Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 80(5), 208–215 | ISSN 1611-4426 print, 1611-4434 online | http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.2015/80.5.
2 | © ISHS 2015
Original article
Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by
green manure in China
Y.X. Wang, B.Q. Weng, J. Ye, Z.M. Zhong and Y.B. Huang
Institute of Agricultural Ecology, Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Fuzhou, China
Summary
Information is scarce on long-term effects of
green manure on carbon storage in fruit orchards, an
important issue for carbon footprinting according
to PAS 2050-1 not only in Europe. Thus, for assessing
carbon sequestration, the carbon distribution in the
vegetation, litter and soil within the same nectar-
ine orchard was compared with three management
practices such as sloping plot without conservation
measures (T1), a terraced plot without conservation
measures (T2), and a terraced plot with green ma-
nure of Arachis pintoi ‘Amarillo’ as mulch (T3), with
the following results: (a) carbon storages of fruit
tree and litter in the nectarine orchard ranged from
13.0 to 14.7 t carbon ha-1, and 0.54 to 0.59 kg carbon
per plant, respectively. No significant difference was
found between different treatments. However, the
carbon storage from A. pintoi increased to 5.12 t car-
bon ha-1 in the T3 treatment. (b) Soil organic carbon
(SOC) and soil organic carbon density (SOCD) in T3
treatment significantly increased compared with T1
and T2 treatments, and decreased with the increase
of soil depth. A significant difference was observed
between every soil layers in T3 treatment. (c) During
the 13 years after orchard establishment, the soil
organic carbon sources influenced the δ13C distribu-
tion with depth and carbon originate. The upper soil
layer SOC turnover in T3 treatment (a mean 63.1% of
replacement in the 0–20 cm soil layer after 13 years)
was 1.59 and 1.41 times greater than those of T1 and
T2 treatments, respectively, indicating that terraced
nectarine orchard with A. pintoi as green manure
could rapidly sequester SOC in subtropical China.
Keywords
carbon footprint, soil organic carbon, δ13C, carbon
sequestration, nectarine, PAS 2050-1
Introduction
During the last century, the carbon dioxide (CO2) con-
centration in the atmosphere increased from 280 to 367
ppm. The land-use to land-cover change, including conver-
sion of forest and grassland to cultivation, is the second
most important source of CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2001; Lal.,
2004, 2007; Ceschia et al., 2010). Orchards, as one of the
semi-permanent cultivation practices, occupy over 4.8×105
km2 in the world. China is the largest fruit grower world-
wide with 1.1×105 km2 in 2009, accounting for 1.14% of the
land area of China and 23% of orchard areas of the world,
respectively.
208 E u r o p e a n J o u r n a l
eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 208
German Society for
Horticultural Science
Significance of this study
What is already known on this subject?
• Orchards, as one of the semi-permanent cultivation
practices, occupy over 4.8×105 km2 in the world.
Information is scarce on long-term effects of green
manure on carbon storage in fruit orchards, an im-
portant issue for carbon footprinting according to
PAS 2050-1 not only in Europe.
What are the new findings?
• The green manure mulch practice had no significant
impact on fruit tree biomass carbon storage, and sig-
nificantly increased organic carbon storage in 0–100
cm soil layer.
What is the expected impact on horticulture?
• The adoption of Arachis pintoi in terraced orchards
rapidly increases carbon sink and offers great eco-
logical benefits.
The topsoil organic carbon (SOC) content (Grossman
and DeJong, 1998; Robertson et al., 2000; Janssens et al.,
2003), soil organic carbon density (SOCD) (Wang et al.,
2010), and total carbon storage (Ordόñez et al., 2008) of or-
chards were higher than those of annual herbaceous crops,
grasslands and agriculture, but lower than forests. Novara
et al. (2012) found that the conversion of natural vegeta-
tion to orchards (vineyards and olive groves) decreased
SOC. However, other studies found that SOC density (Fang
et al., 2012) and SOC sequestration (Chen et al., 2007) of
orchards were lower than grassland, shrubland, and aban-
doned cropland. These controversial results indicated the
need to further research on carbon sequestration of or-
chards.
Carbon sequestration is related to not only land-use
types, but also soil management practices of orchards (e.g.,
no tillage, straw and grass as so-called ‘green manure’).
Orchards often employ conventional management with a
lack of soil cover to reduce the competition between trees
and weeds for water and nutrients; this management can
induce roughness and may have serious impacts on vege-
tation and soil carbon storage, by increasing erosion and
emission of soil carbon to atmosphere (Francia Martínez
et al., 2006; Freibauer et al., 2004). However, reducing
tillage intensity, such as no tillage, can be positive effec-
tive for SOC sequestration (Zibilske et al., 2002; Ramos et
al., 2011), and conservation tillage systems, such as green
manure, are more effective in retaining SOC, thereby main-
taining a relatively higher level of SOC than conventional
tillage systems (Zhang et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2011; Ramos
o f H o r t i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e
12-10-15 15:19
 Wang et al. | Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by green manure in China
et al., 2011). Wu et al. (2011) found higher organic carbon
in Citrus orchards intercropped with green manure such
as white clover and straw mulching than with conventional
management. Navarro-Cerrillo et al. (2009) indicated that
the soil under green manure had higher soil organic mat-
ter levels in comparison to the cultivated soil in Mediter-
ranean afforestation, and the response of green manure
differed between species and environmental conditions.
It illustrated that carbon sequestrations of orchards is af-
fected by not only green manure, and related to covered
grass species.
As a special practice of vegetation management, the
carbon sequestration of orchards is affected by texture,
topography and climatic conditions, especially land-use
practices (e.g., trim, fertilization and harvest of fruits)
(Vesterdal et al., 2002; Zinn et al., 2005; Homann et al.,
2004; Shukla and Lal, 2005), which increased the complex-
ity and uncertainty of ecosystem carbon cycle research.
Despite efforts made in recent years to determine the pro-
cess of carbon sequestration there is still a lot of uncer-
tainty about the effects of different management practices
on carbon sequestration of a nectarine orchard in a hillside
red soil. This study estimated the carbon stocks, distribu-
tion and δ13C value in a nectarine orchard under different
management practices. In PAS 2050-1, any accounted car-
bon sequestration can be offset in the carbon footprint of
a fruit crop. The aim of this paper was to assess the effects
of different management practices on carbon sequestration
using a fruit orchard in a hillside region of China.
Materials and methods
Site descriptions and soil characteristics
The study site was a nectarine orchard planted in 1996
on YuChi village of SanMing City, Fujian Province, China
(26°25’N, 117°57’E); it was located about 150 m above
sea level. The region is a mild, subtropical monsoon cli-
mate with high temperature and humidity in summer and
cool climate in winter. The annual average temperature
is 19.2°C, with the lowest in January reaching from 9.0 to
12.0°C and the highest in July, from 26.6 to 28.9°C. Annual
rainfall during the period of study was 1,620 mm and an-
nual sunshine 4,289 h. The soil type is a red loam. The basic
physical and chemical properties of soils sampled in 1996
are summarized in Table 1. The constructive species of
original vegetation was Miscanthus (Miscanthus flordulus)
and Mans (M. sinensis) in the site, which were all C4 plants.
The grassland (denoted G) was reclaimed into orchard in
1996.
Experiment design
The experiment started from 1996. Nine plots were
used to assess the management measures on carbon se-
questration in a randomized complete block design with
three replicates. The nine plots were separated by concrete
borders that extended 15 cm aboveground. The size of each
experimental plot was 100 m2 (4 x 25 m). The treatments
were: a sloping nectarine plot without conservation mea-
sures, denoted as T1. In T1 treatment, eight rows of nectar-
ine trees spacing at 80 x 80 cm were planted on the slope,
weeds were allowed growing in natural conditions but re-
moved by hand-pulling 3–4 times per year. Terraced nec-
tarine orchard without conservation measures, denoted as
T2. In T2 treatment, eight terraces were built on the natural
slope, each with a soil ridge (approximately 15 cm high) in
V o l u m e 8 0 | I s s u e 5 | O c t 0 b e r
eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 209
front and a shallow ditch (with width and depth of 15 cm)
behind the ridge. In the middle of each terrace, four pits
with the diameter of 80 cm were dug to 80 cm for nectarine
tree planting; weeds were managed in the same as T1. The
terraced nectarine orchard with Arachis pintoi as green
manure, denoted as T3. In T3 treatment, eight terraces were
built and nectarine trees were planted exactly same as T2.
The cuttings of A. pintoi were planted within the terraces
on April, 1996. They withered aboveground shoots in win-
ter, and naturally emerged in the next spring.
Each nectarine tree was fertilized in April, with 0.35
kg FCMP (calcium-magnesium phosphate fertilizer), 0.5 kg
specialty fertilizer for fruit (N: P: K=16:16:16 or 15:15:15),
0.25 kg superphosphate and 0.25 kg potassium chloride ev-
ery years and their nectarine fruits harvested when ripe.
Sampling methods
1. Plant sampling. All fruit trees (including tree height,
crown size and ground diameter) in each plot were sur-
veyed on November, 2008. Two fruit trees representing
the stand-specific ground-diameter and height range were
selected and sampled destructively in each plot. The trees
were cut at a height of 20 cm above the ground. Prior to
branch removal, representative branches from the low-
est to the highest throughout the crown were sampled.
All branches were then clipped from the tree, and fresh
weights were determined using balance. The stems of each
tree were cut in 50 cm sections and weighted using balance.
A disk (approximately 5 cm wide) was cut from the stump
to the top of each stem section to determine moisture con-
tent. The entire root system was dug up and washed lightly
to remove soil particles. All tissues were oven-dried at 70°C
to determine moisture content. The total dry weight for
each component (branches, stem, and root) was calculated.
The fruits of 5 trees, randomly chosen in nine plots, were
harvested and weighed to determine the production dur-
ing the harvest seasons from 2006 to 2008.
2. Litterfall sampling. Litter was collected with the use of
three 4 x 4 m litter traps per plot. The traps were located
permanently, about 20 cm off the ground and 2 m from fruit
trunk along the canopy waterdrip. During the 12-month
period, from March 2006 to April 2007, litter was collected
at monthly intervals and sorted into four categories: (1)
foliage; (2) flower; (3) branches; and (4) fruit, and an oven-
dry weight (70°C) was determined for individual samples.
Individual samples from each category were then bulked
and ground in a rotary mill (sieve ±0.5 mm mesh) prior to
chemical analysis.
3. Grass sampling. Three squares of 50 x 50cm were ran-
domly established in T3 treatments. In each square, the
above-ground grasses were cut along ground and collected
for the classes of green part and litter, and then the entire
root system of grasses were collected and weighted indi-
vidually. All samples were dried at 70°C and weighted.
4. Soil sampling. Three samples in each plot were ran-
domly selected by collecting of the following layers: 0–20
cm, 20–40 cm, 40–60 cm, 60–80 cm and 80–100 cm depth.
The samples were immediately taken to the laboratory,
sieved through a 0.9 mm sieve to determine soil organic
carbon.
Organic carbon determination methods
1. Organic carbon content in plant. The organic carbon
storage was calculated by multiplying the dry biomasses
of fruit, litter and grass with their organic carbon concen-
2 0 1 5 209
12-10-15 15:19
 mm mesh) prior to chemical analysis.
3. Grass sampling. Three squares of 50 x 50cm were randomly established in T3 treatments. In each square, the
above-ground grasses were cut along ground and collected for the classes of green part and litter, and then the
entire root system of grasses were collected and weighted individually. All samples were dried at 70°C and
weighted.
4. Soiletsampling.
Wang al. | CarbonThree samplesininaeach
sequestration plot orchard
nectarine were randomly selected
as affected by green bymanure
collecting of the following layers: 0–20
in China
cm, 20–40 cm, 40–60 cm, 60–80 cm and 80–100 cm depth. The samples were immediately taken to the laboratory,
sieved through a 0.9 mm sieve to determine soil organic carbon.
trations, and converted to kg C ha-1. The organic carbon when nectarine leaves had already dropped so that carbon
Organic carbonin
concentrations determination
plant samplesmethods were determined by the storage in leaves was not calculated. The vegetation carbon
1. Organic carbon
potassium dichromate content in plant.
oxidation method (Liu et al.,
The organic 1996).
carbon storagestocks of nectarine
was calculated orchard under
by multiplying the drydifferent
biomasses management
2. fruit,
of Soil organic
litter andcarbon
grass with content. Soil organic
their organic carbon carbon was
concentrations, practices rangedto
and converted from
kg C13.0
ha-1to
. The14.7 t carbon
organic ha-1 (Figure 2).
carbon
measured on a in
concentrations 0,5 g sample
plant samples using
were wet chemistryby(Walkley
determined the potassium Nodichromate
significant oxidation
differences were (Liu
method found et between
al., 1996).treatments
2.
andSoil organic
Black, 1934).carbon content.
Soil organic carbon densitycarbon
Soil organic (SOCDwas
, t C ha -1)
measuredT1,on
T2aand0,5 gTsample
3. Most using
of thewetcarbon storage
chemistry in the nectarine
(Walkley
was Black,
and calculated1934).withSoilthe following
organic carbon formula:
density (SOCD, t C ha-1) wastrees came with
calculated fromthe branches,
followingranging
formula: from 63–67% of total
� vegetation carbon storage, the second pool was from roots,
ranging from 21–28%, and the least was from the tree
SOC � � �� × �� × �� × 10 (1)
trunk with only 9–14%. The order of fruit productions was:
� T1>T2>T3, but there were no significant differences among
where Ci is the soil organic carbon content (g kg-1), Hi is the the three treatments. In addition, the carbon storage in
depth of each soil layer (cm), and Bi is soil bulk density of Arachis pintoi ‘Amarillo’ in T3 treatment was 5.12 t carbon
each soil layer (g kg-1). ha-1.
(1)
Organic
where carbon
Ci is the soilstable
organic isotopic
carbon analysis
content (g kg-1), Hi is the depthSoil organic
of each carbon
soil layer (cm),(SOC)
and B content and density
i is soil bulk soil organic
Thesoil
of each δ13Clayer
of organic
(g kg-1).materials (litter and soil samples) carbon density (SOCD)
are measured was conducted with an isotope ratio mass Two-way ANOVA indicated that orchard management
Organic
spectrometer carbon stable isotopic
(Finnigan MAT-251) analysis
in Chinese Academy of practices and soil depth had a significant effect on SOC
Forestry
The δ13 Science, Beijing,
C of organic China.(litter
materials The 13 C abundance
and soil samples) is are contentwas
ex- measured (Figure 3). Compared
conducted with treatments
with an isotope ratio mass T1 and T2,
pressed in delta
spectrometer (d) per MAT-251)
(Finnigan mil (‰) and calculated
in Chinese as follows
Academy SOC Science,
of Forestry content Beijing,
for T3 treatment
China. Thesignificantly
13C abundance increased
is from
(Peri et al.,in2012):
expressed delta (d) per mil (‰) and calculated as follows (Peri 14.9%
et al.,to2012):
46.5% and from 7.4% to 15.3%, respectively, and
it decreased with the increase of soil depth in all the treat-
δδ13 C(‰) =
13C(‰) [(Rsample//RRstandard
= [(R )-1-1] × 1000 (2)
sample standard) ] × 1000 (2) ments. There were no significant differences in SOC con-
where, Rsample and Rstandard are respectively the isotope ratio 13 tent
C/12among
C of a the soil layers
sample of 0–20 cm,
and a reference 20–40 cm
material, the and 40–60
where, R
latter is fromsample and
a belemnite R are respectively the isotope
carbonate from the Pee Dee formation of North
standard ra- cm for treatments T1 and T2. However they for T1 increased
Carolina, USA.
tio 13 C/12C of a to
According sample
Wangand a reference
et al. (2007), amaterial,
modifiedthe latter
linear model by 165% applied
is equation and 244%, 149% and
to estimate 223%, 136%
plantation (C3) and
and196% than
from a belemnite
grass(C 4)-derived SOC carbonate
proportions from the Pee Dee
is given by: formation of that for the soil layers of 60–80 cm and 80–100 cm, respec-
North Carolina, USA. tively, and for T2 treatment increased by 229% and 309%,
δAccording
S = f δA + (1 f ) δ0 et(3)
to –Wang al. (2007), a modified linear 177% and 245%, 138% and 206%. In T3 treatment, there
model equation applied to estimate plantation (C )
where, δS is the δ C of the soil organic carbon(SOC) in3the surface soil horizon
13 and were significant differences
of the orchard, δAamong is the δ13different
C of fruitsoil layers,
grass(C
trees 4)-derived
litter, δ0 is theSOCδ13Cproportions
of the SOC inisthe given by: soil horizon of and
surface SOC contents
the virgin grassland, in fthe soilfraction
is the layers of ofSOC
0–20 cm, 20–40 cm
origi-
nating from the litter (fruit trees or groundcover). and 40–60 cm increased by 165% and 245%, 121% and
δS = f δA + (1 – f ) δ0 (3) 188%, 68.0% and 118% than that for the soil layers of 60–
Statistical analysis 80 cm and 80–100 cm, respectively.
The δSPSS
where, S is the δ13software
12.0 C of the soil wasorganic
used for carbon(SOC) in the One-way
statistical analysis. Orchard ANOVAmanagement
was performed practices and soil the
to calculate depths had a
surface LSD
Fisher’s soil (least
horizon of the orchard,
significant difference).δA isSignificance
the δ13C ofwas fruit significant
determined effectfrom
at α=0.05 on soileachorganic
treatment carbon density SOCD, and
separately.
trees litter, δ0 is the δ13C of the SOC in the surface soil hori- the change trend was similar to the SOC content. SOCD of T3
Results
zon of the virgin grassland, f is the fraction of SOC originat- treatment significantly increased from 4.75% to 27.0% and
ing from the litter (fruit trees or groundcover). from 0.42% to 4.13% compared to T1 and T2 treatments, re-
spectively, whereas SOCD decreased with depth increase in
Statistical analysis T1, T2 and T3 treatments. In T1, T2 and T3 treatment, SOCD
The SPSS 12.0 software was used for statistical analy- in the soil layers of 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm was
sis. One-way ANOVA was performed to calculate the Fish- significantly higher than those of in the soil layers of 60–80
er’s LSD (least significant difference). Significance was cm and 80–100 cm, ranging from 134%–260%, 87.2%–
determined at α=0.05 from each treatment separately. 190%, 63.7%–178%, respectively.

Results Soil δ13C value and source of organic carbon in the

Carbon in the litter
Litter biomasses of nectarine orchard pointed out a
seasonal in the litter production because of plant growth
characteristics and phenological regularity. Two peaks
of litter production were found throughout the year, with
the first in March and April, 2006, and the second in Au-
gust and September, 2007 (Figure 1). The annual litter bio-
masses for the three treatments were from 0.54 kg carbon
per plant to 0.59 kg carbon per plant without significant
differences among T1, T2 and T3 treatments. There was a
great difference in the components of annual litter among
them; the percentage of leaf litter was the highest, ranging
from 94.5% to 97.4%.
Carbon in the fruit trees and groundcover vegetation
The measure of fruit biomass was taken in November,
nectarine orchard
1. Soil δ13C value. Plants with a C3 pathway have δ13C val-
ues in the range of -35‰ to -20‰, while those with a C4
pathway have higher δ13C values, ranging from -19‰ to
-9‰ (Bernoux et al., 1998; Staddon, 2004). Because values
of soil δ13C are close to that of adjacent vegetation, changes
in soil δ13C during transitions from C3 to C4 vegetation
could be used to estimate turnover times of soil organic
carbon (Bernoux et al., 1998). Conversion from grassland
to orchard plantation (C4→C3) caused a decrease in the
soil δ13C values of nectarine trees and A. pintoi. The soil δ13C
value of original grassland (G) was -20.5‰. Constructive
Miscanthus and Mans were C4 plants, whose leaf of organic
carbon δ13C values were between -13.4‰ and -13.7‰. In
our study, the mean value of δ13C from the litters of fruit
trees (C3) and green manure (C3) were -28.5‰ and -29.9‰,
respectively. When the original grasslands were reclaimed

210 E u r o p e a n J o u r n a l o f H o r t i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e

eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 210 12-10-15 15:19

 Wang et al. | Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by green manure in China

Figure 1. Dynamics of litter biomass from nec-

tarine orchards under different management

Litter biomass (g/plant)

practices from March 2006 to March 2007. T1:
sloping nectarine orchard without conserva-
tion measures; T2: terraced nectarine orchard
Litter biomass (g plant-1)

without conservation measures; T3: terraced

nectarine orchard with A. pintoi as green
manure mulch.

Months

Figure 1. Dynamics of litter biomass from nectarine orchards under different management practices from March
2006 to March 2007. T1: sloping nectarine orchard without conservation measures;T2: terraced nectarine orchard
without conservation measures; T3: terraced nectarine orchard with A. pintoi as green manure mulch.

Figure 2. Amount of carbon in fruit tree vegeta-

Root Stem Branch
tion under different management practices. T1:
120% a a a sloping nectarine orchard without conserva-
Amount of organic carbon (t.ha-1)
Amount of organic carbon (t ha -1)

tion measures; T2: terraced nectarine orchard

100%
without conservation measures; T3: terraced
80%
nectarine orchard with A. pintoi as green
manure mulch. Different small letters mean
60% significant difference between different treat-
ments at 0.05 level.
40%

20%

0%
25 T1 T2 T3
a T1 T2 T3
(g kg -1content（g/kg)

Figure 2. Amount of 20 b tree vegetationa under different management practices. T1: sloping nectarineFigure 3. Variation of soil organic carbon (SOC)
carbon in fruit
orchard without conservation measures; T2: terraced
b nectarine orchard without conservation measures; T3: ter-content in different soil layers. T1: sloping
c
25 with A. pintoi as green
raced nectarine orchard
c
manure mulch. Different
a a
small letters mean significant difference
nectarine orchard without conservation mea-
15
between different treatments at 0.05alevel. a T1 T2 T3
sures; T2: terraced nectarine orchard without
content（g/kg)
carbon )

20 b a conservation measures; T3: terraced nectarine

10 a
b orchard with A. pintoi as green manure mulch.
content

c b a
a b Different small letters mean significant differ-
soil organic

c a b b
15 a
5 ence between different treatments in the same
carbon

soil layer at 0.05 level.

organiccarbon

10 a
0
b b a
soil organic

0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm

b b
5
Figure 3. Variation of soil organic carbon (SOC) content in different soil layers. T1: sloping nectarine orchard with-
Soil

out conservation measures; T2: terraced nectarine orchard without conservation measures; T3: terraced nectarine
0 green manure mulch. Different small letters mean significant difference between different
orchard with A. pintoi as
treatments in the same soil layer at 0.05 level.
0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm

Figure 3. Variation of soil organic carbon (SOC) content in different soil layers. T1: sloping nectarine orchard with-
out conservation measures; T2: terraced nectarine orchard without conservation measures; T3: terraced nectarine
60 a
Figure 4. Soil organic carbon density (SOCD)
orchard with A. pintoi as green manure mulch. Different small letters mean significant
T1 difference
T2 T3
between different
in different soil layers. T1: sloping nectarine
treatments in the same soil layer at 0.05 level.
density (t ha -1)）

orchard without conservation measures; T2:

50
carbondensity（t/hm2

b terraced nectarine orchard without conserva-

a
60
c
a
T1 T2 T3 tion measures; T3: terraced nectarine orchard
40 b a with A. pintoi as green manure mulch. Differ-
soil organic carbon density（t/hm2 ）

c b b
50 b ent small letters mean significant difference
30 a between different treatments in the same soil
organic carbon

a
40 c layer at 0.05 level.
b a
20 a
soil organic

c b b b
30 b b b
10 a
Soil

20 a
0 b
b b b
0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm
10

0
Figure 4. Soil organic carbon density (SOCD) in different soil layers. T1: sloping nectarine orchard without conser-
0-20cm orchard
vation measures, T2; terraced nectarine 20-40cm 40-60cm measures;
without conservation 60-80cm 80-100cm
T3: terraced nectarine orchard
with A. pintoi as green manure mulch. Different small letters mean significant difference between different treat-
V o
ments in the same Fig.
l soil m4 eSoil
u layer 8organic
at 0.05 0
level. | carbon
I s density
s u e (SOC 5 D) |in different
O c t soil0 b layers
e r 2 0 1 5 211
T1: sloping nectarine orchard without conservation measures,T2: terraced nectarine
orchard without conservation measures, T3:terraced nectarine orchard with A.pintoi as
green manure mulch. Different small letters mean significant difference between dif-
eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 211 12-10-15 15:19
ferent treatments in the same soil layer at 0.05 level.
 Wang et al. | Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by green manure in China

Figure 5. The value of δ13C in orchard soil un-

der different management practices. T1: slop-
-27 ing nectarine orchard without conservation
0-20 cm 20-40 cm measures; T2: terraced nectarine orchard
-26 without conservation measures; T3: terraced
nectarine orchard with A. pintoi as green
-25
manure mulch.
δ13C(‰)

-24

-23

-22

-21
T1 T2 T3

Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of orchard soil sampled in 1996.

Figure 5. The value of δ13C in orchard soil under different management practices. T1: sloping nectarine orchard
without conservation measures,T2: terraced nectarine orchard without conservation measures, T3: terraced nec-
Clay particle (%) Organic matter CEC Water soluble acid
SoilA.layer
tarine orchard with pintoi as green manure mulch. pH
>0.01 mm <0.01 mm (g kg-1) (cmol kg-1) (cmol kg-1)
0~20 cm 45.1 .
55.0 4.35 23.1 73.5 57.4
20~40 cm 42.0 58.0 4.39 20.3 61.0 51.5
Total nitrogen Total phosphorus Available nitrogen Available phosphorus Available potassium
Soil layer
(g kg-1) (g kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
0~20 cm 0.96 0.23 101 / 31.6
20~40 cm 0.79 0.23 92.4 / 19.6

orchard, the soil δ13C value changed. Figure 5 shows the dif- different amount of litter removed by runoffs. The lowest
ference among δ13C values for the different orchard man- proportion of grass-derived SOC (36.9%) and the highest
agement practices. Within different management practices, proportion (63.1%) of SOC derived from fruit trees and
the order of soil δ13C value was T1>T2>T3; soil δ13C values of green manure were in T3 treatment. Because no significant
T1 and T2 treatments were similar, but significantly higher differences of organic carbon from fruit litter were found
than T3 treatment. In T3 treatment, the litters were formed between T2 and T3 treatments (Figure 1), we assumed that
not only from nectarine trees but also A. pintoi with a low SOC derived from fruit trees in T3 treatment was the same
δ13C value (-29.9‰). Therefore the litter residues into soil as the amount of T2 treatment, and estimated the propor-
would show a decreasing δ13C value. We also found that the tion of green manure-derived SOC (25.22%). This result,
soil δ13C values increased with the increase of soil depth in from another point of view, indicated that conversion of
the three treatments; it may be caused by isotopic fraction- wild grasslands to orchards was not supported; however,
ation effects during decomposition process. soil organic carbon pool was stabilized by green manure
2. Fruit trees and grass contribution to SOC. Equation mulch.
(3) was used to estimate the proportion of grass-derived
and planted fruit trees and green manure derived C in Discussion
the soil surface layer. Table 2 showed that grass-derived
SOC is a very high proportion of the total SOC in T1 and Carbon storage in soil
T2 treatments, accounting for 55.3%–60.4% of the total. Carbon sequestration in soils is considered to be an
Meanwhile, there was a slight difference in SOC composi- important option for the mitigation of increasing atmo-
tion between T1 and T2 treatments; it may be caused by the spheric CO2 concentrations as a result of climate change.
Thus, management strategies to increase SOC were stud-
ied (Leinfelder, 2012; Lal and Kimble, 2000). For example,
Table 2. The composition of soil organic carbon from conservation tillage practices, such as no tillage and with
orchards under different management practices. grass coverage, increase the soil organic carbon because it
reduces disturbances from tillage and the risks of erosion,
SOC from SOC SOC from enhances organic residues into soil, and thus improves
Total
wild from green soil carbon sequestration (Castro et al., 2008; Sainju et al.,
Treatment SOC
grassland nectarine manure 2002; Pulleman et al., 2005). Effect of green manure mulch
(g kg-1)
(g kg-1) (g kg-1) (g kg-1) and management practices in fruit orchard on soil organic
T1 14.8 8.95 5.87 – carbon storage was not very well defined. On the other
T2 17.9 9.88 7.98 – hand, plant communities, covering soil surface, contribute
to soil carbon sequestration through the deposition of leaf
T3 21.1 7.80 7.98 5.32
litter, dead root material, and rhizodeposition (Saner et al.,
G 19.5 19.5 – – 2007; Peri et al., 2012). The addition of organic residues is

212 E u r o p e a n J o u r n a l o f H o r t i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e

eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 212 12-10-15 15:19

 Wang et al. | Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by green manure in China
the only way to increase soil organic carbon levels (Fage-
ria, 2007). The green manure mulch was expected to have
a significant positive influence on soil carbon sequestra-
tion. In this study, the result was also positive. Compared
to the sloping and terraced nectarine orchards without
conservation measures, the SOC content and SOCD in the
terraced nectarine orchard with A. pintoi mulch increased
from 4.75% to 27.0% and from 0.42% to 4.13%, respec-
tively. This result coincides with those published by Mar-
quez-Garcia et al. (2013), who observed that organic car-
bon of 0–25 cm soil layer in olive orchard with crop cover
increased by 38.1% with respect to conventional tillage.
However, the result reported by Wilson et al. (2010) indi-
cated that soil organic carbon was stable in the upper soil
profile for two years after planting two cover crops species
(Trifolium repens and Medicago sativa). The effect of green
manure on soil organic carbon content is highly related to
the amount and only weakly to the type of residue applied
(Fageria, 2007). The reason for this discrepancy could
be related to a longer period in our case (13 years resp. 2
years); in our study long-term application of green manure
const ituted the larger C sink.
Carbon storage of orchard ecosystem
At present, research activities on the role of orchard
ecosystems in sequestering atmospheric CO2 remain
scarce. Unlike annual crops, orchards for fruit production
are able to sequester C for a lifetime period of at least 20–25
consecutive years (Liguori et al., 2009). This study proved
that nectarine orchard ecosystems had a high potential
for carbon sequestration. Carbon storage of nectarine tree
was from 13.0 to 14.7 t C ha-1, being equivalent to 35% of the
mean carbon density of forest vegetation in China (Fang et
al., 2007). Distribution of total carbon sequestration also
showed that carbon stock in aboveground biomass is more
than ground biomass, which conforms to the results in Sofo
et al. (2005). In addition, green manure can increase CO2
fixation in the nectarine orchard ecosystem. The adoption
of specie with a high biomass production is recommended,
A. pintoi, with a dry matter of 5.12 t C ha-1, equivalent to
18.77 t ha-1 of CO2. Moreover, in the hillside red soil region,
the use of green manure enhances SOC accumulation and
can also reduce soil carbon losses to the atmosphere in the
form of CO2 (Nieto et al., 2013). In our study, the green ma-
nure mulch practice had no significant impact on fruit tree
biomass carbon storage and fruit production, and signifi-
cantly increased organic carbon storage in 0–100 cm soil
layer, suggesting the green manure mulch system was ap-
propriate for promoting carbon sequestration of orchard
ecosystem. Such results have been reported in some stud-
ies focused on biomass growth. For example, Wilson et al.
(2010) reported that the cover crop management practice
and species selection had no significant impact on height
growth and needle dry weight of Abies fraseri. Liu et al.
(2013) also found orchard sod cultivation did not signifi-
cantly affect the economic performance of orchard produc-
tion. However, there are also several reports on competi-
tion for nutrients leading to depressed growth (Walsh et
al., 1996). The reason for this discrepancy could be related
to the adoption of species and management measures. Thus
our conclusion is that careful management is necessary to
capitalize on the benefits of green manure and avoid the
competition from trees and grass.
V o l u m e 8 0 | I s s u e 5 | O c t 0 b e r
eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 213
SOC derived from fruit trees and green manure
SOC originates from the litter of aboveground vegeta-
tion, so the litter from these vegetation species may affect
soil δ13C variation (Hobbie et al., 2002). Fruit trees and A.
pintoi as green manure had low δ13C value, input of organic
matters from dead root material, litters and root exudates
of them into soil had decreased leading to the decrease in
13C composition in the soil surface layer. Soil organic car-
bon from previous plant communities will gradually decay
out of the SOC pool and be replaced by new C derived from
the subsequent plant communities. In this study we used
stable isotopes (δ13C) to evaluate the impact of conversion
from grasslands to nectarine orchard with different man-
agement practices on SOC dynamics. We found that in 0–20
cm soil layer of nectarine orchards without green manure
mulch converted from original grassland, 55.3%–60.4% of
total C was derived from grassland soils after 13 years, sug-
gesting a relatively slow turnover rate of SOC. However, the
turnover rate of SOC under nectarine orchard with green
manure mulch was slightly faster than those in nectarine
orchards without green manure, with SOC derived from
fruit tree being 37.8% total C, and from green manure being
25.2%. These results demonstrated that orchard green ma-
nure mulch management could rapidly sequester SOC into
long-term storage pools in subtropical China. Some studies
have also found that orchard sod cultivation had the poten-
tial to increase soil C stocks (Liu et al., 2013; Weng et al.,
2013). In fact, soil carbon sequestration was affected not
only by management, but also by soil and climatic condi-
tions (Nieder et al., 2003). Further studies of this type could
provide useful information about the relative importance
and effects of green manure on soil carbon sequestration
in a wide range of soil types, climates and species that may
help improve orchard management practices in the future.
References
Bernoux, M., Cerri, C.C., Neill, C., and Moraes, J.F.L. (1998). The use
of stable carbon isotopes for estimating soil organic matter turn-
over rates. Geoderma 82, 43–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0016-7061(97)00096-7.
Castro, J., Fernández-Ondo-o, E., Rodríguez, C., Lallena, A.M.,
Sierra, M., and Aguilar, J. (2008). Effects of different olive-grove
management systems on the organic carbon and nitrogen content
of the soil in Jaen (Spain). Soil & Tillage Research 98, 56–67. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.10.002.
Ceschia, E., Béziat, P., Dejoux, J.F., Aubinet, M., Bernhofer, C.H., Bod-
son, B., Buchmann, N., Carrara, A., Cellier, P., Di Tommasi, P., Elbers,
J.A., Eugster, W., Grünwald, T., Jacobs, C.M.J., Jans, W.W.P., Jones, M.,
Kutsch, W., Lanigan, G., Magliulo, E., Marloie, O., Moors, E.J., Mou-
reaux, C., Olioso, A., Osborne, B., Sanz, M.J., Saunders, M., Smith,
P., Soegaard, H., and Wattenbach, M. (2010). Management effects
on net ecosystem carbon and GHG budgets at European crop sites.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139, 363–383. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.020.
Chen, L.D., Gong, J., Fu, B.D., Huang, Z.L., Huang, Y.L., and Gui, L.D.
(2007). Effect of land use conversion on soil organic carbon se-
questration in the loess hilly area, loess plateau of China. Ecology
Research 22, 641–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11284-006-
0065-1.
Fageria, N.K. (2007). Green manuring in crop production. J. Plant
Nutr. 30, 691–719.
http://dx.doiorg/10.1080/01904160701289529.
Fang, J.Y., Guo, Z.D., and Pu, S.L. (2007). Carbon storage of terres-
trial vegetation in China from 1981 to 2000. Science China D 37(6),
1–9.
2 0 1 5 213
12-10-15 15:19
 Wang et al. | Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by green manure in China
Fang, X., Xue, Z.J., Li, B.C., and An, S.S. (2012). Soil organic carbon
distribution in relation to land use and its storage in a small wa-
