The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Carbon input by plants into the soil. Review
Abstract
The methods used for estimating below-ground carbon (C) translocation by plants, and the results obtained for different plant species are reviewed. Three tracer techniques using C isotopes to quantify root-derived C are discussed: pulse labeling, continuous labeling, and a method based on the difference in 13C natural abundance in C3 and C4 plants. It is shown, that only the tracer methods provided adequate results for the whole below-ground C translocation. This included roots, exudates and other organic substances, quickly decomposable by soil microorganisms, and CO2 produced by root respiration. Advantages due to coupling of two different tracer techniques are shown. The differences in the below-ground C translocation pattern between plant species (cereals, grasses, and trees) are discussed. Cereals (wheat and barley) transfer 20%—30% of total assimilated C into the soil. Half of this amount is subsequently found in the roots and about one-third in CO2 evolved from the soil by root respiration and microbial utilization of rootborne organic substances. The remaining part of below-ground translocated C is incorporated into the soil microorganisms and soil organic matter. The portion of assimilated C allocated below the ground by cereals decreases during growth and by increasing N fertilization. Pasture plants translocated about 30%—50% of assimilates below-ground, and their translocation patterns were similar to those of crop plants. On average, the total C amounts translocated into the soil by cereals and pasture plants are approximately the same (1500 kg C ha—1), when the same growth period is considered. However, during one vegetation period the cereals and grasses allocated beneath the ground about 1500 and 2200 kg C ha—1, respectively. Finally, a simple approach is suggested for a rough calculation of C input into the soil and for root-derived CO2 efflux from the soil.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Litter or litter components represent the main route of entry of nutrients in the soil and is one of the key points of the recycling of organic matter (OM) and nutrients, and, in forest ecosystems, the main source of OM and nutrients for the topsoil (Kuzyakov and Domanski, 2000).”
From Poplar rotation coppice at a trace element-contaminated phytomanagement site: A 10-year study revealing biomass production, element export and impact on extractable elements (2020) · cites this paper as Kuzyakov and Domanski, 2000
In the citing paper
“Compared to annual crops, Miscanthus has the potential to sequester C due to reduced soil disturbance (tillage is only required as part of the initial cultivation; Post & Kwon, 2000), the translocation of C from above‐ground biomass to roots and rhizomes (Kuzyakov & Domanski, 2000), and the provision of soil C inputs from leaf litter (Amougou, Bertrand, Machet, & Recous, 2011).”
From Measured and modelled effect of land‐use change from temperate grassland to Miscanthus on soil carbon stocks after 12 years (2019) · cites this paper as Kuzyakov & Domanski, 2000
Citations
Cited by
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S., & Denef, K. (2004) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008 · Cited by 4,410
Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis
Guo, L. B., & Gifford, R. M. (2002) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x · Cited by 3,972
Molecular structure in soil humic substances: the new view
Sutton, R., & Sposito, G. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es050778q · Cited by 1,316
Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis
LAGANIÈRE, J., ANGERS, D. A., & PARÉ, D. (2010) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01930.x · Cited by 956
Kramer, C., & Gleixner, G. (2008) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.09.016 · Cited by 523
Rhizosphere effect on nutrient availability in soil and its uptake by plants: a review
Dotaniya, M. L., & Meena, V. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s40011-013-0297-0 · Cited by 298
Agri-Environmental Indicators to Assess Cropping and Farming Systems. A Review
Bockstaller, C., Guichard, L., Makowski, D., Aveline, A., Girardin, P., & Plantureux, S. (2008) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1051/agro:2007052 · Cited by 266
Solomon, W., Janda, T., & Molnár, Z. (2024) · Plant Physiology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108290 · Cited by 202
Carbonate precipitation in artificial soils as a sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide
Renforth, P., Manning, D. A. C., & Lopez-Capel, E. (2009) · Applied Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2009.05.005 · Cited by 161
Hannula, S. E., Boschker, H. T. S., de Boer, W., & van Veen, J. A. (2012) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04089.x · Cited by 153
Wang, T., Camps Arbestain, M., Hedley, M., & Bishop, P. (2012) · Organic Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2012.07.009 · Cited by 133
Castoldi, N., & Bechini, L. (2010) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/j.eja.2009.02.003 · Cited by 123
Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus in sandy and loamy soils estimated by natural 13C abundance
Schneckenberger, K., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2007) · Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science · doi:10.1002/jpln.200625111 · Cited by 105
Self-citationBiological enhancement of soil carbonate precipitation: passive removal of atmospheric CO2
Manning, D. A. C. (2008) · Mineralogical Magazine · doi:10.1180/minmag.2008.072.2.639 · Cited by 94
Zimmermann, J., Dauber, J., & Jones, M. B. (2012) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01117.x · Cited by 80
Knacker, T., Förster, B., Römbke, J., & Frampton, G. K. (2003) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00219-0 · Cited by 74
Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus : a study of 13 C distribution in soil aggregates
DONDINI, M., VAN GROENIGEN, K., DEL GALDO, I., & JONES, M. B. (2009) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x · Cited by 70
Rhizosphere soil indicators for carbon sequestration in a reclaimed coal mine spoil
Mukhopadhyay, S., Masto, R. E., Cerdà, A., & Ram, L. C. (2016) · CATENA · doi:10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.023 · Cited by 63
Holder, A. J., Clifton‐Brown, J., Rowe, R., Robson, P., Elias, D., Dondini, M., McNamara, N. P., Donnison, I. S., & McCalmont, J. P. (2019) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12624 · Cited by 25
“…advantage of the difference in δ13C natural abundance values arising from the contrasting C3 photosynthetic pathway of temperate grassland species compared to the C4 pathway of Miscanthus (Kuzyakov & Domanski, 2000), we assessed changes in the contribution of Miscanthus to SOC between T6 and T12.”
BackgroundZimmermann, J., Dondini, M., & Jones, M. B. (2013) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/ejss.12087 · Cited by 23
Chalot, M., Girardclos, O., Ciadamidaro, L., Zappelini, C., Yung, L., Durand, A., Pfendler, S., Lamy, I., Driget, V., & Blaudez, D. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134260 · Cited by 22
Composition of root exudates of Miscanthus × Giganteus Greef et Deu
Hromádko, L., Vranová, V., Techer, D., Laval-Gilly, P., Rejšek, K., Formánek, P., & Falla, J. (2014) · Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis · doi:10.11118/actaun201058010071 · Cited by 21
Abou Jaoudé, R., Lagomarsino, A., & De Angelis, P. (2011) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0570-4 · Cited by 16
Long-Term Yields and Soil Carbon Sequestration from Miscanthus: A Review
Jones, M. B., Zimmermann, J., & Clifton-Brown, J. (2016) · Perennial Biomass Crops for a Resource-Constrained World · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44530-4_4 · Cited by 13
Evaluation of Soil14C Data for Estimating Inert Organic Matter in the Rothc Model
Rethemeyer, J., Grootes, P. M., Brodowski, S., & Ludwig, B. (2007) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200042934 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuzyakov, Y., & Domanski, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
- Published
- 2000
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
