It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Grassland management effects on soil organic carbon storage under future climate are unknown. Here we examine the impact of ley grassland durations in crop rotations on soil organic carbon in temperate climate from 2005 to 2100, considering two IPCC scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, with and without atmospheric CO2 enhancements. We used the DailyDayCent model and a long-term experiment to show that ley grasslands increase soil organic carbon storage by approximately 10 Mg ha−1 over 96 years compared with continuous cropping. Surprisingly, extending ley duration from 3 to 6 years does not enhance soil organic carbon. Furthermore, in comparison with non-renewed grasslands, those renewed every three years demonstrated a notable increase in soil organic carbon storage, by 0.3 Mg ha−1 yr−1. We concluded that management of ploughing and renewal intervals is crucial for maximizing soil organic carbon stocks, through balancing biomass carbon inputs during regrowth and carbon losses through soil respiration.
Soil carbon preservation can be enhanced under future climate change by including short duration ley grasslands into crop rotations and adjusting ploughing and ley sowing frequency over continuous grassland, according to process-based modelling and long-term field experiments in western France.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Hunan Agricultural University, College of Environment and Ecology, Changsha, China (GRID:grid.257160.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 1761 0331); Food and Environment (INRAE), Poitou-Charentes, URP3F, French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Lusignan, France (GRID:grid.462306.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0445 7657)
2 Yale University, Yale School of the Environment, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8710)
3 CNRS, Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences (IEES), Paris, France (GRID:grid.4444.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2112 9282)
4 Food and Environment (INRAE), Poitou-Charentes, URP3F, French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Lusignan, France (GRID:grid.462306.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 0445 7657); AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, UMR-ECOSYS Joint research unit INRAE, Paris, France (GRID:grid.460789.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4910 6535)