Abstract
Perennial crops replacing annual crops are drawing global attention because they harbor potential for sustainable biomass production and climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration. At present, it remains unclear how long perennial crops can sequester carbon in the soil and how soil carbon stock dynamics are influenced by climate, soil, and plant properties across the globe. This study presents a meta-analysis synthesizing 51 publications (351 observations at 77 sites) distributed over different pedo-climatic conditions to scrutinize the effect of perennialization on organic carbon accumulation in soil compared with two annual benchmark systems (i.e., monoculture and crop rotation). Results showed that perennial crops significantly increased soil organic carbon stock by 16.6% and 23.1% at 0–30 cm depth compared with monoculture and crop rotation, respectively. Shortly after establishment (< 5 years), perennial crops revealed a negative impact on soil organic carbon stock; however, long duration (> 10 years) of perennialization had a significant positive effect on soil organic carbon stock by 30% and 36.4% at 0–30 cm depth compared with monoculture and crop rotation, respectively. Compared with both annual systems, perennial crops significantly increased soil organic carbon stock regardless of their functional photosynthetic types (C3, C4, or C3-C4 intermediates) and vegetation type (woody or herbaceous). Among other factors, pH had a significant impact on soil organic carbon; however, the effect of soil textures showed no significant impact, possibly due to a lack of observations from each textural class and mixed pedoclimatic effects. Results also showed that time effect of perennialization revealed a sigmoidal increase of soil organic carbon stock until about 20 years; thereafter, the soil carbon stocks advanced towards a steady-state level. In conclusion, perennial crops increased soil organic carbon stock compared with annual systems; however, the time since conversion from annual to perennial system decisively impacted soil organic carbon stock changes.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Soil contains a heterogeneous dynamic pool of global terrestrial carbon (C) stocks and current estimates for global soil organic carbon (SOC) range from 1500 to 2400 PgC (Patton et al. 2019), which is two to three times the amount of C stored in the atmosphere (Paustian et al. 2016). This dynamic SOC pool varies with climatic conditions, soil physicochemical properties, soil management, land cover, and land use (Deng et al. 2014, 2016; Wiesmeier et al. 2019). For instance, land conversion from both natural and managed soils to arable agriculture has led to a decline in SOC levels (Don et al. 2011; Guo and Gifford 2002).
Although intensive agriculture has increased global food security during the past century (Godfray et al. 2010; Tilman et al. 2011), it modifies the natural ecosystems and disturbs the soil environment (Kopittke et al. 2017; Muhammed et al. 2018). The loss of SOC contributes to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, therefore worsening global warming (Le Quéré et al. 2015). On the other hand, existing agricultural land holds a great potential to become a sink sequestering C from the atmosphere and decreasing CO2 levels (Lal 2005). The decreased SOC stock of existing agricultural systems can be restored via implementation of new land management techniques and adapted land use (Robertson et al. 2017; Smith 2004; Valzano 2005).
Due to continuous plant C input to the soil and minimal soil disturbance, perennial crops (PCs) may harbor a potential to maintain or sequester SOC relative to annual systems (Chimento et al. 2016; Cox et al. 2006; Emmerling et al. 2017). In addition, resource-efficient and sustainable biomass production from PCs are possible due to year-round soil cover and a long utilization period of solar radiation (Pugesgaard et al. 2015; Manevski et al. 2017). Moreover, PCs may mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (Creutzig et al. 2015), support the bio-based economy (Cherubini and Jungmeier 2010), enhance soil aggregation and aggregate stability (Stewart et al. 2015), as well as improve multiple ecosystem services (Ferrarini et al. 2017).
Perennial crops like miscanthus, poplar, willow, conventional cut grasses, and other PCs have been studied for decades to address carbon sequestration and its sustainability over time (Carvalho et al. 2017; Chimento et al. 2016; McGowan et al. 2019). A meta-analysis on soil carbon change at different soil depths and time points showed that the conversion from cropland to perennial crops increased soil carbon slightly more at 0–30 cm than at 0–100 cm depths, although with no significant difference (Qin et al. 2016). In that study, miscanthus and willow showed a positive change in soil carbon at 0–30 cm soil depth with a rate of 1.22 t C ha−1 year−1 in miscanthus and 0.29 t C ha−1 year−1 in willow. Conversion to PCs crops was also reported to show a high magnitude of soil C changes in long-term trials (Qin et al. 2016). While assessing the SOC dynamics between perennial and annual biofuel crops, McGowan et al. (2019) found increasing SOC at a rate of 0.8 and 1.3 Mg C ha−1 year−1 (0–15 cm soil depth) in perennial switchgrass and miscanthus; whereas no significant changes in SOC were detected in any of the annual crops regardless of sampling depth. Perennial grassland managed with rotational grazing accumulated SOC in a 29-year-old field experiment in the north-central United States, contributing to the accretion of more persistent mineral-associated organic matter and thus increasing SOC (18 to 29% higher) compared with both annual monoculture and crop rotation systems (Rui et al. 2022). However, examples also exist of no change in SOC accumulation using perennial crops (Ye and Hall 2020; Jung and Lal 2011).
Although much work has been conducted to enhance the understanding of how the cultivation of PCs affects SOC, it is necessary to evaluate the factors influencing SOC stocks and the temporal dynamics after PCs establishment (Figure 1). Recently, Ledo et al. (2020) provided evidence of increasing SOC at 0-30 cm after a transition from annual to perennial crops; however, they came across a large variation of the dataset—most of it unexplained. It is crucial to clarify the influence of factors (soil, climate, and plant properties) on SOC stock difference between annual and perennial crops. For example, climate conditions, namely temperature and precipitation, are key drivers of SOC stock change by affecting both soil C input and decomposition (Conant et al. 2011; Doetterl et al. 2015). Besides climate, soil properties may also serve as important factor for controlling SOC stock change, for instance, soil type (Hobley et al. 2015), soil pH (Leifeld et al. 2013), and soil texture (Zinn et al. 2005). Moreover, studies at different spatial scales confirmed the effect of plant diversity and functional composition on SOC stocks (Liu et al. 2016; Gray et al. 2015).
To gain a better insight into the effect of perennialization on SOC, we here conducted a meta-analysis of SOC stocks in annual compared to perennial crops by reviewing and summarizing the existing evidence on perennialization. The specific objectives of the study were to (1) assess the performance of PCs compared with annual crops (either as monoculture or crop rotation) in terms of relative SOC stock changes; (2) explore the time effect of perennialization on SOC stock difference compared with annual crops; and (3) study the effects of soil type, climate, and plant properties on the SOC stock changes.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Data collection
We searched peer-reviewed articles published before June 2021 using the Web of Science (http://apps.webofknowledge.com/) and Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). The reporting guidelines suggested in PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) were followed to report the data extraction process (Figure S1). We started to build our database conceptualized from a previous study on soil carbon dynamics under perennial crops (Ledo et al. 2020) where thirty-six studies were included on top of Ledo. The following combinations of keywords were used for the search: (1) “soil organic carbon” or “carbon stock” or “soil carbon sequestration” or “soil carbon”; and (2) “annual” or “annual crop”; and (3) “perennial” or “perennial crop.” The database comprised of only the peer-reviewed literature and included as many studies as possible for further analysis. However, the following criteria had to be fulfilled by a study to be included in the meta-analysis: (1) soil and climatic parameters were similar for both annual and perennial cropping systems; (2) the experiment used paired-site, i.e., data on perennial and annual cropping systems were included in each study; (3) studies with duration of less than 1 year were removed to exclude short term effects (Gross and Glaser 2021). We also included several factorial experiments in our dataset to increase the number of observations. Using these criteria, we found a total of 51 studies, which allowed us to include 351 data points (effect sizes of annual monoculture, \(k= 206\) and annual crop rotation, \(k=145\)) obtained from 77 experimental sites worldwide. When data from literature were presented graphically, we used Grapher™ to digitize the data (http://www.goldensoftware.com/products/grapher).
