; Samrat, N.H.; Islam, N. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends and Mitigation Measures in Australian Agriculture Sector—A Review. Agriculture 2021, 11, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jing, X.; Sanders, N.J.; Shi, Y.; Chu, H.; Classen, A.T.; Zhao, K.; Chen, L.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, Y.; He, J.S. The links between ecosystem multifunctionality and above- and belowground biodiversity are mediated by climate. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Ben-Noah, I.; Friedman, S.P. Review and evaluation of root respiration and of natural and agricultural processes of soil aeration. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Schulz-Zunkel, C.; Krüger, F. Trace Metal Dynamics in Floodplain Soils of the River Elbe: A Review. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 1349–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ye, C.; Guo, Z.; Cai, C.; Wang, J.; Deng, J. Effect of water content, bulk density, and aggregate size on mechanical characteristics of Aquults soil blocks and aggregates from subtropical China. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 17, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Manzoni, S.; Schimel, J.P.; Porporato, A. Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: Results from a meta-analysis. Ecology 2012, 93, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schaufler, G.; Kitzler, B.; Schindlbacher, A.; Skiba, U.; Sutton, M.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from European soils under different land use: Effects of soil moisture and temperature. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, Z.; Chen, K.; Liu, F.; Che, Z. Effects of Rainfall on the Characteristics of Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Wetland of Qinghai Lake. Atmos 2022, 13, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Darenova, E.; Cater, M.; Pavelka, M. Different harvest intensity and soil CO2 efflux in sessile oak coppice forests. Iforest-Biogeosci. For. 2016, 9, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Li, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Qiao, Y.; Du, K.; Li, Z.; Tian, C.; Zhu, N.; Peifang, L.; Yue, Z.; Cheng, H.; et al. Trade-offs between high yields and soil CO2 emissions in semi-humid maize cropland in northern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 221, 105412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grogan, P.; Michelsen, A.; Ambus, P.; Jonasson, S. Freeze–thaw regime effects on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in sub-arctic heath tundra mesocosms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 641–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Grogan, P.; Jonasson, S. Controls on annual nitrogen cycling in the understory of a subarctic birch forest. Ecology 2003, 84, 202–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lipson, D.A.; Schmidt, S.K.; Monson, R.K. Links between microbial population dynamics and nitrogen availability in an alpine ecosystem. Ecology 1999, 80, 1623–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Risk, N.; Snider, D.; Wagner-Riddle, C. Mechanisms leading to enhanced soil nitrous oxide fluxes induced by freeze–thaw cycles. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2013, 93, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, X. Effect of freeze–thaw disturbance on soil C and N dynamics and GHG fluxes of East Asia forests: Review and future perspectives. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 68, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, X.; Wang, F.; Li, T.; Fu, B.; Lv, Y.; Liu, G. Nitrogen additions increase N2O emissions but reduce soil respiration and CH4 uptake during freeze–thaw cycles in an alpine meadow. Geoderma 2020, 363, 114157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, Z.; Ge, S.; Zhang, Z.; Du, Y.; Yao, B.; Xie, H.; Liu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Zhou, H. Soil Moisture but Not Warming Dominates Nitrous Oxide Emissions during Freeze–Thaw Cycles in a Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau Alpine Meadow with Discontinuous Permafrost. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 676027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bai, J.; Hou, P.; Jin, D.; Zhai, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhao, J. Habitat Suitability Assessment of Black-Necked Crane (Grus nigricollis) in the Zoige Grassland Wetland Ecological Function Zone on the Eastern Tibetan Plateau. Diversity 2022, 14, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Saiya-Cork, K.; Sinsabaugh, R.; Zak, D. The effects of long term nitrogen deposition on extracellular enzyme activity in an Acer saccharum forest soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1309–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vance, E.D.; Brookes, P.C.; Jenkinson, D.S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 703–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cuello, J.P.; Hwang, H.Y.; Gutierrez, J.; Kim, S.Y.; Kim, P.J. Impact of plastic film mulching on increasing greenhouse gas emissions in temperate upland soil during maize cultivation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015, 91, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bauer, D.F. Constructing Confidence Sets Using Rank Statistics. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1972, 67, 687–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J.; Rohlf, J.F. Biometry, 3rd ed.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lai, J.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, J.; Peres-Neto, P.R. Generalizing hierarchical and variation partitioning in multiple regression and canonical analyses using the rdacca. hp R package. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2022, 13, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Libby, M.D.; VanderZaag, A.C.; Gregorich, E.G.; Wagner-Riddle, C. An improved laboratory method shows that freezing intensity increases N2O emissions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2020, 100, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, W.H.; Hall, S.J.; McNicol, G. Global gases. In Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology, 3rd ed.; Gentry, T.J., Fuhrmann, J.J., Zuberer, D.A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 557–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Horák, J.; Kotuš, T.; Toková, L.; Aydın, E.; Igaz, D.; Šimanský, V. A Sustainable Approach for Improving Soil Properties and Reducing N2O Emissions Is Possible through Initial and Repeated Biochar Application. Agronomy 2021, 11, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wick, B.; Veldkamp, E.; De Mello, W.; Keller, M.; Crill, P. Nitrous oxide fluxes and nitrogen cycling along a pasture chronosequence in Central Amazonia, Brazil. Biogeosciences 2005, 2, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Shrestha, B.M.; Bork, E.W.; Chang, S.X.; Carlyle, C.N.; Ma, Z.; Döbert, T.F.; Kaliaskar, D.; Boyce, M.S. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing lowers soil greenhouse gas emission potential by altering extracellular enzyme activity. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, Q.; Li, J.; Aamer, M.; Huang, G. Effect of chinese milk vetch (Astragalus sinicus L.) and rice straw incorporated in paddy soil on greenhouse gas emission and soil properties. Agronomy 2020, 10, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Waldrop, M.; Firestone, M. Altered utilization patterns of young and old soil C by microorganisms caused by temperature shifts and N additions. Biogeochemistry 2004, 67, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zalman, C.; Keller, J.; Tfaily, M.; Kolton, M.; Pfeifer-Meister, L.; Wilson, R.; Lin, X.; Chanton, J.; Kostka, J.; Gill, A.; et al. Small differences in ombrotrophy control regional-scale variation in methane cycling among Sphagnum-dominated peatlands. Biogeochemistry 2018, 139, 155–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Weslien, P.; Kasimir Klemedtsson, Å.; Börjesson, G.; Klemedtsson, L. Strong pH influence on N2O and CH4 fluxes from forested organic soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2009, 60, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wormald, R.M.; Rout, S.P.; Mayes, W.; Gomes, H.; Humphreys, P.N. Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis under alkaline conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 614227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wilson, J.S.; Baldwin, D.S.; Rees, G.N.; Wilson, B.P. The effects of short-term inundation on carbon dynamics, microbial community structure and microbial activity in floodplain soil. River Res. Appl. 2011, 27, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Willis, W.; Carlson, C.; Alessi, J.; Haas, H. Depth of freezing and spring run-off as related to fall soil-moisture level. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1961, 41, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sharma, S.; Szele, Z.; Schilling, R.; Munch, J.C.; Schloter, M. Influence of freeze-thaw stress on the structure and function of microbial communities and denitrifying populations in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 2148–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Seneesrisakul, K.; Sutabutr, T.; Chavadej, S. The Effect of Temperature on the Methanogenic Activity in Relation to Micronutrient Availability. Energies 2018, 11, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Ren, J.; Song, C.; Hou, A.; Song, Y.; Zhu, X.; Cagle, G.A. Shifts in soil bacterial and archaeal communities during freeze-thaw cycles in a seasonal frozen marsh, Northeast China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 782–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Montzka, S.A.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Butler, J.H. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature 2011, 476, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Azizi-Rad, M.; Guggenberger, G.; Ma, Y.; Sierra, C.A. Sensitivity of soil respiration rate with respect to temperature, moisture and oxygen under freezing and thawing. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 165, 108488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gao, X.; Zhao, N.; Lu, Y.; Han, X.; Yang, Z. Effects of Supplementary Irrigation on Soil Respiration of Millet Farmland in a Semi-Arid Region in China. Atmos 2022, 13, 1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Elberling, B. Seasonal trends of soil CO2 dynamics in a soil subject to freezing. J. Hydrol. 2003, 276, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lv, J.; Liu, X.; Liu, H.; Wang, X.; Li, K.; Tian, C.; Christie, P. Greenhouse gas intensity and net annual global warming potential of cotton cropping systems in an extremely arid region. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2014, 98, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nelson, D.L. Carbohydrates and Glycobiology. In Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 8th ed.; W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 2021; p. 956. [Google Scholar]
  52. Miller, M.; Palojärvi, A.; Rangger, A.; Reeslev, M.; Kjøller, A. The use of fluorogenic substrates to measure fungal presence and activity in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 613–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhou, G.; Zhou, X.; Liu, R.; Du, Z.; Zhou, L.; Li, S.; Liu, H.; Shao, J.; Wang, J.; Nie, Y.; et al. Soil fungi and fine root biomass mediate drought-induced reductions in soil respiration. Funct. Ecol. 2020, 34, 2634–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gao, D.; Liu, Z.; Bai, E. Effects of in situ freeze-thaw cycles on winter soil respiration in mid-temperate plantation forests. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 793, 148567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Niboyet, A.; Bardoux, G.; Barot, S.; Bloor, J.M. Elevated CO2 mediates the short-term drought recovery of ecosystem function in low-diversity grassland systems. Plant Soil 2017, 420, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, Q.; Zhou, J.; Li, X.; Liu, C.; Lin, W.; Zheng, W.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Y. Nitrogen addition accelerates the nitrogen cycle in a young subtropical Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) plantation. Ann. For. Sci. 2019, 76, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Gmach, M.R.; Cherubin, M.R.; Kaiser, K.; Cerri, C.E.P. Processes that influence dissolved organic matter in the soil: A review. Sci. Agric. 2019, 77, e20180164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zou, Y.; Zhang, S.; Huo, L.; Sun, G.; Lu, X.; Jiang, M.; Yu, X. Wetland saturation with introduced Fe (III) reduces total carbon emissions and promotes the sequestration of DOC. Geoderma 2018, 325, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Song, Y.; Zou, Y.; Wang, G.; Yu, X. Altered soil carbon and nitrogen cycles due to the freeze-thaw effect: A meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 109, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wu, Q.; Yue, K.; Ma, Y.; Hedenec, P.; Cai, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, H.; Shao, J.; Chang, S.X.; Li, Y. Contrasting effects of altered precipitation regimes on soil nitrogen cycling at the global scale. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 6679–6695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Halmø, G.; Eimhjellen, K. Low temperature removal of nitrate by bacterial denitrification. Water Res. 1981, 15, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Moorhead, D.L.; Sinsabaugh, R.L. A theoretical model of litter decay and microbial interaction. Ecol. Monogr. 2006, 76, 151–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhao, X.-Q.; Zhou, X.-M. Ecological basis of alpine meadow ecosystem management in Tibet: Haibei alpine meadow ecosystem research station. Ambio 1999, 28, 642–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhou, X.; Chen, C.; Wang, Y.; Xu, Z.; Han, H.; Li, L.; Wan, S. Warming and increased precipitation have differential effects on soil extracellular enzyme activities in a temperate grassland. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 444, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Sardans, J.; Peñuelas, J. Soil Enzyme Activity in a Mediterranean Forest after Six Years of Drought. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 838–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Dietrich, P.; Buchmann, T.; Cesarz, S.; Eisenhauer, N.; Roscher, C. Fertilization, soil and plant community characteristics determine soil microbial activity in managed temperate grasslands. Plant Soil 2017, 419, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bhanwaria, R.; Singh, B.; Musarella, C.M. Effect of organic manure and moisture regimes on soil physiochemical properties, microbial biomass Cmic:Nmic:Pmic turnover and yield of mustard grains in arid climate. Plants 2022, 11, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Tiziani, R.; Miras-Moreno, B.; Malacrinò, A.; Vescio, R.; Lucini, L.; Mimmo, T.; Cesco, S.; Sorgonà, A. Drought, heat, and their combination impact the root exudation patterns and rhizosphere microbiome in maize roots. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 203, 105071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 00928 g001 550
Figure 1. Sample site (a) and temperature and incubation time for different freeze–thaw treatments (b–e).
Figure 1. Sample site (a) and temperature and incubation time for different freeze–thaw treatments (b–e).
Sustainability 15 00928 g001
Sustainability 15 00928 g002 550
Figure 2. The soil properties under different soil water content or freeze–thaw condition. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. CK, control; LF, long-term freezing; SFQT, slow freeze and quick thaw; QFST, quick freeze and slow thaw. DON, dissolved organic nitrogen; TN, total nitrogen; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; SOC, soil organic carbon.
Figure 2. The soil properties under different soil water content or freeze–thaw condition. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. CK, control; LF, long-term freezing; SFQT, slow freeze and quick thaw; QFST, quick freeze and slow thaw. DON, dissolved organic nitrogen; TN, total nitrogen; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; SOC, soil organic carbon.
Sustainability 15 00928 g002
Sustainability 15 00928 g003 550
Figure 3. The soil enzyme activities under different soil water content or freeze–thaw condition. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. AG, α-1,4-glucosidase; BG, β-1,4-glucosidase; BX, β-1,4-xylosidase; CBH, cellobiohydrolase; LA, leucine amiopeptidase; NAG, β-1,4-N-acetylglucosaminidase.
Figure 3. The soil enzyme activities under different soil water content or freeze–thaw condition. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. AG, α-1,4-glucosidase; BG, β-1,4-glucosidase; BX, β-1,4-xylosidase; CBH, cellobiohydrolase; LA, leucine amiopeptidase; NAG, β-1,4-N-acetylglucosaminidase.
Sustainability 15 00928 g003
Sustainability 15 00928 g004 550
Figure 4. The soil microbial biomass and GHG fluxes under different soil water content or freeze–thaw condition. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test.
Figure 4. The soil microbial biomass and GHG fluxes under different soil water content or freeze–thaw condition. Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test.
Sustainability 15 00928 g004
Sustainability 15 00928 g005 550
Figure 5. Linear relationships among GHG fluxes. The dark red fitted lines are from OLS regression. Shaded areas show 95% confidence interval of the fit.
Figure 5. Linear relationships among GHG fluxes. The dark red fitted lines are from OLS regression. Shaded areas show 95% confidence interval of the fit.
Sustainability 15 00928 g005
Sustainability 15 00928 g006 550
Figure 6. The percentage of variance of GHGs explained by correlated variables using variation partition analysis (VPA). Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Figure 6. The percentage of variance of GHGs explained by correlated variables using variation partition analysis (VPA). Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Sustainability 15 00928 g006
Table
Table 1. The effects of water content and freeze–thaw treatment on the soil properties.
Table 1. The effects of water content and freeze–thaw treatment on the soil properties.
WCFTTpHNH4+-N (mg kg−1)NO3−-N (mg kg−1)TDN (mg kg−1)TN (g kg−1)DOC (mg kg−1)SOC (g kg−1)
30%CK4.83 ± 0.09 ab19.1 ± 2.9 ab4.1 ± 0.4 abcd32.2 ± 1.6 a3.1 ± 0.2 ab57.5 ± 5.0 a50.4 ± 3.4 ab
LF4.62 ± 0.09 ab2.6 ± 0.2 c32.0 ± 5.2 e22.7 ± 0.8 bc3.8 ± 0.2 c48.3 ± 3.9 b50.1 ± 2.9 a
SFQT5.11 ± 0.08 a7.7 ± 1.2 d4.5 ± 0.6 abcd26.8 ± 1.0 d2.8 ± 0.2 ad48.4 ± 3.7 b49.2 ± 2.9 abc
QFST4.90 ± 0.11 a8.9 ± 1.2 de3.6 ± 0.6 ab29.1 ± 0.8 ad3.0 ± 0.2 ad42.8 ± 2.9 bc49.5 ± 3.1 ab
60%CK4.71 ± 0.10 b18.7 ± 5.1 abe5.2 ± 0.6 cd26.0 ± 1.3 bd3.0 ± 0.2 abd39.5 ± 5.2 cd49.3 ± 3.5 abc
LF4.58 ± 0.09 c2.7 ± 0.2 c25.1 ± 7.5 ace16.5 ± 0.8 e3.9 ± 0.2 c34.4 ± 2.5 d49.7 ± 2.7 ab
SFQT5.10 ± 0.08 ab9.7 ± 2.1 ade4.8 ± 0.4 abcd19.8 ± 1.1 f3.3 ± 0.1 be32.1 ± 2.1 de48.1 ± 3.4 abc
QFST4.81 ± 0.08 ab9.2 ± 1.7 de5.4 ± 0.6 cd22.1 ± 1.0 cf3.1 ± 0.1 abd29.4 ± 1.5 ef48.0 ± 3.8 abc
100%CK5.16 ± 0.10 a22.3 ± 7.1 abde3.3 ± 1.0 cbd7.1 ± 1.6 g3.0 ± 0.2 ad36.8 ± 4.7 cde47.8 ± 2.3 bc
LF4.57 ± 0.10 c7.0 ± 1.5 de18.4 ± 7.4 abcde8.2 ± 1.1 g3.6 ± 0.3 e26.5 ± 1.9 f48.2 ± 3.2 abc
SFQT4.78 ± 0.10 a15.7 ± 2.2 ab4.9 ± 0.6 cd8.9 ± 1.7 g2.9 ± 0.2 ad28.1 ± 2.0 ef45.7 ± 3.1 c
QFST4.89 ± 0.08 a28.7 ± 4.9 b6.2 ± 0.9 ac8.8 ± 1.7 g2.8 ± 0.2 d29.7 ± 1.8 ef48.0 ± 3.0 abc
Effect of WC 0.2140.0030.641<0.0010.490<0.0010.388
Effect of FTT 0.001<0.0010.0360.024<0.0010.0990.852
Effect of WC × FTT0.7990.1440.0290.4470.9980.8101.000
Data are means ± SE (n = 12). Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. The significant effect of water content, freeze-thaw type, and their interaction are tested by Scheirer–Ray–Hare test. Note: WC, water content; FTT, freeze–thaw treatment; CK, control; LF, long-term freezing; SFQT, slow freeze and quick thaw; QFST, quick freeze and slow thaw; TDN, total dissolved nitrogen; TN, total nitrogen; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; SOC, soil organic carbon.
Table
Table 2. The effects of soil water content and freeze–thaw treatment on the soil enzyme activities.
Table 2. The effects of soil water content and freeze–thaw treatment on the soil enzyme activities.
WCFTTAGBGBXCBHLANAGUrease
30%CK0.6 ± 0.1 a11.6 ± 2.0 ab15.3 ± 4.1 abcd6.1 ± 0.8 a10.2 ± 1.0 abc14.8 ± 1.6 a37.2 ± 1.0 abcde
LF3.3 ± 0.7 b21. 6 ± 2.7 cd23.4 ± 1.9 abcd32.4 ± 4.5 bc14.0 ± 0.6 d19.1 ± 1.9 ab38.6 ± 1.7 ab
SFQT0.7 ± 0.1 ac9.7 ± 1.8 ab18.0 ± 1.7 ab8.1 ± 0.7 d12.2 ± 1.0 ade15.2 ± 1.5 ab36.5 ± 1.5 acde
QFST0.8 ± 0.1 acd9.0 ± 1.4 ab17.9 ± 2.0 abcd8.6 ± 1.3 ade11.6 ± 1.0 abd16.6 ± 1.6 ab37.8 ± 1.5 abcd
60%CK1.0 ± 0.1 acd14.2 ± 4.0 ac27.1 ± 8.7 acef24.3 ± 4.2 b8.7 ± 0.8 efh73.0 ± 16.2 c40.8 ± 1.8 b
LF45.2 ± 5.6 e35.6 ± 4.8 ef26.8 ± 4.2 cdeg45.5 ± 5.5 cfg3.5 ± 0.3 h1.6 ± 0.3 d38.0 ± 1.8 abcd
SFQT1.3 ± 0.2 df12.5 ± 3.7 ab16.9 ± 7.6 bd21.5 ± 5.9 bdeh9.5 ± 1.5 abcefg54.8 ± 14.0 ce37.0 ± 1.8 acde
QFST1.1 ± 0.2 cd10.7 ± 3.0 b21.1 ± 7.9 bdg21.2 ± 5.9 beh8.8 ± 1.1 bcfg34.2 ± 10.2 bf35.3 ± 1.3 cde
100%CK2.1 ± 0.2 bf27.1 ± 2.4 de36.6 ± 3.1 efg50.9 ± 8.8 cfg11.3 ± 0.7 abef49.8 ± 13.0 e33.4 ± 1.5 e
LF79.1 ± 6.6 g58.7 ± 10.2 f61.4 ± 8.8 h67.8 ± 8.0 f7.3 ± 1.0 cg11.4 ± 5.5 ad39.0 ± 2.5 abc
SFQT2.1 ± 0.3 bf29.7 ± 3.4 e47.3 ± 4.8 fh38.6 ± 3.8 gh11.4 ± 1.0 abef48.8 ± 10.2 cef35.0 ± 1.6 de
QFST2.0 ± 0.2 bf31.6 ± 3.5 e54.6 ± 5.3 h43.5 ± 6.1 gh12.1 ± 0.5 ab73.3 ± 11.3 ce35.3 ± 0.8 cde
Effect of WC <0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0020.186
Effect of FTT <0.001<0.0010.249<0.0010.046<0.0010.447
Effect of WC × FTT0.8610.7120.6980.7170.002<0.0010.296
Data are means ± SE (n = 12). Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. The significant effect of water content, freeze-thaw type, and their interaction are tested by Scheirer–Ray–Hare test. Note: AG, α-1,4-glucosidase; BG, β-1,4-glucosidase; BX, β-1,4-xylosidase; CBH, cellobiohydrolase; LA, leucine aminopeptidase; NAG, β-1,4-N-acetylglucosaminidase.
Table
Table 3. The effects of water content and freeze–thaw treatment on the soil microbial biomass of C, N, C: N, and GHG fluxes.
Table 3. The effects of water content and freeze–thaw treatment on the soil microbial biomass of C, N, C: N, and GHG fluxes.
WCFTTMBCMBNMicrobial C/NN2OCH4CO2
30%CK490.1 ± 31.2 a25.4 ± 2.5 ab21.6 ± 2.6 abc0.81 ± 0.08 abcd0.90 ± 0.05 abc0.77 ± 0.07 abc
LF603.0 ± 27.3 b27.4 ± 3.1 a24.7 ± 2.4 abc24.03 ± 10.12 efg0.81 ± 0.02 abdef0.55 ± 0.01 de
SFQT565.8 ± 21.7 b17.8 ± 2.4 cd40.5 ± 6.8 d1.60 ± 0.55 abe0.81 ± 0.02 def1.29 ± 0.08 f
QFST600.7 ± 18.0 b29.6 ± 3.0 a22.7 ± 2.3 ab2.71 ± 0.77 cdfh0.82 ± 0.02 ade0.67 ± 0.04 a
60%CK382.6 ± 29.1 cde15 ± 2.9.0 bcde34.3 ± 5.1 ad0.71 ± 0.15 ac0.84 ± 0.01 abcdf1.06 ± 0.11 fgh
LF458.6 ± 13.9 acd20.6 ± 3.0 abcde27.9 ± 3.9 abd14.16 ± 7.01 bdefhgi0.81 ± 0.02 de0.55 ± 0.01 d
SFQT438.4 ± 17.5 acd18.4 ± 1.1 ce24.5 ± 1.4 a9.18 ± 3.04 gi0.79 ± 0.03 def1.34 ± 0.17 fg
QFST442.4 ± 28.3 ac22.7 ± 2.1 abe21.2 ± 2.2 abc6.74 ± 2.31 fghi0.79 ± 0.02 de0.92 ± 0.06 bh
100%CK366.6 ± 38.9 def23.0 ± 2.8 abce17.7 ± 1.8 ce5.63 ± 3.25 abcdhi0.86 ± 0.01 bc0.88 ± 0.10 abch
LF359.5 ± 17.4 ef27.5 ± 3.1 a14.8 ± 1.6 e1.46 ± 0.38 abcd0.80 ± 0.01 e0.53 ± 0.01 d
SFQT341.1 ± 20.8 ef17.8 ± 1.1 cde19.5 ± 1.1 bc2.22 ± 0.84 abcdefh0.86 ± 0.03 c0.87 ± 0.13 abcegh
QFST311.2 ± 27.9 f15.2 ± 1.6 d21.3 ± 1.7 bc0.81 ± 0.11 ac0.85 ± 0.01 bcf0.78 ± 0.03 c
Effect of WC <0.0010.009<0.0010.0360.1060.035
Effect of FTT 0.2710.0440.1030.0280.010<0.001
Effect of WC × FTT0.4870.0070.0510.0090.8570.074
Data are means ± SE (n = 12). Different letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences tested by Wilcox test. The significant effect of water content, freeze-thaw type, and their interaction are tested by Scheirer–Ray–Hare test. Note: MBC, microbial biomass carbon; MBN, microbial biomass nitrogen.
Table
Table 4. Correlation between GHG fluxes and soil properties, enzymes activities, and soil microbes using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Table 4. Correlation between GHG fluxes and soil properties, enzymes activities, and soil microbes using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
VariablesN2OCH4CO2
rp-Valuerp-Valuerp-Value
pH−0.1730.039−0.423<0.001−0.0120.891
NH4+-N−0.2110.0110.2780.0010.372<0.001
NO3−-N0.2050.0140.0760.367−0.1420.089
TDN0.0950.2580.0200.8140.1060.204
TN0.0510.543−0.1460.080−0.311<0.001
DOC0.0610.4690.0820.3280.1030.221
SOC0.0750.3700.2010.0160.0120.886
AG−0.0190.824−0.0320.705−0.425<0.001
BG−0.2160.009−0.2070.013−0.422<0.001
BX−0.2650.001−0.0160.847−0.1140.172
CBH−0.1320.114−0.1800.031−0.396<0.001
LA0.0560.5040.2810.0010.1800.031
NAG−0.0090.9170.1110.1870.379<0.001
Urease0.0680.4210.1910.0220.0320.703
MBC0.2130.010−0.0510.547-0.0960.253
MBN0.0170.836−0.0780.356−0.304<0.001
Microbial C/N0.1210.1470.0310.7160.2570.002
Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, S.; Qin, M.; Yang, X.; Bai, W.; Yao, Y.; Wang, J. Freeze–Thaw Cycles Have More of an Effect on Greenhouse Gas Fluxes than Soil Water Content on the Eastern Edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Sustainability 2023, 15, 928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020928

AMA Style

Zhao S, Qin M, Yang X, Bai W, Yao Y, Wang J. Freeze–Thaw Cycles Have More of an Effect on Greenhouse Gas Fluxes than Soil Water Content on the Eastern Edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020928

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Shanshan, Mingsen Qin, Xia Yang, Wenke Bai, Yunfeng Yao, and Junqiang Wang. 2023. "Freeze–Thaw Cycles Have More of an Effect on Greenhouse Gas Fluxes than Soil Water Content on the Eastern Edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020928

APA Style

Zhao, S., Qin, M., Yang, X., Bai, W., Yao, Y., & Wang, J. (2023). Freeze–Thaw Cycles Have More of an Effect on Greenhouse Gas Fluxes than Soil Water Content on the Eastern Edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Sustainability, 15(2), 928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020928

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop