Cited by 105Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBioenergy crop production and managementSoil erosion and sediment transport

Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus in sandy and loamy soils estimated by natural 13C abundance

Schneckenberger, Katja, Kuzyakov, Yakov·2007·Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

Abstract

Most studies of soil organic‐carbon (SOC) dynamics using 13C natural abundance have been conducted with maize. Here, we present data about the sequestration of C derived from a perennial C4 plant, Miscanthus × giganteus (Greef et Deu.) grown on loamy and sandy soils for 9 and 12 y, respectively. We expected a higher contribution of Miscanthus‐derived C to SOC formation compared to maize because of (1) higher net biomass production by Miscanthus, (2) lower shoot‐to‐root ratio, (3) deeper roots, and (4) the absence of plowing. In both soils, there was a significant contribution of Miscanthus‐derived C down to 1 m soil depth. The maximal contents of 3.0 g C4‐C (kg soil)–1 and 2.4 g C4‐C (kg soil)–1 for loamy and sandy soil, respectively, were observed for the upper 0–10 cm layer. The decline in the amount of Miscanthus‐derived C with soil depth was significant for both soils, but without significant differences between the differently textured soils except the depth of 0–10 cm. The total SOC was similar under Miscanthus and under reference grassland in the sandy soil (both 6.4 kg C m–2 down to 1 m soil depth). Amounts of SOC were slightly higher under grassland at the loamy site (12.1 kg C m–2 compared with 11.2 kg C m–2). So, C accumulation under Miscanthus was similar to that under perennial grasses. After 9 and 12 y, respectively, the yearly incorporation of Miscanthus‐C in SOC of the upper 0–30 cm was 0.23 g C4‐C (kg soil)–1 y–1 in the loamy and 0.11 g C4‐C (kg soil)–1 y–1 i…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jpln.200625111

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The overall reduction in carbon from T0 to T12 of 8 Mg/ha is within the range +4 to −9 Mg/ha reported in other grassland to Miscanthus field-based studies.

    “The overall reduction in carbon from T0 to T12, of 8 Mg/ha, is within the range +4 to −9 Mg/ha reported in other grassland to Miscanthus field‐based studies (Clifton‐Brown et al., 2007; Schneckenberger & Kuzyakov, 2007; Zang et al., 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneckenberger, K., & Kuzyakov, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • University of Bayreuth (DE)
Venue
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-07-20
Volume
170
Issue
4
Pages
538-542
ISSN
  • 1436-8730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2624
OpenAlex
W2126624432
Cited by
105
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
7.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
soil carbon sequestration, Miscanthus × giganteus, C4 plants, soil organic carbon, sandy soil, loam soil, soil texture, perennial grasses, maize, root exudates, soil depth, carbon incorporation, soil respiration, soil microbial biomass

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