Agron. Sustain. Dev.

DOI 10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y

REVIEW ARTICLE

Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems.

A review
Klaus Lorenz & Rattan Lal

Accepted: 29 January 2014

# INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2014

Abstract The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) processes contributing to the stabilization of SOC in agro-
concentrations due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion is forestry soils need additional data and research, (4) retro-
contributing to recent climate change which is among the spective studies are often missing for rigorous determina-
major challenges facing the world. Agroforestry systems can tion of SOC and accurate evaluation of effects of different
contribute to slowing down those increases and, thus, contrib- agroforestry practices on SOC sequestration in soil profiles,
ute to climate change mitigation. Agroforestry refers to the and (5) the long-term SOC storage is finite as it depends
production of crop, livestock, and tree biomass on the same on the availability of binding sites, i.e., the soil’s mineral
area of land. The soil organic carbon (SOC) pool, in particular, composition and depth. Based on this improved knowledge,
is the only terrestrial pool storing some carbon (C) for site-specific SOC sequestering agroforestry practices can
millennia which can be deliberately enhanced by agroforestry then be developed.
practices. Up to 2.2 Pg C (1 Pg=1015 g) may be sequestered
above- and belowground over 50 years in agroforestry sys- Keywords Agroforestry systems . Carbon sequestration . Soil
tems, but estimations on global land area occupied by agro- organic carbon . Climate change mitigation . Root-derived
forestry systems are particularly uncertain. Global areas under carbon
tree intercropping, multistrata systems, protective systems,
silvopasture, and tree woodlots are estimated at 700, 100,
Contents
300, 450, and 50 Mha, respectively. The SOC storage in
1. Introduction ....................................................................... 1
agroforestry systems is also uncertain and may amount up to
2. Carbon sequestration ......................................................... 2
300 Mg C ha−1 to 1 m depth. Here, we review and synthesize
3. Importance of trees for soil organic carbon sequestration in
the current knowledge about SOC sequestration processes and
agroforestry systems .......................................................... 3
their management in agroforestry systems. The main points
are that (1) useful C sequestration in agroforestry systems for 3.1 Effects of trees on soil organic carbon ......................... 3
climate change mitigation must slow or even reverse the 3.2 Afforestation effects on soil organic carbon ................ 4
increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 by storing some
4. Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems .................... 5
SOC for millennia, (2) soil disturbance must be minimized
5. Enhancing soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry
and tree species with a high root biomass-to-aboveground
soils .................................................................................... 6
biomass ratio and/or nitrogen-fixing trees planted when SOC
sequestration is among the objectives for establishing the 5.1 Soil organic carbon stabilization ................................. 7
agroforestry system, (3) sequestration rates and the 5.2 Reducing soil organic carbon loss ............................... 8
6. Conclusions ....................................................................... 9
K. Lorenz (*)
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V., Berliner Strasse
130, 14467 Potsdam, Germany 1 Introduction
e-mail: klaus.lorenz@iass-potsdam.de

R. Lal
Global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the
Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, atmosphere increased to about 9.7 Pg carbon (C) (1 Pg=1015 g)
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA in 2012 mainly due to an increase in fossil fuel combustion
 K. Lorenz, R. Lal

(Peters et al. 2013). However, not all of emitted CO2 grouped under the subgroups (a) tree intercropping, (b)
accumulates in the atmosphere as land-based sinks take multistrata systems, (c) silvopasture, (d) protective systems,
up significant amounts, i.e., about 28 % of anthropogenic and (e) agroforestry tree woodlots (Nair and Nair 2014). The
CO2 emissions were taken up on average between 2002 awareness of agroforestry’s potential for climate change adap-
and 2011 (Peters et al. 2012). Managing more efficiently tation and mitigation in boreal and temperate systems is grow-
the carbon (C) flows in agricultural ecosystems can partic- ing (Nair et al. 2008; Schoeneberger et al. 2012).
ularly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Smith et al. Growing agroforestry biomass for biopower and biofuels
2008). Thus, reducing agriculture’s C footprint is central to and thereby replacing fossil fuel has also the potential to
limiting climate change (Vermeulen et al. 2012). Some reduce increases in atmospheric CO2 (Jose and Bardhan
agroforestry systems, in particular, have received increased 2012). Thus, agroforestry has been recognized as having the
attention regarding their net C sequestration effect by their greatest potential for C sequestration of all the land uses
ability to capture atmospheric CO2 and store C in plants analyzed in the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
and soil (Nair 2012a). report of the IPCC (2000). Agroforestry was also included in
Agroforestry refers to the practice of purposeful growing of global programs such as Reducing Emissions from
trees and crops and/or animals, in interacting combinations, Deforestation and Forest Degradation including the role of
for a variety of benefits and services such as increasing crop conservation, sustainable management of forests, and en-
yields, reducing food insecurity, enhancing environmental hancement of forest C stocks (REDD+) related to climate
services, and resilience of agroecosystems (Fig. 1; Ajayi change adaptation and mitigation (Nair and Garrity 2012).
et al. 2011). Both agriculture and forestry are combined into Further, implementation of some agroforestry systems has
an integrated agroforestry system to achieve maximum bene- been recommended to reduce soil erosion and improve water
fits by a greater efficiency in resource such as nutrients, light quality (WBCSD 2010). Agroforestry is a key approach in the
and water capture, and utilization (Kohli et al. 2008). integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation ob-
Agroforestry systems are recognized as an integrated ap- jectives, often generating significant co-benefits for local eco-
proach for sustainable land use aside from their contribution systems and biodiversity, and should be promoted in the
to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Cubbage et al. voluntary and compliance C markets (Matocha et al. 2012;
2013; Nair et al. 2009a; Schoeneberger et al. 2012). Stavi and Lal 2013). While providing project financing and a
Globally, an estimated 700, 100, 300, 450, and 50 Mha of source income to resource-poor farmers and smallholders,
land are used for tree intercropping, multistrata systems, agroforestry practices can make a significant contribution to
protective systems, silvopasture, and tree woodlots, respec- climate change mitigation by C sequestration in vegetation
tively (Nair 2012b). Numerous and diverse agroforestry and soil (FAO 2009). However, designing co-benefit small-
systems are especially practiced in the tropics because of holder agroforestry projects for climate and development is
favorable climatic conditions and various socioeconomic fac- challenging (Anderson and Zerriffi 2012). In conclusion,
tors. Tropical and temperate agroforestry practices can be land-based C sinks including those in agricultural ecosystems
take up about one third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Some practices of agroforestry, i.e., the purposeful growing
of trees and crops and/or animals in interacting combinations,
have received increased attention for their capability to store C
in plants and soil.
The article discusses briefly the meaning of C sequestration
for climate change mitigation, the importance of agroforestry
trees for soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, and com-
pares evidence for C sequestration among different agrofor-
estry systems. It concludes with a discussion of soil and land
use management practices having potential to enhance SOC
sequestration in agroforestry systems.

2 Carbon sequestration

The potential of agroforestry systems for C sequestration

Fig. 1 Agroforestry system in Burkina Faso, West Africa: sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) grown under Faidherbia albida and
depends on the biologically mediated uptake and conversion
Borassus akeassii (photo credit Marco Schmidt; licensed under the Cre- of CO2 into inert, long-lived, C-containing materials, a pro-
ative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license) cess which is called biosequestration (U.S. DOE 2008).
Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems

Biosequestration temporarily removes C from active cycling. increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 by storing some
More generally, C sequestration can be defined as the uptake SOC for more than 10,000 years.
of C-containing substances and, in particular, CO2 into anoth-
er reservoir with a longer residence time (IPCC 2007).
However, it has become customary for the term C sequestra- 3 Importance of trees for soil organic carbon sequestration
tion to imply a contribution to climate change mitigation in agroforestry systems
(Powlson et al. 2011). For this reason, C sequestration in an
agroforestry system must slow or even reverse the increase in Previous terrestrial C sequestration efforts have largely focused
atmospheric concentration of CO2. Thus, movement of C on adaptive management of existing forests and conservation
from one reservoir in the system to another should be appro- tillage of croplands (Perry et al. 2008). However, tree-based
priately termed accumulation, whereas an additional transfer farm practices such as agroforestry systems are a viable C
of C from the atmosphere into a reservoir of the agroforestry sequestering option. Agroforestry systems have, in particular,
system should be termed sequestration as this process is a a higher potential to sequester atmospheric CO2 than the crop-
genuine contribution to climate change mitigation (Powlson lands, pastures, or natural grasslands, i.e., treeless land uses
et al. 2011). However, there is little consensus in the they replace, but effects on SOC vary greatly depending on
literature what the term C sequestration means (Krna and biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics of the system
Rapson 2013). The reasons why a specific agroforestry parameters (Nair et al. 2009a; Nair and Nair 2014). The incor-
practice contributes to C sequestration at a specific site poration of trees, in particular, improves soil properties and can
whereas another practice does not are not well known result in greater net C sequestration (Young 1997).
(Jose and Bardhan 2012).
Some SOC in agroforestry systems may persist for 3.1 Effects of trees on soil organic carbon
millennia indicating that terrestrial sequestration for climate
change mitigation occurs particularly by avoided net SOC Trees have extensive root systems which can grow deep into
losses and the slowly ongoing accumulation of the slowest the mineral soil. The root-derived C inputs are critical sources
SOC pool (Mbow et al. 2014; Schmidt et al. 2011; Wutzler for the SOC pool in deeper soil horizons (Kell 2012).
and Reichstein 2007). However, there is lack of consensus Specifically, root-derived C is more likely to be stabilized in
over the period for which C has to be immobilized in soil the soil by physicochemical interactions with soil particles
before it is considered to be sequestered as a useful contribu- than shoot-derived C (Rasse et al. 2005). For example, the
tion to climate change mitigation (Krna and Rapson 2013; relative root contribution of European beech (Fagus sylvatica
Mackey et al. 2013). For climate change mitigation, C may L.) to SOC was 1.55 times than that of shoots (Scheu and
remain stored not just for 100 years, but probably for more Schauermann 1994). Similarly, in croplands, total root-
than 10,000 years. Specifically, a “pulse” or unit of CO2 derived C contributed between 1.5 times to more than 3 times
emitted to the atmosphere is only fully removed from the more C to SOC than shoot-derived C (Johnson et al. 2006).
atmosphere so that it no longer interacts with the climate Thus, agroforestry systems store more C in deeper soil layers
system when it has completely dissolved in the deep ocean. near trees than away from trees (Nair et al. 2010). However,
This process requires the concurrent dissolution of carbonate quantitative information about belowground C inputs in agro-
from ocean sediments lasting about 5,000 to 10,000 years and forestry systems is scanty (Schroth and Zech 1995).
enhanced weathering of silicate rocks lasting around Aside from deep soil C inputs, another reason for the
100,000 years (Mackey et al. 2013). Thus, SOC sequestration promotion of SOC sequestration in agroforestry systems is
requires that C must persist for very long periods of time in that tree roots have the potential to recover nutrients from
soil by stabilization processes that reduce the probability and, below the crop rooting zone. The resulting enhanced tree
therefore, rate of SOC decomposition. The aim of using and crop plant growth by subsequent increase in nitrogen
agroforestry systems for climate change mitigation should be (N) nutrition may result in an increase in SOC sequestration
reducing SOC losses and enhancing SOC stabilization as the (van Noordwijk et al. 1996). Similar, mixed plantings with N-
SOC pool contains organic matter (OM) with radiocarbon fixing trees may cause higher biomass production and, thus,
ages of 1,000 to more than 10,000 years especially in subsoil SOC sequestration and pools particularly in deeper soil hori-
horizons (Schmidt et al. 2011). This article focuses on the zons as N may promote humification rather than decay, but
relationship between agroforestry practices and SOC seques- SOC and N interactions are not entirely understood (Gärdenäs
tration causing a net additional long-term removal of CO2 et al. 2011; Nair et al. 2009a). Also, changes in microbial
from the atmosphere as this process is a genuine contribution decomposer community composition under N-fixing trees
to climate change mitigation (Stockmann et al. 2013). In may result in greater retention of relatively stable SOC
conclusion, useful C sequestration in agroforestry systems (Resh et al. 2002). N-fixing trees in mixtures with non-N-
for climate change mitigation must slow or even reverse the fixing trees may develop deeper root profiles due to niche
 K. Lorenz, R. Lal

partitioning (da Silva et al. 2009). Mixed tree plantings in cycling of nutrients, soil fertility, and macroclimate (Nair et al.
agroforestry systems may enhance SOC sequestration as in- 2010). However, there are also many possible negative inter-
creases in tree species diversity may potentially result in actions. For example, pests aside from drought, bush fires, or
increases in fine root productivity (Meinen et al. 2009; other biotic or abiotic factors may contribute to poor tree
Schroth 1999). Further, higher species richness and tree den- performance in agroforestry systems in Africa (Sileshi et al.
sity can result in higher SOC contents in agroforestry systems 2007). Further, understory species may be negatively affected
(Saha et al. 2009). In addition to fixing N, fertilizer trees may by the tree presence, and trees and crops may compete for water
recycle the soil’s phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and po- (Burgess et al. 2004). The competitive relationship of tree and
tassium (Ajayi et al. 2011). However, interspecific root com- understory depends, in particular, on edapho-climatic condi-
petition may affect SOC sequestration (Schroth 1999). For tions (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2010; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al.
example, the roots of wheat (Triticum aestivum Linn.) 2009). Allelopathic and disease vectors are other possible
intercropped with jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) trees had negative interactions in agroforestry systems. Allelochemicals
more shallow distribution in the soil profile and smaller root are present in many types of plants and are released into
length densities than mono-cropped wheat (Zhang et al. the soil by a variety of mechanisms (Jose et al. 2004).
2013). In addition, the roots of intercropped jujube trees Mulching with plant residues, in particular, may result in
occupied a comparatively smaller soil space than sole- the liberation of allelochemicals into the soil (John et al.
cropped trees. Decreased soil exploration and apparent root 2006). Allelochemicals affect germination, growth, develop-
competition led to decreases in yield and biomass (Zhang et al. ment, distribution, and reproduction of a number of plant
2013). This may result in decreased soil C inputs but few species (Inderjit and Malik 2002). Most of the tropical
experimental studies have quantified patterns of root distribu- agroforestry species compared by Rizvi et al. (1999) have
tion and their impacts on interspecific interactions in agrofor- negative allelopathic effects on food and fodder crops.
estry systems (Schroth 1999). Allelochemicals may also contribute to pest management
Among the reasons for the positive effects of trees on SOC as trees live long and produce a large amount of leaves
sequestration are that trees modify the quality and quantity of and litter. Thus, species mixtures with no or positive alle-
belowground litter C inputs and modify microclimatic condi- lopathic effects on the companion crops must be created in
tions such as soil moisture and temperature regimes agroforestry systems (Rizvi et al. 1999). Less well studied
(Laganière et al. 2010). Root litter usually decomposes more are allelopathic effects of temperate agroforestry species
slowly than leaf litter of the same species (Cusack et al. 2009). (Jose et al. 2004). However, allelopathic investigations in
Further, hydraulic lift of soil water by roots of a single tree agroforestry systems are often lacking conclusive field verifi-
may enhance soil water uptake by neighboring trees and other cation. For example, separating allelopathic effects of trees
plants in the agroforestry system which may affect SOC from root competition is challenging (John et al. 2006).
sequestration due to an increase in productivity and accelerat-
ed decomposition (Kizito et al. 2006; Liste and White 2008). 3.2 Afforestation effects on soil organic carbon
Trees may have a higher potential for SOC sequestration than
crop and pasture plant species as trees may be associated with Studies about afforestation, i.e., the introduction of trees on
higher proportions of stabilized SOC in deeper mineral soil previously treeless cropland, pasture, or natural grassland,
horizons (Nepstad et al. 1994; Jobbágy and Jackson 2000). may provide some insight on the potential effects of agrofor-
Trees contribute to more C in the relatively stable silt- + clay- estry trees on SOC sequestration. Observations about the
sized, i.e., lower than 53 μm diameter, fractions in deeper soil effects of afforestation on SOC have been synthesized and
profiles than any other agroforestry species (Nair et al. 2009b). reviewed by Post and Kwon (2000), Guo and Gifford (2002),
Further, in surface soil horizons of intensively managed agri- Paul et al. (2002), and Li et al. (2012). In temperate regions,
cultural landscapes, trees potentially reduce SOC losses by afforestation of former cropland caused a long-lasting SOC
reducing soil erosion (Lal 2005). The changes in soil micro- sink but the majority of afforested grasslands lost SOC
bial communities and activities and biodiversity under trees (Poeplau et al. 2011). The SOC changes below 25 cm soil
may also enhance SOC sequestration. For example, the addi- depth followed the trend of changes in 0–25 cm but were
tion of a single tree species to moorland resulted in changes in smaller. Afforestation impacts on subsoil SOC were also
belowground soil microbial communities and in nutrient detected in tropical regions (Don et al. 2011). Specifically, in
cycling (Mitchell et al. 2010). However, field studies on the tropics, SOC increased for both afforested croplands in 0–
the mechanisms and processes associated with C dynamics 44 cm depth and for grasslands in 0–35 cm depth. According
and storage in tree-based systems such as agroforestry to a recent meta-analysis, SOC in 0–10, 10–20, 20–40, 40–60,
systems are scanty. and 60–80 cm were not significantly reduced with afforesta-
The integration of trees into agricultural production systems tion of grassland, but the conversion of cropland to forests,
may create positive interactions such as enhanced productivity, i.e., trees or shrubs, increased SOC significantly for each soil
Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems

depth layer up to 60 cm depth (Shi et al. 2013). However, sustainable practices for harvesting tree biomass must be used
Laganière et al. (2010) showed that conclusions based on the to maintain long-term soil fertility and productivity.
observations of SOC changes by afforestation may be limited
by inappropriate experimental design, sampling methods, and/
or soil analysis techniques. 4 Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems
Laganière et al. (2010) compared afforestation effects
on SOC pools by meta-analysis of observations from Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems occurs in above-
studies designed specifically to test afforestation. ground biomass, i.e., stem, branch, and foliage, and in below-
Afforestation resulted in an increase in SOC pools by ground biomass, i.e., roots, and in soil. Especially, the large
26 % for croplands, but changes for pastures and natu- volume of aboveground biomass and deep root systems of
ral grasslands were not significantly different from zero. trees in agroforestry systems have received increased attention
Soil sampling was probably done too early as it may for climate change adaption and mitigation (Nair 2012a).
take much longer until a new SOC equilibrium in the Further, between 30 and 300 Mg C ha−1 may be stored in
soil profile is reached after plantation establishment. For agroforestry soils up to 1-m depth (Nair et al. 2010). Global
example, it takes more than 100 years after plantation estimates for the C sequestration potential of agroforestry
establishment to create a significant increase in SOC systems over a 50-year period range between 1.1 and 2.2 Pg
pool in the boreal zone (Ritter 2007). Also, tree root C year−1 but, in particular, estimates of land area are highly
systems are generally deeper than the sampling depths uncertain (Dixon 1995). Further, the above- and belowground
for the studies compared by Laganière et al. (2010). vegetation C sequestration potential is highly variable (Nair
Thus, whole profile studies after long periods of time et al. 2009a). In general, agroforestry systems on fertile humid
are needed to accurately determine SOC pool changes sites have higher vegetation C sequestration rates than those
following afforestation (Shi et al. 2013). on arid, semiarid, and degraded sites, and tropical agroforestry
Some effects of tree species on SOC pools were also systems have higher vegetation C sequestration rates than
reported by Laganière et al. (2010). However, effects of plant- temperate agroforestry systems.
ing conifer trees other than Pinus spp. on SOC pools may be Higher SOC pools in agroforestry systems can be particu-
negligible. The planting of N-fixing trees for afforestation can larly achieved by increasing the amount of biomass C returned
increase the SOC pool as indicated by the more than 30 % to the soil and by strengthening soil organic matter (SOM)
increase in SOC pools when N fixers are present in forest stabilization and/or by decreasing the rate of biomass decom-
stands (Johnson and Curtis 2001; Resh et al. 2002). position and SOM destabilization (Lal 2005; Sollins et al.
However, the long-term tree productivity in plantations 2007). Compared to monocultures, agroforestry systems are
and, thus, C inputs to soils may be reduced as trees take more efficient in capturing the resources available at the site
up considerable amounts of nutrients from the soil which for biomass growth and the increased growth may result in
may be partially removed by repeatedly harvesting tree higher C inputs to the soil. Also, direct C inputs to the soil can
biomass (Berthrong et al. 2009). potentially be increased by some agroforestry practices. These
In conclusion, major factors contributing to restoring SOC include (a) returning prunings of woody species to the soil as
pools after afforestation on agricultural soils are previous land mulch and allowing abundant tree litter to decompose on site,
use, tree species, soil clay content, preplanting disturbance, (b) allowing livestock to graze and add dung to the soil, (c)
and, to a lesser extent, climate zone (Laganière et al. 2010). In allowing woody species to grow and add surface and below-
particular, the positive impact of afforestation on SOC pools is ground litter during crop fallow phases, (d) integrating trees
more pronounced in croplands relative to pastures or natural and their litter input in animal production systems, (e)
grasslands. Broadleaf tree species have a greater capacity to allowing litter inputs to the soil from shade-tolerant species
enhance SOC pool, most probably due to their higher root growing under trees, and (f) benefiting from the soil C inputs
biomass-to-aboveground biomass ratio than conifer trees. of agricultural crops grown during early stages of the estab-
Also, soils containing more than 33 % of clay have a greater lishment of forestry plantations. Whether mechanisms of
capacity to enhance SOC than those containing less than 33 % SOM stabilization and destabilization can potentially be af-
(Laganière et al. 2010). Yet, it may take several decades after fected by agroforestry practices is less well known, although
afforestation until effects on SOC pools can be observed in practices that promote the depth transfer of SOM may result in
deeper soil horizons (Shi et al. 2013). Recommendations for higher profile SOC pools as decomposition is slower and the
agroforestry systems are that soil disturbance must be mini- proportion of stabilized SOM is higher in deeper soil layers
mized during tree establishment and tree species with a high (Lorenz and Lal 2005). Otherwise, the rate of biomass decom-
root biomass-to-aboveground biomass ratio and/or N-fixing position can potentially be directly reduced by manipulating
trees should be planted when SOC sequestration is among the litter chemical and physical properties through selection of
objectives for establishing the agroforest. Furthermore, species mixtures in agroforestry systems. For example, lower
 K. Lorenz, R. Lal

decomposition rates are observed when litter is more recalci- Ideally, SOC sequestration in agroforestry systems should
trant, i.e., when it contains larger proportions of biopolymers be reported as rates, i.e., mass SOC per units of area and time.
of higher molecular weight and irregular structure that are less However, SOC sequestration data are mostly reported as
accessible to enzymes and also more hydrophobic (Preston stocks or pools (Nair et al. 2009a). Data on SOC sequestration
et al. 2009a). Higher molecular weight structures include rates for some agroforestry systems are presented in Table 1.
condensed tannins, cutin, lignin, or modified lignin (Preston Although tropical agroforestry systems may have higher
et al. 2009b). However, lignin is generally not preserved SOC sequestration rates, temperate systems may be more
with decomposition or lost only slightly more slowly than effective in soil stabilization of the residue C inputs from tree
other components. Only wood decomposition by brown-rot prunings, litterfall, and crop residues (Oelbermann et al.
fungi causes large relative increases in lignin concentra- 2006). SOC sequestration in agroforestry systems may be
tions (Preston et al. 2009b). Aside from the amount of strengthened when the proportion of the stabilized SOC frac-
recalcitrant material, decomposability of soil C inputs may tion in deeper soil horizons increases (Shi et al. 2013). This
also be related to their C/N ratio and N content (Horwath trend may be the result of major C inputs from the decompo-
2007). However, the formation and stabilization of SOC sition of dead tree roots, root exudates, and associated micro-
may be more controlled by the quantity of litter input and organisms (Lorenz and Lal 2005; Haile et al. 2008). For
its interaction with the soil matrix than by litter quality example, the introduction of slash pine (Pinus elliottii
(Gentile et al. 2011). Englem) in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flueggé) pasture
Agroforesty systems can also be managed for increasing resulted in SOC increases deeper in the soil profile to 125 cm
SOC pools by avoiding burning and conserving soil by min- depth and in increases in relatively stable SOC, i.e., C associ-
imizing soil disturbance due to reduction or cessation of tillage ated with silt + clay in deeper soil horizons (Haile et al. 2010).
operations and by erosion control (Soto-Pinto et al. 2010). The Similarly, the SOC content associated with silt + clay to 1 m
inclusion of trees in perennial crops for alley cropping or depth followed a trend of increasing amount with increasing
hedgerow intercropping can serve as erosion control measures tree density in tropical home gardens in Kerala, India (Saha
(Albrecht and Kandji 2003). Erosional SOC losses can et al. 2010).
directly be reduced by practices which never leave the In conclusion, available results indicate that agroforestry
soil un-vegetated such as improved fallows and Taungya. systems store higher amounts of C above- and belowground
Shelterbets, windbreaks, and riparian buffer strips are other than the single-species cropping and grazing systems they
agroforestry practices with a potential to reduce SOC replace. Thus, agroforestry systems sequester C by an addi-
losses caused by erosion. Further, the occlusion of C in tional net up take of atmospheric CO2 compared to systems
soil macroaggregates is proposed as a major mechanism of replaced but data on the SOC sequestration rates are scanty.
C protection in cacao (Theobroma cacao) agroforest soils
in Brazil (Gama-Rodrigues et al. 2010). The low level of
soil disturbance in these agroforestry systems may, thus, 5 Enhancing soil organic carbon sequestration
promote SOC stabilization. in agroforestry soils
The C sequestration in soils varies widely depending on the
agroforestry system but the number of published studies is The management of integrated tree, livestock, and crop pro-
small (Nair et al. 2009a). For example, SOC pools ranged duction systems may alter rate and magnitude of C sequestra-
from 1.25 Mg C ha−1 in the top 40 cm of a 13-year-old alley tion, but rigorous datasets are required to identify the under-
cropping system in Southern Canada to 173 Mg C ha−1 in the lying mechanisms for improved agroforestry practices aimed
top 100 cm of 10- to 16-year-old silvopastoral systems at the at SOC sequestration (Nair et al. 2010). For example, net
Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica (Amézquita et al. 2005; increases in the SOC pool may be managed through selection
Oelbermann et al. 2006). Very high SOC pools of 302 Mg C of agroforestry systems and soil management practices that
ha−1 to 100 cm depth have been reported for 30-year-old cacao affect the amount and quality of C inputs especially below-
agroforestry systems in Brazil (Gama-Rodrigues et al. 2010). ground by tree and non-tree components (Nair et al. 2009a).
Compared to other land use practices with the exception of Litter fall and in turn SOC sequestration may be affected by
forests, agroforestry systems have higher SOC contents and stand-density management as, for example, higher stocking
can be ranked in the order forests higher than agroforestry levels of trees enhance the vegetation C pool (Nair et al.
systems higher than tree plantations higher than arable crops 2010). In contrast, thinning and pruning of trees may reduce
(Nair et al. 2009a). However, agroforestry systems may not be SOC sequestration by reducing litter fall and accelerating
superior to traditional systems in avoiding SOC loss during decomposition due to changes in understory light, air/soil
initial phases after converting forest for agricultural land use, temperature, and soil moisture regimes. However, processes
but the agroforestry system offers a greater potential to leading to SOC stabilization and sequestration are not
improve soil fertility and biological health. completely understood. Monitoring and predicting changes
Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems

Table 1 Soil organic carbon sequestration rates (in megagrams of C per hectare per year) in some agroforestry systems

Agroforestry system/species Location Age Soil Sequestration rate Reference

(years) depth (cm) (Mg C ha−1 year−1)

Alley cropping system: hybrid poplar Southern Canada 13 0–20 0.30 Oelbermann et al. (2006)
(Populus deltoides × nigra DN-177) + wheat 0–40 0.39
(Triticum aestivum L.), soybean (Glycine max L.),
and maize (Zea mays L.) rotation
Intercropping system: Norway spruce (Picea abies L.) + Southern Canada 13 0–20 0 Calculated from Peichl et al.
barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. OAC Kippen) (2006)
Intercropping system: hybrid poplar + barley Southern Canada 13 0–20 1.04 Calculated from Peichl et al.
(2006)
Alley cropping system: Erythrina poeppigiana (Walp.) Costa Rica 19 0–20 1.79 Oelbermann et al. (2006)
O.F. Cook + maize and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) 0–40 2.34 Oelbermann et al. (2006)
Multistrata agroforest: cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) + Costa Rica 10 0–45 4.16 Calculated from Beer et al.
Erythrina poeppigiana (Walp.) O.F. Cook (1990)
Multistrata agroforest: cacao + Cordia alliodora Costa Rica 10 0–45 1.55 Calculated from Beer et al.
(Ruiz & Pav.) Oken (1990)
Multistrata agroforest: cacao + canopy trees Ghana, West Africa 15 0–15 −0.39a Calculated from Isaac et al.
(2005)
25 0–15 0.06 Calculated from Isaac et al.
(2005)
a
Soil organic carbon loss

in the SOC pool can be challenging given the slow rate at soil aggregates, i.e., the light fraction organic C, matches the
which changes occur (Jandl et al. 2014). The full impact of depth distribution of roots (Schrumpf et al. 2013). The relative
agroforestry management, for example, can often take de- importance of root litter and rhizodeposition versus other
cades to become apparent. Thus, a long-term monitoring incorporation processes for profile SOC distribution and dy-
approach coupled to a modeling approach is required. Soil C namics depend on climate, soil, and vegetation types (Rumpel
models of different complexity are available. However, the and Kögel-Knabner 2011). However, inventory data on root
fact that long-term agroforestry system experiments are rarely biomass are uncertain due to spatial and temporal heterogene-
replicated may limit the confidence in SOC model predictions ity, uneven sampling, and methodological differences among
(Jandl et al. 2014). studies. The fine root turnover transfers a large fraction of net
primary production into soil but published estimates on fine
5.1 Soil organic carbon stabilization root turnover time differ more than fivefold which may also be
the result in differences in methods (Guo et al. 2008). Thus,
The SOC sequestration depends primarily on the soil C input estimates of the belowground C inputs from plant root litter to
and soil stabilization processes. Plant root and rhizosphere SOC are uncertain (Denef and Six 2006).
inputs, in particular, make a large contribution to SOC Rhizodeposition describes the release of organic C com-
(Schmidt et al. 2011). However, the link between plant litter pounds by roots (Jones et al. 2009). Most isotopic labeling
quality and SOC is not well understood (Torn et al. 2009). studies used to quantify the amount of C fixed by plant
Accumulation of SOC is mainly the result of partial degrada- photosynthesis partitioned belowground have focused on
tion, microbial products, and fire residues rather than humic young plants at a vegetative stage but partitioning is strongly
substances. Physical disconnection, e.g., from enzymes, de- affected by plant age. Further, almost half of the published
composers, electron acceptors, and sorption/desorption, i.e., data on rhizodeposition are for wheat (Triticum spp.) and
organomineral associations, and freezing/thawing govern ryegrass (Lolium spp.), and 76 % of the studies are related to
SOC cycling and these processes are shaped by environmental only five crop/grassland species. Thus, the knowledge of C
conditions (Schmidt et al. 2011). rhizodeposition and, in particular, those of mixed plant com-
Some surface residue C may be incorporated into the munities such as agroforestry systems is scanty. The rigorous
mineral soil by physical mixing and solubilisation, transport, quantification of C sequestration in agroforestry soils is partic-
and subsequent adsorption (Lorenz and Lal 2005). Plant roots, ularly hampered by the fact that the amount of rhizodeposition
i.e., litter and rhizodeposition, are the primary vector for most by trees is virtually unknown (Jones et al. 2009).
C entering the SOC pool (Rasse et al. 2005). Thus, the depth Adsorption of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil
distribution of organic residues residing inside and outside of profiles is another direct belowground C input but represents
 K. Lorenz, R. Lal

only a small portion of profile SOC as the majority of DOC is binding sites, i.e., the soil’s mineral composition and depth.
ultimately returned to the atmosphere as CO2 (Bolan et al. Thus, the long-term SOC storage is finite (Schrumpf et al.
2011). Throughfall, stemflow, recently deposited litter includ- 2013).
ing crop residues, humus, and application of organic amend-
ments such as manure and biosolids are important DOC 5.2 Reducing soil organic carbon loss
sources in agroforestry systems. Retention of DOC in subsoils
is related to the concentration of poorly crystalline iron and The biomass C input to the soil in agroforestry systems can be
aluminum (hydr)oxides with a high specific surface area. increased and its decomposition rate decreased by adoptions
Thus, DOC translocation contributes to the formation of of conservation-effective measures that reduce losses of nutri-
mineral-bound SOC in the subsoil (Schrumpf et al. 2013). ents and water, increase biomass production, and protect SOC
Some DOC may also leach from soils into adjacent aquatic against losses through enhancing biological, chemical, and
ecosystems (Bolan et al. 2011). The C leaching losses may be physical stabilization mechanisms (Lal and Follett 2009).
particularly important for the C balance of agroforestry sys- Thus, a decrease in cultivation intensity may result in an
tems (Kindler et al. 2011). increase in SOC levels in agroforestry systems (Nair et al.
The SOC stability is an ecosystem property as it depends 2010). Similar to other agricultural systems, adding amend-
on the biotic and abiotic environment (Schmidt et al. 2011). In ments such as fertilizers and composts, supplying water
contrast, the molecular structure of plant inputs and OM plays through irrigation, and incorporating organic residues into soil
only a secondary role in determining SOC residence times may enhance SOC sequestration in agroforestry systems.
over decades to millennia. However, microbially derived ma- However, fertilization studies on most tropical tree species
terials may play a crucial role in SOC stabilization (Kleber are scanty hampering any conclusions on fertilization effects
et al. 2011). The SOC turnover appears to be a function of (Nair et al. 2010). Nevertheless, manure additions may influ-
microbial ecology and the resource availability within a given ence formation and stability of soil aggregates in agroforestry
physical soil environment. Thus, processes which slow down soils. Also, while herbicide applications show mixed effects
mineralization are major centennial-scale stabilization mech- on SOC levels and aggregation, there is little information
anisms for SOC (Sanderman et al. 2010). The two important about the effects of pesticides on SOC sequestration (Nair
groups of processes for long-term stabilization of SOC are (a) et al. 2010). In summary, the effects of more active and
processes which lead to physical protection, rendering OM improved management practices on SOC in agroforestry sys-
spatially inaccessible to decomposers or their water-soluble tems are site-specific.
degradative enzymes, and (b) organomineral complexes and Multispecies agroforestry systems have the potential to be
organo-metal interactions, i.e., interactions of OM with min- more productive than the best-performing monocultures and,
erals, metal ions, and other organic substances (von Lützow thus, may sequester more SOC due to enhanced belowground
et al. 2006). Physical protection may retard decomposition for interactions but the experimental evidence is not yet conclu-
decades to centuries, whereas organomineral complexes or sive (Ong et al. 2004; Rao et al. 2004). The management of
organo-metal interactions may be responsible for stabilization agroforestry systems for SOC sequestration includes the se-
of most of the non-charred SOC for centuries to millennia lection of tree species and their silvicultural management such
(Kögel-Knabner et al. 2008). However, biochemical recalci- as stand density and rotation length (Nair et al. 2009a).
trance and physical protection may allow SOC to remain in Functionally important tree species, i.e., those having deep
the soil longer, giving time for organomineral complexes to and extensive root systems to enhance C input into the soil,
form (Six et al. 2000). Thus, stabilization of SOC in agrofor- may have a high potential to enhance SOC sequestration in
estry systems is a combination of these short- and long-term agroforestry systems (Kell 2012; Lorenz and Lal 2010).
processes (Nair et al. 2010). Any disruption of the stabilization Broadleaf trees, in particular, have a larger and more deeply
process may result in the decomposition of SOC even if its anchored root system, i.e., higher root biomass/aboveground
thousands of years old (Ewing et al. 2006). In summary, the biomass ratios than coniferous tree species, and may, there-
persistence of SOC is largely due to complex interactions fore, generate higher SOC inputs from roots at soil depth
between SOC and its environment, such as the interdepen- (Laganière et al. 2010). Further, palms may have particularly
dence of compound chemistry, reactive mineral surfaces, cli- large and heavy root systems (Schroth et al. 2002). However,
mate, water availability, soil acidity, soil redox state, and the data on belowground inputs form agroforestry palm and tree
presence of potential degraders in the immediate microenvi- species are scanty (Albrecht et al. 2004). Thus, similar to other
ronment (Schmidt et al. 2011). The most important factor in trees, it is not known whether agroforest tree species differ in
SOC stabilization is probably the association with soil min- their ability to sequester SOC in deeper mineral soils (Jandl
erals, irrespective of vegetation, soil type, and land use. Unless et al. 2007). Otherwise, mixed plantings including N-fixing
other environmental constraints hamper decomposition, the trees produce more biomass and this may result in increased
SOC storage capacity will depend on the availability of SOC sequestration (Nair et al. 2009a). However, positive,
Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems

negative, and neutral effects of N-fixing trees on SOC accre- forests in four regions of the Latin American tropics. J Sustain For
21:31–49. doi:10.1300/J091v21n01
tion are reported. Thus, appropriate tree species must be
Anderson EK, Zerriffi H (2012) Seeing the trees for the carbon: agrofor-
selected to enhance SOC sequestration (Oelbermann et al. estry for development and carbon mitigation. Clim Chang 115:741–
2006). Whether mixed tree plantings in agroforestry systems 757. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0456-y
enhance SOC sequestration is also unknown as manipulative Beer J, Bonnemann A, Chavez W, Fassbender HW, Imbach AC,
Martel I (1990) Modelling agroforestry systems of cacao
biodiversity experiments with multiple tree species are scanty
(Theobroma cacao) with laurel (Cordia alliodora) or poro
(Scherer-Lorenzen et al. 2005). In conclusion, it remains to be (Erythrina poeppigiana) in Costa Rica. Agrofor Syst 12:
studied whether agroforestry systems can be specifically de- 229–249. doi:10.1007/BF00137286
signed and managed to maximize the belowground C seques- Berthrong ST, Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2009) A global meta-analysis of
soil exchangeable cations, pH, carbon, and nitrogen with afforesta-
tration in the soil by more fully exploring the C storage
tion. Ecol Appl 19:2228–2241. doi:10.1890/08-1730.1
potential in the entire mineral soil through the inclusion of Bolan NS, Adriano DC, Kunhikrishnan A, James T, McDowell R, Senesi
trees and their associated root-derived C inputs. N (2011) Dissolved organic matter: biogeochemistry, dynamics, and
environmental significance in soils. Adv Agron 110:1–75. doi:10.
1016/B978-0-12-385531-2.00001-3
Burgess PJ, Incoll LD, Corry DT, Beaton A, Hart BJ (2004) Poplar
6 Conclusions (Populus spp) growth and crop yields in a silvoarable experiment
at three lowland sites in England. Agrofor Syst 63:157–169. doi:10.
1007/s10457-004-7169-9
The old practice of agroforestry for achieving maximum ag- Cubbage F, Balmelli G, Bussoni A, Noellemeyer E, Pachas AN, Fassola H,
ronomic benefits by a greater efficiency in resource, i.e., Colcombet L, Rossner B, Frey G, Dube F, de Silva ML, Stevenson H,
nutrients, light and water capture, and utilization, has recently Hamilton J, Hubbard W (2013) Comparing silvopastoral systems and
prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor Syst 86:303–314.
received increased attention due to perceived contribution to
doi:10.1007/s10457-012-9582-z
climate change mitigation by SOC sequestration. The inclu- Cusack DF, Chou WW, Yang WH, Harmon ME, Silver WL, The LIDET
sion of trees, i.e., N-fixing, may specifically enhance SOC Team (2009) Controls on long-term root and leaf litter decomposi-
storage in agroforestry systems. In addition to climate bene- tion in neotropical forests. Glob Chang Biol 15:1339–1355. doi:10.
1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01781.x
fits, agroforestry can deliver benefits for rural development.
da Silva EV, de Moraes Gonçalves JL, de Frietas Coelho SR, Moreira
However, observed SOC sequestration rates are particularly RM, de Miranda Mello SL, Bouillet JP, Jourdan C, Laclau J-P
highly variable and only a very limited number of field exper- (2009) Dynamics of fine root distribution after establishment of
iments have been specifically designed to rigorously test the monospecific and mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus grandis
and Acacia mangium. Plant Soil 325:305–318. doi:10.1007/s11104-
effects of agroforestry practices on SOC. Not before SOC
009-9980-6
sequestration processes in soil profiles are understood can Denef K, Six J (2006) Contributions of incorporated residue and living
land use and soil management practices be recommended for roots to aggregate-associated and microbial carbon in two soils with
site-specific SOC sequestration in agroforestry systems. different clay mineralogy. Eur J Soil Sci 57:774–786. doi:10.1111/j.
1365-2389.2005.00762.x
Dixon RK (1995) Agroforestry systems: sources or sinks of greenhouse
Acknowledgments Klaus Lorenz greatly acknowledges the research gases? Agrofor Syst 31:99–116. doi:10.1007/BF00711719
fellowship granted by “Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung” Don A, Schumacher J, Freibauer A (2011) Impact of tropical land-use
and its platform “Forschung für Nachhaltigkeit”, and by “Ministerium für change on soil organic carbon stocks—a meta-analysis. Glob Chang
Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur, Land Brandenburg.” Biol 17:1658–1670. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.x
Ewing SA, Sandermann J, Baisden WT, Wang Y, Amundson R (2006)
Role of large-scale soil structure in organic carbon turnover: evi-
dence from California grassland soils. J Geophys Res 111, G03012.
References doi:10.1029/2006JG000174
FAO (2009) Enabling agriculture to contribute to climate change mitiga-
tion. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Ajayi OC, Place F, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi GW (2011) Agricultural Rome, FAO submission to the UNFCCC
success from Africa: the case of fertilizer tree systems in southern Gama-Rodrigues EF, Nair PKR, Nair VD, Gama-Rodrigues AC, Baligar
Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe). VC, Machado RCR (2010) Carbon storage in soil size fractions
Int J Agric Sustain 9:129–136. doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0554 under two cacao agroforestry systems in Bahia, Brazil. Environ
Albrecht A, Kandji ST (2003) Carbon sequestration in tropical agrofor- Manag 45:274–283. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9420-7
estry systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99:15–27. doi:10.1016/ Gärdenäs AI, Ågren GI, Bird JA, Clarholm M, Hallin S, Ineson P,
S0167-8809(03)00138-5 Kätterer T, Knicker H, Nilsson SI, Näsholm T, Ogle S, Paustian K,
Albrecht A, Cadisch G, Blanchart E, Sitompul SM, Vanlauwe B (2004) Persson T, Stendahl J (2011) Knowledge gaps in soil carbon and
Below-ground inputs: relationships with soil quality, soil C storage nitrogen interactions—from molecular to global scale. Soil Biol
and soil structure. In: van Noordwijk M, Cadisch G, Ong CK (eds) Biochem 43:702–717. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.04.006
Below-ground interactions in tropical agroecosystems—concepts Gentile R, Vanlauwe B, Six J (2011) Litter quality impacts short- but not
and models with multiple plant components. CABI, Wallingford, long-term soil carbon dynamics in soil aggregate fractions. Ecol
pp 193–207 Appl 21:695–703
Amézquita MC, Ibrahim M, Llanderal T, Buurman P, Amézquita E Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a
(2005) Carbon sequestration in pastures, silvopastoral systems and meta analysis. Glob Chang Biol 8:345–360
 K. Lorenz, R. Lal

Guo D, Li H, Mitchell RJ, Han W, Hendricks JJ, Fahey TJ, Hendrick RL crucial component of the net ecosystem carbon balance. Glob Chang
(2008) Fine root heterogeneity by branch order: exploring the dis- Biol 17:1167–1185. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02282.x
crepancy in root turnover estimates between minirhizotron and Kizito F, Dragila M, Sène M, Lufafa A, Diedhiou I, Dick RP, Selker JS,
carbon isotopic methods. New Phytol 177:443–456. doi:10.1111/j. Dossa E, Khouma M, Badiane A, Ndiaye S (2006) Seasonal soil
1469-8137.2007.02242.x water variation and root patterns between two semi-arid shrubs co-
Haile SG, Nair PKR, Nair VD (2008) Carbon storage of different soil-size existing with Pearl millet in Senegal, West Africa. J Arid Environ
fractions in Florida silvopastoral systems. J Environ Qual 37:1789– 67:436–455. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.02.021
1797. doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0509 Kleber M, Nico PS, Plante A, Filley T, Kramer M, Swanston C, Sollins P
Haile SG, Nair VD, Nair PKR (2010) Contribution of trees to carbon (2011) Old and stable soil organic matter is not necessarily chemi-
storage in soils of silvopastoral systems in Florida, USA. Global cally recalcitrant: implications for modeling concepts and tempera-
Chang Biol 16:427–438. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01981.x ture sensitivity. Glob Chang Biol 17:1097–1107. doi:10.1111/j.
Horwath W (2007) Carbon cycling and formation of soil organic matter. 1365-2486.2010.02278.x
In: Paul EA (ed) Soil microbiology, ecology, and biochemistry. Kögel-Knabner I, Guggenberger G, Kleber M, Kandeler E, Kalbitz K,
Academic, Burlington, pp 303–339 Scheu S, Eusterhues K, Leinweber P (2008) Organo-mineral asso-
Inderjit, Malik AU (2002) Chemical ecology of plants: allelopathy in ciations in temperate soils: integrating biology, mineralogy and
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Birkhäuser-Verlag, Berlin organic matter chemistry. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:61–82. doi:10.
IPCC (2000) Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Cambridge 1002/jpln.200700048
University Press, Cambridge, p 375, A special report of the IPCC Kohli RK, Singh HP, Batish DR, Jose S (2008) Ecological interactions in
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. In: Core Writing agroforestry: an overview. In: Batish DR, Kohli RK, Jose S, Singh
Team, Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds) Contribution of working HP (eds) Ecological basis of agroforestry. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergov- pp 3–14
ernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Geneva Krna MA, Rapson GL (2013) Clarifying ‘carbon sequestration’. Carbon
Isaac ME, Gordon AM, Thevathasan NV, Oppong SK, Quashi-Sam J Manag 4:309–322
(2005) Temporal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen in west Laganière J, Angers D, Paré D (2010) Carbon accumulation in agricul-
African multistrata agroforestry systems: a chronosequence of tural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 16:
pools and fluxes. Agrofor Syst 65:23–31. doi:10.1007/s10457- 439–453. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01930.x
004-4187-6 Lal R (2005) Soil carbon sequestration in natural and managed tropical
Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdahl L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, forest ecosystems. J Sustain For 21:1–30. doi:10.1300/J091v21n01_01
Johnson DW, Minkkinen K, Byrne KA (2007) How strongly can Lal R, Follett RF (2009) Soils and climate change. In: Lal R, Follett RF
forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma (eds) Soil carbon sequestration and the greenhouse effect. SSSA
137:253–268. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003 Special Publication 57, 2nd edn. Madison, WI, xxi-xxviii
Jandl R, Rodeghiero M, Martinez C, Cotrufo MF, Bampa F, van Li D, Niu S, Luo Y (2012) Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon
Wesemael B, Harrison RB, Guerrini IA, de Richter DD, Rustad L, and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New
Lorenz K, Chabbi A, Miglietta F (2014) Current status, uncertainty Phytol 195:172–181. doi:10.1111/j.1469·8137,2012.04150.x
and future needs in soil organic carbon monitoring. Sci Total Liste HH, White JC (2008) Plant hydraulic lift of soil water—implica-
Environ 468–469:376–383. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.026 tions for crop production and land restoration. Plant Soil 313:1–17.
Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2000) The vertical distribution of soil doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9696-z
organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Lorenz K, Lal R (2005) The depth distribution of soil organic carbon in
Appl 10:423–436 relation to land use and management and the potential of carbon
John J, Patil RH, Joy M, Nair AM (2006) Methodology of allelopathy sequestration in subsoil horizons. Adv Agron 88:35–66. doi:10.
research: 1. Agroforestry systems. Allelopathy J 18:173–214 1016/S0065-2113(05)88002-2
Johnson DW, Curtis PS (2001) Effects of forest management on soil C Lorenz K, Lal R (2010) Carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems.
and N storage: meta analysis. For Ecol Manag 140:227–238 Springer, Dordrecht
Johnson JMF, Allmaras RR, Reicosky DC (2006) Estimating source Mackey B, Prentice IC, Steffen W, House JI, Lindenmayer D, Keith H,
carbon from crop residues, roots and rhizodeposits using the nation- Berry S (2013) Untangling the confusion around land carbon sci-
al grain-yield database. Agron J 98:622–636. doi:10.2134/ ence and climate change mitigation policy. Nat Clim Chang 3:552–
agronj2005.0179 557. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1804
Jones DL, Nguyen C, Finlay RD (2009) Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: Matocha J, Schroth G, Hills T, Hole D (2012) Integrating climate change
carbon trading at the soil-root interface. Plant Soil 321:5–33. doi:10. adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry and ecosystem con-
1007/s11104-009-9925-0 servation. In: Nair PKR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry—the future of
Jose S, Bardhan S (2012) Agroforestry for biomass production and global land use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 105–126
carbon sequestration: an overview. Agrofor Syst 86:105–111. doi: Mbow C, Smith P, Skole D, Duguma L, Bustamante M (2014) Achieving
10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable
Jose S, Gillespie AR, Pallardy SG (2004) Interspecific interactions in agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:8–
temperate agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 61:237–255. doi:10.1023/ 14. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002
B:AGFO.0000029002.85273.9b Meinen C, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2009) Root growth and recovery in
Kell DB (2012) Large-scale sequestration of atmospheric carbon via plant temperate broad-leaved forest stands differing in tree species diver-
roots in natural and agricultural ecosystems: why and how. Philos sity. Ecosystems 12:1103–1116. doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9271-3
Trans R Soc B 367:1589–1597. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0244 Mitchell RJ, Campbell CD, Chapman SJ, Cameron CM (2010) The
Kindler R, Siemens J, Kaiser K, Walmsley DC, Bernhofer C, Buchmann ecological engineering impact of a single tree species on the soil
N, Cellier P, Eugster W, Gleixner G, Grûnwald T, Heim A, Ibrom A, microbial community. J Ecol 98:50–61. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.
Jones SK, Jones M, Klumpp K, Kutsch W, Larsen KS, Lehuger S, 2009.01601.x
Loubet B, McKenzie R, Moor E, Osborne B, Pilegaard K, Rebmann Mosquera-Losada MR, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A
C, Saunders M, Schmidt MWI, Schrumpf M, Seyfferth J, Skiba U, (2010) Fertilization in pastoral and Pinus radiata D. Don silvopastoral
Soussana J-F, Sutton MA, Tefs C, Vowinckel B, Zeeman MJ, systems developed in forest and agronomic soils of Northwest Spain.
Kaupenjohann M (2011) Dissolved carbon leaching from soil is a Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:618–628
Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems

Nair PKR (2012a) Carbon sequestration studies in agroforestry sys- Powlson DS, Whitmore AP, Goulding KWT (2011) Soil carbon seques-
tems: a reality-check. Agrofor Syst 86:243–253. doi:10.1007/ tration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to iden-
s10457-011-9434-z tify the true and the false. Eur J Soil Sci 62:42–55. doi:10.1111/j.
Nair PKR (2012b) Climate change mitigation: a low-hanging fruit of 1365-2389.2010.01342.x
agroforestry. In: Nair PKR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry—the future Preston CM, Nault JR, Trofymow JA (2009a) Chemical changes during
of global land use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 31–67 6 years of decomposition of 11 litters in some Canadian forest sites.
Nair PKR, Garrity D (2012) Agroforestry research and development: the Part 2. 13C abundance, solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy and the
way forward. In: Nair PKR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry—the meaning of “lignin”. Ecosystems 12:1078–1102. doi:10.1007/
future of global land use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 515–531 s10021-009-9267-z
Nair PKR, Nair VD (2014) ‘Solid–fluid–gas’: the state of knowledge Preston CM, Nault JR, Trofymow JA, Smyth C, Working Group CIDET
on carbon-sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in (2009b) Chemical changes during 6 years of decomposition of 11
Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:22–27. doi:10.1016/j.cosust. litters in some Canadian forest sites. Part 1. Elemental composition,
2013.07.014 tannins, phenolics, and proximate fractions. Ecosystems 12:1053–
Nair PKR, Gordon AM, Mosquera-Losada MR (2008) Agroforestry. In: 1077. doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9266-0
Jorgensen SE, Fath BD (eds) Ecological engineering, encyclopedia Rao MR, Schroth G, Williams SE, Namirembe S, Schaller M, Wilson J
of ecology, vol. 1. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 101–110 (2004) Managing below-ground interactions in agroecosystems. In:
Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009a) Agroforestry as a strategy for Ong CK, Huxely P (eds) Tree-crop interactions, a physiological
carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23. doi:10.1002/ approach. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 309–328
jpln.200800030 Rasse DP, Rumpel C, Dignac MF (2005) Is soil carbon mostly root
Nair PKR, Nair V, Gama-Rodrigues E, Garcia R, Haile S, Howlett D, carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilization. Plant Soil 269:
Kumar BM, Mosquera-Losada MR, Saha S, Takimoto A, Tonucci R 341–356. doi:10.1007/s11104-004-0907-y
(2009b) Soil carbon in agroforestry systems: an unexplored trea- Resh SC, Binkley D, Parrotta JA (2002) Greater soil carbon sequestration
sure?. Available from Nature Proceedings <http://hdl.handle.net/ under nitrogen-fixing trees compared with Eucalyptus species.
10101/npre.2009.4061.1> (2009) Ecosystems 5:217–231. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0067-3
Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM (2010) Carbon seques- Rigueiro-Rodríguez A, Fernández-Núñez E, González-Hernández P,
tration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron 108:237–307. doi:10. McAdam JH, Mosquera-Losada MR (2009) Agroforestry systems
1016/S0065-2113(10)08005-3 in Europe: productive, ecological and social perspectives. In:
Nepstad DC, De Carvalhot CR, Davidson EA, Jipp PH, Lefebvre PA, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A, McAdam J, Mosquera-Losada MR (eds)
Negreiros GH, Da Silva ED, Stone TA, Trumbore SE, Vieira S Agroforestry in Europe. Current status and future prospects.
(1994) The role of deep roots in the hydrological and carbon cycles Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–66
of Amazonian forests and pastures. Nature 372:666–669 Ritter E (2007) Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in volcanic soils fol-
Oelbermann M, Voroney RP, Gordon AM, Kass DCL, Schlönvoigt AM, lowing afforestation with native birch (Betula pubescens) and intro-
Thevathasan NV (2006) Soil carbon dynamics and residue stabili- duced larch (Larix sibirica) in Iceland. Plant Soil 295:239–251. doi:
zation in a Costa Rican and southern Canadian alley cropping 10.1007/s11104-007-9279-4
system. Agrofor Syst 68:27–36. doi:10.1007/s10457-005-5963-7 Rizvi SJH, Tahir M, Rizvi V, Kohli RK, Ansari A (1999) Allelopathic
Ong CK, Kho RM, Radersma S (2004) Ecological interactions in multi- interactions in agroforestry systems. Crit Rev Plant Sci 19:773–796.
species agroecosystems: concepts and rules. In: Ong CK, Huxely P doi:10.1080/07352689991309487
(eds) Tree-crop interactions, a physiological approach. CAB Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I (2011) Deep soil organic matter—a key but
International, Wallingford, pp 1–15 poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338:
Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK (2002) Change in 143–158. doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0391-5
soil carbon following afforestation. For Ecol Manag 168:241–257. Saha SK, Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM (2009) Soil carbon stock in
doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00740-X relation to plant diversity of homegardens in Kerala, India. Agrofor
Peichl M, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Huss J, Abohassan RA (2006) Syst 76:53–65. doi:10.1007/s10457-009-9228-8
Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based intercropping Saha SK, Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM (2010) Carbon storage in
systems, southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 66:243–257. doi:10. relation to soil size-fractions under tropical tree-based land-use
1007/s10457-005-0361-8 systems. Plant Soil 328:433–446. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0123-x
Perry CH, Woodall CW, Liknes GC, Schoeneberger MM (2008) Filling Sanderman J, Farquharson R, Baldock J (2010) Soil carbon sequestration
the gap: improving estimates of working tree resources in agricul- potential: a review for Australian agriculture—a report prepared for
tural landscapes. Agrofor Syst 75:91–101. doi:10.1007/s10457-008- Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, CSIRO Land
9125-6 and Water. http://www.csiro.au/resources/Soil-Carbon-Sequestration-
Peters GP, Marland G, Le Quéré C, Boden T, Canadell JG, Raupach MR Potential-Report.html
(2012) Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008–2009 Scherer-Lorenzen M, Potvin C, Koricheva J, Schmid B, Hector A,
global financial crisis. Nat Clim Chang 2:2–4. doi:10.1038/ Bornik Z, Reynolds G, Schulze E-D (2005) The design of
nclimate1332 experimental tree plantations for functional biodiversity research.
Peters GP, Andrew RM, Boden T, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, In: Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze E-D (eds) Forest
Marland G, Raupach MR, Wilson C (2013) The challenge to keep diversity and function. Ecological studies, vol 176. Springer,
global warming below 2 °C. Nat Clim Chang 3:4–6. doi:10.1038/ Berlin, pp 347–376
nclimate1783 Scheu S, Schauermann J (1994) Decomposition of roots and twigs:
Poeplau C, Don A, Vesterdal L, Leifeld J, Van Wesemael B, Schumacher effects of wood type (beech and ash), diameter, site of exposure
J, Gensior A (2011) Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after and macrofauna exclusion. Plant Soil 241:155–176. doi:10.1007/
land-use change in the temperate zone—carbon response functions BF00033936
as a model approach. Glob Chang Biol 17:2415–2427. doi:10.1111/ Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G,
j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x Janssens IA, Kleber M, Kögel-Knabner I, Lehmann J, Manning
Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use DAC, Nannipieri P, Rasse DP, Weiner S, Trumbore SE (2011)
change: processes and potential. Glob Chang Biol 6:317–327. doi: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature
10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x 478:49–56. doi:10.1038/nature10386
 K. Lorenz, R. Lal

Schoeneberger M, Bentrup G, de Gooijer H, Soolanayakanahally R, Sauer Stavi I, Lal R (2013) Agroforestry and biochar to offset climate change: a
T, Brandle J, Zhou X, Current D (2012) Branching out: agroforestry review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:81–96. doi:10.1007/s13593-012-
as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture. J 0081-1
Soil Water Conserv 67:128A–136A. doi:10.2489/jswc.67.5.128A Stockmann U, Adams MA, Crawford JW, Field DJ, Henakaarchchi N,
Schroth G (1999) A review of belowground interactions in agroforestry, Jenkins M, Minasny B, McBratney AB, de Remy de Courcelles V,
focussing on mechanisms and management options. Agrofor Syst Singh K, Wheeler I, Abbott L, Angers DA, Baldock J, Bird M,
43:5–34 Brookes PC, Chenu C, Jastrow JD, Lal R, Lehmann J, O’Donnell
Schroth G, Zech W (1995) Above- and below-ground biomass dynamics AG, Parton WJ, Whitehead D, Zimmermann M (2013) The knowns,
in a sole cropping and an alley cropping system with Gliricidia known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic
sepium in the semi-deciduous rainforest zone of West Africa. carbon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 164:80–99. doi:10.1016/j.agee.
Agrofor Syst 31:181–198 2012.10.001
Schroth G, D’Angelo SA, Teixeira WG, Haag D, Lieberei R (2002) Torn MS, Swanston CW, Castanha C, Trumbore SE (2009) Storage and
Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture turnover of natural organic matter in soil. In: Senesi N, Xing B,
plantations in Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil Huang PM (eds) Biophysico-chemical processes involving natural
carbon stocks after seven years. For Ecol Manag 163:131–150 nonliving organic matter in environmental systems. Wiley,
Schrumpf M, Kaiser K, Guggenberger G, Persson T, Kögel-Knabner I, Hoboken, pp 219–272
Schulze ED (2013) Storage and stability of organic carbon in soils as U.S. Department of Energy (2008) Carbon cycling and biosequestration:
related to depth, occlusion within aggregates, and attachment to min- integrating biology and climate through systems science, report from
erals. Biogeosciences 10:1675–1691. doi:10.5194/bg-10-1675-2013 the March 2008 Workshop, DOE/SC-108, U.S. Department of
Shi S, Zhang W, Zhang P, Yu Y, Ding F (2013) A synthesis of change in Energy Office of Science. http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/carboncycle
deep soil organic carbon stores with afforestation of agricultural Van Noordwijk M, Lawson G, Soumare A, Groot JJR, Hairiah K (1996)
soils. For Ecol Manag 296:53–63. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.026 Root distribution of trees and crops: competition and/or complemen-
Sileshi G, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, Chakeredza S, Kaonga M, Matakala tarity. In: Ong CK, Huxely P (eds) Tree-crop interactions, a physi-
PW (2007) Contribution of agroforestry to ecosystem services in the ological approach. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 319–364
Miombo eco-region of eastern and southern Africa. Afr J Environ Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and
Sci Technol 4:68–80 food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222. doi:10.1146/
Six J, Elliott ET, Paustian K (2000) Soil macroaggregate turnover and annurev-environ-020411-130608
microaggregate formation: a mechanism for C sequestration under von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Matzner E,
no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol Biochem 32:2099–2103. doi:10. Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Flessa H (2006) Stabilization of
1016/S0038-0717(00)00179-6 organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance
Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, under different soil conditions—a review. Eur J Soil Sci 57:426–
O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, 445. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00809.x
Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2010) Vision 2050:
Smith J (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans the new agenda for business. http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/
R Soc B 363:789–813. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2184 edocumentdetails.aspx?id=219&nosearchcontextkey=true
Sollins P, Swanston C, Kramer M (2007) Stabilization and destabilization Wutzler T, Reichstein M (2007) Soils apart from equilibrium—conse-
of soil organic matter—a new focus. Biogeochemistry 85:1–7. doi: quences for soil carbon balance modeling. Biogeosciences 4:125–136
10.1007/s10533-007-9099-x Young A (1997) Agroforestry for soil management. C.A.B. International
Soto-Pinto L, Anzueto M, Mendoza J, Ferrer GJ, de Jong B (2010) and ICRAF, Wallingford
Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communi- Zhang W, Ahanbieke P, Wang BJ, Xu WL, Li LH, Christie P, Li L (2013)
ties of Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Syst 78:39–51. doi:10.1007/ Root distribution and interactions in jujube tree/wheat agroforestry
s10457-009-9247-5 system. Agrofor Syst 87:929–939. doi:10.1007/s10457-013-9609-x