CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transport

Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out?

Open access
Agostini, Francesco, Gregory, Andrew S., Richter, Goetz M.·2015·BioEnergy Research
DOI 10.1007/s12155-014-9571-0PMC PMC4732603
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Soil organic carbon (SOC) changes associated with land conversion to energy crops are central to the debate on bioenergy and their potential carbon neutrality. Here, the experimental evidence on SOC under perennial energy crops (PECs) is synthesised to parameterise a whole systems model and to identify uncertainties and knowledge gaps determining PECs being a sink or source of greenhouse gas (GHG). For Miscanthus and willow ( Salix spp.) and their analogues (switchgrass, poplar), we examine carbon (C) allocation to above- and belowground residue inputs, turnover rates and retention in the soil. A meta-analysis showed that studies on dry matter partitioning and C inputs to soils are plentiful, whilst data on turnover are rare and rely on few isotopic C tracer studies. Comprehensive studies on SOC dynamics and GHG emissions under PECs are limited and subsoil processes and C losses through leaching remain unknown. Data showed dynamic changes of gross C inputs and SOC stocks depending on stand age. C inputs and turnover can now be specifically parameterised in whole PEC system models, whilst dependencies on soil texture, moisture and temperature remain empirical. In conclusion, the annual net SOC storage change exceeds the minimum mitigation requirement (0.25 Mg C ha −1 year −1 ) under herbaceous and woody perennials by far (1.14 to 1.88 and 0.63 to 0.72 Mg C ha −1 year −1 , respectively). However, long-term time series of field data are needed to verify sustainable SOC enrichment, as the physical and chemical stabilities of SOC pools remain uncertain, although they are essential in defining the sustainability of C sequestration (half-life >25 years).

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesises experimental evidence on soil organic carbon (SOC) under perennial energy crops (PECs) and parameterises a whole-systems model to assess whether PECs are a carbon sink or source. It concludes that annual net SOC storage exceeds the minimum mitigation requirement, but long-term SOC stability and key turnover, subsoil and leaching processes remain uncertain.

Key findings

  • Annual net SOC storage change exceeds the minimum mitigation requirement of 0.25 Mg C ha−1 year−1 under herbaceous and woody perennials by far: 1.14–1.88 and 0.63–0.72 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively.
  • Both herbaceous crops/grasses and short-rotation woody crops can deliver up to 40–50 % of captured C to soil as litter and belowground biomass, varying from <1 to >4 Mg C ha−1 year−1.
  • Switchgrass showed an overall 25 % higher average stock change than Miscanthus (1.59 vs. 1.21 Mg C ha−1 year−1), likely due to lower root inputs from Miscanthus; willow and poplar averaged 0.56 and 0.63 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively.
  • C retention was higher in herbaceous systems (30–55 %) than in woody systems (19–33 %), but data on turnover are rare and rely on few isotopic C tracer studies, while subsoil processes and C losses through leaching remain unknown.

Methods

  • Literature search used ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar for 1994–2014, refined by key genera; papers were grouped into global inventory/GIS/LCA, process-based modelling, and experimental evidence. Experimental evidence was reported in 85 papers, including 44 specific field trials and 57 studies with data useful for parameterising C sequestration; 25 modelling papers from 2000–2013 used RothC, CENTURY/DayCENT, or both.
  • Data were extracted from tables and figures and scaled to Mg C ha−1 year−1; C inputs were measured directly or estimated from dry biomass assuming 45 % C unless stated otherwise. Mean residence time was calculated from mass loss assuming zero-order kinetics, with first-order laboratory rates scaled for temperature using a Q10 of 2.
  • RothC was expanded to accept disaggregated C inputs (litter, rhizomes, roots, root exudates) and calibrated using a 14-year-old Miscanthus experiment at Rothamsted, UK, followed by sensitivity analysis of SOC response to input and turnover rates.

Limitations

  • The paper states that long-term time series of field data are needed to verify sustainable SOC enrichment, as the physical and chemical stabilities of SOC pools remain uncertain; a half-life >25 years is considered essential for sustainable C sequestration.
  • The paper states that severe restrictions apply to the validity of current in situ residue turnover rates due to technical limitations (litter bags) and steady-state assumptions, and that alternative methods described dynamics in young plantations that may not be extrapolated to mature stands.
  • The paper states that environmental, fertility and management effects (e.g. harvest intensity) are not covered in dose–response experiments, and evidence for target ecosystems such as marginal land is underrepresented; the text also notes that the synthesis did not account for differences in temperature or other experimental variables.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12155-014-9571-0

Cites

191 of 191 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 469 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The annual net soil organic carbon storage change under woody perennials exceeds the minimum mitigation requirement of 0.25 Mg C ha−1 year−1 by far, ranging from 0.63 to 0.72 Mg C ha−1 year−1.

    “the annual net SOC storage change exceeds the minimum mitigation requirement (0.25 Mg C ha−1 year−1) under herbaceous and woody perennials by far (1.14 to 1.88 and 0.63 to 0.72 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    Comprehensive studies on soil organic carbon dynamics and greenhouse gas emissions under perennial energy crops are limited.

    “Comprehensive studies on SOC dynamics and GHG emissions under PECs are limited”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Dependencies of carbon inputs and turnover on soil texture, moisture and temperature remain empirical.

    “whilst dependencies on soil texture, moisture and temperature remain empirical”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Gross carbon inputs and soil organic carbon stocks change dynamically depending on stand age.

    “Data showed dynamic changes of gross C inputs and SOC stocks depending on stand age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Little experimental evidence is available to describe carbon sequestration after land use change to perennial energy crops, including where in the soil and when soil organic carbon will reach equilibrium and how long it will last if perennial energy crops are replaced by other crops.

    “little experimental evidence is available to describe C sequestration after land use change (LUC) to PECs, where in the soil and when SOC will reach its equilibrium and how long it will last if PECs are replaced by other crops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Data from switchgrass and poplar are appropriate proxies for Miscanthus and willow.
  • May combine two claims. 103
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 50

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A meta-analysis showed that studies on dry matter partitioning and carbon inputs to soils are plentiful, while data on turnover are rare and rely on few isotopic carbon tracer studies.

    “A meta-analysis showed that studies on dry matter partitioning and C inputs to soils are plentiful, whilst data on turnover are rare and rely on few isotopic C tracer studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Previous reviews on carbon sequestration under perennial energy crops include some unrelated to soil organic carbon, some without experimental evidence, and some focused on specific geographical regions.

    “Although there have been previous reviews on C sequestration under PECs [8–11], some of these were either unrelated to SOC [12, 13], or did not report any experimental evidence [1, 14, 15], or focused on specific geographical regions [16].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 9 sources checked
    • cites [8] Garten CT (2012) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration beneath switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Bioenergy Res 5(1):124–138. doi: 10.1007/s12155-011-9154-2 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Bransby DI, McLaughlin SB, Parrish DJ (1998) A review of carbon and nitrogen balances in switchgrass grown for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 14(4):379–384 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Garten CT, Wullschleger SD, Classen AT (2011) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration under hybrid poplar. Biomass Bioenergy 35(1):214–226. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] Poeplau C, Don A (2014) Soil carbon changes under Miscanthus driven by C4 accumulation and C3 decomposition—toward a default sequestration function. GCB Bioenergy 6(4):327–338. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12043 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Don A, Osborne B, Hastings A (2011) Land-use change to bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. Glob Chang Biol Bionergy 4:372–391 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Heaton E, Dohleman FG, Miguez AF (2010) Miscanthus: a promising biomass crop. Adv Bot Res 56:75–137 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [1] Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(1):1–21. doi: 10.1080/07352680590910393 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] Battle-Aguilar J, Brovelli A, Porporato A, Barry DA (2010) Modelling soil carbon and nitrogen cycles during land use change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31(2):251–274. doi: 10.1051/agro/2010007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [15] Thomas ARC, Bond AJ, Hiscock KM (2013) A multi-criteria based review of models that predict environmental impacts of land use-change for perennial energy crops on water, carbon and nitrogen cycling. GCB Bioenergy 5(3):227–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01198.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The physical and chemical stabilities of soil organic carbon pools remain uncertain.

    “the physical and chemical stabilities of SOC pools remain uncertain”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The physical and chemical stabilities of soil organic carbon pools are essential in defining the sustainability of carbon sequestration, with a half-life greater than 25 years.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Subsoil processes and carbon losses through leaching under perennial energy crops remain unknown.

    “subsoil processes and C losses through leaching remain unknown”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Experimental evidence for directly measured greenhouse gas emissions was found in 12 papers from eight different experiments, mainly on nitrous oxide from Miscanthus, switchgrass, short-rotation coppice willow and/or short-rotation coppice poplar, mainly following arable but some also after grassland.

    “Experimental evidence for directly measured GHG emissions was found in 12 papers from eight different experiments, mainly on nitrous oxide (N2O) from Miscanthus [48–51], switchgrass [52, 53], SRC willow and/or SRC poplar, mainly following arable [48, 49, 54] but some also after grassland [55, 56].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [48] Drewer J, Finch J, Lloyd R, Baggs E, Skiba U (2011) How do soil emission of N20, CH4 and CO2 from perennial bioenergy crops differ from arable annual crops? GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01136

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] Gauder M, Butterbach-Bahl K, Graeff-Hoenninger S, Claupein W, Wiegel R (2012) Soil-derived trace gas fluxes from different energy crops-results from a field experiment in Southwest Germany. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 4(3):289–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01135.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] Jorgensen RN, Jorgensen BJ, Nielsen NE, Maag M, Lind AM (1997) N2O emission from energy crop fields of Miscanthus “Giganteus” and winter rye. Atmos Environ 31(18):2899–2904 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [51] Toma Y, Fernandez FG, Sato S, Izumi M, Hatano R, Yamada T, Nishiwaki A, Bollero G, Stewart JR (2011) Carbon budget and methane and nitrous oxide emissions over the growing season in a Miscanthus sinensis grassland in Tomakomai, Hokkaido, Japan. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 3(2):116–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01070.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [52] Nikiema P, Rothstein DE, Min D-H, Kapp CJ (2011) Nitrogen fertilization of switchgrass increases biomass yield and improves net greenhouse gas balance in northern Michigan, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 35(10):4356–4367. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08.006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [53] Schmer MR, Liebig MA, Hendrickson JR, Tanaka DL, Phillips RL (2012) Growing season greenhouse gas flux from switchgrass in the northern Great Plains. Biomass Bioenergy 45:315–319. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [54] Hellebrand HJ, Straehle M, Scholz V, Kern J (2010) Soil carbon, soil nitrate, and soil emissions of nitrous oxide during cultivation of energy crops. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 87(2):175–186. doi: 10.1007/s10705-009-9326-z source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A considerable number of papers using process models were published (47), but few studies modelled carbon specifically under Miscanthus (nine) and willow (six).

    “A considerable number of papers using process models were published (47), but few studies modelled C specifically under Miscanthus (nine) and willow (six).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Litter inputs from leaves under switchgrass vary greatly due to management, being highest in riparian buffer strips and lowest under subsoil amelioration, and are affected by land quality or water.

    “Litter inputs from leaves vary greatly under switchgrass due to management; they were highest in riparian buffer strips [72] and lowest under subsoil amelioration [73] and were affected by land quality [74–76] or water [47].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [72] Tufekcioglu A, Raich JW, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (2003) Biomass, carbon and nitrogen dynamics of multi-species riparian buffers within an agricultural watershed in Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 57(3):187–198. doi: 10.1023/a:1024898615284 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [73] Al-Kaisi MM, Grote JB (2007) Cropping systems effects on improving soil carbon stocks of exposed subsoil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(4):1381–1388. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2006.0200 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [74] Hartman JC, Nippert JB, Orozco RA, Springer CJ (2011) Potential ecological impacts of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) biofuel cultivation in the Central Great Plains, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 35(8):3415–3421. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.055 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [75] Lee DK, Owens VN, Doolittle JJ (2007) Switchgrass and soil carbon sequestration response to ammonium nitrate, manure, and harvest frequency on conservation reserve program land. Agron J 99(2):462–468. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0152 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [76] Zenone T, Gelfand I, Chen J, Hamilton SK, Robertson GP (2013) From set-aside grassland to annual and perennial cellulosic biofuel crops: effects of land use change on carbon balance. Agric For Meteorol 182:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.07.015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Carbon inputs from perennial energy crops differ considerably in the literature even for the same kind of residue, mainly due to environment but also due to differences in sampling and analytical methods.

    “Such inputs differ considerably in the literature (Table 1), even for the same kind of residue, mainly due to environment but also due to differences in sampling and analytical methods.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Some papers cover other greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and/or methane.

    “Some papers cover other GHGs, like CO2 and/or methane [48, 49, 53–55, 57].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [48] Drewer J, Finch J, Lloyd R, Baggs E, Skiba U (2011) How do soil emission of N20, CH4 and CO2 from perennial bioenergy crops differ from arable annual crops? GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01136

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] Gauder M, Butterbach-Bahl K, Graeff-Hoenninger S, Claupein W, Wiegel R (2012) Soil-derived trace gas fluxes from different energy crops-results from a field experiment in Southwest Germany. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 4(3):289–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01135.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [53] Schmer MR, Liebig MA, Hendrickson JR, Tanaka DL, Phillips RL (2012) Growing season greenhouse gas flux from switchgrass in the northern Great Plains. Biomass Bioenergy 45:315–319. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [54] Hellebrand HJ, Straehle M, Scholz V, Kern J (2010) Soil carbon, soil nitrate, and soil emissions of nitrous oxide during cultivation of energy crops. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 87(2):175–186. doi: 10.1007/s10705-009-9326-z source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [55] Nikiema P, Rothstein DE, Miller RO (2012) Initial greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen leaching losses associated with converting pastureland to short-rotation woody bioenergy crops in northern Michigan, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 39:413–426. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.037 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [57] Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Masters MD, Black CK, Zeri M, Hussain MZ, Bernacchi CJ, DeLucia EH (2013) Altered belowground carbon cycling following land-use change to perennial bioenergy crops. Ecosystems 16(3):508–520. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9628-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The largest number of papers dealt with assessing greenhouse gas emissions or offsets based on life cycle assessment or GIS modelling, which carry the main uncertainty that underlying carbon sequestration models were not specifically calibrated for perennial energy crops.

    “Initially, the largest number of papers dealt with assessing GHG emissions or offsets based on LCA or GIS modelling, which carry the main uncertainty that underlying C sequestration models were not specifically calibrated for PECs [44].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] Andrén O, Kätterer T (2001) Basic principles for soil carbon sequestration and calculating dynamic country-level balances including future scenarios. Assessment methods for soil carbon. Edited by R. Lal, J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and B. A. Stewart, Lewis Publishers:495–511

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Another large subset of papers took a global perspective extrapolating field trials using models assuming a generalised management.

    “Another large subset of papers took a global perspective extrapolating field trials using models assuming a generalised management.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Experimental evidence was reported in 85 papers, of which 44 were specific field trials for the perennial energy crops under consideration and 57 studies had data useful for parameterising carbon sequestration.

    “Experimental evidence was reported in 85 papers, of which 44 were specific field trials for the PECs under consideration and a total of 57 studies had data useful for parameterising C sequestration (Tables 1, 2 and 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Belowground biomass is concentrated in the upper part of the profile; despite large amounts of roots under M. giganteus observed down to 1 to 1.8 m, more than 50% were in the top 30 cm.

    “BGB is concentrated in the upper part of the profile [61]; in spite of large amounts of roots under M. giganteus observed down to 1 to 1.8 m [57, 61, 66, 80, 84], more than 50 % were in the top 30 cm.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [61] Monti A, Zatta A (2009) Root distribution and soil moisture retrieval in perennial and annual energy crops in Northern Italy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132(3–4):252–259. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [57] Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Masters MD, Black CK, Zeri M, Hussain MZ, Bernacchi CJ, DeLucia EH (2013) Altered belowground carbon cycling following land-use change to perennial bioenergy crops. Ecosystems 16(3):508–520. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9628-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Dohleman FG, Heaton EA, Arundale RA, Long SP (2012) Seasonal dynamics of above- and below-ground biomass and nitrogen partitioning in Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum across three growing seasons. Glob Chang Biol Bionergy 4(5):534–544 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [80] Richter GM, Agostini F, Redmile-Gordon M, White R, Goulding KWT (2015) Sequestration of C in soils under Miscanthus can be marginal and is affected by genotype-specific root distribution. Agric Ecosyst Environ 200(1):169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [84] Neukirchen D, Himken M, Lammel J, Czypionka-Krause U, Olfs H-W (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of the root system and root nutrient content of an established Miscanthus crop. Eur J Agron 11:301–309 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    On average, belowground biomass inputs appear similar to litter under Miscanthus, switchgrass and willow but much smaller under poplar.

    “On average, BGB inputs appear similar to that from litter under Miscanthus, switchgrass and willow but much smaller under poplar.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Variable fractions of willow biomass can be found belowground dependent on stand age and soil texture; 48-58% of total biomass was allocated in the first year and 40% in succeeding years.

    “Variable fractions of willow biomass can be found belowground dependent on stand age and soil texture [58]; 48–58 % of total biomass was allocated in the first year and 40 % allocated in succeeding years [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [58] Rytter RM (2001) Biomass production and allocation, including fine-root turnover, and annual N uptake in lysimeter-grown basket willows. For Ecol Manag 140:177–192 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Rytter RM (2012) The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 36:86–95 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Observed litter inputs in short-rotation woody crops increase with stand age, which is not reflected in long-term extrapolations.

    “Consistent across species and different locations, observed inputs seem to increase with stand age [60, 78], which is not reflected in long-term extrapolations [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [60] Arevalo CBM, Bhatti JS, Chang SX, Sidders D (2011) Land use change effects on ecosystem carbon balance: from agricultural to hybrid poplar plantation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 141(3–4):342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [78] Cotrufo MF, De Angelis P, Polle A (2005) Leaf litter production and decomposition in a poplar short-rotation coppice exposed to free air CO2 enrichment (POPFACE). Glob Chang Biol 11:971–982 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Rytter RM (2012) The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 36:86–95 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Observed carbon input from fine roots of short-rotation coppice poplar ranges between 0.46 and 1.28 Mg C ha−1 year−1, and between 0.16 and 1.45 Mg C ha−1 year−1 can be found in coarse roots.

    “Observed values of C input from fine roots of SRWC poplar range between 0.46 and 1.28 Mg C ha−1 year−1, and between 0.16 and 1.45 Mg C ha−1 year−1 can be found in coarse roots (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    For different species in short-rotation woody crop systems, 25-35% of total tree biomass was found in the roots, with 10% specified as fine roots, confirmed for a 10-year-old poplar plantation.

    “For different species in SRWC systems, 25–35 % of total tree biomass was found in the roots [87], with 10 % specified as fine roots, confirmed for a 10-year-old poplar plantation [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [87] Whittaker RH, Marks PL (1975) Methods of assessing terrestrial productivity. In: Primary productivity of the biosphere, ed H Lieth and R Whittaker:55–118 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] Sartori F, Lal R, Ebinger MH, Eaton JA (2007) Changes in soil carbon and nutrient pools along a chronosequence of poplar plantations in the Columbia Plateau, Oregon, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122(3):325–339. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    This carbon turned over very fast and only 2% was found in the soil microbial biomass.

    “This C turned over very fast and only 2 % was found in the soil microbial biomass.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [98] De Neergaard A, Porter JR, Gorissen A (2002) Distribution of assimilated carbon in plants and rhizosphere soil of basket willow (Salix viminalis L.). Plant Soil 245(2):307–314 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Living roots can decrease (50%) or increase (380%) soil organic carbon mineralisation rates, causing losses equivalent to the root carbon input to soil, with the range depending on plant species and age.

    “However, living roots can decrease (50 %) or increase (380 %) SOC mineralisation rates causing losses equivalent to the root C input to soil, the range depending on plant species and age [103].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [103] Cheng W (2009) Rhizosphere priming effect: its functional relationships with microbial turnover, evapotranspiration, and C-N budgets. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1795–1801 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The loss of existing soil organic carbon increased with root biomass in a poplar plantation subjected to free air carbon enrichment but did not appear to impair soil organic carbon increase.

    “The loss of existing SOC increased with root biomass in a poplar plantation subjected to free air C enrichment (FACE) [99] but did not appear to impair SOC increase.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In short-rotation woody crop systems, only 15-18% of original mass was lost from litter bags over 8 months, while a loss of 80% of the same litter was estimated during an 11-month period using 13C-labelled material.

    “In SRWC systems, similar discrepancies due to experimental procedures occur: Only 15–18 % of the original mass was lost from litter bags over 8 months [78], whilst a loss of 80 % of the same litter was estimated during an 11-month period using 13C-labelled material [109].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [78] Cotrufo MF, De Angelis P, Polle A (2005) Leaf litter production and decomposition in a poplar short-rotation coppice exposed to free air CO2 enrichment (POPFACE). Glob Chang Biol 11:971–982 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [109] Rubino M, Dungait JAJ, Evershed RP, Bertolini T, De Angelis P, D’Onofrio A, Lagomarsino A, Lubritto C, Merola A, Terrasi F (2010) Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter mass loss: evidences from a 13C labelled-leaf litter experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42(7):1009–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Available literature on decomposition rates for perennial energy crops was patchy, and usable data were limited to 15 experimental papers.

    “Available literature on decomposition rates for PECs was patchy, and usable data were limited to 15 experimental papers (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Mean residence time for leaves, alone or combined with other aboveground residues, ranged between 0.9 and 3.19 years and was longer under drier and colder conditions.

