Liao Yang, Deng Lei, Huang Yuanyuan, Wu Jianzhao, Zheng Wende, Shi Jingwei, Dong Lingbo, Li Jiwei, Yang Feng, Shangguan Zhouping, Kuzyakov Yakov
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Desertification Control, the Research Center of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Education, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
Glob Chang Biol. 2025 Apr;31(4):e70160. doi: 10.1111/gcb.70160.
Improved agricultural practices that restore soil organic carbon (SOC) are recognized as climate solutions, whereas soil inorganic carbon (SIC) is ignored nearly in all practices. Here, we meta-analyzed the joint response of SOC and SIC to six common agricultural practices, i.e., reduced tillage, irrigation, fertilization, residue utilization, reclamation, and restoration. The results demonstrated that the most agricultural practices strongly increased SOC, whereas SIC was less sensitive. SOC and SIC increased synergistically by following practices: Irrigation, biochar application, and improved reclamation. However, "trade-offs" between SOC and SIC due to mineral fertilizer application and restoration to forestland may partly offset soil carbon sequestration. The magnitude of SOC changes decreased with increasing depth, and deep SOC was still responsive to agricultural practices. In contrast, SIC loss occurred mainly in the topsoil, while increases were mainly in the deep soil. By optimizing agricultural practices, we estimated the global potential of carbon sequestration in soil at 1.5 Gt yr. (95% confidence interval: 0.3-2.8), with SOC contributing 1.4 Gt yr., while SIC contributed less (0.1 Gt yr.) due to its losses under some practices. This potential is equivalent to 16% of global fossil fuel emissions. Concluding, this study highlights the potential contribution of SIC in enhancing the integrity of soil-based climate solutions, broadening the scope of carbon management in mitigating climate change.
能够恢复土壤有机碳（SOC）的改良农业实践被视为应对气候变化的措施，而土壤无机碳（SIC）在几乎所有实践中都被忽视。在此，我们对SOC和SIC对六种常见农业实践（即少耕、灌溉、施肥、秸秆利用、开垦和恢复）的联合响应进行了荟萃分析。结果表明，大多数农业实践显著增加了SOC，而SIC的敏感性较低。通过以下实践，SOC和SIC协同增加：灌溉、生物炭施用和改良开垦。然而，由于施用矿物肥料和恢复林地导致的SOC和SIC之间的“权衡”可能会部分抵消土壤碳固存。SOC变化的幅度随深度增加而减小，深层SOC仍对农业实践有响应。相比之下，SIC的损失主要发生在表层土壤，而增加主要发生在深层土壤。通过优化农业实践，我们估计全球土壤碳固存潜力为1.5 Gt yr.（95%置信区间：0.3 - 2.8），其中SOC贡献1.4 Gt yr.，而SIC由于在某些实践下的损失贡献较少（0.1 Gt yr.）。这一潜力相当于全球化石燃料排放量的16%。总之，本研究强调了SIC在增强基于土壤的气候解决方案的完整性方面的潜在贡献，拓宽了碳管理在缓解气候变化方面的范围。
