Effect of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivation on soil organic carbon stocks in Germany

被引:0
|
作者
Grunwald, Dennis [1 ]
Poeplau, Christopher [2 ]
Koch, Heinz-Josef [1 ]
Jacobs, Anna [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Sugar Beet Res, Gottingen, Germany
[2] Thunen Inst Climate Smart Agr, Braunschweig, Germany
关键词
Agricultural Soil Inventory; cover crops; crop residues; crop rotation; MatchIt; winter wheat; ROOT; SEQUESTRATION; MATTER; CROPS;
D O I
10.1111/sum.70022
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Sugar beet is generally seen as detrimental to soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks for multiple reasons although actual data verifying this claim are scarce. In this study, two approaches were combined to examine the effect of sugar beet on SOC from field data in Germany. First, SOC data of the German Agricultural Soil Inventory were used to compare sugar beet sites with similar sites without sugar beet cultivation. Second, a long-term crop rotation trial in Central Germany was evaluated for differences in SOC among crop rotations with and without sugar beet. Further, carbon input into soil from sugar beet residues was compared with wheat as a reference. In the nationwide dataset, lower SOC stocks (-4.6%) were found for sugar beet sites compared with those without. However, a re-sampling of the sites 10 years later showed no (further) SOC loss. In the long-term trial, no negative impact of sugar beet cultivation on SOC was found. From both databases, carbon input from sugar beet crop residues (2 and 2.7 Mg ha-1 year-1, respectively) was much lower than from wheat (3.6 and 5.8 Mg ha-1 year-1, respectively) because of evident differences in the amount of belowground residues. However, this may be counteracted by growing cover crops before sugar beet, as done in the long-term field trial studied. We conclude that sugar beet might have had a negative impact on SOC stocks in the past, yet that this does not necessarily continue in the present on long-term sugar beet fields, possibly because of a current steady SOC state. When growing cover crops, sugar beet cultivation might have no negative effect on SOC at all. In any case, a general loss of SOC because of sugar beet cultivation cannot be assumed.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effect of mechanical weeding on soil erosion and earthworm abundance in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Fishkis, Olga
    Koch, Heinz-Josef
    SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH, 2023, 225
  • [2] Element uptake of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) on calcareous chernozem soil
    Kádár, I
    NOVENYTERMELES, 2001, 50 (01): : 95 - 105
  • [3] Effect of foliar treatments on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production
    Varga, L
    Ruzsányi, L
    NOVENYTERMELES, 2003, 52 (05): : 485 - 494
  • [4] MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUGAR BEET AND WEED BEET (BETA VULGARIS L.) DEPENDING ON THE SOIL
    Skalicky, Milan
    Tuma, Jiri
    Steklova, Jitka
    Tumova, Lenka
    Pulkrabek, Josef
    CEREAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2008, 36 : 835 - 838
  • [5] Crystals in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) leaves
    Semenova G.A.
    Romanova A.K.
    Cell and Tissue Biology, 2011, 5 (1) : 74 - 80
  • [6] Using preceding crop effects for climate smart sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. cultivation
    Jacobs, Anna
    Koch, Heinz-Josef
    Maerlaender, Bernward
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 2019, 104 : 13 - 20
  • [7] Phytotoxicity response of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) seedlings to herbicide fomesafen in soil
    Li, Xingfan
    Riaz, Muhammad
    Song, Baiquan
    Liu, Huajun
    ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY, 2022, 239
  • [8] The Effect of Foliar Fertilization on the Yield and Quality of Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris L.)
    Diána Ungai
    Zoltán Győri
    Cereal Research Communications, 2006, 34 : 697 - 700
  • [9] The effect of foliar fertilization on the yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Ungai, D
    Györi, Z
    CEREAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2006, 34 (01) : 697 - 700
  • [10] Changing of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) quality on the effect of foliar treatments
    Diana, Ungai
    Gyori, Z.
    BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND VETERINARY MEDICINE, VOL 62, 2006: AGRICULTURE, 2006, 62 : 412 - 412