SEQUESTERING ORGANIC CARBON IN SOILS THROUGH LAND USE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: A REVIEW

Highlight

● Either increasing C input to or reducing C release from soils can enhance soil C sequestration.

● Afforestation and reforestation have great potential in improving soil C sequestration.

● Long-term observations about the impacts of biochar on soil C sequestration are necessary.

Abstract

Climate change vigorously threats human livelihoods, places and biodiversity. To lock atmospheric CO₂ up through biological, chemical and physical processes is one of the pathways to mitigate climate change. Agricultural soils have a significant carbon sink capacity. Soil carbon sequestration (SCS) can be accelerated through appropriate changes in land use and agricultural practices. There have been various meta-analyses performed by combining data sets to interpret the influences of some methods on SCS rates or stocks. The objectives of this study were: (1) to update SCS capacity with different land-based techniques based on the latest publications, and (2) to discuss complexity to assess the impacts of the techniques on soil carbon accumulation. This review shows that afforestation and reforestation are slow processes but have great potential for improving SCS. Among agricultural practices, adding organic matter is an efficient way to sequester carbon in soils. Any practice that helps plant increase C fixation can increase soil carbon stock by increasing residues, dead root material and root exudates. Among the improved livestock grazing management practices, reseeding grasses seems to have the highest SCS rate.

Keywords

agroecosystems / climate change / negative emissions technology / net zero

1 INTRODUCTION

Extreme weather events and global warming are inevitable because of anthropogenic emissions of warming gases (greenhouse gases, GHG) in the future^[1]. Over recent decades, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the global air temperature (Fig.1) have been rising linearly, and the records of the extreme temperature and precipitation intensity kept being rewritten. Negative CO₂ emissions (i.e., CO₂ removals) to lock CO₂ up from the atmosphere through biological, chemical and physical processes are pathways to mitigate the global warming. Land management, soil management, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, CO₂ capture from ambient air, enhanced weathering and ocean fertilization are purported to be main potential approaches for CO₂ removals^[4–6]. Shepherd^[7] categorized the CO₂ removal techniques into three groups according to places where they are applied to (land or ocean) and predominant interventions and assessed the techniques in terms of their effectiveness, timeliness, safety, affordability and reversibility. The first group is to sequester more C into their natural sinks for a long period. The second is to apply enhanced weathering techniques in land and oceans. The third is to apply advanced technologies to capture and store CO₂ directly elsewhere. The options also have been reviewed for their costs, potentials, side-effects, and innovation and scaling challenges for their implement^[8–10]. Hepburn et al.^[11] proposed 10 CO₂ removal pathways: (1) chemicals from CO₂, (2) fuels from CO₂, (3) products from microalgae, (4) concrete building materials, (5) CO₂-enhanced oil recovery, (6) bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, (7) enhanced weathering, (8) forestry techniques, (9) SCS techniques, and (10) biochar but stressed limited potentials for its removal. Agricultural soils have a significant C sink capacity^[12,13]. It was estimated that the sink capacity is in the order of 20–30 Pg C (73–110 Pg CO₂ equivalent) over the next 50–100 years globally^[12], which may offset 23%–35% of the net increase in atmospheric CO₂ between 2020 and 2100 with the target to limit warming to 1.5 °C in 2100 with a greater than 50% probability and a peak warming above 1.5 °C with less than 67% probability^[14]. Soil organic C sequestration (SCS) can be accelerated through appropriate changes in land use and agricultural practices, such as converting crop land into land for non-crop fast growing plants^[15], which is the focus of this review study. Cost assessment on net emission techniques suggested that appropriate land and soil management to boost SCS is cheap to deploy among the investigated techniques^[8].

Fig.1 Change in global surface temperature relative to 1951−1980 average temperatures (black line) and monthly atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations observed at NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (red line). The blue line is the smoothed conditional means with the 95% confidence band indicated by the gray area. Data sourced from Global Monitoring Laboratory website for CO2 concentrations[2] and Global Climate Change website for temperature[3].

Full size|PPT slide

There have been various meta-analyses performed by combining data sets to interpret the influences of methods on SCS. For example, SCS rates by the tillage practice were globally reviewed in 2002^[16] and 2022^[17,18] and by afforestation in 2000^[19], 2002^[20], 2009^[21], 2014^[22], 2018^[23], and 2021^[24]. In this review, SCS rates with different land-based techniques are updated based on the latest publications and complexity to assess the impacts of the techniques on soil C accumulation is discussed. There are considerable co-benefits of the reviewed techniques for production and environment^[13,25], which is beyond the scope for the review.

2 LAND-BASED METHODS TO ENHANCE SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION

Carbon cycling through plants, animals and soils in terrestrial ecosystems is shown in Fig.2. For C recycling processes, plant residues and dead roots can be incorporated into soil organic C (SOC) and a proportion of intake C by animals returns to soils as excreta. A fraction of plant fixed C is in standing biomass that can be used for other purposes or primary products. Similarly, a fraction of animal intake C is taken away as animal products (milk, meat and wool). For a land-based system with spatial boundaries, external input C (e.g., biochar and farmyard manure) and losses with water movement (e.g., bonded C in sediment and groundwater transport) should be considered. To sequester more C in soils, the target with different techniques is to increase the size of stable soil C stock via increasing C input to and reducing C release from soils.

Fig.2 Carbon cycling through plants, animals, and soils. Downward arrows indicate carbon input to soils through plant dead materials, animal excreta and external sources.

Full size|PPT slide

2.1 Land use management

2.1.1 Afforestation and reforestation

Afforestation is the process that plants trees on land on which has no trees in recent history while reforestation is to replant trees where trees have been lost because of natural or anthropogenic disturbances. Afforestation has been described as one of the most natural and technologically simple methods to reduce atmospheric CO₂. It is realized by natural regeneration (planting native trees that will self-propagate from seed), agroforestry (incorporating trees into agricultural systems), or commercial plantations (for commercial products). A recent review suggested that afforestation significantly increased SOC by 44% at 0–100 cm soil depth, mainly occurred in the top 40 cm of soil^[24]. A summary on the SCS rate by the methods from publications is shown in Tab.1. New evidence is supportive of positive responses of SCS to afforestation.

Tab.1 Soil carbon sequestration rate by afforestation and reforestation (summaries from the literature and other sources as indicated)

Climate	Location	Conversion	Age after conversion (year)	Soil depth (cm)	Rate (Mg·ha−1·yr−1 C)
Afforestation
	Worldwide review	Agriculture	> 8	–	0.34[19]
	Worldwide review	Grassland	> 6	–	0.33[19]
	Worldwide review		> 30	30	0.32[20]
	Worldwide review	Agriculture	< 1011–2021–30> 30	60	–0.19[26]0.531.100.57
	Worldwide review	Grassland	< 1011–2021–30> 30	60	–0.34[26]–0.960.060.64
	China review	Agriculture	< 10	20	–0.04[27]
	China review	Agriculture	11–20	20	1.35[27]
	China review	Semi-natural grassland	< 10	20	nc[27]
	China review	Semi-natural grassland	11–20	20	0.86[27]
	Harpenden, UK	Agriculture to wild woodland	> 110	69	0.38–0.54[28]
Humid continental	Michigan, USA	Agriculture to deciduous and conifer	53	100	0.26–0.35[29]
Temperate semiarid	Sierra de Carrascoy, Spain	Shrublands to conifers	20	5	0.17–0.28[30]
Mid-latitude steppe	Qinghai, China	Agriculture	9–31	60	1.13–1.38[31]
Temperate semiarid	Shaanxi, China	Agriculture to deciduous	39	100	0.63–1.86[32]
Temperate semiarid	Shaanxi, China	Agriculture to shrublands	38	100	0.63–1.78[32]
Humid continental	South-east Lithuania	Agriculture to woodland	20	28	0.05[33]
Humid continental	South-east Lithuania	Agriculture to conifers	20	28	–0.18[33]
Subpolar oceanic	Iceland	Natural grassland to deciduous	15–50	30	0.42[34]
BorealTemperate	Sweden	Agriculture to mixed species	98	30	–3.02 to 2.3[35]–1.91 to 0.79
Subhumid Mediterranean	North-east Spain	Agriculture to orchards	60	30	0.42[36]
Humid continental	Czech	Agriculture to mixed species	14	20	–0.01 to 0.95[37]
Reforestation
Temperate humid continental	Kentucky, USA	Mined soils to deciduous	15	50	1.7[38]
Arid hot climate	South-west China	Abandoned soils to mixed species	30	80	1.28[39]

Note: nc, not notable change.

Several reviews or meta-analyses on SCS with agroforestry have been published^[40–46]. In the temperate region, the practice can increase SCS at 0–20 cm soil depth at a rate of 0.21 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C^[45]. Ramachandran Nair and Nair^[47] showed a range of 0.4–2.5 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C sequestered in soils under five major agroforestry systems in Africa without specified soil depth and conversion age. Unquestionably, the SCS potential by agroforestry is affected by climatic conditions, prior land use, agroforestry type and conversion duration. Data collected in China reviewed that the SCS sequestration rate can reach 1.0 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C in the top 20 cm of soil in the areas with hot, humid summers and 0.83 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C in the regions with warm, dry winters^[44]. The same data set also indicated a role of agroforestry types in the SCS potential: 0.92, 0.70 and 0.23 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ for shelterbelts, agrisilviculture and silvopasture, respectively. A meta-analysis from 250 observations mostly located in the Americas, Africa and Asia revealed that the conversion of agriculture to agroforestry led to a 34% increase in SOC stock at 0–100 cm soil depth and 10% at 0–30 cm for the conversion from pasture or grassland to agroforestry^[41]. Agroforestry systems stored more C in deeper soil layers near a tree than away from the tree compared with treeless systems^[48]. However, there might not be always an increase in SOC with the system. A 9-year study with a humid or semiarid tropical climate suggested that SOC in the top 40 cm of soil decreased^[49].

Climate, previous land use (representing soil C status before afforestation) and established forest type are the most important factors to drive soil C change in afforestation^[20]. Globally, a cooler, drier climate stimulates SOC storage in the top 60 cm of soil whereas a warmer, wetter climate can reduce SOC storage^[26]. A larger data set collected from northern China showed the SCS potential is adversely affected by greater soil C stocks before afforestation, especially in deeper soil^[50]. Similarly, global analyses suggested that afforestation on grassland (usually with greater SOC concentration) appears a slower and smaller SOC increase than that on agricultural land^[24,26]. Plantation type can drive the SCS potential. For example, a meta-analysis showed that pine plantations caused a 15% decrease in soil C^[21]. A similar conclusion was drawn from the data in Europe which there was no significant impact of afforestation on SOC stocks in 0 to 20 or 30 cm of soil with conifer, deciduous or mixed species^[20]. As shown in Tab.1 and previous reviews^[20,24,26], afforestation at a young age of plantations cannot be beneficial for SCS, which links to fine root distribution and exudates with age. Therefore, SOC stocks over a range of soil depths should be dynamically monitored in order to accurately assess the impact of afforestation on SCS. In addition, SCS rates are dependent on the soil depth at which they are determined. Published SCS rates are derived from different soil depths, which makes it difficult to compare studies, and might mislead practitioners and policymakers on afforestation and reforestation. To audit the reported SCS rates for given a practice, it is necessary to consider the impacts of climate, plantation type, establishment age and soil depth.

Although afforestation has merits for increasing SCS, it is of concern when used in inappropriately targeted areas (e.g., some countries in Africa^[51] or grasslands and savannas^[52]), negative impact on biodiversity when replacing semi-natural ecosystems^[53–55], and reduction of the surface albedo^[56,57] that could potentially raise the surface temperature and inadvertently reduce water availability, particularly in drier areas^[58]. Others have raised concerns that afforestation can be difficult to manage^[59] and take up large amounts of land, which can increase food prices^[60], and impact food security and farmer incomes^[61]. Also, there are some obstacles to the adoption of such practices by farmers with the reasons varying between countries. For example, financial support and knowledge gaps are major issues in the UK^[62]. Reforestation is expensive and slow^[63]. Therefore, it is necessary to identify priority areas where the early benefits from reforestation can be maximized, especially to meet commercial imperatives. Afforestation and reforestation can increase the chance of wildfires and insect outbreaks that release fixed C to the atmosphere^[64] and adversely affect biodiversity. With these risks, Di Sacco et al.^[65] proposed rules to maximize SCS and biodiversity, and improve livelihoods including engagement of all stakeholders, multiple goals and species selection.

2.1.2 Land use change

Changes in land use might favor soil C accumulation, especially conversion from cultivated to forest (i.e., afforestation) or permanent grassland. SCS rates under various land use changes are summarized in Tab.2. It is rare to find literature on SCS with the land to be converted from bioenergy or agroforestry to other land use types. Prior land use type, climate, new land use type and conversion age are major factors to determine the SCS rate with a land use change. It is apparent that SOC stocks increase in a conversion from agricultural land to other uses, but not in the conversion of natural or semi-natural grassland to other uses. Long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research showed that soil C content in the 0–23 cm depth increased 64 Mg·ha⁻¹ C over 120 years from 1881 to 1999 in the regenerating woodland^[83] with only 23.4 Mg·ha⁻¹ C over the same period in the adjacent arable plots with continuous winter wheat growth and 35 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ farmyard manure (equivalent to 3 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C) application since 1883^[84]. Published data from different climate regimes show that an average soil C accumulation rate at 0.39 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C in converted forest and 0.33 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C in converted grassland after agricultural use^[19]. Plot experiments in the UK showed that the conversion of grassland to either silvopastoral or woodland systems, C stock in the top 20 cm of soil did not significantly differ between the land use types^[85,86]. However, the consequence of the conversion from forest on SCS is inconclusive. The data collected from 51 sites and published before 2014 show a decline of SCS when a forest was changed from one type of coverage to another^[66]. The conversion of forest to grassland can increase SCS^[87] but decrease it in a conversion to an agroforestry system^[88].

Tab.2 Impacts of land use change on soil carbon sequestration rate (Mg·ha−1·yr−1 C)

From/To	Arable	Grassland	Bioenergy	(Semi-)natural grassland	Agroforestry	Forest
From arable	x	−0.89 to 1.00[66–68]		−2.27[69]	4.55−6.75[70]	−1.74 to −0.60[66–68]
To grassland	0.16−0.92[66–68,71,72]	x		− 0.04 to 0.27[69,71]	0.21−16.9[70]	−0.10 to 0.68[66,67]
From bioenergy	1.02−1.09[73]	–0.67 to 0.33[73,74]	x	− 5.2 to −1.22[75,76]		− 4.04[73]
From (semi-)natural grassland	0.128[72]	0.031 [77]		x		− 0.17[78]
From agroforestry	–0.17 to 0.29[79,80]			−2.07[69]	x	0.9−5.6[81]
From forest	−0.28 to 1.40[66–68]	–1.28 to 0.43[68,79]		−0.09 to −0.061[82]		x

Note: x, no investigation on the same land use change; empty cells indicate no data available.

2.2 Practices on cropland

Agronomic practices that are able to increase organic matter input, partition more C to stable organic C pools, or reduce turnover rates in soil C pools can improve SCS^[89]. In cropland, these can be direct-drilling or no-tillage, cover cropping, chemical and organic fertilizer applications, improved cropping and organic systems, erosion control, proper irrigation and water management, integrated pest management and precision agriculture^[90,91]. In the literature, many publications on the impacts of tillage and fertilizer application can be found. In grasslands, fertilizer application, sowing legumes, improved grass species and irrigation can lead to an increase in soil C^[71], which is reviewed below. Minasny et al.^[92] compiled a list of management practices that are reported to enhance SCS. Meta-analysis on the impacts of recommended management practices focusing on organic inputs and tillage management on SCS in Mediterranean cropping systems showed that those practices with large quantities of C input have the highest influence compared with the standard practice^[93]. Tab.3 presents SOC sequestration rates under various agricultural practices as reported in the recent publications.

Tab.3 Soil carbon sequestration rate (Mg·ha−1·yr−1 C) by Agricultural practices (summaries from the literature review and other sources as indicated)

Practice	Location	System	Period (year)	Soil depth (cm)	Rate
NT vs ST	Global review	–	> 6	Not specified	0.17[94]
Reduced tillage vs ST	Global review	–	> 6	Not specified	–0.06[94]
NT vs ST	UK review	–	2−23	30	0.31[95]
NT vs ST	Central USA review	–	7−100	20	0.27[96]
NT vs ST	central USA review	–	5−30	30	0.45[96]
NT vs ST, 240 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N & P	Quzhou, China	Wheat-maize	34	20	0.5[97]
NT vs ST, 2.25 Mg·ha−1·yr−1 straw mulch, 240 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N & P	Quzhou, China	Wheat-maize	34	20	0.92[97]
NT vs ST, 4.5 Mg·ha−1·yr−1 straw mulch, 240 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N & P	Quzhou, China	Wheat-maize	34	20	0.68[97]
NT vs ST, flatbed planting, 260 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K	Tripura (W), India	Maize-maize-pea	2	30	0.53[98]
NT vs ST, 80 (40 for rotation) kg·ha–1·yr–1 N	Madrid, Spain	Winter wheat and wheat-vetch	32	20	0.36[99]
NT vs ST, straw mulch (NT) or incorporated (ST), 0, 60 or 120 kg·ha–1·yr–1 N, P & K	Catalonia, NE Spain	Barley	13	40	0.18[100]
NT vs ST, fertilizer rates and forms varied	Lopburi, Thailand	Maize-mung bean	5	15	−0.06[101]
NT vs ST, ridge and furrow planting, 260 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K	Tripura (W), India	Maize-maize-pea	2	30	0.2[98]
Straw mulch vs removal, NT, 340 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K	Tai’an, China	Wheat-peanut	3	30	0.38[102]
NT (straw mulch) vs ST (SR), 340 kg ·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K	Tai’an, China	Wheat-peanut	3	30	–0.85[102]
RT vs ST, SR, 340 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K	Tai’an, China	Wheat-peanut	3	30	–0.6[102]
Mineral fertilizer (200 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K) vs no fertilizer	Gongzhuling, China	Maize	6	20	0.4[103]
Mineral fertilizer plus SR (3.2 Mg·ha–1·yr–1 C) vs mineral fertilizer (200 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K)	Gongzhuling, China	Maize	6	20	0.4[103]
Mineral fertilizer plus compost (3.2 Mg·ha–1·yr–1 C) vs mineral fertilizer (200 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K)	Gongzhuling, China	Maize	6	20	0.85[103]
Mineral fertilizer plus biochar (3.2 Mg·ha–1·yr–1 C) vs mineral fertilizer (200 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N, P & K)	Gongzhuling, China	Maize	6	20	2.07[103]
Organic fertilizer (2.8 Mg·ha−1·yr−1 C & 47.2 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N) vs no fertilizer	Gujarat, India	Groundnut	16	100	0.63[104]
Organic (1.98 Mg·ha−1·yr−1 C & 15.6 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N) plus inorganic fertilizers (15.6 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N) vs no fertilizer	Gujarat, India	Groundnut	16	100	0.43[104]
Inorganic fertilizer (20:40:40 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N: P2O5:K2O) vs no fertilizer	Gujarat, India	Groundnut	16	100	0.1[104]
Cattle slurry (240 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N) vs no input, P, K & S applied	Kiel, Germany	Continuous silage maize	8	30	0.1[105]
Cattle slurry (160 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N) vs no input, P, K & S applied	Kiel, Germany	Oats-wheat-pulses rotation	8	30	0.3[105]
Cattle slurry (160 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N) vs no input, P, K & S applied	Kiel, Germany	Maize/oats-wheat-ley rotation	8	30	0.4[105]
Organic fertilizer (15 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) vs no fertilizer, P, K, rotation with 100% cereal, SR from barley and rye	Berlin, Germany	Barley-barley-rye-oats	24	20	0.1[106]
Organic fertilizer (15 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) vs no fertilizer, P, K, rotation with 75% cereal, SR from barley and rye	Berlin, Germany	Beets-barley-rye-rye	24	20	nc[106]
Organic fertilizer (15 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) vs no fertilizer, P, K, rotation with 50% cereal, RR from barley and rye	Berlin, Germany	Beets-barley-rye-silage maize	24	20	0.03[106]
Straw incorporated (2.25 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) vs no straw, ST, 240 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N & P	Quzhou, China	Wheat-maize	34	20	1.76[97]
Straw incorporated (4.5 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) vs no straw, ST, 240 kg·ha–1·yr–1 urea-N & P	Quzhou, China	Wheat-maize	34	20	2.44[97]
Straw mulch vs no organic matter input, fertilizer rates and forms varied	Lopburi, Thailand	Maize-mung bean	5	15	0.39[101]
SR vs straw removal, irrigation and inorganic fertilisers (352.5:82.2:146.3 kg·ha−1·yr−1 N:P:K)	Shaanxi, China	Wheat-maize	25	20	0.11[107]
Irrigation vs rainfed, no fertilizer	Shaanxi, China	Wheat-maize	25	20	0.03[107]
Rotation vs continuous	Global review		25 (Average)	22 (Average)	0.15[16]
With vs without catch crop	Argentina	Soybean	8	20	0.09− 0.39[108]

Note: NT, no-tillage; ST, standard tillage; RT, rotary tillage; SR, straw return. nc, no substantive change.

It has been suggested that the SCS potential of no-tillage is high compared to other tillage practices^[18]. Several meta-analyses indicated that the no-tillage practice can increase SOC stock about 8%^[94] or over 0.4 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C^[16,109] compared with that under the standard tillage practice. However, the role of the no-tillage practice on SCS is not conclusive. Data collected from north America showed positive, negative and no significant differences in SOC between no-tillage and standard tillage^[110]. A meta-analysis on SCS related deep tillage from 43 publications until 2019 suggested that deep plowing increased SOC by 1.1% while subsoiling by 8.9% compared to standard tillage^[111]. It was noted that uncertainty in comparison of SOC stocks in topsoil between no-tillage and standard tillage might exist if SOC stock is derived from SOC content (g C g⁻¹ soil) and soil bulk density that is treated as a constant over the reporting period, i.e., assumed not to be influenced by tillage practices.

Fertilizer application cannot strengthen SCS directly, instead increase inputs from residue and belowground biomass. In the long term experiment at Rothamsted, SOC content in the top 23 cm of soil on the fertilized plot with 144 kg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ N together with P (35 kg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹) and K (90 kg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹) application for over 170 years is 1.2%, greater than in the unfertilized plot (0.87%) and initial concentration (1.0%)^[84]. The sequestration potential with fertilizer applications can decline with time even with straw incorporated into soils^[112]. Quantifying the impact of fertilizer application on SCS depends on reporting soil depth. For example, in the long term rotation experiment of the Morrow Plots in the USA showed the mineral fertilizer applications for 51 growing seasons from 1955 to 2005 increase SOC in the top 30 cm of soil but have no change in the top 46 cm of soil compared with the unfertilized treatment^[113].

Recent evidence has demonstrated that external SOC input can improve SCS in various cropping systems in different climate zones (Tab.3). However, the extent of increase in SOC depends on its initial concentration. For example, in the Thyrow long-term experiment, farmyard manure (FYM) was applied at 15 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ from 1937 until 1971, which led to a greater concentration of SOC in the topsoil. With new treatments, SOC did not show substantive difference between the plots where FYM application was discontinued and those FYM was applied at the same rate for another 24 years^[106]. In a separate experiment with a short history of organic matter input, SOC with organic fertilizer application significantly increased compared without organic fertilizer input^[104]. Further, the method of organic fertilizer or straw application affects the SCS rate. In general, organic fertilizer or straw is incorporated into soil is better than surface application^[97,101].

Again, published SCS rates have been derived from different soil depths, which makes it difficult to compare them between studies. Apart from organic material amendment, the majority of the practices improve SCS through increased retention of surface and belowground plant residues. Roots of different plant species differ in their penetration to depth. If SCS rates are considered in the topsoil only, they might be underestimated with the contribution of the dead roots in the subsoils ignored. Another difficulty for comparing data from different studies, even with the same nominal tillage practice, is that the practice might have different implications. For example, a reported minimal tillage practice might not define how often the field was plowed, which is likely to determine the final SCS rates. SCS through agricultural practices is affected by environmental factors. A review on SCS under conservation tillage on light-textured soils in Australia revealed that significantly greater SOC concentrations compared with multi-pass tillage were only found in the wetter areas (> 500 mm annual rainfall) and restricted to the top 2.5−10.0 cm^[114].

Novel and innovative solutions can help sequester C. A laboratory-scale pilot study showed that products using cellulose-based waste materials and industrially sourced CO₂ can be significantly lower than usual C and resource footprints^[115]. The authors claimed that the fertilizers can permanently sequestrate organic C that has been incorporated into them in soil in equal quantities to the fertilizer applied^[116]. Mixed farming (an integrated crop-livestock system) could be an option to increase soil C stocks. Brewer and Gaudin^[117] summarized how the system can be managed. However, studies comparing SOC sequestration in mixed farming systems with cropping or grazing systems alone are quite limited.

Although appropriate agricultural practices have potential for SCS, the capacity to remove atmospheric CO₂ should not be exaggerated. First, the capacity of soils to store additional C is finite so that mitigation benefits will be reached over a limited time period. The long-term spring barley field experiment at Rothamsted Research, UK, showed that the SCS rate for the treatment with annual FYM application at 35 Mg·ha⁻¹ (equivalent to approx. 3.2 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C) was 0.69 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C in the 23 cm depth during the first 20 years but only 0.06 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C during 140−160 years^[61]. A modeling study also suggested the rate is very small in soils with greater SOC^[118]. Secondly, an SCS potential of an agricultural practice will not be universal applicable. For example, the SCS potential of no-tillage is site specific and limited within surface soil^[119].

2.3 Biochar

Biochar application to soils has been considered as a pathway to sequester C^[120,121]. As majority of C in biochar is recalcitrant with the mean residence time estimated to be about 556 years^[122], it is highly stable in soils. However, biochar decomposition both in field and laboratory experiments through different mechanisms have been reported^[123,124]. Apart from added C with biochar for SCS, it has been reported that biochar amendment can increase SOC stock. Since 2012, at least six reviews or meta-analyses on SCS by biochar application have been published^[125–130]. One meta-analysis showed a 4.9−43 g·kg⁻¹ increase in SOC over a period between 5 months and 2 years^[127]. Another, based on 56 publications, suggested that biochar can enhance SOC stock by 28% in the top 10 cm of soil under field conditions^[94]]. A recent global meta-analysis of 412 individual field treatments over experimental durations between 1 and 10 years at biochar application rates between 1 and 100 Mg·ha⁻¹ showed a mean increase in SOC by 13 Mg·ha^−1[131]. Zhang et al.^[132] reported an SOC increase of 0.34−0.90 g·kg⁻¹·yr⁻¹ C in the top 15 cm of soil over 5 years when 20, 30 or 40 Mg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ biochar was applied in an oilseed rape-sweet potato production system.

Although biochar applied to soils can enhance SOC stocks, it might lead to low nitrogen availability to plants via increasing N immobilization due to the high C/N ratio of biochar^[133]. However, some reports claimed that biochar can increase plant N availability. For example, observations from four field experiments in boreal agricultural soils where biochar was applied 8 years before showed an increase in plant N availability through increased soil N mineralization in the short term^[134]. In addition, feedstock type is an important factor for N availability. In their review on biochar effects on soil available inorganic N, Nguyen et al.^[135] concluded that woody biochar did not decrease soil inorganic N as much as other types of biochar. Long-term impacts of biochar on SCS might be different from those derived from short-run experiments as indirect effects over time have not been determined. Observations have only been made over the last two decades, so compared to the potential residence time of biochar in soil, this period is too short to be meaningful. Consequently, it will be necessary to conduct long-term experiments to monitor the impacts of biochar on SCS and other indicators in agricultural systems.

2.4 Practices on grassland

Livestock systems can be divided into pastoral, mixed and feedlot systems. The first group is based on grazing ruminants, the mixed system integrates crop and livestock production in which livestock are fed with crop products, grasses and/or fodder. The third group is defined as a solely livestock system where less than 10% of dry matter fed to the animals is farm produced^[136]. Pastoral and mixed systems are the focus in this review.

The contribution of grass-fed ruminants to SCS is reported to be small^[137]. A review of the effects of grazing on soil C showed that different studies have found both strong positive and negative grazing effects on SOC^[138]. However, proper grazing management practices, including appropriate stocking rates, introducing beneficial forage species, and allowing sufficient rest time for plant recovery between grazing, and adopting silvopasture in livestock production systems^[139–143], can help increase C sequestration in grazing lands/pastures between 0.14 and 0.41 Mg·m⁻²·yr⁻¹ C^[71]. Madigan et al.^[17] listed management practices in temperate grassland which affect SCS, and their co-benefits or disadvantages. A global meta-analysis of grazing impacts on soil health indicators showed that both rotational grazing and no grazing had greater SOC than continuous grazing^[143]. A five-year on-farm study in Michigan, USA, showed that rotational grazing can sequester C at 3.59 Mg·m⁻²·yr⁻¹ C for three soil types (sandy, sandy loam and clay loam)^[144]. A 15-year field experiment on grassland showed that the long-term application of organic fertilizer can significantly increase soil C in the top 15 cm soil in both Arenosol and Andosols but inorganic fertilizer amendment did not have this effect^[145]. SCS rates under different practices summarized from the literature and other recent sources are shown in Tab.4.

Tab.4 Soil carbon sequestration rates (as Mg·ha−1·yr−1 C or percentage change) for various livestock practices (summaries from the literature and other sources as indicated)

Climate	Type	Practices	Length (year)	Depth (cm)	Rate
Worldwide review	Grassland	Mineral fertilizer	−	−	0.54[71]
Worldwide review	Grassland	Organic fertilizer	−	−	0.84[71]
Worldwide review	Grassland	Introducing legumes	−	−	0.66[71]
Worldwide review	Grassland	Improved grass species	−	−	3.04[142]
Semi-arid tropical savannah	Rangeland	Managed (grazing in dry season) vs unmanaged	−	30	12.1%–22.2%[146]
Semi-arid tropical savannah	Rangeland	Managed (grazing in wet season) vs unmanaged	−	30	nc[146]
Arid and semiarid	Rangeland	Grazing exclusion vs grazing	6	20	26.9%[147]
Arid and semiarid	Rangeland	Grazing exclusion vs grazing	> 1	30	0.23[148]
Cold desert	Rangeland	Grazing exclusion vs grazing	4	20	49%[149]
Cold steppe	Grassland	Grazing exclusion vs light grazing	12	30	−15.6%[150]
Cold steppe	Grassland	Grazing exclusion vs heavy grazing	12	30	14.1%[150]
Cold semi-arid	Grassland	Grazing exclusion vs light grazing	55	30	49.4%[150]
Cold semi-arid	Grassland	Grazing exclusion vs heavy grazing	55	30	46.9%[150]
Temperate	Grassland	Fertilized P vs non application	> 20	60	25.5%[151]
Temperate	Grassland	Multiple sward (5 species)	9	30	1.6[152]
Temperate	Grassland	Multiple sward (2 species)	9	30	0.44[152]
Semiarid	Rangeland	Grazing exclusion	> 75	60	0.128[153]
Semiarid	Rangeland	Light grazing (0.78 sheep Eq ha−1)	> 75	60	0.097[153]
Semiarid	Rangeland	Heavy grazing (1.18 sheep Eq ha−1)	> 75	60	0.093[153]

Note: nc, no substantive change.

Among the improved management practices, reseeding grasses has the highest SCS rate^[139]. However, the sequestration rate depends on the period for which a practice is undertaken. For example, in their meta-analysis on the impacts of livestock exclusion on C sequestration in a Chinese grassland, Deng et al.^[148] reported that the rate was not significantly different from zero over a period of three years but was greater than zero in all the examined studies. It was noted that intensive production practices with high inputs and rates of removal can deplete SOC stocks^[154].

