Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Soil carbon in tropical savannas mostly derived from grasses

Nature Geoscience volume 16, pages 710–716 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Tropical savannas have been increasingly targeted for carbon sequestration by afforestation, assuming large gains in soil organic carbon (SOC) with increasing tree cover. Because savanna SOC is also derived from grasses, this assumption may not reflect real changes in SOC under afforestation. However, the exact contribution of grasses to SOC and the changes in SOC with increasing tree cover remain poorly understood. Here we combine a case study from Kruger National Park, South Africa, with data synthesized from tropical savannas globally to show that grass-derived carbon constitutes more than half of total SOC to a soil depth of 1 m, even in soils directly under trees. The largest SOC concentrations were associated with the largest grass contributions (>70% of total SOC). Across the tropics, SOC concentration was not explained by tree cover. Both SOC gain and loss were observed following increasing tree cover, and on average SOC storage within a 1-m profile only increased by 6% (s.e. = 4%, n = 44). These results underscore the substantial contribution of grasses to SOC and the considerable uncertainty in SOC responses to increasing tree cover across tropical savannas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Geographic locations of soil samples across tropical and subtropical savannas.
Fig. 2: Contributions of grass-derived SOC to total SOC across tropical and subtropical savannas.
Fig. 3: Changes in SOC storage following woody encroachment across tropical and subtropical grassy ecosystems.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data supporting the results can be found at Dryad Digital Repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.c59zw3rbg). Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Laestadius, L., Buckingham, K., Maginnis, S. & Saint-Laurent, C. Before Bonn and beyond: the history and future of forest landscape restoration. Unasylva 66, 11 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grace, J., José, J. S., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S. & Montes, R. A. Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical savannas. J. Biogeogr. 33, 387–400 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abreu, R. C. R. et al. The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701284 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilman, D. et al. Fire suppression and ecosystem carbon storage. Ecology 81, 2680–2685 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhou, Y. et al. Limited increases in savanna carbon stocks over decades of fire suppression. Nature 603, 445–449 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Veldman, J. W. et al. Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bai, Y. & Cotrufo, M. F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: current understanding, challenges and solutions. Science 377, 603–608 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou, Y., Boutton, T. W. & Wu, X. B. Soil carbon response to woody plant encroachment: importance of spatial heterogeneity and deep soil storage. J. Ecol. 105, 1738–1749 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hughes, R. F. et al. Changes in aboveground primary production and carbon and nitrogen pools accompanying woody plant encroachment in a temperate savanna. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12, 1733–1747 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson, R. B., Banner, J. L., Jobbágy, E. G., Pockman, W. T. & Wall, D. H. Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature 418, 623–626 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barger, N. N. et al. Woody plant proliferation in North American drylands: a synthesis of impacts on ecosystem carbon balance. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001506 (2011).

  13. Pellegrini, A. F. A. et al. Repeated fire shifts carbon and nitrogen cycling by changing plant inputs and soil decomposition across ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 90, e01409 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lloyd, J. et al. Contributions of woody and herbaceous vegetation to tropical savanna ecosystem productivity: a quasi-global estimate. Tree Physiol. 28, 451–468 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 8, 345–360 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wigley, B. J., Augustine, D. J., Coetsee, C., Ratnam, J. & Sankaran, M. Grasses continue to trump trees at soil carbon sequestration following herbivore exclusion in a semiarid African savanna. Ecology 101, e03008 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dohn, J. et al. Tree effects on grass growth in savannas: competition, facilitation and the stress-gradient hypothesis. J. Ecol. 101, 202–209 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoffmann, W. A. et al. Ecological thresholds at the savanna-forest boundary: how plant traits, resources and fire govern the distribution of tropical biomes. Ecol. Lett. 15, 759–768 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Scholes, R. J. & Archer, S. R. Tree-grass interactions in savannas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 517–544 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wynn, J. G. & Bird, M. I. C4-derived soil organic carbon decomposes faster than its C3 counterpart in mixed C3/C4 soils. Glob. Chang. Biol 13, 2206–2217 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. & Paustian, K. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241, 155–176 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hemingway, J. D. et al. Mineral protection regulates long-term global preservation of natural organic carbon. Nature 570, 228–231 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Possinger, A. R. et al. Organo–organic and organo–mineral interfaces in soil at the nanometer scale. Nat. Commun. 11, 6103 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhou, Y., Boutton, T. W., Ben Wu, X. & Yang, C. Spatial heterogeneity of subsurface soil texture drives landscape-scale patterns of woody patches in a subtropical savanna. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 915–929 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Case, M. F., Nippert, J. B., Holdo, R. M. & Staver, A. C. Root-niche separation between savanna trees and grasses is greater on sandier soils. J. Ecol. 108, 2298–2308 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. February, E., Pausch, J. & Higgins, S. I. Major contribution of grass roots to soil carbon pools and CO2 fluxes in a mesic savanna. Plant Soil 454, 207–215 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wright, J. L. et al. Sixteen hundred years of increasing tree cover prior to modern deforestation in Southern Amazon and Central Brazilian savannas. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 136–150 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Leary, M. H. Carbon isotopes in photosynthesis. Bioscience 38, 328–336 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhou, Y. et al. Woody encroachment happens via intensification, not extensification, of species ranges in an African savanna. Ecol. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2437 (2021).

  30. Gessner, U., Machwitz, M., Conrad, C. & Dech, S. Estimating the fractional cover of growth forms and bare surface in savannas. A multi-resolution approach based on regression tree ensembles. Remote Sens. Environ. 129, 90–102 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lannes, L. S., Bustamante, M. M. C., Edwards, P. J. & Olde Venterink, H. Native and alien herbaceous plants in the Brazilian cerrado are (co-)limited by different nutrients. Plant Soil 400, 231–243 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zanzarini, V., Andersen, A. N. & Fidelis, A. Flammability in tropical savannas: variation among growth forms and seasons in Cerrado. Biotropica 54, 979–987 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Staver, A. C., Archibald, S. & Levin, S. A. The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230–232 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stevens, N., Lehmann, C. E. R., Murphy, B. P. & Durigan, G. Savanna woody encroachment is widespread across three continents. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 235–244 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Saiz, G. et al. Charcoal re-combustion efficiency in tropical savannas. Geoderma 219–220, 40–45 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pellegrini, A. F. A. et al. Fire frequency drives decadal changes in soil carbon and nitrogen and ecosystem productivity. Nature 553, 194–198 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moustakas, A., Kunin, W. E., Cameron, T. C. & Sankaran, M. Facilitation or competition? Tree effects on grass biomass across a precipitation gradient. PLoS ONE 8, e57025 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mureva, A., Ward, D., Pillay, T., Chivenge, P. & Cramer, M. Soil organic carbon increases in semi-arid regions while it decreases in humid regions due to woody-plant encroachment of grasslands in South Africa. Sci. Rep. 8, 15506 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huxman, T. E. et al. Ecohydrological implications of woody plant encroachment. Ecology 86, 308–319 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. de Souza, G. F., Ferreira, M. C. & Munhoz, C. B. R. Decrease in species richness and diversity, and encroachment in Cerrado grasslands: a 20 years study. Appl. Veg. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12668 (2022).

  41. Coetsee, C., Gray, E. F., Wakeling, J., Wigley, B. J. & Bond, W. J. Low gains in ecosystem carbon with woody plant encroachment in a South African savanna. J. Trop. Ecol. 29, 49–60 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pellegrini, A. F. A., Hoffmann, W. A. & Franco, A. C. Carbon accumulation and nitrogen pool recovery during transitions from savanna to forest in central Brazil. Ecology 95, 342–352 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gill, R. A. & Jackson, R. B. Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. N. Phytol. 147, 13–31 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Köchy, M. & Wilson, S. D. Litter decomposition and nitrogen dynamics in aspen forest and mixed‐grass prairie. Ecology 78, 732–739 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585, 545–550 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Li, D., Niu, S. & Luo, Y. Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. N. Phytol. 195, 172–181 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Krause, A. et al. Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3025–3038 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997-2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 697–720 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Batjes, N. H. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47, 151–163 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schmidt, M. W. I. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Damgaard, C. A critique of the space-for-time substitution practice in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 416–421 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Chiti, T. et al. Impact of woody encroachment on soil organic carbon storage in the Lopé National Park, Gabon. Biotropica 49, 9–12 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Parr, C. L., Gray, E. F. & Bond, W. J. Cascading biodiversity and functional consequences of a global change-induced biome switch. Divers Distrib. 18, 493–503 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Urban, M. et al. Woody cover mapping in the savanna ecosystem of the Kruger National Park using Sentinel-1 C-Band time series data. Koedoe 62, 1–6 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Govender, N., Trollope, W. S. W. & van Wilgen, B. W. The effect of fire season, fire frequency, rainfall and management on fire intensity in savanna vegetation in South Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 748–758 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Venter, F. J. A Classification of Land for Management Planning in the Kruger National Park (Univ. South Africa, 1992).

  58. Staver, A. C., Botha, J. & Hedin, L. Soils and fire jointly determine vegetation structure in an African savanna. N. Phytol. 216, 1151–1160 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sheldrick, B. H. & Wang, C. in Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis (Carter, M. R. & Gregorich, E. G.) 499–511 (Lewis Publishers, 1993).

  60. Moher, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 (2009).

  61. Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Giglio, L., Boschetti, L., Roy, D. P., Humber, M. L. & Justice, C. O. The Collection 6 MODIS burned area mapping algorithm and product. Remote Sens. Environ. 217, 72–85 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Codron, J. et al. Taxonomic, anatomical and spatio-temporal variations in the stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic compositions of plants from an African savanna. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 1757–1772 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Boutton, T. W. in Mass Spectrometry of Soils (eds Boutton, T. W. & Yamasaki, S. I.) 47–82 (Marcel Dekker, 1996).

  66. Ehleringer, J. R., Buchmann, N. & Flanagan, L. B. Carbon isotope ratios in belowground carbon cycle processes. Ecol. Appl. 10, 412–422 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Saiz, G. et al. Preferential production and transport of grass-derived pyrogenic carbon in NE-Australian savanna ecosystems. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00115 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Y.Z. was supported by Utah State University and a G. Evelyn Hutchinson Environmental Postdoctoral Fellowship from Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies. L.C.R.S. was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (AGS #1602958), the Convergence Accelerator Program #1939511, and by CNPq (PPBio-457602/2012–0 and PELD-441244/2016–5).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Madelon F. Case

    Present address: US Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Yong Zhou

  2. Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Yong Zhou & A. Carla Staver

  3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Yong Zhou & A. Carla Staver

  4. Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Barbara Bomfim

  5. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

    William J. Bond, Edmund C. February & Emma F. Gray

  6. Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Thomas W. Boutton

  7. Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

    Madelon F. Case, Lucas C. R. Silva & Jamie L. Wright

  8. Scientific Services, Kruger National Park, Skukuza, South Africa

    Corli Coetsee

  9. School of Natural Resource Management, Nelson Mandela University, George, South Africa

    Corli Coetsee

  10. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Andrew B. Davies

  11. Environmental Studies Program, Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

    Lucas C. R. Silva & Jamie L. Wright

Authors
  1. Yong Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Bomfim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William J. Bond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas W. Boutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Madelon F. Case
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Corli Coetsee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrew B. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Edmund C. February
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Emma F. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lucas C. R. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jamie L. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. A. Carla Staver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Z. and A.C.S. conceived this study. A.C.S. conducted field sampling in Kruger National Park, and Y.Z. performed laboratory analyses. B.B., W.J.B., T.W.B., M.F.C., C.C., A.B.D., E.C.F., E.F.G., L.C.R.S. and J.L.W. contributed to conceptualization and data curation. Y.Z. collected data from the literature, performed data analysis and drafted the paper with substantial inputs from A.C.S. All authors provided paper feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Aisling Devine, William Hoffmann and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Xujia Jiang, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Model predictors for soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration (g C/kg) and grass-derived SOC (%) across Kruger National Park, South Africa.

(a) The correlation coefficient matrix among predictors used to model SOC concentration and grass-derived SOC. (b) Conditional regression plots from the best fitted linear model of changes in SOC concentration in response to grass biomass (kg/ha) and soil sand content (%). (c) Conditional regression plots from the best fitted linear model of changes in grass-derived soil C in response to grass biomass (kg/ha), soil sand content (%), mean annual rainfall (mm), and elephant density (kg/ha). All plots in panel (b) and (c) represent 72 sites across Kruger National Park (that is, n = 72). Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals. See Extended Data Table 1 for more details on model specifications.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Comparison of field measured soil sand content with soil sand content extracted from soil Grid.

(a) A scatter plot between field measured soil sand content (%) from Kruger National Park and soil sand content (%) extracted from SoilGrid (R2 = 0.03, p = 0.08, n = 98). (b) A scatter plot between soil sand content extracted from literature across tropical/subtropical savannas and soil sand content extracted from SoilGrid (R2 = 0.09, p = 0.015, n = 72). Dashed lines in panels (a) and (b) indicate the 1: 1 ratio line. Soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration (g/kg) throughout the entire 1-m profile across tropic and subtropical savannas as a function of soil sand content (%) extracted from the related literature (c). Regression line indicates a linear fit (R2 = 0.29, p < 0.0001, n = 72). Shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence intervals of the fit.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Model predictors for soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration (g/kg) and grass-derived SOC (%) across tropical and subtropical savannas.

(a) The correlation coefficient matrix among predictors used to model SOC concentration and grass-derived SOC. (b) Conditional regression plots from the best fitted linear model of changes in grass-derived soil C in response to different continent, mean annual rainfall (mm), and tree cover (%). (c) Conditional regression plots from the best fitted linear model of changes in SOC concentration in response to different continent, mean annual rainfall, and slope (◦). All plots in panel (b) and (c) represent 148 sites across tropical and subtropical savannas (that is, n = 148). Box plots display medians (that is, 50th percentile), 25th and 75th percentiles. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals. See Extended Data Table 2 for more details on model specifications.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Grass-derived SOC as a function of mean annual rainfall across tropical and subtropical savannas.

(a) Boxplot distribution of mean annual rainfall (mm) for tropical and subtropical savanna sites across different continents (n = 81 for Africa, n = 5 for Australia, n = 6 for North America, and n = 56 for South America). Box plots display medians (that is, 50th percentile), 25th and 75th percentiles, and 95% confidence intervals. (b) Grass-derived SOC (%) throughout the 1-m soil profile as a function of mean annual rainfall (n = 148). The dotted black line indicates where grass- and tree-derived C contributed half of the total SOC (that is, 50%). Dashed blue lines indicate the upper bound and lower bound of the 95% quantile regressions.

Extended Data Table 1 Model specifications and model selections for soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration (g C/kg) and grass-derived SOC (%) across Kruger National Park, South Africa
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Model specifications and model selections for soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration (g/kg) and grass-derived SOC (%) across tropical and subtropical savannas
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, Y., Bomfim, B., Bond, W.J. et al. Soil carbon in tropical savannas mostly derived from grasses. Nat. Geosci. 16, 710–716 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01232-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01232-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing