4.7 Review

Increasing root biomass derived carbon input to agricultural soils by genotype selection - a review

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-023-06068-6

关键词

Root biomass; Root carbon inputs; Root to shoot ratio; Climate change mitigation; Carbon sequestration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimised genotype selection can increase root biomass by 22% and crop yield by 52% without compromising soil organic carbon stocks. This review demonstrates the potential of this approach for increasing carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.
Background and aimsSoil carbon sequestration can play an important role in mitigating climate change. Higher organic C inputs to agricultural soils are needed in order to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. Genotype selection and breeding towards increased root biomass may enhance root C inputs to the soil and could therefore be a promising, easy-to-implement management option for potentially increasing C sequestration. However, an increase in root C inputs may compromise yield, which is not desirable in terms of food security.MethodsData from 13 global studies with field experiments were compiled in order to estimate the potential of optimised genotype selection for enhancing root biomass without compromising the yield of winter wheat, spring wheat, silage maize, winter rapeseed and sunflower. A lack of data on the effect of variety on rhizodeposition was identified which thus had to be excluded.ResultsSystematic genotype selection increased mean yields by 52% and mean root biomass by 22% across all crops and sites. A median root C increase of 6.7% for spring wheat, 6.8% for winter rapeseed, 12.2% for silage maize, 21.6% for winter wheat and 26.4% for sunflower would be possible without a yield reduction.ConclusionOverall, this review demonstrates that optimised genotype selection can be a win-win option for increasing root biomass C input to soil while maintaining or even enhancing yield.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据