Review

Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Context of Climate Change

Mitigation: A Review
Cristina I. Dias Rodrigues 1 , Luís Miguel Brito 1,2,3 and Leonel J. R. Nunes 4, *

1 Escola Superior Agrária, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de
Nun’Alvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal; [email protected] (C.I.D.R.);
[email protected] (L.M.B.)
2 CIMO, Centro de Investigação de Montanha, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus Santa Apolónia,
5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
3 CISAS, Centro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Sistemas Agroalimentares e Sustentabilidade,
Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Alvares,
4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
4 ProMetheus, Unidade de Investigação em Materiais, Energia e Ambiente para a Sustentabilidade,
Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua da Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Alvares,
4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This review article aims to acknowledge the multifaceted functions of soil, and given its
status as the largest terrestrial carbon store, to reaffirm its previously established importance in
carbon sequestration. The article outlines the key variables that affect soil’s ability to trap carbon and
highlights the significance of soil in halting climate change. A bibliometric study of seven sets of
keywords relating to the significance of soil in carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation
laid the foundation for this review. The literature review that followed, which was based on the
bibliometric analysis, concentrated on carbon sequestration and the impact of the key factors that
affect the amount of organic carbon in soil, including (1) climatic conditions; (2) topography; (3) parent
material; (4) organisms; and (5) soil qualities. The goal of this review article is to recognize the diverse
roles of soil, while reasserting its well-documented significance in carbon sequestration. This is
particularly important considering soil’s position as the largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon.
Citation: Rodrigues, C.I.D.; Brito,
L.M.; Nunes, L.J.R. Soil Carbon Keywords: carbon storage; carbon indicators; carbon mitigation; organic soil properties; soil functions
Sequestration in the Context of
Climate Change Mitigation: A
Review. Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
soilsystems7030064 Climate change is one of the most significant challenges of our time. The increase in
Academic Editor: Yu (Frank) Yang average temperature, now unequivocally proven, is occurring at an unprecedented rate.
The growing concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), as well as other greenhouse gases,
Received: 16 May 2023 such as methane (CH4 ) and nitrogen oxides (NOX ), which are the main drivers of the
Revised: 22 June 2023
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) effect, are released through the burning of fossil fuels
Accepted: 29 June 2023
and biomass, notably through the decomposition of organic matter at the surface and at
Published: 3 July 2023
depth in the soil [1]. This leads to the need for reliable estimates of the amounts of organic
carbon that can be sequestered by vegetation and soils.
The official GHG emissions data reported by the 27 European Union (EU) Member
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
States confirm that the EU fully achieved its climate and energy targets for 2020. The EU-27
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. GHG emissions in 2020 were 32% below 1990 levels, far exceeding the 2020 target of a
This article is an open access article 20% reduction [2]. Estimates from preliminary data, reported by the most recent Member
distributed under the terms and States, suggest that GHG emissions increased by 5% in 2021 compared to the 2020 levels.
conditions of the Creative Commons However, these estimated emissions remain 6% below the pre-COVID level of 2019 and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// over 8% below the 2020 target. At the level of GHG emission sources, the energy sector
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (26%) was the largest contributor in the EU in 2022, followed by domestic transport and
4.0/). industry sectors (22%). It is also important to note that the land use, land-use change, and

Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7030064 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/soilsystems

Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 2 of 21

forestry sectors show negative values (−7%), resulting from their positive contribution to
carbon sequestration capacity [3].
In Portugal, similarly to trends observed in EU data, GHG emissions began decreasing
in 2005 and continued since, with the exception of 2017. The most recent data, from
2020, indicate emissions of 52,939.2 kt CO2 eq [4], with the energy sector being the largest
contributor to GHG emissions in Portugal. On the other hand, in general, over the 30 years
of reference data, the forestry and land-use change sectors recorded negative emission
values, representing the sector’s ability to sequester carbon. However, it is worth noting that
in 2017, the forestry and land-use change sectors were responsible for emitting 21,453.80 kt
CO2 eq, which accounted for 23% of total emissions (92,404.1 kt CO2 eq) [4].
Increases in atmospheric CO2 can lead to increases in terrestrial carbon storage, namely
through photosynthesis, land-use changes, vegetation and soil responses to continuous
warming, and changes in the water cycle [5]. On the timescale of decades and centuries,
the main natural CO2 sinks pertain to absorption by oceans, plants, and soils [5]. Given
that more than two-thirds of terrestrial carbon reserves are found in soils [6,7], they play an
important role in mitigating GHGs emissions [8]. The role of soils as sinks for atmospheric
CO2 is ambiguous [9], and various strategies to increase their carbon sequestration capacity
are discussed in the literature, revealing an opportunity for soil to reduce carbon emissions
or explore other sequestration opportunities [1,10]. Increasing carbon sequestration also
supports several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), directly contribut-
ing to SDG 2 “End Hunger”, SDG 13 “Combat Climate Change”, and SDG 15 “Terrestrial
Ecosystems and Biodiversity”.
Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries
prepare inventories of all anthropogenic GHG emissions and removals, following method-
ological guidance prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
These GHG inventories include the “Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry” (LULUCF)
sector, covering emissions and sequestration, primarily through forests, but also from
croplands, grasslands, wetlands, settlements, and other areas. Following this, in the EU,
the net CO2 absorption estimated in 2012 was 306 million tonnes of CO2 . This number
results from the balance between net sequestration by forests (444 million tonnes of CO2 )
and net emissions from other ecosystems (138 million tonnes of CO2 ). EU ecosystems, and
particularly forests, mitigate around 7% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the EU [11].
In the EU, there is great potential to increase soil carbon stocks over the next few
decades through changes in agricultural practices [12]. In this context, the possibility of
carbon sequestration should be considered as a potential means to mitigate increases in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, it is important to note that recent studies
recommend some precautions, highlighting that those efforts aimed at achieving carbon
sequestration are often offset by other GHG emissions [9] and that soils generally have
low potential to accumulate carbon [1]. Since carbon sequestration in soils is potentially
finite, not permanent [6], and difficult to quantify and verify in the long term, it can be
considered a risky strategy for minimizing climate effects compared to direct emission
reduction. However, in the short term, it may be crucial for reducing atmospheric CO2
concentrations [13]. The balance between carbon inputs and outputs in the soil is disturbed
by land-use change until equilibrium is reached again. During this process, the soil can act
as a source of carbon or as a sink of carbon depending on the relationship between carbon
inputs and outputs [14].
Lal and Lal et al. [15,16] indicate that there are numerous benefits in terrestrial carbon
sequestration, including compensating for anthropogenic emissions; reducing the net
increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration; increasing soil and water resource quality
and their ecosystem functions and services; decreasing nutrient losses from ecosystems;
reducing erosion risks; improving habitats; enhancing water retention; restoring degraded
soils; and increasing land-use efficiency. Given the numerous co-benefits, there is great
interest in defining concepts, experimental approaches, laboratory analysis procedures, and
methods for determining carbon sequestration rates through plant units, plant residues,
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 3 of 21

and other organic solids, which are stored and retained as part of the soil organic matter. In
this sense, quantifying the global ecosystem carbon balance is necessary and fundamental,
not only to assess the magnitude of global carbon reservoirs, but also to set new objectives
for ecosystem management.
The primary purpose of this review article is to furnish a comprehensive insight into
the multiple roles that soil plays, with a special emphasis on its significant function in carbon
sequestration and mitigating the effects of climate change. Soil, as the largest terrestrial
carbon reservoir, plays a pivotal role in the global carbon cycle and is a crucial player in
our battle against climate change. The article underscores this crucial role and brings into
focus the key factors that impact its capacity to sequester carbon. These factors range from
environmental conditions such as climate, geographical features including topography, the
soil’s original composition termed as the parent material, the variety of organisms that
inhabit the soil, to inherent soil characteristics such as its texture, structure, and organic
matter content. To provide a well-rounded understanding, the review was carried out using
a two-pronged approach. Initially, a bibliometric analysis was conducted on seven distinct
sets of keywords pertinent to the subject matter. This method of analysis allowed for an
objective assessment of the current state of research in this field. Subsequently, a thorough
literature review was performed to delve deeper into the selected studies, providing a
nuanced understanding of the various aspects of soil’s role in carbon sequestration and
climate change mitigation.

2. Bibliometric Analysis
This study started with the definition of bibliometric analysis processes, using the
Scopus database due to its extensive collection of relevant articles. We exported our findings
from Scopus in BibTeX format to record detailed citation and bibliographic information. A
thorough investigation of scientific articles was undertaken. This process involved using
carefully selected keywords in various combinations, which were applied to the titles,
abstracts, and keywords of database entries. To enhance the precision of the search, we
employed additional filters. We confined the ‘Study Area’ to Environmental Science and
Agricultural and Biological Sciences and the ‘Document Type’ to Review. The complete
list of applied keywords can be found in Figure 1. Subsequently, the search results were
further explored using the “Bioblimetrix” package [17], specifically with the “Biblioshiny”
tool, available in RStudio software, version 5599.7.2.0, where publication data, such as
authors, publication years, country of origin, number of citations, number of publications,
and journal information, are compiled and organized to facilitate the extraction of more
relevant data. To make data processing easier and to adapt the data for reading, the data
were exported from this tool into Excel format.
The analysis of different keyword sets indicated distinctive trends in the scientific
literature. ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, and ‘Capture’ resulted in 134 documents from 1995 to 2022,
with a 100% increase from 2020 to 2021. A higher yield was seen with ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’,
and ‘Sequestration’, generating 995 documents from 1997 to 2023, and reaching over
100 publications in 2021. Despite a steady rate of one publication per year, ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’,
‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Climate’, and ‘Change’ showed significant
growth, with 433 documents from 1997 to 2023 and more than 160 in the last three years. The
sets ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Types’, and ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Types’, ‘Land’,
and ‘Use’ yielded 154 and 98 documents, respectively, both showing an upward trend since
2019. ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Organic’, and ‘Matter’ generated 259 documents,
peaking in the last two years. These topics, overall, show increasing attention over time.
Journals frequently cited include “Science of The Total Environment”, “Agronomy for
Sustainable Development”, and “Journal of Environmental Management”, each associated
with specific keyword groups. Considering author nationality, the U.S., China, and the U.K.
are the most common, with China leading for ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, and ‘Types’,
and Germany also featuring significantly for ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Organic’,
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 4 of 21

Soil Syst. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22

and ‘Matter’. This bibliometric analysis, including the five most cited documents for each
keyword set (presented in Table 1), serves as a foundation for the literature review.

