ReviewAgronomy for sustainable development2023
Current controversies on mechanisms controlling soil carbon storage: implications for interactions with practitioners and policy-makers. A review.
Review in Agronomy for sustainable development, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Nitrogen Fixation: Multifunctional Roles of Common Bean in Organic Agroecosystems and Ecosystem-Oriented Breeding Strategies.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Soil Carbon Saturation: What Do We Really Know?Global change biology · 2025Review
- Sustainable Development versus Extractivist Deforestation in Tropical, Subtropical, and Boreal Forest Ecosystems: Repercussions and Controversies about the Mother Tree and the Mycorrhizal Network Hypothesis.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Beyond microbial carbon use efficiency.National science review · 2024Article
- How to engineer the unknown: Advancing a quantitative and predictive understanding of plant and soil biology to address climate change.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Unlocking complex soil systems as carbon sinks: multi-pool management as the key.Nature communications · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently an intense debate about the potential for additional organic carbon storage in soil, the strategies by which it may be accomplished and what the actual benefits might be for agriculture and the climate. Controversy forms an essential part of the scientific process, but on the topic of soil carbon storage, it may confuse the agricultural community and the general public and may delay actions to fight climate change. In an attempt to shed light on this topic, the originality of this article lies in its intention to provide a balanced description of contradictory scientific opinions on soil carbon storage and to examine how the scientific community can support decision-making despite the controversy. In the first part, we review and attempt to reconcile conflicting views on the mechanisms controlling organic carbon dynamics in soil. We discuss the divergent opinions about chemical recalcitrance, the microbial or plant origin of persistent soil organic matter, the contribution of particulate organic matter to additional organic carbon storage in soil, and the spatial and energetic inaccessibility of soil organic matter to decomposers. In the second part, we examine the advantages and limitations of big data management and modeling, which are essential tools to link the latest scientific theories with the actions taken by stakeholders. Finally, we show how the analysis and discussion of controversies can guide scientists in supporting stakeholders for the design of (i) appropriate trade-offs for biomass use in agriculture and forestry and (ii) climate-smart management practices, keeping in mind their still unresolved effects on soil carbon storage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.