3 SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Most of the land-based techniques for SCS need land that support multiple ecosystem services. Combined with food demands with a global population of 9 billion by the 2050s, different demands result in competition for land. Smith et al.^[155] reviewed how competition for land is influenced by drivers and pressures and concluded that policies should address agriculture, food production and the primary drivers of competition for land concurrently. It was proposed to breed new plants that absorb and sequester C more efficiently in soils to lessen the land constraint^[156]. Meanwhile, regenerative agriculture and carbon farming that use a suite of practices to achieve ecosystem services should be encouraged. Sequestering more C in soils through agricultural practices is not only for mitigating climate change but also strengthening resilience of agricultural systems to cope with weather variability. Long-term field experiments on fertilization in China showed a significant improvement in yield stability in wheat-maize cropping systems with a combination of manure and mineral fertilizer application in southern China^[157]. A farm survey across China indicated high-quality soils led to both greater crop yield and yield stability^[158]. Data from a 27-year experiment in Germany drew the same conclusion^[159]. An integrated methodology for evaluating management practices to increase SCS and other services in agroecosystems should be examined^[89]. Agricultural systems are complex because they are generally managed at a field scale and all have interactions with nutrient cycling including C dynamics, environmental conditions and plants, with uncertainties in the responses of the system to disturbances. In this respect, models provide an effective method for investigating agricultural systems allowing examination of the systems under different scenarios and predict SCS. Fuss et al.^[6] also advocated to use biophysical-techno-engineering-process-based, economic and Earth system models to investigate sustainable potential of the sequestration methods.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Enhancing SCS can be achieved by either increasing C input to or reducing C release from soils with different land-based techniques. Afforestation and reforestation are slow processes but have great potential in improving SCS. However, these practices can only be applied in appropriate areas. When intensive land use (agricultural land and managed grassland) is changed to a type of extensive land uses (e.g., wildland and semi-natural/natural grassland), most published data indicated a consequent positive response in SCS. Among agricultural practices, adding organic matter is an efficient way to sequester C in soils. Any practice that helps plant increase C fixation can increase soil C stock by increasing residues, dead root material and root exudates. Novel and innovative solutions for SCS need to be explored. Regenerative agriculture and carbon farming should be encouraged. Biochar can slow the decomposition process and increase SOC. However, it would be necessary to set up long-term experiments to monitor the impacts of biochar on SCS and other indicators in agricultural systems. Among the improved livestock grazing management practices, reseeding grasses seems to have the highest SCS rate. Finally, modeling is an effective option for evaluating the impacts of agronomic and pastoral practices on SCS and other services in agroecosystems.

参考文献

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021

[2] Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML). Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Available at GML website on November 19, 2022

[3] Global Climate Change (GCC). Global land-ocean temperature index. Available at GCC website on November 19, 2022

[4] Smith P, Davis S J, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E, Jackson R B, Cowie A, Kriegler E, van Vuuren D P, Rogelj J, Ciais P, Milne J, Canadell J G, McCollum D, Peters G, Andrew R, Krey V, Shrestha G, Friedlingstein P, Gasser T, Grübler A, Heidug W K, Jonas M, Jones C D, Kraxner F, Littleton E, Lowe J, Moreira J R, Nakicenovic N, Obersteiner M, Patwardhan A, Rogner M, Rubin E, Sharifi A, Torvanger A, Yamagata Y, Edmonds J, Yongsung C. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO₂ emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(1): 42–50

[5] Anderson K, Peters G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 2016, 354(6309): 182–183

[6] Fuss S, Jones C D, Kraxner F, Peters G P, Smith P, Tavoni M, van Vuuren D P, Canadell J G, Jackson R B, Milne J, Moreira J R, Nakicenovic N, Sharifi A, Yamagata Y. Research priorities for negative emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 2016, 11(11): 115007

[7] Shepherd J. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, 2009

[8] Minx J C, Lamb W F, Callaghan M W, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Lenzi D, Luderer G, Nemet G F, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente Vicente J L, Wilcox J, del Mar Zamora Dominguez M. Negative emissions—Part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters, 2018, 13(6): 063001

[9] Fuss S, Lamb W F, Callaghan M W, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G, Nemet G F, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente J L V, Wilcox J, del Mar Zamora Dominguez M, Minx J C. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 2018, 13(6): 063002

[10] Nemet G F, Callaghan M W, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Hartmann J, Hilaire J, Lamb W F, Minx J C, Rogers S, Smith P. Negative emissions—Part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environmental Research Letters, 2018, 13(6): 063003

[11] Hepburn C, Adlen E, Beddington J, Carter E A, Fuss S, Mac Dowell N, Minx J C, Smith P, Williams C K. The technological and economic prospects for CO₂ utilization and removal. Nature, 2019, 575(7781): 87–97

[12] Paustian K, Andrén O, Janzen H H, Lal R, Smith P, Tian G, Tiessen H, Noordwijk M, Woomer P L. Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO₂ emissions. Soil Use and Management, 1997, 13(s4): 230–244

[13] Lal R, Negassa W, Lorenz K. Carbon sequestration in soil. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2015, 15: 79–86

[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers. In: Shukla P R, Skea J, Slade R, Khourdajie A A, Diemen R V, Mccollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S, Malley J, eds. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022

[15] Sedjo R, Sohngen B. Carbon sequestration in forests and soils. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2012, 4(1): 127–144

[16] West T O, Post W M. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2002, 66(6): 1930–1946

[17] Madigan A P, Zimmermann J, Krol D J, Williams M, Jones M B. Full Inversion Tillage (FIT) during pasture renewal as a potential management strategy for enhanced carbon sequestration and storage in Irish grassland soils. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 805: 150342

[18] Bhattacharyya S S, Leite F F G D, France C L, Adekoya A O, Ros G H, de Vries W, Melchor-Martínez E M, Iqbal H M N, Parra-Saldívar R. Soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution under different tillage practices. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 826: 154161

[19] Post W M, Kwon K C. Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology, 2000, 6(3): 317–327

[20] Paul K I, Polglase P J, Nyakuengama J G, Khanna P K. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 168(1−3): 241−257

[21] Berthrong S T, Jobbágy E G, Jackson R B. A global meta-analysis of soil exchangeable cations, pH, carbon, and nitrogen with afforestation. Ecological Applications, 2009, 19(8): 2228–2241

[22] Bárcena T G, Kiær L P, Vesterdal L, Stefánsdóttir H M, Gundersen P, Sigurdsson B D. Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 2014, 20(8): 2393–2405

[23] Liu X, Yang T, Wang Q, Huang F, Li L. Dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks after afforestation in arid and semi-arid regions: a meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 618: 1658–1664

[24] Guo Y, Abdalla M, Espenberg M, Hastings A, Hallett P, Smith P. A systematic analysis and review of the impacts of afforestation on soil quality indicators as modified by climate zone, forest type and age. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 757: 143824

[25] Bell M J, Worrall F. Charcoal addition to soils in NE England: a carbon sink with environmental co-benefits. Science of the Total Environment, 2011, 409(9): 1704–1714

[26] Hou G, Delang C O, Lu X, Gao L. Soil organic carbon storage varies with stand ages and soil depths following afforestation. Annals of Forest Research, 2019, 62(1): 3–20

[27] Deng L, Shangguan Z. Afforestation drives soil carbon and nitrogen changes in China. Land Degradation & Development, 2017, 28(1): 151–165

[28] Poulton P R, Pye E, Hargreaves P R, Jenkinson D S. Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen by old arable land reverting to woodland. Global Change Biology, 2003, 9(6): 942–955

[29] Morris S J, Bohm S, Haile-Mariam S, Paul E A. Evaluation of carbon accrual in afforested agricultural soils. Global Change Biology, 2007, 13(6): 1145–1156

[30] Garcia-Franco N, Wiesmeier M, Goberna M, Martínez-Mena M, Albaladejo J. Carbon dynamics after afforestation of semiarid shrublands: implications of site preparation techniques. Forest Ecology and Management, 2014, 319: 107–115

[31] Shi S W, Han P F, Zhang P, Ding F, Ma C L. The impact of afforestation on soil organic carbon sequestration on the Qinghai Plateau, China. PLoS One, 2015, 10(2): e0116591

[32] Han X, Zhao F, Tong X, Deng J, Yang G, Chen L, Kang D. Understanding soil carbon sequestration following the afforestation of former arable land by physical fractionation. Catena, 2017, 150: 317–327

[33] Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice A, Tripolskaja L, Volungevicius J, Baksiene E. Impact of land use change on organic carbon sequestration in Arenosol. Agricultural and Food Science, 2019, 28(1): 9–17

[34] Hunziker M, Arnalds O, Kuhn N J. Evaluating the carbon sequestration potential of volcanic soils in southern Iceland after birch afforestation. Soil, 2019, 5(2): 223–238

