Soil carbon sequestration: an innovative strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Soil carbon sequestration: an innovative strategyfor reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

Pankaj Srivastava • Amrit Kumar • Soumit K. Behera •

Yogesh K. Sharma • Nandita Singh

Received: 11 June 2011 / Accepted: 9 January 2012 / Published online: 20 January 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases emission and the sub-

sequent climatic changes are the most serious environmental challenges faced by envi-

ronmental scientists, academicians, regulatory agencies and policy makers worldwide.

Among the various greenhouse gases, CO2 constitutes a major share and its concentration

is increasing rapidly. Therefore, there is perhaps an urgent need to formulate suitable

policies and programs that can firmly reduce and sequester CO2 emissions in a sustainable

way. In order to combat the predicted disaster due to rising CO2 level, several CO2 capture

and storage technologies and medium are being widely pursued and deliberated. Among

them soil carbon sequestration (SCS) is gaining global attention because of its stability and

role in long-term surface reservoir, natural low cost and eco-friendly means to combat

climate change. Apart from the carbon capturing, the process of soil carbon stabilization

also provides other tangible benefits that includes achieving food security, by improving

soil quality, wasteland reclamation and preventing soil erosion. The present article aimed

to address all these concerns and provide strategies and critical research needs to imple-

ment SCS as a mitigation option for increasing atmospheric CO2 level and its future

directions.

Keywords Global warming � Climate change � Greenhouse gases �Soil carbon sequestration � Soil management

P. Srivastava � A. Kumar � S. K. Behera (&) � N. SinghNational Botanical Research Institute, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Rana Pratap Marg,Lucknow 226 001, Uttar Pradesh, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

Y. K. SharmaEnvironmental Science Division, Department of Botany, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007,Uttar Pradesh, India

123

Biodivers Conserv (2012) 21:1343–1358DOI 10.1007/s10531-012-0229-y

Introduction

During the last few decades, there is growing evidences that increasing greenhouse gases

(GHGs) concentration are mainly responsible for global warming and associated climatic

changes (WMO 2009). There is a general consensus that the climate on earth is changing

and this has led to a series of impacts on the environment and human society (Schellnhuber

et al. 2006) and affecting the sustainability of various ecosystems and well-beings of

human beings. Among the various GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a key one accounted for

63% of total GHGs emission, whereas methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the

remaining trace gases account for 24, 10 and 3%, respectively (Ravindranath et al. 2006;

IPCC 2007). Furthermore, the residence time of CO2 is very long[100 years (Kerr 2001;

O’Connor et al. 2001). According to IEA (2009), the total emission of CO2 was increased

from 14.1 Gt in 1971 to 29.0 Gt during 1971–2007.

In recognition to the adverse effects of increasing GHG emissions on global climate, the

United Nations in 1992 adopted a Framework Convention on Climate Change to formulate

strategies and possible mechanisms to stabilize atmospheric GHGs and reduce the future

emission. As a follow-up, the signatory nations mutually agreed to account for their net

carbon emissions to the atmosphere and to execute programs to curtail these emissions to

target levels by the accounting period of 2008–2012, relative to the base year of 1990 by a

subsequent agreement in 1997 (the Kyoto Protocol). The Kyoto Protocol includes well-

defined mechanisms for international emissions trading in which carbon is considered to be

a tradable commodity in the international market. Agreements under the Kyoto Protocol

initially focused on emission reduction and carbon sequestration (the additional carbon

stored during the accounting period) by forestry industries. However, as per the Article 3.4

of the Protocol, carbon sequestered in soil now qualifies for inclusion in the carbon

accounting process (Gibson et al. 2002).

In general, there are three major strategies being widely pursued to reduce increasing

CO2 and to mitigate subsequent climatic haphazard; (i) reducing the global fossil fuel use,

(ii) developing low- or no-carbon fuel and (iii) sequestering CO2 from point sources or

atmosphere through natural and engineering techniques (Schrag 2007). Apart from these,

there are also other innovative strategies like oceanic injection, geological sequestration,

etc. have been experimentally demonstrated to sequester CO2 concentration. However,

most of these techniques are much costlier than soil carbon sequestration (SCS). Fur-

thermore, SCS is natural, cost-effective and environmental friendly process and it is also

helpful to achieve food security by improving soil fertility (Lal 2004a). Literature provides

ample evidence on the mechanisms and processes of C-sequestration especially in soils

(Kogel-Knabner et al. 2008; Lal 2009; Benbi and Brar 2009; Sigua and Coleman 2009;

Jones et al. 2009; Morra et al. 2010). However, the present review was aimed to critically

analyze SCS as a carbon mitigation option and its role in agricultural productivity,

wasteland reclamation, increment in biological diversity and its future perspectives.

Natural sources of soil carbon sink

Soils are a fundamental resource for life on the planet. Furthermore, soil is an important

part of the biosphere and has a higher potential to store carbon compared to vegetation and

atmosphere (Bellamy et al. 2005). It has been estimated at approximately 3.3 times the size

of the atmospheric pool and 4.5 times the size of the biotic pool (Lal 2004a, b;

Janzen 2004) (Fig. 1). Therefore, soils have been suggested as a potential sink for

1344 Biodivers Conserv (2012) 21:1343–1358

123

atmospheric C (Feller and Bernoux 2008; Mondini and Sequi 2008). The soil C pool

mainly comprises soil organic C (SOC) estimated at 1550 Pg (1 petagram = 1015 g = 1

billion ton) and soil inorganic C (SIC) of approx. 750 Pg, occurred up to 1-m depth (Batjes

1996). However, this amount in any place changes over time, depending on photosynthetic

carbon added and the rate of its decay (Janzen 2004). There are five principal global C

pools. Some soils contain inorganic forms of C (i.e., carbonates), which collectively are

termed as SIC. Especially in arid and semiarid environments, SIC can represent a sig-

nificant amount of C (Lal 2002, 2007; Monger and Martinez-Rios 2001). Other pools

include the oceanic (38,400 Pg), geologic/fossil fuel (4,500 Pg), biotic (620 Pg) and

atmospheric (750 Pg) (Lal 2004a). The oceanic pool is the largest, followed by the geo-

logic, pedologic (soil), biotic and the atmospheric pool (Lal 2000).

Therefore, maintaining soil carbon is essential to improve the soil fertility, agricultural

productivity and to curtail increasing atmospheric CO2. Naturally, three main methods of

organic C stabilization have been occurred in soil, i.e., micro-aggregation (53–250 lm)

formation within macro-aggregates; physically binding with clay and silt particles and

biochemically by formation of recalcitrant soil organic matter (OM) compounds (Post and

Kwon 2000). Recalcitrant material that is physically or biochemically protected may have

turnover times of hundreds to thousands of years (Post and Kwon 2000). Light fractions

and particulate OM that do not bind within aggregates (unprotected OM) generally remain

more susceptible to microbial decomposition (Six et al. 2002). According to Pulleman

et al. (2000), land use history has a strong impact on the soil organic carbon (SOC) pool so

that adoption of appropriate management practices (AMPs) can be an important instrument

of SOC sequestration (Post and Kwon 2000).

Three general trends or patterns are typically reported in the literature regarding

the conditions that favour SOC accumulations, i.e., increase the actual to attainable

Fossil fuel(4130 Pg)

Soil C Pool 2500Pg

SOC=1550Pg SIC=950Pg

Car

bon

inpu

t

Soil microbes

0-6 ± 0-2Pg yr-1

Bel

owgr

ound

bio

mas

s 60

pg

yr-1

Ocean C pool 38400Pg +2.3pg/yr

Surface layer: 670 Pg Deep layer: 36730Pg Total organic 1000 Pg

Foss

il fu

el c

ombu

stio

n 7.

0 Pg

yr-1

90 P

g yr

-1

Atmospheric C Pool 760 Pg +3.5 Pg yr-1

Biotic C Pool 560 Pg Photosynthesis 120 pg

Plant Respiration 60pg yr-1

S

oil r

espi

ratio

n 60

pg

yr-1

Ero

sion

0.8

-1.2

pg

yr-1

92.3

Pg

yr-1

Fig. 1 The sources and sink of carbon and its interplay in pedosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. Thecarbon stocks in various pools (including fossil fuels) were obtained from Batjes (1996), Lal (2004a, b,2008), and the carbon efflux (including fossil fuel burning) data were from IPCC (2000, 2007)

Biodivers Conserv (2012) 21:1343–1358 1345

123

(i) plant-induced increases occur in extreme environments (e.g., arid and semi-arid cli-

mates) where the actual level of SOC is low relative to the attainable level (Ehrenfeld et al.

2005), (ii) rates of SOC sequestration tend to increase from temperate to subtropical

regions and/or along increasing temperature and precipitation gradients (Post and Kwon

2000). This pattern suggests that the major factor determining the rate of SOC seques-

tration is plant residue inputs, which increase with temperature and rain-fall and (iii) SOC

increases more in the presence of perennial species (Post and Kwon 2000; Zan et al. 2001)

through continuous plant-residue-C inputs into the soil system. Lal (2001) estimated the

SOC sequestration potential of 0.4–0.7 Pg C year-1 through desertification control in soils

of arid and semi-arid regions. Estimates of the potential for additional SCS vary widely.

Based on studies in European (Smith and Powlson 2000), US croplands (Lal et al. 1998)

and other global degraded lands (Lal 2004a) and based on some global estimates (Cole

et al. 1996; IPCC 2000), the estimated carbon sequestration rate is 0.9 ± 0.3 Pg C year-1

(Lal 2004a). Thus, it becomes apparent that any change in soil C pool would have a

significant effect on the global C budget.

The terrestrial sink capacity for biotic C sequestration especially that in terrestrial

ecosystems is low at 50–100 Pg C during 25–50-year period (Lal 2004a, b). The terrestrial

biosphere currently sequesters 20–30% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Gurney

et al. 2002; Keeling and Garcia 2002). The terrestrial sink is presently increasing at a net

rate of 1.4 ± 0.7 Pg C year-1. Thus, the terrestrial sink absorbs approximately 2–4 Pg C

year-1 and its capacity may increase to approximately 5 Pg C year-1 by 2050 (Cramer

et al. 2001; Scholes and Noble 2001).

Tropical forest

Tropical forest plays a key role in the global carbon cycle due to the large amount of

carbon currently stored there (Dixon et al. 1994). Forest ecosystems contain more than

three fourth of the terrestrial vegetation carbon, which is stored in stems, branches, foliage

and roots of trees (Bolin and Sukumar 2000). Zhang et al. (2011) reported the distribution

of plant diversity and C stocks along successional gradients in a sub-alpine coniferous

forest, to examine the influence of environmental factors on C stocks, and to quantify the

relationships between C stocks and plant diversity in china.

Potvin et al. (2011) compared several pools of C (standing tree biomass, coarse woody

debris (CWD), herbaceous vegetation, litter and soil) and fluxes of C (soil respiration and

the decomposition of CWD and litter) in a tropical tree plantation established with one,

three or six native species. The results demonstrate that tree diversity influences the pro-

cesses governing the changes in C pools and fluxes following establishment of a tree

plantation on a former pasture.

Afforestation

Afforestation is one of the viable options of C sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems (IPCC

1999; Watson et al. 2000; Fang and Moncrieff 2001; Lamb et al. 2005). The rate of C

sequestration in US forests, considering all components, is 0.3–0.7 Pg C year-1 (Pacala

et al. 2001). Increasing C storage in forest ecosystems may not come easily, however, as

the mechanisms that control the input of detrital C and the internal cycling of soil OM are

complex (Stevenson 1994). Busse et al. (2009) discussed the SCS and changes in fungal

and bacterial biomass following incorporation of forest residues. Applications of biosolids

offer another management opportunity for SCS.


123

Witta et al. (2011) reported about the terrestrial C biosequestration and biodiversity

restoration potential of the semi-arid mulga lands of eastern Australia by measuring above-

and belowground C and by making floristic biodiversity assessments in old grazing

exclosures. SCS is approximately 0.18 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1, with above-ground biomass

contributing an additional 0.73–0.91 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1 (Witta et al. 2011).

Management strategies for enhancing the soil carbon pool

Carbon sequestration is usually measured in terms of the total carbon stored in the soil but

how much carbon is stored, and for how long this carbon can be stored, depends upon the

pools (active/labile vs. recalcitrant/passive) and their recycling (Six et al. 2001; Gleixner

et al. 2002), form of stabilization (chemical/physical) (Kaiser et al. 2002) and physical

location (inter/intra-aggregate vs. free) (Balesdent et al. 2000; Six et al. 2001) of the carbon

in the soil. However, the SCS rate can be enhanced by adopting sustainable soil man-

agement practices.

Sustainable agricultural practices

Carbon sequestration by agricultural land has generated international interest because of its

potential impact on and benefits for agriculture and climate change. Furthermore, agri-

cultural ecosystems represent an estimated 11% of the earth’s land surface and include

some of the most productive and carbon-rich soils (Lal 1995). Increasing plant C inputs

include cover crops, and improved crop rotations; decreasing loses include reducing tillage

intensity with no-tillage providing the lowest soil disturbance (Lal 2004b; Post et al. 2004;

Smith et al. 2008). Kukal et al. (2009) reported the SOC sequestration in relation to organic

and inorganic fertilization in rice–wheat and maize–wheat systems and Suman et al. (2009)

also reported carbon sequestration in sugarcane under different organic amendment prac-

tices (Fig. 2a, b). Agriculture conservation practices such as the use of different cropping

and plant-residue management as well as organic management farming can enhance soil

carbon storage. Soriano-Disla et al. (2010) discussed the contribution of a sewage sludge

application to the short-term carbon sequestration across a wide range of agricultural soils.

Tian et al. (2009) reported that a mean net SCS of 1.73 Mg C ha-1 year-1 derived from a

34-year reclamation using sewage sludge on strip-mined lands. Similarly, Freibauer et al.(2004) described the potentials for C sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe.

Tillage practices

Several studies reported a significant increase in soil organic matter (SOM) in no-tillage

systems compared to conventional tillage systems (Bayer et al. 2006; Lal and Kimble

1997; Sainju et al. 2005; Causarano et al. 2006). Conservation tillage reduces the negative

impacts of tillage, preserves soil resources and can lead to accrual of much of the soil C

lost during tillage (Lal et al. 1998; Ogle et al. 2003; Caldeira et al. 2004; Paustian et al.

2004). No-till in combination with mulching and crop rotation to enhance the SOC pool

(Smith and Powlson 2000) is also a viable strategy for sustainable management of soils of

the tropics in general and those of sub-Saharan Africa in particular (Lal 2000). The success

of no-till sowing of wheat after rice in the South Asian rice–wheat belt is encouraging


123

(Hobbs and Gupta 2004). West and Post (2002) observed that changing plough till to no-till

increased SOC pool at the rate of 57 g C m-2 year-1 (or 570 kg ha-1 year-1).

It is well established that ecosystems with high plant diversity absorb and sequester

more C than those with low or reduced plant diversity. In Georgia, USA, Franzluebbers

et al. (2001) and Sainju et al. (2002) observed independently that practicing no-till with

hairy vetch can improve SOC.

Crop residue and manure

Crop residue management is another important method of sequestering C in soil and

increasing the soil OM content. Crop residues are not a waste. They are precious

Fig. 2 a Effect of different treatments on soil C-sequestration under multi-ratooning sugarcane in Indiansub-tropical condition (Lucknow, UP) (Suman et al. 2009). The treatments were applied at the followingrate: NPK chemical fertilizer (150:60:60) and VC vermicompost @ 10 t ha-1, FYM farmyard manure@ 10 t ha-1, BS biogas slurry @ 10 t ha-1, SPMC sulphitation press mud cake @10 t ha-1. The studyconcludes that organic amendments significantly enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) and carbonsequestration than chemical fertilizers. b Long-term (32 years) SOC turnover and sequestration rate in rice–wheat and maize–wheat system of a tropical semi-arid region of India (Ludhiana, Punjab). The treatmentswere farmyard manure (FYM alone @ 20 t ha-1; N120P30K30 (application of 120 kg N, 30 kg P2O5 and30 kg K2O ha-1; N120 P30 (application of 120 kg N and 30 kg P2O5); N120 (application of 120 kg N). Thestudy reveals that the SOC concentration was higher with FYM than with NPK application in both rice–wheat and maize–wheat systems after a period of 32 years (Kukal et al. 2009)


123

commodities and their use as soil amendments is essential for preserving soil quality

(Manna et al. 2005). Generally, there is a linear relationship between the OM in the first

15 cm of soil and the quantity of crop residues applied. Surface-applied crop residues

decompose more slowly than those are incorporated by tillage, because they have less

contact with soil microorganisms and soil water (Lal 2007). Jones et al. (2006) reported the

effect of poultry manure, cattle slurry, sewage sludge, NH4NO3 or urea on C cycling and

sequestration in silage grass production. The application of manure at the rate of

10 Mg ha-1 to cropland in Europe would increase the SOC pool by 5.5% over 100 years

(Smith et al. 1997). Similarly, beneficial impacts of manuring for U.S. cropland were

reported by Lal et al. (1998).

Use of fertilizers

The use of organic fertilizer is considered as an effective way of increasing SCS (Lal

2004b). Long-term fertilization experiments focusing on effects of fertilization on soil

quality, fertility and productivity had been carried out by different agronomist under

various types of soil and cropping systems (Kundu et al. 2007; Jagadamma et al. 2008;

Suman et al. 2009).

A study by Bhattacharyya et al. (2010) indicated that the rate of conversion of input C to

SOC was about 19% of each additional Mg C input per hectare. SOC content in large size

aggregates was greater than in smaller size aggregates, and declined with decreased

aggregate size. Thus, long-term soybean–wheat rotation in a sandy loam soil of the Indian

Himalayas sequestered carbon and nitrogen. Soil organic C and total soil nitrogen

sequestration in the 0.25–0.1-mm size fraction is an ideal indicator of long-term C and N

sequestration (Bhattacharyya et al. 2010).

Organic agriculture

Organic agriculture can help to prevent climate change. North America and Europe show

that the best practiced organic agriculture emits less GHGs than conventional agriculture

and the carbon sequestration from increasing soil OM leads to a net reduction in GHGs

(Maeder et al. 2002; Reganold et al. 2001). A study by Smith (2005) indicated that organic

farming is a promising management system for enhancing C storage on cropland. A diverse

crop rotation, particularly one that includes legumes, typically enhances fertilizer-use

efficiency and improves pest management (Jarecki and Lal 2003; Pimentel et al. 2005;

Tillman et al. 2004). Organic systems use water more efficiently due to better soil structure

and higher levels of humus (Pimentel et al. 2005).

Use of biochar

Soil amendment with biochar is evaluated globally as a means to enhance soil fertility and

to mitigate climate change. Biochar formed under the proper conditions has remarkable

nutrient affinity and enhances the cation exchange capacity of soil, as well as biological

processes that lead to improved soil structure, water storage, and soil fertility (Fowles

2007). Charcoal can represent 10–35% of the total SOC and is highly recalcitrant to

microbial and chemical decomposition (Skjemstad et al. 2002). Application of biochar has

been shown to have many advantages including improvements in soil quality and plant

growth (Chan et al. 2007; Chan and Xu 2009; Novak et al. 2009; Steiner et al. 2007).


123

Lehmann et al. (2011) examine the state of knowledge on soil populations of archaeans,

bacteria, fungi and fauna as well as plant root behaviour as a result of biochar additions to

soil. One of the advantages of using biochar as a soil amendment is that C can be locked in

the soil for centuries to store and recycle C more efficiently.

Enhancing plant–microbe interaction

The rhizosphere is a biologically active region of the soil around plant roots that contains

soil-borne microbes as well as bacteria and fungi (Singh et al. 2004). In the rhizosphere,

root exudation is a key process for C transport into the soil, influencing the role of soil

microbial communities in the decomposition. Root exudates have been shown to increase

the mass and activity of soil microbes and fauna found in the rhizosphere (Butler et al.

2003). Recently, the role of root-associated microbes in maintaining soil structure (i.e.,

aggregate stability) has been recognized; for example, microbes have been identified that

produce significant quantities of a glycoprotein, glomalin (Wright et al. 1996) which helps

in stabilizing soil aggregates), in stable well-structured field and native forest soils Sen

(2003). Glomalin is linked with soil carbon storage via its effect on soil aggregate sta-

bilization (Rillig et al. 2002), and it also presents a potentially important soil C pool (Rillig

et al. 2002) and plays a key role in soil stability (Wright et al. 1996; Rillig and steinberg

2002; Bedini et al. 2009). Glomalin acts as a soil particle binding agent, similar to

mucopolysaccharides produced by soil bacteria, and contribute to the soil C pool in native

grassland (Purin et al. 2006). Like rhizospheric bacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

(AMF) also contribute to nutrient storage in soil directly via the formation of mycelia

networks, as well as indirectly by affecting the structure of soil (Miller and Jastrow 2000).

Agroforestry

Agroforestry has become recognized as an integrated approach to sustainable land use

because of its production and environmental benefits. The role of trees as an important

means to capture and store atmospheric CO2 in vegetation, soils and biomass products are

widely acknowledged (Malhi et al. 2008). Agroforestry systems have higher potential to

sequester C than pastures and field crops. Consequently, agroforestry became recognized

as a C sequestration activity under the afforestation and reforestation approach (Nair and

Nair 2003; Makundi and Sathaye 2004; Kirby and Potvin 2007; Haile et al. 2008;

Takimoto et al. 2008; Nair et al. 2009). Agroforestry land use systems are extensively

practiced in a number of regions around the tropics (Kumar 2006). Lal (2005) discussed the

importance of agroforestry, plantations and other land use and management systems which

may restore or enhance SOC pool, improve soil quality and reduce the rate of enrichment

of atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Grassland and rangelands management

It has been reported that grassland management affects SOC content (Garcia-Oliva et al.

2006), and a variety of management options have been proposed to sequester carbon in

grassland (Conant et al. 2001; Ogle et al. 2003). Follett and Reed (2010) discussed the

importance of grazing lands for sequestering SOC, providing societal benefits, and

potential influences on them of emerging policies and legislation. Stoecio et al. (2009)

studies conducted in Brazilian pastures have shown divergent responses for the SOC


123

depending on management practices. They evaluate the effects of management on SOC

stocks in grasslands of the Brazilian states of Rondonia and Mato Grosso, and to derive

region-specific factors for soil C stock change associated with different management

conditions (Stoecio et al. 2009). Jones and Donnelly (2004) describes the processes

involved in C sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and assesses the influences

of altered management practices, climate change and increasing atmospheric CO2 con-

centration on future levels of C sequestration.

Bioenergy crops

Biofuels, high on the political and scientific agenda, are related to C sequestration in two

distinct but interrelated aspects: (i) SCS through restoration of the depleted SOC pool,

especially when agriculturally degraded/marginal soils are converted to energy plantations

and (ii) recycling of atmospheric CO2 into biomass-based biofuels. With choice of the

appropriate species and prudent management, biofuels produced from energy plantations

established by dedicated crops (e.g., Jatropha curcas, Salix herbacea, Panicum virgatum,Miscanthus giganteus, Andropogan gerardii and Pennisetum purpureum) can sequester C

in soil, offset fossil fuel emissions and reduce the rate of abundance of atmospheric CO2

and other GHGs (Lal 2008). The establishment of the energy plant on such areas not only

reduces GHG emissions but also creates opportunities for impoverished farmers and rural

labourers. Contrary to other biofuels, the use of J. curcas represents real advantages over

conventional biofuel sources such as corn, sugar cane and palm, which to a large extent

grow on converted lands (Makkar and Becker 2009; Behera et al. 2010; Srivastava et al.

2011; Abhilash et al. 2011). Restoration of degraded land through bioenergy plants not

only offers rural development for rural populations but also has a huge improvement

potential by increasing SCS.

Biodiversity and carbon sequestration

Biodiversity regulates the ecosystem functioning including the carbon and other biogeo-

chemical cycling Huston et al. (2000). Hence, carbon sequestration in living plants and

soils, either through the sustainable management of mature forests or long-term protection

of regrowing forests or afforestation programmes in wasteland and other degraded lands, is

likely to have an immediate positive effect on CO2 sequestration, plus a positive effect on

biodiversity and other ecosystem services (Matthews et al. 2002; Caparros and Jacquemont

2003; Huston and Marland 2003; Williams et al. 2008; O’Connor 2008; Diaz et al. 2009;

Yousefpour and Hanewinkel 2009; Witta et al. 2011; Ngugi et al. 2011).

Plant diversity and its relationship with soil carbon

Lower plant diversity could potentially decline the ability of long-lived carbon (C) pools of

terrestrial ecosystems to continue to act as C sinks of atmospheric CO2 (Fan et al. 1998;

Pacala et al. 2001). Soils are extremely species rich and store 80% of global terrestrial C.

Soil organisms play a key role in C dynamics and a loss of species through global changes

could influence global C dynamics. They determine the importance of considering soil

biodiversity in relation to C cycling in terrestrial ecosystems (Nielsen et al. 2011). Eco-

system functioning is governed largely by soil microbial dynamics, being microbial

communities affected by production practices such as management system (Germida and


123

Siciliano 2001). Ecosystems with high biodiversity generally sequester more carbon in the

soil than those with reduced biodiversity (Lal and Akinremi 1983).

Ecosystem C storage is tightly coupled with changes in the soil that occur in response to

alterations in above- and belowground productivity, rooting depth and root distribution and

changes in the quality and quantity of litter (Catovsky et al. 2002; Nair et al. 2009; Valv-

erde-Barrantes 2007). A variety of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the expected

relationship between tree diversity and ecosystem C storage. Diaz et al. (2009) along with

Catovsky et al. (2002) stated that biodiversity could affect the rates of C gain or loss, the size

of C pool and temporal stability and hence the lifespan or stability of C pools. Results from

other mixed-species plantations suggest that the identity of the dominant species plays an

important role in determining C gained by the trees (Redondo-Brenes 2007; Valverde-

Barrantes 2007). The possibility that mixed-species plantations might increase ecosystem C

storage has been often cited as a reason for the promotion of reforestation with native

species (Diaz et al. 2009; Piotto et al. 2010; Caspersen and Pacala 2001). Forests are

supposed to produce an increased diversity of socially sensitive goods and services, interest

in using native species for reforestation and restoration is increasing (Garen et al. 2011).

Growing leguminous cover crops enhance biodiversity through the quality of residue input

and soil organic pool (Singh et al. 1998; Fullen and Auerswal 1998).

Impact of climate change on SCS

Heimann and Reichstein (2008) discussed the role of terrestrial ecosystem carbon

dynamics and climate feedbacks. There is a large body of research suggesting that natural

ecosystem properties greatly depend on biodiversity and that the functioning of ecosystems

is associated with biodiversity (Hooper et al. 2004; Tilman et al. 2005). Pohl et al. (2009)

discussed the higher plant diversity enhances soil stability in disturbed alpine ecosystems.

They found positive effect of plant diversity on aggregate stability and suggest that high

plant diversity is one of the most relevant factors for enhancing soil stability at disturbed

sites at high elevation. Due to elevated global temperature, the losses of soil carbon would

be prevalent in tropical regions, with large pool of soil OM with a relatively rapid turnover

time (cf. McGuire et al. 1995; Trumbore et al. 1996).

Field experiments suggest that soil OM increases when plants are grown at high CO2

(Wood et al. 1994; Hungate et al. 1997). We believe, however, that many recent estimates

of the global sink for carbon in soils are overly optimistic, because the microbial com-

munity in most soils is limited by the availability of organic substrates (Zak et al. 1994).

Increased activity of the belowground microbial community was seen in a grassland

community in California exposed to elevated CO2 for 3 years (Hungate et al. 1997).

Schlesinger and Andrews (2000) believe that in response to global warming, the losses of

carbon from soils will be greatest in regions of boreal forest and tundra, which have the

largest store of labile OM and the greatest predicted rise in temperature. Large losses of

CO2 from these soils could reinforce the greenhouse-warming of Earth’s atmosphere

(Woodwell et al. 1995). Cultivation also disrupts soil aggregates, exposing stable adsorbed

OM to decomposition (Six et al. 1998). Water limitation may even suppress the effective

ecosystem-level response of temperature on soil respiration (Reichstein et al. 2007) con-

versely, if soil water-holding capacity is low, as in shallow soils, vegetation productivity

will be strongly affected by a negative water balance. Hence, under drier conditions, there

are predictions of increased SCS by suppression of respiration and of net loss of carbon

through decreased productivity (Ciais et al. (2005); Saleska et al. (2003).


123

Conclusions

From the above considerations, it can be concluded that SCS is desirable, both for its

beneficial effects on GHG reduction and climate change, and for its wider environmental

and economic implications. In particular, an increase in the levels of SOM is necessary to

cover the loss of organic C in agricultural soil. The decrease in SOM content led to the

decline of several soil properties that are essential for soil protection and conservation from

both the agronomic and environmental points of view. Proper SOM management is also a

prerequisite of a sustainable agriculture capable of dealing with the increasing demand of

food and the maintenance of the environment. Appropriate SOM management is therefore

an essential turning point for the equilibrium of natural systems and the future of the entire

human society. For this, countries should unilaterally desire to undertake policies that have

beneficial effects on the productivity and long-term sustainability of agricultural produc-

tion systems.

Acknowledgments Authors are thankful to Dr. C. S. Nautiyal, Director, CSIR-National BotanicalResearch Institute, Lucknow India for providing facilities and support. Thanks are also due to two anon-ymous reviewers and the guest editors for their valuable suggestions to the previous versions of themanuscript. The funds to carry out this work were received from CSIR, New Delhi under NWP-020.

References

Abhilash PC, Srivastava P, Jamil S et al (2011) Revisited Jatropha curcas an oil plant of multiple benefits:critical research needs and prospects for the future. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18:127–131

Balesdent J, Chenu C, Balabane M (2000) Relationship of soil organic matter dynamics to physical pro-tection and tillage. Soil Till Res 53:215–230

Batjes NH (1996) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur J Soil Sci 47:151–163Bayer C, Martin-Neto L, Mielniczuk J et al (2006) Carbon sequestration in two Brazilian Cerrado soils

under no-till. Soil Till Res 86:237–245Bedini S, Pellegrino E, Avio L et al (2009) Changes in soil aggregation and glomalin-related soil protein

content as affected by the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species Glomus mosseae and Glomus in-traradices. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1491–1496

Behera SK, Srivastava P, Tripathi R, Singh JP, Singh N (2010) Evaluation of plant performance of Jatrophacurcas L. under different agro-practices for optimizing biomass: a case study. Biomass Bioenerg34:30–41

Bellamy PH, Loveland PJ, Bradley RI et al (2005) Carbon losses from all soils across England. Nature437:245–248

Benbi DK, Brar JS (2009) A 25-year record of carbon sequestration and soil properties in intensive agri-culture. Agron Sustain Dev 29:257–265

Bhattacharyya R, Prakash V, Kundu S et al (2010) Long term effects of fertilization on carbon and nitrogensequestration and aggregate associated carbon and nitrogen in the Indian sub-Himalayas. Nutr CyclAgroecosys 428:549–553

Bolin B, Sukumar R (2000) Global perspective. In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH,Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (eds) Land use, land-use change and forestry. A special report of the IPCC.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–52

Busse MD, Sanchez FG, Ratcliff AW et al (2009) Soil carbon sequestration and changes in fungal andbacterial biomass following incorporation of forest residues. Soil Biol Biochem 41:220–227

Butler JL, Williams MA, Bottomley PJ et al (2003) Microbial community dynamics associated with rhi-zosphere carbon flow. Appl Environ Microb 69:6793–6800

Caldeira K, Granger Morgan M, Baldocchi D et al (2004) A portfolio of carbon management options. In:Field CB, Raupach MR (eds) The global carbon cycle: integrating humans, climate, and the naturalworld. Island Press, Washington, pp 103–130

Caparros A, Jacquemont F (2003) Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programs:economic and legal implications. Ecol Econ 46:143–157

Caspersen JP, Pacala SW (2001) Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol Res 16:895–903


123

Catovsky S, Bradford MA, Hector A (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity: implications forcarbon storage. Oikos 97:443–448

Causarano HJ, Franzluebbers AJ, Reeves DW et al (2006) Soil organic carbon sequestration in cottonproduction systems of the south eastern United States: a review. J Environ Qual 35:1374–1383

Chan KY, Xu Z (2009) Biochar: nutrient properties and their enhancement. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds)Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, London, pp 67–84

Chan KY, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I et al (2007) Agronomic values of green waste biochar as a soilamendment. Aust J Soil Res 45:629–634

Ciais P, Reichstein M, Viovy N et al (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by theheat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529–533

Cole V, Cerri C, Minami K et al (1996) Agricultural options for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In:Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH, Dokken DJ (eds) Climate change 1995. Impacts, adaptationsand mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Cambridge University Press, NewYork, pp 745–771

Conant RT, Paustian K, Elliot ET (2001) Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects onsoil carbon. Ecol Appl 11(2):343–355

Cramer WA, Bondeau A, Ianwoodward F et al (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure andfunction to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. GlobalChange Biol 7:357–373

Diaz S, Hector A, Wardle DA (2009) Biodiversity in forest carbon sequestration initiatives: not just a sidebenefit. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1:55–60

Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA et al (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science263:185–190

Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant–soil system. Annu Rev Env Resour30:75–115

Fan SM, Gloor M, Mallan J, Pacala S, Sarmiento J, Takahashi T et al (1998) A large terrestrial carbon sinkin North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic CO2 data and models. Science 282:442–446

Fang C, Moncrieff JB (2001) The dependence of soil CO2 efflux on temperature. Soil Biol Biochem33:155–165

Feller C, Bernoux M (2008) Historical advances in the study of global terrestrial soil organic carbonsequestration. Waste Manage 28(4):734–740

Follett RF, Reed DA (2010) Soil carbon sequestration in grazing lands: societal benefits and policyimplications. Rangeland Ecol Manag 63:4–15

Fowles M (2007) Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 31:426–432Franzluebbers AJ, Stuedemann JA, Wilkinson SR (2001) Bermuda grass management in the southern

piedmont USA: I. Soil and surface residue carbon and sulfur. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:834–841Freibauer A, Rounsevell MDA, Smith P et al (2004) Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe.

Geoderma 122:1–23Fullen MA, Auerswal K (1998) Effect of grass ley set-aside and runoff, erosion and organic matter levels in

sandy soils in east Shropshire, UK. Soil Till Res 46:41–49Garcia-Oliva F, Lancho JFG, Montano NM et al (2006) Soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics followed by a

forest-to-pasture conversion in western Mexico. Agroforest Syst 66(2):93–100Garen EJ, Saltonstall K, Ashton MS, Slusser JL et al (2011) The tree planting and protecting culture of cattle

ranchers and 2 small-scale agriculturalists in rural Panama: opportunities for reforestation and landrestoration. Forest Ecol Manag 261:1684–1695

Germida JJ, Siciliano SD (2001) Taxonomic diversity of bacteria associated with the roots of modern, recentand ancient wheat cultivars. Biol Fertil Soils 33:410–415

Gibson TS, Chan KY, Sharma G et al (2002) Soil carbon sequestration utilising recycled organics: a reviewof the scientific literature project 00/01R-3.2.6A prepared for Resource NSW by The Organic WasteRecycling Unit, NSW Agriculture

Gleixner G, Poirier N, Bol R et al (2002) Molecular dynamics of organic matter in a cultivated soil. OrgGeochem 33:357–366

Gurney KR, Rachel M, Law A, Denning S et al (2002) Towards robust regional estimates of CO2 sourcesand sinks using atmospheric transport models. Nature 415:626–630

Haile SG, Nair PKR, Nair VD (2008) Carbon storage of different soil-size fractions in Florida silvopastoralsystems. J Environ Qual 37:1789–1797

Heimann M, Reichstein M (2008) Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature451:289–292

Hobbs P, Gupta R (2004) Sustainable agriculture and the international rice–wheat system. Dekker, NewYork


123

Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel J et al (2004) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus ofcurrent knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35

Hungate BA, Holland EA, Jackson RB et al (1997) The fate of carbon in grasslands under carbon dioxideenrichment. Nature 388:576–579

Huston MA, Marland G (2003) Carbon management and biodiversity. J Environ Manage 67:77–86Huston MA, Aarssen LW, Austin MP et al (2000) No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity.

Science 289:1255aIEA (2009) Report on CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. p. 124 http://www.iea.org. Accessed 14 Oct

2011IPCC (1999) Land use, land use change and forestry. Inter government panel on climate change. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UKIPCC (2000) Special report on land use, land use change and forestry. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UKIPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC Working

Group II, Geneva, SwitzerlandJagadamma S, Lal R, Hoeft RG et al (2008) Nitrogen fertilization and cropping system impacts on soil

properties and their relationship to crop yield in the central Corn Belt, USA. Soil Till Res 98:120–129Janzen HH (2004) Carbon cycling in earth systems: a soil science perspective. Agr Ecosyst Environ

104:399–417Jarecki MK, Lal R (2003) Crop management for soil carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 22:471–502Jones MB, Donnelly A (2004) Carbon sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and the influence of

management, climate and elevated CO2. New Phytol 164:423–439Jones SK, Rees RM, Kosmas D et al (2006) Carbon sequestration in a temperate grassland; management and

climatic controls. Soil Use Manage 22:132–142Jones A, Stolbovoy V, Rusco E, Gentile AR, Gardi C (2009) Climate change in Europe. 2. Impact on soil: a

review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:423–432Kaiser K, Eusterhues K, Rumpel C et al (2002) Stabilization of organic matter by soil minerals: investi-

gations of density and particle-size fractions from two acid forest soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci165:451–459

Keeling RF, Garcia HE (2002) The change in oceanic O2 inventory associated with recent global warming.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7848–7853

Kerr RA (2001) Bush backs spending for a ‘‘global problem’’. Science 292:1978Kirby KR, Potvin C (2007) Variation in carbon storage among tree species: implications for the manage-

ment of a small-scale carbon sink project. Forest Ecol Manag 246:208–221Kogel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Flessa H et al (2008) An integrative approach of organic matter stabilization

in temperate soils: linking chemistry, physics and biology. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:5–13Kukal SS, Rasool R, Benbi DK (2009) Soil organic carbon sequestration in relation to organic and inorganic

fertilization in rice–wheat and maize–wheat systems. Soil Till Res 102:87–92Kumar BM (2006) Carbon sequestration potential of tropical home gardens. In: Kumar BM, Nair PKR (eds)

Tropical home gardens: a time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry. Advances in agroforestry 3.Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 185–204

Kundu S, Bhattacharyya R, Prakash V et al (2007) Carbon sequestration and relationship between carbonaddition and storage under rain fed soybean–wheat rotation in a sandy loam soil of the IndianHimalayas. Soil Till Res 92:87–95

Lal R (1995) Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Levine E, StewartBA (eds) Soils and global change. CRC/Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 131–142

Lal R (2000) Restorative effects of Mucuna utilis on soil organic C pool of a severely degraded Alfisol inwestern Nigeria. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Stewart BA (eds) Global climate change and tropical eco-systems. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 147–165

Lal R (2001) World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon. Adv Agron 71:145–191Lal R (2002) Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environ Pollut 116:353–362Lal R (2004a) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science

304:1623–1627Lal R (2004b) Carbon sequestration in soils of central Asia. Land Degrad Dev 15:563–572Lal R (2005) Soil carbon sequestration in natural and managed tropical forest ecosystems. J Sustain Fores

21:1–30Lal R (2007) Soil carbon stocks under present and future climate with specific reference to European

ecoregions. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 81:113–127Lal R (2008) Carbon sequestration. Phil Trans R Soc B 363:815–830Lal R (2009) Soils and food sufficiency. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:113–133


123

http://www.iea.org

Lal R, Akinremi OO (1983) Physical properties of earthworm cast and surface soil as influenced bymanagement. Soil Sci 135:114–122

Lal R, Kimble JM (1997) Conservation tillage for carbon sequestration. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 49:243–253Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF et al (1998) The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate

the greenhouse effect. Ann Arbor, Chelsea, MILamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA (2005) Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscape. Science

310:1628–1632Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J et al (2011) Biochar effects on soil biota: a review. Soil Biol Biochem

pp 1–25 doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.22Maeder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D et al (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science

296:1694–1697Makkar HPS, Becker Klaus (2009) Jatropha curcas, a promising crop for the generation of biodiesel and

value-added coproducts. Eur J Lipid Sci Tech 111:773–787Makundi WR, Sathaye JA (2004) GHG mitigation potential and cost in tropical forestry relative role for

agroforestry. Environ Sustain Develop 6:235–260Malhi Y, Roberts JT, Betts RA et al (2008) Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon.

Science 319:169–172Manna MC, Swarup A, Wanjari RH et al (2005) Long-term effect of fertilizer and manure application on

soil organic carbon storage, soil quality and yield sustainability under sub-humid and semi-arid tropicalIndia. Field Crop Res 93:264–280

Matthews S, O’Connor R, Plantinga AJ (2002) Quantifying the impacts on biodiversity of policies forcarbon sequestration in forests. Ecol Econ 40:71–87

McGuire AD, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW et al (1995) Equilibrium responses of soil carbon to climatechange: empirical and process-based estimates. J Biogeog 22:785–796

Miller RM, Jastrow JD (2000) Mycorrhizal fungi influence soil structure. In: Kapulnik Y, Douds DD (eds)Arbuscular mycorrhizas: physiology and function. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 3–18

Mondini C, Sequi P (2008) Implication of soil C sequestration on sustainable agriculture and environment.Waste Manage 28(4):678–684

Monger HC, Martinez-Rios JJ (2001) Inorganic carbon sequestration in grazing lands. In: Lal R, Follett R,Kimble JM (eds) Potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouseeffect. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 87–118

Morra L, Pagano L, Iovieno P, Baldantoni D, Alfani A (2010) Soil and vegetable crop response to additionof different levels of municipal waste compost under Mediterranean greenhouse conditions. AgronSustain Dev 30:701–709

Nair PKR, Nair VD (2003) Carbon storage in North American agroforestry systems. In: Kimble J, Heath LS,Birdsey RA, Lal R (eds) The potential of U.S. forest soils to sequester carbon and mitigate thegreenhouse effect. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 333–346

Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr SoilSci 172:10–23

Ngugi MR, Johnson RW, McDonald WJF (2011) Restoration of ecosystems for biodiversity and carbonsequestration: simulating growth dynamics of brigalow vegetation communities in Australia. EcolModel 222:785–794

Nielsen UN, Ayres E, Walla DH, Bardgett RD (2011) Soil biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review andsynthesis of studies examining diversity–function relationships. Eur J Soil Sci 62:105–116

Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Laird DL et al (2009) Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a south easterncoastal plain soil. Soil Sci 174:105–112

O’Connor WK, Dahlin DC, Nilsen DN et al (2001) Carbon dioxide sequestration by direct mineral carbonation:results from recent studies and current status. http//www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/o1/carbon_seq/bC2.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2010

O’Connor D (2008) Governing the global commons: linking carbon sequestration and biodiversity con-servation in tropical forests. Global Environ Chang 18:368–374

Ogle SM, Breidt FJ, Eve MD et al (2003) Uncertainty in estimating land use and management impacts onsoil organic carbon storage for US agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. Global Change Biol9:1521–1542

Pacala SW, Hurtt GC, Baker D et al (2001) Consistent land and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sinkestimates. Science 292:2316–2320

Paustian K, Babcock B, Kling C et al (2004) Climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation: challenges andopportunities for agriculture. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No.141, p 120


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.22

http://http//www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/o1/carbon_seq/bC2.pdf

http://http//www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/o1/carbon_seq/bC2.pdf

Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J et al (2005) Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons oforganic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573–582

Piotto D, Craven D, Montagnini F et al (2010) Silvicultural and economic aspects of pure andmixed nativetree species plantations on degraded pasture-lands in humid Costa Rica. New Forest 39:369–385

Pohl M, Alig D, Korner Ch et al (2009) Higher plant diversity enhances soil stability in disturbed alpineecosystems. Plant Soil 324:91–102

Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use: processes and potential. Global ChangeBiol 6:317–327

Post WM, Izaurralde RC, Jastrow JD et al (2004) Enhancement of carbon sequestration in the US soils.Bioscience 54(10):895–908

Potvin C, Mancilla L, Buchmann N et al (2011) An ecosystem approach to biodiversity effects: carbon poolsin a tropical tree plantation. Forest Ecol Manag 261:1614–1624

Pulleman MM, Bauma J, van Essen EA et al (2000) Soil organic matter content as a function of differentland use history. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:689–693

Purin S, Filho OK, Sturmer SL (2006) Mycorrhizae activity and diversity in conventional and organic appleorchards from Brazil. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1831–1839

Ravindranath NH, Joshi NV, Sukumar R et al (2006) Impact of climate change on forests in India. Curr Sci90(3):354–361

Redondo-Brenes A (2007) Growth, carbon sequestration, and management of native tree plantations inhumid regions of Costa Rica. New Forest 34:253–268

Reganold J, Glover J, Andrews P et al (2001) Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature410:926–930

Reichstein M et al (2007) Determinants of terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance inferred from European eddycovariance flux sites. Geophys Res Lett 34:L01402. doi:10.1029/2006GL027880

Rillig MC, Steinberg PD (2002) Glomalin production by an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus: a mechanism ofhabitat modification? Soil Biol Biochem 34:1371–1374

Rillig MC, Wright SF, Eviner V (2002) The role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and glomalin in soilaggregation: comparing effects of five plant species. Plant Soil 238:325–333

Sainju UM, Singh BP, Yaffa S (2002) Soil organic matter and tomato yield following tillage, cover croppingand nitrogen fertilization. Agron J 94:594–602

Sainju UM, Singh BP, Whitehead WF (2005) Tillage, cover crops, and nitrogen fertilization effects oncotton and sorghum root biomass, carbon, and nitrogen. Agron J 97:1279–1290

Saleska SR, Miller SD, Matross DM et al (2003) Carbon in Amazon forests: unexpected seasonal fluxes anddisturbance induced losses. Science 302:1554–1557

Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N et al (eds) (2006) Avoiding dangerous climate change.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK p. 406

Schlesinger WH, Andrews JA (2000) Soil respiration and the global carbon cycle. Biogeochemistry 48:7–20Scholes RJ, Noble IR (2001) Storing carbon on land. Science 294:1012–1013Schrag DP (2007) Preparing to capture carbon. Science 315:812–813Sen R (2003) The root–microbe–soil interface: new tool for sustainable plant production. New Phytol

157:391–398Sigua GC, Coleman SW (2009) Long-term effect of cow congregation zone on soil penetrometer resistance:

implications for soil and forage quality. Agron Sustain Dev 29:517–523Singh BR, Borresen T, Uhlen G, Ekeborg E (1998) Long term effects of crop rotation, cultivation practices

and fertilizers on carbon sequestration of soils in Norway. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follet RF, StewartBA (eds) Management of carbon sequestration in soil. CRC, Bola Ralton, pp 195–208

Singh BK, Millard P, Whitley AS et al (2004) Unravelling rhizosphere–microbial interactions: opportunitiesand limitations. Trends Microbiol 12(8):386–393

Six J, Elliott ET, Paustian K et al (1998) Aggregation and soil organic matter accumulation in cultivated andnative grassland soils. Soil Sci SocAm J 62:1367–1377

Six J, Guggenberger G, Paustian K et al (2001) Sources and composition of soil organic matter fractionsbetween and within soil aggregates. Eur J Soil Sci 52:607–618

Six JT, Conant RT, Paul EA et al (2002) Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications forC-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241:155–176

Skjemstad JO, Reicosky DC, Wilts AR et al (2002) Charcoal carbon in US agricultural soils. Soil Sci SocAm J 66:1249–1255

Smith P (2005) An overview of the permanence of soil organic carbon stocks: influence of direct human-induced, indirect and natural effects. Eur J Soil Sci 56:673–680

Smith P, Powlson DS (2000) Considering manure and carbon sequestration. Science 287:428–429


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027880

Smith P, Powlson DS, Glendining MJ et al (1997) Potential for carbon sequestration in European soils:preliminary estimates for five scenarios using results from long-term experiments. Global Change Biol3:67–79

Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos T R Soc B363:789–813

Soriano-Disla JM, Navarro-Pedreno J, Gomez I (2010) Contribution of a sewage sludge application to theshort-term carbon sequestration across a wide range of agricultural soils. Environ Earth Sci61:1613–1619

Srivastava P, Behera SK, Gupta J, Jamil S, Singh N, Sharma YK (2011) Growth performance, variability inyield traits and oil content of selected accessions of Jatropha curcas L. Growing in a large scaleplantation site. Biomass Bioenerg doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.008

Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J et al (2007) Long term effect of manure, charcoal and mineralfertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil.Plant Soil 291:275–290

Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkStoecio MF, Stephen M, Ogle M et al (2009) Effect of grassland management on soil carbon sequestration in

Rondonia and Mato Grosso states, Brazil. Geoderma 149:84–91Suman A, Singh KP, Singh P et al (2009) Carbon input, loss and storage in sub-tropical Indian Inceptisol

under multi-ratooning sugarcane. Soil Till Res 104:221–226Takimoto A, Nair PKR, Alavalapati JRR (2008) Socio economic potential of carbon sequestration through

agroforestry in the West African Sahel. Mitiga Adapt Strat Global Chang 13:745–761Tian G, Granato TC, Cox AE et al (2009) Soil carbon sequestration resulting from long-term application of

biosolids for land reclamation. J Environ Qual 38:61–74Tillman PG, Schomberg HH, Phatak S et al (2004) Insect pests and predators in conservation-tillage cotton

with cover crops. J Econ Entomol 97(4):1217–1232Tilman D, Polasky S, Lehman C (2005) Diversity, productivity and temporal stability in the economies of

humans and nature. J Environ Econom Manage 49:405–426Trumbore SE, Chadwick OA, Amundson R (1996) Rapid exchange between soil carbon and atmospheric

carbon dioxide driven by temperature change. Science 272:393–396Valverde-Barrantes OJ (2007) Relationships among litterfall, fine-root growth and soil respiration for five

tropical tree species. Can J Forest Res 37:1954–1965Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B et al (2000) Land use, land-use change and forestry: a special report of the

IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 127–180West OT, Post MW (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data

analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1930–1946Williams M, Ryan CM, Rees RM et al (2008) Carbon sequestration and biodiversity of re-growing miombo

woodlands in Mozambique. Forest Ecol Manag 254:145–155Witta GB, Noel MV, Bird MI et al (2011) Carbon sequestration and biodiversity restoration potential of

semi-arid mulga lands of Australia interpreted from long-term grazing exclosures. Agr EcosystEnviron 141:108–118

WMO (2009) Greenhouse gas bulletin. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandWood CW, Torbert HA, Rogers HH et al (1994) Free-air CO2 enrichment effects on soil carbon and

nitrogen. Agric For Meteor 70:103–116Woodwell GM et al (1995) Biotic feedbacks from the warming of the Earth. In: Woodwell GM, MacKenzie

FT (eds) Biotic feedbacks in the global climatic system. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–21Wright SF, Franke-Snyder M, Morton JB et al (1996) Time–course study and partial characterization of a

protein on hyphae of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi during active colonization of roots. Plant Soil181:193–203

Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M (2009) Modelling of forest conversion planning with an adaptive simulation-optimization approach and simultaneous consideration of the values of timber, carbon and biodiversity.Ecol Econ 68:1711–1722

Zak DR, Tilman D, Parmenter RR et al (1994) Plant production and soil microorganisms in late-successionalecosystems: a continental-scale study. Ecology 75:2333–2347

Zan CS, Fyles JW, Girouard P et al (2001) Carbon sequestration in perennial bioenergy, annual corn anduncultivated systems in southern Quebec. Agr Ecosyst Environ 86:135–144

Zhang Y, Duan B, Xian J, Korpelainen H, Li C (2011) Links between plant diversity, carbon stocks andenvironmental factors along a successional gradient in a subalpine coniferous forest in SouthwestChina. Forest Ecol Manage doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.042


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.042

Documents

Soil carbon sequestration: an innovative strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration