The Scientific World JournalVolume 2012 (2012), Article ID 620270, 8 pagesdoi:10.1100/2012/620270

Research Article

Methane Production and Consumption in Loess Soil at Different Slope Position

Małgorzata Brzezińska, Magdalena Nosalewicz, Marek Pasztelan, and Teresa Włodarczyk

Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ulica Doświadczalna 4, 20290 Lublin, Poland

Received 31 October 2011; Accepted 2 January 2012

Academic Editor: Hubert Hasenauer

Copyright © 2012 Małgorzata Brzezińska et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Methane (CH₄) production and consumption and soil respiration in loess soils collected from summit (Top), back slope (Middle), and slope bottom (Bottom) positions were assessed in laboratory incubations. The CH₄ production potential was determined under conditions which can occur in the field (relatively short-term flooding periods with initially ambient O₂ concentrations), and the CH₄ oxidation potential was estimated in wet soils enriched with CH₄. None of the soils tested in this study emitted a significant amount of CH₄. In fact, the Middle and Bottom soils, especially at the depth of 20–40 cm, were a consistent sink of methane. Soils collected at different slope positions significantly differed in their methanogenic, methanotrophic, and respiration activities. In comparison with the Top position (as reference soil), methane production and both CO₂ production and O₂ consumption under flooding were significantly stimulated in the soil from the Middle slope position (), while they were reduced in the Bottom soil (not significantly, by 6 to 57%). All upper soils (0–20 cm) completely oxidized the added methane (5 kPa) during 9–11 days of incubation. Soils collected from the 20–40 cm at the Middle and Bottom slope positions, however, consumed significantly more CH₄ than the Top soil ().

1. Introduction

Methane (CH₄) is the most abundant hydrocarbon in the atmosphere, and it is an important greenhouse gas, which so far has contributed to an estimated 18–20% [1, 2] of postindustrial global warming. Methane has environmental impacts beyond those of a direct greenhouse gas, through atmospheric chemistry that enhances the abundance of tropospheric ozone (O₃) and decreases that of hydroxyl radicals (OH) and hence the atmospheric lifetime of many other pollutants [3]. The atmospheric CH₄ concentration has risen from the background level from 700 to 1782 ppb in 2006, and the growth rate in CH₄ concentration was changing considerably; the very large and interannual variations in CH₄ concentration remain unexplained and present an important challenge to the research community [4, 5]. Estimated surface CH₄ emissions reach 643 Tg year⁻¹ [3]. Oxidation of atmospheric methane by well-drained soils accounts for about 10% [6] or 6% [4] of the global methane sink, that is about 30 Tg CH4 per year. Other CH₄ sinks are the stratosphere (40 Tg year⁻¹) and tropospheric OH (445 Tg year⁻¹) [4].

Most methane on Earth is produced by Archaea through methanogenesis, the final step in fermentation of organic matter, which takes place in rice fields, the guts of animals, soils, wetlands, and landfills, as well as in freshwater and marine sediments. As a simple assumption, about 10–20% of reactive organic material buried in soils and sediments is converted to methane [1]. The potential impact of methane on future global warming and an important role of soils in sorption of this gas have led to many terrestrial studies of methods and techniques to quantify CH₄ flux at the soil-atmosphere interface [7]. Numerous experimental data on emission of greenhouse gases are used in modelling of the local and global gas emissions, while some models were developed to determine abatement strategies to meet restrictions on emission and/or deposition levels at the least cost [8].

Soil saturation with water has dramatic consequences for gas diffusion processes in soil (as gases diffuse 10,000 faster in air than in water). Consequently, one of the main effects of flooding is a lower pool of available O₂ [9, 10] and a several-fold change in the activity of the oxidoreductases—intracellular enzymes involved in the oxidative metabolism of soil microorganisms [11]. Conventional knowledge states that water-saturated systems like wetlands (swamps, marshes) and paddy soils (rice fields) are net contributors of CH₄ to the atmosphere, whereas upland soils (with the exception of landfills) are generally sinks for CH₄ [12]. However, significant methane emission from field soils may also occur after normal precipitation if the soils remain saturated for a long enough period, since water occupation of soil voids may cause oxygen deficiency and development of reducing conditions. Even in unsaturated conditions, there may be anaerobic microsites capable of evolving methane. Little is known, however, about methane emission when usually well-drained soils become flooded for a short period [13]. In fact, soils can act as a source and a sink for CH₄, depending on their air-water conditions [7, 14].

