J. Bio. & Env. Sci.

2017

Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES)

ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-3045 (Online)
Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 11-19, 2017
http://www.innspub.net

RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Comparative analysis of soil organic carbon storage under

different land use and land cover in Achanakmar, Chhattisgarh

Sheikh Iqbal*, S. C. Tiwari

Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences,

Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidalaya Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
Article published on January 18, 2017
Key words: Soil carbon storage, Land use, Land cover, Achanakmar

Abstract
In context to the India’s climate pledge and the goal of limiting global warming below 2C to reduce the
emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level and to create an additional carbon
sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030. Forest vegetation
and forest soils represent a significant sink for atmospheric CO2, soil biota functioning, reduction of greenhouse
gases, modification of pollutants and maintenance of soil quality. The great importance of carbon sequestration
emphasizes the need to understand the role of soil carbon dynamics and quantitative changes as affected by
different land use pattern and vegetation cover management. However, knowledge on the impact of different
land use and vegetation cover on soil carbon dynamics in India is very limited. To address this problem the
present study was undertaken in Achanakmar, Chhattisgarh to estimate soil carbon sequestration potential of
four land uses (forestland, grassland, agricultural land and wasteland) and five land covers (sal, teak, bamboo,
mixed, open and scrub). The highest soil carbon storage potential was found in forestland (118.14 t ha -1) followed
by grassland (95.54 t ha-1), agricultural land (75.70 t ha-1) and least was found in the wasteland (57.05 t ha-1).
Among the different land covers, maximum soil carbon storage potential was found in the soils under mixed land
cover (118.18 t ha-1) followed by teak (76.64 t ha-1), bamboo (67.21 t ha-1), sal (64.28 t ha-1) and least under soils
of open and scrub (48.72 t ha-1) land cover.
*Corresponding Author: Sheikh Iqbal  [email protected]

11 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Introduction Changes in soil C stocks may thus significantly

The world’s population is expected to reach 9.6 billion influence the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
by 2050 (United Nations, 2013). This enormous concentration. The SOC concentration is an indicator
demographic pressure creates four major global of soil fertility and strongly affects soil physical and
challenges for earth’s soils over the coming four biological properties (Eswaran et al., 1993; Karlen et
decades. The challenge for global soils is to meet the al., 1999; Smith et al., 2005). SOC is more sensitive to
anticipated demands of population to double the food land management when compared with total SOC and
supply worldwide, double the fuel supply including better suited to predict changes in soil quality
renewable biomass, increase by more than 50% the (Cambardella et al., 1992; Chan, 2001; Fang, 2006).
supply of clean water, all while acting to mitigate and Land management practices can markedly affect the
adapt to climate change regionally and worldwide soil carbon sequestration in different vegetation types
(God fray et al., 2010). Recent assessments from the (Li et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014; Li et al., 2013;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Baritz et al., 2010). Activities for mitigation of climate
conclude that net anthropogenic carbon emissions change include soil preserving management practices
must be eliminated before the end of this century in (Ogle et al., 2005; Powlson et al., 2011).

order to limit increase in mean global surface

Thus, Soil carbon sequestration is strongly affected by
temperatures to less than 2C (Moss et al., 2010;
the different land use adaptation and vegetation cover
Edenhofer et al., 2014). Soil carbon sequestration is a
management regimes, in addition to being affected by
key component of the soil-plant ecosystem and is
biophysical factors, such as climate, hydrology and
closely associated with soil properties and processes,
parent geological material (Eswaran et al., 1993).
as well as emission and storage of greenhouse gases
Changing land use, particularly the removal of forest
(Kasel and Bennett, 2007; Yang et al., 2009; Wu and
cover has a major and widespread impact on soils
Cai, 2012). The SOC is an important factor affecting
(Ellis and Ramankutty, 2008; Don et al., 2011).
soil quality (Nsabimana et al., 2004). Besides being a
source and sink of nutrients for plants, the SOC has
Therefore, a clear understanding and quantification
an important function in the carbon cycle, accounting
of the amount of C stored in soils under different land
for the major terrestrial pool of this element.
uses and vegetation cover is essential for an improved
understanding of the global C cycle and how this will
The amount of Carbon (C) stored in soils worldwide is
be altered in the near future by human activities.
estimated more than 3000 Pg (1 Pg =1 billion ton)
among which, 70% exists as soil organic C (SOC) in
The effect of a certain land use change or soil
the top 1 m of the soil. (Jansson et al., 2010). Tropical
management practice on atmospheric CO2 needs thus
soils contain about 496 Pg of C, accounting for 32% of
to be considered in a broader context. There is,
the total global pool (Lal, 2002).
however, great potential for increasing the soil C

Soils not only contain C but also can represent a sequestration through adoption of forest land use and

significant sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) mixed vegetation cover land management practices
and play an important role in the C cycle in terrestrial that will increase soil carbon, the win–win strategy of
ecosystems and in the global C balance (Post et al., increased C storage and soil fertility advocated by Lal
1982; Eswaran et al., 1993; Batjes, 1996). Evidence (2004) and others. Activities for mitigation of climate
for rapidly changing SOC pools has been shown for change include soil preserving management practices
different ecosystems and continued warming may (Ogle et al., 2005; Powlson et al., 2011). The objective
lead to strong climate-induced SOC loss (Bellamy et of the study was to determine the carbon storage
al., 2005; Cox et al., 2000; Rumpel and Chabbi, potential under different land use and land cover in
2010; Post and Kwon, 2000; West et al., 2004). Achanakmar Chhattisgarh.

12 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Materials and methods The months of July and August are the heaviest
Study Area rainfall months and nearly 95% of the annual rainfall
The present study was carried out in Achanakmar, is received during June to September months. The
Chhattisgarh which lies between East longitudes
rainfall is unevenly distributed and also the amount
81°2902 & 82°2744 and North latitudes 21°4240
of rainfall varies from year to year and experiences a
& 23°0658. The annual temperature varies from
hot and semi-humid climate. The average rainfall is
9.2°C to 42.1°C. The hottest months are May and
June and the minimum temperature is observed in 130.04 cm. The relative humidity is higher during the

the months of December and January. The maximum monsoon season, being generally over 75%. After
temperature in May is 46C and means minimum monsoon season, humidity decreases and during the
temperature is 9C in December. May is the hottest winter season, air is fairly dry.
month and December is the coldest.

Fig. 1. Location map of study area and study sites.

Procedure for soil sampling design and collection A randomly selected soil samples among different
The present study for knowing the soil carbon land covers viz, sal, teak, bamboo, mixed, open and
sequestration potential of forest land, agriculture scrub was also collected for estimating the SOC
land, grassland and wasteland in Achanakmar was storage potential. A total of 75 (5x5x3) soil samples

carried out at 4 selected sites: Achanakmar, were collected among different land covers. It was
ensured that sampling sites typically represent the
Chhapparwa, Lamni and Surhi shown in Fig. 1.
whole study area.

At each sampling site, the soil samples were randomly

The soil samples collected were packed in zip locked
collected at three different soil depths: 0-20, 20-50
polythene bags and were tagged with the geo-
and 50-100 cm by using a soil core sampler. A total of
morphological information (location of site, elevation,
120 (4x10x3) soil samples were collected for SOC latitude, longitude) using GPS (Garmin etrex-30) and
estimation. were taken to the laboratory for SOC analysis.

13 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Separate soil samples were also collected for soil bulk The difference in the carbon stock obtained at the
density estimation of soil. A total of 36 (3x4x3) soil interval of one year was used to estimate the annual
samples were collected from four different land uses carbon sequestration rate of carbon under different
and 30 (2x5x3) soil samples from different five land use and land cover.
vegetation covers at three different soil depths. The
collected soil samples from the field were brought to Results
the laboratory and oven dried at 60oC till constant The present study was set up to estimate and compare
weight. The weight of oven dried soil samples was the SOC pools under different land uses viz. forest
taken and recorded. The weight of oven dried soil land, agriculture land, grassland and wasteland in
samples was divided by its volume to estimate the Achanakmar, Chhattisgarh. Among different land use
value of soil bulk density. Bulk density measurements in AABR, the dominant land use was found under
were estimated by using standard core method (Wilde dense forest land (71%), followed by agricultural land
et al., 1964). Sieving of soil samples was done using (21%), grassland (1%), wasteland (1%) and others
the 2 mm sized sieve and the fraction smaller than 2 (6%). The mean soil bulk density values of dense
mm size was used for the estimation of SOC. forest land (0.98, 1.12 and 1.24g cm -3), agricultural
land (1.11, 1.19, 1.28g cm-3), grassland (1.15, 1.24, and
Calculation of SOC
1.30g cm-3) and waste land (1.21, 1.28, 1.37g cm-3)
Standard Walkley and Black method (1934) was used
were observed in 0-20, 20-50, 50-100 cm soil depths
to determine organic carbon content in soil.
respectively (Table 1). It shows that bulk density
The SOC content was calculated as: values increased with the increasing depths among all
Percentage (%) of SOC in soil = (B-S) x 0.003x 1.33x land uses. It was observed that wasteland had higher
100/W values of bulk density followed by grass land,
agricultural land and least bulk density values were
Where, found in forest land use systems. This is because the
B: Volume of ferrous sulphate solution for blank percentage of sand and silt is higher in the soils of
titration (ml) wasteland and grassland, compared to the forest and
S: Volume of ferrous sulphate solution for sample agricultural lands and lack of organic matter (litter) in
titration (ml) the wasteland compared to the forest land.
W: Weight of soil sample (g)
0.003: Milli equivalent wt. of carbon A negative trend of SOC was observed with increasing
1.33: Correction factor (100/77) soil depths among all four land uses. The maximum
SOC percentage was found in top surface layer of 0-
The total organic carbon stock (ton/ha) was
20 cm under soils of dense forest land (2.52%)
calculated by following formula;
followed by grassland (1.72%), agricultural land
SOC stock (t ha-1) = soil depth (cm) x bulk density (g
(1.43%) and least in wasteland (0.98%). In the middle
cm-3) x C conc. (%) x CFst (1-% stone + % gravel/100).
layer of 20-50 cm it was observed that higher carbon

Total SOC estimation content was exhibited by dense forest land (1.18%)

For determining the total SOC pool under different followed by grassland (0.89%), agricultural land

land use system, the total SOC pool was calculated by (0.73%) and wasteland (0.51%). In the lower, 50-100

multiplying the mean SOC stock in each unit area cm soil horizon, higher carbon content was exhibited

(ton/ha) by the total area covered by them. by dense forest land (0.51%) followed by grassland

Summation of SOC stock in each depth gave the total (0.39%), agricultural land (0.31%) and least under

SOC pool (tons) in each land use system. Mitigation wasteland (0.22%). The highest mean SOC stock was

Potential was calculated by dividing the total found under forest land (49.18, 39.24, and 29.72 t ha-
1) followed by grassland (38.90, 32.66, and 23.98 t ha-
individual pool of carbon in each land use and land
1), agricultural land (31.19, 25.66 and 18.85 t ha-1) and
cover by the lowest pool of carbon occupied under
land use and land cover. least under

14 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

wasteland (23.43, 19.12, and 14.50 t ha-1) across three observed under land use systems were: forest land,
different soil depths. It shows that higher carbon both dense and open forests (1,90,76,556.3 tons),
stock was found at the top surface layer i.e. (0-20 cm agricultural land (38,97,157.08), grassland
depth) followed by decreasing trend at middle depth (1,88,872.7 tons) and wasteland (2,07,796.73 tons).
(20-50cm) and least SOC stock was found at lower The overall percentage share of SOC pool
depth (50-100 cm) among all land uses. The total sequestration exhibited under different land use
SOC pool in the 100 cm soil depth of forest land was systems found in AABR were: forestland, both dense
highest (118.14 t ha-1), followed by grassland (95.54 t and open (81%), agricultural land (17%), grassland
ha-1), agricultural land (75.70 t ha-1) and least was (1%) and wasteland (1%). The annual C sequestration
found in wasteland (57.05 t ha-1). Data revealed that rate found in different land use was highest in forest
highest SOC stock was found in upper 0-20 cm soil land (8.59 t ha-1/yr) followed by grassland (3.85 t ha-
depth, followed by 20-50 cm soil depth and least in 1/yr) and wasteland (0.66 t ha-1/yr) and the reverse
50-100 cm among all land uses. This shows a general trend was observed in agricultural land (-12.5 t ha-
trend of decreasing SOC stock from upper to lower 1/yr) which may be due to the anthropogenic practices
soil depths. Similarly, the total SOC pool in tons adopted in the agricultural lands (Table 1).

Table 1. Soil organic carbon storage potential under different land uses.
Land Use Area Soil Depth SOC (%) B. D SOC SOC Pool SOC
(ha) (cm) (g cm-3) (ton/ha) (tons) Sequestration
Potential
(ton C ha-1/yr)
0-20 2.52 0.98 49.18 74,31,540.62
Forest land 151109 20-50 1.18 1.12 39.24 59,29,517.15
50-100 0.51 1.24 29.72 44,90,203.94 8.59
Total 0-100 118.14 1,78,51,261.71
0-20 1.43 1.11 31.19 16,05,817.15
Agricultural 51485 20-50 0.73 1.19 25.66 13,21,105.1 -12.5
land 50-100 0.31 1.28 18.85 9,70,234.83
Total 0-100 75.70 38,97,157.08
0-20 1.72 1.15 38.90 76,905.3
Grassland 1977 20-50 0.89 1.24 32.66 64,568.82 3.85
50-100 0.39 1.30 23.98 47,398.58
Total 0-100 95.54 1,88,872.7
0-20 0.98 1.21 23.43 85,355.49
Wasteland 3643 20-50 0.51 1.28 19.12 69,635.95
50-100 0.22 1.37 14.50 52,805.29 0.66
Total 0-100 57.05 2,07,796.73
Others 14381 - - - - -
Overall 2,47,678 - - - - - -

The mean values of soil bulk density under different followed by teak (1.63%), bamboo (1.45%), sal
land covers viz. sal (0.88, 0.97, 1.12g cm-3), teak (1.36%), open and scrub (0.86%). At the middle, 20-
(0.94, 1.06, 1.20g cm-3), bamboo (0.96, 1.08, 1.22 g 50 cm depth mixed forest cover still had the greatest
cm-3), mixed (0.98, 1.12, 1.24g cm-3), open and scrub SOC concentration (1.18%) followed by teak (0.91%),
(1.01, 1.15, 1.25g cm-3) were observed in 0-20, 20-50, sal (0.77 %), bamboo (0.76 %), open and scrub
50-100 cm soil depths respectively. Soil bulk density (0.53%). The SOC concentration in the lower, 50-100
was higher under open and scrub compared to the cm depth was found higher under mixed vegetation
other land covers. Soil bulk density increased with cover (0.51%) followed by sal (0.35%), teak (0.31%),
increase in soil depth among land covers (Table 2). bamboo (0.28%) and least under open and scrub
At the top 0-20 cm soil depth, mixed vegetation cover (0.25%). Soil organic carbon concentration decreased
had the greatest SOC concentration (2.52%), with increasing soil depths (Table 2).

15 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Table 2. Mean soil bulk density and soil organic carbon in soils under different land covers. Different letters
indicate significant differences between land covers (p <0.05).
Land Cover Depth Bulk Soil organic Soil organic SOC pool SOC
(cm) density carbon (%) carbon (t ha-1) Sequestration
(g cm-3) (ton ha-1) Potential
(t ha-1/yr)
0-20 0.88c 1.36b 23.69c
Sal 20-50 0.97b 0.77c 21.70d
50-100 1.12a 0.35e 18.90d 64.28a 6.45
0-20 0.94b 1.63b 31.42c
Teak 20-50 1.06b 0.91c 28.74c
50-100 1.20a 0.31e 17.75d 76.64b 8.53
0-20 0.96b 1.45b 27.52c
Bamboo 20-50 1.08b 0.76c 24.43c
50-100 1.22a 0.28e 16.95d 67.21a 1.61
0-20 0.98b 2.52a 49.18a
Mixed 20-50 1.12a 1.18b 39.24b
50-100 1.24a 0.51d 29.71c 118.18c 8.59
0-20 1.01b 0.86c 18.14d
Open and Scrub 20-50 1.15a 0.53d 16.78d
50-100 1.25a 0.25e 13.82e 48.72d 0.58
Same alphabets represent statistically at par group.

Regarding the soil organic carbon stock among scrub vegetation placed in subset‘d’ was not
different land covers at the 0-20 cm soil depth, mixed statistically at par with the sal, teak, bamboo and
vegetation had the highest soil carbon stock (49.18 C mixed forests, except sal and bamboo forests
ton ha-1) followed by teak (31.42 C ton ha-1), bamboo represents statistically at par group stands alone in
(27.52 C ton ha-1), sal (23.69 C ton ha-1), open and subset ‘a’ whereas teak and mixed vegetation can be
scrub(18.14 C ton ha-1). At the middle, 20-50 cm placed separately in subset ‘b’ and ‘c’ respectively
depth, mixed land cover still had the highest soil (Table 2).
carbon stock (39.24 C ton ha-1) followed by teak
(28.74 C ton ha-1), bamboo (24.43 C ton ha-1), sal The percentage of SOC pool was highest under mixed

(21.70 C ton ha-1), open and scrub (16.78 C ton ha-1). vegetation (31.51%), followed by teak (20.43%),

At the lower, 50-100 cm depth mixed land cover had bamboo (17.92%), sal (17.14%) and least SOC pool

the highest soil carbon stock (29.71 C ton ha-1) under open and scrub vegetation cover (12.99%).

followed by sal (18.90 C ton ha-1), teak (17.75 C ton ha- Results of one-way ANOVA indicate that SOC pool
1), bamboo (16.95 C ton ha-1), open and scrub (13.82 C between the different forest vegetation covers was

ton ha-1). Soil carbon stock also decreased with significantly different among a, b, c, and d subsets at

increasing soil depths (Table 2). 0.05 level (Variance ratio, F = 11.356; P <0.05). SOC
sequestration under soils of mixed forests and open
The total soil carbon sequestration potential under and scrub forests was significantly different from the
different natural vegetation covers was estimated and SOC sequestration under sal, teak and bamboo
data has been presented in Table 3. Maximum SOC vegetation covers. However, the SOC sequestration
pool (118.18 t ha-1 ) was found in the soils under under sal, teak and bamboo were not significantly
mixed vegetation cover, followed by soils under teak different from each other. Mitigation potential was
vegetation (76.64 t ha-1), bamboo vegetation (67.21 t also worked out for soils under different vegetation
ha-1), sal vegetation (64.28 t ha-1) and minimum covers. Maximum mitigation potential was found in
under soils of open and scrub vegetation cover (48.72 mixed vegetation (2.43) followed by teak (1.58),
t ha-1). Subset for alpha = 0.05 indicates that the SOC bamboo (1.38), sal (1.32) and least under open and
pool under open and scrub vegetation cover (1.0) (Table 2).

16 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

The annual C sequestration rate found in different vegetation covers effect litter decomposition rates,
vegetation cover was highest in mixed vegetation and eventually influence soil carbon stocks (Sariyildiz
(8.59 t ha-1/yr) followed by teak vegetation (8.53 t ha- and Anderson, 2003). In general, litter of mixed
1/yr), sal vegetation (6.45 t ha-1/yr), bamboo (1.61 t vegetation contains a mixture of components that
ha-1/yr), open and scrub (0.58 t ha-1/yr) (Table 2). have the varying decomposing rate than single or
mono-cropping type of vegetation cover. The slower
Discussions
decay rates of monocropping vegetation compared to
The soil organic carbon stocks at three different
the mixed vegetation could have contributed to the
depths under forest land use was much higher as
larger accumulation storage of soil carbon under the
compared to the other land uses, this is because of the
mixed land cover compared to the other vegetation
highest litter fall and plant residues associated with
covers. Thus, higher litter production and higher
microbial activities was observed in the forests which
decomposition rate of soil organic matter in soils of
shows the inter-linkage of forest ecosystems in
mixed vegetation have a greater role in storage of the
sequestration of soil organic carbon compared to
soil carbon.
other land uses. Moreover, the differences in the SOC
storage of land uses can be associated with varying
Conclusion
levels of clay and sand contents which affect the
A better understanding of the impact of the different
storage of SOC stocks (Rojas et al., 2012; Yao et al.,
land use and land cover on soil carbon storage is
2010). Since no such past study was found in this
necessary as it will help us in identifying and knowing
area, present study is in correspondence with the
the influence of different land use and land cover on
study of Venkanna et al. (2014) who studied soil C
soil C storage and how different land use and land
sequestration pool in semi-arid tropical region of
cover management practices influence the soil C
southern India and the results of his study reveals
storage in soils. The results have shown that SOC
that forest land use system were having highest C
stock distribution in upper soil profile are sensitive to
sequestration potential followed by grassland,
SOC loss due to land use and land cover conversion in
agricultural land and wasteland. Choudhury et al.
Achanakmar and could be proposed as one of the
(2013) estimated soil C sequestration pool in soils of
most appropriate biological indicator for studying the
North East India and found that forest land contains
long term effects of LULC on soil properties.
highest SOC pool followed by grassland, agricultural
Understanding the carbon storage potential of
crop land and wasteland. Thus, results of our study
different land-use and land cover will help to
are similar and almost in the same trend under
understand the potential role of soils in carbon
different land uses as estimated by these researchers.
storage and may provide opportunities for its long
Among different land covers the soil C sequestration term storage. The study concludes that forest land-
potential was found higher under mixed land cover. use with mixed land cover has a greater role in carbon
The lower soil C sequestration was found under open storage compared to the mono-cropping system.
and scrub. This may be due to low litter production
and input in these vegetation covers. Differences in References
soil carbon stocks between different land uses and Baritz R, Seufert G, Montanarella L, Van
land covers in this study could be attributed to Ranst E. 2010. Carbon concentrations and stocks in
differences in presence of litter, quality of litter, forest soils of Europe. Forest Ecology and
composition of vegetation and rate of litter Management 260, 262-277.
decomposition. Indeed, differences in the amount of
litter produced and resulting biochemical properties Batjes NH. 1996. The total C and N in soils of the

among different land-use and world. European Journal of Soil Science 47, 151-163.

17 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Bellamy PH, Loveland PJ, Bradley RI, Lark RM, Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR,
Kirk GJD. 2005. Carbon losses from all soils across Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J,
England and Wales, 1978-2003. Nature 437, 245-248. Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C. 2010.
Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion
Cambardella CA, Elliott ET. 1992. Particulate soil
people. Science 327, 812-818.
organic matter changes across a grassland cultivation
sequence. Soil Science Society of American Journal
Jansson C, Wullschleger S, Kalluri U, Tuskan G.
56, 777-783.
2010. Phytosequestration: carbon biosequestration by

Chan KY. 2001. Soil particulate organic carbon plants and the prospects of genetic engineering.

under different land use and management. Soil Use Bioscience 60, 685-96.
Management 17, 217-221.
Karlen DL, Rosek MJ, Gardner JC, Allan DL,
Choudhury BU, Mohapatra KP, Anup Das, Alms MJ, Bezdicek DF, Flock M, Huggins DR,
Pratibha T, Das L, Nongkhlaw R, Abdul Fiyaz Miller BS, Staben ML. 1999. Conservation reserve
SV, Ngachan S, Hazarika DJ, Rajkhowa, program effects on soil quality indicators. Journal of
Munda GC. 2013. Spatial variability in distribution Soil Water Conservation 54, 439-444.
of organic carbon stocks in the soils of North East
India. Current Science 104(5), 604-614. Kasel S, Bennett LT. 2007. Land-use history,
forest conversion, and soil organic carbon in pine
Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA,
plantations and native forests of south eastern
Totterdell IJ. 2000. Acceleration of global warming
Australia. Geoderma 137(3), 401-413. doi:10.1016/j.
due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate
model. Nature 408, 184-7.
Lal R. 2002. The potential of soils of the tropics to
sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect.
Don A, Schumacher J, Freibauer A. 2011. Impact
of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon stocks Advances in Agronomy 74, 155-192.
- a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 17, 1658-1670.
Lal R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on
Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, climate change and food security. Science 304, 1623-7.
Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum
I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, et al. 2014. Climate Li YF, Zhang JJ, Chang SX, Jiang PK, Zhou GM,
change, mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Fu SL, Yan ER, Wu JS, Lin L. 2013. Long-term
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the intensive management effects on soil organic carbon
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 511-97. pools and chemical composition in Moso bamboo
(Phyllostachys pubescens) forests in subtropical China.
Ellis EC, Ramankutty N. 2008. Putting people in the
Forest Ecology and Management 303, 121-130.
map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 6, 439-447.
Li YF, Zhang JJ, Chang SX, Jiang PK, Zhou
GM, Shen ZM, Wu JS, Lin L, Wang ZS, Shen
Eswaran H, van den Berg E, Reich P. 1993.
Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil Science MC. 2014. Converting native shrub forests to Chinese

Society of American Journal 57, 192-194. chestnut plantations and subsequent intensive
management affected soil C and N pools. Forest
Fang HJ, Yang XM, Hang XP. 2006. Spatial Ecology and Management 312, 161-169.
distribution of particulate organic carbon and
aggregate associated carbon in topsoil of a sloping Moss RH. 2010. The next generation of scenarios for
farmland in the Black Soil region, Northeast China. climate change research and assessment. Nature 463,
Acta Ecological Sinica 26, 2847-2854. 747-56.

18 | Iqbal and Tiwari

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2017

Nsabimana D, Haynes RJ, Wallis F M. 2004. Venkanna K, Uttam Kumar, Mandal AJ,
Size, activity and catabolic diversity of the soil Solomon Raju KL, Sharma, Ravikant V,
microbial biomass as affected by land use. Applied Adake, Pushpanjali B, Sanjeeva Reddy, Rahul
Soil Ecology 26(2), 81-92. doi: 10.1016/j. N, Masane K, Venkatravamma B, Peda B. 2014.
Carbon stocks in major soil types and land-use
Ogle SM, Breidt FJ, Paustian K. 2005. Agricultural
systems in semiarid tropical region of southern India.
management impacts on soil organic carbon storage
under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate Current Science 106(4), 604-611.

and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72(1), 87-121.

Walkley A, Black IA. 1934. An examination of
Post W, Kwon K. 2000. Soil carbon sequestration degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter
and land-use change: processes and potential. Global and a proposed modification of the chromic acid
Change Biology 6, 317-28. titration method. Soil Science 37, 29-38.

Post WM, Emanuel MR, Zinke PJ, West TO, Marland G, King AW, Post WM. 2004.
Stangenberger A. 1982. Soil carbon pools and Carbon management response curves: estimates of
world life zones. Nature 298, 156-159.
temporal soil carbon dynamics. Environmental
Management 35(4), 507-18.
Powlson DS, Whitmore AP, Goulding KWT. 2011.
Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a
Wilde SA, Voigt GK, Iyer JG. 1964. Soil and Plant
critical re-examination to identify the true and the false.
Analysis for Tree Culture. Oxford Publishing House,
European Journal of Soil Science 62(1), 42-55.
Calcutta, India.
Rojas MM, Jordan A, Zavala LM, Rosa DDL,
Abd-Elmabod SK, Romero MA. 2012. Organic Wu Lezhi, Cai Zucong. 2012. Key variables
carbon stocks in Medditernean soil types under different explaining soil organic carbon content variations in
land uses in Sothern Spain. Solid earth 3, 375-386. croplands and non-croplands in Chinese provinces.
Chinese Geographical Science 22(3), 1-9.
Rumpel C, Chabbi A. 2010. Response of bulk
DOI: 10.1007/s11769-012-0531-3.
chemical composition, lignin and carbohydrate
signature to grassland conversion in a ley-arable Yang Y, Guo J, Chen G et al. 2009. Effects of forest
cropping system. Nutrient Cycling and Agroecosystem conversion on soil labile organic carbon fractions and
88, 173-82.
aggregate stability in subtropical China. Plant and Soil
323(1), 153-162.
Sariyildiz T, Anderson JM. 2003. Interactions
between litter quality, decomposition and soil DOI: 10.1007/s11104-009-9921-4.

fertility: a laboratory study. Soil Biology and

Yao MK, Angui PKT, Konates, Tondoh JE,
Biochemistry 35, 391-399.
Tanoy, Abbadie L, Benest D. 2010. Effects of land
DOI: 10.1016/S0038- 0717(02)00290-0.
use types on soil organic carbon and nitrogen
Smith OH, Petersen GW, Needleman BA. 2000. dynamics in Mid-west Cote d’Ivoire. European
Environmental indicators of agroecosystems. Advanced Journal of Scientific Research 40(2), 211-222.
Agronomy 69, 75-97.
Zhang JJ, Li YF, Chang SX, Jiang PK, Zhou GM,
United Nations. 2013. World Population Prospects:
Liu J, Wu JS, Shen ZM. 2014. Understory vegetation
The 2012 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables.
control affected greenhouse gas emissions and labile
Working Paper No ESA/P/WP. 227; United Nations,
organic carbon pools in an intensively managed Chinese
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division, New York. chestnut plantation. Plant Soil 376, 363-375.

19 | Iqbal and Tiwari