[35] Rytter R M, Rytter L. Carbon sequestration at land use conversion—Early changes in total carbon stocks for six tree species grown on former agricultural land. Forest Ecology and Management, 2020, 466: 118129

[36] Juvinya C, LotfiParsa H, Sauras-Yera T, Rovira P, LotfiParsa H, Sauras-Yera T, Rovira P. Carbon sequestration in Mediterranean soils following afforestation of abandoned crops: biases due to changes in soil compaction and carbonate stocks. Land Degradation & Development, 2021, 32(15): 4300–4312

[37] Cukor J, Vacek Z, Vacek S, Linda R, Podrázský V. Biomass productivity, forest stability, carbon balance, and soil transformation of agricultural land afforestation: a case study of suitability of native tree species in the submontane zone in Czechia. Catena, 2022, 210: 105893

[38] Fox J F, Campbell J E, Acton P M. Carbon sequestration by reforesting legacy grasslands on coal mining sites. Energies, 2020, 13(23): 6340

[39] Gong Z, Tang Y, Xu W, Mou Z. Rapid sequestration of ecosystem carbon in 30-year reforestation with mixed species in Dry Hot Valley of the Jinsha River. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(11): 1937

[40] Lorenz K, Lal R. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2014, 34(2): 443–454

[41] De Stefano A, Jacobson M G. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 2018, 92(2): 285–299

[42] Shi L L, Feng W T, Xu J C, Kuzyakov Y. Agroforestry systems: meta-analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degradation & Development, 2018, 29(11): 3886–3897

[43] Shrestha B M, Chang S X, Bork E W, Carlyle C N. Enrichment planting and soil amendments enhance carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agroforestry systems: a review. Forests, 2018, 9(6): 369

[44] Hübner R, Kuhnel A, Lu J, Dettmann H, Wang W Q, Wiesmeier M. Soil carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in China: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2021, 315: 107437

[45] Mayer S, Wiesmeier M, Sakamoto E, Hubner R, Cardinael R, Kuhnel A, Kogel-Knabner I. Soil organic carbon sequestration in temperate agroforestry systems—A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2022, 323: 107689

[46] Kim D G, Kirschbaum M U F, Beedy T L. Carbon sequestration and net emissions of CH₄ and N₂O under agroforestry: synthesizing available data and suggestions for future studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 226: 65–78

[47] Ramachandran Nair P K, Nair V D. ‘Solid-fluid-gas’: the state of knowledge on carbon-sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2014, 6: 22–27

[48] Ramachandran Nair P K, Nair V D, Mohan Kumar B, Showalter J M. Carbon dequestration in agroforestry systems. In: Sparks D L, ed. Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, 2010, 108: 237–307

[49] Noponen M R A, Healey J R, Soto G, Haggar J P. Sink or source—The potential of coffee agroforestry systems to sequester atmospheric CO₂ into soil organic carbon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2013, 175: 60–68

[50] Hong S, Yin G, Piao S, Dybzinski R, Cong N, Li X, Wang K, Peñuelas J, Zeng H, Chen A. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nature Sustainability, 2020, 3(9): 694–700

[51] Bond W J, Stevens N, Midgley G F, Lehmann C E R. The trouble with trees: afforestation plans for Africa. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2019, 34(11): 963–965

[52] Veldman J W, Buisson E, Durigan G, Fernandes G W, Le Stradic S, Mahy G, Negreiros D, Overbeck G E, Veldman R G, Zaloumis N P, Putz F E, Bond W J. Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2015, 13(3): 154–162

[53] Brockerhoff E G, Jactel H, Parrotta J A, Quine C P, Sayer J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, 17(5): 925–951

[54] Buscardo E, Smith G F, Kelly D L, Freitas H, Iremonger S, Mitchell F J G, O’Donoghue S, McKee A M. The early effects of afforestation on biodiversity of grasslands in Ireland. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, 17(5): 1057–1072

[55] Bremer L L, Farley K A. Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2010, 19(14): 3893–3915

[56] Li Y, Zhao M, Motesharrei S, Mu Q, Kalnay E, Li S. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nature Communications, 2015, 6(1): 6603

[57] Peng S S, Piao S, Zeng Z, Ciais P, Zhou L, Li L Z X, Myneni R B, Yin Y, Zeng H. Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014, 111(8): 2915–2919

[58] Buechel M, Slater L, Dadson S. Hydrological impact of widespread afforestation in Great Britain using a large ensemble of modelled scenarios. Communications Earth & Environment, 2022, 3(1): 6

[59] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC). Negative emission technologies: what role in meeting Paris agreement targets? Leopoldina: German National Academy of Sciences, 2018

[60] Santos F M, Gonçalves A L, Pires J C M. Negative emission technologies. In: Magalhães Pires J C, Cunha Gonçalves A L D, eds. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Academic Press, 2019, 1–13

[61] Poulton P, Johnston J, Macdonald A, White R, Powlson D. Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom. Global Change Biology, 2018, 24(6): 2563–2584

[62] Tosh C, Westaway S. Agroforestry ELM Test: incentives and disincentives to the adoption of agroforestry by UK farmers: a semi-quantitative evidence review. Gloucestershire: Organic Research Centre, 2021

[63] Lamb D. Reforestation. In: Levin S A, ed. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity: Second Edition. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2013, 370–379

[64] Canadell J G, Raupach M R. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science, 2008, 320(5882): 1456–1457

[65] Di Sacco A, Hardwick K A, Blakesley D, Brancalion P H S, Breman E, Cecilio Rebola L, Chomba S, Dixon K, Elliott S, Ruyonga G, Shaw K, Smith P, Smith R J, Antonelli A. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, 2021, 27(7): 1328–1348

[66] Deng L, Zhu G, Tang Z, Shangguan Z. Global patterns of the effects of land-use changes on soil carbon stocks. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2016, 5: 127–138

[67] Dawson J J C, Smith P. Carbon losses from soil and its consequences for land-use management. Science of the Total Environment, 2007, 382(2–3): 165–190

[68] Poeplau C, Don A, Vesterdal L, Leifeld J, Van Wesemael B, Schumacher J, Gensior A. Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone—Carbon response functions as a model approach. Global Change Biology, 2011, 17(7): 2415–2427

[69] Oso V, Rajashekhar Rao B K. Land use conversion in humid tropics influences soil carbon stocks and forms. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2017, 17(2): 543–553

[70] Hou G L, Delang C O, Lu X X, Gao L. Grouping tree species to estimate afforestation-driven soil organic carbon sequestration. Plant and Soil, 2020, 455(1−2): 507−518

[71] Conant R T, Cerri C E P, Osborne B B, Paustian K. Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: a new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 2017, 27(2): 662–668

[72] Wang S, Wilkes A, Zhang Z, Chang X, Lang R, Wang Y, Niu H. Management and land use change effects on soil carbon in northern China’s grasslands: a synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2011, 142(3−4): 329−340

[73] Qin Z, Dunn J B, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander M M. Soil carbon sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel production: empirical evidence. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2016, 8(1): 66–80

[74] Holder A J, Clifton-Brown J, Rowe R, Robson P, Elias D, Dondini M, McNamara N P, Donnison I S, McCalmont J P. Measured and modelled effect of land-use change from temperate grassland to Miscanthus on soil carbon stocks after 12 years. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2019, 11(10): 1173–1186

[75] Harris Z M, Alberti G, Viger M, Jenkins J R, Rowe R, McNamara N P, Taylor G. Land-use change to bioenergy: grassland to short rotation coppice willow has an improved carbon balance. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2017, 9(2): 469–484

[76] McCalmont J P, McNamara N P, Donnison I S, Farrar K, Clifton-Brown J C. An interyear comparison of CO₂ flux and carbon budget at a commercial-scale land-use transition from semi-improved grassland to Miscanthus × giganteus. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2017, 9(1): 229–245

[77] Burke I C, Lauenroth W K, Coffin D P. Soil organic matter recovery in semiarid grasslands: implications for the conservation reserve program. Ecological Applications, 1995, 5(3): 793–801

[78] Trumbore S E, Davidson E A, de Camargo P B, Nepstad D C, Martinelli L A. Belowground cycling of carbon in forests and pastures of eastern Amazonia. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1995, 9(4): 515–528

