Next Article in Journal
Growth Properties and Sensitivities to Various Bactericidal Methods of Cold-Tolerant Microorganisms Isolated from Packed Tofu
Previous Article in Journal
Aboveground Biomass, Carbon Sequestration, and Yield of Pyrus pyrifolia under the Management of Organic Residues in the Subtropical Ecosystem of Southern Brazil
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Reversion of Perennial Biomass Crops to Conserve C and N: A Meta-Analysis

Department of Sustainable Crop Production, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 5 January 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2022 / Accepted: 16 January 2022 / Published: 18 January 2022

Abstract

:
Perennial crops have been proposed as a solution to couple the production of sustainable biomass for multiple uses with several environmental benefits such as soil C storage. Concerns exist that the C sequestered in soil could be lost in a few years after the perennial crops are reverted to arable land. In this study, the current knowledge on the effects of perennial crop reversion on soil C and N was summarized by performing a meta-analysis. One year after the reversion a significant increase of soil C and N stocks (+15% and +12% respectively) were found in the 0–30 cm layer, while in the time interval between the second to fifth year after the reversion, there were no significant increases or decreases of soil C and N. The incorporation of the belowground biomass (BGB) into the soil at reversion plays a key role in the fate of soil C and N stocks after the reversion. In fact, when reverting a multiannual biomass crop there are significant losses of soil C and N. In contrast, when reverting a perennial biomass crop (PBCs) such as rhizomatous herbaceous or SRC woody crops there are no losses of soil C and N. The BGB of perennial grass is mainly composed of root systems and not of a huge amount of belowground organs as in the case of PBCs. The shredding of the BGB and its transformation as particulate organic matter (POM) represent the major pulse C input at the reversion that can undergo further stabilization into a mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) fraction. Introducing PBCs into crop rotation resulted in an effective carbon farming solution with a potential positive legacy for food crops in terms of achievement of both climate and soil fertility goals.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The 21st century will challenge agriculture to produce more food, energy, and goods for a growing human population while respecting the environment [1]. This necessitates approaches to mitigate the impact of agriculture on climate and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to keep the increase in global mean temperature well below 2 °C, and especially for the ambitious target of below 1.5 °C [2]. In the agricultural sector, strategies for carbon dioxide (CO2) removal by carbon (C) sequestration in soil, relies on plant photosynthesis to carry out the initial step of C “removal” from the atmosphere into the plants’ biomass [3]. Soil is one of the most important C sinks on the planet [4] and the agricultural management of cropland, which governs the balance between the rate of C input from plant residues and the rate of C lost from the soil (mainly as CO2 from decomposition processes), can lead to a substantial loss of soil organic C (SOC) and GHG emissions [5]. Anthropogenic perturbations that increase the decline of SOC are mainly ploughing, residue removal, monoculture, or the conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural production [4,6]. For these reasons, in 2015, the “4 per mille” initiative (https://www.4p1000.org, accessed on 28 December 2021) was launched at the COP21 in Paris, to increase SOC by 0.4% every year to compensate for the C emissions of humankind [7]. Several studies have proven that the cultivation of perennial crops (PCs) is an effective method to increase SOC [8,9] thanks to the plant C input (fine roots C, litter-leaf C, harvest residue C) and minimal soil disturbance [10,11,12,13]. Examples of PCs, which are defined as: “crops that are planted but not replanted and/or fully harvested annually to obtain goods” [8] are woody plants (fruits trees), beverage crops (e.g., coffee, tea, cocoa), oil crops (e.g., palms), short rotation coppices (SRC, e.g., poplar, willow or black locust), perennial rhizomatous crops like switchgrass, miscanthus, giant reed [14,15] and multiannual biomass crops (MBC) [16,17]. PCs can produce high biomass yields in a wide range of climatic and soil conditions with low inputs [18,19,20,21] which can be used for a multitude of products, from food and fiber to bioenergy production [15]. In addition, PCs can sustain the provision of multiple ecosystem services (ES) [22,23,24] directly and indirectly connected to the increase of soil organic matter (SOM) [25] as nutrient cycling [26,27], the reduction of heavy metal concentration in soil [28] or the increase of biodiversity [14,29]. Besides C sequestration in soil, PCs can sequester huge amounts of C in the belowground organs [13]. Despite the huge effort that has been made recently to summarize the knowledge on the effect of PC cultivation on SOC [8,30], limited information is available on the fate of SOC after the perennial crops are terminated and the soil is reverted to arable crops. There are concerns that the benefit brought about by PCs would soon be lost with the reversion to arable crops [13,31]. However, some authors suggested that a positive effect of reversion on the soil C and N pool is possible, due to the high C and N inputs from the incorporation of belowground biomass (BGB) [13] and harvest residues [32]. Consequently, we hypothesized that a positive soil C storage trajectory is possible when PCs with high BGB are reverted to arable land.
In this study, the current knowledge on the effect of PC reversion on soil C and N was summarized by performing a meta-analysis. In particular, the work focused on, firstly, the changes occurring in soil C and N as a function of the soil layer considered (above or below the average reversion depth); secondly, the changes in soil C and N were investigated as a function of the time since reversion was performed. Finally, the changes in soil C and N were evaluated across different predictor factors (i.e., soil characteristics, climatic and experimental conditions).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

A literature survey of peer-reviewed English-written scientific papers was carried out from October 2020 to October 2021 using major databases and library services as Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com, accessed on 29 December 2021) or Scopus (www.scopus.com/, accessed on 3 January 2022). The combinations of keywords to search on titles, abstracts and keywords used as a primary step to collect literature are given in Appendix A. Bibliographies of the papers included in the meta-analysis were screened for other potentially relevant papers that may have been missed by the primary searches. When the data were presented in figures, mean values, standard error (SE) or standard deviation (SD) were extracted using WebPlotDigitizer (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/, accessed on 1 November 2021). Authors were contacted for unpublished data and missing information. PCs considered in this study include all the perennial plants for which the above-ground biomass is annually harvested for agricultural purposes but excluding the reversion of PCs from native ecosystems, pastures, or natural forests. In this study, “Reversion” is intended as the operation of PC removal, with or without the spraying of herbicides and performed using ploughs, forestry mulchers or, more in general, the use of machinery that incorporates into soil the belowground biomass of PCs.

2.1.1. Soil

The following information on the soil was extracted from the papers: mean, SD and sample size (n) of C and N stock (in Mg ha−1) and soil C/N ratio when provided. In addition, texture class (or percentage of clay, silt and sand,) soil bulk density (BD in g cm−3) and sampling depths (cm) were extracted. If C and N were reported as concentrations (% or g kg−1), data were transformed to stocks using soil BD. In the case that N data were not reported, N stock or concentration was calculated from C data using the C/N ratio. If SD of soil C and N data were not reported, they were calculated from SE and sample size (n):
SD = SE   ×   n
If SD, SE, and n were not provided, SD was calculated as 1/10 of the mean as proposed by Luo et al. [33]. Considering that, in the literature, measurements of C and N in soil are relative to sampling depth ranging from 5 to 100 cm, and assuming that during the reversion process the first 30 cm of soil are mixed, soil data were grouped in two layers: 0–30 and 30–100 cm. Soil C stock before the reversion was divided into three different categorical groups randomly selected to be of equal sample size as described in Terrer et al. [34] using the equal_freq function of the funModeling R package [35]. Soil texture was divided into three subgroups: loam, silty-loam, and sandy-loam. Regarding fertilization, only two categorical groups were formed: fertilized (yes) or not fertilized (no).

