Quantification, spatial distribution and persistence of root-derived carbon for 12 cover crops
Abstract. Organic carbon derived from roots is a major input fuelling soil organic carbon stocks, especially in agricultural systems, where aboveground biomass might be harvested. However, root sampling for carbon monitoring excludes net rhizodeposition, i.e. the organic compounds released by the roots that have not been rapidly mineralised, and some of the finest root debris, because this fraction of root-derived carbon can not be directly quantified in the field. To compensate for this shortfall, we set up a two-month experiment with multi-pulse 13C-CO2 labellings of 12 crops to quantify these carbon pools at harvest, operationally grouped under the term SOCnew. We also investigated the spatial distribution of belowground carbon inputs within the soil profile. Lastly, in order to follow the fate of this carbon after the plant death, we performed a 524-day litterbag incubation in the field using the labelled material. We found that SOCnew accounted for 27 % of belowground carbon inputs at harvest. It was not correlated to carbon amounts of the shoots, but was positively correlated to root carbon (R2 = 0.14). The vertical distribution of SOCnew tended to follow the one of roots. The majority was recovered in the bulk soil, rather than adhering to the roots. We showed that SOCnew had a greater persistence time in the soils than roots in the mid-term. However, these findings were marked by high variability because the small quantities of carbon involved make it difficult to assess persistence by isotopic difference. These results suggest that net rhizodeposition and fine root debris should be taken into account in organic carbon management of soils as it refines our estimation of belowground inputs. However, their low predictability, due to the diversity of products and processes, is still a barrier.
The manuscript by Hulin et al compares C inputs of 12 cover crops with a labelling approach. SOC new as a pool consisting of fine root C and rhizodeposition is determined. With this the paper provides new data and complements the existing literature on C inputs. The scientific methods are valid and reported nicely. The analysis and conclusions are sound and clear. However, the presentation of the results in the figures was not that clear (see comments below). I recommend publication after incorporating these comments.
L35: C instead of Carbon
L37f: what processes? How much does it vary over time?
L43: what did Huang et al find? Change ‘not confirmed’ to contradicted?
L44: sentence seems off
L54: reference?
L55 remove C?
L132: how many plants were grown in one mesocosm?
L148: SOC
L234: unclear. What is compared to a greenhouse?
239: hard to understand to what the literature refers, maybe you can report it like the barley
Fig 1: upper panel letters are not in the centre of the bar as in the lower panel, why no statistics for the middle panel? Statistics for lower panel confusing. Please consider displaying the SOCnew:Belowground C inputs ratio to match the statistics.
Fig 2: Visually irritating. It looks like the whole 0-20cm horizon is missing with statistics and error bars. The orange and blue “background bars” don’t add any information. I assume that the horizon 0-20cm is the percentage that is not framed and striped. Please add a proper bar for this horizon.
L308: was it expected that the Poaceae had the highest rhizosheath values? Report the mean value in the text so the reader can directly compare it to the mean across species.
L315: “our results” and then you cite a different paper. Confusing in the way it is done now.
Fig 3: Confusing with the big difference between axis and hard to read. Consider to plot it separately in two panels. Report statistics for the linear correlation in the plot and not only in the text. The inset is very small.
L322: C loss, please check for consistency throughout the manuscript
L326: reference?
L344: fresh OC = SOCnew right? Stick with one term.
L373: sentence is off
L375: the conclusions of the review article you cited are not valid without restrictions: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.70077
Figure S5: consider making this figure part of the manuscript instead of only using the inset in Fig 3.