[79] Upson M A. The carbon storage benefits of agroforestry and farm woodlands. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Cranfield: Cranfield University, 2014

[80] Cardinael R, Chevallier T, Cambou A, Béral C, Barthès B G, Dupraz C, Durand C, Kouakoua E, Chenu C. Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: a survey of six different sites in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2017, 236: 243–255

[81] Singh B R, Wele A D, Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration under chronosequences of agroforestry and agricultural lands in Southern Ethiopia. In: 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane, 2010

[82] Brejda J J. Soil changes following 18 years of protection from grazing in Arizona Chaparral. Southwestern Naturalist, 1997, 42(4): 478–487

[83] Perryman S. Broadbalk wilderness accumulation of organic carbon. Rothamsted Research, 2015

[84] Rothamsted Research. Broadbalk soil organic carbon content 1843–2015. Rothamsted Research, 2021

[85] Fornara D A, Olave R, Burgess P, Delmer A, Upson M, McAdam J. Land use change and soil carbon pools: evidence from a long-term silvopastoral experiment. Agroforestry Systems, 2018, 92(4): 1035–1046

[86] Beckert M R, Smith P, Lilly A, Chapman S J. Soil and tree biomass carbon sequestration potential of silvopastoral and woodland-pasture systems in North East Scotland. Agroforestry Systems, 2016, 90(3): 371–383

[87] Guo L B, Gifford R M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology, 2002, 8(4): 345–360

[88] van Straaten O, Corre M D, Wolf K, Tchienkoua M, Cuellar E, Matthews R B, Veldkamp E. Conversion of lowland tropical forests to tree cash crop plantations loses up to one-half of stored soil organic carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(32): 9956–9960

[89] Post W M, Izaurralde R C, Jastrow J D, McCarl B A, Amonette J E, Bailey V L, Jardine P M, West T O, Zhou J. Enhancement of carbon sequestration in US soils. Bioscience, 2004, 54(10): 895–908

[90] Schahczenski J, Hill H. Agriculture, climate change and carbon sequestration. NCAT, 2009

[91] Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma, 2004, 123(1−2): 1−22

[92] Minasny B, Malone B P, McBratney A B, Angers D A, Arrouays D, Chambers A, Chaplot V, Chen Z S, Cheng K, Das B S, Field D J, Gimona A, Hedley C B, Hong S Y, Mandal B, Marchant B P, Martin M, McConkey B G, Mulder V L, O’Rourke S, Richer-de-Forges A C, 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. Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 2017, 292: 59–86

[93] Aguilera E, Lassaletta L, Gattinger A, Gimeno B S. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2013, 168: 25–36

[94] Bai X, Huang Y, Ren W, Coyne M, Jacinthe P A, Tao B, Hui D, Yang J, Matocha C. Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 2019, 25(8): 2591–2606

[95] Powlson D S, Bhogal A, Chambers B J, Coleman K, Macdonald A J, Goulding K W T, Whitmore A P. The potential to increase soil carbon stocks through reduced tillage or organic material additions in England and Wales: a case study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2012, 146(1): 23–33

[96] Johnson J M F, Reicosky D C, Allmaras R R, Sauer T J, Venterea R T, Dell C J. Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agriculture in the central USA. Soil & Tillage Research, 2005, 83(1): 73–94

[97] Zhu K, Ran H, Wang F, Ye X, Niu L, Schulin R, Wang G. Conservation tillage facilitated soil carbon sequestration through diversified carbon conversions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2022, 337: 108080

[98] Yadav G S, Das A, Babu S, Mohapatra K P, Lal R, Rajkhowa D. Potential of conservation tillage and altered land configuration to improve soil properties, carbon sequestration and productivity of maize based cropping system in eastern Himalayas, India. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2021, 9(2): 279–290

[99] Bienes R, Marques M J, Sastre B, García-Díaz A, Esparza I, Antón O, Navarrete L, Hernánz J L, Sánchez-Girón V, Sánchez del Arco M J, Alarcón R. Tracking changes on soil structure and organic carbon sequestration after 30 years of different tillage and management practices. Agronomy, 2021, 11(2): 291

[100] Pareja-Sánchez , Cantero-Martinez C, Alvaro-Fuentes J, Plaza-Bonilla D. Soil organic carbon sequestration when converting a rainfed cropping system to irrigated corn under different tillage systems and N fertilizer rates. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2020, 84(4): 1219–1232

[101] Matsumoto N, Nobuntou W, Punlai N, Sugino T, Rujikun P, Luanmanee S, Kawamura K. Soil carbon sequestration on a maize-mung bean field with rice straw mulch, no-tillage, and chemical fertilizer application in Thailand from 2011 to 2015. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2021, 67(2): 190–196

[102] Zhao J, Liu Z, Lai H, Yang D, Li X. Optimizing residue and tillage management practices to improve soil carbon sequestration in a wheat-peanut rotation system. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 306: 114468

[103] Liang Y, Al-Kaisi M, Yuan J C, Liu J Z, Zhang H X, Wang L C, Cai H G, Ren J. Effect of chemical fertilizer and straw-derived organic amendments on continuous maize yield, soil carbon sequestration and soil quality in a Chinese Mollisol. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2021, 314: 107403

[104] Srinivasarao C, Kundu S, Yashavanth B S, Rakesh S, Akbari K N, Sutaria G S, Vora V D, Hirpara D S, Gopinath K A, Chary G R, Prasad J, Bolan N S, Venkateswarlu B. Influence of 16 years of fertilization and manuring on carbon sequestration and agronomic productivity of groundnut in vertisol of semi-arid tropics of Western India. Carbon Management, 2021, 12(1): 13–24

[105] De Los Rios J, Poyda A, Reinsch T, Kluss C, Taube F, Loges R. Integrating crop-livestock system practices in forage and grain-based rotations in northern Germany: potentials for soil carbon sequestration. Agronomy, 2022, 12(2): 338

[106] Kroschewski B, Richter C, Baumecker M, Kautz T. Effect of crop rotation and straw application in combination with mineral nitrogen fertilization on soil carbon sequestration in the Thyrow long-term experiment Thy_D5. Plant and Soil, 2022, doi:10.1007/s11104-022-05459-5

[107] Wang R J, Zhou J X, Xie J Y, Khan A, Yang X Y, Sun B H, Zhang S L. Carbon sequestration in irrigated and rain-fed cropping systems under long-term fertilization regimes. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2020, 20(3): 941–952

[108] Beltrán M, Galantini J A, Salvagiotti F, Tognetti P, Bacigaluppo S, Sainz Rozas H R, Barraco M, Barbieri P A. Do soil carbon sequestration and soil fertility increase by including a gramineous cover crop in continuous soybean. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2021, 85(5): 1380–1394

[109] Nicoloso R S, Rice C W. Intensification of no-till agricultural systems: an opportunity for carbon sequestration. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2021, 85(5): 1395–1409

[110] Govaerts B, Verhulst N, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Sayre K D, Dixon J, Dendooven L. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: between myth and farmer reality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 2009, 28(3): 97–122

[111] Feng Q, An C J, Chen Z, Wang Z. Can deep tillage enhance carbon sequestration in soils? A meta-analysis towards GHG mitigation and sustainable agricultural management. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020, 133: 110293

[112] Huang Q, Zhang G B, Ma J, Song K F, Zhu X L, Shen W Y, Xu H. Dynamic interactions of nitrogen fertilizer and straw application on greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration of soil carbon and nitrogen: a 13-year field study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2022, 325: 107753

[113] Khan S A, Mulvaney R L, Ellsworth T R, Boast C W. The myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2007, 36(6): 1821–1832

[114] Chan K Y, Heenan D P, So H B. Sequestration of carbon and changes in soil quality under conservation tillage on light-textured soils in Australia: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2003, 43(4): 325–334

[115] Lake J A, Kisielewski P, Hammond P, Marques F. Sustainable soil improvement and water use in agriculture: CCU enabling technologies afford an innovative approach. Journal of CO₂ Utilization, 2019, 32:21–30

[116] UK Parliament. CCm Technologies—Written Evidence (NSD0009). Available at the UK Parliament website on November 19, 2022

[117] Brewer K M, Gaudin A C M. Potential of crop-livestock integration to enhance carbon sequestration and agroecosystem functioning in semi-arid croplands. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2020, 149: 107936

[118] Wu L, Wu L, Bingham I J, Misselbrook T H. Projected climate effects on soil workability and trafficability determine the feasibility of converting permanent grassland to arable land. Agricultural Systems, 2022, 203: 103500

[119] Chatterjee A, Lal R. On farm assessment of tillage impact on soil carbon and associated soil quality parameters. Soil & Tillage Research, 2009, 104(2): 270–277

[120] Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2006, 11(2): 403–427

[121] Osman A I, Fawzy S, Farghali M, El-Azazy M, Elgarahy A M, Fahim R A, Maksoud M I A A, Ajlan A A, Yousry M, Saleem Y, Rooney D W. Biochar for agronomy, animal farming, anaerobic digestion, composting, water treatment, soil remediation, construction, energy storage, and carbon sequestration: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 2022, 20(4): 2385–2485

[122] Wang J, Xiong Z, Kuzyakov Y. Biochar stability in soil: meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2016, 8(3): 512–523

[123] Hilscher A, Heister K, Siewert C, Knicker H. Mineralisation and structural changes during the initial phase of microbial degradation of pyrogenic plant residues in soil. Organic Geochemistry, 2009, 40(3): 332–342

[124] Kuzyakov Y, Bogomolova I, Glaser B. Biochar stability in soil: decomposition during eight years and transformation as assessed by compound-specific ¹⁴C analysis. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2014, 70: 229–236

[125] Xie T, Sadasivam B Y, Reddy K R, Wang C W, Spokas K. Review of the effects of biochar amendment on soil properties and carbon sequestration. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste, 2016, 20(1): 04015013

[126] Sarfraz R, Hussain A, Sabir A, Ben Fekih I, Ditta A, Xing S. Role of biochar and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria to enhance soil carbon sequestration—A review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2019, 191(4): 251

[127] Majumder S, Neogi S, Dutta T, Powel M A, Banik P. The impact of biochar on soil carbon sequestration: meta-analytical approach to evaluating environmental and economic advantages. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 250: 109466

[128] Lorenz K, Lal R. Biochar application to soil for climate change mitigation by soil organic carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2014, 177(5): 651–670

[129] Gong H Y, Li Y F, Li S J. Effects of the interaction between biochar and nutrients on soil organic carbon sequestration in soda saline-alkali grassland: a review. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 26: e01449

[130] Ennis C J, Evans A G, Islam M, Ralebitso-Senior T K, Senior E. Biochar: carbon sequestration, land remediation, and impacts on soil microbiology. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2012, 42(22): 2311–2364

[131] Gross A, Bromm T, Glaser B. Soil organic carbon sequestration after biochar application: a global meta-analysis. Agronomy, 2021, 11(12): 2474

[132] Zhang X, Chen C, Chen X, Tao P, Jin Z, Han Z. Persistent effects of biochar on soil organic carbon mineralization and resistant carbon pool in upland red soil, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2018, 77(5): 177

[133] Gao S, DeLuca T H, Cleveland C C. Biochar additions alter phosphorus and nitrogen availability in agricultural ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 654: 463–472

[134] Kalu S. Long-term effects of biochars as a soil amendment in boreal agricultural soils. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2022

[135] Nguyen T T N, Xu C Y, Tahmasbian I, Che R, Xu Z, Zhou X, Wallace H M, Bai S H. Effects of biochar on soil available inorganic nitrogen: a review and meta-analysis. Geoderma, 2017, 288: 79–96

[136] Seré C, Steinfeld H, Groenewold J. World livestock production systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1996

[137] Garnett T, Godde C, Muller A, Röös E, Smith P, de Boer I, zu Ermgassen E, Herrero M, van Middelaar C, Schader C, van Zanten H. Grazed and confused? Oxford: Food Climate Research Network, 2017

[138] McSherry M E, Ritchie M E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Global Change Biology, 2013, 19(5): 1347–1357

[139] Bai Y, Cotrufo M F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science, 2022, 377(6606): 603–608

[140] Tessema B, Sommer R, Piikki K, Söderström M, Namirembe S, Notenbaert A, Tamene L, Nyawira S, Paul B. Potential for soil organic carbon sequestration in grasslands in East African countries: a review. Grassland Science, 2020, 66(3): 135–144

[141] Jones M B, Donnelly A. Carbon sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and the influence of management, climate and elevated CO₂. New Phytologist, 2004, 164(3): 423–439

[142] Conant R T, Paustian K, Elliott E T. Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecological Applications, 2001, 11(2): 343–355

[143] Byrnes R C, Eastburn D J, Tate K W, Roche L M. A global meta-analysis of grazing impacts on soil health indicators. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2018, 47(4): 758–765

[144] Stanley P L, Rowntree J E, Beede D K, DeLonge M S, Hamm M W. Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems, 2018, 162: 249–258

[145] Edouard Rambaut L A, Vayssières J, Versini A, Salgado P, Lecomte P, Tillard E. 15-year fertilization increased soil organic carbon stock even in systems reputed to be saturated like permanent grassland on andosols. Geoderma, 2022, 425: 116025

[146] Denboba M A. Grazing management and carbon sequestration in the dry lowland rangelands of southern Ethiopia. Sustainable Environment, 2022, 8(1): 2046959

[147] Leu S, Ben-Eli M, Mor-Mussery A. Effects of grazing control on ecosystem recovery, biological productivity gains, and soil carbon sequestration in long-term degraded loess farmlands in the Northern Negev, Israel. Land Degradation & Development, 2021, 32(8): 2580–2594

[148] Deng L, Shangguan Z P, Wu G L, Chang X F. Effects of grazing exclusion on carbon sequestration in China’s grassland. Earth-Science Reviews, 2017, 173: 84–95

[149] Bagchi S, Ritchie M E. Introduced grazers can restrict potential soil carbon sequestration through impacts on plant community composition. Ecology Letters, 2010, 13(8): 959–968

[150] Reeder J D, Schuman G E. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed-grass and short-grass rangelands. Environmental Pollution, 2002, 116(3): 457–463

[151] Coonan E C, Richardson A E, Kirkby C A, Kirkegaard J A, Amidy M R, Simpson R J, Strong C L. Soil carbon sequestration to depth in response to long-term phosphorus fertilization of grazed pasture. Geoderma, 2019, 338: 226–235

[152] Skinner R H, Dell C J. Yield and soil carbon sequestration in grazed pastures sown with two or five forage species. Crop Science, 2016, 56(4): 2035–2044

[153] Talore D G, Tesfamariam E H, Hassen A, Du Toit J C O, Klampp K, Jean-Francois S. Long-term impacts of grazing intensity on soil carbon sequestration and selected soil properties in the arid Eastern Cape, South Africa. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2016, 96(6): 1945–1952

[154] Sarkar R, Corriher-Olson V, Long C, Somenahally A. Challenges and potentials for soil organic carbon sequestration in forage and grazing systems. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 2020, 73(6): 786–795

[155] Smith P, Gregory P J, van Vuuren D, Obersteiner M, Havlík P, Rounsevell M, Woods J, Stehfest E, Bellarby J. Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 2010, 365(1554): 2941–2957

[156] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2019

[157] Zhang X, Sun N, Wu L, Xu M, Bingham I J, Li Z. Effects of enhancing soil organic carbon sequestration in the topsoil by fertilization on crop productivity and stability: evidence from long-term experiments with wheat-maize cropping systems in China. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 562: 247–259

[158] Qiao L, Wang X, Smith P, Fan J, Lu Y, Emmett B, Li R, Dorling S, Chen H, Liu S, Benton T G, Wang Y, Ma Y, Jiang R, Zhang F, Piao S, Mϋller C, Yang H, Hao Y, Li W, Fan M. Soil quality both increases crop production and improves resilience to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2022, 12(6): 574–580

[159] Macholdt J, Styczen M E, Macdonald A, Piepho H P, Honermeier B. Long-term analysis from a cropping system perspective: yield stability, environmental adaptability, and production risk of winter barley. European Journal of Agronomy, 2020, 117: 126056

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/C/000I0320 and BBS/E/C/000I0330).

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Lianhai Wu declares that he has no conflicts of interest or financial conflicts to disclose. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

版权

2022 The Author(s) 2022. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)