tershed of the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 88, 6–13. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.catena.2011.07.012.
Francia Martínez, J.R., Durán Zuazo, V.H., and Martínez Raya, A.
(2006). Environmental impact from mountainous olive orchards
under different soil-management systems (SE Spain). Science of
the Total Environment 358, 46–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2005.05.036.
Freibauer, A., Rounsevell, M.D.A, Smith, P., and Verhagen, J. (2004).
Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma
122(1), 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.021.
Grossman, Y.L., and Dejong, T.M. (1998). Training and pruning sys-
tem effects on vegetative growth potential, light interception and
cropping efficiency in nectarine trees. Journal of the American So-
ciety for Horticultural Science 123(6), 1058–1064.
Hobbie, E.A., Tingey, D.T., Rygiewicz, P.T., Johnson, M.G., and
Olszyk, D.M. (2002). Contributions of current year photosynthate
to fine roots estimated using a 13C-depleted CO2 source. Plant Soil
247, 233–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021580232181.
Homann, P.S., Remillard, S.M., Harmon, M.E., and Bormann,
B.T. (2004). Carbon storage in coarse and fine fractions of Pa-
cific Northwest old-growth forest soils. American Soil Science
Society Journal 68, 2023–2030. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj2004.2023.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2001).
Climate Change 2001. The Synthesis Report (Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), pp. 397.
Janssens, I.A., Freibauer, A., Ciais, P., Smith, P., Nabuurs, G.J., Fol-
berth, G., Schlamadinger, B., Hutjes, R.W., Ceulemans, R., Schulze,
E.D., Valentini, R., and Dolman, A.J. (2003). Europe’s terrestrial
biosphere absorbs 7 to 12% of European anthropogenic CO2
emissions. Science 300, 1538–1542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1083592.
Lal, R., and Kimble, J.M. (2000). Tropical ecosystems and the global
carbon cycle. In Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems,
R. Lal, J.M. Kimble, and B.A. Stewart, eds. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC-
Lewis Publishers), pp. 3–32.
Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ-
ment International 30, 981–990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2004.03.005.
Lal, R. (2007). Carbon management in agricultural soils. Mitiga-
tion and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12, 303–322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9036-7.
Leinfelder, M.M., Merwin, I.A., and Brown, M.G. (2012). Soil
health indicators, apple tree growth, and carbon sequestra-
tion differ among orchard groundcover management sys-
tems. Acta Hortic. 938, 333–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/
actahortic.2012.938.43.
Liguori, G., Gugliuzza, G., and Inglese, P. (2009). Evaluating carbon
fluxes in orange orchards in relation to planting density. J. Agr. Sci.
147, 637–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002185960900882X.
Liu, G.S., Jiang, N.H., Zhang, L.D., and Liu, Z.L. (1996). Soil physi-
cal and chemical analysis and description of soil profiles. (Beijing:
Standards Press of China). 266 pp.
Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Lu, H., Ding, M., and Tan, Y. (2013). Maintenance of a
living understory enhances soil carbon sequestration in subtropi-
cal orchards. PLoS One 8(10), e76950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0076950.
Navarro-Cerrillo, R.M., Ariza, D., González, L., Campo, A., Arjona,
M., and Ceacero, C. (2009). Legume living mulch for afforestation
in agricultural land in Southern Spain. Soil & Tillage Research 102,
214 E u r o p e a n J o u r n a l
eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 214
38–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.07.013.
Nieder, R., Benbi, D.K., and Isermann, K. (2003). Soil organic mat-
ter dynamics. In Handbook of processes and modelling in the
soil-plant system, D.K. Benbi, and R. Nieder, eds. (Binghamton: Ha-
worth Press). pp. 346–408.
Nieto, O.M., Castro, J., and Fernández-Ondo-o, E. (2013). Conven-
tional tillage versus cover crops in relation to carbon fixation in
Mediterranean olive cultivation. Plant & Soil 365(1–2), 321–335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1395-0.
Novara, A., Mantia, T.L., Barbera, V., and Gristina, L. (2012).
Paired-site approach for studying soil organic carbon dynamics in
a Mediterranean semiarid environment. Catena 89(1), 1–7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2011.09.008.
Ordóñez, J.A.B., de Jong, B.H.J., García-Oliva, F., Aviña, F.L., Pérez,
J.V., Guerrero, G., Martínez, R., and Masera, O. (2008). Carbon con-
tent in vegetation, litter, and soil under 10 different land-use and
land-cover classes in the Central Highlands of Michoacan, Mexico.
Forest Ecology and Management 255, 2074–2084. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.024.
Peri, P.L., Ladd, B., Pepper, D.A., Bonser, S.P., Laffan, S.W., and
Amelung, W. (2012). Carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) stable
isotope composition in plant and soil in Southern Patagonia’s na-
tive forests. Global Change Biology 18, 311–321. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02494.x.
Pulleman, M.M., Six, J., Van Breemen, N., and Jongmans, A.G.
(2005). Soil organic matter distribution and microaggregate char-
acteristic as affected by agricultural management and earthworm
activity. European Journal Soil Science 56, 453–467. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00696.x.
Ramos, M.E., Robles, A.B., Sánchez-Navarro, A., and González-
Rebollar, J.L. (2011). Soil responses to different management
practices in rainfed orchards in semiarid environments. Soil
and Tillage Research 112(1), 85–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2010.11.007.
Robertson, G.P., Paul, E.A., and Harwood, R.R. (2000). Greenhouse
gases in intensive agriculture, contributions of individual gases to
the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289(5486), 1922–
1925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5486.1922.
Sainju, U.M., Sing, B.P., and Whitehead, W.F. (2002). Long-term ef-
fects of tillage, cover crops, and nitrogen fertilization on organic
carbon and nitrogen concentrations in sandy loam soils in Georgia,
USA. Soil Tillage Research 63, 167–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0167-1987(01)00244-6.
Saner, T.J., Cambardella, C.A., and Brandle, J.R. (2007). Soil carbon
and tree litter dynamics in a red cedar-scotch pine shelterbelt.
Agrofores. System 71(3), 163–174.
Shukla, M.K., and Lal, R. (2005). Erosional effects on soil organic
carbon stock in an on-farm study on Alfisols in west central Ohio.
Soil Tillage Research 81, 173–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2004.09.006.
Sofo, A., Nuzzo, V., Palese, M.A., Xiloyannis, C., Celano, G., and Zu-
kowskyj, P. (2005). Net CO2 storage in Mediterranean olive and
peach orchards. Sci. Hort. 107, 17–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2005.06.001.
Staddon, P.L. (2004). Carbon isotopes in functional soil ecology.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 19(3), 148–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2003.12.003.
Vesterdal, L., Ritter, E., and Gundersen, P. (2002). Change in soil or-
ganic carbon following afforestation of former arable land. Forest
Ecological Management 162, 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-1127(02)00304-3.
Walkley, A., and Black, I.A. (1934). An examination of the degtjar-
o f H o r t i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e
12-10-15 15:19
 Wang et al. | Carbon sequestration in a nectarine orchard as affected by green manure in China

eff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed

modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 27,
29–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003.

Walsh, B.D., Salmins, S., Buszard, D.J., and Mackenzie, A.F. (1996).
Impact of soil management systems on organic dwarf apple or-
chards and soil aggregates stability, bulk density, temperature
and water content. Can. J. Soil Sci. 76, 203–209. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4141/cjss96-028.

Wang, B.Q., Shu, Y.R., and Wu, J.S. (2007). Impaction of grassland
reclamation on the composition and derivation of soil organic car-
bon pool. Acta Agriculturae Nucleatae Sinica 21 (6), 618–622.

Wang, Y.F., Fu, B.J., Lü, Y.H., Song, C.J., and Luan, Y. (2010). Local-
scale spatial variability of soil organic carbon and its stock in the
hilly area of the Loess Plateau, China. Quaternary Research 73(1),
70–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2008.11.006.

Weng, B.Q., Wang, Y.X., Huang, Y.B., Wang, C.J., and Ye, J. (2013).
Carbon sequestration capacity of soil in sod cultivation orchard.
Ecology and Environmental Sciences 22(6), 931–934.

Wilson, A.R., Nzokou, P., and Cregg, B. (2010). Ground covers in

Fraser fir (Abies fraseri [Pursh] Poir.) production systems: effects
on soil fertility, tree morphology and foliar nutrient status. Eur. J.
Hortic. Sci. 75(6), 269–277.

Wu, D.M., Yu, Y.C., Xia, L.Z., Yin, S.X., and Yang, L.Z. (2011). Soil fer-
tility indices of citrus orchard land along topographic gradients in
the three gorges area of China. Pedosphere 21(6), 782–792. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60182-3.

Zibilske, L.M., Bradford, J.M., and Smart, J.R. (2002). Conserva-

tion tillage induced changes in organic carbon, total nitrogen and
available phosphorus in a semi-arid alkaline subtropical soil. Soil
& Tillage Research 66, 153–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
1987(02)00023-5.

Zinn, Y.L., Lala, R., and Resck, D.V.S. (2005). Changes in soil organic
carbon stocks under agriculture in Brazil. Soil Tillage Research
84, 28–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.007.

Received: Sep. 16, 2014

Accepted: Jun. 23, 2015

Addresses of authors:
Y.X. Wang*, B.Q. Weng, J. Ye, Z.M. Zhong and Y.B. Huang
Institute of Agricultural Ecology, Fujian Academy of Agri-
cultural Sciences, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, 350003, China
* Corresponding author; E-mail: sd_wolong@163.com
Tel.: (011886) 591-83838017 (Office)

V o l u m e 8 0 | I s s u e 5 | O c t 0 b e r 2 0 1 5 215

eJHS Magazine Vol 80-6.indd 215 12-10-15 15:19