We used the change of SOC in perennial as a dependent variable and two categories of control treatment to explore the potential variability sources: (1) monoculture and (2) crop rotation systems. Monoculture systems are characterized by continuous sowing of the same crop type; crop rotation included simple crop rotation (e.g., corn-wheat) and diversified crop rotations (e.g., rapeseed-wheat-corn-barley-grass clover). Perennial systems in the present study are defined as managed agricultural lands that are planted once and harvested annually (grass has several cuts per year) or after more years (willow and poplar are typically harvested every 3–6 years). Further details of the crop types, previous land use, perennial ecosystem, and usage types of perennials could be found in supplementary documents (Table S1). To better understand the factors influencing SOC stock change, we grouped data by climate zone, soil textural class, soil pH class, perennial crop age, perennial vegetation type, and functional photosynthetic types.
2.2 Climatic variables
We extracted available information on site characteristics: location, latitude, longitude, climate zone. Site coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) were also used to describe each experimental site into a thermal zone by agro-ecological zoning approach (Günther Fischer 2000), from the Global Agro-Ecological Zone (GAEZ) database, version 4.0. Studies included in the analysis were located in tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate climates.
2.3 Soil characteristics
Soil properties like pH, bulk density (BD), soil type, soil textural class, and percentage of sand, silt and clay were extracted from the literature. Unavailable data on pH, BD, and percentage of sand, silt, and clay was extracted from SoilGrids, a global soil information database (Hengl et al. 2017). Soil pH was further grouped into three classes: < 6.5 (acidic soil), 6.5–7.5 (neutral soil), > 7.5 (alkaline soil) (Gross and Glaser 2021). The soil textural class was identified using the United States Department of Agriculture soil texture calculator (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054167).
2.4 Crop parameters
We included crop characteristics like perennial plant function type (PFT), vegetation type and crop age of perennials. Perennial crop species were separated into functional photosynthetic types of C3, C4, or C3-C4 in case of mixtures of prairie grasses. Vegetation types were divided into woody and herbaceous. Time since perennial crop establishment was referred to as crop age. To find soil C change patterns in time scale, crop age was categorized into three time periods (< 5 years, 5–10 years, and > 10 years) (Qin et al. 2016).
2.5 Calculation and standardization of data
Values of all soil chemical and physical properties were standardized for further analysis. Soil texture was converted to percentage if reported in original literature was given as g kg−1. BD value was expressed in g cm−3. Soil pH was presented based on water extracting method from SoilGrids.
The soil organic C stock of “kg m−2,” “g m−2,” “t ha−1,” “kg ha−1,” or “percent” units were transformed to “Mg ha−1.” Most of the soil carbon data (71%, 36 out of 51 studies) were reported in SOC stock and the rest in SOC concentration (e.g., “g kg−1” or “mg g−1”). Then, we converted SOC concentration (g kg−1) to SOC stock (Mg C ha−1) using BD value for specific soil depth (29% of the total study). Therefore, SOC stocks were calculated from the following equation (Guo and Gifford 2002):
where SOC is soil organic carbon concentration (g kg−1), BD (g cm−3), and D is soil thickness (cm).
Soil depth intervals linked to SOC stocks greatly varied across studies. To increase the comparability of SOC data derived from different studies, the methodology developed by Jobbágy and Jackson (2000) and followed by McClelland et al. (2021) was used to standardize the observed SOC measurement to a common soil depth of 0-30 cm according to the following equation:
where SOC30 is the value of SOC in Mg C/ha in the first 30 cm of the soil profile (Jobbágy and Jackson 2000), β is the relative reduction rate of the soil carbon pool with soil depth (0.9786), d0 is the original soil depth available in individual studies (cm), and SOCd0 is the original SOC stocks.
2.6 Meta-analysis
All the analyses and visualization were performed with R v. 4.1.2 (R Core Team 2021). A meta-analysis approach was used to determine the significance of SOC dynamics in perennial system. Natural log of response ratio (lnRR) (Hedges et al. 1999) was used to quantify the effect of perennial system on SOC. In this study, lnRR was defined as the ratio of the mean SOC stocks of perennial systems (\({X}_{p}\)) to the mean SOC stocks of annual systems (as monoculture or rotation) as control (\({X}_{a}\)):
We used the lnRR for the following reasons. First, it stabilized the variance of the effect sizes, making them more comparable across studies. Second, it was appropriate for effect size estimation in studies where there was no a priori expectation of the direction of the effect. Third, it allowed for the use of parametric statistical methods, which assumed normality and homogeneity of variance. Fourth, it made the effect sizes more interpretable, as they represented the proportional change in the response variable (Pustejovsky 2018; Hedges et al. 1999). The variance of each study was calculated based on means, number of replications, and standard deviation (SD) of both perennial and annual (Luo et al. 2006; Hedges et al. 1999) with the following formula:
where \({SD}_{p}\) and \({SD}_{a}\) are the standard deviations of the perennial and annual systems (as monoculture or crop rotation), respectively; \({N}_{p}\) and \({N}_{a}\) are the sample size of the perennial and annual systems (as monoculture or crop rotation), respectively. If a study reported standard error (\(SE\)), the corresponding \(SD\) was calculated based on the sample size (\(n\)):
The meta-analysis was weighted for each study by the inverse of variance of the effect sizes. Missing SD data (6 studies for annual monoculture and 3 for annual crop rotation comparison) was imputed using the R-package metagear (Lajeunesse 2016), following the “HotDeck” approach of Rubin and Schenker (1991) by imputing SD from data with means of similar scale. The multi-level meta-analytic mixed-effects models were fitted using the R-package “metafor” (Viechtbauer 2010). Model parameters were calculated using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator (Viechtbauer 2005). Study site and effect size were considered random factors in the meta-analysis as several study sites contributed more than one effect size. A moderator analysis (meta-regressions) was conducted to investigate the variability sources of the effect sizes linked to SOC stock change. The omnibus test of moderators (QM) was reported. All lookalike forest graphics are presented as orchard plot using “orchard” package in R (Nakagawa et al. 2021). “Orchard” plots, in addition to showing overall mean effects and confidence intervals from meta-analyses, also include 95% prediction intervals. Confidence intervals represent the range of the average true effect to be found, and prediction intervals show the range in which 95% of effects are anticipated to occur in future studies of a similar nature. If the effect size is larger than 0, it indicates a positive effect of perennialization, and lower than 0 indicates a negative effect of perennialization on SOC stock. Individual effect sizes were scaled by their precision; \(x\)-axis corresponds to effect size value and the \(y\)-axis was the effect size position based on quasi-random noise (Nakagawa et al. 2021). Quasi-random noise allows to visualize the data resembling a violin plot (showing the density distribution) and a scatter plot (showing the individual points). Results of meta-analysis in lnRR were back-transformed to “percentage of change” using the formula, i.e., [100 × {exp(lnRR) -1}] for easy interpretation in the results and discussion section.
Publication bias was assessed with Funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests (Sterne et al. 2005; Sterne and Egger 2005). We fitted multi-level mixed meta-regression models, including the standard error and sample size as moderators. The presence of bias was identified based on the deviation of the model intercept from zero (Figure S2-3). In addition, we performed influential analysis on the model fit using the hat values (indicate which observations have high leverage). Studies with large influence were those with two times the average leverage (Habeck and Schultz 2015), whereas possible outliers were those studies with high standardized residuals (Figure S4).
A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of our results. A multi-level meta-analytic mixed-effects model was fitted excluding those studies with imputed standard deviations (Figure S5).
A general score to assess the quality of our meta-analysis was calculated based on Fohrafellner et al. (2023). A value of 25 (out of 28) was obtained and the fulfilled specific criteria provided in the supporting information (Table S2).
2.7 Temporal analysis
A nonlinear regression was performed to analyze the temporal relationship between SOC stock change and perennial crop age. A logistic function was fitted (for monoculture and crop rotation separately) with a maximum likelihood estimation using R-package “drc” (Ritz et al. 2016). The four-parameter log-logistic function had the following parametrization:
where, the coefficients c and d are the lower and upper limits or asymptotes of the response (SOC stock change) value, b is the slope (steepness) of the curve, and e is the median effective time of perennialization that produces a specific effect in 50% of the cases/population.
3 Results and discussion
To study the effect of perennials, 51 studies with total of 351 observations were included in our analysis (Figure 2, Table S3). The studies were conducted worldwide but most were located in North America and Europe with others spread across South America, Asia, and Australia (Figure 2a). Most of the studies were conducted in temperate climatic zones (83%), whereas a small number of studies (17%) took place in tropical and subtropical climatic zones. About sixty percent of the effect sizes were tested to single repetitive crop (\(k\)=206) as reference annual monoculture, while the other set tested the inclusion of more crop diversity referred to as annual crop rotation systems (\(k\)=145).