2.1.2. Crops

Information on crops cultivated before and after the reversion was extracted. PCs, in this study, were split into subgroups according to the end-use of biomass or the species, in particular: willow (Salix spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) were classified as perennial biomass crops (PBCs), while alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and the mixture of perennial herbaceous species such as the false wheatgrass (Leymus chinensis) or the feather grass (Stipa spp.), (hereinafter referred as “Mixture”) used as forages were classified as multiannual biomass crops (MBC).

2.1.3. Time

Information about the experiment’s lifetime before and after the reversion were extracted from the literature. This was done because soil samplings after the reversion were performed at different time intervals between papers. The time interval between reversion and sampling was divided into five subgroups: 1st year, 2–5, 5–10, 10–30 and >30th year. The minimum period between reversion and the first soil sampling was set as 1 year.

2.1.4. Climate

The following climatic information were extracted from the papers: latitude, longitude, mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP). MAT was divided into three subgroups into <5 °C, 5–10 °C and >10 °C, while MAP was divided into two subgroups < 500 mm and 500–900 mm

2.2. Effect Size and Meta-Analysis

The effect size (ES), selected to measure the effect of reversion on soil C and N stocks, was the response ratio (RR) between prereversion C or N stock mean (X1) and postreversion C or N stock mean (X2) for each observation:
RR = X 1   X 2
RR computations were carried out on a log scale [36]. The RR was calculated as follow:
lnR = ln ( R ) = ln ( X 1 X 2 ) = ln ( X 1 ) ln ( X 2 )
A transformation from average RR to percentage of change was conducted to directly evaluate the effect using the equation below:
Percentage   change   = [ exp ( RR ) 1 ] * 100
The variance of the ES (Ves) was calculated as below:
V es = S pooled 2 (   1 n 1 ( X 1 ) 2 + 1 n 2 ( X 2 ) 2 )  
where Spooled is the pooled SD. Spooled is calculated as:
S pooled = ( n 1 1 ) S 1 2 + ( n 2 1 ) S 2 2 n 1 + n 2 2  
where n1 and n2 are the sample size of the two groups, and S1 and S2 are the standard deviations of the two groups.
ES was calculated with the escalc function from the metafor [37] R package. Effects were calculated in a weighted, random-effects model using the rma.uni function in metafor. The weight assigned to each study was calculated by the inverse of its variance [36,38]. The heterogeneity (τ2) was estimated using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) model [39,40]. The 95% Wald-type confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to test whether RR differed significantly from zero. When a 95% CI value of the RR did not overlap with 0, we considered the effect of reversion to affect significantly soil C and N stocks. The rma.uni function was used to conduct the omnibus test to investigate differences between the levels of the different factors. When significant differences were found, Tukey’s test for post hoc analysis under the general linear model (GLM) with Holm’s adjustment was conducted with the multcomp package [37,40,41]. A stepwise multiple linear regressions analysis was applied, with the leaps package [42], to discriminate and rank the most important variables in explaining the change in soil C after the reversion. The following group of environmental variables were explored as predictors: MAP, MAT, time interval between reversion and sampling (YFR, years from reversion), the lifetime of the perennial crop (duration), clay content and the initial C stock. Best AIC models were selected and the relative importance of the chosen predictors in the linear model (% of total R2 of the model) was estimated with the relaimpo [43]. The breakdown of the model R2 into the relative importance metrics was performed with the lmg method, while the significance of the differences between the predictors’ relative importance (Bonferroni p < 0.05) was calculated with the bootstrap function (1000 samples). All statistical analysis was conducted with R [44].

