Sequestration of C in soils under Miscanthus can be marginal and is affected by genotype-specific root distribution
Open accessAbstract
Miscanthus is a low input energy crop suitable for low fertility marginal arable land and thought to provide carbon sequestration in soil. We analysed a long-term field experiment (14-year) to determine whether differences in genotype, growth habit, and root distribution affected soil carbon spatially under different Miscanthus genotypes. Soil cores were taken centrally and radially to a depth of 1 m, and divided into six vertical segments. Total root length (TRL), root dry matter (RDM) and δ13C signature of soil organic carbon (SOC) were measured directly, and root length density (RLD), fractions of Miscanthus-derived soil organic C (SOCM), and residual soil carbon (SOCorig) were calculated. Genotype was found to exhibit a statistically significant influence on spatial allocation of SOC. Grouping varieties into ‘tuft-forming’ (T) and ‘non-tuft-forming’ (NT) phenotypes revealed that respective groups accumulated similar amounts of RDM over 14 years (11.4 ± 3.3 vs. 11.9 ± 4.8 Mg ha−1, respectively). However, phenotype T allocated more carbon to roots in the subsoil than NT (33% vs. 25%). Miscanthus genotypes sequestered between 4.2 and 7.1 g C4-SOC kg−1 soil over the same period, which was more than the average loss of C3-derived SOC (3.25 g kg−1). Carbon stocks in the ‘A horizon’ under Miscanthus increased by about 5 Mg ha−1 above the baseline, while the net increase in the subsoil was marginal. Amounts of Miscanthus root C in the subsoil were small (1.2–1.8 Mg C ha−1) but could be important for sustainable sequestration as root density (RLD) explained a high percentage of SOCM (R2 = 0.66).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
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.”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [80]
Carbon inputs from Miscanthus rhizomes (1.01 to 2.66 Mg C ha−1 year−1) were generally greater than those from roots (0.19-0.86 Mg C ha−1 year−1).
“The C inputs from Miscanthus rhizomes (1.01 to 2.66 Mg C ha−1 year−1) were generally greater [57, 61, 66, 80, 85] than those from roots (0.19–0.86 Mg C ha−1 year−1, Table 1).”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [80]
Data for carbon inputs from belowground biomass are difficult to interpret, especially for roots, because they are based on many single observations rather than time series.
“Data for C inputs from BGB are difficult to interpret, especially for roots because they are based on many single observations [45, 61, 62, 64, 80] rather than time series [26, 32, 81–83].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [80]
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].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [80]
Root dry matter in the surface horizon is an order of magnitude larger than in the subsoil.
“Root dry matter in the surface horizon is an order of magnitude larger than in the subsoil [31, 32, 80, 84].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [80]
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.”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [80]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Richter, G. M., Agostini, F., Redmile-Gordon, M., White, R., & Goulding, K. W. T.
- Affiliations
- Rothamsted Research (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Richter, Goetz M.
- Venue
- Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 200
- Pages
- 169-177
- ISSN
- 0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2041977295
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 9.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Rothamsted Repository (Rothamsted Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Rothamsted Repository (Rothamsted Repository) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (NE/H010742/1)
- UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
- Institute’s Strategic Programme Grant “Cropping Carbon”
- 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 › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
- Keywords
- Miscanthus, soil carbon sequestration, root distribution, root length density, soil organic carbon, subsoil carbon, root carbon allocation, energy crops, long-term field experiment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
