Cited by 42Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBioenergy crop production and managementSoil erosion and sediment transport

The impacts of four potential bioenergy crops on soil carbon dynamics as shown by biomarker analyses and DRIFT spectroscopy

Open access
Zhu, Xuefeng, Liang, Chao, Masters, Michael D., Kantola, Ilsa B., DeLucia, Evan H.·2018·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Abstract Perennial bioenergy crops accumulate carbon (C) in soils through minimally disturbing management practices and large root inputs, but the mechanisms of microbial control over C dynamics under bioenergy crops have not been clarified. Root‐derived C inputs affect both soil microbial contribution to and degradation of soil organic matter resulting in differing soil organic carbon ( SOC ) concentrations, storage, and stabilities under different vegetation regimes. Here, we measured biomarker amino sugars and neutral sugars and used diffuse reflectance mid‐infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy ( DRIFTS ) to explore microbial C contributions, degradation ability, and SOC stability, respectively, under four potential bioenergy crops, M .× giganteus ( Miscanthus × giganteus ), switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L .), a mixed prairie, and a maize ( Zea mays L .)–maize–soybean ( Glycine max(L.) Merr .) ( MMS ) rotation over six growing seasons. Our results showed that SOC concentration (g/kg) increased by 10.6% in mixed prairie over the duration of this experiment and SOC storage (Mg/ha) increased by 17.0% and 15.6% in switchgrass and mixed prairie, respectively. Conversion of row crops to perennial grasses maintained SOC stability and increased bacterial residue contribution to SOC in M .× giganteus and switchgrass by 20.0% and 15.0%, respectively, after 6 years. Degradation of microbe‐derived labile SOC was increased in M .× giganteus, and degradation of both labile and stable SOC increased in MMS rotation. These results demonstrate that microbial communities under perennial grasses maintained SOC quality, while SOC quantity increased under switchgrass and mixed prairie. Annual MMS rotation displayed decreases in aspects of SOC quality without changes in SOC quantity. These findings have implications for understanding microbial control over soil C quantity and quality under land‐use shift from annual to perennial bioenergy cropping systems.

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 · 10.1111/gcbb.12520

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • There are big differences between crops; switchgrass (as other perennial crops) can stabilize carbon dynamics and increase humification, unlike silage maize, which leads to opposite processes.

    “There are big differences between the crops, e.g. the switchgrass (as other perennial crops), which can stabilized the carbon dynamics and increase the humification, unlike silage maize, which leads to the opposite processes (Zhu et al., 2018).”

    From Concepts of agricultural marginal lands and their utilisation: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Zhu et al., 2018

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, X., Liang, C., Masters, M. D., Kantola, I. B., & DeLucia, E. H.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Liang, Chao
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-11
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
489-500
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2802365295
Cited by
42
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (41471218, 41671297)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐SC‐18420)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
energy crops, soil organic carbon, soil carbon dynamics, soil organic matter stability, microbial biomass, amino sugars, neutral sugars, Miscanthus × giganteus, switchgrass, corn-soybean rotation, perennial grasses, land use change, soil carbon quality, soil carbon storage

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