3.1 Overall effect
Perennial crops significantly increased the SOC stock at 0–30 cm soil depth relative to reference annual crop systems (Figure 3), where the intercept represents the overall change rate of the SOC. Results obtained from pairwise comparisons showed a significant increase of SOC stocks of 16.6% (95% confidence interval (CI), 10.1–23.5%; p < 0.0001) in PCs in comparison with the annual monoculture system (Figure 3a). For annual crop rotation as a reference, SOC stocks also showed a significant increase of 23.1% (95% CI, 14.7–32.1%; p < 0.0001) from pairwise comparisons (Figure 3b). For the present meta-analysis, there was no conclusive indication of publication bias based on either standard error or sample size fit (Figure S2, 3). Moreover, the sensitivity analysis showed that our results are robust, given that the effect size did not change excluding the studies with imputed standard deviations (Figure S5).
Several relevant features of PCs could reveal the mechanism behind; high root biomass is considered one of the most important possible explanations for the high SOC content (Lemus and Lal 2005). A recent study revealed that high amount of atmospheric C was allocated in the belowground biomass compartments and SOC after 11 years of PC establishment (Martani et al. 2021). Particularly, high turnover and exudation rate by fine roots influence SOC accumulation and stability (Shahzad et al. 2015). Another possible reason for SOC build-up by perennials is less soil disturbance. Soil cultivation disrupts soil aggregate, which exposes SOC, leading to carbon loss through erosion and accelerated microbial decomposition (Dignac et al. 2017). Perennial crops also exhibit higher levels of microbial activity than annual cropping systems, which may result in distinct aggregate formation and stability leading to higher SOC stocks (Tiemann and Grandy 2015). Increased activity of soil organisms has also been linked to gradual synthesis of complex humic chemicals and rising SOC concentration (Emmerling 2014; Hargreaves and Hofmockel 2014). Other important SOC sequestration mechanisms are chemical protection of SOC by adsorptive sites of the soil matrix like clay, silt, and metal oxides (Lützow et al. 2006) and physical protection of SOC in micro-aggregate structure ensuring inaccessibility of microbes due to limiting oxygen (Six et al. 2004; Tiemann and Grandy 2015). A study conducted by Gunina and Kuzyakov (2014) also confirmed the SOC absorption in micro-aggregates.
3.2 Crop age effect
The effect size of relative SOC stock change since PCs establishment is shown in Figure 4. The QM was 37 and 16 (p < 0.0001) for perennial vs monoculture (Figure 4a) and vs crop rotation (Figure 4b), respectively. Initialization of PCs showed a negative impact on SOC (< 5 years); however, a longer PCs duration (> 10 years) had a significant positive effect on SOC stock (Figure 4a, b).
During the crop ages of 5–10 and > 10 years, the SOC stock increased by 21.7% (95% CI, 14.9–28.8%; p < 0.0001) and 30% (95% CI, 21.4–39.3%; p < 0.0001) at 0–30 cm depth, respectively compared with annual crop monoculture (Figure 4a). When comparing with crop rotation as reference, SOC stock increased by 10.2% (95% CI, − 1.2–23.1%; p = 0.0829) during 5–10 years; while after 10 years, soil carbon stock was significantly higher (36.4%, 95% CI, 24.2–49.7%; p < 0.0001) (Figure 4b).
Similar to the findings on changes in SOC sequestration reported by Deng et al. (2014), our synthesis showed that SOC build-up started after five years of perennialization. No difference was seen in the soil C before 5 years, which is not a long time for detecting carbon accumulation (Necpálová et al. 2014). Despite initial decrease in soil C during the early stage of perennials cultivation, meta-studies and a number of field studies have reported increased content of soil C from long-term cultivation of PCs (Ledo et al. 2020; McGowan et al. 2019; Qin et al. 2016). After 11 years of perennial energy crop cultivation, at the top 0–10 cm layer, all PCs (i.e., miscanthus, switchgrass, poplar, willow, giant reed and black locust) increased SOC content and SOC stock compared with arable land (Martani et al. 2021). Martani et al. (2021) also reported that all perennial crops except switchgrass increased SOC stock relative to the reference arable land by a significant amount at 0–30 cm soil depth. A recent study in central Ohio reported that perennial crops yielded a significant increase in SOC stock compared with annual crops on the surface 20 cm of soil after eight years of cultivation (Dheri et al. 2022). All these findings are in agreement with our observations, which suggest that rather long time is required after PC establishment for significant increase in SOC stock.
3.3 Crop effect
Compared to both reference annual systems, PCs increased SOC stock regardless of their functional types (Figure 5); QM for this moderator was 10 and 12 (p < 0.0001) for perennial vs monoculture (Figure 5a) and vs crop rotation (Figure 5b), respectively. SOC stock increased significantly in perennial PFT with a mean value of 14.8, 15.6, and 19.9% in C4-C3 (p = 0.0136), C4 (p < 0.0001), and C3 (p < 0.0001) types, respectively (Figure 5a); however, no significant difference was found between the C3 and C4 types. For reference annual crop rotation, perennial PFT significantly increased the SOC stocks ranges from 16.2 to 33.8% (Figure 5b).
Perennial crops with C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways have shown different dynamics of SOC stock changes (Figure 5). Grass species with C3 pathway may decrease the C accumulation, whereas C4 grass species have a high C/N ratio (i.e., more cross-linked polymers of lignin and cellulose), which leads to increased soil C accumulation (Knops and Tilman 2000; Knops and Bradley 2009). On the contrary, Knops and Bradly (2009) showed that vegetation composition (C3 and C4 grasses) effects was not significant predictors for SOC, probably, because of high relative soil C pool, undetectable plant input on the deep SOC, and using only root inputs as a sole explanation for the SOC build up is insufficient. However, an incubation study from a 10-year-old field experiment showed that C derived from C4 plants decomposed faster than C3-derived C (Ye and Hall 2020), possibly related to decreased microbial C-use efficiency that comes along with the lower N content of C4 plants or biochemical variations between the tissues of C3 and C4 plants. Moreover, on agriculturally degraded soils, increased SOC in C3-C4 plant mixture has been linked to high root biomass and accumulation of root biomass owing to presence of highly complementary functional groups (i.e., C4 grasses and legumes) (Fornara and Tilman 2008).
Perennial vegetation type showed a significant positive effect in SOC stock compared with both reference annual systems (Figure 6); QM for this moderator was 15 and 17 (p < 0.0001) for perennial vs monoculture (Figure 6a) and vs crop rotation (Figure 6b), respectively. SOC stock significantly increased under woody vegetation by 23% (p < 0.0001) followed by herbaceous vegetation with SOC stock increase of 15.8% (p < 0.0001) in comparison with annual monoculture. While comparing with annual crop rotation, both woody and herbaceous perennial showed significantly higher SOC stock of 21.6% and 24.1% (p < 0.0001), respectively. Because of the combined contribution of roots and leaf-litter C inputs, woody bioenergy crops are expected to have a higher SOC sequestration capacity than herbaceous bioenergy crops (Hangs et al. 2014); it may also be due to the high C/N ratio of woody plant organs which slows down residue mineralization and increase SOC. The C inputs to the soil come mainly from the root system in herbaceous crops because the most of aboveground biomass is removed during harvesting, whereas in woody crops, both roots and leaf-litter inputs are important contributors to SOC accumulation (Tolbert et al. 2002; Hangs et al. 2014). In contrast to woody crop roots, herbaceous crop roots contribute more than half of the total plant C (Bazrgar et al. 2020); however, SOC accumulation was not significantly different between the woody and the herbaceous systems, suggesting that perennial biomass systems may not be influenced by the vegetation type.
3.4 Soil and climatic effect
Results indicated that relative SOC stock change was influenced by both soil and climatic conditions (Figures 7, 8, and 9). The QM for soil pH moderator was 13 and 11 (p < 0.0001) for perennial vs monoculture (Figure 7a) and crop rotation (Figure 7b), respectively. Soils in perennials with pH < 6.5 showed a significant mean response of 10.1% (p = 0.0146, Figure 7a). The pH neutral soils (6.5–7.5) had significant increase in SOC stock by 17.3% (p = 0.0008), while the alkaline (> 7.5) soils showed 37.1% (p < 0.0001) SOC stock changes in perennials in contrast with monoculture system (Figure 7a). Perennial crops increased SOC relative to crop rotation system regardless of the soil pH (Figure 7b); however, alkaline soil pH (> 7.5) showed a significant SOC stock change of 23.8% (p = 0.0311).
Increased soil pH releases more Ca2+ ions, which favors the formation of mineral-organic chemical complexes that eventually may retain organic carbon on their surfaces (Paradelo et al. 2015). It is widely accepted that root exudates and decomposition of fine roots result in organic acids, which lower soil pH and raise SOC (Singh 1998), but Leifeld et al. (2013) have shown that better aboveground production in alkaline soils can compensate for the observed faster SOC turnover compared to similar acidic soils. However, in principle, low soil pH values may trigger SOC accumulation by slowing down the decomposition process (Motavalli et al. 1995). Since the number of observations in the present study was limited for soil pH (Figure 7), subgroup analysis should be taken cautiously due to the large uncertainty in estimates.
Most soil textural classes were not significantly different from zero which means only a few textural classes showed significantly positive response on SOC in PCs compared with both reference annual systems (Figure 8); QM for soil texture was 4 and 5 (p < 0.001) for perennial vs monoculture (Figure 8a) and vs crop rotation (Figure 8b), respectively. Our results showed large difference in SOC stock change between the textural classes; furthermore, wide ranges of loam soils showed high relative SOC changes, suggesting that soils with fine particles are best for SOC accumulation (Figure 8). In general, the possibility of SOC accumulation is higher with increasing clay content of the soil because its greater surface area leads to adsorption of organic compounds and formation of micro-aggregate (Zinn et al. 2007). Chemical protection of SOC by soil matrix, the most important SOC stabilization mechanism, can be explained by the interaction of charged organic compounds with the silt and clay particles (Lützow et al. 2006; Marschner et al. 2008). The stable complex compound between SOC and clay minerals is resistant to decomposition (Kögel-Knabner et al. 2008) and fosters aggregate formation to protect the SOC. In our study, no significant effect of soil texture on the difference between perennial and reference systems was found because of lack of observations and mixed pedoclimatic effects.
Relative change of SOC stock showed different dynamics under different climatic conditions (Figure 9); the QM for climate moderator was 11 and 19 (p < 0.0001) for perennial vs monoculture (Figure 9a) and vs crop rotation (Figure 9b), respectively. Tropical climates had the lowest response ratio, with an average increase in SOC stock of 10.2% (p = 0.2463) compared with reference monoculture (Figure 9a). Relative SOC stock change in temperate climates had a significantly positive mean value of 15.2% (p < 0.0001), whereas subtropical climates had the largest response with 37.6% (p < 0.0001). Compared with reference crop rotation, SOC stock in temperate climates had a significant positive mean response of 20.5% (p < 0.0001), whereas, subtropical climates led to average SOC stock increase of 37.2% (p = 0.0004) (Figure 9b).
Climatic factors, particularly temperature and precipitation, have a strong influence on SOC stock by affecting SOC decomposition. By accelerating the weathering of the parent material and frequently causing soil acidity, humidity favors the creation of SOC-stabilizing mineral surfaces and slows down the decomposition of soil organic matter (Meier and Leuschner 2010; Doetterl et al. 2015). Furthermore, many studies have shown a decrease in SOC with rising temperature (Koven et al. 2017). In general, SOC stock might be higher in cool and humid climate than in warm and arid climate both at global and regional scale (Jobbágy and Jackson 2000; Lal 2004; de Brogniez et al. 2014). Water availability increases crop production in cool regions, limiting microbial activity, and eventually increasing SOC stock (von Lützow and Kögel-Knabner 2009); in contrast, water stress condition in arid and semi-arid sites limits the SOC input and storage by constraining crop production (Hobley et al. 2016). The abovementioned mechanism of SOC accumulation under different climatic conditions could explain the difference in relative SOC changes pattern between perennial and annual systems. Nonetheless, our findings advised that more research on perennials in the tropical and subtropical regions must be conducted to better understand the SOC stock dynamics there.
3.5 Changes in SOC stocks over time from perennial crop establishment
When the data were fitted to a nonlinear regression fit using a general four-parameter log-logistic function, it showed that the change of SOC stock approached equilibrium after a certain period of time (Figure 10). Initially, there seemed to be a decrease in SOC, probably due to land conversion. This drop in SOC was likely caused by increased SOC loss through soil disturbance and lower productivity of new vegetation in the early years after establishment (Laganière et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2010). Our synthesis indicated that the increase of SOC in PCs started after approximately five years (> 5 years) when compared to both reference annual systems (Figure 4). Then, it showed a sigmoidal function of SOC stock increase slowing down around 20 years after PC establishment (Figure 10).
While summarizing the time effect of perennialization on SOC in the present meta-study, studies which were found to be outliers and could leverage the effect of perennialization are further discussed. Dou et al. (2013) found that 9-year-old switchgrass had higher increase of SOC compared to the 4-year-old switchgrass irrespective of locations (Figure 10a). These data must be interpreted with caution because high clay content influenced the SOC stock. Additionally, compared to other soils, fine-textured vertisol showed a strong capacity to store carbon in various carbon pools (Dou et al. 2013). In another long-term (75-year) investigation of perennial grassland and agricultural land, Culman et al. (2010) concluded that even after many years of annual harvest and without fertilizer, grasslands remained productive over time, supporting annual biomass production and keeping SOC levels significantly higher than cultivated agricultural land (Figure 10a). This observation advocates the fundamental differences in plant community function, nutrient cycling, and associated soil biology between perennial and annual systems. In a 52-year field experiment in Northern Sweden, the SOC stock increased in a continuous forage crop rotation, whereas a continuous annual rotation decreased the SOC stock (Bolinder et al. 2010). Due to the effect of previous land use (grassland rotated with small grain crops), and cool weather, annual system had a lower rate of SOC change, which could explain the lower effect of perennialization on SOC stock (Figure 10b). The largest effect of perennialization in Figure 10b was contributed by Fabrizzi et al. (2009), and this study has shown that irrespective of soil type, annual crops decreased carbon and nitrogen stocks in comparison to the natural grassland. Results suggested, furthermore, that continuous annual crop cultivation reduced the mass of macro-aggregates and associated C concentration (Fabrizzi et al. 2009).
3.6 Limitation and outlook
Reviewing, summarizing, and analyzing the global changes in SOC stocks after perennialization showed a significant increase in SOC stocks compared with annual crops. However, only a few other effects were found from the subgroup analysis that affected the SOC stock. Although subgroup analysis provided the confidence and prediction intervals to show the large uncertainty of the estimates, due to the limiting number of observations specific subgroup analysis should be taken cautiously. Results from our synthesis suggested more experimentation on perennials in the tropical and subtropical regions to unfold the SOC stock dynamics there. While the sensitivity analysis showed robust results linked to the SOC stocks and the non-existence of publication bias, some methodological procedures might induce uncertainty. First, the reported SOC stocks in this study estimated from response ratios between the annual and perennial systems provided a global overview of the perennialization effect on SOC stock. However, for future implementation of perennials, C sequestration rate estimation could be done using both SOC stock at the initial and the end of perennialization. Due to a lack of information on initial soil carbon stock in many of the studies, C sequestration analysis could not be performed from our database. Second, during the back transformation of lnRR, the convexity of the log transformation introduced a bias in the estimate of the mean response ratio. The back transformation to the percentage change of the lnRR might cause issues linked to nonlinear scaling, asymmetric error distributions, dependency on sample size, and heterogeneity (Lee 2020). However, if the number of studies and precision of their estimates are both large, and the variance of the weighted mean is low, the bias will be small (Hedges et al. 1999). Lastly, temporal synthesis assessed the relationship between SOC stock changes with perennial crop age but this was supported by very few long-term perennial studies. Further investigation exploring SOC stock dynamics using long-term studies (> 20 years) comparing annual and perennial cropping systems is paramount. In addition, we focused on 0–30 cm soil depth to quantify the SOC stock while estimating the effect of perennialization based on our existing database due to the inconsistency of reporting deeper SOC stocks and different layer discretization. We also acknowledged that different farming practices might induce short-term temporal changes in SOC. These farm management practices, including site-specific and climatic features, could increase or decrease SOC. The lack of detailed information from individual articles constrained more detailed exploration of specific farming practices. However, in our meta-analysis study, we compared the SOC stock changes at a system level controlled by the available factors (moderators) provided by the individual studies. These issues, therefore, need further attention to achieve a comprehensive system.
In the future, when turning agriculture more climate efficient, there will be a need for C crediting from specific cropping systems. Reporting the potential to sequester soil carbon requires estimation and verification in terms of tons of carbon sequestered per hectare per year. This puts significant pressure on the methodologies to be developed and their validity.
4 Conclusion
We conducted a meta-analysis on soil organic carbon stock change following perennialization and found that the change of soil organic carbon stock at 0–30 cm depth in the studied perennial crops generally increased with reference to annual crops both in monoculture and crop rotation systems. Several factors, including soil, plant, and climatic properties, have been analyzed for their impact on the SOC stock with contrasting effects. Here we showed that the time since conversion from annual to perennial system influenced the dynamics of soil organic carbon stock changes, extending the accumulated effect after 5, 10, and 20 years. Perennialization has the potential to achieve a significant increase of soil organic carbon across biomes and pedoclimatic conditions, but the effect seems to stagnate approximately 20 years after introduction of perennial crops.
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in Mendeley Data repository at the following URL/DOI: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/spsv5h6hhg (https://doi.org/10.17632/spsv5h6hhg.2). Similarly, the synthesized data after curation is provided (Supplementary data).
Code availability
The code to reproduce the findings of this study is openly available in Mendeley Data repository at the following URL/DOI: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/spsv5h6hhg (https://doi.org/10.17632/spsv5h6hhg.2).
References
Bazrgar AB, Ng A, Coleman B, Ashiq MW, Gordon A, Thevathasan N (2020) Long-term monitoring of soil carbon sequestration in woody and herbaceous bioenergy crop production systems on marginal lands in southern Ontario Canada. Sustainability-Basel 12(9):3901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093901
Bolinder MA, Kätterer T, Andrén O, Ericson L, Parent LE, Kirchmann H (2010) Long-term soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in forage-based crop rotations in Northern Sweden (63–64°N). Agr Ecosyst Environ 138(3):335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.06.009
Carvalho JLN, Hudiburg TW, Franco HCJ, DeLucia EH (2017) Contribution of above- and belowground bioenergy crop residues to soil carbon. GCB Bioenergy 9(8):1333–1343. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12411
Cherubini F, Jungmeier G (2010) LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0124-2
Chimento C, Almagro M, Amaducci S (2016) Carbon sequestration potential in perennial bioenergy crops: the importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection. GCB Bioenergy 8(1):111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12232
Conant RT, Ryan MG, Ågren GI, Birge HE, Davidson EA, Eliasson PE, Evans SE, Frey SD, Giardina CP, Hopkins FM, Hyvönen R, Kirschbaum MUF, Lavallee JM, Leifeld J, Parton WJ, Megan Steinweg J, Wallenstein MD, Martin Wetterstedt JÅ, Bradford MA (2011) Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Global Change Biol 17(11):3392–3404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x
Cox TS, Glover JD, Van Tassel DL, Cox CM, DeHaan LR (2006) Prospects for developing perennial-grain crops. Bioscience 56(8):649–659. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[649:Pfdpgc]2.0.Co;2
Creutzig F, Ravindranath NH, Berndes G, Bolwig S, Bright R, Cherubini F, Chum H, Corbera E, Delucchi M, Faaij A, Fargione J, Haberl H, Heath G, Lucon O, Plevin R, Popp A, Robledo-Abad C, Rose S, Smith P, Stromman A, Suh S, Masera O (2015) Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy 7(5):916–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205
Culman SW, DuPont ST, Glover JD, Buckley DH, Fick GW, Ferris H, Crews TE (2010) Long-term impacts of high-input annual cropping and unfertilized perennial grass production on soil properties and belowground food webs in Kansas, USA. Agr Ecosyst Environ 137(1–2):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.008
de Brogniez D, Ballabio C, van Wesemael B, Jones RJA, Stevens A, Montanarella L (2014) Topsoil Organic Carbon Map of Europe. In: Hartemink AE, McSweeney K (eds) Soil Carbon. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 393-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04084-4_39
Deng L, Liu G-b, Shangguan Z-p (2014) Land-use conversion and changing soil carbon stocks in China’s ‘Grain-for-Green’ Program: a synthesis. Global Change Biol 20(11):3544–3556. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12508
Deng L, Wang K, Tang Z, Shangguan Z (2016) Soil organic carbon dynamics following natural vegetation restoration: Evidence from stable carbon isotopes (δ13C). Agr Ecosyst Environ 221:235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.048
Dheri GS, Lal R, Moonilall NI (2022) Soil carbon stocks and water stable aggregates under annual and perennial biofuel crops in central Ohio. Agr Ecosyst Environ 324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107715
Dignac M-F, Derrien D, Barré P, Barot S, Cécillon L, Chenu C, Chevallier T, Freschet GT, Garnier P, Guenet B, Hedde M, Klumpp K, Lashermes G, Maron P-A, Nunan N, Roumet C, Basile-Doelsch I (2017) Increasing soil carbon storage: mechanisms, effects of agricultural practices and proxies A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 37(2):14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0421-2
Doetterl S, Stevens A, Six J, Merckx R, Van Oost K, Casanova Pinto M, Casanova-Katny A, Muñoz C, Boudin M, Zagal Venegas E, Boeckx P (2015) Soil carbon storage controlled by interactions between geochemistry and climate. Nat Geosc 8(10):780–783. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2516
Don A, Schumacher J, Freibauer A (2011) Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stocks - a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol 17(4):1658–1670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.x
Dou FG, Hons FM, Ocumpaugh WR, Read JC, Hussey MA, Muir JP (2013) Soil Organic Carbon Pools Under Switchgrass Grown as a Bioenergy Crop Compared to Other Conventional Crops. Pedosphere 23(4):409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(13)60033-8
Emmerling C (2014) Impact of land-use change towards perennial energy crops on earthworm population. Appl Soil Ecol 84:12–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.06.006
Emmerling C, Schmidt A, Ruf T, von Francken-Welz H, Thielen S (2017) Impact of newly introduced perennial bioenergy crops on soil quality parameters at three different locations in W-Germany. J Plant Nutr Soil Sc 180(6):759–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201700162
Fabrizzi KP, Rice CW, Amado TJC, Fiorin J, Barbagelata P, Melchiori R (2009) Protection of soil organic C and N in temperate and tropical soils: effect of native and agroecosystems. Biogeochemistry 92(1):129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-008-9261-0
Ferrarini A, Serra P, Almagro M, Trevisan M, Amaducci S (2017) Multiple ecosystem services provision and biomass logistics management in bioenergy buffers: A state-of-the-art review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 73:277–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.052
Fohrafellner J, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Murugan R, Valkama E (2023) Quality assessment of meta-analyses on soil organic carbon. Soil 9:117–140. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-117-2023
Fornara DA, Tilman D (2008) Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. J Ecol 96(2):314–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01345.x
Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327(5967):812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383
Gray JM, Bishop TFA, Wilson BR (2015) Factors Controlling Soil Organic Carbon Stocks with Depth in Eastern Australia. Soil Sci Soc Am J 79(6):1741–1751. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.06.0224
Gross A, Glaser B (2021) Meta-analysis on how manure application changes soil organic carbon storage. Sci Rep 11(1):5516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82739-7
Gunina A, Kuzyakov Y (2014) Pathways of litter C by formation of aggregates and SOM density fractions: Implications from 13C natural abundance. Soil Biol Biochem 71:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.01.011
HvV Günther Fischer, Nachtergaele Freddy O (2000) Global Agro-Ecological Zones Assessment: Methodology and Results. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Luxenberg
Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biol 8(4):345–360. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x
Habeck CW, Schultz AK (2015) Community-level impacts of white-tailed deer on understorey plants in North American forests: a meta-analysis. AoB PLANTS 7:plv119. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv119
Hangs RD, Schoenau JJ, Van Rees KCJ, Bélanger N, Volk T (2014) Leaf Litter Decomposition and Nutrient-Release Characteristics of Several Willow Varieties Within Short-Rotation Coppice Plantations in Saskatchewan. Canada. Bioenerg Res 7(4):1074–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9431-y
Hargreaves SK, Hofmockel KS (2014) Physiological shifts in the microbial community drive changes in enzyme activity in a perennial agroecosystem. Biogeochemistry 117(1):67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9893-6
Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80(4):1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;2
Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GBM, Ruiperez Gonzalez M, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, Shangguan W, Wright MN, Geng X, Bauer-Marschallinger B, Guevara MA, Vargas R, MacMillan RA, Batjes NH, Leenaars JGB, Ribeiro E, Wheeler I, Mantel S, Kempen B (2017) SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. Plos One 12(2):e0169748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748
Hobley E, Wilson B, Wilkie A, Gray J, Koen T (2015) Drivers of soil organic carbon storage and vertical distribution in Eastern Australia. Plant Soil 390(1):111–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2380-1
Hobley EU, Baldock J, Wilson B (2016) Environmental and human influences on organic carbon fractions down the soil profile. Agr Ecosyst Environ 223:152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.004
Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2000) The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Appl 10(2):423–436. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2
Jung JY, Lal R (2011) Impacts of nitrogen fertilization on biomass production of switchgrass (Panicum Virgatum L.) and changes in soil organic carbon in Ohio. Geoderma 166(1):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.023
Knops JMH, Bradley KL (2009) Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Accumulation and Vertical Distribution across a 74-Year Chronosequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73(6):2096–2104. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0058
Knops JMH, Tilman D (2000) Dynamics of soil nitrogen and carbon accumulation for 61 years after agricultural abandonment. Ecology 81(1):88–98. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0088:DOSNAC]2.0.CO;2
Kögel-Knabner I, Guggenberger G, Kleber M, Kandeler E, Kalbitz K, Scheu S, Eusterhues K, Leinweber P (2008) Organo-mineral associations in temperate soils: Integrating biology, mineralogy, and organic matter chemistry. J Plant Nutr Soil Sc 171(1):61–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200700048
Kopittke PM, Dalal RC, Finn D, Menzies NW (2017) Global changes in soil stocks of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur as influenced by long-term agricultural production. Glob Chang Biol 23(6):2509–2519. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13513
Koven CD, Hugelius G, Lawrence DM, Wieder WR (2017) Higher climatological temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm climates. Nat Clim Change 7(11):817–822. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421
Laganiére J, Angers DA, Paré D (2010) Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol 16(1):439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01930.x
Lajeunesse MJ (2016) Facilitating systematic reviews, data extraction and meta-analysis with the metagear package for r. Methods Ecol Evol 7(3):323–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12472
Lal R (2004) Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science 304(5677):1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
Lal R (2005) Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecol Manag 220(1):242–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.015
Le Quéré C, Moriarty R, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Sitch S, Korsbakken JI, Friedlingstein P, Peters GP, Andres RJ, Boden TA, Houghton RA, House JI, Keeling RF, Tans P, Arneth A, Bakker DCE, Barbero L, Bopp L, Chang J, Chevallier F, Chini LP, Ciais P, Fader M, Feely RA, Gkritzalis T, Harris I, Hauck J, Ilyina T, Jain AK, Kato E, Kitidis V, Klein Goldewijk K, Koven C, Landschützer P, Lauvset SK, Lefèvre N, Lenton A, Lima ID, Metzl N, Millero F, Munro DR, Murata A, Nabel JEMS, Nakaoka S, Nojiri Y, O’Brien K, Olsen A, Ono T, Pérez FF, Pfeil B, Pierrot D, Poulter B, Rehder G, Rödenbeck C, Saito S, Schuster U, Schwinger J, Séférian R, Steinhoff T, Stocker BD, Sutton AJ, Takahashi T, Tilbrook B, van der Laan-Luijkx IT, van der Werf GR, van Heuven S, Vandemark D, Viovy N, Wiltshire A, Zaehle S, Zeng N (2015) Global Carbon Budget 2015. Earth Syst Sci Data 7(2):349–396. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-349-2015
Ledo A, Smith P, Zerihun A, Whitaker J, Vicente-Vicente JL, Qin ZC, McNamara NP, Zinn YL, Llorente M, Liebig M, Kuhnert M, Dondini M, Don A, Diaz-Pines E, Datta A, Bakka H, Aguilera E, Hillier J (2020) Changes in soil organic carbon under perennial crops. Global Change Biol 26(7):4158–4168. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15120
Lee DK (2020) Data transformation: a focus on the interpretation. Korean J Anesthesiol 73(6):503–508. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.20137
Leifeld J, Bassin S, Conen F, Hajdas I, Egli M, Fuhrer J (2013) Control of soil pH on turnover of belowground organic matter in subalpine grassland. Biogeochemistry 112(1):59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9689-5
Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy Crops and Carbon Sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680590910393
Liu S-l, Du Y-g, Zhang F-w, Lin L, Li Y-k, Guo X-w, Li Q, Cao G-m (2016) Distribution of soil carbon in different grassland types of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. J Mt Sci 13(10):1806–1817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-015-3764-7
Luo Y, Hui D, Zhang D (2006) Elevated CO2 stimulates net accumulations of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecology 87(1):53–63. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1724
Lützow MV, Kögel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Matzner E, Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Flessa H (2006) Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions – a review. Eur J Soil Sci 57(4):426–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00809.xx
Manevski K, Lærke PE, Jiao X, Santhome S, Jørgensen U (2017) Biomass productivity and radiation utilisation of innovative cropping systems for biorefinery. Agr Forest Meteorol 233:250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.245
Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A, Gleixner G, Gude A, Grootes PM, Hamer U, Heim A, Jandl G, Ji R, Kaiser K, Kalbitz K, Kramer C, Leinweber P, Rethemeyer J, Schäffer A, Schmidt MWI, Schwark L, Wiesenberg GLB (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171(1):91–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200700049
Martani E, Ferrarini A, Serra P, Pilla M, Marcone A, Amaducci S (2021) Belowground biomass C outweighs soil organic C of perennial energy crops: Insights from a long-term multispecies trial. GCB Bioenergy 13(3):459–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12785
McClelland SC, Paustian K, Schipanski ME (2021) Management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: a meta-analysis. Ecol Appl 31(3):e02278. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2278
McGowan AR, Nicoloso RS, Diop HE, Roozeboom KL, Rice CW (2019) Soil Organic Carbon, Aggregation, and Microbial Community Structure in Annual and Perennial Biofuel Crops. Agron J 111(1):128–142. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.04.0284
Meier IC, Leuschner C (2010) Variation of soil and biomass carbon pools in beech forests across a precipitation gradient. Global Change Biol 16(3):1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02074.x
Motavalli PP, Palm CA, Parton WJ, Elliott ET, Frey SD (1995) Soil pH and organic C dynamics in tropical forest soils: Evidence from laboratory and simulation studies. Soil Biol Biochem 27(12):1589–1599. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(95)00082-P
Muhammed SE, Coleman K, Wu L, Bell VA, Davies JAC, Quinton JN, Carnell EJ, Tomlinson SJ, Dore AJ, Dragosits U, Naden PS, Glendining MJ, Tipping E, Whitmore AP (2018) Impact of two centuries of intensive agriculture on soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in the UK. Sci Total Environ 634:1486–1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.378
Nakagawa S, Lagisz M, O’Dea RE, Rutkowska J, Yang Y, Noble DWA, Senior AM (2021) The orchard plot: Cultivating a forest plot for use in ecology, evolution, and beyond. Res Synth Methods 12(1):4–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1424
Necpálová M, Anex RP, Kravchenko AN, Abendroth LJ, Del Grosso SJ, Dick WA, Helmers MJ, Herzmann D, Lauer JG, Nafziger ED, Sawyer JE, Scharf PC, Strock JS, Villamil MB (2014) What does it take to detect a change in soil carbon stock? A regional comparison of minimum detectable difference and experiment duration in the north central United States. J Soil Water Conserv 69(6):517–531. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.6.517
Paradelo R, Virto I, Chenu C (2015) Net effect of liming on soil organic carbon stocks: A review. Agr Ecosyst Environ 202:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.005
Patton NR, Lohse KA, Seyfried MS, Godsey SE, Parsons SB (2019) Topographic controls of soil organic carbon on soil-mantled landscapes. Sci Rep 9(1):6390. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42556-5
Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle S, Reay D, Robertson GP, Smith P (2016) Climate-smart soils. Nature 532(7597):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174
Pugesgaard S, Schelde K, Larsen SU, Lærke PE, Jørgensen U (2015) Comparing annual and perennial crops for bioenergy production – influence on nitrate leaching and energy balance. GCB Bioenergy 7(5):1136–1149. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12215
Pustejovsky JE (2018) Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. J Sch Psychol 68:99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM (2016) Soil carbon sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel production: empirical evidence. GCB Bioenergy 8(1):66–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12237
Ritz C, Baty F, Streibig JC, Gerhard D (2016) Dose-Response Analysis Using R. Plos One 10(12):e0146021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146021
Robertson AD, Whitaker J, Morrison R, Davies CA, Smith P, McNamara NP (2017) A Miscanthus plantation can be carbon neutral without increasing soil carbon stocks. GCB Bioenergy 9(3):645–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12397
Rubin DB, Schenker N (1991) Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 10(4):585–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780100410
Rui Y, Jackson RD, Cotrufo MF, Sanford GR, Spiesman BJ, Deiss L, Culman SW, Liang C, Ruark MD (2022) Persistent soil carbon enhanced in Mollisols by well-managed grasslands but not annual grain or dairy forage cropping systems. Proc Natl A Sci 119(7):e2118931119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118931119
Shahzad T, Chenu C, Genet P, Barot S, Perveen N, Mougin C, Fontaine S (2015) Contribution of exudates, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and litter depositions to the rhizosphere priming effect induced by grassland species. Soil Biol Biochem 80:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.023
Singh B (1998) Contribution of forest fine roots in reclamation of semiarid sodic soils. Arid Soil Res Rehab 12(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324989809381510
Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, Denef K (2004) A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Till Res 79(1):7–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008
Smith P (2004) Soils as carbon sinks: the global context. Soil Use Manage 20(2):212–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2004.tb00361.x
Sterne JAC, Becker BJ, Egger M (2005) The Funnel Plot. In: Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis. pp 73-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch5
Sterne JAC, Egger M (2005) Regression Methods to Detect Publication and Other Bias in Meta-Analysis. In: Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis. pp 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch6
Stewart CE, Follett RF, Pruessner EG, Varvel GE, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2015) Nitrogen and harvest effects on soil properties under rainfed switchgrass and no-till corn over 9 years: implications for soil quality. GCB Bioenergy 7(2):288–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12142
Tiemann LK, Grandy AS (2015) Mechanisms of soil carbon accrual and storage in bioenergy cropping systems. GCB Bioenergy 7(2):161–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12126
Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. P Natl A Sci 108(50):20260–20264. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116437108
Tolbert VR, Todd DE, Mann LK, Jawdy CM, Mays DA, Malik R, Bandaranayake W, Houston A, Tyler D, Pettry DE (2002) Changes in soil quality and below-ground carbon storage with conversion of traditional agricultural crop lands to bioenergy crop production. Environ Pollut 116:S97–S106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00262-7
Valzano F (2005) The impact of tillage on changes in soil carbon density with special emphasis on Australian conditions / Frank Valzano, Brian Murphy and Terry Koen. National Carbon Accounting System technical report ; no. 43., vol Accessed from https://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn3703871. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra
Viechtbauer W (2005) Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Edu Behav Stat 30(3):261–293. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261
Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw 36 (3):1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I (2009) Temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition—what do we know? Biol Fert Soils 46(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-009-0413-8
Wiesmeier M, Urbanski L, Hobley E, Lang B, von Lützow M, Marin-Spiotta E, van Wesemael B, Rabot E, Ließ M, Garcia-Franco N, Wollschläger U, Vogel H-J, Kögel-Knabner I (2019) Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils - A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma 333:149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.026
Ye CL, Hall SJ (2020) Mechanisms underlying limited soil carbon gains in perennial and cover-cropped bioenergy systems revealed by stable isotopes. GCB Bioenergy 12(1):101–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12657
Zhang K, Dang H, Tan S, Cheng X, Zhang Q (2010) Change in soil organic carbon following the ‘Grain-for-Green’ programme in China. Land Degrad Dev 21(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.954
Zinn YL, Lal R, Bigham JM, Resck DVS (2007) Edaphic Controls on Soil Organic Carbon Retention in the Brazilian Cerrado: Texture and Mineralogy. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(4):1204–1214. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0014
Zinn YL, Lal R, Resck DVS (2005) Changes in soil organic carbon stocks under agriculture in Brazil. Soil till Res 84(1):28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.007
References of the meta-analysis
Chimento C, Almagro M, Amaducci S (2016) Carbon sequestration potential in perennial bioenergy crops: the importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection. GCB Bioenergy 8(1):111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12232
Gauder M, Billen N, Zikeli S, Laub M, Graeff-Hönninger S, Claupein W (2016) Soil carbon stocks in different bioenergy cropping systems including subsoil. Soil Till Res 155:308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.09.005
Kahle Petra et al (2013) Tillage-induced changes in the distribution of soil organic matter and the soil aggregate stability under a former short rotation coppice. Soil Till Res 133(49):49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.05.010
Cattaneo F, Barbanti L, Gioacchini P, Ciavatta C, Marzadori C (2014) 13C abundance shows effective soil carbon sequestration in Miscanthus and giant reed compared to arable crops under Mediterranean climate. Biol Fert Soils 50(7):1121–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-014-0931-x
San José JJ, Montes RA, Rocha C (2003) Neotropical savanna converted to food cropping and cattle feeding systems: soil carbon and nitrogen changes over 30 years. Forest Ecol Manag 184(1):17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00144-0
Felten D, Emmerling C (2012) Accumulation of Miscanthus-derived carbon in soils in relation to soil depth and duration of land use under commercial farming conditions. J Plant NutrSoil Sc 175(5):661–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100250
Zimmermann J, Dauber J, Jones MB (2012) Soil carbon sequestration during the establishment phase of Miscanthus × giganteus: a regional-scale study on commercial farms using 13C natural abundance. GCB Bioenergy 4(4):453–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01117.x
Lockwell J, Guidi W, Labrecque M (2012) Soil carbon sequestration potential of willows in short-rotation coppice established on abandoned farm lands. Plant Soil 360(1–2):299–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1251-2
Mello FF, Cerri CE, Davies CA, Holbrook NM, Paustian K, Maia SM, Galdos MV, Bernoux M, Cerri CC (2014) Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol. Nat Clim Change 4(7):605–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2239
Walter K, Don A, Flessa H (2015) No general soil carbon sequestration under Central European short rotation coppices. GCB Bioenergy 7(4):727–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12177
Díaz-Pinés E et al (2017) Nitrate leaching and soil nitrous oxide emissions diminish with time in a hybrid poplar short-rotation coppice in southern Germany. GCB Bioenergy 9(3):613–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12367
McGowan AR, Nicoloso RS, Diop HE, Roozeboom KL, Rice CW (2019) Soil Organic Carbon, Aggregation, and Microbial Community Structure in Annual and Perennial Biofuel Crops. Agronomy 111(1):128–142. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.04.0284
Ojeda JJ, Caviglia OP, Agnusdei MG (2018) Vertical distribution of root biomass and soil carbon stocks in forage cropping systems. Plant Soil 423:175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3502-8
Ye C, Hall SJ (2019) Mechanisms underlying limited soil carbon gains in perennial and cover cropped bioenergy systems revealed by stable isotopes. GCB Bioenergy. 12:101–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12657
Zhu X, Liang C, Masters MD, Kantola IB, Delucia EH (2018) The impacts of four potential bioenergy crops on soil carbon dynamics as shown by biomarker analyses and DRIFT spectroscopy. GCB Bioenergy. 10:489–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12520
Sarkar D, Meitei ChB, Das A, Ghosh PK, Mandal B (2018) Changes in soil organic carbon pools in a long-term trial with perennial fodder crops in acid soils of north-east India. Grass Forage Sci 73:473–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12311
Blanco-Canqui H, Laird DA, Heaton EA, Rathke S, Acharya BS (2020) Soil carbon increased by twice the amount of biochar carbon applied after 6 years: Field evidence of negative priming. GCB Bioenergy. 12:240–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12665
Zhang L, Zhao R, Xie Z (2014) Response of soil properties and C dynamics to land-use change in the west of Loess Plateau. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 60(4):586–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2014.922407
Mi J, Liu W, Yang W, Yan J, Li J, Sang T (2014) Carbon sequestration by Miscanthus energy crops plantations in a broad range semi-arid marginal land in China. Sci Total Environ 496:373–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.047
Al Souki KS et al (2021) Enhanced Carbon Sequestration in Marginal Land Upon Shift towards Perennial C4 Miscanthus giganteus: A Case Study in North-Western Czechia. Agronomy 11:293. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020293
Acharya BS, Blanco-Canqui H, Mitchell RB, Cruse R, Laird D (2019) Dedicated Bioenergy Crops and Water Erosion. J Environ Qual 48:485–492. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.10.0380
Arevalo CBM, Bhatti JS, Chang SX, Sidders D (2011) Land use change effects on ecosystem carbon balance: From agricultural to hybrid poplar plantation. Agr Ecosys Environ 141:342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.013
Zhang L, Xie Z, Zhao R, Wang Y (2012) The impact of land use change on soil organic carbon and labile organic carbon stocks in the Longzhong region of Loess Plateau. J Arid Land 4(3):241–250. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1227.2012.00241
Emmerling C, Schmidt A, Ruf T, von Francken-Welz H, Thielen S (2017) Impact of newly introduced perennial bioenergy crops on soil quality parameters at three different locations in W-Germany. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 180:759–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201700162
Jung Ji Young, Lal Rattan (2011) Impacts of nitrogen fertilization on biomass production of switchgrass (Panicum Virgatum L.) and changes in soil organic carbon in Ohio. Geoderma. 166(1):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.07.023
Dou FG, Hons FM, Ocumpaugh WR, Read JC, Hussey MA, Muir JP (2013) Soil Organic Carbon Pools Under Switchgrass Grown as a Bioenergy Crop Compared to Other Conventional Crops. Pedosphere 23(4):409–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(13)60033-8
Kantola IB, Masters MD, DeLucia EH (2017) Soil particulate organic matter increases under perennial bioenergy crop agriculture. Soil Biol Biochem 113:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.05.023
Smith CM, David MB, Mitchell CA, Masters MD, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Bernacchi CJ, DeLucia EH (2013) Reduced nitrogen losses after conversion of row crop agriculture to perennial biofuel crops. J Environ Qual 42:219–228. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0210
Ruf T, Emmerling C (2020) Soil organic carbon allocation and dynamics under perennial energy crops and their feedbacks with soil microbial biomass and activity. Soil Use Manage 36:646–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12614
Follett RF, Vogel KP, Varvel GE, Mitchell RB, Kimble J (2012) Soil carbon sequestration by switchgrass and no-till maize grown for bioenergy. BioEnerg Res 5(4):866–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9198-y
Ferchaud F, Vitte G, Mary B (2016) Changes in soil carbon stocks under perennial and annual bioenergy crops. GCB Bioenergy 8:290–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12249
Bonin CL, Lal R (2014) Aboveground productivity and soil carbon storage of biofuel crops in Ohio. GCB Bioenergy 6:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12041
Evers BJ, Blanco-Canqui H, Staggenborg SA, Tatarko J (2013) Dedicated Bioenergy Crop Impacts on Soil Wind Erodibility and Organic Carbon in Kansas. Agron J 105(5):1271–1276. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2013.0072
Gauder M, Butterbach-Bahl K, Graeff-Hönninger S, Claupein W, Wiegel R (2012) Soil-derived trace gas fluxes from different energy crops results from a field experiment in Southwest Germany. GCB Bioenergy 4:289–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01135.x
Dufossé K, Drewer J, Gabrielle B, Drouet JL (2014) Effects of a 20-year old Miscanthus × giganteus stand and its removal on soil characteristics and greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass Bioenerg 69:198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.07.003
Dalal RC, Thornton CM, Cowie BA (2013) Turnover of organic carbon and nitrogen in soil assessed from δ13C and δ15N changes under pasture and cropping practices and estimatesof greenhouse gas emissions. Sci Total Environ 465:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.101
Poeplau C, Don A (2014) Soil carbon changes under Miscanthus driven by C4 accumulation and C3 decomposition-toward a default sequestration function. GCB Bioenergy 6:327–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12043
Börjesson G, Bolinder MA, Kirchmann H, Kätterer T (2018) Organic carbon stocks in topsoil and subsoil in long-term ley and cereal monoculture rotations. Biol Fert Soils 54:549–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-018-1281-x
Thompson KA, Deen B, Dunfield KE (2016) Soil denitrifier community size changes with land use change to perennial bioenergy cropping systems. Soil 2:523–535. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-523-2016
Carter MR, Gregorich EG (2010) Carbon and nitrogen storage by deep-rooted tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) in the surface and subsurface of a fine sandy loam in eastern Canada. Agr Ecosys Environ 136:125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.12.005
Kaye JP, Mcculley RL, Burke IC (2005) Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Global Change Biol 11:575–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00921.x
DuPont ST, Beniston J, Glover JD, Hodson A, Culman SW, Lal R, Ferris H (2014) Root traits and soil properties in harvested perennial grassland, annual wheat, and never-tilled annual wheat. Plant Soil 381:405–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2145-2
Culman SW, DuPont ST, Glover JD, Buckley DH, Fick GW, Ferris H, Crews TE (2010) Long-term impacts of high-input annual cropping and unfertilized perennial grass production on soil properties and belowground food web of Kansas, USA. Agr Ecosys Environ 137:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.008
Bolinder MA, Kätterer T, Andrén O, Ericson L, Parent L-E, Kirchmann H (2010) Long-term soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in forage-based crop rotations in Northern Sweden (63–64°N). Agr Ecosys Environ 138:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.06.009
Tiemann LK, Grandy AS (2015) Mechanisms of soil carbon accrual and storage in bioenergy cropping systems. GCB Bioenergy 7:161–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12126
Martani E, Ferrarini A, Serra P, Pilla M, Marcone A, Amaducci S (2021) Belowground biomass C outweighs soil organic C of perennial energy crops: Insights from a long-term multispecies trial. GCB Bioenergy. 13:459–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12785
Bazrgar AB, Ng A, Coleman B, Ashiq MW, Gordon A, Thevathasan N (2020) Long-term monitoring of soil carbon sequestration in woody and herbaceous bioenergy crop production systems on marginal lands in southern Ontario Canada. Sustainability 12(9):3901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093901
Fabrizzi KP, Rice CW, Amado TJC, Fiorin J, Barbagelata P, Melchiori R (2009) Protection of soil organic C and N in temperate and tropical soils: effect of native and agroecosystems. Biogeochemistry 92:129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-008-9261-0
Ibrahim MA, Chua-Ona T, Liebman M, Thompson ML (2018) Soil organic carbon storage under biofuel cropping systems in a humid continental climate. Agron J 110(5):1748–1753. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.03.0204
Dondini M, Groenigen K-J, Galdo ID, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. GCB Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x
Hansen EM, Christensen BT, Jensen LS, Kristensen K (2004) Carbon sequestration in soil beneath long-term Miscanthus plantations as determined by 13C abundance. Biomass Bioenerg 26(2):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00102-8
Acknowledgements
We greatly appreciate and wish to thank Yong Zhang for helping with data extraction from the soil global database. We thank all the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Royal Danish Library, Aarhus University Library This study is supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark project GrassTools (project number 0224-00091B) and Aarhus University Research Foundation (project number AUFF-E-2019-7-1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, I.A.S., D.G., and J.C.; methodology, I.A.S., D.G.; investigation, I.A.S., D.G.; data curation, I.A.S., D.G.; formal analysis, I.A.S., D.G.; visualization, I.A.S., D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A.S., D.G.; writing—review and editing, I.A.S., D.G., J.C., P.E.L., U.J; funding acquisition, J.C., U.J.; supervision, P.E.L., U.J. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.
About this article
Cite this article
Siddique, I.A., Grados, D., Chen, J. et al. Soil organic carbon stock change following perennialization: a meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 58 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00912-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00912-w