CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 557Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity

Open access
Yang, Yi, Tilman, David, Furey, George, Lehman, Clarence·2019·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-08636-wPMC PMC6372642
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Agriculturally degraded and abandoned lands can remove atmospheric CO 2 and sequester it as soil organic matter during natural succession. However, this process may be slow, requiring a century or longer to re-attain pre-agricultural soil carbon levels. Here, we find that restoration of late-successional grassland plant diversity leads to accelerating annual carbon storage rates that, by the second period (years 13–22), are 200% greater in our highest diversity treatment than during succession at this site, and 70% greater than in monocultures. The higher soil carbon storage rates of the second period (years 13–22) are associated with the greater aboveground production and root biomass of this period, and with the presence of multiple species, especially C4 grasses and legumes. Our results suggest that restoration of high plant diversity may greatly increase carbon capture and storage rates on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-019-08636-w

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Change in soil C over 22 years. a, b Average annual soil C storage rates over years 1–13 (green bars) and years 13–22 (blue bars) in upper 20 cm of soil (a) and in upper 60 cm (b) (Supplementary Table 1). Bars are means with standard errors. c Dynamics of soil C concentration in upper 20 cm of soil for plots planted with 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 perennial grassland species (Supplementary Table 2). Dots are means with standard errors; fitted curves are quadratic
Fig. 1 Change in soil C over 22 years. a, b Average annual soil C storage rates over years 1–13 (green bars) and years 13–22 (blue bars) in upper 20 cm of soil (a) and in upper 60 cm (b) (Supplementary Table 1). Bars are means with standard errors. c Dynamics of soil C concentration in upper 20 cm of soil for plots planted with 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 perennial grassland species (Supplementary Table 2). Dots are means with standard errors; fitted curves are quadraticCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Change in root C over 24 years. a Change in root C in upper 30 cm of soil under different experimentally imposed levels of plant species diversity. Dots indicate mean root C at a given year; curves fitted with log functions; the number on each curve indicates plant species diversity. b Total root C storage after 24 years of growth in upper 60 cm of soil. Numbers in white indicate mean total root C storage, error bars indicate standard errors, and numbers in black indicate soil depth increments (cm)
Fig. 2 Change in root C over 24 years. a Change in root C in upper 30 cm of soil under different experimentally imposed levels of plant species diversity. Dots indicate mean root C at a given year; curves fitted with log functions; the number on each curve indicates plant species diversity. b Total root C storage after 24 years of growth in upper 60 cm of soil. Numbers in white indicate mean total root C storage, error bars indicate standard errors, and numbers in black indicate soil depth increments (cm)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Higher-diversity plots versus the best species in monoculture. a Soil C storage rate over the entire 22 years for the 0–60 cm soil profile. b Mean root biomass for the 0–60 cm soil profile (average of 2006, 2015, and 2017). c Mean productivity from 2012 to 2016. The numbers at the top of each panel are proportions of mixture plots surpassing the best performing monoculture species. Proportions increase with diversity for all three measures. Monocultures values are means of plots planted to a given species
Fig. 3 Higher-diversity plots versus the best species in monoculture. a Soil C storage rate over the entire 22 years for the 0–60 cm soil profile. b Mean root biomass for the 0–60 cm soil profile (average of 2006, 2015, and 2017). c Mean productivity from 2012 to 2016. The numbers at the top of each panel are proportions of mixture plots surpassing the best performing monoculture species. Proportions increase with diversity for all three measures. Monocultures values are means of plots planted to a given speciesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Functional composition and traits influence root biomass and soil C storage. a Soil C storage rates over the entire 22 years for the 0–60 cm profile. b Mean root biomass for the 0–60 cm soil profile (average of 2006, 2015, and 2017). c Mean root biomass of different functional groups in monoculture plots (0–30 cm soil profile, average of 2006, 2015, and 2017). d Fine root decomposition percentage of different functional groups (measured after 10 months of field incubation, which included ~5 winter months54). In all panels, bars are means with standard errors. In a and b, dots indicate plot results: C4—plots with at least one C4 but without legume; L—plots with at least one legume but without C4; C4 + L—plots with at least one C4 and one legume; Other—forbs, C3, or woody; HD—16-species plots, which include both C4 and legume (of typically 3–4 species each). In c and d for monoculture plots, L means legume
Fig. 4 Functional composition and traits influence root biomass and soil C storage. a Soil C storage rates over the entire 22 years for the 0–60 cm profile. b Mean root biomass for the 0–60 cm soil profile (average of 2006, 2015, and 2017). c Mean root biomass of different functional groups in monoculture plots (0–30 cm soil profile, average of 2006, 2015, and 2017). d Fine root decomposition percentage of different functional groups (measured after 10 months of field incubation, which included ~5 winter months54). In all panels, bars are means with standard errors. In a and b, dots indicate plot results: C4—plots with at least one C4 but without legume; L—plots with at least one legume but without C4; C4 + L—plots with at least one C4 and one legume; Other—forbs, C3, or woody; HD—16-species plots, which include both C4 and legume (of typically 3–4 species each). In c and d for monoculture plots, L means legumeCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–557 of 557

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G., & Lehman, C.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Tilman, David
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-02-12
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
718-718
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-019-08636-w
PMC
PMC6372642
OpenAlex
W2911658412
Cited by
557
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 111 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 8
FWCI
37.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1234162, 0620652)
Topics
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
soil carbon sequestration, grassland restoration, plant diversity, root biomass, aboveground production, C4 grasses, Fabaceae, degraded agricultural land, monoculture, natural succession
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Poaceae, Soil, Biomass, Biodiversity, Carbon Sequestration, Grassland

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