Carbon , Sequestration , Soil , Organic and Matter

Carbon , Sequestration , Types , Land and Use

Carbon , Sequestration , Soil and Types

Soil , Carbon , Sequestration , Climate and Change

Soil , Carbon , Sequestration and Mediterranean

Soil , Carbon and Sequestration

Soil , Carbon and Capture

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Documents

Figure 1. Sets of keywords used in the search, with the ‘Study

‘Study Area’ confined to Environmental
Science and Agricultural and Biological Sciences and the ‘Document Type’
Type’ to
to Review.
Review.

TableThe 1. Most cited documents

analysis of different worldwide
keyword forsets
eachindicated
set of keywords used intrends
distinctive the search in the
in the Web of
scientific
Science database and processed in the Bibliometrix package (Biblioshiny tool)
literature. ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, and ‘Capture’ resulted in 134 documents from 1995 to 2022, in RStudio: (a) ‘Soil’,
‘Carbon’, and ‘Capture’; (b) set of keywords ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, and ‘Sequestration’;
with a 100% increase from 2020 to 2021. A higher yield was seen with ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, and (c) set of keywords
‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’,
‘Sequestration’, generating 995 ‘Climate’, and ‘Change’;
documents from 1997(d) set
to of keywords
2023, ‘Carbon’, over
and reaching ‘Sequestration’,
100 pub-
‘Soil’,
lications in 2021. Despite a steady rate of one publication per year, ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’,(f)‘Se-
and ‘Types’; (e) set of keywords ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Types’, ‘Land’, and ‘Use’; and set
of keywords ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Organic’, and ‘Matter’.
questration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Climate’, and ‘Change’ showed significant
growth, with 433 documents from 1997 to 2023 and more than 160 in the last three years.
Reference Citations
The sets ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Types’, and ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Types’,
Dungait, J.A.; Hopkins, D.W.; Gregory,
‘Land’, and ‘Use’A.S.; Whitmore,
yielded 154 A.P.
andSoil
98 organic matterrespectively,
documents, turnover is governed by
both showing an942
upward
accessibility not recalcitrance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 1781–1796.
trend since 2019. ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Organic’, and ‘Matter’ generated 259
McCormack, M.L.; Dickie, I.A.; Eissenstat, D.M.; Fahey, T.J.; Fernandez, C.W.; Guo, D.; Helmissari, H.-S.;
Hobbie, E.A.; Iversen, documents,
C.M.; Jackson,peaking in Redefining
R.B.; et al. the last two years.
fine rootsThese
improvestopics, overall, show
understanding of increasing 702attention
over time. Journals frequently cited include “Science
below-ground contributions to terrestrial biosphere processes. New Phytol. 2015, 207, 505–518. of The Total Environment”, “Agron-
(a) omy for
Paustian K.A.O.J.H.; Andren, O.;Sustainable
Janzen, H.H.;Development”,
Lal, R.; Smith, P.; and
Tian,“Journal
G.; Woomer,of Environmental Management”, each
P.L. Agricultural soils
692
as a sink to mitigate CO 2 emissions.
associated Soilspecific
with Use Manag. 1997, 13,
keyword 230–244.
groups. Considering author nationality, the U.S., China,
Nair, P.R. Grand challenges in agroecology
and the U.K. are theand most land withFront.
use systems.
common, ChinaEnviron.
leadingSci.for2014, 2, 1. ‘Sequestration’,
‘Carbon’, 522 ‘Soil’,
Fuss, S.; Lamb, W.F.; Callaghan, M.W.; Hilaire, J.; Creutzig, F.; Amann, T.; Minx, J.C. Negative
and ‘Types’, and Germany also featuring significantly for ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, 491 ‘Soil’,
emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 063002.
‘Organic’, and ‘Matter’. This bibliometric analysis, including the five most cited docu-
Six, J.; Conant, R.T.; Paul, E.A.;for
ments Paustian, K. Stabilization
each keyword mechanisms
set (presented of soil 1),
in Table organic
servesmatter: implications for the literature
as a foundation 2803
for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 2002, 241, 155–176.
review.
Huang, L.; Wang, C.Y.; Tan, W.F.; Hu, H.Q.; Cai, C.F.; Wang, M.K. Distribution of organic matter in
2560
(b) aggregates of eroded Ultisols, Central China. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 108, 59–67.
Table 1. Most cited documents worldwide for each set of keywords used
Lehmann, J.; Guant, G.; Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitig. in the search in the Web
of Science database and processed in the Bibliometrix package (Biblioshiny tool) in 2138
RStudio: (a)
Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2006, 11, 403–427.
‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, and ‘Capture’; (b) set of keywords ‘Soil’,
Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. ‘Carbon’, and ‘Sequestration’; (c)
2137 set of
keywords ‘Soil’, ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Climate’, and ‘Change’; (d) set of keywords ‘Carbon’,
‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, and ‘Types’; (e) set of keywords ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Types’, ‘Land’, and
‘Use’; and (f) set of keywords ‘Carbon’, ‘Sequestration’, ‘Soil’, ‘Organic’, and ‘Matter’.

Reference Citations
Dungait, J.A.; Hopkins, D.W.; Gregory, A.S.; Whitmore, A.P. Soil organic matter turnover is gov-
942
erned by accessibility not recalcitrance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 1781–1796.
(a) McCormack, M.L.; Dickie, I.A.; Eissenstat, D.M.; Fahey, T.J.; Fernandez, C.W.; Guo, D.; Helmissari,
H.-S.; Hobbie, E.A.; Iversen, C.M.; Jackson, R.B.; et al. Redefining fine roots improves understanding 702
of below-ground contributions to terrestrial biosphere processes. New Phytol. 2015, 207, 505–518.
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 5 of 21

Table 1. Cont.

Reference Citations
Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. 2137
Atkinson, C.J.; Fitzgerald, J.D.; Hipps, N.A. Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits
1432
from biochar application to temperate soils: A review. Plant Soil 2010, 337, 1–18.
Bowles, T.M.; Acosta-Martínez, V.; Calderón, F.; Jackson, L.E. Soil enzyme activities, microbial
communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an 1206
(c)
intensively-managed agricultural landscape. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 68, 252–262.
Running, S.W.; Nemani, R.R.; Heinsch, F.A.; Zhao, M.; Reeves, M.; Hashimoto, H. A continuous
978
satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 2004, 54, 547–560.
Olesen, J.E.; Bindi, M. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use
972
and policy. Eur. J. Agron. 2002, 16, 239–262.
Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, J.; Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitig.
2138
Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2006, 11, 403-427.
Hinsinger, P.; Bengough, A.G.; Vetterlein, D.; Young, I.M. Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry and
965
ecological relevance. Plant Soil 2009, 321, 117–152.
(d)
Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. Sustain. Agric.
844
2011, 2, 761–786.
Kimball, B.A.; Kobayashi, K.; Bindi, M. Responses of agricultural crops to free-air CO2 enrichment. Adv.
758
Agron. 2002, 77, 293–368.
Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, J.; Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitig.
2138
Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2006, 11, 403–427.
Jacobson, M.Z. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy Environ.
1198
Sci. 2009, 2, 148-173.
Wissing, L.; Kölbl, A.; Schad, P.; Bräuer, T.; Cao, Z.H.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Organic carbon accumulation on
(e) 554
soil mineral surfaces in paddy soils derived from tidal wetlands. Geoderma 2014, 228, 90–103.
Smith, P. Carbon sequestration in croplands: the potential in Europe and the global context. Eur. J. Agron.
431
2004, 20, 229–236.
Thevenot, M.; Dignac, M.F.; Rumpel, C. Fate of lignins in soils: A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010,
398
42, 1200–1211.
Six, J.; Conant, R.T.; Paul, E.A.; Paustian, K. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications
2803
for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 2002, 241, 155–176.
Githinji, L. Effect of biochar application rate on soil physical and hydraulic properties of a sandy loam.
1894
Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2014, 60, 457–470.
Atkinson, C.J.; Fitzgerald, J.D.; Hipps, N.A. Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits
(f) 1432
from biochar application to temperate soils: A review. Plant Soil 2010, 337, 1–18.
Plante, A.F.; Conant, R.T.; Stewart, C.E.; Paustian, K.; Six, J. Impact of soil texture on the distribution of
1235
soil organic matter in physical and chemical fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 287–296.
Running, S.W.; Nemani, R.R.; Heinsch, F.A.; Zhao, M.; Reeves, M.; Hashimoto, H. A continuous
978
satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 2004, 54, 547–560.

3. Literature Review
3.1. Framework
Soils represent an integral facet of the global carbon cycle, serving as the most sizable
terrestrial carbon reservoir [18]. They harbor an estimated 1526 PgC of soil organic carbon
(SOC) and approximately 940 PgC of soil inorganic carbon [19]. Moreover, a depth of one
meter reveals that soil, accommodating 2500 PgC, and vegetation, hosting 620 PgC, jointly
hold thrice the amount of carbon as compared to the atmospheric carbon levels, which
stand at 880 PgC [19]. This amount of carbon held within soils and vegetation emphasizes
the critical role that they play in modulating the global carbon cycle and maintaining the
Earth’s climatic balance [20]. A critical function of soil is its capacity to act as a carbon sink,
storing carbon in the form of organic matter [21]. This organic matter derives from various
sources, such as decaying plant and animal materials, microbes, and carbonates [22]. Over
time, the organic matter undergoes biochemical transformations, leading to the formation
of humus, a stable form of organic matter [23]. This capacity of soil to store carbon not only
contributes to soil fertility and health but also significantly mitigates the atmospheric levels
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 6 of 21

of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas [20]. Meanwhile, soil inorganic carbon primarily
consists of carbonates, a significant fraction of the global carbon pool [24]. The formation
of soil inorganic carbon, a process known as soil carbonation, involves the reaction of
carbon dioxide with basic metal oxides and hydroxides in the soil [25]. This process further
contributes to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into soils. However, it is
important to note that soil carbonation is a slow process and depends on various factors,
such as the availability of basic cations, soil moisture, and temperature [26].
In the grand scheme of the global carbon cycle, vegetation also plays an equally
pivotal role [27]. Plants, through the process of photosynthesis, absorb carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and convert it into organic compounds, thereby acting as carbon
sinks [28]. The death and decomposition of plant materials contribute to the SOC pool [29].
Certain plant species, such as those in mangrove and peatland ecosystems, are known to
sequester large amounts of carbon [30]. The total carbon stored within soil and vegetation
is vast, dwarfing the quantity present in the atmosphere [31]. This significant difference
highlights the potential of soils and vegetation as tools for climate change mitigation,
particularly in terms of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Implementing land
management strategies that enhance carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation, such as
reforestation, afforestation, and the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices, can
prove instrumental in combating climate change [32].
The reserves of carbon in soil and vegetation underscore their importance in the global
carbon cycle (Figure 2). These terrestrial ecosystems serve not only as contributors to global
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, but also as carbon sinks that can help counter-
balance the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, primarily due to anthropogenic
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
activities [32]. Recognizing and harnessing the potential of soils for carbon sequestration
can, therefore, be an important strategy for climate change mitigation [33].

Figure2.2. The role of

Figure of soil
soiland
anditsitsmanagement
managementinin moderating
moderating thethe global
global carbon
carbon cycle
cycle (adapted
(adapted from
[19]).[19]).
from

Different types of soils exhibit varying capacities for CO2 sequestration, largely de-
termined by their physical and chemical properties, as well as the influence of human
activities and climate patterns [34]. Loamy soils, a balanced mix of sand, silt, and clay,
hold a considerable potential for CO2 sequestration [35]. Their capacity to store organic
matter, owing to their well-structured nature that facilitates good aeration and moisture
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 7 of 21

Different types of soils exhibit varying capacities for CO2 sequestration, largely de-
termined by their physical and chemical properties, as well as the influence of human
activities and climate patterns [34]. Loamy soils, a balanced mix of sand, silt, and clay, hold
a considerable potential for CO2 sequestration [35]. Their capacity to store organic matter,
owing to their well-structured nature that facilitates good aeration and moisture retention,
is relatively high. Loamy soils tend to foster an environment conducive to biological ac-
tivity, facilitating the decomposition of organic matter, which contributes significantly to
carbon storage. Clay soils, due to their fine texture and high mineral content, can store
vast amounts of CO2 [36]. The high cation exchange capacity (CEC) of clay soils makes
them effective in storing organic matter, thus promoting carbon sequestration. However,
their poor aeration can hinder biological activity, which may limit the decomposition of
organic matter, and by extension, the soil’s capacity for CO2 sequestration. Sandy soils
typically have lower carbon sequestration potential compared to loamy and clay soils [37].
Their large particle size and low mineral content limit their ability to retain organic matter.
The rapid drainage and lower water holding capacity of sandy soils can exacerbate these
limitations. However, the incorporation of organic amendments can enhance their carbon
storage capabilities. Peat soils, abundant in organic matter, are another vital player in the
realm of carbon sequestration [38]. Under suitable conditions, they can act as significant
carbon sinks, storing CO2 for extended periods. However, their carbon sequestration
potential can be compromised when they are drained or disturbed, leading to significant
CO2 emissions.
Soil management practices can considerably alter the CO2 sequestration potential
of each soil type [39]. Sustainable practices, such as organic farming, cover cropping,
and minimal tillage, can enhance the ability of soils to sequester CO2 , while deleterious
practices, such as overgrazing, excessive tillage, or land conversion, can diminish their
carbon storage potential [40]. Climate is another determinant of CO2 sequestration in soils.
Warmer climates generally accelerate decomposition rates, reducing the soil’s ability to
store carbon, while cooler climates tend to slow down decomposition, potentially increasing
carbon storage [41].

3.2. Soil Organic Carbon

Although atmospheric CO2 can be dissolved in soil moisture, these amounts are
relatively small, with photosynthesis being the main method of transferring carbon to
the soil [42]. In this sense, the rate of carbon accumulation in an ecosystem is mainly
due to the ecosystem’s net primary productivity, which is equal to the difference between
carbon input through photosynthesis and output through respiration [43–45]. The rate of
carbon accumulation in an ecosystem diminishes over time owing to a gradual increase in
respiration. Elevated concentrations of CO2 stimulate the influx of carbon into ecosystems,
leading to the sequestration of carbon and nitrogen in organic matter and enduring plant
biomass [43].
The original levels of carbon in the soil are fundamentally determined by the
balance between inputs of organic matter, mainly as plant residues, roots, and root
exudates, and outputs (losses) of organic matter, caused by decomposition, respira-
tion, erosion, acidification, leaching, nutrient depletion, changes in structure, and pol-
lution/contamination [10,15,46–49], under the original conditions (i.e., productivity,
moisture, and temperature regimes). However, since empirical evidence shows that
carbon levels in intensively managed agricultural and pastoral ecosystems can exceed
those recorded under original conditions [50], original levels do not necessarily represent
an upper limit to carbon reserves. Despite the slow rates of SOC production compared to
other fluxes in the carbon cycle, it is its relative stability against microbial decomposition
that facilitates its accumulation [51]. However, the potential for carbon sequestration
in soils may be much lower than expected, as the more carbon is stored in soils, the
greater the decomposition due to biological activity [52]. Additionally, factors such as
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 8 of 21

soil degradation and increased CO2 emissions from soil respiration can decrease SOC
reserves [10,51].
SOC can also decrease dramatically due to some human-induced changes in land,
such as the conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural ones, as this increases the
maximum soil temperature and reduces soil moisture storage in the root zone, especially
in drained agricultural soils [7,10], affecting the structure and increasing the rate of soil
degradation. In this regard, land-use history has a strong impact on SOC reserves [14,53].
Lal [10] points out the main functions of SOC reservoirs, such as being a source and
sink of major plant nutrients (e.g., N, P, S, Zn, and Mo), a source of charge density, being
responsible for ion exchange, water retention in low moisture potential sites leading to
increased available water capacity, being a promoter of soil aggregation, high water infiltra-
tion capacity and low losses from surface runoff, substrate for soil biota energy leading to
increased soil biodiversity, source of soil aggregate resistance leading to reduced suscepti-
bility to erosion, ensuring high nutrient and water use efficiency due to reduced losses from
drainage, evaporation, and volatilization, being a buffer against abrupt fluctuations in soil
reaction (pH) due to the application of agricultural amendments, and being a regulator of
soil temperature through its effect on soil color and albedo. In addition, [10] also mentions
that there are external functions of SOC reservoirs that have economic and environmental
importance, namely, reducing sediment load in surface watercourses, filtering pollutants
from agricultural chemicals, reactors for biodegradation of contaminants, and protecting
greenhouse gas emissions from soil to the atmosphere.
Strategies with multiple benefits for water quality, biomass productivity, and CO2
emission reduction involve restoring degraded soils and ecosystems [15], maintaining and
enhancing soil carbon reserves, optimizing productivity, reducing decomposition rates,
and adopting effective agricultural systems for soil erosion conservation and manage-
ment [5,8,10], such as selecting appropriate varieties or species with greater root mass [42],
adopting sustainable agricultural practices, such as intercropping, cover cropping, and
crop rotation [49], adopting appropriate uses of soil amendments [54], and using improved
pastures or agroforestry by redistributing the soil horizon or eliminating burning [12]. Since
proper agricultural management often has a number of other environmental and economic
benefits in addition to its potential climate mitigation, strategies to increase soil carbon
storage are attractive as part of integrated sustainability policies [13].

3.3. Indicators of Soil Organic Carbon

3.3.1. Climate
Climate conditions, namely annual average temperature and precipitation, influence
the amount and vertical distribution of organic carbon in soil as well as its storage, both
at global and (sub-) regional scales, affecting both the input of carbon into the soil and
the decomposition of organic carbon in soil [48,54–59]. The concentration of organic
carbon in soil varies in different regions, as low temperatures and waterlogging inhibit
decomposition and mineralization, resulting in the accumulation of organic carbon [60].
Therefore, the concentration of organic carbon in soil is higher in cold and humid
regions than in hot and dry regions [10,61]. Precipitation determines the plant primary
productivity in many terrestrial environments, and therefore, the input of carbon into
the soil [57]. Additionally, wet conditions favor the formation of mineral surfaces
stabilizing organic carbon in soil by intensifying weathering of the parent rock [52,62],
and often cause soil acidification, leading to reduced organic matter decomposition [59].
Changes in temperature and moisture levels affect microbial and biotic activity, leading
to alterations in microbial decomposition of organic matter, as its complex molecular
attributes are highly sensitive to temperature [5,44,54,63,64]. Although this relationship is
subject to multiple constraints, numerous studies found that an increase in air temperature
accelerates organic matter decomposition and tends to increase organic carbon losses [64–66],
while lower temperatures limit organic matter decomposition, and consequently, increase
organic carbon concentrations [67].
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 9 of 21

3.3.2. Topography
Topography is a frequently underestimated aspect of our environment that exerts
significant influences on various ecological processes [54]. Its three main characteristics—
geographic location, altitude, and slope—serve as defining parameters that influence
vegetation growth and erosive processes, which in turn profoundly impact soil carbon
storage [52,68]. Geographic location is a key determinant in the type and extent of veg-
etation that an area can support. Different regions are endowed with varying climatic
conditions, which can influence the vegetation’s composition and density [69]. For instance,
lush tropical forests are a characteristic of regions near the equator, while sparse vegeta-
tion is the norm in arid areas near the tropics [70]. This vegetation cover, in turn, has an
influence on soil carbon storage. Vegetation contributes organic matter to the soil, which,
over time, becomes a significant part of the soil’s carbon store. Altitude and slope, two
other crucial topographical features, also play key roles in shaping vegetation patterns
and controlling erosive processes [71]. Higher altitudes tend to have cooler temperatures,
which can limit the growth of certain types of vegetation. Similarly, steeper slopes often
experience more rapid runoff, leading to higher rates of soil erosion. This erosion not
only physically removes soil, but preferentially targets light, low-density particles that are
often rich in clay and carbon. Consequently, erosion can result in increased mineralization
rates, leading to higher carbon emissions and lesser carbon storage capacity in the soil [72].
Topographical characteristics also control precipitation and water flow dynamics, which
are crucial determinants of soil moisture content [73]. Soil moisture regulates not only
plant productivity, but also microbial activity and organic carbon release [74]. When the
soil’s moisture content is either exceedingly high or low, it can limit substrate mobility
and oxygen availability, thereby reducing microbial activity. As a result, these conditions
favor the accumulation of organic carbon within the soil. It is worth noting the paradox of
erosion’s effect on carbon sequestration. Although erosion contributes to carbon loss at the
site of disturbance, it can also lead to the burial and storage of carbon downstream, thus
potentially offsetting emissions to some extent [75]. Topography’s influence on vegetation
and erosion, and by extension on soil carbon storage, underscores the need to integrate it
into our understanding and management of carbon sequestration processes. The interplay
between topography, vegetation, erosion, and soil moisture offers myriad pathways for
carbon sequestration, each deserving further research to reveal their potential in mitigating
the escalating threat of climate change [76].

3.3.3. Origin of the Material

The intricate relationship between parent material and its potential influence on soil
attributes such as mineralogy, texture, and fertility is a topic of significant interest in
the realm of soil science. Parent material is undeniably linked to the inherent properties
of soil, which have a pivotal role in shaping plant productivity and the stabilization of
organic matter [45,58,77]. Therefore, understanding this association is critical in our quest
to foster sustainable agricultural practices and mitigate climate change. Parent material is
responsible for defining the mineralogical composition of the soil [78]. Different minerals
have varying abilities to adsorb and retain nutrients, which consequently affect the nutrient
availability for plants. For instance, soils rich in clay minerals, often derived from basaltic
parent materials, tend to have high nutrient retention capacities [79]. This directly influences
the productivity of the ecosystem, with nutrient-rich soils generally fostering higher plant
production levels. Parent material significantly contributes to the soil’s texture—a critical
determinant of water holding capacity, aeration, root penetration, and the soil’s propensity
to erosion [80]. Sandy soils, usually originating from granitic or sandstone parent materials,
tend to drain quickly and hold less water, potentially limiting plant productivity [81].
Conversely, clayey soils, derived from parent materials such as shale or basalt, retain water
effectively but may pose challenges to root penetration due to their compact nature [82].
The fertility of soil, an aggregate measure of its capacity to support plant growth, is greatly
influenced by the parent material [83]. Fertility typically encompasses aspects such as the
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 10 of 21

soil’s nutrient content, pH, and organic matter—parameters that are all intrinsically tied
to the type of parent material [84]. As an example, limestone-derived soils often exhibit
near-neutral pH values, which tend to favor nutrient availability and microbial activities,
promoting overall soil fertility [85,86]. Despite these correlations, the connection between
parent material and SOC storage is more complex and less direct. SOC storage is a key
component in the global carbon cycle and is instrumental in carbon sequestration and
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions [87]. Soil type, which is closely tied to parent material,
is known to associate with SOC storage [88]. For instance, peat soils, usually developed
from organic parent materials, can store considerable amounts of carbon. However, the
extent of SOC storage is also influenced by factors such as climate, land use, vegetation
type, and management practices, which can override the influence of the parent material.
Despite a soil’s inherent capacity to store carbon due to its parent material, poor land
management or inappropriate use can lead to significant carbon losses [89].

3.3.4. Organisms
Natural Vegetation
The intricacy of SOC stocks and their dynamics is an increasingly recognized aspect
of environmental studies. Encompassing a multitude of variables, these stocks are found
to be heavily influenced by factors such as vegetation, land use, and climatic conditions,
particularly on a sub-regional scale where the climate is more uniform [14]. Unveiling the
critical relationship between these elements and SOC stocks allows us to better understand
their role in carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Across the globe, in
various climate zones, it is notable that SOC stocks display distinct characteristics. These
are found at diverse depths and among different plant functional types, such as shrubs,
grasslands, or forests, among others [58,64,68]. This diversity is attributed to the differing
carbon allocation patterns that these types of vegetation present. For instance, the more
profound the soil profile, the more likely it is that the stored SOC is older [90]. This
observation aligns with findings from multiple studies revealing higher carbon stocks
situated nearer the soil surface, which then decrease with depth [16,68,91,92]. The type
of tree species present also significantly influences ecosystem carbon storage. Shallow-
rooted conifer species, for example, tend to accumulate less organic matter in forest soil
compared to deciduous trees, but they also have a lower rate of litter transformation [48].
This highlights the different contributions each species can make to the carbon cycle,
affecting both the accumulation and decomposition of organic matter. In further delving
into the effect of vegetation on SOC stocks, it becomes apparent that it not only affects
carbon input, but also impacts decomposition rates [57]. As an intricate network of life,
the rhizosphere hosts an abundance of micro and macro-organisms. This biodiversity
creates a dynamic environment where organic matter is both contributed to and broken
down, directly impacting the levels of SOC. The rhizosphere’s vitality, therefore, cements
its importance as a significant factor in SOC sequestration [54].

Land Use and Management

The rapid changes in land use across the globe play a crucial role in alterations to SOC
levels, thus becoming a significant determinant of SOC storage potential [60]. As land-use
patterns shift, there are consequential fluctuations in the concentrations of organic carbon
stored within soil strata, with significant implications for the environment and agricultural
productivity. A major factor contributing to the depletion of SOC (SOC) stocks is the
intensification of soil cultivation. Numerous studies pointed out that cultivated soils often
experience losses in SOC for a variety of reasons, with key factors being erosion, reduced
carbon inputs into the soil, and breakdown of organic matter stabilization. Erosion, driven
by the aggressive tilling and plowing practices common in intensive farming, results in the
loss of topsoil rich in organic carbon. This phenomenon accelerates the depletion of SOC
stocks, disrupts the carbon cycle, and negatively impacts soil fertility. Additionally, reduced
carbon inputs in croplands, primarily due to a decrease in the return of crop residues and
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 11 of 21

organic manure, can also lead to a decline in SOC levels. When carbon inputs are low, the
rate at which organic carbon is replaced in the soil fails to compensate for the carbon losses
through erosion, respiration, and leaching. Another contributing factor is the breakdown of
organic matter stabilization. As tillage operations disaggregate soil particles, the physical
protection of organic matter decreases, making it more susceptible to decomposition. This
destabilization process is further exacerbated by increased temperatures and soil aeration
often seen in cultivated lands [93,94]. These conditions promote mineralization, a biochem-
ical process that converts organic carbon into inorganic forms, thereby leading to a net loss
of SOC from the soil profile. However, it is important to note that not all changes in land
use result in the diminution of SOC. Land-use extensification, namely the transformation of
croplands into grasslands or forests, often leads to an increase in SOC levels [14,54,93,95].
This transition facilitates greater accumulation and stabilization of organic carbon in the
soil. Grasslands and forests typically contribute more substantial organic matter, which is
attributed to their high biomass production and slower decomposition rates of organic ma-
terial. These ecosystems also provide protection against erosion and enhance soil structure
stability, thus further promoting SOC storage. Consequently, through these mechanisms,
the intensification of land use can significantly contribute to the enrichment of SOC in the
soil and augment its storage potential.

Soil Biota
Soil microorganisms, particularly heterotrophs, play an integral role in the cycling
and transformation of organic matter within the soil ecosystem. This function is critical
for the preservation of soil health and fertility, as it contributes to the nutrient cycling pro-
cesses that ensure the viability of plant and animal life. Heterotrophic soil microorganisms,
including bacteria, fungi, and protozoa, engage in the decomposition of organic matter
to fulfill their nutritional and energy needs. They actively metabolize organic substrates,
producing by-products that are integral to the formation of soil organic matter. Specifically,
microbial residues and exudates, which can make up to 80% of the carbon in the stable
parts of soil organic matter, significantly contribute to this process. This aspect highlights
the dual functionality of soil microbial biomass in the turnover of organic matter. The
microbial role delicately balances two crucial processes: the mineralization and stabiliza-
tion of organic matter [57]. During mineralization, microbes transform organic matter into
inorganic nutrients, a process that releases nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus into
the soil. Concurrently, the stabilization of organic matter involves the transformation of
decomposed organic materials into humus, a stable, long-lasting form of organic matter that
serves as a reservoir for nutrients and water. Soil microorganisms do not exist in isolation
but form a complex network of interactions with other soil components, including the soil
fauna. These interactions can significantly influence various soil properties and processes,
such as aeration, porosity, infiltration, and aggregate stability. They also contribute to the
stabilization of nitrogen and carbon, carbon turnover, reduction in carbonate, nitrogen
mineralization, nutrient availability, and metal mobility. The influence of these microbial
processes extends beyond nutrient cycling. By improving soil structure and fertility, they
enhance the soil’s capacity to sequester carbon, thereby mitigating the effects of greenhouse
gas emissions. Moreover, these microbial activities are essential to maintaining soil biodi-
versity, a crucial aspect of ecosystem resilience. In this complex and intricate ecosystem,
organic matter can follow two paths. It can be assimilated into the soil profile, becoming
readily available to soil microorganisms for decomposition. Alternatively, it can be pro-
tected from mineralization by forming associations with soil particles to create humic-clay
complexes [44,57]. These complexes are a major component of stable soil organic matter,
contributing to soil fertility and carbon storage capacity.
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 12 of 21

3.3.5. Soil Properties

Soil Types
The process of carbon stabilization diverges from that of accumulation. Factors such as
excessive soil moisture or lower temperatures, which restrict soil respiration, predominantly
drive accumulation. To enhance the reserves of stable soil carbon, pinpointing locations
with soil characteristics favorable for carbon sequestration is imperative [48]. There is
a consensus regarding the relationship between soil type and SOC storage at multiple
scales and under different climatic conditions. During pedogenesis, weathering chemical
reactions leads to changes in soil mineralogy composition that strongly influence mineral
surface area reactivity and carbon storage [96–98], and the resulting characteristics are
categorically described by soil types. In contrast to climate, vegetation, and parent material,
which can serve as indicators for SOC storage at larger scales, carbon stocks can be stratified
according to soil type even at smaller scales (local to sub-regional) [57]. Many studies reveal
a predominant influence of soil type on SOC reservoirs, both at the surface and in the
subsoil [52,68,91,92,99]. However, soil type is not an independent controlling factor, but
integrates a set of factors such as climate, parent material, and topography related to
properties that directly affect soil potential for carbon storage, particularly soil moisture
regime and texture. If soil property information such as texture and moisture is not
available, soil type can be an adequate indicator for SOC storage, integrating a wide range
of decisive factors [57].

Soil Aggregation
Regarding aggregation agents, particularly the carbon source, whether organic or inor-
ganic, significantly influences their composition and the concentration of soil aggregates.
This, in turn, affects the efficiency of the soil’s cation exchange capacity and the aggregation
of its particles. The composition of SOC mirrors the rate of cation decomposition and release,
and also reflects the capability of the soil’s cation complexes. It is directly associated with
soil heterogeneity and the enhancement of soil aggregation. Conversely, inorganic carbon
in the soil consists of primary and secondary minerals. Primary, or lithogenic, carbonates
originate from the parent rock, while secondary carbonates form from primary ones when
they dissolve and are transported by water (H2 O), along with organic acids and/or CO2 ,
from the soil and the atmosphere [54]. Pertaining to the makeup of SOC, it is important
to recognize that its chemical properties govern its ability to hold and complex various
substances and shape the decomposition rates that directly impact soil aggregation [100].
Processes that affect soil aggregation also affect carbon sequestration capacity [48]. For
example, cultivation causes a release of carbon by breaking down aggregated structures,
thus increasing the availability of carbon [50].

Clay Content
Clay minerals influence properties that affect aggregation, such as specific surface area
(SSA), charge density, dispersibility, and expansibility, which in turn affect rates of SOC
decomposition [100,101]. The interaction of clay, SOC, and aggregates is affected by soil
pH, cation exchange capacity, and ions (Na+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+ ), all of which are related to
the amount and type of clay present in the soil [77,98,101]. Among the main mechanisms
of organic matter stabilization, the interaction of organic matter with mineral surfaces is
considered quantitatively more important in a wide range of soils [44,54], indicated by
a strong correlation of SOC stocks with clay contents observed in numerous studies at
different spatial scales [77,101–103]. Fine-textured soils have higher SOC concentrations
than coarse-textured soils when other characteristics are similar [101]. In this sense, soil
texture is likely one of the most promising factors to be used as an indicator of SOC storage.

Specific Surface Area

Soil plays an indispensable role in our planetary ecosystem, as one of its often-
overlooked aspects is its ability to sequester organic carbon. This process is crucial to
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 13 of 21

the global carbon cycle, and by extension, climate change mitigation. The relationship
between soil properties, particularly the SSA, and the capacity to retain organic carbon
is an intriguing area requiring detailed study. SSA, the total exterior and interior surface
area of soil particles per unit mass or volume, is critical to the soil’s ability to adsorb humic
substances. Soils with high SSA are typically composed of fine particles such as clay and silt,
providing extensive surfaces for organic matter adherence, thereby effectively capturing
and storing organic carbon. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that soils with a
high SSA, due to their superior adsorptive properties, will secure more humic substances
compared to those with lower SSAs [77]. Consequently, the soil’s capacity to retain organic
carbon is likely limited by the available surface area for adsorption. Put simply, the greater
the surface area available, the larger the soil’s ability to sequester carbon. This has profound
implications not only for understanding the mechanisms governing soil carbon storage, but
also for guiding land use practices and soil management techniques aimed at enhancing
carbon sequestration. However, while a high SSA is beneficial for carbon storage, it is not
the sole factor influencing the soil’s ability to retain organic carbon. Soil texture, structure,
mineral composition, as well as climatic and biological factors, also play roles in carbon
storage. A comprehensive understanding of these varied elements is therefore critical for
advancing our knowledge of soil carbon dynamics. The impact of human activities on these
natural carbon sinks is substantial. Deforestation, intensive agriculture, and land misuse
are just a few examples of actions that can degrade soils, decrease their SSA, and thereby
reduce their capacity to sequester carbon [57]. Conversely, sustainable land management
practices, such as cover cropping, conservation tillage, and reforestation, can help increase
soil SSA and enhance its carbon storage potential.

3.4. Organic Matter

The soil organic matter is the key component for any terrestrial ecosystem, and any
variation in its concentration and composition has important effects on many of the pro-
cesses occurring within the system [104]. Plants primarily fix atmospheric CO2 to form
organic compounds through photosynthesis. The degradation of soil organic matter returns
carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 or CH4 , resulting from the metabolism of
aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms. The stability of soil organic matter is not only
influenced by the physical and chemical environment (mainly soil moisture, temperature,
pH, and aeration), but also by the chemical composition of soil organic matter itself and its
susceptibility to decomposition, as well as its accessibility to microbial attack and exoen-
zymes [105]. More than two-thirds of the stored organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems are
contained in soil organic matter [44,46,49,90], and therefore, can have a significant influence
on the global carbon balance [55]. Soil organic matter has important chemical, physical,
and biological functions in the soil [101], and is composed of a mixture of materials that
includes organic particles and charcoal, along with live microbial biomass and fine plant
roots [90,106], existing in a state of dynamic equilibrium between inputs and outputs of
carbon [107]. The soil organic matter content depends on the balance of rates of input
and decomposition of soil organic matter [56], with decomposition being directly influ-
enced by the soil’s physical and chemical properties, as well as climatic and management
factors [65]. The amount, quality, and timing of organic matter input into the soil signifi-
cantly vary, and are largely contingent on the type of soil. For instance, sandy soils may
contain less than 5% organic matter, while in contrast, wetland soils can contain nearly
100% organic matter [15]. These previously referred interactions can be complex and vary
over time [90]. During soil organic matter decomposition, these variations may influence
analytical processes, making studies on soil organic matter composition and its implica-
tions for the global biogeochemical carbon cycle very challenging [7]. Soil organic matter
plays a fundamental role in influencing many of the soil characteristics and processes that
are important for its functioning [53], namely, in building and maintaining soil fertility,
affecting the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil [106]. The increase in
soil organic matter in the soil leads to increased water availability [51]. The natural renewal
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 14 of 21

of soil organic matter depends on the chemical quality of carbon compounds, climatic and
topographic conditions, organisms, and soil properties (such as clay, moisture, pH, and
nutrients) [48,101].

3.5. Methods for Assessing CO2 Sequestration in Soil

The assessment of CO2 sequestration in soil is fundamental to our understanding of the
planet’s carbon cycle and the potential strategies to mitigate climate change. Various meth-
ods were developed to assess this important phenomenon, each with its unique prospects
and inherent challenges. Two primary methods for assessing soil CO2 sequestration include
direct measurement and modelling [108,109]. Direct measurement techniques involve soil
sampling and laboratory analysis, while modelling uses mathematical equations to predict
carbon levels based on various parameters [110,111].
Direct measurement offers the most tangible evidence of CO2 sequestration in soil.
This method often involves sampling soil from different depths, then quantifying the
carbon content in a laboratory setting. The standard approach, known as dry combustion,
involves oxidizing the soil in a furnace and measuring the CO2 produced [112–114]. While
this method provides accurate results, it is labor-intensive, costly, and does not provide
continuous data, instead presenting a snapshot of a dynamic process. Spatial variability is a
significant challenge, as samples taken from two different parts of the same field may yield
different results [115]. An alternative to direct measurement is the use of stable isotopes,
particularly carbon-13 [116]. These techniques can provide more detailed information about
the sources and turnover rates of SOC. However, isotopic methods can be complex and
require specialized equipment and expertise.
The advent of new technologies, such as remote sensing and spectroscopic techniques,
offer promising opportunities for assessing CO2 sequestration in soil [117]. These methods
provide the ability to continuously monitor large areas with high resolution, presenting
a big leap from the traditional soil sampling techniques. However, they also come with
their own challenges. The interpretation of remote sensing data can be complex, requiring
advanced computational models [118]. These methods can be expensive, and data can be
influenced by factors such as soil moisture and surface roughness. Modelling methods, on
the other hand, use mathematical equations to estimate soil CO2 sequestration based on pa-
rameters such as soil type, climate, and land use. Models can provide continuous data and
predict future trends, but they also have limitations. The accuracy of the models is highly
dependent on the quality of the input data, and models may not capture the full complexity
of soil processes [119]. The models need to be validated with direct measurements, and
this fact again brings the issue of sample representativeness.

4. Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change

Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is the greatest threat to hu-
mankind and is altering life on Earth [120]. Approximately 8.7 Gt of carbon is emitted into
the atmosphere every year globally by anthropogenic sources [15,90]. However, the atmo-
spheric increase is around 3.8 Gt of carbon per year, highlighting the important regulatory
capacity of carbon reservoirs [90]. Within this scope, the scientific literature extensively
debates the capacity of SOC to act as a sink for atmospheric CO2 . This is given the increas-
ing apprehension about the potential impacts of climate change on soil processes. This
concern is coupled with an aspiration to devise strategies that enhance carbon sequestration,
encourage empirical research, and formulate theoretical models [10,14,15,95,121]. In this
sense, soils have enormous potential to mitigate climate changes through the sequestration
of SOC [122], with soil carbon reserves at depths greater than 1 m (~1600 Gt) estimated to
be twice that of atmospheric carbon (~800 Gt) [19,104,123].
At the ecosystem level, soil influences vegetation through water availability, bio-
geochemical cycles, and soil temperature regimes [124]. Changes in soil moisture and
temperature regimes can affect species in the ecosystem, and these changes affect SOC
reserves and physical properties, which are caused by changes in biomass [10]. Rising
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 15 of 21

soil temperatures are likely to accelerate mineralization rates, which could deplete SOC
reserves. This decrease in SOC can negatively affect soil structure, potentially increasing its
erodibility and susceptibility to issues such as crust formation, compaction, surface runoff,
and erosion [10].
Small increases in SOC, which involve the removal of atmospheric CO2 by plants and
the storage of fixed carbon as soil organic matter [10], could minimize the annual increase
in CO2 in the atmosphere and mitigate the greenhouse effect and climate changes [125,126].
Moreover, maintaining and increasing SOC reserves is not only essential for reducing GHGs
emissions, but also for ensuring soil health, fertility, and agricultural production [125].
However, climate change factors such as temperature, precipitation, atmospheric CO2
levels, and drought periods strongly influence all biotic and abiotic processes involved in
soil carbon transformations, which can destabilize SOC reserves [10,19,122].
Assuming that we can boost the soil’s carbon sequestration ability through sustain-
able soil and crop management, soil carbon reserves become a viable strategy to both
adapt to and mitigate climate change [19]. This can be achieved by increasing the SOC
content, enhancing the depth distribution of SOC, and stabilizing SOC. The latter can be
achieved by encapsulating the carbon in stable clay-humic complexes to shield it from
microbial processes, or by converting it into recalcitrant carbon with a lengthy renewal
period [10]. The resulting improvement in soil quality and functionality in agroecosystems
can contribute to the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 and several interrelated sustainable
development goals [127]. In this context, managing agroecosystems and land-use changes
are an important strategy for terrestrial organic carbon sequestration [95].
Soil carbon sequestration can be achieved by enhancing the net transfer of carbon
from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere. This can be achieved by increasing global
carbon contributions to soils through heightened levels of primary productivity, retaining
a larger percentage of carbon at these productivity levels, or reducing soil carbon losses
by slowing the decomposition process [128]. Soil carbon sequestration strategies depend
on the development of new technologies and soil quality improvement, which also have
positive effects on soil physical properties and therefore improve soil resilience to climate
stress, contributing to adaptation to climate changes and ecosystem services [16,129].
However, there are limitations to soil’s capacity to sequester carbon; specifically, the
ability to accumulate organic carbon is finite, so when carbon reaches its equilibrium
value, soil no longer can increase the amount of carbon [129]. Increases in SOC are not
permanent, and the benefits related to climate change hinge on the indefinite continuation
of newly implemented sustainable management practices [130]. To provide long-term
climate changes mitigation, the additional SOC must be in recalcitrant forms [129]. The
largest amounts of SOC sequestration are achieved through the conversion of productive
agricultural lands back to their original state (pastures or forests) [128], but this change
in land-use conflicts with food needs and is also challenging due to soil variability and
slow conversion rates [129]. The growing impacts of climate change highlight the pressing
need for efficient mitigation strategies. Regions marked by their distinct biodiversity and
weather patterns are becoming increasingly susceptible to the effects of climate change,
such as heatwaves and droughts. Soil, which serves as an important repository for carbon,
plays a vital role in climate change mitigation in these areas. By implementing practices
that increase SOC, soil can concurrently strengthen these regions’ resilience and decrease
greenhouse gas emissions.

5. Conclusions
The role of soil as a pivotal agent in mitigating climate change cannot be emphasized
enough. Representing the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir, SOC is a significant factor.
Enhancing soil carbon reserves could have multifaceted benefits, including the reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions, improvement in soil health and fertility, and the betterment
of agricultural production. To increase SOC content, strategies such as the incorporation
of organic matter, crop rotation, and the use of cover crops could be employed. However,
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 16 of 21

it is important to note that the soil’s capacity to sequester carbon is not infinite, and the
benefits of mitigating climate change depend on the consistent application of sustainable
management practices. The potential impacts of climate changes on soil processes, coupled
with the need for innovative technologies and improvements in soil quality, are critical
elements in achieving effective soil carbon sequestration. Changes in land use, along with
the application of sustainable management practices, form the cornerstone strategies for
terrestrial organic carbon sequestration. Consequently, the commitment to developing
novel and differentiated approaches, strengthening collaborations, and pioneering new
technologies should be unwavering in our pursuit to augment carbon reserves in the soil.
This is essential to fulfill the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 and several interconnected
sustainable development goals.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.I.D.R., L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; methodology, L.M.B. and
L.J.R.N.; software, C.I.D.R., L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; validation, L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; formal analysis,
C.I.D.R., L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; investigation, C.I.D.R., L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; resources, C.I.D.R., L.M.B.
and L.J.R.N.; data curation C.I.D.R., L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; writing—original draft preparation, C.I.D.R.,
L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; writing—review and editing, L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; visualization, C.I.D.R., L.M.B.
and L.J.R.N.; supervision, L.M.B. and L.J.R.N.; project administration, L.J.R.N. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: L.J.R.N. was supported by proMetheus, Research Unit on Energy, Materials and Environ-
ment for Sustainability—UIDP/05975/2020, funded by national funds through FCT—Fundação para
a Ciência e Tecnologia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available upon request to correspondent author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, J.; Rondon, M. Bio-Char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems—A Review. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Chang. 2006, 11, 403–427. [CrossRef]
2. European Environment Agency. Trends and Projections in Europe 2022; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2022.
3. European Environment Agency. What Are the Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the EU? Available online: https:
//www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2022/infographics/what-are-the-sources-of/view (accessed on 22 June 2023).
4. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente Emissão de Gases de Efeito Estufa (Protocolo de Quioto, 2a Fase-Kt CO2 eq) Por Setor de
Emissão; Anual. Available online: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=00
09961&xlang=pt&contexto=bd&selTab=tab2 (accessed on 22 June 2023).
5. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L.,
Gomis, M.I., Matthews, J.B.R., Berger, S., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021.
6. IPCC. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: Special Report; Watson, R.T., Noble, I., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Leary, N.,
Canziani, O., Manning, M., Griggs, D., Joos, F., Stone, J., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
7. Solomon, D.; Lehmann, J.; Kinyangi, J.; Amelung, W.; Lobe, I.; Pell, A.; Riha, S.; Ngoze, S.; Verchot, L.; Mbugua, D.; et al.
Long-Term Impacts of Anthropogenic Perturbations on Dynamics and Speciation of Organic Carbon in Tropical Forest and
Subtropical Grassland Ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 511–530. [CrossRef]
8. Eurostat. Eurostat Regional Yearbook; Kotzeva, M., Brandmüller, T., Fohgrub, B., Önnerfors, Å., Eds.; Publications Office of the
European Union: Luxembourg, 2021.
9. Glaser, B.; Lehmann, J.; Zech, W. Ameliorating Physical and Chemical Properties of Highly Weathered Soils in the Tropics with
Charcoal—A Review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 35, 219–230. [CrossRef]
10. Lal, R. Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. [CrossRef]
11. Vysna, V.; Maes, J.; Petersen, J.-E.; la Notte, A.; Vallecillo, S.; Aizpurua, N.; Ivits, E.; Teller, A. Accounting for Ecosystems and Their
Services in the European Union; European Environment Agency: Luxembourg, 2021.
12. Batjes, N.H. Mitigation of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations by Increased Carbon Sequestration in the Soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1998,
27, 230–235. [CrossRef]
13. Smith, P. Carbon Sequestration in Croplands: The Potential in Europe and the Global Context. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 20, 229–236.
[CrossRef]
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 17 of 21

14. Guo, L.B.; Gifford, R.M. Soil Carbon Stocks and Land Use Change: A Meta Analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 345–360.
[CrossRef]
15. Lal, R. Carbon Sequestration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 815–830. [CrossRef]
16. Lal, R.; Follett, R.F.; Stewart, B.A.; Kimble, J.M. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and advance food security.
Soil Sci. 2007, 172, 943–956.
17. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975.
[CrossRef]
18. Dorrepaal, E.; Toet, S.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Swart, E.; van de Weg, M.J.; Callaghan, T.V.; Aerts, R. Undefined Carbon Respiration
from Subsurface Peat Accelerated by Climate Warming in the Subarctic. Nature 2009, 460, 616–619. [CrossRef]
19. Lal, R.; Monger, C.; Nave, L.; Smith, P. The Role of Soil in Regulation of Climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2021,
376, 20210084. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Elbasiouny, H.; El-Ramady, H.; Elbehiry, F.; Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Mandzhieva, S. Plant Nutrition under Climate Change and
Soil Carbon Sequestration. Sustainability 2022, 14, 914. [CrossRef]
21. Fageria, N.K. Role of Soil Organic Matter in Maintaining Sustainability of Cropping Systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 2012,
43, 2063–2113. [CrossRef]
22. Berner, R.; American, A.L.-S. Modeling the Geochemical Carbon Cycle. Sci. Am. 1989, 260, 74–81. [CrossRef]
23. Kwiatkowska-Malina, J. Qualitative and quantitative soil organic matter estimation for sustainable soil management. J. Soils
Sediments 2018, 18, 2801–2812. [CrossRef]
24. Alongi, D.M.; Murdiyarso, D.; Fourqurean, J.W.; Kauffman, J.B.; Hutahaean, A.; Crooks, S.; Lovelock, C.E.; Howard, J.; Herr, D.;
Fortes, M.; et al. Indonesia’s Blue Carbon: A Globally Significant and Vulnerable Sink for Seagrass and Mangrove Carbon.
Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 24, 3–13. [CrossRef]
25. Manning, D.; Renforth, P.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Robertson, S.; Ghazireh, N. Carbonate Precipitation in Artificial Soils Produced
from Basaltic Quarry Fines and Composts: An Opportunity for Passive Carbon Sequestration. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013,
17, 209–317. [CrossRef]
26. Barman, D.; Dash, S.K. Stabilization of Expansive Soils Using Chemical Additives: A Review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2022, 14,
1319–1342. [CrossRef]
27. Sitch, S.; Smith, B.; Prentice, I.C.; Arneth, A.; Bondeau, A.; Cramer, W.; Kaplan, J.O.; Levis, S.; Lucht, W.; Sykes, M.T.; et al.
Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 161–185. [CrossRef]
28. Toochi, E.C. Carbon sequestration: How much can forestry sequester CO2 ? For. Res. Eng. Int. J. 2018, 2, 1. [CrossRef]
29. Condron, L.; Stark, C.; O’callaghan, M.; Clinton, P.; Huang, Z. The Role of Microbial Communities in the Formation and Decomposition
of Soil Organic Matter; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 81–118. [CrossRef]
30. Palit, K.; Rath, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Das, S. Microbial Diversity and Ecological Interactions of Microorganisms in the Mangrove
Ecosystem: Threats, Vulnerability, and Adaptations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 32467–32512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Malhi, Y.; Meir, P.; Brown, S. Forests, carbon and global climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2002, 360, 1567–1591.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Sanz-Sanchez, M.-J.; de Vente, J.; Chotte, J.C.; Bernoux, M. Sustainable Land Management Contribution to Success-
ful Land-Based Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. 2017. Avail-
able online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwig2I204er_AhW_
aqQEHVUTCHwQFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fround-lake.dustinice.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.unccd.int%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2F2017-
09%2FUNCCD_Report_SLM.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3R5ofk2VUmyBHRPEykCzC_&opi=89978449 (accessed on 22 June 2023).
33. Lal, R.; Negassa, W.; Lorenz, K. Carbon Sequestration in Soil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 15, 79–86. [CrossRef]
34. Jeffery, S.; Abalos, D.; Prodana, M.; Bastos, A.C.; Van Groenigen, J.W.; Hungate, B.A.; Verheijen, F. Biochar boosts tropical but not
temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 053001. [CrossRef]
35. Six, J.; Frey, S.D.; Thiet, R.K.; Batten, K.M. Bacterial and Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 555–569. [CrossRef]
36. Schimel, D.S.; Braswell, B.H.; Holland, E.A.; McKeown, R.; Ojima, D.S.; Painter, T.H.; Parton, W.J.; Townsend, A.R. Climatic,
Edaphic, and Biotic Controls over Storage and Turnover of Carbon in Soils. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1994, 8, 279–293. [CrossRef]
37. 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. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 2591–2606. [CrossRef]
38. Nolan, M.; Stanton, K.; Evans, K.; Pym, L.; Kaufman, B.; Duley, E. From the Ground up: Prioritizing Soil at the Forefront of
Ecological Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2021, 29, e13453. [CrossRef]
39. Smith, K.A.; Conen, F. Impacts of Land Management on Fluxes of Trace Greenhouse Gases. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 20, 255–263.
[CrossRef]
40. Zerssa, G.; Feyssa, D.; Kim, D.-G.; Eichler-Löbermann, B. Challenges of Smallholder Farming in Ethiopia and Opportunities by
Adopting Climate-Smart Agriculture. Agriculture 2021, 11, 192. [CrossRef]
41. Kimble, J.; Follett, R.; Cole, C. The Potential of US Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 1998.
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 18 of 21

42. Kell, D.B. Breeding Crop Plants with Deep Roots: Their Role in Sustainable Carbon, Nutrient and Water Sequestration. Ann. Bot.
2011, 108, 407–418. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Luo, Y.; Su, B.; Currie, W.S.; Dukes, J.S.; Finzi, A.; Hartwig, U.; Hungate, B.; McMurtrie, R.E.; Oren, R.; Parton, W.J.; et al.
Progressive Nitrogen Limitation of Ecosystem Responses to Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Bioscience 2004, 54, 731–739.
[CrossRef]
44. von Lützow, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Temperature Sensitivity of Soil Organic Matter Decomposition—What Do We Know? Biol. Fertil.
Soils 2009, 46, 1–15. [CrossRef]
45. Herold, N.; Schöning, I.; Michalzik, B.; Trumbore, S.; Schrumpf, M. Controls on Soil Carbon Storage and Turnover in German
Landscapes. Biogeochemistry 2014, 119, 435–451. [CrossRef]
46. Plante, A.F.; Conant, R.T.; Stewart, C.E.; Paustian, K.; Six, J. Impact of soil texture on the distribution of soil organic matter in
physical and chemical fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 287–296. [CrossRef]
47. Fuss, S.; Lamb, W.F.; Callaghan, M.W.; Hilaire, J.; Creutzig, F.; Amann, T.; Beringer, T.; de Oliveira Garcia, W.; Hartmann, J.;
Khanna, T.; et al. Negative Emissions—Part 2: Costs, Potentials and Side Effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 063002. [CrossRef]
48. Jandl, R.; Lindner, M.; Vesterdal, L.; Bauwens, B.; Baritz, R.; Hagedorn, F.; Johnson, D.W.; Minkkinen, K.; Byrne, K.A. How
Strongly Can Forest Management Influence Soil Carbon Sequestration? Geoderma 2007, 137, 253–268. [CrossRef]
49. Poeplau, C.; Don, A. Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils via Cultivation of Cover Crops—A Meta-Analysis. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 2015, 200, 33–41. [CrossRef]
50. Six, J.; Conant, R.T.; Paul, E.A.; Paustian, K. Stabilization Mechanisms of Soil Organic Matter: Implications for C-Saturation of
Soils. Plant. Soil 2002, 241, 155–176. [CrossRef]
51. Atkinson, C.J.; Fitzgerald, J.D.; Hipps, N.A. Potential Mechanisms for Achieving Agricultural Benefits from Biochar Application
to Temperate Soils: A Review. Plant. Soil 2010, 337, 1–18. [CrossRef]
52. Chaplot, V.; Bouahom, B.; Valentin, C. Soil Organic Carbon Stocks in Laos: Spatial Variations and Controlling Factors. Glob. Chang.
Biol. 2010, 16, 1380–1393. [CrossRef]
53. Pulleman, M.M.; Bouma, J.; van Essen, E.A.; Meijles, E.W. Soil Organic Matter Content as a Function of Different Land Use
History. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 689–693. [CrossRef]
54. Bronick, C.J.; Lal, R. Soil Structure and Management: A Review. Geoderma 2005, 124, 3–22. [CrossRef]
55. Glaser, B.; Amelung, W. Pyrogenic Carbon in Native Grassland Soils along a Climosequence in North America. Glob. Biogeochem.
Cycles 2003, 17, 33. [CrossRef]
56. Tiessen, H.; Sampaio, E.V.S.B.; Salcedo, I.H. Organic Matter Turnover and Management in Low Input Agriculture of NE Brazil.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst 2001, 61, 99–103. [CrossRef]
57. Wiesmeier, M.; Urbanski, L.; Hobley, E.; Lang, B.; von Lützow, M.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; van Wesemael, B.; Rabot, E.; Ließ, M.;
Garcia-Franco, N.; et al. Soil Organic Carbon Storage as a Key Function of Soils—A Review of Drivers and Indicators at Various
Scales. Geoderma 2019, 333, 149–162. [CrossRef]
58. Gray, J.M.; Bishop, T.F.A.; Wilson, B.R. Factors Controlling Soil Organic Carbon Stocks with Depth in Eastern Australia. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 2015, 79, 1741–1751. [CrossRef]
59. Meier, I.C.; Leuschener, C. Variation of Soil and Biomass Carbon Pools in Beech Forests across a Precipitation Gradient. Glob. Chang.
Biol. 2010, 16, 1035–1045. [CrossRef]
60. Viscarra Rossel, R.A.; Webster, R.; Bui, E.N.; Baldock, J.A. Baseline Map of Organic Carbon in Australian Soil to Support National
Carbon Accounting and Monitoring under Climate Change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 2953–2970. [CrossRef]
61. Hobbie, S.E.; Schimel, J.P.; Trumbore, S.E.; Randerson, J.R. Controls over Carbon Storage and Turnover in High-latitude Soils.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2000, 6, 196–210. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Doetterl, S.; Stevens, A.; Six, J.; Merckx, R.; van Oost, K.; Casanova Pinto, M.; Casanova-Katny, A.; Muñoz, C.; Boudin, M.;
Zagal Venegas, E.; et al. Soil Carbon Storage Controlled by Interactions between Geochemistry and Climate. Nat. Geosci. 2015,
8, 780–783. [CrossRef]
63. Conant, R.T.; Ryan, M.G.; Ågren, G.I.; Birge, H.E.; Davidson, E.A.; Eliasson, P.E.; Evans, S.E.; Frey, S.D.; Giardina, C.P.;
Hopkins, F.M.; et al. Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Decomposition Rates—Synthesis of Current Knowledge and a Way
Forward. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 3392–3404. [CrossRef]
64. Jobbagy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. The Vertical Distribution of Soil Organic Carbon and Its Relation to Climate and Vegetation. Ecol. Appl.
2000, 10, 423. [CrossRef]
65. Sleutel, S.; de Neve, S.; Hofman, G. Assessing Causes of Recent Organic Carbon Losses from Cropland Soils by Means of
Regional-Scaled Input Balances for the Case of Flanders (Belgium). Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2007, 78, 265–278. [CrossRef]
66. Olesen, J.E.; Bindi, M. Consequences of Climate Change for European Agricultural Productivity, Land Use and Policy. Eur. J.
Agron. 2002, 16, 239–262. [CrossRef]
67. Franzluebbers, A.J.; Haney, R.L.; Honeycutt, C.W.; Arshad, M.A.; Schomberg, H.H.; Hons, F.M. Climatic Influences on Active
Fractions of Soil Organic Matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 1103–1111. [CrossRef]
68. Grimm, R.; Behrens, T.; Märker, M.; Elsenbeer, H. Soil Organic Carbon Concentrations and Stocks on Barro Colorado Island —
Digital Soil Mapping Using Random Forests Analysis. Geoderma 2008, 146, 102–113. [CrossRef]
69. Peng, M.H.; Hung, Y.C.; Liu, K.L.; Neoh, K.B. Landscape Configuration and Habitat Complexity Shape Arthropod Assemblage in
Urban Parks. Sci. Rep. 2022, 10, 16043. [CrossRef]
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 19 of 21

70. Lloyd, C.; Oliver, S. The Physics of Atmospheric Interaction. Prog. Mod. Hydrol. Past. Present. Future 2015, 5, 135–182. [CrossRef]
71. Arnaez, J.; Lasanta, T.; Errea, M.P.; Ortigosa, L. Land abandonment, landscape evolution, and soil erosion in a Spanish Mediter-
ranean mountain region: The case of Camero Viejo. Land Degrad. Dev. 2011, 22, 537–550. [CrossRef]
72. Quinton, J.; University, L.; Govers, G.; Leuven, K.U.; Van Oost, K.; Louvain, U.C.; Bardgett, R. The Impact of Agricultural Soil
Erosion on Biogeochemical Cycling. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 311–314. [CrossRef]
73. Mohanty, B.; Skaggs, T.H. Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Time-Stable Characteristics of Soil Moisture within Remote Sensing
Footprints with Varying Soil, Slope, and Vegetation. Adv. Water Resour. 2001, 24, 1051–1067. [CrossRef]
74. Van Veen, J.A.; Liljeroth, E.; Lekkerkerk, L.J.A.; Van De Geijn, S.C. Carbon Fluxes in Plant-Soil Systems at Elevated Atmospheric
CO2 Levels. Ecol. Appl. 1991, 1, 175–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Berhe, A.; Harte, J.; Harden, J.; Torn, M.S. The Significance of the Erosion-Induced Terrestrial Carbon Sink. BioScience 2007,
57, 337–346. [CrossRef]
76. Hanley, M.E.; Bouma, T.J.; Mossman, H.L. The Gathering Storm: Optimizing Management of Coastal Ecosystems in the Face of a
Climate-Driven Threat. Ann. Bot. 2020, 125, 197–212. [CrossRef]
77. Zinn, Y.L.; Lal, R.; Bigham, J.M.; Resck, D.V.S. Edaphic Controls on Soil Organic Carbon Retention in the Brazilian Cerrado:
Texture and Mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1204–1214. [CrossRef]
78. Acosta, J.; Martínez-Martínez, S.; Faz, A.; Arocena, J. Accumulations of Major and Trace Elements in Particle Size Fractions of
Soils on Eight Different Parent Materials. Geoderma 2011, 161, 30–42. [CrossRef]
79. Sollins, P.; Robertson, G.P.; Uehara, G. Nutrient Mobility in Variable- and Permanent-Charge Soils. Biogeochemistry 1988,
6, 181–199. [CrossRef]
80. Hammitt, W.; Cole, D.; Monz, C. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
81. Wall, D.P.; O’Sullivan, L.; Creamer, R.; McLaughlin, M.J. Soil Fertility and Nutrient Cycling. In The Soils of Ireland; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 223–234. [CrossRef]
82. Kome, G.; Enang, R.; Tabi, F.; Yerima, B.P.K. Influence of Clay Minerals on Some Soil Fertility Attributes: A Review. Open. J. Soil
Sci. 2019, 9, 99010. [CrossRef]
83. Anderson, D.W. The Effect of Parent Material and Soil Development on Nutrient Cycling in Temperate Ecosystems. Biogeochemistry
1988, 5, 71–97. [CrossRef]
84. Siciliano, S.D.; Palmer, A.S.; Winsley, T.; Lamb, E.; Bissett, A.; Brown, M.V.; van Dorst, J.; Ji, M.; Ferrari, B.C.; Grogan, P.; et al. Soil
fertility is associated with fungal and bacterial richness, whereas pH is associated with community composition in polar soil
microbial communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 78, 10–20. [CrossRef]
85. Hamati, S.; Hamati, S.B.; Ward, D.; Rocha, O.; Rauschert, E.; Kooijman, E.; Heather Caldwell, A.; Chair, A.; Munro-Stasiuk, M.
Ecophysiology of Juniperus Virginiana Encroachment in Ohio. 2022. Available online: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_
etd/send_file/send?accession=kent1651146580975921&disposition=inline (accessed on 22 June 2023).
86. Mineo, L.; Majumdar, S.K. Ectomycorrhizae in Oaks (Quercus Alba, Q. Rubra) in Northeastern Pennsylvania Woodlands: Morphol-
ogy, Frequency and Implied Physiology and Ecology. Concepts Mycorrhizal Res. 1996, 9, 315–331. [CrossRef]
87. Eid, E.M.; Shaltout, K.H. Evaluation of Carbon Sequestration Potentiality of Lake Burullus, Egypt to Mitigate Climate Change.
Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2013, 39, 31–38. [CrossRef]
88. Jandl, R.; Rodeghiero, M.; Martinez, C.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Bampa, F.; Van Wesemael, B.; Miglietta, F. Current status, uncertainty and
future needs in soil organic carbon monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468, 376–383. [CrossRef]
89. Grace, P.R.; Post, W.M.; Hennessy, K. The potential impact of climate change on Australia’s soil organic carbon resources.
Carbon Balance Manag. 2006, 1, 1–10.
90. Stockmann, U.; Adams, M.A.; Crawford, J.W.; Field, D.J.; Henakaarchchi, N.; Jenkins, M.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B.; Courcelles,
V.D.R.D.; Singh, K.; et al. The Knowns, Known Unknowns and Unknowns of Sequestration of Soil Organic Carbon. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 2013, 164, 80–99. [CrossRef]
91. Xiong, X.; Grunwald, S.; Myers, D.B.; Kim, J.; Harris, W.G.; Comerford, N.B. Holistic Environmental Soil-Landscape Modeling of
Soil Organic Carbon. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 57, 202–215. [CrossRef]
92. Vasques, G.M.; Grunwald, S.; Comerford, N.B.; Sickman, J.O. Regional Modelling of Soil Carbon at Multiple Depths within a
Subtropical Watershed. Geoderma 2010, 156, 326–336. [CrossRef]
93. Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Soil Compaction in Cropping Systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 82, 121–145. [CrossRef]
94. Balesdent, J.; Chenu, C.; Balabane, M. Relationship of Soil Organic Matter Dynamics to Physical Protection and Tillage. Soil Tillage
Res. 2000, 53, 215–230. [CrossRef]
95. Post, W.M.; Kwon, K.C. Soil Carbon Sequestration and Land-Use Change: Processes and Potential. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2000,
6, 317–327. [CrossRef]
96. Torn, M.S.; Trumbore, S.E.; Chadwick, O.A.; Vitousek, P.M.; Hendricks, D.M. Mineral Control of Soil Organic Carbon Storage and
Turnover. Nature 1997, 389, 170–173. [CrossRef]
97. Percival, H.J.; Parfitt, R.L.; Scott, N.A. Factors Controlling Soil Carbon Levels in New Zealand Grasslands Is Clay Content
Important? Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1623–1630. [CrossRef]
98. Amézketa, E. Soil Aggregate Stability: A Review. J. Sustain. Agric. 1999, 14, 83–151. [CrossRef]
99. Hobley, E.; Wilson, B.; Wilkie, A.; Gray, J.; Koen, T. Drivers of Soil Organic Carbon Storage and Vertical Distribution in Eastern
Australia. Plant. Soil 2015, 390, 111–127. [CrossRef]
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 20 of 21

100. Schulten, H.-R.; Leinweber, P. New Insights into Organic-Mineral Particles: Composition, Properties and Models of Molecular
Structure. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2000, 30, 399–432. [CrossRef]
101. Hassink, J.; Whitmore, A.P.; Kubát, J. Size and Density Fractionation of Soil Organic Matter and the Physical Capacity of Soils to
Protect Organic Matter. Eur. J. Agron. 1997, 7, 189–199. [CrossRef]
102. Kaiser, K.; Guggenberger, G. The Role of DOM Sorption to Mineral Surfaces in the Preservation of Organic Matter in Soils.
Org. Geochem. 2000, 31, 711–725. [CrossRef]
103. Arrouays, D.; Saby, N.; Walter, C.; Lemercier, B.; Schvartz, C. Relationships between Particle-Size Distribution and Organic
Carbon in French Arable Topsoils. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 22, 48–51. [CrossRef]
104. Batjes, N.H. Total Carbon and Nitrogen in the Soils of the World. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 65, 10–21. [CrossRef]
105. Sollins, P.; Homann, P.; Caldwell, B.A. Stabilization and Destabilization of Soil Organic Matter: Mechanisms and Controls.
Geoderma 1996, 74, 65–105. [CrossRef]
106. Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Evans, S.P.; Bullock, P. Climate Change and Agricultural Soils: Impacts and Adaptation. Clim. Chang. 1999,
43, 683–709. [CrossRef]
107. IPCC. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger,
D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., et al., Eds.; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa,
Japan, 2003.
108. Paustian, K.; Collier, S.; Baldock, J.; Burgess, R.; Creque, J.; Delonge, M.; Dungait, J.; Ellert, B.; Frank, S.; Goddard, T.; et al.
Quantifying Carbon for Agricultural Soil Management: From the Current Status toward a Global Soil Information System.
Taylor Fr. 2019, 10, 567–587. [CrossRef]
109. Baldocchi, D.; Valentini, R.; Running, S.; Oechel, W.; Dahlmanh, R.; Baldocchi, D. Strategies for Measuring and Modelling Carbon
Dioxide and Water Vapour Fluxes over Terrestrial Ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1996, 2, 159–168. [CrossRef]
110. Benbi, D.K.; Richter, J. A Critical Review of Some Approaches to Modelling Nitrogen Mineralization. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002,
35, 168–183. [CrossRef]
111. Foley, W.J.; McIlwee, A.; Lawler, I.; Aragones, L.; Woolnough, A.P.; Berding, N. Ecological Applications of near Infrared
Reflectance Spectroscopy—A Tool for Rapid, Cost-Effective Prediction of the Composition of Plant and Animal Tissues and
Aspects of Animal Performance. Oecologia 1998, 116, 293–305. [CrossRef]
112. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods Soil Anal. Part 3-Chem. Methods 1996,
5, 961–1010. [CrossRef]
113. Chatterjee, A.; Lal, R.; Wielopolski, L.; Martin, M.Z.; Ebinger, M.H. Evaluation of Different Soil Carbon Determination Methods.
CRC Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 2009, 28, 164–178. [CrossRef]
114. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods Soil Anal. Part 3-Chem. Methods 1983,
5, 539–579. [CrossRef]
115. Starr, G.C. Assessing Temporal Stability and Spatial Variability of Soil Water Patterns with Implications for Precision Water
Management. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 72, 223–243. [CrossRef]
116. Tieszen, L.L.; Boutton, T.W. Stable Carbon Isotopes in Terrestrial Ecosystem Research. In Stable Isotopes in Ecological Research;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 167–195. [CrossRef]
117. Issa, S.; Dahy, B.; Ksiksi, T.; Saleous, N. Non-Conventional Methods as a New Alternative for the Estimation of Terrestrial Biomass
and Carbon Sequestered. World J. Agric. Soil Sci. 2019, 4, 1–8. [CrossRef]
118. Hatfield, J.L.; Gitelson, A.A.; Schepers, J.S.; Walthall, C.L. Application of Spectral Remote Sensing for Agronomic Decisions.
Agron. J. 2008, 100, S-117–S-131. [CrossRef]
119. De Vente, J.; Poesen, J.; Verstraeten, G.; Govers, G.; Vanmaercke, M.; Rompaey, A.V.; Arabkhedri, M.; Boix-Fayos, C. Predicting
Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield at Regional Scales: Where Do We Stand? Earth-Sci. Rev. 2013, 127, 16–29. [CrossRef]
120. Hu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Hu, S.; Xiao, G.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Qi, Y.; Zhang, L.; Han, L. Research Progress and Prospects of Ecosystem
Carbon Sequestration under Climate Change (1992–2022). Ecol. Indic. 2022, 145, 109656. [CrossRef]
121. 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, 895–908. [CrossRef]
122. Raza, S.; Zamanian, K.; Ullah, S.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Virto, I.; Zhou, J. Inorganic Carbon Losses by Soil Acidification Jeopardize Global
Efforts on Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change Mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128036. [CrossRef]
123. Le Quéré, C.; Andrew, R.M.; Canadell, J.G.; Sitch, S.; Korsbakken, J.I.; Peters, G.P.; Manning, A.C.; Boden, T.A.; Tans, P.P.;
Houghton, R.A.; et al. Global Carbon Budget 2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2016, 8, 605–649. [CrossRef]
124. Cheddadi, R.; Guiot, J.; Jolly, D. The Mediterranean Vegetation: What If the Atmospheric CO2 Increased? Landsc. Ecol. 2001,
16, 667–675. [CrossRef]
125. Wang, Y.; Tao, F.; Chen, Y.; Yin, L. Interactive Impacts of Climate Change and Agricultural Management on Soil Organic Carbon
Sequestration Potential of Cropland in China over the Coming Decades. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 817, 153018. [CrossRef]
126. Smith, P. Soils and Climate Change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 539–544. [CrossRef]
127. Lal, R.; Bouma, J.; Brevik, E.; Dawson, L.; Field, D.J.; Glaser, B.; Hatano, R.; Hartemink, A.E.; Kosaki, T.; Lascelles, B.; et al. Soils
and Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations: An International Union of Soil Sciences Perspective. Geoderma Reg.
2021, 25, e00398. [CrossRef]
128. Smith, P. Land Use Change and Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 81, 169–178. [CrossRef]
Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 64 21 of 21

129. Powlson, D.S.; Stirling, C.M.; Jat, M.L.; Gerard, B.G.; Palm, C.A.; Sanchez, P.A.; Cassman, K.G. Limited Potential of No-till
Agriculture for Climate Change Mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 678–683. [CrossRef]
130. Dimassi, B.; Cohan, J.-P.; Labreuche, J.; Mary, B. Changes in Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Following Tillage Conversion in a
Long-Term Experiment in Northern France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 169, 12–20. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.