Carbon Stocks and Soil Organic Matter Quality Under Different of Land Uses in the Maranhense Amazon

  •  Victor Roberto Reis    
  •  Diana Deon    
  •  Luciano Muniz    
  •  Marlen Silva    
  •  Carlos Augusto Rego    
  •  Uelson Garcia    
  •  Ilka Cantanhêde    
  •  Joaquim Costa    


In the face of the traditional model of succession of native environments in pastures or agricultural areas, followed by superpastejo and the concern with emissions of greenhouse gases in the Brazilian Amazon region, this work aims to determine the influence of different land uses on carbon sequestration and soil organic matter changes in the municipality of Pindaré-Mirim, in state of Maranhão. This study evaluated different uses of the soil: native forest; secondary vegetation (capoeira); degraded pasture and CLFI (Crop-Livestock-Forest Integration) system. The deformed and undisturbed samples were collected at depths: 0.00-0.10, 0.10-0.20, 0.20-0.30, 0.30-0.40, 0.40-0.60, 0.60-0.80 and 0.80-1.00 m. Soil densities were determined by the volumetric ring method, the carbon stocks by the carbon content in the soil evaluating the dry combustion, and the accumulated carbon stocks were calculated in 1.00 m. The physical fractions of the organic matter were determined by means of the granulometric method. At depth 0.0-0.10 m, the soil density in the native forest (1.17 g cm-3) was lower than the average of degraded pasture (1.40 g cm-3). There was no difference in the carbon content between all the land uses up to 0.40 m depth. The accumulated carbon stocks up to 1.00 m ranged from 49.52 Mg ha-1 to 64.41 Mg ha-1 and were higher in the native forest compared to capoeira and the ICLF system. In relation to the accumulated carbon stock, the native forest and degraded pasture were the ones that obtained the highest levels, followed by the capoeira and the CLFI system.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27