Cited by 64Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEnvironmental and biological studies

Miscanthus × giganteus leaf senescence, decomposition and C and N inputs to soil

Amougou, Norbert, Bertrand, Isabelle, Cadoux, Stephane, Recous, Sylvie·2012·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Energy crops are currently promoted as potential sources of alternative energy that can help mitigate the climate change caused by greenhouse gases (GHG s). The perennial crop Miscanthus × giganteus is considered promising due to its high potential for biomass production under conditions of low input. However, to assess its potential for GHG mitigation, a better quantification of the crop's contribution to soil organic matter recycling under various management systems is needed. The aim of this work was to study the effect of abscised leaves on carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) recycling in a Miscanthus plantation. The dynamics of senescent leaf fall, the rate of leaf decomposition (using a litter bag approach) and the leaf accumulation at the soil surface were tracked over two 1‐year periods under field conditions in Northern France. The fallen leaves represented an average yearly input of 1.40 Mg C ha−1 and 16 kg N ha−1. The abscised leaves lost approximately 54% of their initial mass in 1 year due to decomposition; the remaining mass, accumulated as a mulch layer at the soil surface, was equivalent to 7 Mg dry matter (DM) ha−1 5 years after planting. Based on the estimated annual leaf‐C recycling rate and a stabilization rate of 35% of the added C, the annual contribution of the senescent leaves to the soil C was estimated to be approximately 0.50 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 or 10 Mg C ha−1 total over the 20‐year lifespan of a Miscanthus crop. This finding suggested that for Miscanthus, the abscised leaves contribute more to the soil C accumulation than do the rhizomes or roots. In contrast, the recycling of the leaf N to the soil was less than for the other N fluxes, particularly for those involving the transfer of N from the tops of the plant to the rhizome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01192.x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most obvious factor is the effect of temperature on the mean residence time of leaf Miscanthus litter derived in litter bags and laboratory incubations.

    “Most obvious is the effect of temperature on the MRT of leaf Miscanthus litter derived in litter bags and laboratory incubations [62, 64, 69, 108, 122].”
  • 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).”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amougou, N., Bertrand, I., Cadoux, S., & Recous, S.
Affiliations
  • Fractionnation of AgroResources and Environment (FR)
  • INRA, US1158 Agro‐Impact F‐02000 Laon France
Corresponding author
Recous, Sylvie
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-04
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
698-707
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2159758743
Cited by
64
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
12.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and biological studies
Keywords
Miscanthus × giganteus, leaf senescence, leaf litter decomposition, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycling, soil organic matter, energy crops, carbon stabilization, greenhouse gas emissions reduction

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