Inorganic Carbon Should Be Considered for Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils

IF 10.8 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Yang Liao, Lei Deng, Yuanyuan Huang, Jianzhao Wu, Wende Zheng, Jingwei Shi, Lingbo Dong, Jiwei Li, Feng Yang, Zhouping Shangguan, Yakov Kuzyakov
{"title":"Inorganic Carbon Should Be Considered for Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils","authors":"Yang Liao,&nbsp;Lei Deng,&nbsp;Yuanyuan Huang,&nbsp;Jianzhao Wu,&nbsp;Wende Zheng,&nbsp;Jingwei Shi,&nbsp;Lingbo Dong,&nbsp;Jiwei Li,&nbsp;Feng Yang,&nbsp;Zhouping Shangguan,&nbsp;Yakov Kuzyakov","doi":"10.1111/gcb.70160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Improved agricultural practices that restore soil organic carbon (SOC) are recognized as climate solutions, whereas soil inorganic carbon (SIC) is ignored nearly in all practices. Here, we meta-analyzed the joint response of SOC and SIC to six common agricultural practices, i.e., reduced tillage, irrigation, fertilization, residue utilization, reclamation, and restoration. The results demonstrated that the most agricultural practices strongly increased SOC, whereas SIC was less sensitive. SOC and SIC increased synergistically by following practices: Irrigation, biochar application, and improved reclamation. However, “trade-offs” between SOC and SIC due to mineral fertilizer application and restoration to forestland may partly offset soil carbon sequestration. The magnitude of SOC changes decreased with increasing depth, and deep SOC was still responsive to agricultural practices. In contrast, SIC loss occurred mainly in the topsoil, while increases were mainly in the deep soil. By optimizing agricultural practices, we estimated the global potential of carbon sequestration in soil at 1.5 Gt yr.<sup>−1</sup> (95% confidence interval: 0.3–2.8), with SOC contributing 1.4 Gt yr.<sup>−1</sup>, while SIC contributed less (0.1 Gt yr.<sup>−1</sup>) due to its losses under some practices. This potential is equivalent to 16% of global fossil fuel emissions. Concluding, this study highlights the potential contribution of SIC in enhancing the integrity of soil-based climate solutions, broadening the scope of carbon management in mitigating climate change.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":175,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.70160","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Improved agricultural practices that restore soil organic carbon (SOC) are recognized as climate solutions, whereas soil inorganic carbon (SIC) is ignored nearly in all practices. Here, we meta-analyzed the joint response of SOC and SIC to six common agricultural practices, i.e., reduced tillage, irrigation, fertilization, residue utilization, reclamation, and restoration. The results demonstrated that the most agricultural practices strongly increased SOC, whereas SIC was less sensitive. SOC and SIC increased synergistically by following practices: Irrigation, biochar application, and improved reclamation. However, “trade-offs” between SOC and SIC due to mineral fertilizer application and restoration to forestland may partly offset soil carbon sequestration. The magnitude of SOC changes decreased with increasing depth, and deep SOC was still responsive to agricultural practices. In contrast, SIC loss occurred mainly in the topsoil, while increases were mainly in the deep soil. By optimizing agricultural practices, we estimated the global potential of carbon sequestration in soil at 1.5 Gt yr.−1 (95% confidence interval: 0.3–2.8), with SOC contributing 1.4 Gt yr.−1, while SIC contributed less (0.1 Gt yr.−1) due to its losses under some practices. This potential is equivalent to 16% of global fossil fuel emissions. Concluding, this study highlights the potential contribution of SIC in enhancing the integrity of soil-based climate solutions, broadening the scope of carbon management in mitigating climate change.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Change Biology
Global Change Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
21.50
自引率
5.20%
发文量
497
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: Global Change Biology is an environmental change journal committed to shaping the future and addressing the world's most pressing challenges, including sustainability, climate change, environmental protection, food and water safety, and global health. Dedicated to fostering a profound understanding of the impacts of global change on biological systems and offering innovative solutions, the journal publishes a diverse range of content, including primary research articles, technical advances, research reviews, reports, opinions, perspectives, commentaries, and letters. Starting with the 2024 volume, Global Change Biology will transition to an online-only format, enhancing accessibility and contributing to the evolution of scholarly communication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信