Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Effect of type of farming practices on the soil carbon sequestration and yield of some crops

152 Views


Abstract

Soil carbon sequestration is a long-time storage of carbon in soil which represents 70% of the carbon in land. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO2 emission and cost of some agricultural crops. To achieve that, different farming systems (conventional, organic and biodynamic) and four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean and potato) were used during 5 agricultural years. The obtained results indicated that, the agricultural practices for different farming systems enhanced the soil properties. Biodynamic practice farming causes reduction in bulk density, which it increase the water holding capacity of the soil which in turn decreased the water consumption by plants. Regarding the chemical properties of the soil, biodynamic and organic farming improved the chemical characteristics such as pH, EC, N, P and K compared to the conventional practice farming. Yield values of both biodynamic and organic farming system were higher than that of the traditional farming system. The amount of soil carbon sequestration ranged from 1980.17 to 4782.82, 2505.89 to 6132.38 and 1581.07 to 5986.25 kg ha− 1 for conventional, organic and biodynamic systems, respectively. The amount of CO2 emission reduction for organic and biodynamic systems was higher than those of conventional system during experimental period. The highest value of carbon profit (13,071.60 Egyptian pound per hectare (EGP ha− 1), $=48.48EGP) was found with the biodynamic system. The highest values of total net profit were 25,046.64, 67,463.04, 44175.84 and 94,674.24 EGP ha− 1 for maize, tomato, faba bean and potato crops, respectively, were found with the organic farming system after 5 agricultural years.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations


(Am_{{{text{CO}}_{2} }})
:

Amount of mitigation of CO2 emission

BD:

Bulk density

C/N:

Carbon nitrogen ratio

d:

Soil depth

EC:

Electrical conductivity

CF:

Conversion factor of CO2 emission from carbon

Es:

Drip irrigation system efficiency

IWR:

Irrigation water requirements

Lf
:

Leaching factor

Mp:

Market prices of CO2 offsets

MC:

Moisture content

NR:

Net return

PCO2
:

Profit analysis for mitigation of CO2 emission

SOM:

Soil organic matter

SOC:

Soil organic carbon

SCS:

Soil carbon sequestration

TC:

Total costs

TR:

Total return

WHC:

Water holding capacity


W
i
:

Weight of sample before drying


W
s
:

Weight of sample after drying

WUE:

Water use efficiency

θFC
:

Soil moisture content at field capacity

θv
:

Soil moisture content before irrigation

References

  1. Reganold, J. P. & Wachter, J. M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2, 15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lorenz, K. & Lal, R. Chapter three-environmental impact of organic agriculture. In (ed by Sparks, D. L.) Advances in agronomy, Vol. 139, 99–152 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.05.003

  3. Krause, H. M. et al. Biological soil quality and soil organic carbon change in biodynamic, organic, and conventional farming systems after 42 years. Agro Sust. Dev. 42(117), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00843-y (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Adhikari, K. & Hartemink, A. E. Linking soils to ecosystem services—a global review. Geoderma 262, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.009 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Greiner, L., Keller, A., Gret-Regamey, A. & Papritz, A. Soil function assessment: Review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services. Land. Use Pol. 69, 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.025 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bünemann, E. K. et al. Soil quality a critical review. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 120, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lehmann, J. & Kleber, M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528(7580), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vanden Bygaart, A. J. Comments on soil carbon 4 per Mille by Minasny et al. 2017. Geoderma 309, 113–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.024 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Vries, W. Soil carbon 4 per mille: A good initiative but let’s manage not only the soil but also the expectations: Comment on Minasny, et al (2017). Geoderma 309, 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.023 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 114(36), 9575–9580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Keel, S. G. et al. Loss of soil organic carbon in Swiss long-term agricultural experiments over a wide range of management practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 286, 106654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106654 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oberholzer, H. R., Leifeld, J. & Mayer, J. Changes in soil carbon and crop yield over 60 years in the Zurich organic fertilization experiment, following land-use change from grassland to cropland. J. Plant. Nut Soil. Sci. 177(5), 696–704 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wiesmeier, M. et al. Projected loss of soil organic carbon in temperate agricultural soils in the 21st century: Effects of climate change and carbon input trends. Sci. Rep. 6(1), 32525. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32525 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gubler, A., Wächter, D., Schwab, P., Müller, M. & Keller, A. Twenty five years of observations of soil organic carbon in Swiss croplands showing stability overall but with some divergent trends. Env Monit. Assess. 191(5), 277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7435-y (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Parizad, S. & Bera, S. The effect of organic farming on water reusability, sustainable ecosystem, and food toxicity. Env Sci. Pollution Res. 30(80), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15258-7 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ramankutty, N. et al. Trends in global agricultural land use: Implications for environmental health and food security. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 69, 789–815. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817-040256 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 108, 20260–20264 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116437108

    Google Scholar 

  19. Willer, H., Tŕavníček, J., Meier, C. & Schlatter, B. The World of Organic agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2021 Vol. 20210301 (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, and IFOAM—Organics International, 2021).

  20. Seufert, V. & Ramankutty, N. Many shades of Gray the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602638 (2017).

  21. Hartmann, M., Frey, B., Mayer, J., M¨ader, P. & Widmer, F. Distinct soil microbial diversity under long-term organic and conventional farming. ISME J. 9, 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.210 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lu, C. & Tian, H. Global nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use for agriculture production in the past half century: Shifted hot spots and nutrient imbalance. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-181-2017 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fowler, D. et al. The global nitrogen cycle in the twentyfirst century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 368(1621), 20130164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Canfield, D. E., Glazer, A. N. & Falkowski, P. G. The evolution and future of earth’s nitrogen cycle. Sci 330, 192–196 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186120

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rasche, F. & Cadisch, G. The molecular microbial perspective of organic matter turnover and nutrient cycling in tropical agroecosystems – what do we know? Biol. Fertil. Soils 49, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0775-9 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Philippot, L., Hallin, S. & Schloter, M. Ecology of denitrifying prokaryotes in agricultural soil. Adv. Agron. 96(07), 249–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Domeignoz-Horta, L. A. et al. Non-denitrifying nitrous oxide-reducing bacteria – an effective N2O sink in soil. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 103, 376–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.09.010 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Krause, H. M. et al. Organic and conventional farming systems shape soil bacterial community composition in tropical arable farming. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 191, 105054 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  29. FAO. Localized irrigation. Irrigation and drainage. Paper No 36, 144P (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ahn, H. K., Richard, T. L. & Glanville, T. D. Laboratory determination of compost physical parameters for modeling of airflow characteristics. Waste Manag 28, 660–670 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abad, M., Noguera, P., Puchades, R., Maquieira, A. & Noguera, V. Physico-chemical and chemical properties of some coconut Coir dusts for use as a peat substitute for containerised ornamental plants. Bioresour Technol. 82, 241–245 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC). The Composting Council Research and Education Foundation (2001).

  33. Bremmer, J. M. & Mulvaney, C. S. Nitrogen-total. In: (eds Miller, A. L. & Keeney, R. H.) D.R., Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 595–624 (1982).

  34. Murphy, J. & Riley, J. P. A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta 27, 31–36 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Morad, M. M., Abdel-Aal, E. I. A. & Moursy, M. A. M. Water saving with the use of different irrigation systems under Egyptian conditions. Misr J. Ag Eng. 29(3), 1047–1066 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ayers, R. S. & Westcot D.W. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrig. Drain. Paper 29, 1–109 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pene, C. B. G. & Edi, G. K. Sugarcane yield response to deficit irrigation at two growth stages. Nuclear Techniques to Assess Irrigation Schedules for Field Crops. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, TECDOC 888, 115–129 (1996).

  38. Ankamah-Yeboah, I., Nielsen, M. & Nielsen, R. Does organic supply growth lead to reduced price premiums? The case of salmonids in Denmark. Mar. Resour. Econ. 34, 105–121 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shin, J., Hong, S. G., Lee, S., Hong, S. C. & Lee, J. S. Estimation of soil carbon sequestration and profit analysis on mitigation of CO2-eq. Emission in cropland cooperated with compost and Biochar. Appl. Biol. Chem. 60, 467–472 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lori, M., Symnaczik, S., Mäder, P., De Deyn, G. & Gattinger, A. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity—a meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLOS ONE 12(7), e0180442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180442 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dhillon, J., Del Corso, M. R., Figueiredo, B., Nambi, E. & Raun, W. Soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and soil ph, in a long-term continuous winter wheat (triticum aestivum l.) experiment. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant. Anal. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1435678 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hirte, J., Leifeld, J., Abiven, S., Oberholzer, H. R. & Mayer, J. Below ground carbon inputs to soil via root biomass and rhizodeposition of field-grown maize and wheat at harvest are independent of net primary productivity. Agri Ecosyst. Env 265(1), 556–566 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Timsina, J. Can organic sources of nutrients increase crop yields to Meet global food demand? Agronomy 8(214), 1–20 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Berner, A. et al. Crop yield and soil fertility response to reduced tillage under organic management. Soil. Till Res. 101, 89–96 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shin, J. D., Choi, Y. S. & Shin, J. H. Profit analysis by soil carbon sequestration with different composts and cooperated with Biochar during corn (Zea mays) cultivation periods in sandy loam soil. J. Agri Chem. Env 5, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.4236/jacen.2016.53012 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sinha, R. K., Valani, D., Chauhan, K. & Agarwal, S. Embarking on a second green revolution for sustainable agriculture by vermiculture biotechnology using earthworms: Reviving the Dreams of Sir Charles Darwin. J. Agri Biotechnol. Sust Devel. 2(7), 113–128 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is fully sponsored by the Support and Development of Scientific Research Center, Benha University. We would also like to show our gratitude to the Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The author received no funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, P.O. Box 13736, Moshtohor, Toukh, Kalubia, Egypt

    El-Sayed Khater & Adel Bahnasawy

  2. Faculty of Organic Agriculture, Heliopolis University, P.O. Box 11785, Cairo, Egypt

    Ramy Hamouda

  3. Institute of Agricultural Engineering Research, Agriculture Research Center, Doki, Giza, Egypt

    Amr Sabahy

  4. Basic and Applied Science Department, College of Engineering and Technology, Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport (AASTMT), P.O. Box 2033, Cairo, Egypt

    Wael Abbas & Osama Morsy

  5. Agricultural Ecоnоmics Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, P.O. Box 13736, Moshtohor, Toukh, Kalubia, Egypt

    Mahmoud El-Habbaq

Authors

  1. El-Sayed Khater
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adel Bahnasawy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramy Hamouda
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amr Sabahy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wael Abbas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Osama Morsy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mahmoud El-Habbaq
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

El-Sayed Khater, Adel Bahnasawy, Ramy Hamouda, Amr Sabahy, Wael Abbas, Osama Morsy and Mahmoud El-Habbaq: Investigation, Resources, Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Writing—Review and Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
El-Sayed Khater.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khater, ES., Bahnasawy, A., Hamouda, R. et al. Effect of type of farming practices on the soil carbon sequestration and yield of some crops.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-35230-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-35230-0

Keywords

  • Conventional
  • Organic
  • Biodynamic
  • Crop yield
  • Soil carbon sequestration
  • CO2 emission
  • Cost

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Evidence of a genomic basis for growth rate variation in a natural kelp population

Author Correction: Hunter-gatherer sea voyages extended to remotest Mediterranean islands

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close