Increasing soil carbon storage: mechanisms, effects of agricultural practices and proxies. A review
The international 4 per 1000 initiative aims at supporting states and non-governmental stakeholders in their efforts towards a better management of soil carbon (C) stocks. These stocks depend on soil C inputs and outputs. They are the result of fine spatial scale interconnected mechanisms, which stabilise/destabilise organic matter-borne C. Since 2016, the CarboSMS consortium federates French researchers working on these mechanisms and their effects on C stocks in a local and global change setting (land use, agricultural practices, climatic and soil conditions, etc.). This article is a synthesis of this consortium’s first seminar. In the first part, we present recent advances in the understanding of soil C stabilisation mechanisms comprising biotic and abiotic processes, which occur concomitantly and interact. Soil organic C stocks are altered by biotic activities of plants (the main source of C through litter and root systems), microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) and ‘ecosystem engineers’ (earthworms, termites, ants). In the meantime, abiotic processes related to the soil-physical structure, porosity and mineral fraction also modify these stocks. In the second part, we show how agricultural practices affect soil C stocks. By acting on both biotic and abiotic mechanisms, land use and management practices (choice of plant species and density, plant residue exports, amendments, fertilisation, tillage, etc.) drive soil spatiotemporal organic inputs and organic matter sensitivity to mineralisation. Interaction between the different mechanisms and their effects on C stocks are revealed by meta-analyses and long-term field studies. The third part addresses upscaling issues. This is a cause for major concern since soil organic C stabilisation mechanisms are most often studied at fine spatial scales (mm–μm) under controlled conditions, while agricultural practices are implemented at the plot scale. We discuss some proxies and models describing specific mechanisms and their action in different soil and climatic contexts and show how they should be taken into account in large scale models, to improve change predictions in soil C stocks. Finally, this literature review highlights some future research prospects geared towards preserving or even increasing C stocks, our focus being put on the mechanisms, the effects of agricultural practices on them and C stock prediction models.
KeywordsSoil organic C C dynamics Stabilisation mechanisms Mineralisation Agricultural practices Indicators Models Macrofauna Microorganisms Litter Root inputs Organomineral associations Porosity
- 2. Soil C storage mechanisms: state of the art
- 4. How could a better accounting of OM stabilisation mechanisms improve the prediction of soil organic C stock evolution?
The increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly those containing carbon (CO2, CH4), is a consequence of human activities and is associated with climate change. Anthropogenic carbon emissions are partially balanced by carbon (C) sinks in oceans, vegetation and soil (Le Quéré et al. 2015). Soils contain approximately three times more C than the atmosphere (2400 vs. 800 GtC) (Jobbágy and Jackson 2000), in the form of organic C borne in organic matter (OM). On decadal time scales, soils can serve as a C sink or source depending on their properties, on the climate, land use, etc. (Eglin et al. 2010).
Global models linking the atmospheric CO2 concentration to temperature show that a 3.5–4 Gt/year decrease in atmospheric C would limit the temperature increase to +1.5/2 °C by 2050 (Meinshausen et al. 2009; Minasny et al. 2017), i.e. the threshold beyond which climate change would have a significant impact (IPCC 2013). This annual decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration could be fulfilled by annually increasing C stocks in the top 30 cm soil horizon by 0.4% (4 per 1000) (Balesdent and Arrouays 1999; Paustian et al. 2016).
In this context, the 4 per 1000—Carbon Sequestration in Soils for Food Security and the Climate initiative, launched by France in 2015 ahead of COP21 in Paris (http://4p1000.org/), aims to bring together governmental and non-governmental stakeholders devoted to improving soil C stock management. Positive effects on food security and climate change are expected through the collective objective of increasing C stocks on a global scale in agricultural areas (croplands, grasslands, forests), on which human action can be oriented towards C storage (Paustian et al. 2016). Indeed, increasing soil OM stocks is also beneficial for soil fertility, since OM mineralisation might be a source of nutriments for plants. But this requires implementing agricultural practices adapted to local conditions that will increase soil C inputs, with outputs remaining stable or decreasing, thus maximising soil C storage.
Soil OM is not homogeneous, and some OM is quickly mineralised after entering the soil, while some persists for very long periods (Schmidt et al. 2011). Conceptual pools were sometimes associated to functional pools tentatively separated from soils according to chemical or physical fractionation (e.g. Balesdent 1996; Zimmermann et al. 2007; Crow et al. 2007; Moni et al. 2012). In recent years, the significance of the chemical fractions obtained after the so-called humic substances separation have been questioned since they are probably artefacts formed during the drastic chemical extraction treatment (Schmidt et al. 2011). Reconciliating conceptual and experimental pools of soil C with different dynamics is still a matter of research, especially when soil organic matter is now accepted as a continuum of organic molecules possibly associated with minerals (Lehmann and Kleber 2015).
The challenge for the 4 per 1000 initiative is to increase the size of the intermediate and stable C pools in order to maximise the sustainability of additional C storage, i.e. maximising the residence time of this additional C in soil. C storage/release in these reservoirs is driven by biotic and abiotic mechanisms that operate at fine spatial scales within the soil organomineral matrix. It is essential to understand these mechanisms and interactions so as to be able to anticipate and control changes in soil C contents in an ever-evolving environment (changes in land use, agricultural practices, climatic or edaphic conditions, etc.). Many research groups are addressing these scientific challenges while striving to overcome scientific knowledge gaps on these mechanisms. However, it is hard to compare this information on various spatiotemporal scales, which has led to the creation of a national research network in France (to be expanded internationally) to federate the strengths of our scientific community on this issue.
The CarboSMS (Carbon Stabilization Mechanisms in Soil) research network was launched in late 2015 and currently consists of about 110 members. Some 70 researchers attended the CarboSMS kickoff meeting at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) in Paris on 10 March 2016. The present article summarises the outcome of this meeting. In the first part, we present recent advances on the mechanisms involved in soil organic C sequestration and then discuss the effects of agricultural practices on these mechanisms in the second part. Finally, in the third part, we show how it is essential to account for these mechanisms in global models and define indicators to describe C dynamics in order to enhance the prediction of the patterns of change of soil organic C stocks.
2 Soil C storage mechanisms: state of the art
Two main types of mechanisms influence the stabilisation/destabilisation of soil organic C: biotic mechanisms related to living soil biomass and soil biodiversity (plants, fauna, microorganisms) and abiotic mechanisms (localisation in the soil physical structure and degradation/stabilisation hotspots, organomineral interactions). For the sake of clarity, these mechanisms will be discussed successively in the following section, although they occur simultaneously in soils, combining or neutralising their effects.
2.1 Action of living biomass on soil organic C dynamics
2.1.1 Plants, rhizosphere and soil organic C storage—importance of root systems
The effects of plants on soil OM are twofold. First, as autotrophic organisms, plants are the main source of soil organic C through their litter production (shoots and roots), root exudates (released through passive and active mechanisms) and via symbiotic (nitrogen-fixing and mycorrhizal) associations. Second, plants contribute to soil OM stabilisation mechanisms by producing poorly degradable compounds and by promoting stable aggregate formation. By limiting erosion, plants also contribute to soil OM conservation.
OM fluxes from plants to soils
C inputs to the soil consist of above- and belowground litter (leaves, branches, stem, roots…), but also of rhizodeposits and of compounds that are directly transferred to mycorrhizal fungi. Root litter contributes about one third of total litter inputs in grassland soils and half in forest soils (Freschet et al. 2013). Rhizodeposition represents about 11% of the C assimilated by plants or 27% of that allocated to roots (Jones et al. 2009; Balesdent et al. 2011). The type and intensity of mycorrhizal associations, and therefore of C transfers to mycelial hyphae, depend respectively on the plant phylogenetic identity and on soil factors, especially on the availability of soil nutrients (Soudzilovskaia et al. 2015).
Some recent and debated studies suggest that belowground inputs largely contribute to OM, which is stabilised in soils on the medium to long term (Balesdent and Balabane 1996; Kuzyakov and Domanski 2000; Mendez-Millan et al. 2010; Clemmensen et al. 2015), especially in deeper soil horizons (Rasse et al. 2005; Rumpel and Kögel-Knabner 2011; Mendez-Millan et al. 2012). In particular, the study by Jobbágy and Jackson (2000) showed that the vertical root distribution corresponds to that of soil organic C for different plant species and soil types. Indeed, root litter decomposition is generally 30% slower than leaf decomposition (Birouste et al. 2012; Freschet et al. 2013). In addition, aboveground litter inputs are only partly transferred into the mineral soil (Garten 2009), where the decomposition rate decreases with increasing depth (Garcia-Pausas et al. 2012; Poirier et al. 2014; Prieto et al. 2016).
The contribution of belowground input to C storage occurs through the persistence of plant residues or via the stimulation of soil microbial activity and the increase of the contribution of microbial necromass to the slow cycling soil OM pools (Beniston et al. 2014; DuPont et al. 2014; Lange et al. 2015; Morriën et al. 2017).
The architecture and rooting profile of species are thus critical traits that control the amount and location of C inputs in the soil profile. Amongst herbaceous plants, monocots generally produce greater root biomass than forbs (Poorter et al. 2015) and have higher fine root densities (Craine et al. 2003), suggesting larger C inputs to soil. Lange et al. (2015) also demonstrated that higher plant diversity increases rhizosphere carbon inputs.
Quality of OM inputs and impact on their decomposition rate
The chemical composition [e.g. concentration in C, lignins, nitrogen (N) and manganese (Mn)] of aboveground and belowground litter inputs and root exudates varies markedly between plant species and influences OM decomposition kinetics on time scales ranging from year to decade (Jones et al. 2009; Machinet et al. 2011; Birouste et al. 2012). It is commonly recognised that a high lignin content leads to the accumulation of particulate OM in the soil (Cotrufo et al. 2015) and increases the plant residue contribution to the intermediate OM pool (Fig. 1). The litter Mn content stimulates lignin degradation through the formation of Mn peroxidases involved in lignin oxidation (Berg 2014; Keiluweit et al. 2015a). High N levels in plant litter and residues generally increase their initial decomposition rate, and result in the accumulation of microbial residues that persist in the soil. At the same time, high N levels in plant residues inhibit the specific decomposition of lignins (Berg et al. 2010; Dignac et al. 2002; Martins and Angers 2015), probably due to the recombination of N with partially decomposed lignin molecules (Berg et al. 2010).
The type and intensity of mycorrhizal associations strongly influence the OM fate in soils (Fig. 2) (Clemmensen et al. 2013, 2015). Roots colonised by ectomycorrhiza, as well as mycelial hyphae from both ecto- and endomycorrhiza, decompose more slowly than non-mycorrhizal roots (Langley et al. 2006). Moreover, mycorrhizal hyphae differ in their morphological (diffuse vs. rhizomorphic) and biochemical (hyaline vs. melanised) characteristics (Fernandez and Kennedy 2015). Melanised compounds could be involved in fungal OM persistence in soils (Fernandez et al. 2016). Several recent studies suggest that the chemical composition of OM inputs may not explain their persistence in soils beyond a decade, but has an impact on the C pool cycling over year to decade. Over longer time scales, this persistence would depend more on environmental conditions (Amelung et al. 2008; Derrien et al. 2006; Thevenot et al. 2010; Schmidt et al. 2011; Andreetta et al. 2013; Lehmann and Kleber 2015; Mathieu et al. 2015).
Impact of plant residue inputs on soil OM degradation (priming effect)
Fresh OM inputs that are easily used by soil microbial decomposers, such as root exudates, leachates and the labile portion of litter, can also stimulate native soil OM degradation. This so-called priming effect can be explained by three potentially co-occurring mechanisms (Löhnis 1926; Fontaine et al. 2004, 2007; Blagodatskaya and Kuzyakov 2008): (1) increased activity and development of microbial communities specialised in acquiring labile resources (r-strategists) resulting in increased soil enzymatic activities with potentially negative effects on soil OM storage; (2) stimulation of microbial communities adapted to the degradation of less degradable substrates (K-strategists), which depends on the nutrient availability in soils (Fontaine et al. 2011; Derrien et al. 2014); and (3) the action of root exudates (e.g. oxalic acid) disrupting soil organomineral associations and providing microorganisms with access to previously stabilised organic compounds (Keiluweit et al. 2015b).
Aggregate stability and soil layer cohesion
Plants contribute to the formation of stable aggregates (OM protected from degradation, see Section 2.2.1 below) in soil through fine roots and mycorrhizal associations (Tisdall and Oades 1982). High fine root and mycelial hyphae densities improve aggregate stability (Fig. 2) (Wu et al. 2014; Erktan et al. 2016) through different mechanisms: (1) increased production of root exudates, such as polysaccharides, which act as a glue between soil particles, (2) better soil particle trapping facilitated by the entanglement of roots and hyphae, (3) increased wetting-drying cycle frequency in soil in relation to water acquisition by roots, (4) input of plant residues containing specific constituents (e.g. hemicellulose, suberin or phenolic compounds) that contribute to macroaggregate stability and (5) stimulation of the production of microbial metabolites involved in microaggregate stability (Martens 2000; von Lützow et al. 2008; Martins and Angers 2015). These processes vary between plant species, but also depend on mycorrhizal fungi (Rillig et al. 2015). Hyphae with a diffuse morphology, thus promoting soil–hyphal interactions, could therefore have a greater impact on soil aggregate formation than hyphae of rhizomorphic types (Fernandez and Kennedy 2015). Finally, polysaccharides secreted by N2-fixing bacteria also have a positive effect on soil aggregate formation (Martins and Angers 2015).
Vegetation also contributes indirectly to soil C storage/release by affecting soil physical structure. The density and permanence of aboveground plant cover, as well as the plant’s ability to accumulate litter, protect topsoil from structural breakdown under the action of rainfall (Fig. 2) (Le Bissonnais et al. 2005). Species with high root length density (e.g. monocot species) and high root branching intensity (e.g. annual species) within topsoil also limits surface erosion and water runoff by promoting soil particle trapping (Gyssels et al. 2005). High root length density and fast root turnover also promote the formation of galleries that increase the soil porosity and limit water runoff (Gyssels et al. 2005). However, this also increases soil moisture and may improve conditions for soil OM decomposition in deeper soil horizons. Finally, species with deep root systems, high root length density and high root branching intensity can improve the cohesion between soil layers and limit landslides (Stokes et al. 2009).
In conclusion, plants influence labile, intermediate and stable soil C pools. The effects of plants on soil OM stabilisation and protection seem to be mostly positive, although the balance between positive and negative effects (i.e. over-mineralisation) will differ according to interactions between plants and the soil abiotic and biotic conditions. For instance, plant–microbe, plant–plant, plant–animal (herbivory-related) and plant–soil interactions and their effects on C stabilisation mechanisms have yet to be extensively explored. Furthermore, although chemical recalcitrance has been shown to have little influence on long-term soil C stabilisation (Marschner et al. 2008; Schmidt et al. 2011; Dungait et al. 2012), it may influence the intermediate C pool (Fig. 1) and the secondary consumption/transformation of these OMs by macro- and microorganisms (Moorhead et al. 2014). The search for new indicators of C dynamics linked to the chemical composition of plant tissues could improve our knowledge on these mechanisms. In this context, another major challenge is to gain greater insight into the role of the functional diversity of plants and of their symbionts in soil OM stabilisation/destabilisation mechanisms. This challenge requires stronger interactions between soil science, plant and microbial ecology and the development of long-term comparative laboratory and field studies before testing the relevance of these mechanisms in models. To this aim, experimental platforms (e.g. Ecotrons) and stable isotope techniques to differentiate C fluxes would help to gain insight into how the spatial distribution of roots and their symbionts can influence OM stabilisation through mechanisms related to soil physical properties, as presented in the Section 2.2 of this review.
2.1.2 Impact of living organisms on soil C sequestration—the macrofauna case
Processes promoting C stabilization
In tropical and temperate regions, it is widely recognised that long-term OM stabilisation is controlled by interactions between microorganisms (fungi and bacteria), ecosystem engineers (roots, earthworms, termites, ants) and the soil mineral matrix (Lavelle 1997). Ecosystem engineers act by fragmenting litter, incorporating it into the soil profile, mixing soil by bioturbation in the profile and influencing dissolved OM transport (Bohlen et al. 2004).
Ecosystem engineers also promote C stabilisation by forming biogenic structures (biostructures such as castings, galleries, veneers, fungi wheels, termite or ant hills). The C in these structures can be stabilised through organomineral associations, depending on ingested OM composition (Vidal et al. 2016). The type, shape and characteristics of these biogenic structures vary depending on species, land-use patterns and seasons (Decaëns et al. 2001; Hedde et al. 2005; Mora et al. 2005). The C distribution in these structures, e.g. concentration decreasing from the centre outwards, varies between species. For a given species, the C distribution in biogenic structures varies according to their habitats and depends on the soil depth (Don et al. 2008; Jiménez et al. 2008). The physical degradation rate of these structures influences C stabilisation time scale, as well as nutrient release and availability in soils (Le Bayon and Binet 2006; Mariani et al. 2007a; Mariani et al. 2007b; Jouquet et al. 2011). Furthermore, the type of OM (macro-debris, particulate matter or microbial metabolites) and its location (intra- or inter-aggregate), which differ between ecosystem engineers, are also drivers of C dynamics in these biogenic structures (Six et al. 2000; Bossuyt et al. 2004; Six et al. 2004; Bossuyt et al. 2005).
Processes promoting C mineralisation
The transit of soil particles through the gut of macrofaunal organisms promotes contact between microbes and OM, leading to alteration of the chemical structure of the OM. This alteration occurs (1) by selective digestion of peptide compounds which alters their stability (Shan et al. 2010), (2) through biochemical changes due to a succession of extreme pH or redox conditions (Brauman 2000) or (3) by physical remodelling of the particles (West et al. 1991). Many groups of soil fauna are known to stimulate microbial activity and OM mineralisation in the short term (Brown 1995; Winding et al. 1997).
Micro- and meso-fauna also contribute to the decomposition of litter and plant debris, in that their activity regulates the activity of the soil microbial communities. For example, the grazing of bacterial-feeding protozoa or nematodes tends to reduce the microbial density. However, it also stimulates the activity of the microbial communities, which tends to increase OM mineralisation rate. This is known as the microbial loop principle (Bonkowski 2004).
In conclusion, trophic activity and the production of biostructures by soil fauna, especially by the ecosystem engineers, impact soil C dynamics: OM mineralisation is often stimulated in the short term, but stabilised in the longer term. As a result, the quantitative effects are highly variable (Fig. 3). Further research is necessary to gain insight into and predict these effects, while taking the functional traits of the organisms and their environment into greater account. At larger spatiotemporal scales, the functional domain defined by the properties of biogenic structures (e.g. termitosphere, myrmecosphere or drilosphere) strongly influences C storage in the soil profile, which affects the overall ecosystem functioning.
There is also a lack of knowledge about (1) the impact of the biochemical quality of OM on its use by soil organisms since the OM they ingest is chosen not only according to its degradability but also to its stoichiometric composition, in relation to decomposer needs; and (2) the digestive system of organisms, its effect on microorganism selection and the effect of this selection on biogenic structures. Little is also known about the effect of changes in environmental conditions (water and nutrient availability) on biogenic structures. Research on the effects of cultivation practices (tillage, pesticide use, etc.) on the soil fauna density and on their trophic interactions that affect soil C stabilisation would also be necessary (see Section 3).
Finally, future research on C stabilisation mechanisms in soil hosting macrofauna should assess the balance between the beneficial effects of these organisms on C storage and their negative effects due to the GHG they emit (CH4, N2O) (Lubbers et al. 2013; Chapuis-Lardy et al. 2010). In the long term, research projects should also consider the ability of soil fauna to generally positively influence plant biomass production (Scheu 2003), thus likely increasing soil OM inputs (see Section 2.1.1).
2.1.3 Diversity and physiology of microorganisms—drivers of soil C dynamics
Within soil decomposers, microorganisms are the most taxonomically and functionally diversified component (Torsvik and Øvreås 2002; Curtis and Sloan 2005). It is estimated that 1 g of soil can host up to 1 billion bacteria, representing 1 million species (Gans et al. 2005), and up to 1 million fungi comprising up to 10,000 species (Hawksworth 1991; Bardgett 2005). However, the number of neighbouring microorganisms with which a single bacterium interacts, within a distance of about 20 μm, is relatively limited (120 cells on average) (Raynaud and Nunan 2014).
By their activity, microorganisms play a very important role in the ecosystem services provided by soils. At the ecosystem scale, soil microorganisms are vital with regard to (1) nutrient recycling (N, phosphorus, sulphur, potassium, etc.), essential for plant growth and ecosystem dynamics; (2) soil OM storage, crucial for preserving the soil structure and fertility; and (3) soil OM degradation, which could dramatically change the global climate equilibrium (van der Heijden et al. 2008). Furthermore, microorganisms are the main source of organic compounds stabilised in the long term (compared to plants) (e.g. Simpson et al. 2007; Schimel and Schaeffer 2012), as indicated by studies using molecular biomarkers such as sugars and amino sugars, proteins and lipids (Derrien et al. 2006; Miltner et al. 2012).
The soil microbial compartment, despite its central role in soil OM transformation, is still often considered as a group of ubiquitous organisms with high functional redundancy (Nannipieri et al. 2003), on the basis of the postulate put forward by Beijerinck (1913) that ‘everything is everywhere, but, the environment selects’. As such, microbial communities are still often included in compartment models of soil C dynamics as a functional black box generating fluxes whose intensity depends only on abiotic factors such as temperature, humidity, pH, etc., thus excluding the hypothesis that the diversity and composition of microbial communities as well as trophic interactions (competition, commensalism, etc.) between populations can play a functional role (McGill 1996; Gignoux et al. 2001).
Advances in microbial ecological knowledge are crucial for understanding how microorganisms use C and therefore impact its long-term fate in soil (Schimel and Schaeffer 2012). A substantial proportion of soil C originates from labile compounds metabolised by microorganisms and stabilised as microbial residues in organomineral complexes (Miltner et al. 2012; Clemmensen et al. 2013; Cotrufo et al. 2015; Haddix et al. 2016). The C use efficiency of microorganisms is used to estimate, for a given substrate, the ratio between mineralised C and C incorporated in soil OM. This C use efficiency varies depending on the microbial species and their physiology, nutrient availability (N, phosphorus, sulphur, etc.) necessary for microbial metabolism, interactions with the soil matrix and the environmental conditions (temperature, pH, moisture, etc.) (Manzoni et al. 2012; Mooshammer et al. 2014; Geyer et al. 2016; Lashermes et al. 2016). Moreover, it is likely to change depending on the climatic and atmospheric conditions (Allison et al. 2010; Schimel 2013; Sistla et al. 2014).
Considering the major contribution of microbial communities in processes driving soil C dynamics, managing the microbial component could be a lever for optimising soil C storage (Jastrow et al. 2007). Future research should aim at classifying the impacts of climate parameters, land-use patterns and microbial diversity on C storage, while also focussing on improving the models by explicitly incorporating microbial diversity to improve the prediction of soil C dynamics.
2.2 Abiotic soil organic C stabilisation mechanisms
2.2.1 Localisation in the physical structure of soil
Soil is a heterogeneous environment, which has an impact on soil organic C dynamics. At the landscape scale, soil heterogeneity is driven by the soil texture and mineralogy, and by topology and management practices. At the plot scale, agricultural practices and plant species are the determinants of heterogeneity (Etema and Wardle 2002; Chevallier et al. 2000). At the fine process scale, the degree of heterogeneity depends on the soil physical structure, which corresponds to the spatial arrangement of solid particles (mineral particles, OM) and pores in which fluids, decomposers and soluble compounds circulate (Chenu and Stotzky 2002; Monard et al. 2012). Understanding how the soil physical structure affects OM dynamics is crucial with a view to preserving or even increasing organic C stocks in soils. On the one hand, climate change, and especially the water regime, affects the environmental conditions at the microbial habitat scale, while on the other, land use and agricultural practices markedly affect the soil structure.
As mentioned above, biotic processes can have a great effect on aggregation: plants with their roots, macrofauna when they digest organic and mineral soil components together, and microbes by acting on their close organomineral environment at the nanoscale. Abiotic C stabilisation mechanisms are thus highly linked to biotic mechanisms.
Soil organic C dynamics are slowed down by inclusion in aggregates
From the mid-twentieth century, experimental studies have demonstrated that aggregation decreases the soil OM mineralisation rate (Rovira and Greacen 1957). Experiments were designed to measure CO2 production after grinding of soil aggregates and to compare it to the CO2 emitted by the same soil with preserved aggregates. The results showed that grinding increased soil organic C mineralisation, and that the rate increased with the fineness of the grinding. Since then, many studies based on physical fractionation methods have helped to isolate different types of soil aggregates and understand their roles in protecting OM. By analysing samples of soils that had undergone conversion from a C3 to a C4 photosynthesis type of vegetation (or the reverse), and using the difference in C isotopic composition between OM from C3 and C4 plant types, it was shown that (1) the C residence time was greater when plant debris was included in aggregates than when it was not associated with aggregates, and (2) the C residence time in micro-aggregates (<50 μm) was longer than in macro-aggregates (>50 μm) (e.g. Golchin et al. 1994; Besnard et al. 1996; Six et al. 1998; Six and Jastrow 2002; Chevallier et al. 2004). However, the structural difference between micro- and macro-aggregates might not be the only factor that could explain these contrasted OM mineralisation rates because (1) the OM nature and quality may differ in micro- and macro-aggregates, (2) micro- and macro-aggregates might host different microbial communities (Hemkemeyer et al. 2015) and (3) the stability of macro- and micro-aggregates, which regulates the OM storage duration, is not the same (Plante and McGill 2002). However, aggregates, and especially micro-aggregates, are used as fractions to indicate the degree of physical protection of C as estimates of the pools involved in the compartment models on C dynamics at multi-annual time scales (e.g. Zimmermann et al. 2007, for RothC). Conceptual models describing C dynamics in different aggregates, considering aggregate formation-destruction cycles, have recently emerged, but their parameterisation is not yet possible since these models are too complex and not sufficiently constrained (Stamati et al. 2013).
Decomposers act on organic substrates in the soil pore network
In conclusion, by combining experimental approaches involving microcosms, isotopic labelling, 3D imaging and modelling, significant progress should be achieved in the coming years in understanding how the soil structure controls OM dynamics and incorporating these controls into models. Studies at fine spatial scales will be particularly useful to link C storage mechanisms to the soil C saturation concept, as discussed in the third part of this review (Section 4).
2.2.2 C stabilisation mechanisms involving organomineral interactions
Mineral protection of soil OM—an old story
The idea that soil OM can be protected from the mineralising activity of microorganisms by soil minerals emerged more than 200 years ago (Thaer 1811 in Feller and Chenu 2012). This protection has been included in soil C dynamics models for over 70 years (Henin and Dupuis 1945). Smaller minerals, mainly contained in the clay particle-size fraction (less than 2 μm), most efficiently protect OM. This particle-size class consists of a variety of minerals: clay minerals (phyllosilicates), as well as different forms of metallic oxyhydroxides and poorly crystallised aluminosilicates (allophane or imogolite types). These finely divided minerals protect OM by adsorption (e.g. Jones and Edwards 1998) or by trapping OM within sub-micron aggregates, thus physically protecting it from the degrading action of soil microorganisms (Chenu and Plante 2006). The OM degradation rate is also decreased, and stabilisation increased, when organic molecules are located in parts of the pore network (neck diameter between 10 and 1000 nm) that are saturated with water, thus limiting oxygen and enzyme diffusion (Zimmerman et al. 2004; Chevallier et al. 2010).
Chemical interactions and heterogeneous soil OM distribution
OM adsorption by soil minerals may derive from different types of interaction: anionic ligand exchange, cationic ligand exchange, cationic bridges or so-called weak interactions (including van der Waals forces, hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions). The type of interactions involved depends on the mineral phases and OM chemical functions (von Lützow et al. 2006). Although theoretically these different types of interactions are expected, it is however very difficult to directly observe them in soil samples and to highlight any chemical specificity of organomineral interactions using current state-of-the-art techniques (Lutfalla 2015).
Moreover, direct observations on natural samples using microscopic techniques combined with increasingly powerful characterisation tools (atomic force microscopy, nanoSIMS, STXM–NEXAFS, etc.) showed that OM is adsorbed on mineral surfaces in the form of patches and does not cover the entire particle surface (e.g. Ransom et al. 1998; Chenu and Plante 2006; Remusat et al. 2012; Theng 2012; Rumpel et al. 2015). An isotopic labelling study further revealed that newly adsorbed OM preferentially binds to existing patches and not to free mineral surfaces (Vogel et al. 2014). These results suggest that the capacity of different minerals to protect OM would depend on their ability to adsorb a large number of patches. This could explain why the correlation between specific mineral surfaces and their ability to protect OM is poor or nonexistent (Kögel-Knabner et al. 2008).
High importance of low-crystallised mineral forms and mineral weathering
Andosol observations, chemical extraction results and fine-scale observations suggest that poorly crystallised mineral forms (pedogenic oxides and amorphous or slightly crystallised aluminosilicates) are particularly efficient in stabilising soil OM (Torn et al. 1997; Kleber et al. 2015). They complex soil organic compounds to form organomineral nano-complexes (noted here nanoCOMx), a few nanometres to a few hundreds of nanometres in size, which contain high C concentrations. They can be observed by direct transmission electron microscopy analysis (Wen et al. 2014). Close correlations between the metallic oxyhydroxide and C contents have been highlighted using indirect chemical extraction methods (Bruun et al. 2010; Mikutta et al. 2006), thus demonstrating the importance of nanoCOMx for soil OM stabilisation. NanoCOMx have mainly been studied in controlled conditions whereby they are synthesised by adsorption and co-precipitation (especially for Fe and Al) in batch experiments, but further research is needed on the identification and quantification of these mechanisms in soils (Kleber et al. 2015).
Finally, unlike crystallised minerals, the kinetics of alteration of poorly crystallised minerals in soils may span just a few years to decades, which is of the same order of magnitude as the time scales at which C dynamics are considered in the climate change context. Contrary to general opinion, OM mineralisation in organomineral complexes could well be due to destabilisation of mineral phases, which are no longer regarded as immutable at yearly to decadal timescales. Keiluweit et al. (2015b) showed, for example, that some oxalate type constituents of root exudates destabilised oxyhydroxide minerals and released initially complexed native OM. These compounds, which become accessible to microorganisms, may be mineralised. The destabilisation of nanoCOMx mineral components has also been shown in agricultural systems (Wen et al. 2014), and in some cases associated with substantial OM loss.
Until recently, analytical methods have not been effective to achieve sufficiently detailed characterisation of the organic component of organomineral complexes to highlight differences depending on the mineral phases to which they are associated. Future research on organomineral complexes will benefit from recent progress in analytical methods. To enhance integration of theoretical knowledge of these complexes, future studies on their formation and dynamics will have to move from the laboratory to the field in order to understand how these mechanisms are affected by agricultural practices.
3 Mechanisms of OM dynamics affected by agricultural practices
Specificities of different types of land use (non-exhaustive list) in metropolitan France (croplands, urban gardens, grasslands, vineyards, forests and agroforestry systems) in terms of C content, soil and climatic conditions, vegetation, soil structure, residue management, exogenous organic matter inputs and other practices, and their spatiotemporal variability [compiled on the basis of interviews with a dozen professionals working at the crossroad between academia and agriculture (agricultural technical institutes, French National Forestry Office, etc.)]
Average stocks (tC ha−1 of 0–30 cm, Martin et al. 2011 )
C contents (g kg−1 soil, Joimel et al. 2016)
Soil and climatic conditions
Poor acidic soils, sometimes flooded
Eventually soils on slopes, diversity of climates
Marked human action
Often basic soil and warm climates
High biodiversity, including legumes
Avoid competition between tree species and crops
Potentially grass bands in the ranks
Depends on export of harvest residues (branches <7 cm in diameter)
Depends on grazing and mowing intensity
Export of wood biomass (except leaves) and crops, residues are sometimes returned to the soil
Export of harvest, residues are sometimes returned to the soil
Leaves and crushed shoots eventually returned to the soil
Export of fallen leaves and mowing lawns
Exogenous OM inputs
Contribution of exogenous OM from urban area, or manure
No exogenous input
Large inputs of exogenous OM from urban origin
Practices modifying soil physical structure
Stump and eventual tillage when planting, compaction after heavy engine traffic at thinning (every 10 years approximately)
Often aggregated structure, sometimes tillage
Tillage or no-tillage in tree rows
Tillage or no-tillage
Soil scratching, eventually decompaction
Packed, waterproof, volumes constrained by the pipe network
Fertilisation rarely practiced, amendment if trees decline
Fertilisation, irrigation, associations with legumes
Fertilisation, irrigation, inorganic amendment, pesticides
Forest revolution, about 60–200 years
C dynamics must be rationalised according to forest revolution duration
Annual crops, sometimes intermediate crops
Rapidly changing physical and chemical properties
Related to root distribution, organic surface horizon
Especially related to grazing intensity
Lines of trees on grass bands
Eventually hedges and grass bands
Vine rows and eventually grass inter-rows
Very heterogeneous, alignment of trees, fragmented, discontinuous
Operationally, these results concerning the impacts of land-use changes on soil C stocks underline the fact that the spatial patterns of land-use or rotations must be considered with caution. However, soil C stocks also depend on the agricultural practices implemented, which determine the input and output C fluxes in soils, depending on soil and climatic conditions. The following section identifies the main agricultural practices and examines their impact on the soil C stock.
3.1 Review of the main agricultural practices
Various management operations (Table 1) can be implemented depending on the land use. The following categories can be distinguished: choice of plant species, vegetation density, plant export intensity (crop residues returned to the soil or exported, grazing/mowing of grasslands, export of harvest residues in forest ecosystems, etc.), addition of exogenous OM, irrigation, fertilisation, tillage, etc. These practices mainly control the spatiotemporal distribution of OM inputs to soil, along with the sensitivity of OM to mineralisation, both of which affect soil OM stocks (Jastrow et al. 2007).
Choice of plant species
The choice of plant species has an effect on the chemical quality of soil OM (Rumpel et al. 2009; Armas-Herrera et al. 2016) and modifies the processes governing the dynamics of soil organic C. In forests, for example, although aboveground litter production is similar for softwood and hardwood trees, the litter degradation mechanisms differ (Berg and Ekbohm 1991; Osono and Takeda 2006). In deciduous forest, litter generally decomposes faster and the residues are more deeply incorporated in the soil profile because of the biochemical properties of their tissues and their impact on the soil chemistry, thus impacting, for example, the presence and activity of earthworms (Augusto et al. 2015). As noted above (Section 2.1.2), these organisms have a strong influence on soil OM dynamics. In grasslands, legume–grass associations promote soil C storage (Li et al. 2016). In agricultural systems, varieties allocating more resources to the harvested part (grain) are often selected to increase yields. This selection decreases the biomass allocated to vegetative parts, including roots which contribute more than other plant organs to the intermediate OM pool (Section 2.1.1).
Soil OM inputs
The intensity of plant harvesting for plantation management directly impacts plant-derived soil OM inputs (leaf litter, crop residues, roots, etc.). In grasslands, these inputs depend on the number of grazing animals and the mowing frequency (Conant et al. 2001); in agricultural systems, on crop residue export (Saffih-Hdadi and Mary 2008); in forests, on the thinning regime and the exportation of branches of less than 7 cm diameter (called harvest residues) (Jandl et al. 2006); inputs in urban soils depend on the mowing frequency in parks and on the removal of fallen leaves (Qian and Follett 2002; Lal and Augustin 2011). Exogenous OM is sometimes added to reduce chemical input and to recycle waste. Exogenous OM may be animal manure (Chotte et al. 2013), compost or sewage sludge (Hargreaves et al. 2008; Lashermes et al. 2009), or pyrogenic residues (biochar) (Steiner et al. 2007; Andrew et al. 2013).
These practices can increase the quantities of C added to the soil, but the extent to which they also affect C stabilisation mechanisms is unclear. Additional soil OM mineralisation can, for example, be observed following a fresh OM input (see the priming effect paragraph, Section 2.1.1).
Practices that stimulate both primary production and decomposer activity
Tillage, soil decompaction after heavy machinery passages or removal of stumps after clear-cutting a forest stand are also practices that impact not only primary production and soil OM inputs but also OM mineralisation and therefore soil to atmosphere C fluxes. These operations affect soil properties, likely including its structure, decomposer activity (Lienhard et al. 2013) and consequently soil organic C stocks (see Section 2). Primary production and decomposer activity are also impacted by facilities for soil and water conservation in dry areas, by the use of inorganic amendments or by systematic fertilisation in some cropping regions or in urban gardens (Miller et al. 2005; Edmondson et al. 2012). However, for economic reasons, fertilisation practices are very limited in forests or in poor agricultural areas.
3.2 Impact of agricultural practices on soil organic C storage
French experimental field studies on long-term variations in soil C stocks
Numerous studies have already been conducted on the effects of agricultural practices on soil C storage. We present the results of three recently published experiments located in France spanning decadal to multi-decadal periods. One study concerns forests under conventional management, while two were focused on large-scale cropping systems with exogenous OM amendments or reduced tillage.
Changes in C stocks in forest soils were monitored in the French Permanent Plot Network for the Monitoring of Forest Ecosystems (RENECOFOR) by repeated measurements in 102 plots managed by the French National Forestry Office at 15-year intervals (Jonard et al. 2017). The observations revealed an average annual increase in C stock of 0.34 t ha−1 year−1. This precisely corresponds to a 4‰ annual increase (average stocks in litter and in the top 40 cm soil horizon were 81.6 tC ha−1 = 0.34/81.6 = 0.004). The stock increase was larger in coniferous than in deciduous forests (Jonard et al. 2017) and was not linked to increased aboveground inputs. Weak links were noted with the litter quality (C/N), the history and management of the stand (regular vs. irregular forests).
The effects of the addition of exogenous OM were studied in the Qualiagro long-term field experiment, located at Feucherolles, near Paris (France). Various composts and manures were applied at a rate of 4 t ha−1 every other year. The soil C contents, measured every other year for 15 years, showed significant C accumulation, i.e. 0.20–0.50 tC ha−1 year−1 for soil amended with manure and urban compost (Peltre et al. 2012). These organic amendments thus had a positive effect on C storage, in addition to economic and agronomic benefits (improvement of soil fertility and physical structure). However, negative effects were observed, particularly related to fluxes of elements other than C. Organic amendments often contain large quantities of N and P, thus inducing a risk of over-fertilisation, N2O emission and NH3 volatilisation. Organic amendments also present a risk associated with the organic contaminants, metal contaminants or pathogens that they may contain (Smith 2009). It is necessary to better characterise the OM input, the reversibility of its accumulation and effects on the dynamics of other elements (N, P, etc.) in order to better understand and predict the positive and negative effects of waste-derived organic amendments (Noirot-Cosson et al. 2016).
The long-term effects of tillage were studied for 41 years in a large-scale cropping area in the Paris Basin (Boigneville) (Dimassi et al. 2014). In this field experiment, no significant effects of tillage or crop management were observed on C stocks over 41 years. Reducing tillage, however, resulted in rapid soil C accumulation in the first 4 years, and then the C stocks only slightly changed over the next 24 years (+2.17 tC ha−1 with reduced tillage, +1.31 tC ha−1 with no tillage), but additional stored C was later lost (Dimassi et al. 2014). The lack of ploughing caused soil OM stratification and changes in soil functioning, nutrient availability, soil water holding capacity, microbial diversity, the amount of fresh C incorporated in the soil and, accordingly, the priming effect. The water regime could be the determining factor of C storage/destocking in these situations. OM mineralisation was favoured during wet years or when the soils were irrigated, particularly at the surface where the majority of C accumulated when ploughing was stopped. Conversely, C accumulated during dry years. As already suggested by Balesdent et al. (2000), this study highlighted the importance of identifying, quantifying and classifying the different mechanisms according to the soil and climatic conditions in order to be able to model and predict soil organic C stocks under different agricultural and forestry practices.
Meta-analyses are useful for comparing results obtained in various long-term studies in similar experimental fields to determine whether the processes triggered by a specific agricultural practice are widespread. Hereafter, we present some examples of recently published meta-analyses on the impacts of irrigation (Zhou et al. 2016), tillage (Virto et al. 2012), liming (Paradelo et al. 2015) and fertilisation (Han et al. 2016; Yue et al. 2016) on soil C stocks.
The findings of a meta-analysis by Zhou et al. (2016) suggested that the water availability changed the plant C allocation and the soil OM turnover. Drought led to an increase in the root/shoot ratio and a decrease in heterotrophic soil respiration, while irrigation led to an increase in soil respiration but also to higher biomass inputs.
Regarding soil tillage, the meta-analysis of Virto et al. (2012) shows the same trends as the long-term observation by Dimassi et al. (2014). No-tillage had little effect on the soil organic C stocks (see also Luo et al. 2010). However, secondary practices of no-till cropping systems (implemented to offset the lack of tillage, as the choice of cropped species and the number of rotations) showed positive effects on C storage (Virto et al. 2012).
Paradelo et al. (2015) reviewed the results of 29 studies considering the effects of liming on soil C stocks. Their meta-analysis did not reveal an unambiguous effect of liming on C storage. The compiled studies had been carried out under a wide range of experimental conditions. Moreover, they did not allow quantification of the three key processes driving the dynamics of organic C in soils affected by liming: crop production, decomposer activity and soil structure (see Section 2).
Yue et al. (2016) compared 60 studies on the impact of N inputs on C stocks. Their meta-analysis highlighted an increase in soil C inputs and no change in output fluxes related to increased N inputs. Regarding organic C stocks, the results showed an increase in C in the organic horizons and the soil solution, but no change in the C stock in the mineral soil horizons, contrary to the findings of the meta-analysis on forest soils conducted by Janssens et al. (2010). However, meta-analyses average the results obtained in different contexts and with different timescales, which may overlook effects that could be observed at a given site. The meta-analysis of Han et al. (2016) confirmed the results of Yue et al. (2016). If fertilisation is complemented by organic amendments, then the increase in C stocks would be even higher since organic amendments directly contribute to soil OM stocks.
In conclusion, due to the lack of knowledge on the mechanisms impacted by agricultural practices, it is hard to predict their effects on soil C stocks. Agricultural practices, which increase soil OM inputs, are often considered to have a positive impact on C storage (Pellerin et al. 2013; Chenu et al. 2014b; Paustian et al. 2016). However, their impact on mechanisms that contribute to the storage/destocking of soil C (see Section 2) are not yet clearly understood. Meta-analyses and long-term field studies showed that the relative intensity of mechanisms contributing to storage and those contributing to destocking may change over time. These studies also showed that it is essential to understand how the soil and climatic conditions modulate soil organic C stabilisation mechanisms.
In addition, while considering practices in terms of the C cycle and increased soil C stocks, the importance of interactions with cycles of other nutrients present in OM (N, P, S, etc.) should not be overlooked. Finally, regardless of the land use, it should be kept in mind that the main challenge for all agricultural stakeholders is to ensure a production level that will provide enough food in the context of world population growth and sufficient income for farmers, while maintaining employment. Preserving or increasing OM stocks are also levers with regard to these issues (Manlay et al. 2016).
4 How could a better accounting of OM stabilisation mechanisms improve the prediction of soil organic C stock evolution?
4.1 Finding indicators to improve prediction of changes in soil organic C stocks
Several indicators have or could be developed to improve the prediction of soil organic C stocks, particularly in a context of land use and practice changes (see IPCC 2006, detailing the method currently used to estimate changes in soil C stocks).
The most currently discussed indicator is probably the C saturation deficit. Hassink (1997) proposed that the proportion of the fine fraction (<20 μm) of a soil implies an upper limit to its capacity to store stable C. This theoretical limit can be calculated (C sat) by particle-size measurements (C sat = 4.09 + 0.37 × (clay + fine silt)) (Hassink 1997). Sequestration by the fine fraction is due to the physical and physicochemical protection provided by finely divided minerals (see Section 2.2.2). The C saturation deficit is obtained by subtracting this theoretical C sat value from the actual OM concentration in the fine fraction of the soil. This indicator has recently been used to draw the first map of the potential of organic C storage in the fine fraction in the 0–30 cm horizon of French soils (Angers et al. 2011). However, this indicator of the potential gain of soil organic C has so far never been validated and its relevance for predicting C stock patterns consecutive to a change in land use or farming practices remains to be evaluated (O’Rourke et al. 2015).
Another approach, somewhat similar to that of Hassink (1997), was proposed to assess French soil C storage capacity. Rémy and Marin-Laflèche (1974) defined some benchmark OM levels according to clay and carbonate soil contents. Roussel et al. (2001) used this chart to estimate the OM deficit compared to the benchmark OM contents for French soils. The authors thus subtracted OM contents referenced in the French Soil Analysis Database (BDAT) from the benchmark OM contents listed on the chart proposed by Rémy and Marin-Laflèche (1974). However, the link between the potential of OM gain and the OM deficit calculated using the Rémy and Marin-Laflèche (1974) chart remains to be validated and the area of validity of this chart is still an open issue (Roussel et al. 2001).
Conversely, indicators of the risk of soil organic C loss could be developed. For example, C in a soil with a high particulate OM content may be more rapidly lost compared to C in a soil that has a greater portion of C associated with the mineral matrix (Arrouays 1994; Jolivet et al. 2003). Particulate OM contents, which are easily measured by standardised methods, could thus be an indicator of the potential for soil C loss. Other studies suggest that the biogeochemical stability of C might be connected to its thermal stability (Plante et al. 2011; Saenger et al. 2013, 2015; Barré et al. 2016). In this case, thermal measurements could serve as a proxy for assessing the amount of organic C that may be lost following a land use or cropping practice change. Using thermal measurements to assess the C sequestration potential could also be considered.
Other indicators based on biotic mechanisms of soil organic C sequestration (see Section 2.1) could probably be used, such as the bacteria/fungi ratio or indicators based on soil fauna, vegetation or litter layer. Soil type and mineralogy are also potential relevant indicators (Mathieu et al. 2015; Khomo et al. 2016). It should be kept in mind that the measurement of these indicators should be rapid and inexpensive to enable them to be tested in a large variety of soil and climatic contexts. Finally, the indicator necessarily represents the sequestration mechanisms in partial and degraded form, but its predictive value will only be satisfactory if it has a sound scientific basis and has been subject to a specific validation process. These conditions have currently not been met for any indicator, thus broadening the prospects for research, validation and implementation of such indicators of soil C stock changes. In addition, selecting relevant indicators for C storage initiatives is still a complicated task. Indeed, indicators could trace the C storage potential of soils (like those described above) or other variables such as the storage rate, input fluxes, average mineralisation rate, mean residence time in soil, etc.
4.2 Better integration of OM stabilisation mechanisms in large-scale C dynamics models
The prediction of the evolution of C stocks by Earth-system models is very uncertain (e.g. Friedlingstein et al. 2006). A comparison of Earth-system models showed, for a given anthropogenic GHG emission change scenario, that these models can predict a soil organic C stock evolutionary pattern for the twenty-first century ranging from −50 to +300 GtC (Eglin et al. 2010). The difference between the extremes of the predicted values corresponds to about 40% of the current atmospheric C stock. A better prediction of the evolution of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is crucial to reduce uncertainties about soil C stock changes. Soil C stabilisation mechanisms are not yet taken into sufficient consideration in large-scale models (Luo et al. 2016). In particular, biological regulation (macrofauna, microorganisms) and soil structure (Wieder et al. 2015) are barely taken into account in these models despite the fact that they are major drivers of soil C dynamics, as noted above (see Section 2).
Furthermore, most of these models fail to reproduce the interactions between primary production and organic C residence time in soils. These two variables control the amount of C stored in soils, but independently (Todd-Brown et al. 2013). However, explicitly integrating stabilisation mechanisms into these models is a difficult task. We must first find a suitable mathematical formalism to describe the mechanism to be added, incorporate it into the model and test whether the model performance has actually been improved.
By this approach, various studies have been aimed at introducing the priming effect in C dynamics models (Guenet et al. 2013; Perveen et al. 2014). An equation describing the soil OM mineralisation rate as a function of the fresh OM content, proposed by Wutzler and Reichstein (2008) and adapted by Guenet et al. (2013), was introduced in the ORCHIDEE model. This function actually improved the performance of the model for representing incubation data from laboratory experiments. Simulations based on various scenarios highlighted that soil storage capacities predicted by the two versions of the model could differ by up to 12 GtC (i.e. 0.8 tC ha−1) for the twenty-first century (Guenet et al. submitted).
The explicit representation of all sequestration mechanisms in Earth-system models is not yet possible since it would necessitate excessively long calculation times and since the equations needed to describe many mechanisms have yet to be accurately formulated. They could however be quickly improved by increasing the number of comparisons between statistical and mechanistic models and by testing the mechanistic models on databases that exist or are under development.
However, the lack of precise data still hampers the use and improvement of models, especially at large spatial scales and in the vertical profile (Mathieu et al. 2015; He et al. 2016 ; Balesdent et al., in press). There are indeed very strong uncertainties with regard to C stock estimates and the input data of these models (soil parameters, land use, C inputs, etc.). The progress achieved in the GlobalSoilMap project in developing well-resolved global maps of soil characteristics (Arrouays et al. 2014) is also essential for improving the representation of sequestration mechanisms in Earth-system models.
4.3 Modelling OM mineralisation at the micro-scale could help describing macroscopic C fluxes
Another approach is to precisely describe soil OM mineralisation in micro-scale models and investigate how these models could usefully fuel C dynamics models operating at larger scales (plot, landscape, global). For example, a few models have emerged during the past decade, explicitly describing the functioning of soil microorganisms in interaction with their substrates, their environment and soil OM (Schimel and Weintraub 2003; Fontaine and Barot 2005; Moorhead and Sinsabaugh 2006; Allison 2012). Some of these models include the representation of several functional groups of microorganisms (e.g. copiotrophic and oligotrophic categories) with homogeneous ecological functioning features. These new models including microbial processes are more consistent with the actual processes and can be more generally applied for various environmental situations. However, they are more complex, often theoretical and not calibrated (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000). One current challenge is to improve their predictive accuracy by testing them on suitable experimental observations (Schmidt et al. 2011). This requires research conducted on various scales (populations, communities, ecosystems) to (1) prioritize key factors for predicting soil C dynamics and interactions with nutrient cycles, and (2) integrate robust and simplified functions in larger scale models.
A new generation of mechanistic models has also emerged that take the effects of the soil physical structure on the activity of decomposers and on C mineralisation into account. These models include an explicit 2D or 3D description of the pore network based on computer tomography images (Monga et al. 2008, 2014; Falconer et al. 2007, 2015; Pajor et al. 2010; Resat et al. 2012; Vogel et al. 2015). They operate over short time scales and have been validated for simplified systems. These models should facilitate the classification of variables controlling C dynamics in order to define soil structure descriptors other than those currently used in models at the plot scale so as to improve them.
An effective strategy could be to use emerging properties from micro-scale models that explicitly take fine-scale soil heterogeneity into account to fuel ecosystem models. Otherwise, simplified versions of fine-scale models that capture fine-scale soil heterogeneity could be designed and integrated in ecosystem models. However, such upscaling from micrometre to plot and then global scales is a difficult task spanning a vast field of research.
4.4 Data needed to constrain various approaches to enhance prediction of soil C stock evolution patterns
Irrespective of the approach used to connect the stabilisation mechanisms to the evolution of soil C stocks, the predictions must be compared to field data. Changes in C stocks are hard to detect in the short term (<10 years), which is a methodological challenge for the implementation of the 4 per 1000 programme. The detection of changes in soil C stocks currently involves repeated analyses over time in long-term field studies (Fornara et al. 2011) or chronosequences (Pöplau et al. 2011). In addition, to assess whether predictions of a particular approach could be generalised, it would be useful to compare the predictions to data collected for different plant covers in various soil and climatic contexts. As such, networks of long-term field experiments and soil monitoring programmes mentioned above (Section 3) are particularly useful. For instance, at sites equipped with flux towers, C stocks, soil properties and site management history are monitored, in addition to ecosystem to atmosphere gas fluxes. Many such sites have been developed in recent years, and there are currently about 600 worldwide for a variety of ecosystems, thus enabling relevant data synthesis. For example, a recent study evaluated changes in primary production in grasslands according to the nitrogen fertilisation and climate (annual rainfall and temperature) conditions (Gilmanov et al. 2010; Soussana et al. 2010), while also assessing organic C sequestration in grassland soils according to the nitrogen fertilisation, harvested biomass (agricultural practices) and soil and weather conditions. Other syntheses of data from flux tower sites showed that the C balances were instead controlled by management practices in young forests and by climate variations in mature forests (Kowalski et al. 2004). Soil organic C storage was found to increase with the number of days of plant growth (Granier et al. 2000).
Another interesting example is the use of Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experimental systems, which artificially increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Such experiments have been developed for several years now and have generated essential information on the response of ecosystems to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Ainsworth and Long 2005). Regarding the soil, they have shown that C stock increases when nitrogen is available and does not vary when nitrogen is limiting, despite increased input via litter production (Hungate et al. 2009). These data were compared with large-scale model outputs for different output variables (Walker et al. 2015).
Networks of sites thus enable us to estimate the importance of stabilisation mechanisms for C storage, to classify them (by exploring databases) and to validate approaches designed to improve prediction of soil C stock evolutionary patterns. However, changes in soil C stocks are often not observable for several years after a change—this key factor highlights the fact that such sites must absolutely be maintained in the long term.
In conclusion, enhanced integration of soil OM stabilisation mechanisms in models to improve predictions of the evolution of soil C stocks is not easy. Several approaches could be proposed, each with their positive and negative features. Building soil C storage indicators based on mechanisms is the simplest approach, but they may have very limited predictive value if they have a weak scientific basis due to the excessive uncertainty level. Finding a suitable and robust formalism to incorporate the mechanisms in large-scale models is often a major research challenge in itself. Linking stabilisation mechanisms and modelling of soil C stock dynamics requires collaboration of scientific communities conducting research on mechanisms and modelling—this is the only way to accurately assess medium- and long-term variations in soil organic C stocks in a changing environment.
The currently favoured solution of the 4 per 1000 initiative to increase soil C stocks is to increase soil C input fluxes through management practices adapted to local conditions. These practices not only influence soil C inputs but also soil C stabilisation and destabilisation mechanisms and therefore soil C outputs.
Recent studies have improved the overall understanding of biotic and abiotic mechanisms involved in soil organic C stabilisation/destabilisation. Belowground plant contributions have a major role in soil C storage/destocking. Contrary to aboveground litter that might be quickly mineralised, root inputs could greatly contribute to C inputs that may be stabilised in soils, although they may also induce over-mineralisation of native OM, especially when nutrient resources are limited. Plant residues supply intermediate and labile soil C pools, and, through their chemical composition, control their dynamics. They also indirectly act on the stable C pool by promoting aggregate formation through roots and mycorrhizal associations. Microorganisms and soil fauna have a central role in soil C storage/destocking mechanisms because they consume and transform OM. Their metabolic activity produces CO2 and CH4 (destocking) when they consume applied (exogenous) and native (endogenous) OM. However, the action of soil organisms is generally considered to produce secondary compounds that ultimately contribute to soil C stabilisation, either via their chemical recalcitrance or via the interactions they establish with mineral soil ions and surfaces. Soil organisms are also essential for nutrient recycling, and preserving ecosystem balance and biodiversity. All of these co-benefits tend to indicate that soils with high biological activity have a higher C storage potential. However, their management requires increased knowledge on the interacting mechanisms and is more operationally difficult. The 4 per 1000 initiative will have to consider these antagonist biotic mechanisms in its recommendations in order to balance higher soil C stabilization with respect to C mineralisation.
The action of decomposers on OM depends on the arrangement between particles (inorganic and organic) and on the network of pores in which the fluids, decomposers and their enzymes circulate. Recent studies have also highlighted the central role of mineral phases in protecting OM. However, it appears that all mineral surfaces do not have the same ability to protect organic compounds and that organomineral complexes evolve over time due to weathering processes. Recently developed tools should lead to significant progress in the understanding and modelling of the influence of the soil matrix structure on soil C storage/destocking.
The effects of OM stabilisation mechanisms must be studied throughout the soil profile, including deep soil horizons (up to parent material), since plant root systems have a very high impact. C dynamics models should therefore not be limited to the soil surface since deep soils are also impacted by agricultural practices and land-use patterns. These models should try to find indicators that explicitly take the different soil compartments into account and no longer consider the microbial component as a ‘black box’, while also considering the soil fauna. Research on the validation of indicators of these mechanisms is essential in order to take the complexity of the equation involving biological factors, physical interactions, soil and climate conditions, land-use patterns, practices and management into account.
This review highlighted three essential needs for future research on soil C storage: long-term monitoring of experimental sites; reliable and precisely resolved data (soil parameters, land-use patterns and practices), particularly at large spatial scales; and multidisciplinary interactions between researchers in the fields of soil science and ecology. Indeed, although the different mechanisms are often studied separately, they should be studied together as they are related. These complex interactions drive C dynamics. Finally, it is crucial to strengthen interactions between operational and academic communities in order to accurately identify the challenges that still need to be addressed to enhance the overall understanding of the impact of agricultural practices on soil C storage, to disseminate new knowledge and translate it into practical recommendations.
The authors thank all participants of the CarboSMS network meeting of 10 March 2016. We also thank everyone we interviewed on the links between practices and mechanisms (Manuel Blouin, Camille Bréal, Aurélie Cambou, Patrice Cannavo, Marie Castagnet, Annie Duparque, Sabine Houot, Thomas Lerch, Dominique Masse, Anne-Sophie Perrin, Noémie Pousse, Thomas Turini and Laure Vidal-Beaudet). This review was conducted with the financial support of ResMO (French research network on organic matter), ENS-PSL, the Geoscience Department of ENS, CNRS INSU, INRA, ANR-Dedycas and ANR-Soilμ3D. GTF and CR were supported by the EC2CO-MULTIVERS project (BIOHEFECT-MICROBIEN program, CNRS-INSU). We also thank Dr. Eric Lichtfouse (Springer) and Dr. Dominique Arrouays (Etude et Gestion des Sols) for authorising us to submit this English version of the article already published in French in Etude et Gestion des Sols (Derrien et al. 2016).
- Ainsworth E, Long SP (2005) What have we learned from 15 years of free air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol 165:351–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Amelung W, Brodowski S, Sandhage-Hofmann A, Bol R (2008) Combining biomarker with stable isotope analyses for assessing the transformation and turnover of soil organic matter. In: Advances in agronomy. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 155–250. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)00606-8
- Arrouays D (1994) Intérêt du fractionnement densimétrique des matières organiques en vue de la construction d’un modèle bi-compartimental d’évolution des stocks de carbone du sol. Exemple après défrichement et monoculture de maïs grain des sols de touyas. Comptes Rendus à l’Académie des Sciences, Paris, série II 318:787–793Google Scholar
- Arrouays D, Grundy MG, Hartemink AE, Hempel JW, Heuvelink GBM, Hong SY, Lagacherie P, Lelyk G, McBratney AB, McKenzie NJ, Mendonca-Santos ML, Minasny B, Montanarella L, IOA O, Sanchez PA, Thompson JA, Zhang G-L (2014) GlobalSoilMap: toward a fine-resolution global grid of soil properties. Adv Agron 125:93–134. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800137-0.00003-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Balesdent J (1996) The significance of organic separates to carbon dynamics and its modelling in some cultivated soils. Eur J Soil Sci 47:485–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01848.x
- Balesdent J, Arrouays D (1999) Usage des terres et stockage de carbone dans les sols du territoire français. Une estimation des flux nets annuels pour la période 1900–1999. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie d'Agriculture de. France 85(6):265–277Google Scholar
- Balesdent J, Derrien D, Fontaine S, Kirman S, Klumpp K, Loiseau P, Marol C, Nguyen C, Péan M, Personi E, Robin C (2011) Contribution de la rhizodéposition aux matières organiques du sol, quelques implications pour la modélisation de la dynamique du carbone. Etude et Gestion des Sols 18:201–216Google Scholar
- Balesdent J, Basile-Doelsch I, Chadoeuf J, Cornu S, Fekiacova et Z, Fontaine S, Guenet B, Hatté C (in press) Renouvellement du carbone profond des sols cultivés: une estimation par compilation de données isotopiques. Biotechnologie Agronomie Société et EnvironnementGoogle Scholar
- Bardgett RD (2005) The biology of soil: a community and ecosystem approach. OUP Oxford, 256 pGoogle Scholar
- Barré P, Plante AF, Cécillon L, Lutfalla S, Baudin F, Bernard S, Christensen BT, Eglin T, Fernandez JM, Houot S, Kätterer T, Le Guillou C, Macdonald A, van Oort F, Chenu C (2016) The energetic and chemical signatures of persistent soil organic matter. Biogeochemistry 130:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10533-016-0246-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beijerinck MW (1913) De infusies en de ontdekking der bakterien. In: Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (F Müller, Amsterdam), pp 1–28Google Scholar
- Berg B, Davey MP, De Marco A, Emmett B, Faituri M, Hobbie SE, Johansson MB, Liu C, McClaugherty C, Norell L, Rutigliano FA, Vesterdal L, De Santo AV (2010) Factors influencing limit values for pine needle litter decomposition: a synthesis for boreal and temperate pine forest systems. Biogeochemistry 100:57–73. doi: 10.1007/s10533-009-9404-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bonneville S, Morgan DJ, Schmalenberger A, Bray A, Brown A, Banwart SA, Benning LG (2011) Tree-mycorrhiza symbiosis accelerate mineral weathering: evidences from nanometer-scale elemental fluxes at the hypha-mineral interface. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 75:6988–7005. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.08.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cardinael R, Chevallier T, Barthès B, Saby N, Parent T, Dupraz C, Bernoux M, Chenu C (2015) Impact of alley cropping agroforestry on stocks, forms and spatial distribution of soil organic carbon—a case study in a Mediterranean context. Geoderma 259-260:288–299. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chapuis-Lardy L, Brauman A, Bernard L, Pablo AL, Toucet J, Mano MJ, Weber L, Brunet D, Razafimbelo T, Chotte JL, Blanchart E (2010) Effect of the endogeic earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on the microbial structure and activity related to CO2 and N2O fluxes from a tropical soil (Madagascar). Appl Soil Ecol 45:201–208. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chenu C, Stotzky G (2002) Interactions between microorganisms and soil particles: an overview. In: Huang PM, Bollag JM, Senesi N (eds) Interactions between soil particles and microorganisms. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 3–40Google Scholar
- Chenu C, Garnier P, Monga O, Moyano F, Pot V, Nunan N, Otten W (2014a) Predicting the response of soil organic matter microbial decomposition to moisture. Geophys Res Abstr 16:EGU2014–EG14981Google Scholar
- Chenu C, Klumpp K, Bispo A, Angers D, Colnenne C, Metay A (2014b) Stocker du carbone dans les sols agricoles: évaluation de leviers d’action pour la France. Innovations Agronomiques 37:23–37Google Scholar
- Chevallier T, Blanchart E, Girardin C, Mariotti A, Albrecht A, Feller C (2001) The role of biological activity (roots, earthworms) in medium-term C dynamics in vertisol under a Digitaria decumbens (Gramineae) pasture. Appl Soil Ecol 16:11–21. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00102-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chevallier T, Blanchart E, Albrecht A, Feller C (2004) The physical protection of soil organic carbon in aggregates: a mechanism of carbon storage in a vertisol under pasture and market gardening (Martinique, West Indies). Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:375–387. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Derrien D, Dignac M-F, Basile-Doelsch I, Barot S, Cécillon L, Chenu C, Chevallier T, Freschet GT, Garnier P, Guenet B, Hedde M, Klumpp K, Lashermes G, Maron P-A, Nunan N, Roumet C, Barré P (2016) Stocker du C dans les sols : Quels mécanismes, quelles pratiques agricoles, quels indicateurs ? Etude et Gestion des Sols 23:193–223Google Scholar
- Derrien D, Plain C, Courty P-E, Gelhaye L, Moerdijk-Poortvliet TCW, Thomas F, Versini A, Zeller B, Koutika LS, Boschker HTS, Epron D (2014) Does the addition of labile substrate destabilise old soil organic matter? Soil Biol Biochem 76:149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.04.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dignac M-F, Kögel-Knabner I, Michel K, Matzner E, Knicker H (2002) Chemistry of soil organic matter as related to C/N in Norway spruce forest (Picea abies (L) karst.) floors and mineral soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:281–289. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200206)165:3<281::AID-JPLN281>3.0.CO;2-A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Erktan A, Cécillon L, Graf F, Roumet C, Legout C, Rey F (2016) Increase in soil aggregate stability along a Mediterranean successional gradient in severely eroded gully bed ecosystems: combined effects of soil, root traits and plant community characteristics. Plant Soil 398:121–137. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2647-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Feller C, Chenu C (2012) Les inter-actions bio-organo-argileuses et la stabilisation du carbone dans les sols. Etude et Gestion des Sols 19:235–248Google Scholar
- Fornara DA, Steinbeiss S, McNamara NP, Gleixner G, Oakley S, Poulton PR, Macdonald AJ, Bardgett RD (2011) Increases in soil organic carbon sequestration can reduce the global warming potential of liming to permanent grassland. Glob Chang Biol 17:1925–1934. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02328.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Freschet GT, Cornwell WK, Wardle DA, Elumeeva TG, Liu W, Jackson BG, Onipchenko VG, Soudzilovskaia NA, Tao JP, Cornelissen JHC (2013) Linking litter decomposition of above and belowground organs to plant-soil feedbacks worldwide. J Ecol 101:943–952. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Freschet GT, Violle, Roumet C, Garnier E (in press). Interactions entre le sol et la végétation: structure des communautés de plantes et fonctionnement du sol. In: Lemanceau P & Blouin M (Eds) Les sols au coeur de la zone critique: EcologieGoogle Scholar
- Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, Von Bloh W, Brovkin V, Cadule P, Doney S, Eby M, Fung I, Bala G, John J, Jones C, Joos F, Kato T, Kawamiya M, Knorr W, Lindsay K, Matthews HD, Raddatz T, Rayner P, Reick C, Roeckner E, Schnitzler KG, Schnur R, Strassmann K, Weaver AJ, Yoshikawa C, Zeng N (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Clim 19:3337–3353. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3800.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gilmanov TG, Aires L, Barcza Z, Baron VS, Belelli L, Beringer J, Billesbach D, Bonal D, Bradford J, Ceschia E, Cook D, Corradi C, Frank A, Gianelle D, Gimeno C, Gruenwald T, Guo HQ, Hanan N, Haszpra L, Heilman J, Jacobs A, Jones MB, Johnson DA, Kiely G, Li SG, Magliulo V, Moors E, Nagy Z, Nasyrov M, Owensby C, Pinter K, Pio C, Reichstein M, Sanz MJ, Scott R, Soussana J-F, Stoy PC, Svejcar T, Tuba Z, Zhou GS (2010) Productivity, respiration, and light-response parameters of world grassland and agroecosystems derived from flux-tower measurements. Rangel Ecol Manag 63:16–39. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.t01-1-00250.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griffiths BS, Ritz K, Wheatley R, Kuan HL, Boag B, Christensen S, Ekelund F, Sorensen SJ, Muller S, Bloem J (2001) An examination of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship in arable soil microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1713–1722. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00094-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Guenet B, Camino-Serrano M, Ciais P, Tifafi M, Maignan F, Soong JL, Janssens IA (submitted) Impact of priming on global carbon emissions from soilsGoogle Scholar
- Henin S, Dupuis M (1945) Essai de balance de la matière organique du sol. Annales Agronomiques 1:6–26Google Scholar
- IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T and Tanabe K (eds). Published: IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental PanelGoogle Scholar
- Janssens IA, Dieleman W, Luyssaert S, Subke JA, Reichstein M, Ceulemans R, Ciais P, Dolman AJ, Grace J, Matteucci G, Papale D, Piao SL, Schulze ED, Tang J, Law BE (2010) Reduction of forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition. Nat Geosci 3:315–322. doi: 10.1038/ngeo844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Joimel S, Cortet J, Jolivet CC, Saby NPA, Chenot ED, Branchu P, Consalès JN, Lefort C, Schwartz C (2016) Physico-chemical characteristics of topsoil for contrasted forest, agricultural, urban and industrial land uses in France. Sci Total Environ 545:40–47. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.035 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jones DL, Edwards AC (1998) Influence of sorption on the biological utilization of two simple carbon substrates. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1895–1902. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00060-1
- Keiluweit M, Nico P, Harmon ME, Mao J, Pett-Ridge J, Kleber M (2015a) Long-term litter decomposition controlled by manganese redox cycling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:5253–5260. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508945112
- Khomo L, Trumbore S, Bern C R, Chadwick O A (2016) Timescales of C turnover in soils with mixed crystalline mineralogies, Kruger National Park, South Africa. SOIL Discussions. doi: 10.5194/soil- 2016-31
- Kleber M, Eusterhues K, Keiluweit M, Mikutta C, Mikutta R, Nico PS (2015) Chapter one—mineral-organic associations: formation, properties, and relevance in soil environments. In: Donald, LS (Ed.), Advances in agronomy. Academic Press, pp 1–140Google Scholar
- Kögel-Knabner I, Guggenberger G, Kleber M, Kandeler E, Kalbitz K, Scheu S, Eusterhues K, Leinweber P (2008) Organo-mineral associations in temperate soils: integrating biology, mineralogy, and organic matter chemistry. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:61–82. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200700048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kowalski AS, Loustau D, Berbigier P, Manca G, Tedeschi V, Borghetti M, Valentini R, Kolari P, Berninger F, Rannik U, Hari P, Rayment M, Mencuccini M, Moncrieff J, Grace J (2004) Paired comparisons of carbon exchange between undisturbed and regenerating stands in four managed forests in Europe. Glob Chang Biol 10:1707–1723. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00846.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kuzyakov Y, Domanski G (2000) Carbon input by plants into the soil. Review Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 163:421–431. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200008)163:4<421::AID-JPLN421>3.0.CO;2-R CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lal R, Augustin B (Eds.) (2011) Carbon sequestration in urban ecosystems. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
- Lal R, Griffin M, Apt J, Lave L, Morgan MG (2004) Managing soil carbon. Science 304:393. doi: 10.1126/science.1093079
- Lange M, Eisenhauer N, Sierra CA, Bessler H, Engels C, Griffiths RI, Mellado-Vázquez PG, Malik AA, Roy J, Scheu S, Steinbeiss S, Thomson BC, Trumbore SE, Gleixner G (2015) Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage. Nat Commun 6:6707. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7707
- Lashermes G, Nicolardot B, Parnaudeau V, Thuries L, Chaussod R, Guillotin ML, Lineres M, Mary B, Metzger L, Morvan T, Tricaud A, Villette C, Houot S (2009) Indicator of potential residual carbon in soils after exogenous organic matter application. Eur J Soil Sci 60:297–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01110.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Le Quéré C, Moriarty R, Andrew RM, Peters GP, Ciais P, Friedlingstein P, Jones SD, Sitch S, Tans P, Arneth A, Boden TA, Bopp L, Bozec Y, Canadell JG, Chini LP, Chevallier F, Cosca CE, Harris I, Hoppema M, Houghton RA, House JI, Jain AK, Johannessen T, Kato E, Keeling RF, Kitidis V, Goldewijk KK, Koven C, Landa CS, Landschutzer P, Lenton A, Lima ID, Marland G, Mathis JT, Metzl N, Nojiri Y, Olsen A, Ono T, Peng S, Peters W, Pfeil B, Poulter B, Raupach MR, Regnier P, Rodenbeck C, Saito S, Salisbury JE, Schuster U, Schwinger J, Seferian R, Segschneider J, Steinhoff T, Stocker BD, Sutton AJ, Takahashi T, Tilbrook B, van der Werf GR, Viovy N, Wang YP, Wanninkhof R, Wiltshire A, Zeng N (2015) Global carbon budget 2014. Earth System Science Data 7:47–85. doi: 10.5194/essd-7-349-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lienhard P, Terrat S, Mathieu O, Levêque J, Chemidlin Prévost-Bouré N, Nowak V, Régnier T, Faivre C, Sayphoummie S, Panyasiri K, Tivet F, Ranjard L, Maron P-A (2013) Soil microbial diversity and C turnover modified by tillage and cropping in Laos tropical grassland. Environ Chem Lett 11:391–398. doi: 10.1007/s10311-013-0420-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Luo Y, Ahlström A, Allison SD, Batjes NH, Brovkin V, Carvalhais N, Chappell A, Ciais P, Davidson EA, Finzi A, Georgiou K, Guenet B, Hararuk O, Harden JW, Il Y, Hopkins F, Jiang L, Koven C, Jackson RB, Jones CD, Lara MJ, Liang J, McGuire AD, Parton W, Peng C, Randerson JT, Salazar A, Sierra CA, Smith MJ, Tian H, Todd-Brown KEO, Déchiré M, van Groenigen KJ, Wang YP, Ouest TO, Wei Y, Wieder WR, Xia J, Xia X, Xiaofeng X, Zhou T (2016) Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by earth system models. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 30:40–56. doi: 10.1002/2015GB005239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lutfalla S (2015) Persistance à long terme des matières organiques dans les sols: caractérisation chimique et contrôle minéralogique. Thèse de doctorat en Sciences de l’Environnement. Université Paris SaclayGoogle Scholar
- von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ludwig B, Matzner E, Flessa H, Ekschmitt K, Guggenberg G, Marschner B, Kalbitz K (2008) Stabilization mechanisms of organic matter in four temperate soils: development and application of a conceptual model. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:111–124. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200700047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Manlay RJ, Freschet GT, Abbadie L, Barbier B, Chotte J-L, Feller C, Leroy M, Serpantié G (2016) Séquestration du C et usage durable des terres en savane ouest-africaine: synergie ou antagonisme? In: Sall S, Bernoux M, Brossard M (Eds.) Carbone des sols d’Afrique et de Madagascar et pratiques de gestionGoogle Scholar
- Marschner B, Brodowski S, Dreves A, Gleixner G, Gude A, Grootes PM, Hamer U, Heim A, Jandl G, Ji R, Kaiser K, Kalbitz K, Kramer C, Leinweber P, Rethemeyer J, Schäffer A, Schmidt MWI, Schwark L, Wiesenberg GLB (2008) How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils? J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:91–110. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200700049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McGill WB (1996) In Evaluation of soil organic matter models, eds Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU (Springer, Rothamsted), pp 111–132Google Scholar
- Mendez-Millan M, Dignac M-F, Rumpel C, Rasse DP, Bardoux G, Derenne S (2012) Contribution of maize root derived-C to soil organic carbon throughout an agricultural soil profile assessed by compound-specific 13C analysis. Org Geochem 42:1502–1511. doi: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Minasny B, Malone BP, McBratney AB, Angers DA, Arrouays D, Chambers A, Chaplot V, Chen Z-S, Cheng K, Das BS, Fielda DJ, Gimona A, Hedley CB, Hong SY, Mandal B, Marchant BP, Martin M, McConkey BG, Mulder VL, O'Rourke S, Richer-de-Forges AC, Odeh I, Padarian J, Paustian K, Pan G, Poggio L, Savin I, Stolbovoy V, Stockmann U, Sulaeman Y, Tsui C-C, Vågen T-G, van Wesemael B, Winowiecki L (2017) Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292:59–86. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moorhead DL, Sinsabaugh RL (2006) A theoretical model of litter decay and microbial interaction. Ecol Monogr 76:151–174. doi: 10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076%5B0151:ATMOLD%5D2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mooshammer M, Wanek W, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Richter A (2014) Stoichiometric imbalances between terrestrial decomposer communities and their resources: mechanisms and implications of microbial adaptations to their resources. Front Microbiol. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00022 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Morriën E, Hannula SE, Snoek LB, Helmsing NR, Zweers H, de Hollander M, Soto RL, Bouffaud ML, Buée M, Dimmers W, Duyts H, Geisen S, Girlanda M, Griffiths RI, Jørgensen HB, Jensen J, Plassart P, Redecker D, Schmelz RM, Schmidt O, Thomson BC, Tisserant E, Uroz S, Winding A, Bailey MJ, Bonkowski M, Faber JH, Martin F, Lemanceau P, de Boer W, van Veen JA, van der Putten WH (2017) Soil networks become more connected and take up more carbon as nature restoration progresses. Nat Commun 8:14349. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14349 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Panettieri M, Rumpel C, Dignac M-F, Chabbi A (2017) Does grassland introduction into cropping cycles affect carbon dynamics through changes of allocation of soil organic matter within aggregate fractions? Sci Total Environ 576:251–263. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.073 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pellerin S, Bamière L, Angers D, Béline F, Benoît M, Butault JP, Chenu C, Colnenne-David C, De Cara S, Delame N, Doreau M, Dupraz P, Faverdin P, Garcia-Launay F, Hassouna M, Hénault C, Jeuffroy MH, Klumpp K, Metay A, Moran D, Recous S, Samson E, Savini I, Pardon L (2013) Quelle contribution de l’agriculture française à la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre? Potentiel d’atténuation et coût de dix actions techniques. Synthèse du rapport d’étude, INRA (France), 92 pGoogle Scholar
- Perveen N, Barot S, Alvarez G, Klumpp K, Martin R, Rapaport A, Herfurth D, Louault F, Fontaine S (2014) Priming effect and microbial diversity in ecosystem functioning and response to global change: a modeling approach using the SYMPHONY model. Glob Chang Biol 20:1174–1190. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12493 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poorter H, Jagodzinski AM, Ruiz-Peinado R, Kuyah S, Luo Y, Oleksyn J, Usoltsev VA, Buckley TN, Reich PB, Sack L (2015) How does biomass distribution change with size and differ among species? An analysis for 1200 plant species from five continents. New Phytol 206:1188–1190. doi: 10.1111/nph.13571 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pöplau C, Don A, Vesterdal L, Leifeld J, Van Wesemael BAS, Schumacher J, Gensior A (2011) Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone-carbon response functions as a model approach. Glob Chang Biol 17:2415–2427. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rémy JC, Marin-Laflèche A (1974) L’analyse de terre: Réalisation d’un programme d’interprétation automatique. Annales Agronomiques 25:607–632Google Scholar
- Roussel O, Bourmeau E, Walter C (2001) Evaluation du déficit en matière organique des sols français et des besoins potentiels en amendements organiques. Etude et Gestion des Sols 8:65–81Google Scholar
- Rumpel C, Baumann K, Remusat L, Dignac M-F, Barré P, Deldicque D, Glasser G, Lieberwirth I, Chabbi A (2015) Nanoscale evidence of contrasted processes for root-derived organic matter stabilization by mineral interactions depending on soil depth. Soil Biol Biochem 85:82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberg G, Janssens IA, Kleber M, Kögel-Knabner I, Lehmann J, Manning M, Nannipieri P, Rasse DP, Weiner S, Trumbore SE (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56. doi: 10.1038/nature10386 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Six J, Jastrow JD (2002) Organic matter turnover. Encyclopedia of Soil Science, pp:936–942Google Scholar
- Soudzilovskaia NA, Douma JC, Akhmetzhanova AA, van Bodegom PM, Cornwell WK, Moens EJ, Treseder KK, Tibbett M, Wang YP, Cornelissen JHC (2015) Global patterns of plant root colonization intensity by mycorrhizal fungi explained by climate and soil chemistry. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:371–382. doi: 10.1111/geb.12272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Steiner C, Blum WEH, Zech W, de Macedo JLV, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Nehls T (2007) Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil 291:275–290. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9193-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tardy V, Spor A, Mathieu O, Leveque J, Terrat S, Plassart P, Regnier T, Bardgett RD, van der Putten WH, Roggero PP, Seddaiu G, Bagella S, Lemanceau P, Ranjard L, Maron PA (2015) Shifts in microbial diversity through land use intensity as drivers of carbon mineralization in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 90:204–213. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thaer A (1811) Principes raisonnés d’agriculture. Traduit de l’allemand par EVB Crud, JJ Prechoud Ed. Paris, 4 t., pp 1811–1816Google Scholar
- Theng BKG (2012) Formation and properties of clay-polymer complexes. Book series: Developments in Clay Science, vol. 4Google Scholar
- Tisdall JM, Oades JM (1982) Organic matter and water stable aggregates in soil. Soil Sci 23:821–825Google Scholar
- Todd-Brown KEO, Randerson JT, Post WM, Hoffman FM, Tarnocai C, Schuur EAG, Allison SD (2013) Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations. Biogeosciences 10:1717–1736. doi: 10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013
- Torn MS, Swanston CW, Castanha C, Trumbore SE (2009) Storage and turnover of organic matter in soil. In: Biophysico-chemical processes involving natural nonliving organic matter in environmental systems (Senesi N, Xing B, Huang PM, eds), Chap 6, pp 219–272, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9780470494950.ch6
- Vogel L, Makowski D, Garnier P, Vieublé-Gonod L, Raynaud X, Nunan N, Coquet Y, Chenu C, Falconer R, Pot V (2015) Modeling the effect of soil meso- and macropores topology on the biodegradation of a soluble carbon substrate. Adv Water Resour 84:87–102. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.05.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ludwig B, Matzner E, Flessa H, Ekschmitt K, Guggenberg G, Marschner B, Kalbitz K (2008) Stabilization mechanisms of organic matter in four temperate soils: Development and application of a conceptual model. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:111–124. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200700047
- Wen Y, Li H, Xiao J, Wang C, Shen Q, Ran W, He X, Zhou Q, Yu G (2014) Insights into complexation of dissolved organic matter and Al(III) and nanominerals formation in soils under contrasting fertilizations using two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy and high resolution-transmission electron microscopy techniques. Chemosphere 111:441–449. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.078 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wertz S, Degrange V, Prosser JI, Poly F, Commeaux C, Guillaumaud N, Le Roux X (2007) Decline of soil microbial diversity does not influence the resistance and resilience of key soil microbial functional groups following a model disturbance. Environ Microbiol 9:2211–2219. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01335.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wieder W, Allison SD, Davidson E, Georgiou K, Hararuk O, He YJ, Hopkins F, Luo YQ, Smith MJ, Sulman B, Todd-Brown K, Wang YP, Xia JY, Xu XF (2015) Explicitly representing soil microbial processes in earth system models. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 29:1782–1800. doi: 10.1002/2015GB005188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar