Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T12:48:16.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Carbon sequestration: counterintuitive feedback of plant growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2021

Juan Alonso-Serra*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, ENS de Lyon, Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), CNRS, 46 Allée d’Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France.
*
Author for correspondence: J. Alonso-Serra, E-mail: juan.alonso-serra@ens-lyon.fr

Abstract

Interaction between the atmosphere, plants and soils plays an important role in the carbon cycle. Soils contain vast amounts of carbon, but their capacity to keep it belowground depends on the long-term ecosystem dynamics. Plant growth has the potential of adding or releasing carbon from soil stocks. Since plant growth is also stimulated by higher CO2 levels, understanding its impact on soils becomes crucial for estimating carbon sequestration at the ecosystem level. A recent meta-analysis explored the effect CO2 levels have in plant versus soil carbon sequestration. The integration of 108 experiments performed across different environments revealed that the magnitude of plant growth and the nutrient acquisition strategy result in counterintuitive feedback for soil carbon sequestration.

Information

Type
Insights
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The John Innes Centre

Author comment: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

Please find attached my manuscript entitled “Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth”, which I wish you to consider as an “Insight” for Quantitative Plant Biology.

In this manuscript, my aim is to highlight a recent publication addressing the effects plant growth has on soil carbon stocks (1). With the surge of new technologies and climate mitigation strategies aiming to increase plant yields and carbon sequestration, I find it timely and relevant to highlight the counterintuitive nature of ecosystemic feedbacks. The recent article published by Terrer et al is a perfect example of such complexity. The authors studied the effect CO2 levels have in plant vs. soil carbon sequestration across more than a hundred different environments. They show that the stronger CO2 stimulates plant biomass growth, the more soil carbon stocks tend to diminish. By contrast, mild CO2 levels promote both plant biomass and soil carbon accumulation.

I graduated from my doctoral studies in September 2020. Although my scientific expertise is in the field of plant development, as an early career researcher I think is important to broaden the scientific discussion and consider also the impact plants may have on their environment. This, I believe, will better inform us towards long-term solutions of carbon sequestration.

Sincerely,

Juan Alonso-Serra

Postdoctoral Researcher

RDP - INRAE - ENS de Lyon

46 allée d'Italie

69007 Lyon

France

(1) Terrer, C., Phillips, R. P., Hungate, B. A., Rosende, J., Pett-Ridge, J., Craig, M. E., van Groenigen, K. J., et al. (2021). A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature, 591(7851), 599–603.

Review: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: This article was a simple review regarding the effect of elevated CO2 on soil carbon stocks on the results from many published papers. The review points should be OK in this article. However, elevated CO2 also affected CH4 and N2O emissions. Specially, CH4 emission is in the C budget, it should be noted in the last conclusions too.

Recommendation: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R0/PR3

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R1/PR5

Comments

Dear Editor,

Please find attached the revised version of my Insight manuscript.

In response to the reviewer request, I have amended the text in lines 95-97. I also include a photo kindly provided by Jim Richardson for this publication.

In the text, I did the following minor modifications to improve the text flow and precision.

-Line 36: Removed the word “complex”

-Line 47: added “ ~ ” symbol

-Line 50: added “and dams of”

-Line 99: Removed sentence “Predicting global feedbacks and mechanisms is even more difficult because of uncertainties about ecosystem structure, capacity, size and behaviour”

-Line 140: Changed the word “humans” for “us”

-Acknowledgments: I included the acknowledgement to Jim Richardson for the photo.

Sincerely,

Juan Alonso-Serra

Review: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R1/PR6

Comments

Comments to Author: I have checked your revision already, thanks.

Recommendation: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Counterintuitive feedbacks of plant growth — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.