3. Results

3.1. Reversion of Perennial Crops

The database covers five countries: the United States of America, Germany, United Kingdom, France, and China (Figure 1 and Table S1) with a wide range of soil and climatic conditions (Table 1). Soil texture varied from sandy loams to clay loam soils. The duration of the studies varied from 1 to 70 years after the reversion. The average depth of reversion and soil cultivation after the reversion was 30 cm (Table 1). A detailed presentation of the studies included in this meta-analysis is reported in Table 2. In the following section, the change of soil C and N stock is presented as a function of soil depth layers or time passed since the reversion occurred. No significant effect of the reversion on soil C (RR% = −5.03, SE = 3.34, p = 0.13) and N (RR% = 2.56, SE = 3.67, p = 0.48) (fi) was found both using pooled data or by dividing the dataset according to the 0–30 and 30–100 cm layers (Table 3). Considering that no significant effects of the reversion were found in the 30–100 cm layer and that this layer was not involved directly in the reversion, the subsequent analyses were limited to data obtained from the 0–30 cm layer. Considering that there were no observations between the 5th to 10th year and just few in the 10th to 30th year and >30th year, the subsequent analyses were limited to data from the 1st and 2nd to 5th year. One year after the reversion, a significant increase of soil C and N stocks (+15% and +12% respectively, Table 3) was found in the 0–30 cm layer, while in the time interval between the second to fifth year after the reversion, there was no significant increase or decrease of soil C and N (Table 3).
Table 1. Environmental and soil characteristics of studies assessing the effect of perennial crops reversion.
Table 1. Environmental and soil characteristics of studies assessing the effect of perennial crops reversion.
VariableMeanMinimumMaximum
Latitude48.2441.8853.82
Longitude49.35−100.63124.31
Elevation * (m)310221350
Mean annual temperature (°C)6.29−112
Mean annual precipitation (mm)565350815
Duration (years)145>75
Years from reversion13170
SOC stock (0–30 cm, Mg ha−1)61.924.092.1
STN stock (0–30 cm, Mg ha−1)4.61.98.2
Depth of reversion (cm)301540
* Above mean sea level (a.m.s.l.). Abbreviations: SOC (soil organic carbon), STN (soil total nitrogen).
Table 2. Summary of data for the studies in the meta-analysis on the effect of perennial crop reversion on soil C and N stocks.
Table 2. Summary of data for the studies in the meta-analysis on the effect of perennial crop reversion on soil C and N stocks.
ReferenceCountryLocationClimateDepth (cm)MAT (°C)MAP (mm)Elevation (a.m.s.l)CropPerennial Crop TypeMain CropDurationYFRTexture Class
Toenshoff et al. (2013) [31]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322PoplarPerennial biomass cropCorn201silty loam
Toenshoff et al. (2013) [31]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322PoplarPerennial biomass cropLolium perenne201silty loam
Toenshoff et al. (2013) [31]GermanyWatchumContinental0–30981522PoplarPerennial biomass cropCorn201sandy loam
Toenshoff et al. (2013) [31]GermanyWatchumContinental0–30981522PoplarPerennial biomass cropLolium perenne201sandy loam
Toenshoff et al. (2013) [31]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322WillowPerennial biomass cropCorn201silty loam
Toenshoff et al. (2013) [31]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322WillowPerennial biomass cropLolium perenne201silty loam
Wachendorf et al. (2017) [45]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322PoplarPerennial biomass cropCorn204silty loam
Wachendorf et al. (2017) [45]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322PoplarPerennial biomass cropLolium perenne204silty loam
Wachendorf et al. (2017) [45]GermanyWatchumContinental0–30981522PoplarPerennial biomass cropCorn204sandy loam
Wachendorf et al. (2017) [45]GermanyWatchumContinental0–30981522PoplarPerennial biomass cropLolium perenne204sandy loam
Wachendorf et al. (2017) [45]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322WillowPerennial biomass cropCorn204silty loam
Wachendorf et al. (2017) [45]GermanyGeorgenhofContinental0–308740322WillowPerennial biomass cropLolium perenne204silty loam
Qi et al. (2012) [46]ChinaXilin River BasinSemi-Arid0–100−14501350MixtureMultiannual biomass cropsWheat>7536NA
Dufossé et al. (2014) [47]FranceParisOceanic0–4512557NAMiscanthusPerennial biomass cropWheat201silty loam
Dufossé et al. (2014) [47]FranceParisOceanic0–4512557NAMiscanthusPerennial biomass cropBare soil201silty loam
Ding et al. (2013) [48]ChinaDuerbote 1Continental0–1004407150MixtureMultiannual biomass cropsCorn>7530silty loam
Ding et al. (2013) [48]ChinaDuerbote 2Continental0–1004407150MixtureMultiannual biomass cropsCorn>7570silty loam
Ding et al. (2013) [48]ChinaChangling 1Continental0–1005470150MixtureMultiannual biomass cropsSunflower>752silty loam
Ding et al. (2013) [48]ChinaChangling 2Continental0–1005470150MixtureMultiannual biomass cropsSunflower>7515silty loam
Ding et al. (2013) [48]ChinaKezuohouqi 1Continental0–1006450260AlfalfaMultiannual biomass cropsCorn315sandy loam
Ding et al. (2013) [48]ChinaKezuohouqi 2Continental0–1006450260MixtureMultiannual biomass cropsCorn>754loam
Wienhold & Tanaka (2001) [49]USANorth DakotaContinental0–154410549AlfalfaMultiannual biomass cropsWheat62loam
Wang et al. (2008) [50]ChinaSite 1Semi-Arid0–1001350NAMixtureMultiannual biomass cropsWheat>7535sandy loam
Wang et al. (2008) [50]ChinaSite 2Semi-Arid0–1001350NAMixtureMultiannual biomass cropsCorn>7520sandy loam
Wang et al. (2008) [50]ChinaSite 3Semi-Arid0–1001350NAMixtureMultiannual biomass cropsWheat>7533sandy loam
Wang et al. (2008) [50]ChinaSite 4Semi-Arid0–1001350NAMixtureMultiannual biomass cropsWheat>7536sandy loam
Kahle et al. (2013) [51]GermanyGülzowContinental0–909578NAPoplarPerennial biomass cropBarley171sandy loam
Rowe et al. (2020) [52]UKNottinghamContinental0–10010741NAMiscanthusPerennial biomass cropWheat63sandy loam
Rowe et al. (2020) [52]UKTaunton AContinental0–10011734NAMiscanthusPerennial biomass cropWheat64silty loam
Rowe et al. (2020) [52]UKTaunton AContinental0–10011734NAMiscanthusPerennial biomass cropWheat73silty loam
Rowe et al. (2020) [52]UKTaunton BContinental0–10011734NAMiscanthusPerennial biomass cropAlfalfa54silty loam
Abbreviations: mean annual temperature (MAT); mean annual precipitation (MAP); elevation is measured in meters above mean sea level (a.s.m.l); years from reversion (YFR); Not applicable (NA).

3.2. Effect of Crop Type

After the reversion of a perennial biomass crop (PBC), no significant changes of soil C (Figure 2) were found, but a significant increase of soil N (RR% = +15%, SE = 5.06, p = 0.003, Figure 3) was found. In contrast, when the reversion was performed on a multi annual biomass crops (MBC), significant losses of both C (RR% = −20%, SE = 6.46, p = 0.002, Figure 2) and N (RR% = −16%, SE = 5.92, p = 0.008, Figure 3) were found. Among the PBCs considered in this study, the reversion of willow increased both soil C (RR% = +26%, SE = 11.71, p = 0.02, Figure 2) and N (RR% = +43%, SE = 9.30, p = 0.001, Figure 3), while no significant increase or decrease of soil C and N were found after the reversion of poplar or miscanthus (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
In agreement with what was reported for MBC, after the reversion of alfalfa or a mixture of perennial grasses species, no significant losses of soil C and N were found (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

3.3. Effect of Environmental Conditions

The reversion of PCs significantly reduced soil C in the first 30 cm, only when the soil C stock before the reversion was below 58.5 Mg C ha−1 (Figure 2). In contrast, there was no significant losses of C when soil C stock before the reversion was higher than 58.5 Mg C ha−1 (Figure 2). In the first 30 cm, reversion decreased soil C significantly only in soil with loam texture (RR% = −40%, SE = 15.70, p = 0.01, Figure 4), otherwise, reversion had no significant effect on soil C or N (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The reversion of PCs (Figure 4 and Figure 5) decreased soil C when MAT was lower than 5 °C (RR% = −15%, SE = 7.08%, p = 0.03) or MAP was lower than 500 mm per year for both C (RR% = −20%, SE = 7.05%, p = 0.005) and N (RR% = −15%, SE = 5.92%, p = 0.007). No significant effect of fertilization on soil C and N were found after the (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The linear relationships between the soil C stock after reversion was investigated with a series of linear regression analyses. Single linear regression models were built considering one variable at a time as the dependent variable and the soil C stock after the reversion as the independent variables. The only significant predictor that had a significant effect on soil C after the reversion was the duration of PC reversion experiments (42% of variance explained, Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study collates data from papers on the reversion of perennial to arable crops. In total, 17 papers were found according to the combinations of keywords listed in Appendix A.
Nine of these seventeen were used in the meta-analysis. The other eight papers were excluded since data on soil C and N were not provided. However, they dealt with the topic of reversion focusing on other aspects such as the nutrient cycling [53], the C and N emissions from soil [54,55,56], the weed incidence or the soil quality after the reversion [32,57]. Another study, Toenshoff et al. [58], was excluded from the analysis because the time interval between reversion and sampling was shorter than 1 year, even though data on soil C and N were provided. In total, 49 observations for C (Table S2) and 39 observations for N (Table S3) were extracted from the nine papers included in this meta-analysis (Tables S4 and S5). Ledo et al. [8,30] evaluated the effect of different land-use conversion into PCs on soil C, compiling a dataset of 180 studies: potentially, 112 of them are suitable for being included in our meta-analysis once reverted. This difference between the number of studies in the database of Ledo et al. [8,30] with respect to this study is a clear indication of the lack of information on the reversion from perennial to annual crops. Most of the PC experimental trials reviewed in Ledo et al. [8,30] are continuing or maybe are undergoing the process of reversion but data on C dynamics are still not published. Despite this fact, our meta-analysis provided the first evidence in response to the concerns of several authors about the potential threats of reversion on losing the SOC sequestered by PCs during their crop lifespan [11,13,31]: this hypothesis is rejected. The reversion of PCs has no significant effect on soil C and N stocks (Table 3), either on the reversion layer (0–30 cm) or on the subsoil (30–100 cm) (Table 3). The findings of this study support the conclusion of many authors who have suggested that storing C in a deeper soil layer, as SOC or in the belowground biomass, is a suitable solution to stock C in the long term since, in that layer, there are less favorable conditions for C degradation [59] and the soil is not directly involved in the reversion [10,13]. Since no significant changes of soil C and N were found in the reversion layer (0–30 cm) when using pooled data, the analysis was limited to this layer to analyze the effect of time factors on the change of soil C and N after the reversion. The observed increase of soil C and N one year after the reversion of PCs is a consequence of the initial incorporation of crop residues and BGB [60] which is considered one of the most important C sources for SOC accumulation even before reversion [25,61]. This initial increase of soil C and N is likely affected by the type of PC that is reverted as shown by crop type subgroup analysis in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Miscanthus, poplar and willow, that are PBCs storing a high amount of C in belowground organs (such as rhizome and stumps) [13] when reverted do not affect soil C and N or significantly increase them. In contrast, when reverting an MBC richer in fine root biomass (i.e., Medica sativa, Leymus chinensis or Stipa spp.) significant losses of C and N were observed, likely due to a strong priming effect induced by labile C on native SOC [62]. The difference in the amount of C stored in the BGB between PBCs and MBC is likely the factor that determines a significant C loss after MBC reversion.
Understanding the contribution of BGB residues to SOC sequestration during PC cultivation and after reversion is crucial to quantify the belowground climate mitigation potential of PBCs. As shown by Ferrarini et al. [60], in addition to quantitative BGB yield data, data on C mineralization of BGB residues are essential to refine the crop–soil model to predict long-term soil C changes associated to PC cultivation. For these reasons, new data on the BGB of PCs are needed. However, to date, only two studies have precisely quantified the belowground organs of PCs [13,63]. In the available literature, the most used approach is to measure the belowground biomass from soil coring with augers before [64,65] or after the reversion [31,55] The coring method is time- and cost-effective and does not involve the use of heavy machinery [13,66]. Although the coring approach has been widely used for the estimation of fine root biomass in PCs [10,13,67], it has two major limitations for the estimation of the belowground organs in PBCs (i.e., stumps in woody PBCs and rhizomes in herbaceous PBCs): (1) a low reliability for measuring the amount of belowground organs on a hectare basis from the core area of few cm2, (2) soil coring is not applicable to BGB of woody PBCs. As suggested by Klimešová and Martíková [66], there is an urgent need in the belowground sciences to embrace the “all belowground organs” viewpoint in the study of biomass and C allocation in PCs. For example, MBC can allocate more C in the belowground biomass with respect to the annual crops [68] but less than PBCs [69] since the former is mainly composed of the root systems and not by huge belowground organs [13,66].
Managing PCs in long-term crop rotation as shown by our meta-analysis is an effective carbon farming solution. The contribution of the BGB of PCs to SOC depends mainly on its turnover, that is influenced by the stand age and the source of input. According to data of Agostini et al. [70], the C input to soil from miscanthus rhizomes turnover, for example, is higher than the one from fine roots, while in crops such as switchgrass the main C input to soil is fine root biomass. As a result of a different turnover of BGB components, the C input under PBCs contribute to SOC in a significant amount as particulate organic matter (POM) not only before the reversion [11,71,72] but also after, if the BGB is incorporated and shredded into the soil. Toenshoff et al. [31] found that SOC in bulk soil was not affected by the reversion of willow or poplar plantations one year after reversion, but there was a significant increase of microbial biomass C and POM after the reversion. The shredding of the BGB and its transformation as POM depend strictly on the shredding efficiency of the machine performing the reversion, as, by definition, POM is largely made up of lightweight fragments from plants debris that are relatively undecomposed [73]. Immediately after the reversion of PBCs, arable soil can be considered as a POM-dominated system by three pools of different origin: the major POM pool derived from the belowground biomass shredding which enters the soil at the reversion, a second POM pool is the legacy of PBC cultivation that is composed by plant-derived free-light POM [11,71,72], a third pool is the POM released during tillage operations at the reversion that was previously stored as occluded POM into macro-aggregates [74]. The pulse C that enters the soil mainly as POM in large quantities at the reversion (i.e., POM from BGB shredding is on average of 15 Mg C ha−1, Martani et al. [13]), can have two different fates: respired as CO2 or sequestered in stabilized SOM fractions into the soil after microbial degradation (mineral-associated organic matter—MAOM). It is desirable to expect an initial huge peak of GHG emissions in the first days after the reversion due to the increase of SOM mineralization and priming effect caused by the pulse input of labile C sources from residues incorporation [75]. Dufossè et al. [47] and Drewer et al. [54] for example found an increase of CO2 emission from the soil directly after the reversion of miscanthus, while McCalmont et al. [55] found an increase of GHG emissions, especially N2O, following the reversion of willow and miscanthus plantations. After this initial period of C losses, the soil system likely enters a phase of C sink, owing to rapid and constant humification of the POM into a stable MAOM fraction. Indeed, 1 year after reversion, already a significant increase of C and N stocks was observed. However, this meta-analysis suggested that soil C and N storage trajectories become stabilized between the second and fifth years after the reversion with no significant stock increases.
Soil reverted from PBCs to arable cropping may further increase in SOC content until a new equilibrium level is reached but suitable agronomic practices must be adopted. From an agronomic and environmental viewpoint, it is desirable to keep the legacy of SOC storage trajectories of the previous cropping system as high as possible as this is beneficial for the whole range of SOM functions. SOM formation and decomposition are determinants of C persistence and soil functions under PBCs. Targeting MAOM for SOM sequestration is logical for persistence, but not always feasible, as MAOM can saturate [76] while POM cannot. The POM vs. MAOM framework has been recently proposed to support recommendations on SOM management to practitioners and policy makers [73]. This framework is particularly helpful to study the reversion of PBC plantations and how these pools contribute to two important management goals of arable cropping systems: fertility goal (high nutrient cycling rate) and climate goal (long-term soil C sequestration). After reversion to arable land, targeting POM or MAOM may reflect two distinct strategies for managing C and nutrients in soil: targeting POM might be useful for achieving soil fertility goals while targeting MAOM might be useful for climate goals. This suggests that understanding the effect of soil, crop, and fertilizer management strategies on the decomposition dynamics of the C input after reversion is crucial to meet these dual goals. For example, Ferrarini et al. [60] in a lab-incubation experiment with six PBC residues found that the C/N ratio is not the main controlling factor of decomposition when residue N is not a limiting factor, while the availability of easily decomposable substrates and cell-wall composition decomposition is a strong predictor of C and N mineralization. At reversion, the high and pulse input of labile C from BGB residues might become the main precursor of MAOM “potentially” generated after reversion of PBCs. The issue of how to manage C-rich BGB residues at reversion calls for an integrated residue:nutrient management strategy able to boost the so-called microbial C pump (MCP) [77,78]. MCP emphasizes the active role of soil microbes in SOC storage by integrating the continual microbial transformation of organic C from labile to stable C fractions. Several recent findings showed how it feasible to assist microbially-mediated crop residue humification by integrating minimum tillage and crop fertilization strategies [79] with supplementary stoichiometrically balanced fertilization of crop residues [80,81,82]. The first years following PC reversion, the available C residues for humification stand at values higher than the critical threshold of 2.0 Mg C ha−1 y−1 identified by Wang et al. [83] to maintain current SOC stocks in common wheat systems. For these reasons, supplemental fertilization of crop residues the first year after reversion is reasonable to sustain MCP and thus the humification of POM-C inputs into stable MAOM fractions. Another important aspect of reversion is the crop type and soil management practices adopted on the reverted soil. Crop rotation characterized by crops with high C inputs in terms of belowground C allocation and harvest residues (cover crops, temporary grassland, grain maize) and proper conservation tillage practices (minimum or no tillage) are two carbon farming practices that can strongly support SOM storage trajectories during the first years after reversion.
In this meta-analysis the response of soil C and N stocks to reversion was analyzed as a function of the environmental conditions by building single linear regression models considering one variable at a time as the dependent variable and the variation of soil C stocks after the reversion as the independent variable: the only significant predictors of the change of soil C after the reversion is the duration of the PC experiment. The initial soil C stock, clay content, MAT and MAP were expected to be the main environmental factors controlling the fate of C and N stocks in soil as previously found by other meta-analyses addressing land use change [84,85]. Higher clay or silt content may help to reduce the loss of soil C and N stocks from the reversion [85,86,87] as the surface charge of the organic compounds binds to silt and clay particles leading to chemical protection of soil C [88] and new aggregates are thus physically protected [89]. Nonetheless, our meta-analysis suggested that that PC’s lifespan is the key factor: the higher the duration of the PC, the higher the C input is to the soil at reversion from BGB incorporation available for decomposition and humification.
In conclusion, there are two research questions that will need to be addressed by future reversion studies to exploit the full climate-neutral potential of PBC introduction into crop rotation. First, they will have to tackle the issue of quantifying the BGB of PBCs and notably understand its contribution to C and N storage trajectories. Second, to support ecologically sustainable reversion trajectories, they will have to operationally link and identify the agricultural practices that co-target POM and MAOM meeting both C sequestration and soil fertility goals.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/agronomy12020232/s1, Table S1: Overview of the studies used in the meta-analysis, Table S2: Overview of the studies in the carbon dataset and their treatments and results. Table S3: Overview of the studies in the nitrogen dataset and their treatments and results. Table S4: Overview of the results of the random effects model for soil carbon stock and their statistics. From column L onwards, measures of heterogeneity of the random effects model are presented, once for the entire data set and once for within groups. Table S5: Overview of the results of the random effects model for soil nitrogen stock and their statistics. From column L onwards, measures of heterogeneity of the random effects model are presented, once for the entire data set and once for within groups.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.F. and S.A.; methodology, E.M. and A.F.; studies collection, E.M.; data curation, E.M. and A.F., visualization, E.M. writing—original draft preparation, E.M.; writing—review and editing, E.M., A.F. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a funding from the Rural Development Program (measure 16.01) of Emilia Romagna region that financed the “FarmCO2Sink” project.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the manuscript and in the supplementary material. R code is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Doctoral School on the Agro-Food System of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (“Agrisystem”). The authors are grateful to Christine Wachendorf, Fan Din and Brian Wienhold for providing original data to this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Search string: (perennial biomass crop OR perennial energy crops OR perennial crops OR perennial cropping systems OR perennial agricultural systems) AND (reversion OR dismission OR reconversion OR cultivation) AND soil AND (carbon stock OR C stock OR SOC or soil organic carbon).

References

  1. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017; Volume 4, ISBN 1815-6797. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lynch, J.; Cain, M.; Frame, D.; Pierrehumbert, R. Agriculture’s Contribution to Climate Change and Role in Mitigation Is Distinct From Predominantly Fossil CO2-Emitting Sectors. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Paustian, K.; Larson, E.; Kent, J.; Marx, E.; Swan, A. Soil C Sequestration as a Biological Negative Emission Strategy. Front. Clim. 2019, 1, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lal, R. Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Herzfeld, T.; Heinke, J.; Rolinski, S.; Müller, C. Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics from Agricultural Management Practices under Climate Change. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2021, 12, 1037–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lal, R. Digging Deeper: A Holistic Perspective of Factors Affecting Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 3285–3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Minasny, B.; Malone, B.P.; McBratney, A.B.; Angers, D.A.; Arrouays, D.; Chambers, A.; Chaplot, V.; Chen, Z.S.; Cheng, K.; Das, B.S.; et al. Soil Carbon 4 per Mille. Geoderma 2017, 292, 59–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ledo, A.; Smith, P.; Zerihun, A.; Whitaker, J.; Vicente-Vicente, J.L.; Qin, Z.; McNamara, N.P.; Zinn, Y.L.; Llorente, M.; Liebig, M.; et al. Changes in Soil Organic Carbon under Perennial Crops. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 4158–4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Walter, K.; Don, A.; Flessa, H. No General Soil Carbon Sequestration under Central European Short Rotation Coppices. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 727–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chimento, C.; Amaducci, S. Characterization of Fine Root System and Potential Contribution to Soil Organic Carbon of Six Perennial Bioenergy Crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 83, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chimento, C.; Almagro, M.; Amaducci, S. Carbon Sequestration Potential in Perennial Bioenergy Crops: The Importance of Organic Matter Inputs and Its Physical Protection. GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lemus, R.; Lal, R. Bioenergy Crops and Carbon Sequestration. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martani, E.; Ferrarini, A.; Serra, P.; Pilla, M.; Marcone, A.; Amaducci, S. Belowground Biomass C Outweighs Soil Organic C of Perennial Energy Crops: Insights from a Long-term Multispecies Trial. GCB Bioenergy 2021, 13, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lask, J.; Magenau, E.; Ferrarini, A.; Kiesel, A.; Wagner, M.; Lewandowski, I. Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses: Can They Really Increase Species Richness and Abundance in Arable Land?—A Meta-Analysis. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 968–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scordia, D.; Cosentino, S.L. Perennial Energy Grasses: Resilient Crops in a Changing European Agriculture. Agriculture 2019, 9, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Sanderson, M.A.; Adler, P.R. Perennial Forages as Second Generation Bioenergy Crops. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2008, 9, 768–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Sprunger, C.D.; Culman, S.W.; Peralta, A.L.; DuPont, S.T.; Lennon, J.T.; Snapp, S.S. Perennial Grain Crop Roots and Nitrogen Management Shape Soil Food Webs and Soil Carbon Dynamics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 137, 107573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Amaducci, S.; Facciotto, G.; Bergante, S.; Perego, A.; Serra, P.; Ferrarini, A.; Chimento, C. Biomass Production and Energy Balance of Herbaceous and Woody Crops on Marginal Soils in the Po Valley. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Clifton-Brown, J.; Hastings, A.; Mos, M.; McCalmont, J.P.; Ashman, C.; Awty-Carroll, D.; Cerazy, J.; Chiang, Y.C.; Cosentino, S.; Cracroft-Eley, W.; et al. Progress in Upscaling Miscanthus Biomass Production for the European Bio-Economy with Seed-Based Hybrids. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Haberzettl, J.; Hilgert, P.; von Cossel, M. A Critical Review on Lignocellulosic Biomass Yield Modeling and the Bioenergy Potential from Marginal Land. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lewandowski, I.; Scurlock, J.M.O.; Lindvall, E.; Christou, M. The Development and Current Status of Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses as Energy Crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, 335–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Asbjornsen, H.; Hernandez-Santana, V.; Liebman, M.; Bayala, J.; Chen, J.; Helmers, M.; Ong, C.K.; Schulte, L.A. Targeting Perennial Vegetation in Agricultural Landscapes for Enhancing Ecosystem Services. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 29, 101–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ferrarini, A.; Bini, C.; Amaducci, S. Soil and Ecosystem Services: Current Knowledge and Evidences from Italian Case Studies. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 693–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ferrarini, A.; Serra, P.; Almagro, M.; Trevisan, M.; Amaducci, S. Multiple Ecosystem Services Provision and Biomass Logistics Management in Bioenergy Buffers: A State-of-the-Art Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ferrarini, A.; Martani, E.; Fornasier, F.; Amaducci, S. High C Input by Perennial Energy Crops Boosts Belowground Functioning and Increases Soil Organic P Content. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 308, 107247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ferrarini, A.; Fornasier, F.; Serra, P.; Ferrari, F.; Trevisan, M.; Amaducci, S. Impacts of Willow and Miscanthus Bioenergy Buffers on Biogeochemical N Removal Processes along the Soil-Groundwater Continuum. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Agostini, A.; Serra, P.; Giuntoli, J.; Martani, E.; Ferrarini, A.; Amaducci, S. Biofuels from Perennial Energy Crops on Buffer Strips: A Win-Win Strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ferrarini, A.; Fracasso, A.; Spini, G.; Fornasier, F.; Taskin, E.; Fontanella, M.C.; Beone, G.M.; Amaducci, S.; Puglisi, E.; Saleem, M. Bioaugmented Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Soils and Sediments by Hemp and Giant Reed. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 645893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lewandowski, I. The Role of Perennial Biom Ass Crops in a Growing Bioeconomy. In Perennial Biomass Crops for a Resource-Constrained World; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ledo, A.; Hillier, J.; Smith, P.; Aguilera, E.; Blagodatskiy, S.; Brearley, F.Q.; Datta, A.; Diaz-Pines, E.; Don, A.; Dondini, M.; et al. A Global, Empirical, Harmonised Dataset of Soil Organic Carbon Changes under Perennial Crops. Sci. Data 2019, 6, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Toenshoff, C.; Georg, R.; Stuelpnagel, R.; Wachendorf, C. Dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon Fractions One Year after the Re-Conversion of Poplar and Willow Plantations to Arable Use and Perennial Grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 174, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Toenshoff, C.; Joergensen, R.G.; Stuelpnagel, R.; Wachendorf, C. Initial Decomposition of Post-Harvest Crown and Root Residues of Poplars as Affected by N Availability and Particle Size. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2014, 50, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luo, Z.; Wang, E.; Sun, O.J. Can No-Tillage Stimulate Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils? A Meta-Analysis of Paired Experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Terrer, C.; Phillips, R.P.; Hungate, B.A.; Rosende, J.; Pett-Ridge, J.; Craig, M.E.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Keenan, T.F.; Sulman, B.N.; Stocker, B.D.; et al. A Trade-off between Plant and Soil Carbon Storage under Elevated CO2. Nature 2021, 591, 599–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Casas, P. Package ‘FunModeling’. CRAN 2020. FunModeling: Explenatory Data Analysis and Data Preparation Toolbox. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/funModeling/index.html (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  36. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis; Wiley and Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. Viechtbauer, W. Package “Metafor”. The Metafor Package: A Meta-Analysis Package for R. Available online: https://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/metafor (accessed on 6 November 2021).
  38. Viechtbauer, W. Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2005, 30, 261–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Veroniki, A.A.; Jackson, D.; Viechtbauer, W.; Bender, R.; Bowden, J.; Knapp, G.; Kuss, O.; Higgins, J.P.; Langan, D.; Salanti, G. Methods to Estimate the Between-Study Variance and Its Uncertainty in Meta-Analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 2016, 7, 55–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the Metafor Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010, 36, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hothorn, T.; Bretz, F.; Westfall, P.; Heiberger, R.M.; Schuetzenmeister, A.; Scheibe, S. Package ‘Multcomp’. In Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models; Project for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lumley, T. Package ‘Leaps’. CRAN 2020. Regression Subset Selection. Thomas Lumley Based on Fortran Code by Alan Miller. Available online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=leaps (accessed on 18 March 2018).
  43. Groempings, U.; Lehrkamp, M. Package ‘Relaimpo’. In Relative Importance of Regressors in Linear Models; R Fundation for Statstical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Fundation for Statstical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wachendorf, C.; Stuelpnagel, R.; Wachendorf, M. Influence of Land Use and Tillage Depth on Dynamics of Soil Microbial Properties, Soil Carbon Fractions and Crop Yield after Conversion of Short-Rotation Coppices. Soil Use Manag. 2017, 33, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Qi, Y.; Dong, Y.; Peng, Q.; Xiao, S.; He, Y.; Liu, X.; Sun, L.; Jia, J.; Yang, Z. Effects of a Conversion from Grassland to Cropland on the Different Soil Organic Carbon Fractions in Inner Mongolia, China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2012, 22, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Dufossé, K.; Drewer, J.; Gabrielle, B.; Drouet, J.L. Effects of a 20-Year Old Miscanthus × Giganteus Stand and Its Removal on Soil Characteristics and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 69, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ding, F.; Hu, Y.L.; Li, L.J.; Li, A.; Shi, S.; Lian, P.Y.; Zeng, D.H. Changes in Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen Stocks after Conversion of Meadow to Cropland in Northeast China. Plant Soil 2013, 373, 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wienhold, B.J.; Tanaka, D.L. Soil Property Changes during Conversion from Perennial Vegetation to Annual Cropping. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 1795–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, Z.P.; Han, X.G.; Li, L.H. Effects of Grassland Conversion to Croplands on Soil Organic Carbon in the Temperate Inner Mongolia. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kahle, P.; Möller, J.; Baum, C.; Gurgel, A. Tillage-Induced Changes in the Distribution of Soil Organic Matter and the Soil Aggregate Stability under a Former Short Rotation Coppice. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 133, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rowe, R.L.; Keith, A.M.; Elias, D.M.O.; Mcnamara, N.P. Soil Carbon Stock Impacts Following Reversion of Miscanthus × Giganteus and Short Rotation Coppice Willow Commercial Plantations into Arable Cropping. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mangold, A.; Lewandowski, I.; Kiesel, A. How Can Miscanthus Fields Be Reintegrated into a Crop Rotation? GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 1348–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Drewer, J.; Dufossé, K.; Skiba, U.M.; Gabrielle, B. Changes in Isotopic Signatures of Soil Carbon and CO2 Respiration Immediately and One Year after Miscanthus Removal. GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. McCalmont, J.P.; Rowe, R.; Elias, D.; Whitaker, J.; McNamara, N.P.; Donnison, I.S. Soil Nitrous Oxide Flux Following Land-Use Reversion from Miscanthus and SRC Willow to Perennial Ryegrass. GCB Bioenergy 2018, 10, 914–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Moore, C.E.; Berardi, D.M.; Blanc-Betes, E.; Dracup, E.C.; Egenriether, S.; Gomez-Casanovas, N.; Hartman, M.D.; Hudiburg, T.; Kantola, I.; Masters, M.D.; et al. The Carbon and Nitrogen Cycle Impacts of Reverting Perennial Bioenergy Switchgrass to an Annual Maize Crop Rotation. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 941–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Beuschel, R.; Piepho, H.P.; Joergensen, R.G.; Wachendorf, C. Effects of Converting a Temperate Short-Rotation Coppice to a Silvo-Arable Alley Cropping Agroforestry System on Soil Quality Indicators. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Toenshoff, C.; Stuelpnagel, R.; Joergensen, R.G.; Wachendorf, C. Carbon in Plant Biomass and Soils of Poplar and Willow Plantations-Implications for SOC Distribution in Different Soil Fractions after Re-Conversion to Arable Land. Plant Soil 2013, 367, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rumpel, C.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Deep Soil Organic Matter-a Key but Poorly Understood Component of Terrestrial C Cycle. Plant Soil 2011, 338, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ferrarini, A.; Martani, E.; Amaducci, S.; Mondini, C.; Fornasier, F. Short-Term Mineralization of Perennial Energy Crops Belowground-Biomass: Implications for Conversion to Arable Land. Agronomy 2022. submitted. [Google Scholar]
  61. Berhongaray, G.; Cotrufo, F.M.; Janssens, I.A.; Ceulemans, R. Below-Ground Carbon Inputs Contribute More than above-Ground Inputs to Soil Carbon Accrual in a Bioenergy Poplar Plantation. Plant Soil 2019, 434, 363–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. de Graaff, M.-A.; Jastrow, J.D.; Gillette, S.; Johns, A.; Wullschleger, S.D. Differential Priming of Soil Carbon Driven by Soil Depth and Root Impacts on Carbon Availability. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 69, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Christensen, B.T.; Lærke, P.E.; Jørgensen, U.; Kandel, T.P.; Thomsen, I.K. Storage of Miscanthus-Derived Carbon in Rhizomes, Roots, and Soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2016, 360, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Holder, A.J.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Rowe, R.; Robson, P.; Elias, D.; Dondini, M.; McNamara, N.P.; Donnison, I.S.; McCalmont, J.P. Measured and Modelled Effect of Land-Use Change from Temperate Grassland to Miscanthus on Soil Carbon Stocks after 12 Years. GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 1173–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Zatta, A.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Robson, P.; Hastings, A.; Monti, A. Land Use Change from C3 Grassland to C4 Miscanthus: Effects on Soil Carbon Content and Estimated Mitigation Benefit after Six Years. GCB Bioenergy 2014, 6, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Klimešová, J.; Martínková, J. Belowground Plant Functional Ecology: De Towards an Integrated Perspective. Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 2115–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Monti, A.; Zatta, A. Root Distribution and Soil Moisture Retrieval in Perennial and Annual Energy Crops in Northern Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 132, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Masters, M.D.; Black, C.K.; Zeri, M.; Hussain, M.Z.; Bernacchi, C.J.; DeLucia, E.H. Altered Belowground Carbon Cycling Following Land-Use Change to Perennial Bioenergy Crops. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ma, W.H.; Yang, Y.H.; He, J.S.; Zeng, H.; Fang, J.Y. Above- and Belowground Biomass in Relation to Environmental Factors in Temperate Grasslands, Inner Mongolia. Sci. China Ser. C Life Sci. 2008, 51, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Agostini, F.; Gregory, A.S.; Richter, G.M. Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 1057–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Stewart, C.E.; Follett, R.F.; Pruessner, E.G.; Varvel, G.E.; Vogel, K.P.; Mitchell, R.B. N Fertilizer and Harvest Impacts on Bioenergy Crop Contributions to SOC. GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8, 1201–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zimmermann, J.; Dondini, M.; Jones, M.B. Assessing the Impacts of the Establishment of Miscanthus on Soil Organic Carbon on Two Contrasting Land-Use Types in Ireland. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2013, 64, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lavallee, J.M.; Soong, J.L.; Cotrufo, M.F. Conceptualizing Soil Organic Matter into Particulate and Mineral-Associated Forms to Address Global Change in the 21st Century. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Aggregate and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics under Conventional and No-Tillage Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999, 63, 1350–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Kuzyakov, Y.; Friedel, J.K.; Stahr, K. Review of Mechanisms and Quantification of Priming Effects. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 1485–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cotrufo, M.F.; Ranalli, M.G.; Haddix, M.L.; Six, J.; Lugato, E. Soil Carbon Storage Informed by Particulate and Mineral-Associated Organic Matter. Nat. Geosci. 2019, 12, 989–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhu, X.; Jackson, R.D.; DeLucia, E.H.; Tiedje, J.M.; Liang, C. The Soil Microbial Carbon Pump: From Conceptual Insights to Empirical Assessments. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 6032–6039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liang, C.; Zhu, X. The Soil Microbial Carbon Pump as a New Concept for Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2021, 64, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bolinder, M.A.; Crotty, F.; Elsen, A.; Frac, M.; Kismányoky, T.; Lipiec, J.; Tits, M.; Tóth, Z.; Kätterer, T. The Effect of Crop Residues, Cover Crops, Manures and Nitrogen Fertilization on Soil Organic Carbon Changes in Agroecosystems: A Synthesis of Reviews. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2020, 25, 929–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kirkby, C.A.; Richardson, A.E.; Wade, L.J.; Conyers, M.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Inorganic Nutrients Increase Humification Efficiency and C-Sequestration in an Annually Cropped Soil. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Kirkby, C.A.; Richardson, A.E.; Wade, L.J.; Batten, G.D.; Blanchard, C.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Carbon-Nutrient Stoichiometry to Increase Soil Carbon Sequestration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 60, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fang, Y.; Singh, B.P.; Cowie, A.; Wang, W.; Arachchi, M.H.; Wang, H.; Tavakkoli, E. Balancing Nutrient Stoichiometry Facilitates the Fate of Wheat Residue carbon in Physically Defined Soil Organic Matter Fractions. Geoderma 2019, 354, 113883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, G.; Luo, Z.; Han, P.; Chen, H.; Xu, J. Critical Carbon Input to Maintain Current Soil Organic Carbon Stocks in Global Wheat Systems. Nat. Publ. Group 2016, 13, 19327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Doetterl, S.; Stevens, A.; Six, J.; Merckx, R.; van Oost, K.; Pinto, M.C.; Casanova-katny, A.; Muñoz, C.; Boudin, M.; Venegas, E.Z.; et al. Soil Carbon Storage Controlled by Interactions between Geochemistry and Climate. Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 780–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Poeplau, C.; Don, A.; Vesterdal, L.; Leifeld, J.; van Wesemael, B.; Schumacher, J.; Gensior, A. Temporal Dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon after Land-Use Change in the Temperate Zone-Carbon Response Functions as a Model Approach. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 2415–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Don, A.; Schumacher, J.; Freibauer, A. Impact of Tropical Land-Use Change on Soil Organic Carbon Stocks—A Meta-Analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 1658–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Wiesmeier, M.; von Lützow, M.; Spörlein, P.; Geuß, U.; Hangen, E.; Reischl, A.; Schilling, B.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Land Use Effects on Organic Carbon Storage in Soils of Bavaria: The Importance of Soil Types. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. von Lützow, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Ekschmitt, K.; Matzner, E.; Guggenberger, G.; Marschner, B.; Flessa, H. Stabilization of Organic Matter in Temperate Soils: Mechanisms and Their Relevance under Different Soil Conditions—A Review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 57, 426–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Six, J.; Bossuyt, H.; Degryze, S.; Denef, K. A History of Research on the Link between (Micro)Aggregates, Soil Biota, and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 79, 7–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location and type of perennial crops in the studies included in this meta-analysis.
Figure 1. Location and type of perennial crops in the studies included in this meta-analysis.
Agronomy 12 00232 g001
Figure 2. Percentage change of soil organic carbon (Mg SOC ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to perennial crop type (PBCs and MBCs), crop species or soil carbon stock in the 0-30 cm layer (Mg C ha−1). Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Figure 2. Percentage change of soil organic carbon (Mg SOC ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to perennial crop type (PBCs and MBCs), crop species or soil carbon stock in the 0-30 cm layer (Mg C ha−1). Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Agronomy 12 00232 g002
Figure 3. Percentage change of nitrogen stocks (Mg N ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to perennial crops type (PBCs and MBC) and crop species. Error bars represent the 95% Confidence Intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Figure 3. Percentage change of nitrogen stocks (Mg N ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to perennial crops type (PBCs and MBC) and crop species. Error bars represent the 95% Confidence Intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Agronomy 12 00232 g003
Figure 4. Percentage change of soil carbon (Mg C ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to soil texture, mean annual temperature (°C), mean annual precipitation (mm), fertilization. Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Figure 4. Percentage change of soil carbon (Mg C ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to soil texture, mean annual temperature (°C), mean annual precipitation (mm), fertilization. Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Agronomy 12 00232 g004
Figure 5. Percentage change of nitrogen stocks (Mg N ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to soil texture, mean annual temperature (°C), mean annual precipitation (mm), fertilization. Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Figure 5. Percentage change of nitrogen stocks (Mg N ha−1) after the reversion of perennial crops according to soil texture, mean annual temperature (°C), mean annual precipitation (mm), fertilization. Error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals. Parenthesis indicates the number of observations used to calculate the effect size.
Agronomy 12 00232 g005
Table 3. Effect of reversion of perennial crops on soil C and N stocks according to soil depth and time factors.
Table 3. Effect of reversion of perennial crops on soil C and N stocks according to soil depth and time factors.
OverallElementEffect (%)Lower CI (%)Upper CI (%)p-Value
Carbon−5.03−11.58+1.53ns
Nitrogen+2.56−4.62+9.75ns
Depth (cm)ElementEffect (%)Lower CI (%)Upper CI (%)p-Value
0–30Carbon−4.79−13.59+4.02ns
30–100Carbon−5.74−15.49+4.00ns
0–30Nitrogen2.35−6.90+11.59ns
30–100Nitrogen3.94−6.81+14.69ns
TimeElementEffect (%)Lower CIUpper CI (%)p-Value
1stCarbon+15.24+3.48+27.000.01
2–5thCarbon−10.69−27.14+5.74ns
1stNitrogen+12.28+1.59+22.960.002
2–5thNitrogen+3.46−18.91+25.83ns
Table 4. Summary statistics of the regression model.
Table 4. Summary statistics of the regression model.
VariableResidual
Standard Error
Multiple
R2
Adjusted
R2
f-Statisticp-ValueSignificant Predictors
(% Relative Importance) *
Change of SOC stock (Mg ha−1)0.2790.480.353.6810.015Duration (42%)
Other predictors (% relative importance)
MAP (28%), YFR (12%), MAT (9%),
Initial C stock (6%),
Abbreviations: mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean annual temperature (MAT), years from reversion (YFR), duration of perennial crop experiments (Duration). * Metrics are normalized to sum to 100% of adjusted R2. Significant differences among predictors (p < 0.05 Bonferroni test) were assessed by bootstrap (n = 1000) measures of relative importance
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martani, E.; Ferrarini, A.; Amaducci, S. Reversion of Perennial Biomass Crops to Conserve C and N: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy 2022, 12, 232. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12020232

AMA Style

Martani E, Ferrarini A, Amaducci S. Reversion of Perennial Biomass Crops to Conserve C and N: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy. 2022; 12(2):232. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12020232

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martani, Enrico, Andrea Ferrarini, and Stefano Amaducci. 2022. "Reversion of Perennial Biomass Crops to Conserve C and N: A Meta-Analysis" Agronomy 12, no. 2: 232. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12020232

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop