Cited by 40Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBioenergy crop production and managementSoil erosion and sediment transport

13C abundance shows effective soil carbon sequestration in Miscanthus and giant reed compared to arable crops under Mediterranean climate

Cattaneo, F., Barbanti, L., Gioacchini, P., Ciavatta, C., Marzadori, C.·2014·Biology and Fertility of Soils

Abstract

Many studies on soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration in perennial biomass crops are available for Atlantic and continental environments of North Central Europe, while there is insufficient information for Southern Europe. Therefore, we assessed SOC turnover under Mediterranean climate, after a 9-year-old conversion from two annual crop systems, continuous wheat and maize/wheat rotation, to Miscanthus (Miscanthus sinensis × giganteus) and giant reed (Arundo donax), respectively. The naturally occurring ¹³C signature down to 0.60 m was used to evaluate the total amount of SOC in annual vs perennial species and to determine the portion of SOC derived from perennial species. Soil organic C was significantly higher under perennial (average, 91 Mg C ha⁻¹) than annual species (average, 56 Mg C ha⁻¹), with a stronger accumulation in the topsoil (0–0.15 m). This difference was consistent with reduced soil disturbance associated with perennial crop management. After 9 years of Miscanthus plantation, the amount of C₄-derived C was 18.7 Mg ha⁻¹, mostly stored at 0–0.15 m, whereas the amount of C₃-derived C under giant reed was 34.7 Mg ha⁻¹ and was more evenly distributed through soil depths, probably due to its deeper root apparatus. It is suggested that both Miscanthus and giant reed have a remarkable potential for SOC sequestration also under Mediterranean conditions, while supporting the growing bioenergy sector with biomass supply.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00374-014-0931-x

Cites

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?

  • Sequestration rates are not predictive when based on single early or late observations, average carbon inputs and turnover rates.

    “Sequestration rates are not predictive when based on single early or late observations [19, 135, 140], average C inputs and turnover rates.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 40

Authors
Cattaneo, F., Barbanti, L., Gioacchini, P., Ciavatta, C., & Marzadori, C.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Corresponding author
Barbanti, L.
Venue
Biology and Fertility of Soils
Published
2014-06-10
Volume
50
Issue
7
Pages
1121-1128
ISSN
  • 0178-2762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0789
OpenAlex
W2056708170
Cited by
40
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
8.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biology and Fertility of Soils (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Aberdeen
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 organic carbon sequestration, 13C natural abundance, Miscanthus, Arundo donax, perennial biomass crops, Mediterranean climate, soil disturbance, energy crops

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