Soil properties are a product of soil-forming factors including landscape variability, agroecosystem management, and climatic factors. Numerous studies were performed to measure the effect of landscape position and land management on physical, chemical and biological soil properties [15–21]. Soils developed from loess are fertile and show high erodibility [22]. Soil erosion results in heavy differentiation of a soil cover with natural pedons being reduced or overbuilt. Both eroded and colluvial soils differ from uneroded soils not only in morphological features but also in particle-size and pore distributions, organic matter content and plant nutrients, water retention, and bulk density [23]. Loess soils are among the most susceptible to the drop in redox potential under anaerobic conditions, which is followed by a rapid reduction of the oxidized inorganic soil components [24]. In consequence, periodical soil hypoxia changes soil respiration, which plays a fundamental role in the metabolism of the soil biota and promotes development of methanogenic microorganisms.

The objective of this study was to compare the CH₄ production and CH₄ consumption in slightly eroded loess soils taken at the summit, back slope, and bottom of a hill. The experiment was performed in laboratory under controlled temperature and air-water conditions. Initially, ambient O₂ concentrations were present in both flooded and wet soil incubations. Our intention was to determine the soil potential for methane production under conditions which occur in field (relatively short-term flooding periods for methanogenic activity) and for methane oxidation (soil enriched with CH₄).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site and Soil Description

A loessial agricultural basin of the Ciemięga River (near Lublin, south-east part of Poland) is a region of the water erosion risk, including sediment transport and nutrient runoff, and is under intensive agricultural use [24, 25]. Soil samples were collected near Baszki village from two depths (0–20 cm and 20–40 cm) and three slope positions: at the summit (Top), back slope (Middle), and slope bottom (Bottom).

The slope is about 15 m high and 60 m long and is covered by natural grass vegetation; it is at the distance of about 150 m from the river. The annual precipitation in this region is 570 mm, and the average annual temperature is +7.5°C [25]. The basic characteristic of the tested brown loess soil (Eutric Cambisol) is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Basic characteristics of loess soils at three slope positions.

Slope position
Soil depth (cm)
(%)
(%)
pH (H₂O)
Sand
Silt
Clay

(%)

Top
0–20
0.97
0.690
8.11
33.6
62.1
4.3

0–40
0.57
0.002
8.14
16. 2
77.4
6.3

Middle
0–20
2.14
0.006
7.60
27.1
68.7
4.2

20–40
1.42
0.275
7.91
27.5
68.3
4.2

Bottom
0–20
0.92
0.657
7.88
30.9
64.9
4.2

20–40
0.39
0.393
7.56
34.1
61.6
4.3

2.2. Incubation Experiment

For methanogenic activity measurements, 20 g portions of air-dry soils were placed into 60 cm³ glass vessels and flooded with 15 cm³ of distilled water. All the vessels were tightly closed with rubber stoppers and aluminium caps, and the flooded soils were incubated at 25°C for 28 days.

For methanotrophic activity measurements, 10 g portions of air-dried soils were placed into 60 cm³ glass vessels and 5 cm³ of distilled water was added. All the vessels were tightly closed with rubber stoppers and aluminium caps, and wet soils were enriched with 5% (v/v) CH₄ (5 kPa). The soil samples were incubated at 20°C for 21 days.

Initially, ambient O₂ concentrations were present in both incubations (20.5% v/v). Our intention was to determine the potential of soils for methane production under field conditions, with relatively short-term flooding periods, and for methane oxidation after soil enrichment with CH₄.

2.3. Methods

The concentrations of gases in the headspace were measured with gas chromatographs Shimadzu GC-14B and GC-14A (Japan) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a thermal conductivity detector (TCD), respectively. Methane was detected by the FID detector at 150°C. The gas components were separated on a column packed with a Porapak Q maintained at 80°C, and the temperature of the injector was 150°C. Carbon dioxide and O₂ were detected by TCD with the use of two 2 m columns (3.2 diameter), one packed with Porapak Q (for CO₂) and the other packed with Molecular Sieve 5A (for O₂) with He as a carrier gas flowing at a rate of 40 cm³ min⁻¹. The temperatures of the column and detector were 40°C and 60°C, respectively. The detector responses were calibrated using certified gas standards (Air Products) containing 20.9% O₂ in N₂ and 4% CH₄ or 1% CO₂ in He [26, 27].

Soil properties were determined by standard methods. The organic (Corg) and inorganic (Cinorg) carbon was determined using a TOC-VCPH analyzer (Shimadzu, Japan). The particle size distribution was measured with the laser diffraction method [28]. All measurements were done in triplicate, and the results were expressed on an oven-dry weight basis (105°C, 24 h).

2.4. Calculations

The concentrations of gases were corrected for solubility in water by using published values of the Bunsen absorption coefficient [29]. The rates of methane production and consumption were calculated by linear regression of increases and decreases, respectively, in CH₄ concentrations against incubation time, using at least three consecutive measurements with a regression coefficient () of >0.9, and expressed in mg CH₄-C per kg of oven-dry soil per day [30, 31]. The total cumulative CH₄ production and CH₄ consumption were determined in each sample by the difference in the headspace CH₄ concentration at the beginning and end of the assay period [32]. The rates of CH₄ production and consumption and the total amount of CH₄ produced and consumed were used as a measure of the methanogenic and methanotrophic activity (potential), respectively. Similarly, the total amounts of CO₂ produced and O₂ consumed were calculated to describe the respiration activity (and expressed as mg CO₂-C kg⁻¹ and O₂% (v/v), resp.). Final amounts of CH₄, CO₂, and O₂ were assessed by Student’s “t” test to determine the significance of the differences in gas production or consumption between soils. Correlations between total gases produced or consumed over time, and organic carbon in soils collected from different slope positions were tested with regression analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Methanogenic Activity of Soils from Different Slope Positions

Position of soil in the slope strongly affected the capacity of CH₄ production. Methane was produced in flooded soils after a 17-day lag (Figure 1). The highest methanogenic activity was observed in the Middle soil. During 28-day incubation, the upper 0–20 cm soil evolved 3.17 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ soil at a rate of 0.304 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹ (Figure 1(a), Table 2). Soil sampled at the Top position produced only 0.359 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹, while the Bottom soil evolved even less than 0.06 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹.

Table 2: CH₄ production, CO₂ evolution and O₂ uptake of soils collected from three slope positions, and incubated for 28 days under flooding (average values ± standard error, ).

Slope position
Soil depth (cm)
CH₄ production
CO₂ evolution (mg C kg⁻¹)
O₂ uptake % (v/v)

Total (mg C kg⁻¹)
Rate (mg C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹)

Top
0–20
0.3595 ± 0.118
0.0316
138.1 ± 2.56
14.61 ± 0.85

20–40
0.0017 ± 0.001
0.0001
110.2 ± 2.19
8.73 ± 0.04

Middle
0–20
3.1679*** ± 0.140
0.3042
207.6*** ± 2.34
19.14** ± 0.10

20–40
1.3538*** ± 0.129
0.1162
174.6*** ± 0.48
18.49*** ± 0.29

Bottom
0–20
0.0584 ns ± 0.011
0.0065
106.7** ± 0.13
11.65** ± 0.12

20–40
0.0018 ns ± 0.001
0.0003
47.8*** ± 0.59
7.71 ns ± 0.13

*, **, ***, different from the Top position (reference soil) at , and , respectively, according to Student’s t-test; ns—not significant difference.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 1: Changes of CH₄, CO₂ and O₂ over time in loess soils collected from three slope positions and incubated under flooding (methanogenic potential). Top: summit, Middle: back slope, Bottom: bottom of the slope. Upper graphs (a–c) upper soil depth of 0–20 cm; lower graphs (d–f) lower soil depth of 20–40 cm. (a) and (d) cumulative CH₄ production; (b) and (e) cumulative CO₂ production; (c) and (f) changes in O₂ in the headspace. Points represent triplicate-means with standard error.

Deeper soil layers (20–40 cm) showed significantly lower methanogenic activity () with the highest production in the soil from the Middle position 1.35 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ and much lower in the other soils: less than 0.002 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ (Figure 1(d)).

The tested soils showed relatively large differences in their respiration under flooding. Both CO₂ evolution and O₂ consumption were more intensive in the upper rather than deeper soil layers (Figures 1(b) and 1(c)). The Middle soil produced 207.6 mg CO₂-C kg⁻¹, and consumed 19.14% (v/v). At the beginning of CH₄ evolution in this soil after 17 days of incubation, there was only 3.21% (v/v) O₂ left in the headspace. At the end of incubation, O₂ was hardly depleted (1.36% v/v in the headspace). The Top and Bottom soils consumed 14.6 and 11.6% (v/v) O₂, respectively, which yielded the final O₂ concentration in the headspace of 5.88 and 8.85% (v/v), respectively.

The subsurface-flooded soils showed some lower respiration (Figures 1(e) and 1(f)). An exception was the Middle soil, which produced as much as 174.6 mg CO₂-C kg⁻¹, while it consumed 18.5% (v/v) O₂ (2% v/v O₂ left in the headspace). The other soils followed the tendency observed in CH₄ production; thus they evolved less CO₂ and consumed less O₂ (<111 mg CO₂-C kg⁻¹ and <8.8% (v/v), resp.). In most cases, the CO₂ produced and O₂ consumed in the course of methanogenic incubation in the Middle and Bottom soils significantly differed from those in Top soil (Table 2).

3.2. Methanotrophic Activity of Soils from Different Slope Positions

The capacity of CH₄ consumption in the upper soils was slightly modified by the slope position (Figure 2(a)). All the soils collected at the 0–20 cm depth consumed completely the added methane (100%) after a 3-4 day lag. The highest methanotrophic activity was observed in the Middle soil, which rapidly utilized the whole gas between 4 and 9 day, at a rate of −20.66 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹ (Table 3). CH₄ consumption in the Top and Bottom samples lasted some longer, until the 11th incubation day (16.08 and 17.58 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹, resp.).

Table 3: CH₄ consumption, CO₂ evolution, and O₂ uptake in soils collected from three slope positions and incubated with 5 kPa methane for 21 days (average values ± standard error, ).

Slope position
Soil depth (cm)
CH₄ consumption
CO₂ evolution (mg C kg⁻¹)
O₂ uptake % (v/v)

Total (mg C kg⁻¹)
% of initial CH₄
Rate (mg C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹)

Top
0–20
130.84 ± 2.31
100
−16.08
186.7 ± 11.4
11.14 ± 0.53

20–40
17.80 ± 2.62
14
−0.799
83.9 ± 2.86
2.55 ± 0.11

Middle
0–20
121.36* ± 0.01
100
−20.66
198.9 ns ± 3.57
11.77 ns ± 0.34

20–40
131.71* ± 0.80
100
−12.26
224.1*** ± 5.26
13.63*** ± 0.32

Bottom
0–20
130.96 ns ± 43.7
100
−17.58
151.9 ns ± 5.34
9.44 ns ± 0.38

20–40
116.49*** ± 12.2
92
−7.954
104.1** ± 3.14
6.99*** ± 0.50

*, **, ***, different from the Top (reference) soil at , , and , respectively, according to Student’s t-test; ns—not significant difference.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 2: Changes of CH₄, CO₂, and O₂ over time in loess soils collected from three slope positions and incubated with added methane, 5 kPa (methanotrophic potential). Top: summit, Middle: back slope, Bottom: bottom of the slope. Upper graphs (a–c) upper soil depth of 0–20 cm; lower graphs (d–f) lower soil depth of 20–40 cm. (a) and (d) cumulative CH₄ production; (b) and (e) cumulative CO₂ production; (c) and (f)—changes in O₂ in the headspace. Points represent triplicate-means with standard error.

Deeper soil layers showed greater variation in CH₄ oxidation capacity (Figure 2(d)). The highest activity was shown, again, by the soil collected from Middle position, which completely utilized 121.3 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ between the 3rd and 9th incubation days (at a rate of −12.26 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹). The Bottom soil consumed 116.49 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ (92% of initial) at a rate of −7.95 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹, whereas the Top soil oxidized only 14% of added CH₄, at a low rate of −0.799 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ d⁻¹ () (Table 3).

In general, CO₂ production and O₂ consumption followed the tendencies in CH₄ uptake (Figure 2). The Middle soil of both depths showed an apparent increase in CO₂, and a decrease in O₂ in the headspace after 4 days of incubation, when CH₄ oxidation started. Total CO₂ evolution of 198.9 mg C kg⁻¹ was, however, similar to that measured in the Top upper soil, which consumed significantly less CH₄ (Table 3). The amount of CO₂ evolved by the Middle upper soil was significantly higher than that produced in the Bottom soil (151.9 mg C kg⁻¹, ). Among the soils collected from deeper layers, the Middle soil produced more CO₂ and consumed more O₂ than the other soils, with accumulation of 224.1 mg CO₂-C kg⁻¹ and utilization of 13.6% (v/v) O₂, (Figure 2).

3.3. Relations between Measured Soil Properties

The amount of methane produced in flooded soils showed a close relationship with the amount of organic C modified by the soil position in the slope (Figure 3(a)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3: Relationships between total gases produced or consumed over time and organic carbon (Corg) in soils collected from different slope positions. (a) CH₄ produced in flooded soils versus Corg; (b) CO₂ produced and O₂ consumed in flooded soils versus Corg (, ***) and (, ***); respectively, (c) CO₂ produced and O₂ consumed in wet soils enriched with CH₄ soils versus Corg (, ***) and (, *), respectively. Points present mean values. *** and *, and , respectively.

Similar significant relations were observed for CO₂ produced and O₂ consumed during incubation of flooded and wet soils (i.e., in the course of methane production and oxidation, resp.) versus Corg (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)). Such correlations for methane oxidation were not shown.

4. Discussion

Position in the landscape affects the accumulation and redistribution of water, nutrients, sediments, and organic matter. Soils on ridges and upper slopes will tend to loose soil and organic matter that will tend to accumulate on lower slopes and in depressions. Generally, soils in lower-slope positions will tend to have a wetter moisture regime for a longer period [33], while soil O₂ concentrations may decrease significantly from ridges to valleys [34]. Methane emission from low-slope positions may be observed already one or three days after summer rainfall, depending on the intensity of precipitation [13]. It has been assumed that, in well-aerated soils, CH₄ production in anaerobic microsites could be an important source of methane for methane oxidizing bacteria [35]. Little is known, however, about methane emission when usually well-drained soils become flooded for a short period [13]. The characteristics of CH₄ oxidizing and producing communities and the factors which affect these characteristics as well as CH₄ transport determine the magnitude of the surface CH₄ flux to the atmosphere [36]. Our studies with loess soil collected from different slope positions and incubated under laboratory conditions showed that the slope position significantly affected the soil potential for CH₄ production and oxidation and modified soil respiration involved in CH₄ transformations.

We compared soils from the Middle and Bottom positions with the soils at the summit (Top) position, which may be regarded as a reference soil. The methane production potential of the soil from the Middle position significantly increased (9-fold in the upper soil layer and even more in the deeper layer ), while at the Bottom position CH₄ production did not changed significantly (Table 2). In turn, the methane oxidation potential was unchanged in the 0–20 cm layer (as all upper soils depleted all added CH₄) but strongly increased in the 20–40 cm soil layers and form the level of 14% in the Top soil, to 92–100% in the other soils ( or ).

In the course of methanogenesis, soil respiration underwent modification similar to that observed for the methanogenic potential. In the Middle slope position, CO₂ production and O₂ uptake were significantly stimulated as compared with the Top soil (by 50% and 30%, resp., and ). Soil collected at the Bottom position showed lower respiration than the Top soil (both CO₂ and O₂ less by about 20%, ). In the deeper soil layer, the changes were generally more pronounced.

Changes in soil respiration in the course of methanotrophy were apparently dependent on soil depth. In comparison with the Top site, the upper Middle and Bottom soils were not changed, as all soils consumed comparable amounts of methane. However, soils sampled from a depth of 20–40 cm respired at a significantly higher rate than the Top soil (up to 5 times) ().

In the experiments of [21], water-stable aggregates were significantly different among landscape positions and decreased from lower > middle > summit landscape position. However, in some soils, the landscape effect was insignificant, for example, for enzyme activities or emission of CH₄ and CO₂ [19, 21]. Fang et al. [17] observed that neither potential net N mineralization nor nitrification was differentiated by the slope position, nor was accumulative emissions of N₂O or CO₂ from incubated soils in laboratory; in contrast, the ability to oxide CH₄ appeared to decrease from the bottom to the top.

It is well known that methane fluxes are strongly regulated by the presence or absence of methanotrophs (CH₄ oxidizers), which are generally found in the upper (0–20 cm) soil [37]. On the other hand, methanogens (CH₄ producers) use labile carbon compounds that were produced in the root zone and are less abundant with increasing distance from the soil surface, and rates of potential CH₄ production decline with depth below the aerobic zone [38]. However, deeper soil also contributes to CH₄ emission. In our experiment, both upper (0–20 cm) and lower (20–40 cm) soil layers of the Middle position evolved CH₄. The process started relatively fast, after 17 days of flooded incubation at 25°C, and CH₄ reached 3.16 mg CH₄-C kg⁻¹ (0.35% v/v of CH₄ in the headspace) over 28-day incubation. Similarly, Mayer and Conrad [39] observed a rapid increase in CH₄ production within 25 days of flooding an upland agricultural soil and a forest soil. It is possible that, in our experiment, CH₄ emissions did not occur in the other soils since O₂, which is the most thermodynamically favourable electron acceptor [29, 37], was still in the headspace. Methanogenesis is evidently inhibited by O₂ this is apparent from field studies that show no overlap in the depth distributions of O₂ penetration in soils or sediments and net CH₄ production [38]. However, the lack of CH₄ production in the presence of O₂in situ may be due to a combination of factors, of which O₂ toxicity is just one. For example, methanogens are more sensitive to desiccation than O₂ exposure in a paddy soil [40]. In our experiment, methane formation in the Middle soil was preceded by relatively rapid O₂ consumption, which created soil hypoxia and allowed methanogens to develop. However, CH₄ was also detected in the upper Top soil on day 21 (0.008% v/v in the headspace), although there was 8.4% (v/v) O₂ in the headspace.

Probably, the mechanisms of the slope position effect on methanogenic and methanotrophic activities are complex. Some decline in soil pH was observed for the Middle and Bottom soils as compared with the Top soil (from pH 8.1 to 7.6–7.9, Table 1). However, most methanogenic communities seem to be dominated by neutrophilic species [38]; in a survey of 68 methanogenic species conducted by Garcia et al. [41], most species grew best in a pH range from 6 to 8. Evidently, in our experiment, the soil position changed the sand, silt, and clay content at the depth of 20–40 cm (Table 1). The clay fraction content decreased from 6.3% in the Top soil to 4.2 and 4.3% in the Middle and Bottom soils, respectively. Similarly, the silt content decreased from 77.4% to 68.7 and 61.6%, respectively. A change in the sand content (an increase from 16.3% in the Top position to 27.5 and 34.5% in the Middle and Bottom positions, resp.) probably stimulated CH₄ oxidation due to better draining and easier gas diffusion in soil containing more sand, because O₂ is necessary for monooxygenase enzyme which catalyzes methane oxidation [42]. Coarse-textured soils have been documented as supporting CH₄ oxidation by enhancing gas diffusion (CH₄ and O₂) into the soil [43].

Paluszek and Żembrowski [44] present their findings from a long-term study designed to explore effect of accelerated erosion on soil properties in a loessial landscape. They observed that slight, moderate, and severe erosion has an adverse effect on soil physical properties. The clay content and bulk density in Ap horizons of eroded soils are on the increase whereas the content of organic matter, content of water-stable aggregates, field water capacity, and retention of water useful for plants decrease. In the consequence, soil porosity, air capacity, and air permeability deteriorate. By contrast, in very severely eroded soils whose Ap horizons developed from carbonate loess, pore-size distribution, field water capacity and retention of water useful for plants are favourable and comparable to those in noneroded soils [44].

High organic C content in the Middle soil, as compared with the Top soil (Table 1), stimulated methane production under soil hypoxia. Probably, small differences in Corg between Top and Bottom soils may explain insignificant differences in methanogenic activity. Nevertheless, high correlation coefficients obtained for relationships between Corg and produced CH₄, evolved CO₂, and consumed O₂ confirm their universal character (Figure 3). However, better explanation of the changes observed in our experiment needs more information on the properties of tested soils at different slope positions.

Acknowledgment

The paper was partly financed by the State Committee for Scientific Research, Poland (Grants no. N N310 043838). The authors greatly appreciate Professor R. Dębicki (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland) who inspired us to perform these studies.

References

K. Knittel and A. Boetius, “Anaerobic oxidation of methane: progress with an unknown process,” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 63, pp. 311–334, 2009.

Q. Zhuang, J. M. Melack, S. Zimov, K. M. Walter, C. L. Butenhoff, and M. Aslam K Khalil, “Global methane emissions from wetlands, rice paddies, and lakes,” Eos, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 37–38, 2009.

M. J. Prather and J. Hsu, “Coupling of nitrous oxide and methane by global atmospheric chemistry,” Science, vol. 330, no. 6006, pp. 952–954, 2010.

D. Fowler, K. Pilegaard, M. A. Sutton et al., “Atmospheric composition change: ecosystems-atmosphere interactions,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 33, pp. 5193–5267, 2009.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate change 2007: the scientific basis,” Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007.

E. Topp and E. Pattey, “Soils as sources and sinks for atmospheric methane,” Canadian Journal of Soil Science, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 167–178, 1997.

A. S. K. Chan and T. B. Parkin, “Effect of land use on methane flux from soil,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 786–797, 2001.

C. Brink, E. van Ierland, L. Hordijk, and C. Kroeze, “Cost-effective emission abatement in europe considering interrelations in agriculture,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 1, pp. 814–821, 2001.

W. Stępniewski, “Aeration of soils and plants,” in Encyclopedia of Agrophysics, J. Gliński, J. Horabik, and J. Lipiec, Eds., pp. 8–12, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1st edition, 2011.

W. Stępniewski, Z. Stępniewska, R. P. Bennicelli, and J. Gliński, Oxygenology in Outline, Institute of Agrophysics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Lublin, Poland, 2005.

M. Brzezińska, Z. Stȩpniewska, and W. Stȩpniewski, “Soil oxygen status and dehydrogenase activity,” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 1783–1790, 1998.

A. S. K. Chan and T. B. Parkin, “Methane oxidation and production activity in soils from natural and agricultural ecosystems,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1896–1903, 2001.

F. L. Wang and J. R. Bettany, “Methane emission from Canadian prairie and forest soils under short term flooding conditions,” Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol. 49, no. 1–3, pp. 197–202, 1997.

M. Brzezińska, “Impact of treated wastewater on biological activity and accompanying processes in organic soils (field and model experiments),” Acta Agrophysica, vol. 131, pp. 7–164, 2006 (Polish).

S. Abrishamkesh, M. Gorji, and H. Asadi, “Long-term effects of land use on soil aggregate stability,” International Agrophysics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 103–108, 2011.

A. Akbarzadeh, R. T. Mehrjardi, H. G. Refahi, H. Rouhipour, and M. Gorji, “Using soil binders to control runoff and soil loss in steep slopes under simulated rainfall,” International Agrophysics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 99–109, 2009.

Y. Fang, P. Gundersen, W. Zhang et al., “Soil-atmosphere exchange of N2O, CO2 and CH 4 along a slope of an evergreen broad-leaved forest in southern China,” Plant and Soil, vol. 319, no. 1-2, pp. 37–48, 2009.

A. Ferrero and J. Lipiec, “Determining the effect of trampling on soils in hillslope-woodlands,” International Agrophysics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2000.

C. N. Gacengo, C. W. Wood, J. N. Shaw, R. L. Raper, and K. S. Balkcom, “Agroecosystem management effects on greenhouse gas emissions across a coastal plain catena,” Soil Science, vol. 174, no. 4, pp. 229–237, 2009.

M. T. Rashid and R. P. Voroney, “Field-scale application of oily food waste and nitrogen fertilizer requirements of corn at different landscape positions,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 963–969, 2005.

R. P. Udawatta, R. J. Kremer, B. W. Adamson, and S. H. Anderson, “Variations in soil aggregate stability and enzyme activities in a temperate agroforestry practice,” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 153–160, 2008.

J. Rejman, “Effect of water and tillage erosion on transformation of soils and loess slopes,” Acta Agrophysica, vol. 136, pp. 5–91, 2006 (Polish).

R. Turski, J. Paluszek, and A. Slowinska-Jurkiewicz, “The effect of erosion on the spatial differentiation of the physical properties of Orthic Luvisols,” International Agrophysics, vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 123–136, 1992.

P. Gliński and Z. Stępniewska, “Changes of redox properties in slightly eroded loess soil,” Acta Agrophysica, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 669–686, 2004.

P. Gliński and R. Dębicki, “Degradation of loessial soils in the Ciemięga river basin,” Acta Agrophysica, vol. 23, pp. 39–46, 1999.

M. Brzezińska, P. Rafalski, T. Włodarczyk, P. Szarlip, and K. Brzeziński, “How much oxygen is needed for acetylene to be consumed in soil?” Journal of Soils and Sediments, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1142–1154, 2011.

T. Włodarczyk, W. Stȩpniewski, and M. Brzezińska, “Dehydrogenase activity, redox potential, and emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide from Cambisols under flooding conditions,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 200–206, 2002.

M. Ryzak and A. Bieganowski, “Determination of particle size distrubution of soil using laser diffraction—comparison with areometric method,” International Agrophysics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 177–181, 2010.

J. Gliński and W. Stępniewski, Soil Aeration and Its Role for Plants, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1985.

T. E. Freitag and J. I. Prosser, “Correlation of methane production and functional gene transcriptional activity in a peat soil,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 75, no. 21, pp. 6679–6687, 2009.

X. Xu and K. Inubushi, “Temperature effects on ethylene and methane production from temperate forest soils,” Chinese Science Bulletin, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1426–1433, 2009.

J. Gulledge and J. P. Schimel, “Moisture control over atmospheric CH4 consumption and CO2 production in diverse Alaskan soils,” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 30, no. 8-9, pp. 1127–1132, 1998.

B. Murphy, B. Wilson, and A. Rawson, “Development of a soil carbon benchmark matrix for central west NSW,” in Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science. Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, August 2010.

W. L. Silver, A. E. Lugo, and M. Keller, “Soil oxygen availability and biogeochemistry along rainfall and topographic gradients in upland wet tropical forest soils,” Biogeochemistry, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 301–328, 1999.

R. Conrad, “Soil microbial processes and the cycling of atmospheric trace gases,” Advances in Microbial Ecology, vol. 14, pp. 207–250, 1995.

M. A. Bradford, P. Ineson, P. A. Wookey, and H. M. Lappin-Scott, “Role of CH4 oxidation, production and transport in forest soil CH4 flux,” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 33, no. 12-13, pp. 1625–1631, 2001.

A. Matson, D. Pennock, and A. Bedard-Haughn, “Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from mature forest stands in the boreal forest, Saskatchewan, Canada,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 258, no. 7, pp. 1073–1083, 2009.

J. P. Megonigal, M. E. Hines, and P. T. Visscher, “Anaerobic metabolism: linkages to trace gases and aerobic processes,” in Biogeochemistry, W. H. Schlesinger, Ed., pp. 317–424, Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 2004.

H. P. Mayer and R. Conrad, “Factors influencing the population of methanogenic bacteria and the initiation of methane production upon flooding of paddy soil,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 103–111, 1990.

S. Fetzer, F. Bak, and R. Conrad, “Sensitivity of methanogenic bacteria from paddy soil to oxygen and desiccation,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 107–115, 1993.

J.-L. Garcia, B. K. C. Patel, and B. Ollivier, “Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of methanogenic Archaea,” Anaerobe, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 205–226, 2000.

X. K. Xu and K. Inubushi, “Ethylene oxidation, atmospheric methane consumption, and ammonium oxidation in temperate volcanic forest soils,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 265–271, 2009.

A. Saari, P. J. Martikainen, A. Ferm et al., “Methane oxidation in soil profiles of Dutch and Finnish coniferous forests with different soil texture and atmospheric nitrogen deposition,” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 29, no. 11-12, pp. 1625–1632, 1997.

J. Paluszek and W. Żembrowski, “Improvement of the soils exposed to erosion in a loessial landscape,” Acta Agrophysica, vol. 164, pp. 5–159, 2008 (Polish).