    “MRT for leaves, alone or combined with other aboveground residues, ranged between 0.9 and 3.19 years and were longer under drier [62] and colder conditions [108].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [62] Beuch S, Boelcke B, Belau L (2000) Effect of the organic residues of Miscanthus x giganteus on the soil organic matter level of arable soils. J Agron Crop Sci-Z-Acker Pflanzenbau 184(2):111–119 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [108] Magid J, Luxhoi J, Lyshede OB (2004) Decomposition of plant residues at low temperatures separates turnover of nitrogen and energy rich tissue components in time. Plant Soil 258(1):351–365 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    About 35% of leaf carbon was stabilised as recalcitrant plant debris or as microbial biomass, but the amount of carbon stabilised in humus remains unknown.

    “About 35 % of leaf C was stabilised as recalcitrant plant debris or as microbial biomass [64], but the amount of C stabilised in humus remains unknown.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [64] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Machet JM, Recous S (2011) Quality and decomposition in soil of rhizome, root and senescent leaf from Miscanthus x giganteus, as affected by harvest date and N fertilization. Plant Soil 338(1–2):83–97. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0443-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Potential decomposition rates of Miscanthus residues decreased in order from young rhizome to litter and roots, with mean residence time ranging from 1.2 to 2.4 years.

    “Potential decomposition rates of Miscanthus residues, both in situ (litter bags) and by laboratory incubation, decreased in order from young rhizome to litter and roots, with MRT ranging from 1.2 to 2.4 years [64, 69], similar to other results [62].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [64] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Machet JM, Recous S (2011) Quality and decomposition in soil of rhizome, root and senescent leaf from Miscanthus x giganteus, as affected by harvest date and N fertilization. Plant Soil 338(1–2):83–97. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0443-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [69] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Cadoux S, Recous S (2012) Miscanthus × giganteus leaf senescence, decomposition and C and N inputs to soil. Glob Chang Biol Bionergy 4(6):698–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01192.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [62] Beuch S, Boelcke B, Belau L (2000) Effect of the organic residues of Miscanthus x giganteus on the soil organic matter level of arable soils. J Agron Crop Sci-Z-Acker Pflanzenbau 184(2):111–119 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    These losses translated into mean residence times about four times longer (4.3-5.3 years) than those determined from isotope ratios (1.15 years) and about twice those calculated when accounting for the 10°C difference in incubation temperatures.

    “These losses translated into MRTs about four times longer (4.3–5.3 years) than those determined from isotope ratios (1.15 years) and about twice those calculated when accounting for the 10 °C difference in incubation temperatures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [78] Cotrufo MF, De Angelis P, Polle A (2005) Leaf litter production and decomposition in a poplar short-rotation coppice exposed to free air CO2 enrichment (POPFACE). Glob Chang Biol 11:971–982 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [109] Rubino M, Dungait JAJ, Evershed RP, Bertolini T, De Angelis P, D’Onofrio A, Lagomarsino A, Lubritto C, Merola A, Terrasi F (2010) Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter mass loss: evidences from a 13C labelled-leaf litter experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42(7):1009–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Leaf material accessible to earthworms almost completely disappeared from large mesh litter bags within 1 year (95%; MRT about 1 year), while material accessible only to fungal decomposition lost between 40 and 80% (MRT 2.5 to 1.25 years).

    “Leaf material accessible to earthworms almost completely disappeared from the large mesh litter bags within 1 year (95 %; MRT ∼1 year), whilst material accessible only to fungal decomposition only lost between 40 and 80 % (MRT 2.5 to 1.25 years).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [111] Slapokas T, Granhall U (1991) Decomposition of willow-leaf litter in a short-rotation forest in relation to fungal colonization and palatability for earthworms. Biol Fertil Soils 10:241–248 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Grasses and poplar have similar carbon inputs from aboveground litter, larger than willow short-rotation coppice (about 2 vs. 1 Mg C ha−1 year−1), with a wide range of mean residence time (less than 1 to more than 4 years), some of which may be overestimated.

    “Grasses and poplar have similar C inputs from AGB litter, larger than willow SRC (∼2 vs. 1 Mg C ha−1 year−1) with a wide range of MRT (<1 to >4 years), some of which may be overestimated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Coarse roots represent a variable fraction of the root biomass (10 and 40%), but much smaller values emerged recently.

    “Coarse roots (CR) represent a variable fraction of the root biomass (10 and 40 %; [58, 99]), but much smaller values emerged recently [82].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [58] Rytter RM (2001) Biomass production and allocation, including fine-root turnover, and annual N uptake in lysimeter-grown basket willows. For Ecol Manag 140:177–192 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [82] Rytter RM (2013) The effect of limited availability of N or water on C allocation to fine roots and annual fine root turnover in Alnus incana and Salix viminalis. Tree Physiol 33(9):924–939. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt060 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    For switchgrass, similar average inputs appear to cause an overall 25% higher average stock change than Miscanthus (1.59 vs. 1.21 Mg C ha−1 year−1), likely due to the lower root inputs from Miscanthus.

    “For switchgrass, similar average inputs appear to cause an overall 25 % higher average stock change (∆SOC, Fig. 4) than Miscanthus (1.59 vs 1.21 Mg C ha−1 year−1), likely due to the lower root inputs from Miscanthus (Fig. 3b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The annual average carbon input to the soil as fine root under short-rotation woody crops is between 0.4 and 1 Mg C ha−1 year−1, but their fast turnover diminishes the contribution to soil organic carbon storage and retention to about 10%.

    “The annual average C input to the soil as fine root under SRWC is between 0.4 and 1 Mg C ha−1 year−1, but their fast turnover is diminishing the contribution to SOC storage and retention to about 10 % [82].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [82] Rytter RM (2013) The effect of limited availability of N or water on C allocation to fine roots and annual fine root turnover in Alnus incana and Salix viminalis. Tree Physiol 33(9):924–939. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt060 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Under switchgrass, a large number of studies showed sequestration rates that were similar but higher on average.

    “Under switchgrass, a large number of studies [8, 9, 47, 57, 75, 77, 137, 138] showed sequestration rates, which were similar (Table 3) but higher on average (Fig. 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 8 sources checked
    • cites [8] Garten CT (2012) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration beneath switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Bioenergy Res 5(1):124–138. doi: 10.1007/s12155-011-9154-2 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Bransby DI, McLaughlin SB, Parrish DJ (1998) A review of carbon and nitrogen balances in switchgrass grown for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 14(4):379–384 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [47] Collins HP, Smith JL, Fransen S, Alva AK, Kruger CE, Granatstein DM (2010) Carbon sequestration under irrigated switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) production. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74(6):2049–2058. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2010.0020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [57] Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Masters MD, Black CK, Zeri M, Hussain MZ, Bernacchi CJ, DeLucia EH (2013) Altered belowground carbon cycling following land-use change to perennial bioenergy crops. Ecosystems 16(3):508–520. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9628-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [75] Lee DK, Owens VN, Doolittle JJ (2007) Switchgrass and soil carbon sequestration response to ammonium nitrate, manure, and harvest frequency on conservation reserve program land. Agron J 99(2):462–468. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0152 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [77] Wienhold BJ, Varvel GE, Johnson JMF, Wilhelm WW (2013) Carbon source quality and placement effects on soil organic carbon status. Bioenergy Res 6(2):786–796. doi: 10.1007/s12155-013-9301-z source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [137] Bonin CL, Lal R (2014) Aboveground productivity and soil carbon storage of biofuel crops in Ohio. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 6(1):67–75. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12041 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [138] Follett RF, Vogel KP, Varvel GE, Mitchell RB, Kimble J (2012) Soil carbon sequestration by switchgrass and no-till maize grown for bioenergy. Bioenergy Res 5(4):866–875. doi: 10.1007/s12155-012-9198-y source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Low-storage changes for short-rotation woody crops were supported by findings for short-rotation forestry using labelled carbon, which also showed that new carbon accumulated in soil organic carbon pools was characterised by high turnover rates.

    “These low-storage changes were supported by findings for SRF using labelled C [142], which also showed that new C accumulated in SOC pools was characterised by high turnover rates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [142] Lichter J, Barron SH, Bevacqua CE, Finzi AC, Irving KE, Stemmler EA, Schlesinger WH (2005) Soil carbon sequestration and turnover in a pine forest. Ecology 86 (7):1835–1847. doi: 10.1890/04-1205 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Based on Table 3, carbon retention is higher in herbaceous (Miscanthus) than woody perennial energy crop systems (21-72% vs. 12-23% retained of original input), confirmed by comparing independent averages.

    “Based on Table 3, the C retention is higher in herbaceous (Miscanthus) than woody PEC systems (21–72 vs. 12–23 % retained of original input), which is confirmed by comparing independent averages (Fig. 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    A priming effect was suggested for Miscanthus root exudates, and a two- to fourfold increase in the mineralisation rate was reported after establishment of switchgrass.

    “On the other hand, a priming effect was suggested for Miscanthus root exudates [86], and a two- to fourfold increase in the mineralisation rate was reported after establishment of switchgrass [43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [86] Zatta A, Clifton-Brown J, Robson P, Hastings A, Monti A (2014) Land use change from C3 grassland to C4 Miscanthus: effects on soil carbon content and estimated mitigation benefit after six years. GCB Bioenergy 6(4):360–370. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12054 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] Ma Z, Wood CW, Bransby DI (2000) Carbon dynamics subsequent to establishment of switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 18(2):93–104 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    New data show high sequestration rates for switchgrass on arable soils but no long-term change for short-rotation coppice willow on former grassland soils.

    “New data show high sequestration rates for switchgrass on arable soils [137] but no long-term change for SRC-willow on former grassland soils [143].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [137] Bonin CL, Lal R (2014) Aboveground productivity and soil carbon storage of biofuel crops in Ohio. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 6(1):67–75. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12041 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [143] Pacaldo RS, Volk TA, Briggs RD (2013) No significant differences in soil organic carbon contents along a chronosequence of shrub willow biomass crop fields. Biomass Bioenergy 58:136–142. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    For Table 3, after the initial loss an average annual soil organic carbon gain of 2.29 Mg ha−1 year−1 was interpolated between years 4 and 11, which over the whole period would have been an increase of only 1.87 Mg ha−1 year−1.

    “For Table 3, we interpolated after the initial loss an average annual SOC gain of 2.29 Mg ha−1 year−1 between years 4 and 11, which over the whole period would have been an increase of only 1.87 Mg ha−1 year−1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Two papers dealt with a generic description of the C balance under poplar and switchgrass.

    “Two papers dealt with a generic description of the C balance under poplar [10] and switchgrass [8].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Garten CT, Wullschleger SD, Classen AT (2011) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration under hybrid poplar. Biomass Bioenergy 35(1):214–226. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Garten CT (2012) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration beneath switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Bioenergy Res 5(1):124–138. doi: 10.1007/s12155-011-9154-2 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A total of 25 papers modelling C in PEC systems were published between 2000 and 2013; 16 used RothC and derived models, five used CENTURY or DayCENT, and two used both models.

    “A total of 25 papers modelling C in PECs systems were published between 2000 and 2013: 16 used RothC and derived models, five used CENTURY or DayCENT and two used both models (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The simulated cumulative CO2 emission under SRC willow was 20 % higher than under Miscanthus because the turnover of fine willow roots is 17 times faster than Miscanthus roots.

    “However, the simulated cumulative CO2 emission was 20 % higher than under Miscanthus, because the turnover of fine willow roots is 17 times faster than Miscanthus roots.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Initial SOC gains are greater on former arable than on former grassland when planted with Miscanthus, although not significant.

    “Although not significant, initial SOC gains are greater on former arable than on former grassland when planted with Miscanthus in spite of greater—probably yield-dependent—sequestration rates on grassland [134].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [134] Zimmermann J, Dauber J, Jones MB (2012) Soil carbon sequestration during the establishment phase of Miscanthus × giganteus: a regional-scale study on commercial farms using 13C natural abundance. GCB Bioenergy 4(4):453–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01117.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Perennial energy crops are considered to be a nearly carbon-neutral source of energy.

    “PECs are considered to be a nearly C-neutral source of energy [4]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Johnson JMF, Barbour NW, Weyers SL (2007) Chemical composition of crop biomass impacts its decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(1):155–162 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Reversion of perennials to arable will destroy belowground biomass in the plough layer, which could be removed or retained, decomposed and humified to become part of soil organic carbon.

    “Eventually, the reversion of the perennials to arable will destroy the BGB in the plough layer, which could be removed or retained, decomposed and humified to become part of SOC (Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Carbon sequestration under perennial energy crops should be at least 0.25 Mg C ha−1 year−1 to make the crop carbon-neutral when converted to biofuel.

    “It has been proposed that C sequestration under PECs should be at least 0.25 Mg C ha−1 year−1 in order to make the crop C-neutral when converted to biofuel [7].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] Volk TA, Verwijst T, Tharakan PJ, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2004) Growing fuel a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ 2(8):411–418 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Perennial energy crops are fast-growing perennial species that can be grown on marginal soils with low inputs to generate energy either by direct combustion or via conversion to liquid fuels.

    “PECs are fast-growing (perennial) species that can be grown on marginal soils with low inputs [1, 2] to generate energy either from direct combustion or via conversion to liquid fuels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(1):1–21. doi: 10.1080/07352680590910393 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Lewandowski I, Scurlock JMO, Lindvall E, Christou M (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25(4):335–361 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The area of land devoted to perennial energy crops is likely to increase.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Life cycle assessment on data from the USA found poplar and switchgrass provided the largest overall greenhouse gas sinks, with poplar superior because in grass systems nearly all aboveground biomass is removed.

    “LCA on data from the USA found poplar and switchgrass provided the largest overall GHG sinks [18], with poplar superior due to the fact that in grass systems, nearly all AGB is removed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ (2007) Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 17(3):675–691 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Miscanthus seems to be the best choice in terms of carbon sequestration and input efficiency due to its slow decay of residues and high belowground biomass.

    “Miscanthus seems to be the best choice in terms of C sequestration and input efficiency [23] due to its slow decay of residues and high BGB [13].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [23] Lewandowski I, Schmidt U (2006) Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiencies of Miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112(4):335–346 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Heaton E, Dohleman FG, Miguez AF (2010) Miscanthus: a promising biomass crop. Adv Bot Res 56:75–137 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Both herbaceous crops/grasses and short-rotation woody crops can potentially deliver up to 40-50% of the carbon they capture from the atmosphere to the soil as litter and belowground biomass, with inputs varying from less than 1 to more than 4 Mg C ha−1 year−1.

    “Both HCG and SRWC can potentially deliver up to 40–50 % of the C they capture from the atmosphere to the soil as litter and BGB, which can vary from <1 to >4 Mg C ha−1 year−1 [59–61].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [59] Davis SC, Parton WJ, Dohleman FG, Smith CM, Grosso SD, Kent AD, DeLucia EH (2009) Comparative biogeochemical cycles of bioenergy crops reveal nitrogen-fixation and low greenhouse gas emissions in a Miscanthus × giganteus agro-ecosystem. Ecosystems 13(1):144–156. doi: 10.1007/s10021-009-9306-9 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [60] Arevalo CBM, Bhatti JS, Chang SX, Sidders D (2011) Land use change effects on ecosystem carbon balance: from agricultural to hybrid poplar plantation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 141(3–4):342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [61] Monti A, Zatta A (2009) Root distribution and soil moisture retrieval in perennial and annual energy crops in Northern Italy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132(3–4):252–259. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Harvested aboveground biomass is converted to atmospheric carbon dioxide by combustion, while litter and harvest residues undergo a phase of surface decomposition and incorporation.

    “Whilst harvested AGB will be converted to atmospheric CO2 by combustion, litter and harvest residues undergo a phase of surface decomposition and incorporation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Willow and poplar are favoured for short-rotation coppice due to their high growth rates and broad genetic variability, which allows adaptation to different soil and climate conditions.

    “Willow and poplar are favoured for SRC due to their high growth rates and broad genetic variability, which allows adaptation to different soil and climate conditions [27, 28].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [27] Kuzovkina YA, Volk TA (2009) The characterization of willow (Salix L.) varieties for use in ecological engineering applications: co-ordination of structure, function and autecology. Ecol Eng 35(8):1178–1189. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.03.010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Lasch P, Kollas C, Rock J, Suckow F (2009) Potentials and impacts of short-rotation coppice plantation with aspen in Eastern Germany under conditions of climate change. Reg Environ Chang 10(2):83–94. doi: 10.1007/s10113-009-0095-7 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some parameter gaps could be filled using data in papers on switchgrass and poplar, but it is questionable whether parameters from other woody systems were appropriate for this purpose.

    “Some parameter gaps could be filled using data in papers on switchgrass (four) and poplar (four), but it is questionable whether parameters from other woody systems (e.g. evergreen forest) were appropriate for this purpose.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Data from switchgrass and poplar are appropriate proxies for Miscanthus and willow.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Under short-rotation woody crops, litter production varies across species and genotypes, is proportional to leaf area index, and generally accumulates at the end of the season before being progressively incorporated into the top 10 to 15 cm of soil.

    “Under SRWC, litter production varies across species and genotypes, as leaf litter is proportional to LAI, and generally accumulates at the end of the season in a layer on the soil surface before being progressively incorporated into the top 10 to 15 cm of soil [78].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [78] Cotrufo MF, De Angelis P, Polle A (2005) Leaf litter production and decomposition in a poplar short-rotation coppice exposed to free air CO2 enrichment (POPFACE). Glob Chang Biol 11:971–982 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Harvest method can have a profound impact on losses, but woody harvest residues below 5% seem achievable.

    “Harvest method can have a profound impact on losses, but woody harvest residues <5 % seem achievable [22].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] Berhongaray G, El Kasmioui O, Ceulemans R (2013) Comparative analysis of harvesting machines on an operational high-density short rotation woody crop (SRWC) culture: one-process versus two-process harvest operation. Biomass Bioenergy 58:333–342. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    About 20% of short-rotation coppice poplar biomass was allocated to structural roots, which may contribute significantly to biomass carbon, while fine roots contribute to soil organic carbon due to faster turnover.

    “It was suggested that about 20 % of SRC poplar biomass was allocated to structural roots [95] which may contribute significantly to biomass C, whilst fine roots contribute to SOC due to their faster turnover compared to structural components [26, 82].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [95] Grigal DF, Berguson WE (1998) Soil carbon changes associated with short-rotation systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14(4):371–377 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Rytter RM (2012) The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 36:86–95 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [82] Rytter RM (2013) The effect of limited availability of N or water on C allocation to fine roots and annual fine root turnover in Alnus incana and Salix viminalis. Tree Physiol 33(9):924–939. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt060 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Quantification of fine roots is challenging, and roots concentrate in the upper 5-10 cm of soil.

    “Quantification of fine roots is challenging, and indirect methods were proposed although roots concentrate in the upper 5–10 cm of soil [94].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [94] Al Afas N, Marron N, Zavalloni C, Ceulemans R (2008) Growth and production of a short-rotation coppice culture of poplar-IV: fine root characteristics of five poplar clones. Biomass Bioenergy 32(6):494–502. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inputs from roots may depend on soil texture and other environmental factors, but the dataset is too small to derive a rule.

    “Inputs from roots may depend on soil texture and other environmental factors, but the dataset is too small to derive a rule; however, longevity of roots and their turnover depends on root diameter [30, 31].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The longevity of aboveground plant parts is defined by abscission, but the decay of aboveground litter depends on its incorporation into the soil and accessibility.

    “The longevity of aboveground plant parts is clearly defined by their abscission, but the decay of aboveground litter depends on its incorporation into the soil [107] and accessibility [34].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [107] Moorhead DL, Currie WS, Rastetter BW, Parton J, Harmon ME (1999) Climate and litter quality controls on decomposition: an analysis of modeling approaches. Glob Biogechemical Cycles 13(2):575–589 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] Dungait J, Hopkins D, Gregory A, Whitmore A (2012) Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Glob Chang Biol 18:1781–1796 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    For a 3-year-old poplar stand, carbon from fine roots including exudates could stimulate the microbial biomass and induce turnover of already stored soil organic carbon.

    “For a 3-year-old poplar stand, it was suggested that C from fine roots (including exudates) could stimulate the microbial biomass and induce turnover of already stored SOC [99].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Hromadko's data were an order of magnitude larger than those presented by Kaňova and seem unrealistically large.

    “Hromadko’s data [96] were an order of magnitude larger than those presented by Kaňova [97] which seems unrealistically large.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [96] Hromadko L, Vranova V, Techer D, Laval-Gilly P (2010) Composition of root exudates of Miscanthus × giganteus Greef Et Deu. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis LVIII 1:71–76 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [97] Kaňova H, Carre J, Vranova V, Rejšek K (2010) Organic compounds in root exudates of Miscanthus × giganteus Greef Et Deu and limitation of microorganisms in its rhizosphere by nutrients. Acta Univ Agric Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis LVIII 5:203–210 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Earthworms enhance the incorporation of residues into the soil and accelerate their decay.

    “Earthworms clearly enhance the incorporation of residues into the soil and accelerate their decay [110, 111].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [110] Ernst G, Henseler I, Felten D, Emmerling C (2009) Decomposition and mineralization of energy crop residues governed by earthworms. Soil Biol Biochem 41(7):1548–1554. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.04.015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [111] Slapokas T, Granhall U (1991) Decomposition of willow-leaf litter in a short-rotation forest in relation to fungal colonization and palatability for earthworms. Biol Fertil Soils 10:241–248 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Little is known about the effect of root exudates on soil organic carbon.

    “Little is known about the effect of root exudates on SOC.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Rhizodeposition and root exudates can cause a priming effect on the turnover of stored soil carbon, which could increase soil carbon emission and lower the sequestration rate.

    “Rhizodeposition and root exudates can cause a priming effect on the turnover of C stored in the soil [100], which could increase soil C emission [101, 102] and lower the sequestration rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [100] Rasse DP, Rumpel C, Digna MF (2005) Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269:341–356 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [101] Kell DB (2011) Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann Bot 108:407–418 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [102] Kuzyakov Y (2002) Review: factors affecting rhizosphere priming effects. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:382–396 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Litter decay is proportional to its nutrient content and inversely proportional to lignin content, and is also controlled by nutrient availability, particularly nitrogen, in the soil.

    “In general terms, litter decay is proportional to its nutrient content and inversely proportional to lignin content [64]; it is also controlled by nutrient availability (particularly N) in the soil [112, 113].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [64] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Machet JM, Recous S (2011) Quality and decomposition in soil of rhizome, root and senescent leaf from Miscanthus x giganteus, as affected by harvest date and N fertilization. Plant Soil 338(1–2):83–97. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0443-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [112] Oren R, Ellsworth DS, Johnsen KH (2001) Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 411:469–471 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [113] Hoffmann B, Muller T, Joergensen RG (2010) Carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption during the early decomposition of different litter types over a range of temperatures in soil-inoculated quartz sand. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173(2):217–223. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200800187 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    With age and distance to the growing edge, old parts of the rhizome lose vitality, become inert and start decomposing while younger parts remain alive and store carbon for a long time before it becomes available to soil.

    “With age and distance to the ‘growing edge’, old parts of the rhizome lose their vitality, become inert and start decomposing whilst the younger parts remain alive and store C for quite a long time before this can be available to soil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Miscanthus rhizomes and roots are potentially the most easily decomposable parts, but the rhizome's carbohydrate and crude protein content changes seasonally to support spring regrowth.

    “Miscanthus rhizomes and roots are potentially the most easily decomposable parts [64], but in its [19] function as a storage organ, the carbohydrate and crude protein content of the rhizome changes seasonally to support regrowth of the plants in spring [105].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [64] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Machet JM, Recous S (2011) Quality and decomposition in soil of rhizome, root and senescent leaf from Miscanthus x giganteus, as affected by harvest date and N fertilization. Plant Soil 338(1–2):83–97. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0443-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [105] Masuzawa T, Hogetsu K (1977) Seasonal changes in amount of carbohydrate and crude protein in rhizome of Miscanthus sacchariflorus. Bot Mag-Tokyo 90(1019):181–191 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Root exudates contributed to soil respiration and may affect soil organic carbon pools in multiple ways.

    “Further investigations showed that these root exudates contributed to soil respiration and may affect SOC pools in multiple ways.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Longevity of roots varies greatly and is likely controlled by diameter.

    “Longevity of roots was found to vary greatly [30], likely to be controlled by diameter [31].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [30] Block RMA, Rees KCJ, Knight JD (2006) A review of fine root dynamics in Populus plantations. Agrofor Syst 67(1):73–84. doi: 10.1007/s10457-005-2002-7 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [31] Gill RA, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK, Milchunas DG (2002) Longevity and turnover of roots in the shortgrass steppe: influence of diameter and depth. Plant Ecol 159(2):241–251. doi: 10.1023/A:1015529507670 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The production of fine roots and root exudates could vary greatly between species, genotypes, management and age of the perennial and is tedious to assess.

    “The production of fine roots and root exudates could vary greatly between species, genotypes, management and the age of the perennial and is tedious to assess.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Inputs from perennials are continuous, vary over their lifetime, and their variable size and composition are likely to affect their decomposition.

    “Inputs from perennials are continuous, vary over their life time and their variable size and composition are likely to affect their decomposition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Litter mineralisation depends also on soil fauna, which may vary according to location.

    “Litter mineralisation depends also on the soil fauna [119, 120], which may vary according to location [113].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [119] Falloon P, Smith P, Szabo J, Pasztor L (2002) Comparison of approaches for estimating carbon sequestration at the regional scale. Soil Use Manag 18(3):164–174. doi: 10.1079/sum2002118 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [120] Felten D, Emmerling C (2011) Effects of bioenergy crop cultivation on earthworm communities—a comparative study of perennial (Miscanthus) and annual crops with consideration of graded land-use intensity. Appl Soil Ecol 49:167–177. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.06.001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [113] Hoffmann B, Muller T, Joergensen RG (2010) Carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption during the early decomposition of different litter types over a range of temperatures in soil-inoculated quartz sand. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173(2):217–223. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200800187 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The commonly used litter bag method prevents physical incorporation of debris into the soil and does not allow access of larger biota such as earthworms.

    “The commonly used litter bag method [64, 69, 78] prevents physical incorporation of the debris into the soil and does not allow access of larger biota (e.g. earthworms).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [64] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Machet JM, Recous S (2011) Quality and decomposition in soil of rhizome, root and senescent leaf from Miscanthus x giganteus, as affected by harvest date and N fertilization. Plant Soil 338(1–2):83–97. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0443-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [69] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Cadoux S, Recous S (2012) Miscanthus × giganteus leaf senescence, decomposition and C and N inputs to soil. Glob Chang Biol Bionergy 4(6):698–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01192.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [78] Cotrufo MF, De Angelis P, Polle A (2005) Leaf litter production and decomposition in a poplar short-rotation coppice exposed to free air CO2 enrichment (POPFACE). Glob Chang Biol 11:971–982 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Carbon losses in litter bags may be solely a function of microbial respiration, and other fundamental soil processes affecting turnover such as adsorption to clay and occlusion within the soil matrix were not accounted for.

    “C losses may be solely a function of microbial respiration within the litter bag [109], and other fundamental soil processes affecting turnover, such as adsorption to clay and occlusion within the soil matrix [35, 121], were not accounted for.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [109] Rubino M, Dungait JAJ, Evershed RP, Bertolini T, De Angelis P, D’Onofrio A, Lagomarsino A, Lubritto C, Merola A, Terrasi F (2010) Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter mass loss: evidences from a 13C labelled-leaf litter experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42(7):1009–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A, Gleixner G, Gude A, Grootes P (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:91–110 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [121] von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Flessa H, Guggenberger G, Matzner E, Marschner B (2007) SOM fractionation methods: relevance to functional pools and to stabilization mechanisms. Soil Biol Biochem 39(9):2183–2207. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.03.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Physical protection and chemical adsorption, both controlled by soil texture such as clay content and cation exchange capacity, may play an important role for long-term carbon retention.

    “However, physical protection and chemical adsorption, both controlled by soil texture (e.g. clay content and cation exchange capacity), may play an important role for long-term C retention [4, 34, 35, 101].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [4] Johnson JMF, Barbour NW, Weyers SL (2007) Chemical composition of crop biomass impacts its decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(1):155–162 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] Dungait J, Hopkins D, Gregory A, Whitmore A (2012) Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Glob Chang Biol 18:1781–1796 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A, Gleixner G, Gude A, Grootes P (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:91–110 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [101] Kell DB (2011) Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann Bot 108:407–418 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Carbon retention is the net result of annual gross inputs/production, mortality and turnover of the components.

    “C retention is the net result of annual gross inputs/production, mortality and turnover of the components.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Very coarse anchoring roots are likely to have a long mean residence time, such as the lifetime of the stand, but there are no reports on decomposition of those.

    “Very coarse, anchoring roots are likely to have a long MRT (e.g. lifetime of the stand), but there are no reports on decomposition of those [81, 82, 99].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [81] Berhongaray G, Janssens IA, King JS, Ceulemans R (2013) Fine root biomass and turnover of two fast-growing poplar genotypes in a short-rotation coppice culture. Plant Soil 373(1–2):269–283. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1778-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [82] Rytter RM (2013) The effect of limited availability of N or water on C allocation to fine roots and annual fine root turnover in Alnus incana and Salix viminalis. Tree Physiol 33(9):924–939. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt060 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The large range of mean residence time reflects the experimental conditions, with long mean residence time being an artefact of litter bag usage.

    “The large range of MRT reflects the experimental conditions, long MRT being an artefact of litter bag usage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    It is disputed whether fine roots contribute most to soil organic carbon in woody systems due to their relatively rapid decomposition.

    “It is disputed whether fine roots contribute most to SOC in woody systems due to their relatively rapid decomposition [5, 99, 126].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Sartori F, Lal R, Ebinger MH, Eaton JA (2007) Changes in soil carbon and nutrient pools along a chronosequence of poplar plantations in the Columbia Plateau, Oregon, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122(3):325–339. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [126] Nadelhoffeer KJ, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1985) Fine roots, net primary production, and soil nitrogen availability: a new hypothesis. Ecology 66:1377–1390. doi: 10.2307/1939190 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Rhizome inputs from switchgrass were much smaller than from Miscanthus, which explains the evidence that switchgrass sequestered twice the amount of soil organic carbon.

    “Rhizome inputs from switchgrass were much smaller than from Miscanthus which explains the evidence that switchgrass sequestered twice the amount of SOC (Fig. 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Potential default carbon sequestration rates for arable crops, grassland and forests have been estimated to be 0.3, 0.5-0.7 and 0.1-0.2 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively; others found 0.33 Mg C ha−1 year−1 for both grassland and forest systems.

    “Potential, default C sequestration rates for arable crops, grassland and forests have been estimated to be 0.3, 0.5–0.7 and 0.1–0.2 Mg C ha−1 year−1, respectively [132]; others found 0.33 Mg C ha−1 year−1 for both grassland and forest systems [133].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [132] Soussana JF, Loiseau P, Vuichard N, Ceschia E, Balesdent J, Chevallier T, Arrouays D (2004) Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manag 20:219–230 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [133] Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Glob Chang Biol 6:317–328 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [19] Clifton-Brown JC, Breuer J, Jones MB (2007) Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Glob Chang Biol 13(11):2296–2307 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [135] Dondini M, Hastings A, Saiz G, Jones MB, Smith P (2009) The potential of Miscanthus to sequester carbon in soils: comparing field measurements in Carlow, Ireland to model predictions. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(6):413–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01033.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [140] Cattaneo F, Barbanti L, Gioacchini P, Ciavatta C, Marzadori C (2014) C-13 abundance shows effective soil carbon sequestration in Miscanthus and giant reed compared to arable crops under Mediterranean climate. Biol Fertil Soils 50(7):1121–1128. doi: 10.1007/s00374-014-0931-x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Yields and litter inputs increased during the establishment phase and the postulated delay for rhizome decomposition contradict steady-state assumptions.

    “Yields and litter inputs increased during the establishment phase [65] and the postulated delay for rhizome decomposition [106] contradict such assumptions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [65] Christian DG, Poulton PR, Riche AB, Yates NE, Todd AD (2006) The recovery over several seasons of N-15-labelled fertilizer applied to Miscanthus x giganteus ranging from 1 to 3 years old. Biomass Bioenergy 30(2):125–133 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [106] Hansen EM, Christensen BT, Jensen LS, Kristensen K (2004) Carbon sequestration in soil beneath long-term Miscanthus plantations as determined by 13C abundance. Biomass Bioenergy 26(2):97–105. doi: 10.1016/s0961-9534(03)00102-8 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The analogue in short-rotation woody crop systems is coarse roots (1-2 mm) with longer mean residence time or woody roots, the stump or stool, for which no evidence of turnover and retention exists.

    “The analogue in the SRWC system is to be found in the coarse roots (1–2 mm) with longer MRT [82] or woody roots, the stump or stool [4] for which no evidence of turnover and retention exists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [82] Rytter RM (2013) The effect of limited availability of N or water on C allocation to fine roots and annual fine root turnover in Alnus incana and Salix viminalis. Tree Physiol 33(9):924–939. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt060 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Johnson JMF, Barbour NW, Weyers SL (2007) Chemical composition of crop biomass impacts its decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(1):155–162 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Belowground biomass has a greater effect on soil organic carbon than litter inputs, possibly due to delayed incorporation of litter.

    “Zimmermann et al. [141] also showed that BGB has a greater effect on SOC than litter inputs, possibly due to delayed incorporation of the latter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [141] Zimmermann M, Leifeld J, Schmidt MWI, Smith P, Fuhrer J (2007) Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC model. Eur J Soil Sci 58(3):658–667. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00855.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Retention rates under switchgrass were higher on average (50%), probably due to a large fraction of root inputs.

    “Retention rates were also higher on average (50 %), probably due to large fraction of root inputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Considering the enrichment in the labile fraction, it was suggested that at least 20 years was needed to evaluate the impact of Miscanthus in terms of sustainable soil organic carbon enrichment, which contradicted earlier estimates.

    “Considering the enrichment in the labile fraction [86, 135, 139], it was suggested that at least 20 years was needed to evaluate the impact of Miscanthus in terms of sustainable SOC enrichment, which contradicted earlier estimates [19, 45, 106, 135].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [86] Zatta A, Clifton-Brown J, Robson P, Hastings A, Monti A (2014) Land use change from C3 grassland to C4 Miscanthus: effects on soil carbon content and estimated mitigation benefit after six years. GCB Bioenergy 6(4):360–370. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12054 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [135] Dondini M, Hastings A, Saiz G, Jones MB, Smith P (2009) The potential of Miscanthus to sequester carbon in soils: comparing field measurements in Carlow, Ireland to model predictions. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(6):413–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01033.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [139] Zimmermann J, Dondini M, Jones MB (2013) Assessing the impacts of the establishment of Miscanthus on soil organic carbon on two contrasting land-use types in Ireland. Eur J Soil Sci 64(6):747–756. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12087 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Clifton-Brown JC, Breuer J, Jones MB (2007) Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Glob Chang Biol 13(11):2296–2307 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] Dondini M, Van Groenigen KJ, Del Galdo I, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [106] Hansen EM, Christensen BT, Jensen LS, Kristensen K (2004) Carbon sequestration in soil beneath long-term Miscanthus plantations as determined by 13C abundance. Biomass Bioenergy 26(2):97–105. doi: 10.1016/s0961-9534(03)00102-8 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Carbon inputs originate from and feed into pools of different stability, and initially carbon is stored as particulate organic matter, which is a relatively slow soil organic carbon pool under switchgrass.

    “C inputs originate from and feed into pools of different stability [45, 141], and initially, C is stored as particulate organic matter (POM) [139], which is a relatively slow SOC pool under switchgrass [25, 47].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [45] Dondini M, Van Groenigen KJ, Del Galdo I, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [141] Zimmermann M, Leifeld J, Schmidt MWI, Smith P, Fuhrer J (2007) Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC model. Eur J Soil Sci 58(3):658–667. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00855.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [139] Zimmermann J, Dondini M, Jones MB (2013) Assessing the impacts of the establishment of Miscanthus on soil organic carbon on two contrasting land-use types in Ireland. Eur J Soil Sci 64(6):747–756. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12087 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Garten CT, Wullschleger SD (2000) Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as indicated by stable isotope analysis. J Environ Qual 29(2):645–653. doi: 10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900020036x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [47] Collins HP, Smith JL, Fransen S, Alva AK, Kruger CE, Granatstein DM (2010) Carbon sequestration under irrigated switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) production. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74(6):2049–2058. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2010.0020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Although annual rhizome inputs are similar to those from litter, its mean residence time is large due to its longevity, which delays decomposition and incorporation into soil organic carbon.

    “Although annual rhizome inputs are similar to those from litter, its MRT is large due to its longevity [1, 68] which delays their decomposition and incorporation into SOC.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(1):1–21. doi: 10.1080/07352680590910393 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [68] Hansen EM (1993) Soil carbon sequestration beneath hybrid poplar plantations in the North Central United States. Biomass Bioenergy 5(6):431–436 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Losses of soil organic carbon under Miscanthus genotypes with higher belowground biomass were suggested to indicate higher soil respiration rate and carbon turnover induced by root exudates, causing a priming effect.

    “Losses of SOC under Miscanthus genotypes with higher BGB were suggested to indicate higher soil respiration rate and C turnover induced by root exudates, causing a priming effect [86].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [86] Zatta A, Clifton-Brown J, Robson P, Hastings A, Monti A (2014) Land use change from C3 grassland to C4 Miscanthus: effects on soil carbon content and estimated mitigation benefit after six years. GCB Bioenergy 6(4):360–370. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12054 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Lignin decomposition rates are highly variable depending on soils and land use and are not necessarily linked to the stability of the derived soil carbon pool.

    “However, lignin decomposition rates are highly variable depending on soils and land use and are not necessarily linked to the stability of the derived soil C pool [146, 149].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [146] Davidson EA, Janssens IA (2006) Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440(7081):165–173. doi: 10.1038/nature04514 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [149] Thevenot M, Dignac MF, Rumpel C (2010) Fate of lignins in soils: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 42(8):1200–1211. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.03.017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The amount of carbon occluded, considered a main index of long-term sequestered carbon in soils under forest and under Miscanthus, remains to be quantified.

    “The amount of C occluded, which is considered as a main index of long-term sequestered C in soils under forest [148] as well under Miscanthus [11], remains to be quantified.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [148] Mueller L, Carsten W, Koegel-Knabner I (2008) Soil organic carbon stocks, distribution, and composition affected by historic land use changes on adjacent sites. Biol Fertil Soils 45(4):347–359. doi: 10.1007/s00374-008-0336-9 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] Poeplau C, Don A (2014) Soil carbon changes under Miscanthus driven by C4 accumulation and C3 decomposition—toward a default sequestration function. GCB Bioenergy 6(4):327–338. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12043 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The average sequestration rates are largely based on all residues and require further analysis in terms of component-specific contributions.

    “The average sequestration rates (Fig. 4) are largely based on all residues and require further analysis in terms of component-specific contributions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Miscanthus litter is higher in lignin than other grasses and seems to reduce the turnover rate of existing soil organic carbon by increasing the insoluble carbon fraction resistant to microbial attack.

    “Miscanthus, whose litter is higher in lignin than other grasses [69], seems to reduce the turnover rate of existing SOC by increasing the insoluble C fraction resistant to microbial attack [116, 150].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [69] Amougou N, Bertrand I, Cadoux S, Recous S (2012) Miscanthus × giganteus leaf senescence, decomposition and C and N inputs to soil. Glob Chang Biol Bionergy 4(6):698–707. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01192.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [116] Foereid B, de Neergaard A, Høgh-Jensen H (2004) Turnover of organic matter in a Miscanthus field: effect of time in Miscanthus cultivation and inorganic nitrogen supply. Soil Biol Biochem 36(7):1075–1085. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.03.002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [150] Kahle P, Beuch S, Boelcke B, Leinweber P, Schulten HR (2001) Cropping of Miscanthus in Central Europe: biomass production and influence on nutrients and soil organic matter. Eur J Agron 15(3):171–184 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Under short-rotation woody crop systems, the predominance of decomposable fine roots could explain the initial loss of soil organic carbon and higher losses under free air carbon enrichment.

    “Under SRWC systems, the predominance of decomposable fine roots could explain the initial loss of SOC [60] and higher losses under FACE [99].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [60] Arevalo CBM, Bhatti JS, Chang SX, Sidders D (2011) Land use change effects on ecosystem carbon balance: from agricultural to hybrid poplar plantation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 141(3–4):342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The intra-aggregate fraction of particulate organic matter is small but could be a close approximation.

    “The intra-aggregate fraction of POM [45, 139] is small but could be a close approximation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [45] Dondini M, Van Groenigen KJ, Del Galdo I, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [139] Zimmermann J, Dondini M, Jones MB (2013) Assessing the impacts of the establishment of Miscanthus on soil organic carbon on two contrasting land-use types in Ireland. Eur J Soil Sci 64(6):747–756. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12087 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The view that roots contribute more to soil organic carbon than aboveground sources seems reflected in the figures, and recent data showed a tight relationship between root and Miscanthus-derived soil organic carbon.

    “The view that roots contribute more to SOC than aboveground sources [100] seems to be reflected in Figs. 3b and 4, and recent data showed a tight relationship between root and Miscanthus-derived SOC [80].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [100] Rasse DP, Rumpel C, Digna MF (2005) Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 269:341–356 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [80] Richter GM, Agostini F, Redmile-Gordon M, White R, Goulding KWT (2015) Sequestration of C in soils under Miscanthus can be marginal and is affected by genotype-specific root distribution. Agric Ecosyst Environ 200(1):169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Occluded particulate organic matter is particularly stable, and root carbon has been found to accumulate in this pool even under arable crops.

    “Occluded POM is particularly stable, and root C has been found to accumulate in this pool even under arable crops [147].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [147] Wander M, Xueming Y (2000) Influence of tillage on the dynamics of loose- and occluded-particulate and humified organic matter fractions. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1151–1160 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    C losses from soil come from root respiration, microbial respiration, and leaching of dissolved organic carbon.

    “In general terms, C losses from soil come from root respiration (ca. 20–40 % of plant-fixed C; [151]), microbial respiration (40 % of SOC in decomposable pools [151]) and leaching of DOC.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [151] Smith PL, Kutsch G, Werner L et al (2010) Measurements necessary for assessing the net ecosystem carbon budget of croplands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139(3):302–315. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.04.004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The synthesis did not account for differences in temperature or other experimental variables.

    “We did not account for differences in temperature or other experimental variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The bio-physicochemical complexity of soil organic carbon could explain its turnover variability under perennial energy crops.

    “The bio-physicochemical complexity of SOC could explain its turnover variability under PECs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Particulate and mineral-associated organic matter are formed in the soil and stabilise soil organic carbon by limiting the access of soil microbes.

    “Particulate (POM) and mineral-associated organic matter (MOM) are formed in the soil, which stabilise SOC, e.g. limiting the access of soil microbes [25].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] Garten CT, Wullschleger SD (2000) Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as indicated by stable isotope analysis. J Environ Qual 29(2):645–653. doi: 10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900020036x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The popularity of RothC may lie in its minimal data requirement, adaptability, and easier calibration of residue pools compared to CENTURY.

    “The popularity of RothC may lie in the minimal data requirement, its adaptability, which allows its integration, and the easier calibration of residue pools compared to CENTURY [163].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [163] Xianli X, Liu W, Kiely G (2011) Modeling the change in soil organic carbon of grassland in response to climate change: effects of measured versus modelled carbon pools for initializing the Rothamsted Carbon model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140(3–4):372–381. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    CENTURY and RothC were identified as especially important models for PEC systems.

    “CENTURY [160] and RothC [159] were identified as especially important.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [160] Parton WJ, Hartman M, Ojima D, Schimel D (1998) DAYCENT and its land surface submodel: description and testing. Glob Planet Chang 19(1–4):35–48. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8181(98)00040-X source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [159] Coleman K, Jenkinson DS, Crocker GJ, Grace PR, Klir J, Korschens M, Poulton PR, Richter DD (1997) Simulating trends in soil organic carbon in long-term experiments using RothC-26.3. Geoderma 81(1–2):29–44 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Dondini et al. applied a soil fractionation technique to improve calibration of SOC pools and account for the recalcitrant nature of plant residues.

    “Dondini et al. [45] applied a soil fractionation technique [141] to improve the calibration of SOC pools and to account for the recalcitrant nature of plant residues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [45] Dondini M, Van Groenigen KJ, Del Galdo I, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [141] Zimmermann M, Leifeld J, Schmidt MWI, Smith P, Fuhrer J (2007) Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC model. Eur J Soil Sci 58(3):658–667. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00855.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    The models APSIM, CENTURY and STICS include a component for litter decomposition using a rate-modifying function for soil depth, accounting for changes of temperature and moisture along the soil profile.

    “The models APSIM, CENTURY and STICS include a component for litter decomposition using a rate-modifying function for soil depth, which account for changes of temperature and moisture along the soil profile.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Locally calibrated decomposition rates are suggested to account for soil temperature and water content gradients.

    “They also suggested locally calibrated decomposition rates to account for soil temperature and water content gradients [166].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [166] Paul KI, Polglase PJ (2004) Prediction of decomposition of litter under eucalypts and pines using the FullCAM model. For Ecol Manag 191(1–3):73–92. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The use of more pools implies more calibrating parameters which improve long-term prediction.

    “The use of more pools implies more calibrating parameters which improve long-term prediction [8] but increase the uncertainty of the model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Garten CT (2012) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration beneath switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Bioenergy Res 5(1):124–138. doi: 10.1007/s12155-011-9154-2 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Decomposition of old SOM can be affected by root priming, which varies with root density along the soil profile and crop C balance.

    “In addition, decomposition of old SOM can be affected by root priming [103], which varies with root density along the soil profile and crop C balance [99].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [103] Cheng W (2009) Rhizosphere priming effect: its functional relationships with microbial turnover, evapotranspiration, and C-N budgets. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1795–1801 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [99] Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL, Hoosbeek MR, Long SP, Miglietta F, Polle A, Bernacchi CJ, Davey PA, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE (2005) Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol 25(11):1399–1408 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In forest soils, the soil microbial biomass assimilated 70 % of the DOC and respired the remaining 30 %.

    “Similar conclusions were reached for DOC in forest soils [157], where the soil microbial biomass assimilated 70 % of the DOC and respired the remaining 30 %.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [157] van Hees PAW, Jones DL, Finlay R, Godbold DL, Lundström US (2005) The carbon we do not see—the impact of low molecular weight compounds on carbon dynamics and respiration in forest soils: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 37(1):1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.06.010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Non-linear interactions between decomposition rate and temperature can exist for different pools, with the effect greatest at lower temperatures and for slowly decomposable compounds but least for old SOC.

    “Finally, non-linear interactions between decomposition rate and temperature can exist for different pools, with the effect being greatest at lower temperatures and for ‘slowly decomposable’ compounds but least for ‘old’ SOC [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Battle-Aguilar J, Brovelli A, Porporato A, Barry DA (2010) Modelling soil carbon and nitrogen cycles during land use change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31(2):251–274. doi: 10.1051/agro/2010007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Under grassland, 20-30 % of DOC was rapidly decomposed by microbial respiration, <5 % was retained in the soil, and the rest was assimilated by the soil microbial biomass.

    “However, under grassland, 20–30 % of DOC was rapidly decomposed by microbial respiration, <5 % was retained in the soil, whilst the rest was assimilated by the soil microbial biomass [156].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [156] Boddy E, Hill PW, Farrar J, Jones DL (2007) Fast turnover of low molecular weight components of the dissolved organic carbon pool of temperate grassland field soils. Soil Biol Biochem 39(4):827–835 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The half-life of >25 years considered for a C pool to be inert, and similar times as a criterion for SOC sequestration, seems rather short.

    “The half-life of >25 years considered for a C pool to be ‘inert’ [121], and similar times as a criterion for SOC sequestration [5, 35, 151, 158] seems rather short.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [121] von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Flessa H, Guggenberger G, Matzner E, Marschner B (2007) SOM fractionation methods: relevance to functional pools and to stabilization mechanisms. Soil Biol Biochem 39(9):2183–2207. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.03.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] Sartori F, Lal R, Ebinger MH, Eaton JA (2007) Changes in soil carbon and nutrient pools along a chronosequence of poplar plantations in the Columbia Plateau, Oregon, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122(3):325–339. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A, Gleixner G, Gude A, Grootes P (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:91–110 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [151] Smith PL, Kutsch G, Werner L et al (2010) Measurements necessary for assessing the net ecosystem carbon budget of croplands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139(3):302–315. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.04.004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [158] McLaughlin SB, Kszos LA (2005) Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 28(6):515–535 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Jenkinson and Coleman introduced an empirical coefficient to reduce SOM decomposition in the subsoil.

    “Jenkinson and Coleman [40] introduced a similar empirical coefficient to reduce SOM decomposition in the subsoil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] Jenkinson DS, Coleman K (2008) The turnover of organic carbon in subsoils. Part 2. Modelling carbon turnover. Eur J Soil Sci 59(2):400–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01026.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    CENTURY and APSIM decrease the decomposition rate of litter accumulating on the soil surface.

    “CENTURY and APSIM decrease the decomposition rate of litter accumulating on the soil surface.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Authors have modified and coupled RothC by adding and calibrating new specific soil and residue C pools, accounting for tree and crop residues.

    “Authors have modified and coupled RothC by adding and calibrating new specific soil and residue C pools, accounting for tree [164] and crop [165] residues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [164] Nieto OM, Castro J, Fernandez E, Smith P (2010) Simulation of soil organic carbon stocks in a Mediterranean olive grove under different soil-management systems using the RothC model. Soil Use Manag 26(2):118–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00265.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [165] Powlson DS, Glendining MJ, Coleman K, Whitmore AP (2011) Implications for soil properties of removing cereal straw: results from long-term studies. Agron J 103(1):279–287. doi: 10.2134/agronj2010.0146s source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous work showed that the C cycle in forest systems needed a chemical model for litter decomposition to integrate RothC with plant residues.

    “However, previous work [168] showed that the C cycle in forest systems needed a chemical model for litter decomposition to integrate RothC with plant residues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [168] Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Richards GP (2003) Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C accounting model (CAMFor) to models of forest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC). For Ecol Manag 177(1–3):485–501 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Each pool decomposes following first-order kinetics integrated with temperature and moisture functions.

    “Each pool decomposes following first-order kinetics integrated with temperature and moisture functions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Depth-dependent decomposition has been implemented by water and heat flux models, empirical coefficients, or including C transport such as diffusion and adsorption of DOC.

    “In summary, depth-dependent decomposition has been implemented by introducing (i) water and heat flux models [14, 169] or (ii) empirical coefficients [40] or (iii) including C transport, i.e. diffusion and adsorption of DOC [42].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [14] Battle-Aguilar J, Brovelli A, Porporato A, Barry DA (2010) Modelling soil carbon and nitrogen cycles during land use change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31(2):251–274. doi: 10.1051/agro/2010007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [169] Herbst M, Hellebrand HJ, Bauer J, Huisman JA, Simunek J, Weihermuller L, Graf A, Vanderborght J, Vereecken H (2008) Multiyear heterotrophic soil respiration: evaluation of a coupled CO2 transport and carbon turnover model. Ecol Model 214(2–4):271–283. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.02.007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Jenkinson DS, Coleman K (2008) The turnover of organic carbon in subsoils. Part 2. Modelling carbon turnover. Eur J Soil Sci 59(2):400–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01026.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] Braakhekke MC, Christian Beer M, Hoosbeek MR, Reichstein M, Kruijt B, Schrumpf M, Kabat P (2011) SOMPROF: a vertically explicit soil organic matter model. Ecol Model 222:1712–1730 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Initially new SOC is part of easily decomposable POM and later part of the inter-aggregate fraction.

    “The modelling of SOC fractionation seems essential for the persistence and sustainability of C sequestration, showing that initially new SOC is part of easily decomposable POM [139] and later part of the inter-aggregate fraction [25, 45].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [139] Zimmermann J, Dondini M, Jones MB (2013) Assessing the impacts of the establishment of Miscanthus on soil organic carbon on two contrasting land-use types in Ireland. Eur J Soil Sci 64(6):747–756. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12087 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Garten CT, Wullschleger SD (2000) Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as indicated by stable isotope analysis. J Environ Qual 29(2):645–653. doi: 10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900020036x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] Dondini M, Van Groenigen KJ, Del Galdo I, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other research differentiated inter- and intra-aggregate and particulate OM to derive pools fitting different model concepts.

    “Other research differentiated inter- and intra-aggregate and particulate OM to derive pools fitting the different model concepts [45].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [45] Dondini M, Van Groenigen KJ, Del Galdo I, Jones MB (2009) Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(5):321–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01025.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Decomposition rates of LC residues can vary with temperature, or through interaction between temperature and recalcitrance, which could depend on their chemical composition.

    “Decomposition rates of LC residues can vary with temperature, or through interaction between temperature and ‘recalcitrance’, which could depend on their chemical composition [4, 109].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] Johnson JMF, Barbour NW, Weyers SL (2007) Chemical composition of crop biomass impacts its decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(1):155–162 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [109] Rubino M, Dungait JAJ, Evershed RP, Bertolini T, De Angelis P, D’Onofrio A, Lagomarsino A, Lubritto C, Merola A, Terrasi F (2010) Carbon input belowground is the major C flux contributing to leaf litter mass loss: evidences from a 13C labelled-leaf litter experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42(7):1009–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The effect of soil moisture on SOC decomposition is complex and non-linear; a single moisture threshold for decreased microbial activity and soil respiration does not exist.

    “The effect of soil moisture is complex and non-linear; a single moisture threshold for decreased microbial activity and soil respiration does not exist [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Battle-Aguilar J, Brovelli A, Porporato A, Barry DA (2010) Modelling soil carbon and nitrogen cycles during land use change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31(2):251–274. doi: 10.1051/agro/2010007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recalcitrance can be modelled using a delay time of decomposition depending on accessible soil pore space, simulating physical protection from microbial activity.

    “Recalcitrance can also be modelled using a delay time of decomposition in dependence of accessible soil pore space, which simulate the physical protective effect of soil from microbial activity [176].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [176] Ludwig B, Kuka K, Franko U, von Luetzow M (2008) Comparison of two quantitative soil organic carbon models with a conceptual model using data from an agricultural long-term experiment. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171(1):83–90. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200700053 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In perennials, biological protection (longevity) of coarse roots, stool and rhizomes is a major conceptual challenge that has not been met.

    “In perennials, however, biological protection (longevity) of coarse roots, stool and rhizomes (see above) is a major conceptual challenge that has not been met.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Effects from the environment, fertility and management, such as harvest intensity, are not covered in dose-response experiments, and evidence for target ecosystems like marginal land is underrepresented.

    “Fourth, effects from the environment, fertility and management, e.g. harvest intensity of the systems, are not covered in dose–response experiments, and evidence for target ecosystems, like marginal land, is underrepresented.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Data for ∆SOC from marginal soils with low baseline SOC are target areas but are not available to validate a generalised model.

    “Data for ∆SOC from marginal soils with a low baseline SOC, such as the site in Ireland [135], are target areas but are not available to validate a generalised model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [135] Dondini M, Hastings A, Saiz G, Jones MB, Smith P (2009) The potential of Miscanthus to sequester carbon in soils: comparing field measurements in Carlow, Ireland to model predictions. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 1(6):413–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01033.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Experimental evidence for SOC dynamics, size and persistence of SOC pools prior to establishment, during the lifetime and after termination of PECs must underpin modelling.

    “Experimental evidence for the SOC dynamics, size and persistence of the SOC pools prior to establishment, during the lifetime and after termination of the PECs must underpin modelling.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Variation in bulk density increases uncertainty of stock changes and needs to be accounted for to capture spatial heterogeneity effects on SOC dynamics and sequestration.

    “Bulk density in particular is a dynamic property when changing from arable to perennial agricultural systems [24], and its variation increases the uncertainty of stock changes [80, 164, 184] and needs to be accounted for to capture the effect of spatial heterogeneity on SOC dynamics and sequestration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [80] Richter GM, Agostini F, Redmile-Gordon M, White R, Goulding KWT (2015) Sequestration of C in soils under Miscanthus can be marginal and is affected by genotype-specific root distribution. Agric Ecosyst Environ 200(1):169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [164] Nieto OM, Castro J, Fernandez E, Smith P (2010) Simulation of soil organic carbon stocks in a Mediterranean olive grove under different soil-management systems using the RothC model. Soil Use Manag 26(2):118–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00265.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [184] Schmer MR, Liebig MA, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2011) Field-scale soil property changes under switchgrass managed for bioenergy. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 3(6):439–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01099.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    C sequestration implies a long-term view and analysis on SOC fractions that represent a turnover time in excess of 25 to 50 years.

    “C sequestration implies a long-term view and analysis on SOC fractions that represent a turnover time in excess of 25 to 50 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Process-based SOC models usually have decomposition reduction functions based on soil moisture, derived from soil water potential or soil water content.

    “Usually, process-based SOC models [41, 182] have decomposition reduction functions based on soil moisture, derived from the soil water potential or soil water content.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [41] Bauer J, Herbst M, Huisman JA, Weihermuller L, Vereecken H (2008) Sensitivity of simulated soil heterotrophic respiration to temperature and moisture reduction functions. Geoderma 145(1–2):17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [182] Findeling A, Garnier P, Coppens F, Lafolie F, Recous S (2007) Modelling water, carbon and nitrogen dynamics in soil covered with decomposing mulch. Eur J Soil Sci 58:196–206 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Laborious alternative methods have filled knowledge gaps but described dynamics in young plantations, which may not be extrapolated to mature stands.

    “Laborious alternative methods have filled knowledge gaps but described dynamics in young plantations, which may not be extrapolated to mature stands.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    An alternative up-scaling technique is to run C process models at small scales to initialise larger spatial regression models.

    “An alternative up-scaling technique is to run C process models (i.e. RothC) at small scales to initialise larger spatial regression models [185].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [185] Guo L, Falloon P, Coleman K, Zhou B, Li Y, Lin E, Zhang F (2007) Application of the RothC model to the results of long-term experiments on typical upland soils in northern China. Soil Use Manag 23(1):63–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00056.x source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Bauer et al. compared decomposition routines in a modified RothC and showed 2 % sensitivity of CO2 emissions due to soil moisture variation.

    “Bauer et al. [41] compared various decomposition routines in a unique modified version of RothC and showed 2 % sensitivity of CO2 emissions due to soil moisture variation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] Bauer J, Herbst M, Huisman JA, Weihermuller L, Vereecken H (2008) Sensitivity of simulated soil heterotrophic respiration to temperature and moisture reduction functions. Geoderma 145(1–2):17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.026 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Assumptions that the soil-crop system was at potential productivity and equilibrium could be wrong where net SOC formation is delayed, cover is patchy, or residues vary in decomposability.

    “Their assumptions that the soil-crop system was at potential productivity, and equilibrium could be wrong where net SOC formation is delayed [86], cover is patchy [46, 139] or residues vary in their decomposability [108].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [86] Zatta A, Clifton-Brown J, Robson P, Hastings A, Monti A (2014) Land use change from C3 grassland to C4 Miscanthus: effects on soil carbon content and estimated mitigation benefit after six years. GCB Bioenergy 6(4):360–370. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12054 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [46] Zimmermann J, Styles D, Hastings A, Dauber J, Jones MB (2014) Assessing the impact of within crop heterogeneity (‘patchiness’) in young Miscanthus × giganteus fields on economic feasibility and soil carbon sequestration. GCB Bioenergy 6(5):566–576. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12084 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [139] Zimmermann J, Dondini M, Jones MB (2013) Assessing the impacts of the establishment of Miscanthus on soil organic carbon on two contrasting land-use types in Ireland. Eur J Soil Sci 64(6):747–756. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12087 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [108] Magid J, Luxhoi J, Lyshede OB (2004) Decomposition of plant residues at low temperatures separates turnover of nitrogen and energy rich tissue components in time. Plant Soil 258(1):351–365 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Topography and soil distribution maps can be included as inputs to process-based models to simulate impacts on growth and SOC for PECs.

    “Indeed, topography and soil distribution maps can be included as inputs to process-based models to simulate the impacts on growth and SOC for PECs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    It is difficult to obtain sufficiently detailed and widespread data to generalise and verify a generic process description.

    “It is difficult to obtain sufficiently detailed and widespread data to generalise and verify a generic process description.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Reliable projections can only be achieved if simulations capture short- and long-term dynamics, synthesising data from chrono-sequences, disaggregating inputs and understanding C fluxes within SOC fractions.

    “In terms of modelling, reliable projections can only be achieved if simulations capture short- and long-term dynamics, synthesising data from chrono-sequences, disaggregating inputs and understanding C fluxes within SOC fractions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Turnover is derived from time series estimating productivity/mortality over standing biomass, but time series are the exception over single snapshot observations.

    “Turnover is derived from time series estimating productivity/mortality over standing biomass, but time series are the exception over single ‘snapshot’ observations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
138 of 138

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The carbon cycle of perennial energy crops can be divided into qualitatively different inputs from aboveground biomass and belowground biomass.

    “The C cycle of PECs is assumed to be divided into qualitatively different inputs from AGB and BGB (Fig. 1).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Data from switchgrass and poplar are appropriate proxies for Miscanthus and willow.

    “due to the scarcity of some direct experimental evidence in these crops, data from two proxy crops, switchgrass and poplar, have also been used.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Inputs and turnover rates are the critical components affecting carbon sequestration rate.

    “The critical components that affect C sequestration rate are inputs and turnover rates”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The area of land devoted to perennial energy crops is likely to increase.

    “The area of land devoted to PECs is likely to increase as countries seek to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for climate change mitigation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The physical and chemical stabilities of soil organic carbon pools are essential in defining the sustainability of carbon sequestration, with a half-life greater than 25 years.

    “although they are essential in defining the sustainability of C sequestration (half-life >25 years).”
5 of 5

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?

  • Soil organic carbon increase by switchgrass ranges from -0.6 to 4.3 Mg C ha−1 year−1, depending on climate, soil properties, land use history and so on.

    “Soil organic carbon increase by switchgrass ranges from -0.6 to 4.3 Mg C ha -1 year -1 , depending on climate, soil properties, land use history and so on (Agostini et al., 2015; Dheri et al., 2022; Follett et al., 2012; Jin et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2007; Lemus &amp; Lal, 2005; Liebig et al., 2008; Slessarev et al., 2020; Valdez et al., 2017).”

    From Global warming intensity of biofuel derived from switchgrass grown on marginal land in Michigan (2023) · cites this paper as Agostini et al., 2015

    Table 3 (Review Method: Meta-Analysis and Data Synthesis; page unavailable) reports switchgrass soil-carbon changes across differing soils and environmental conditions, supporting the general point that rates vary. It does not report the claimed −0.6 to 4.3 Mg C ha−1 year−1 range: its listed switchgrass values are positive and reach 3.71 at most. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • As a result of high C input to the soil, PECs have shown high soil C sequestration rates.

    “As a result of this high C input to the soil (Agostini et al., 2015; Klimešová & Martínková, 2018), PECs have shown high soil C sequestration rates (Chimento et al., 2016; Lemus & Lal, 2005; Sartori et al., 2006).”

    From Belowground biomass C outweighs soil organic C of perennial energy crops: Insights from a long‐term multispecies trial (2021) · cites this paper as Agostini et al., 2015

  • These values are well above the proposed sequestration requirement of 0.25 tC/ha/year to make the crop carbon neutral once converted to biofuels.

    “It is reported that these values are well above the proposed sequestration requirement (0.25 tCha -1 year -1 ) to make the crop carbon neutral once converted to biofuels (Agostini et al. 2015).”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Agostini et al. 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Stated poplar fine-root input range omits lower tabulated values

    Minor

    The stated lower bound is 0.46 Mg C ha−1 year−1, but Table 1 lists a poplar fine-root input of 0.17 in the same units.

  • Switchgrass is not shown to sequester twice as much SOC

    Minor

    The paper says switchgrass sequestered twice as much SOC as Miscanthus, but its stated averages are 1.59 and 1.21, a ratio of about 1.31.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kollas CP, Lasch JR, Suckow F (2009) Bioenergy potential in Germany—assessing spatial patterns of biomass production. Int Agrophysics 23:343–352
  2. Drewer J, Finch J, Lloyd R, Baggs E, Skiba U (2011) How do soil emission of N20, CH4 and CO2 from perennial bioenergy crops differ from arable annual crops? GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01136 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Agostini, F., Gregory, A. S., & Richter, G. M.
Affiliations
Rothamsted Research (GB)
Corresponding author
Richter, Goetz M.
ORCID
Venue
BioEnergy Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-01-15
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
1057-1080
ISSN
  • 1939-1234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1242
DOI
10.1007/s12155-014-9571-0
PMC
PMC4732603
OpenAlex
W2026172647
Cited by
155
References
191
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BioEnergy Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rothamsted Repository (Rothamsted Repository) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K036734/1)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/C/00005214, BBS/E/C/00005201)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/H010718/1, NE/H010742/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
carbon sequestration, perennial energy crops, soil organic carbon, bioenergy, Miscanthus, willow, switchgrass, poplar, carbon allocation, carbon turnover, greenhouse gas emissions, land conversion, carbon leaching, stand age, carbon neutrality

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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