The document discusses soil management strategies aimed at enhancing carbon sequestration in degraded lands, highlighting the importance of practices such as conservation agriculture, integrated nutrient management, and afforestation. It outlines the scale of land degradation in India and potential strategies for restoration, including specific measures to increase soil organic carbon. The document emphasizes the role of effective management in sequestering carbon to combat climate change.

1. Koushalya, T. N.
Sr. M.Sc.(Agri.)
PALB 6193

2. Soil management strategies to enhance carbon
sequestration potential of degraded lands

3. Sequence Of Presentation
• Introduction
• Carbon(C) Sequestration Potential in Degraded Lands
• Soil management strategies
 Conservation agriculture
 Integrated nutrient management
 Afforestation
 Alternate land use system
 Plantations and Amendments
 Use of Biochar
• Advantages
• Conclusion
• Future line of work

4. Compound
Concentration in
atmosphere
(ppm)
Contribution
(%)
Water vapour and
clouds
10–50,000 36–72%
Carbon dioxide ~406 9–26%
Methane ~1.8 4–9%
Ozone 2–8 3–7%
Table 1: Green house gases concentration in atmosphere and
per cent of contribution

7. Carbon sequestration refers to the provision of long-
term storage of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere,
underground, or in the oceans so that the build up of
carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas)
concentration in the atmosphere will reduce or slow.
Carbon sequestration is the process involved in carbon capture
and the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide

10. • Degraded land includes eroded
lands, saline / alkaline lands,
water logged lands and mined
lands
• 329 million hectares
• 146 million hectares (44%) is
converted into degraded lands
• 30 million hectares of
degraded forest.
• 114 million hectares of which
46% (50.6 million hectares) is
degraded due to faulty
agricultural practices
Purakayastha et al., 2016

11. Fig.1: GLASOD estimates of human-induced soil degradation
Bai et al. (2008)

12. Table 2: Extent of land degradation in India
Organizations
Assessment
Year
Degraded Area
(Mha)
National Commission on Agriculture 1976 148.1
Ministry of Agriculture-Soil and Water
Conservation Division
1978 175.0
Department of Environment 1980 95.0
National Wasteland Development Board 1985 123.0
Society for Promotion of Wastelands
Development
1984 129.6
National Remote Sensing Agency 1985 53.3
Ministry of Agriculture 1985 173.6
Ministry of Agriculture 1994 107.4
NBSS&LUP 1994 187.7
NBSS&LUP (revised) 2004 146.8
Source: www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

13. The long term conversion
of grassland and
forestland to cropland
(and grazing lands) has
resulted in historic losses
of soil carbon worldwide
Restoration of
degraded soils

14.  In practical terms, the high priority lies in restoration of
degraded soils, Ecosystems and management of wasteland
 The largest potential lies in erosion prevention
(33.6–50. 4 Tg C/year)
 Restoration of degraded soils (9.8–13.9 Tg C/ha) (Lal , 2005)
 Total potential of SOC sequestration in India is
77.9 to 106.4 Tg C /yr
 12.9% is through restoration of degraded soils and 45.6%
through erosion prevention and management

15. How to convert degraded lands
6 Mha of pasture lands Community forestry
9 Mha of cultivable wastelands Short timber plantations
6 Mha of miscellaneous tree crop Long timber plantations
12 Mha of partially degraded areas Natural regeneration
6 Mha of fully degraded forests Enhanced regeneration
78 Mt of additional carbon per year by the year 2020
carbon sequestration of 78 to 147
Mt
53 Mha of degraded lands of India
Additional supply of woody biomass 69 Mt of carbon per year

16. Table 3: Rates of potential carbon gain under selected practices for
degraded lands in various regions of the world
Practices
Country/
region
Rate of carbon gain
(t C/ha/year)
Reference
1. Saline/alkali soils
• Saline soil reclamation
• Alkali soil reclamation
• Irrigate halophytes with
sea water
India
India
Australia
2
4
1-2
Singh et al. (1994)
Grag (1998)
Glenn et al. (1993)
2. Polluted soil
• Reclamation of mine land USA 1.5-2.0 Paustian et al. (1997)
3. Erode soil India 1-7 Tothill and gillies (1992)
4. Rehabilitation practices Australia 0.1-0.4 Ash et al. (1996)
5. Desertified soil
• Restorative practices China
India
≤1
0.4-0.3
Fullen and mitchell
(1994)
Lal and bruce (1994)
Purakayastha et al., 2016

17. Strategies of reducing emission and sequestering carbon
Reducing emissions
• Decreasing deforestation
• Reducing biomass burning
• Improving energy/input efficiency
• Controlling soil erosion
Sequestering carbon
Restoration of degraded soil
• Afforestation
• Application of bio solids
• Soil reclamation
• Restoration of wet lands
• Land forming
Adoption of recommended
agricultural practices
• Using conservation tillage
• Growing cover crops
• INM
• IPM
• Water management
• Improved cultivars
Taking marginal land
out of production
• Afforestation
• Land application of
bio solids
• Adopting of agro forestry
• Establishing conservation
buffers waste lands
• Installing engineering
structures

18. Soil management strategies to enhance carbon
sequestration potential of degraded lands
 Conservation agriculture
 Integrated nutrient management
 Afforestation
 Alternate land use system
 Plantations and Amendments
 Use of Biochar

19. Conservation Agriculture
 Conservation tillage on SOC sequestration may
be greater in degraded soils than in fertile soils
(franzluebbers, 2005)
 The ratio of soil organic carbon associated with
conservation tillage - to - conventional tillage
was logarithmically greater in soils with
inherently lower organic carbon than in soils
with inherently higher organic carbon content
 Therefore on a relative basis, the
improvement in soil organic carbon was
proportionately higher in eroded or degraded
soils

20. Tillage Soil organic carbon (g/kg) Microbial bio mass (mg/kg)
Depth(cm) 0-3 3-6 6-12 12-24 0-3 3-6 6-12 12-24
Conventional 7.7 7.7 7.0 5.4 220 185 171 118
No till 17.7 7.3 6.4 5.8 623 218 179 162
No till w/o rye 15.0 8.0 7.2 7.3 316 149 114 106
Para till 14.3 10.3 6.7 5.7 535 381 230 150
Sub soil 15.9 10.0 6.9 7.1 571 335 215 171
Strip soil 14.6 8.2 6.3 5.7 421 206 157 130
Motta et al., 2001Alabama (USA)
Table 4: soil quality indicators as affected by tillage system on
a degraded silty clay loam soil

21. Table 5: Effect of tillage and crop-establishment techniques on soil chemical
properties
Treatment Soil organic carbon
(g/kg)
pH
CT – FB 7.13 5.83
CT - RF 7.13 5.76
CT - RB 7.17 6.04
NT - FB 8.63 5.80
NT - RF 7.60 5.31
NT - RB 8.07 5.60
SEm± 0.12 0.27
CD (P=0.05) 0.38 Ns
CT-FB - Conventional tillage with flat bed planting
CT-RF - Conventional tillage with ridge and furrow planting
CT-RB - Conventional tillage with raised bed planting
Tripura Yadav et al., 2015
NT-FB - no-till with flat bed planting
NT-RF - no-till with ridge and furrow planting
NT-RB - no-till with raised bed planting

22. Integrated nutrient management

23. Table 6: The profile SOC stock, per cent increase in SOC stock, rate of SOC sequestration
and the total amount of SOC for different fertilization treatments
Treatments Profile SOC
(Mg ha-1 )
Increase in
SOC (%)
Rate of SOC
sequestration
(Mg C ha-1 yr-1 )
Total SOC
sequestrated
( Mg C ha-1 )
Control 51.0 - - - 7.0
20 kg N + 13 kg P 57.2 12.2 0.41 - 0.8
30 kg N + 20 kg P 57.3 12.4 0.42 - 0.7
40 kg N + 26 kg P 58.6 14.9 0.51 0.6
60 kg N + 35 kg P 62.7 22.9 0.78 4.7
6 Mg FYM + N 20 P13 ha-1 69.9 37.1 1.26 11.9
5 Mg CR + N 20 P13 ha-1 68.7 34.7 1.18 10.7
6 Mg FYM ha-1 66.9 31.2 1.06 8.9
5 Mg CR ha-1 63.6 24.7 0.84 5.6
FYM-farmyard CR- sorghum crop residue
MP Srinivasarao et al., 2012

24. Fig.2: Soil organic C (SOC) stabilization in the 0 to 45 cm soil layer as affected by
32 years of continuous annual fertilization under soybean-wheat cropping
in a sandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas
Bhattacharyya et al.,2011

25. Table 7: SOC contents, mean SOC sequestration rate (SSR) and change in SOC
sequestration rate (ΔSSR) during the 29-years period
Treatment 2011 SSR
(ton/ha/yr)
ΔSSR
(ton/ha/yr)
SOC (g/kg) SSOC (t/ha)
CK 5.08 14.63 −0.08 -
NPK 8.20 22.74 0.20 -
NPKW1/2 11.6 28.22 0.39 0.19
NPKW 13.2 31.49 0.50 0.30
NPKPM 13.4 31.77 0.51 0.31
NPKCM 20.3 45.20 0.97 0.77
Hua et al. (2014)China
1982, Initial
SOC - 5.86 g/kg
SSOC - 16.99 ton/ha
No fertilization (CK), mineral NPK fertilizers alone (NPK)
Mineral NPK fertilizers combined with 2.5 ton/ha/yr of wheat straw (NPKW1/2)
Mineral NPK fertilizers combined with 5.0 ton/ha/yr of wheat straw (NPKW)
Mineral NPK fertilizers combined with 7.8 ton/ha/yr of pig manure (NPKPM)
Mineral NPK fertilizers combined with 12.5 ton/ha/yr of cattle manure (NPKCM)

27. Table 8: Estimated C sequestration potential in above-ground and below
ground vegetation parts and soil for major agroforestry practices
Practices
Vegetation
parts/Soil
C stock (Mg C ha-1)
C sequestration rate
( Mg C ha -1 year -1 )Minimum Maximum Mean
Riparian
buffers
Above- ground 7.50 269 123
2.6Below- ground 2.00 14.4 4.60
soil 1.80 5.50 3.60
Alley
cropping
Above- ground 0.05 96.5 26.8
3.4
Soil 0.05 25.0 6.90
Silvo pasture
Above- ground 1.17 12.2 4.90
6.1
soil 1.03 1.38 1.21
Wind breaks
Above- ground 0.68 105 -
6.4
soil - 23.1 -
Hybrid poplar - - 367 0.73
White spruce - - 186
Ranjith and Shibu (2011)North America

28. Table 9: Soil characteristics at 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm soil depths in grass-only
and silvopastoral systems on a sodic soil
Treatments pH Organic carbon (%)
0-7.5 7.5- 15 0-7.5 7.5- 15
Desmostachya 9.7 b 9.8 bc 0.29 cd 0.16 bc
Sporobolus 10 a 10.2 a 0.24 d 0.13 c
Acacia + Desmostachya 9.6 c 9.7 bc 0.36 b 0.18 b
Dalbargia + Desmostachya 8.6 e 8.7 e 0.46 a 0.24 a
Prosopis + Desmostachya 9.1 d 9.1 d 0.47 a 0.25 a
Acacia + Sporobolus 9.9 b 9.9 b 0.26 cd 0.14 c
Dalbergia + Sporobolus 9.6 c 9.7 bc 0.32 bc 0.17 bc
Prosopis + Sporobolus 9.5 c 9.6 c 0.36 b 0.19 b
LSD (P< 0.05) 0.21 0.23 0.059 0.041
Kurukshetra Kaur et al., 2002

29. Table 10: Influence of different systems on soil carbon content
in 0-7.5 cm depth of soil
Treatments Soil carbon (%)
Rice-berseem 0.47
Acacia 0.68
Acacia + rice-berseem 0.77
Eucalyptus 0.48
Eucalyptus + rice-berseem 0.67
Populus 0.50
Populus + rice-berseem 0.71
LSD (p=0.05) 0.034
Karnal Kaur et al., 2000

30. Fig.3: Litter and root carbon distributions in a riparian system with
trees, grass and crops
Tufekcioglu et al., 2003USA

31. Table 11: Estimated carbon (C) densities (Mg C/ha) for the Mamlay
watershed on land use cover classes
Land use
cover
Vegetation Floor litter Humus Soil up to 1
m depth
Total C
density
TNFD 191 4.5 1.41 472 669.24
TNFO 86.1 2.9 0.87 219 308.81
SNFO 90.2 3.0 0.63 126 219.89
CAFS 46.7 5.2 1.12 255 308.11
MAFS 5.47 1.5 - 150 156.96
OCAT 9.20 - - 37 46.28
OCAS 8.20 - - 48 56.20
WAT - - - 89 89.0
WAS - - - 124 124.0
Sharma and Rai (2007)
TNFD- Temperate natural forest dense
OCAT- Open cropped area temperate
TNFO- Temperate natural forest open
SNFO-Subtropical natural forest open
CAFS- cardamom- based agro-forestry system
MAFS- Mandarin based agro-forestry system
OCAS-Open cropped area subtropical
WAT- wasteland area temperate
WAS- wasteland area subtropical

32. Afforestation
Afforestation and reforestation potentially could
achieve annual carbon sequestration rates in
aboveground and below-ground biomass (Dixon et al.,
1994).
0.4–1.2 Mg C ha-1year-1 in boreal regions
1.5–4.5 Mg C ha-1year-1 in temperate regions
4.0–8.0 Mg C ha-1year-1 in tropical regions

33. Table 12: C-stock in Total biomass, Above ground biomass (AGB) and
accumulation rate under reclaimed coal mine spoils
Forest type
vegetation and
location
Age
(year)
Total
biomass C
(Mg C ha
−1
)
AGB
C stock
(Mg C ha
−1
)
Total biomass C
accumulation rate
(Mg C ha
−1
yr
−1
)
Reference
Reclaimed minesoil,
Northern Europe
(Pinus sylvestris)
14
21
36
6.76
28.93
101.6
5.86
25.65
90.01
0.48
1.37
2.82
Karu et al. (2009)
Reclaimed coal mine
spoil,
Singrauli, India
B. arundinacea
3
5
23.45
37.35
21.65
34.7
7.81
7.47
Singh and Singh
(1999)

34. Table 13: Distribution of carbon stock in total above ground biomass (AGB),
root biomass (RB) of trees and bamboo in reclaimed area
Tree species name Numbers
ha
−1
AGB of tree
species
(Mg ha
−1
)
RB of tree
species
(Mg ha
−1
)
Biomass
C-stock
(Mg C ha
−1
)
Albizia spp 1433 13.04 2.61 7.82
Dalbergia sissoo 833 5.96 1.19 3.58
Other tree species 234 0.67 0.13 0.40
B. arundinecea (Clumps) 2033 2.36 0.18 1.27
Total 22.03 4.11 13.07
Jharia, India Rimi and Subodh (2016)

35. Fig.4: Tender shoots arising from the node of bamboo culms

36. a. Albizia lebbeck (Siris tree)
b. Ziziphus oenoplia (Wild jujube, a naturally colonizing shrub)
c. Bambusa tudla (Timber bamboo)
Fig.5: Growth of vegetation cover in the reclaimed site

37. Amendments and plantations
Casuarina equisetifolia
Tamarix articulataProsopis juliflora
Vachellia nilotica

38.  Batra et al., 1997 observed the increase in SOC content
significantly due to growing Karnal grass (Diplachne
fusca) and of application of gypsum within three years
 Noble et al. (2008) reported that growing of Gamba
grass (Andropogon gayanus Kunth) and stylo grass
(Stylosanthes guianensis) over a study period of three
years showed a 6-fold increase in soil C at >30 cm depth
from the initial values, indicating a significant rate of C
sequestration
 Growing Prosopis juliflora is most adapted to alkaline
soils and produced most biomass hence contribute well
to soil carbon sequestration (singh,1994)

39. Fig.6: Total organic carbon stored in the 0–30 cm and 30–110 cm depth intervals
3 years after the implementation of treatments
Noble et al. (2008)Thailand

40. Table 14: SOC gain with raising different tree species
Species
Initial After 20 years
SOC (%) SOC (%) pH
Eucalyptus tereticornis 0.12 0.33 9.18
Acacia nilotica 0.12 0.55 9.03
Albizzia lebbek 0.12 0.47 8.67
Terminalia arjuna 0.12 0.47 8.15
Prosopis juliflora 0.12 0.58 8.03
Singh and Singh (1993)Alkali soils, Karnal

41. BIOCHAR
It has been projected that in India about 309 Mt of biochar
(eqv. to 154 Mt of biochar C) could be produced annually, the
application of which might offset about 50% of Carbon dioxide
emission (292 Tg C/year) from fossil fuel (Lal, 2005)

42. Table 15: Effect of different amendments on SOC
Treatments SOC(%) POC(%) POC/SOC(%)
Control 4.14 3.14 75.9
CE 4.14 3.38 81.6
CP 4.08 3.00 73.5
CF 3.78 3.10 82.0
B15 3.90 3.26 83.6
B25 4.60 3.74 81.3
B35 4.66 3.98 85.4
Kuttanadu(kerala) Prabha et al., 2013
Fig.7: soil organic carbon percentage
B15 -Biochar 15 gm
B25 -Biochar 25 gm
B35 -Biochar 35 gm
CE Compost -Eichhornia 25gm
CP Compost- Pueraria 25 gm
CF Chemical Fertilizer-Superphosphate 5gm

43. Fig.8: Advantages of carbon sequestration
• Improved productivity
• Enhance environmental quality
Carbon sequestration in
degraded lands
•Improved in soil aggregating process
•Stable organic mineral complex
•Formation of passive humus fraction
•Deep placement of SOC
•Enhance soil quality
•Improved soil structure
•Nutrient recycling
•High soil biodiversity
Mitigation of climate change

44. Fig.9: Comparison of distribution of C stock (Mg ha-1) in various components
of reclaimed coalmine site and reference forest site
Rimi and Subodh ( 2016)

45. CONCLUSION
Reclamation of degraded lands has huge potential for
carbon sequestration to counteract the climate change
Carbon sequestration in degraded lands can helps to
increase soil organic matter content there by improving
soil fertility and productivity
Conservation agriculture is an effective CO2 emission
reduction practice
Afforestation and alternate land use system is an
effective CO2 removal opportunity from the atmosphere

46. Future line of work
Need to develop location specific soil management
practices for carbon sequestration and restoring soil
fertility in degraded lands
In degraded lands it is imperative to develop
sustainable agronomic practices rather than intensive
practices