1 Impact of long-term agroforestry systems on carbon pools and sequestration in top and

2 deep soil layers of semi-arid region of western India

3 Mahesh Sirimalle1*, Chiranjeev Kumawat1,*, Ramu Meena1, Dharmendra Tripathi1, K

4 K Sharma1, Arvind Kumawat1, and Avijit Ghosh2,*

1
5 Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur 303329, India
2
6 Grassland and silvopasture management Division, ICAR-IGFRI, Jhansi 284003, India
7 *Correspondence: [email protected] (Avijit Ghosh); [email protected]
8 (Chiranjeev Kumawat)
9
10
11 Abstract: To explore the impact of different agroforestry systems on carbon sequestration,
12 carbon management index, and carbon fractions, a long-term (37 years) field trial was
13 conducted under three tree-based agroforestry systems consisting of tree species, namely
14 Acacia tortilis, Hardwickia binata and Tecomella undulata along with fallow land in semi-
15 arid India. The soil samples were taken at four distinct depths (0-15, 15-30, 30-60, and 60-90
16 cm) with 8 replications and analyzed for soil total organic carbon (TOC), soil organic carbon
17 fractions, soil carbon stocks and carbon management index (CMI). The Acacia tortilis based
18 agroforestry system registered 4.09 % TOC at top soil layer (0-30cm) and which was 42.5%
19 higher total soil organic carbon than fallow land. At top soil layer the ACP values are
20 dominant than PCP and ACP was increased by 68.3%, 59% and 53.6% under Acacia tortilis,
21 Hardwickia binata and Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system over fallow land. The
22 PCP was increased by 18.4%, 11.8% and 8.2% under Acacia tortilis, Hardwickia binata and
23 Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system over fallow land at top soil layer. The Acacia
24 tortilis based agroforestry system sequestered a greater quantity of total organic carbon
25 (39.34 Mg C ha-1), followed by Hardwickia binata based agroforestry systems (37.86 Mg C
26 ha-1), Tecomella undulata based agroforestry systems (36.99 Mg C ha -1) and fallow land
27 (30.65 Mg C ha-1) at the 0-90 cm soil layer. The carbon sequestration is high under sub
28 surface layers (30-90 cm) as compared to surface layers under all agroforestry systems. CMI
29 registered higher under Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system (166.58) at top soil layer
30 than others. Hence, long term agroforestry systems could improve soil carbon storage and the
31 carbon management index as compared to fallow land.

32 Key words: Carbon sequestration, Carbon management index, Agroforestry, Deep Soil C
33 sequestration.
34 1. Introduction:

1
35 Global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere increased gradually
36 (Lorenz and Lal 2014). The global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2021 increased
37 by 4.8% as the demand for coal and oil gas expanded in step with the economy. In addition to
38 exacerbating the effects of climate change, this increased atmospheric concentration of
39 carbon dioxide creates a major environmental risk in the form of land degradation (Kaushal et
40 al., 2021). By 2030, India aims to decrease its GDP per unit GHG emissions by 33 to 35
41 percent compared to 2005 levels. We must investigate viable options for reducing
42 atmospheric stresses in order to maintain environmental integrity and natural biogeochemical
43 cycling. To accomplish this, we must expand the amount of forest and tree cover so that, by
44 2030, there will be a 2.5–3 billion tonnes CO2 equivalent carbon sink.
45 (https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=128403).

46 Agroforestry is most reliable methods for reducing climate change through carbon
47 sequestration. As part of climate-smart agriculture, agroforestry has been acknowledged and
48 is often highlighted for its significant potential to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate
49 change (Ajit et al. 2017 and Rizvi et al. 2018). This potential has been investigated in great
50 detail under a number of international initiatives, including the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC
51 2015), the Kyoto Protocol of 2001 (Nair et al. 2009), the REDD+ mechanism, and the
52 Sustainable Development Goals. Numerous experts estimate that India's agroforestry has a
53 0.29 to 15.21 Mg C ha-1 year-1 potential for sequestering carbon (Newaj et al. 2016 and
54 Chavan et al. 2021).
55 Trees act as a CO2 sink by fixing carbon via photosynthesis and storing excess carbon pools
56 as biomass. The overall CO2 sink/source relationship in the forest changes over time as trees
57 grow, die, and degrade. Reforestation, agroforestry, and natural reforestation are the most
58 promising CO2 mitigation strategies. Developing trees in urban areas can be a latent
59 contributor to lowering CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere through biomass accumulation.
60 It is well-established that soil organic matter contributes nitrogen and soil organic carbon
61 (SOC). Soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil inorganic carbon (SIC) comprise the two main
62 groups comprising the soil carbon reservoir. Based on the decomposition rate, SOC is
63 separated into two main pools: the active C pool, which includes extremely labile and labile
64 carbon, and the passive carbon pool, which includes less labile and refractory carbon
65 (Ramesh et al. 2015). Microbial activity slowly modifies the passive carbon pool, whereas the
66 active carbon pool having fast turnover rate, provides energy to the soil fauna. SOC, as a
67 terrestrial carbon reservoir, accumulates carbon over millennia and can be enhanced through

2
 68 agroforestry practices. In contrast, the majority of carbonates in soil inorganic carbon (SIC)
69 primarily consist of both inherited and deposited carbonates (Tan et al. 2008). Carbon
70 sequestration is defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
71 (UNFCCC) as "the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a
72 reservoir." It describes the process of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing
73 it for a long time in pools with a long lifespan (UNFCCC 2007). Carbon sequestration in
74 agroforestry is primarily concerned with capturing atmospheric CO2 during photosynthesis
75 and transferring the fixed carbon into vegetation and soil pools for "long-term" storage (Nair
76 et al. 2010). Soil organic carbon sequestration is the process of transporting carbon dioxide
77 from the atmosphere into the soil of a land unit via crop leftovers and other organic solids,
78 which are stored or kept in the unit as part of soil organic matter (Lal 2005).
79 The ability of land use to improve soil quality is assessed by the Carbon Management Index
80 (CMI), which can be determined to show changes in the carbon dynamics of each system and
81 ecosystem response about a paired reference soil (Blair et al. 1995 and Blair et al. 2006).
82 According to Wang et al. (2015) and Ghosh et al. (2016), the CMI can be a useful indicator
83 for evaluating the possibility of long-term manure addition, straw integration, or conservation
84 agriculture to enhance soil quality and prevent soil deterioration. Kumar et al. (2020) stated
85 that land use systems had a significant impact on the various carbon pools and CMI.
86 Therefore, the investigation of SOM dynamics is essential by analyzing its different fractions,
87 each of which has a unique residence duration, soil function, and set of controlling factors as
88 suggested by Solomon et al. (2000). The present study aims to investigate specific objectives
89 pertaining to the impact of tree-based agroforestry systems on soil organic carbon (SOC)
90 stocks and fractions. The study focused on three key research questions: (1) How do SOC
91 fractions and stocks respond to different tree-based agroforestry systems? (2) Do SOC
92 fractions and stocks in the surface and subsurface layers exhibit similar responses across
93 different tree-based agroforestry systems? (3) How do different agroforestry systems affect
94 soil carbon sequestration and the carbon management index? These research objectives are of
95 utmost significance, as they will help us understand the potential of agroforestry systems in
96 mitigating climate change and promoting sustainable agriculture.
97 2. Materials and methods:
98 2.1. Site and Climate:
99 The present study was carried out at the Agriculture Research Station, Fatehpur, S.K.N.
100 Agriculture University, Jobner, situated in village Harsava of Fatehpur Tehsil in Sikar district
101 of Rajasthan (27°56'11.2"N latitude and 74°58'50.0"E longitude) (Fig 1). The study was

3
102 conducted as part of the All India Coordinated Research Project (ACRIP) on Agroforestry,
103 featuring different tree-based agroforestry systems arranged in a complete randomized block
104 design. The research station is situated in the IIA agro-climatic zone of Rajasthan, known as
105 the "Transitional Plain of Inland Drainage," and receives an average annual rainfall of 300–
106 500 mm. The temperature in this region is highly variable, dipping below the freezing point
107 (up to -2.5°C) during the winter and soaring to as high as 52°C during the summer.
108 2.2. Experimental Details:
109 After a thorough survey of the area, three tree-based agroforestry systems, viz., Acacia
110 tortilis, Hardwickia binata, and Tecomella undulata, were selected as treatments along with a
111 control (Table 1; Fig 2). Among different tree-based agroforestry systems under the present
112 investigation, Acacia tortilis was maintained as farm forestry because it was unsuitable for an
113 agri-silvicultural system. Hardwickia binata based agroforestry systems were maintained as
114 agri-silvicultural systems where they grew major pulse crops as intercrops and sometimes,
115 they didn’t raise any intercrop, and Tecomella undulata-based agroforestry systems were also
116 maintained as agri-silvicultural systems. Thus, there were a total 4 treatments, which included
117 three tree-based agroforestry systems along with a control (fallow land). Each treatment was
118 divided into three replications. The soil samples taken from various depths (0-15, 15-30, 30-
119 60 and 60-90 cm) were analyzed to determine different soil carbon parameters.
120 Table 1. The agroforestry systems chosen as treatments in the present study
S.No Agroforestry tree species (Botanical
Local Name Family
. name)
1. Acacia tortilis Isralli babool Fabaceae
2. Hardwickia binata Anjan Fabaceae
3. Tecomella undulata Rohida Bignoniaceae
121
122 2.3. Soil sampling and processing:
123 Soil samples were taken from all the treatments following standard procedures during
124 October 2021. The area of each treatment was divided approximately into three equal parts.
125 At each part, three sampling points were selected following a zigzag pattern. Soil samples
126 were collected from four depths (0–15, 15–30, 30–60, and 60–90 cm) at each sampling point
127 after scraping off the surface litter without removing the top soil. The collected composite
128 soil samples were brought to the laboratory, air-dried in the shade, and spread uniformly over
129 a separate piece of polythene paper. These samples were then crushed on a hard wooden slab

4
130 with the help of a wooden roller and passed through a 2 mm sieve. Bulk density
131 measurements were also taken using a soil core of known volume from undisturbed plots.
132 2.4. Methods of soil analysis:
133 The initial characteristics of the soil samples were determined by following the standard
134 procedures delineated by Jackson (1973). Total organic carbon was determined using the wet
135 oxidation method described by Schollenberger (1927). The procedure for determining soil
136 organic carbon fractions is a modified version of the procedure by Walkley and Black (1934),
137 employing 5, 10, and 20 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid, corresponding to 12, 18, and 24N
138 H2SO4 (Chan et al., 2001) as follows:
139 i. Fraction-1 (CVL–Very labile carbon): This fraction represents the organic carbon
140 (OC) oxidized by 5 ml of concentrated H2SO4 (12 N H2SO4).
141 ii. Fraction-2 (CL–Labile carbon): The difference in OC oxidized by 5 ml and 10 ml of
142 concentrated H2SO4 (18N-12N H2SO4) represents this fraction.
143 iii. Fraction-3 (CLL–Less labile carbon): This fraction represents the difference in OC
144 oxidized by 10 ml and 20 ml of concentrated H2SO4 (24N-18N H2SO4).
145 iv. Fraction-4 (CR–Recalcitrant carbon): This fraction is the difference in OC oxidized by
146 20 ml of concentrated H2SO4 and the total organic carbon content of the soil.
147 2.5. Soil organic carbon storage / stock (Mg C ha-1)
148 The soil's organic carbon stock represents the quantity of organic carbon content stored
149 within it. This stock was determined using the following formula:
150 Soil organic carbon stock (measured in t ha -1 or Mg C ha-1) = [SOC (%) × Soil depth (m) ×
151 BD (Mg m-3) × Area (104 m2) × 10-2]
152 In this equation, SOC stands for the total organic carbon content (%), BD denotes the bulk
153 density of the respective soil depth. Using this approach, the storage of SOC in various soil
154 layers (0-15, 15-30, 30-60, and 60-90 cm) was computed.
155 2.6. Carbon management index (CMI)
156 Blair et al. (1995) introduced the concept of the carbon management index (CMI), calculated
157 as the product of the carbon pool index (CPI) and the liability index (LI). This index serves as
158 a measure of the rate at which soil organic matter changes in response to alterations in land
159 management practices, compared to a reference soil with higher stability.
160 The CMI is computed as follows:
161 Carbon management index (CMI) = CPI x LI x 100.
162 Carbon pool index (CPI) =Sample total organic carbon (g kg -1)/Reference total organic
163 carbon (g kg-1)

5
164 Lability of carbon = [(Cfrac1/TOC) ×3 + (Cfrac2/TOC) ×2 + (Cfrac3/TOC) ×1]
165 Carbon Lability index (LI) = lability of sample carbon/lability of reference carbon
166 In CMI and LI, the fallow land is used as reference carbon.
167 Fig-1. Location map of the experimental site (ARS, Fatehpur)
168

169

170

171
172
173
174
175
176
177

178

179 Fig-2. Google earth image of the experimental site (ARS, Fatehpur)
180
181 Hardwickia binata
Agro-forestry
182
system
183
184 Tecomella
undulata-based
185 agroforestry
systems
186
187
188
Acacia tortilis
189 based Agro-
forestry system
190
191
Fallow land
192
193
194
195

6
196
197 2.7. Statistical Analysis
198 The data generated underwent statistical analysis as outlined by Gomez and Gomez (1984).
199 Soil properties across different agroforestry systems were tested for significant differences
200 using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the agroforestry system as the first
201 factor and the depths at which soil samples were collected as the second factor. Subsequently,
202 Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) was employed to compare treatments. Additionally,
203 correlation studies, as described by Panse and Sukhatme (1978), were conducted to explore
204 the interrelationships among various parameters.
205 3.Results:
206 3.1. Total soil organic carbon (TOC) distribution
207 The distribution of TOC content across various agroforestry systems and fallow land (0–90
208 cm) is summarised in Table 2. Results indicate that all tree-based agroforestry systems
209 contained higher TOC accumulation in surface layers, with concentration decreasing with
210 increasing soil depth. In the top soil layers (0–30 cm depth), the Acacia tortilis based
211 agroforestry system demonstrated the highest TOC concentration (4.09 g kg -1), followed by
212 the Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system (3.85 g kg-1), the Tecomella undulata based
213 agroforestry system (3.75 g kg-1), and fallow land (2.87 g kg -1). Therefore, the Acacia tortilis
214 based system had 5.6% and 29.8% higher TOC than Hardwickia binata based agroforestry
215 system and fallow land, respectively. In deep layers (30-90cm), similar trend was observed.
216 Table 2. Total soil organic carbon (TOC) concentrations (g kg −1) in top and deep soil
217 layers under different 37 years old tree-based agroforestry systems in semi-arid region
218 of western India.
TOC (g kg−1)
Agroforestry systems
Top soil layer (0-30 cm) Deep soil layer (30-90 cm)
Acacia tortilis 4.09a 2.41a
Hardwickia binata 3.86b 2.31 b
Tecomella undulata 3.76 b 2.20 c
Fallow land 2.87c 1.83 d
Mean 3.64 2.18
219 The column wise values indicated by same small letters are not significantly different at the (p ≤ 0.05) level of
220 probability by Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) method
221 3.2. ORGANIC CARBON FRACTIONS
222 3.2.1. Very labile carbon fraction (VLC)

7
223 The VLC fraction ranged from 0.32 g kg -1 to 1.72 g kg-1 under different tree-based
224 agroforestry systems and soil depths (Table 3). Further, in all the systems, the content of VLC
225 decreased with increase in soil depth. All the tree-based agroforestry systems showed a
226 higher VLC content as compared to fallow land in all soil depths. Among the agroforestry
227 systems, the VLC followed the trend as Acacia tortilis > Hardwickia binate > Tecomella
228 undulata across all depths. The Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system had the highest
229 VLC content (1.72 g kg-1, 1.24 g kg-1, 0.77 g kg-1 and 0.54 g kg-1 at 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, 30-60
230 cm and 60-90 cm soil depth, respectively) which was significantly higher as compared to
231 fallow land (54%, 47.6%, 42.8% and 40.7% higher at 0-15 cm,15-30 cm, 30-60 cm and 60-90
232 cm, respectively). The VLC fraction constituted higher portion of TOC, ranging from 32.8%
233 to33.6% with an average of 31.2% in different tree-based agroforestry systems
234 3.2.2. Labile carbon fraction
235 Irrespective of different agroforestry systems and soil depths, labile carbon (LC) fraction
236 ranged from 0.24 g kg-1 to 0.81 g kg-1 and showed a decreasing trend with increase in soil
237 depths (Table 3). Similar to VLC, all the tree-based agroforestry systems improved LC
238 content as compared to fallow land in all soil depths. The Acacia tortilis based agroforestry
239 system had the significantly higher LC fraction content upto 60cm soil depth compared to
240 fallow land (22%, 24.6%, and 32.5% higher at 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, and 30-60 cm soil depth,
241 respectively). However, at 60-90cm depth, LC variation was non-significant.
242 3.2.3. Less labile carbon fraction
243 Similar to VLC and LC, the CLL decreased with soil depth and the tree based agroforestry
244 systems had higher CLL fraction as compared to fallow land in all soil depths (Table 3). The
245 Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system accumulated maximum CLL in all soil depths.
246 Compare to fallow land, CLL content was7.1%, 15.7%, 18.4% and 15.7% higher CLL at 0-
247 15 cm,15-30 cm, 30-60 cm and 60-90 cm, respectively.
248 3.2.4. Recalcitrant carbon fraction
249 The CR fraction followed the trend as: Acacia tortilis based system > Hardwickia binata
250 based system > Tecomella undulata based system > fallow land in all soil depths (Table 3).
251 The CR fraction was significantly high in Acacia tortilis based system compared to fallow
252 land upto 60cm soil depth. However, at greater depth treatment effect is non-significant.

8
253 Table 3. Soil organic carbon fractions (g kg-1) in top and deep soil layers under different 37 years old tree-based agroforestry systems in
254 semi-arid region of western India.
Very labile carbon fraction (g kg-1) labile carbon fraction (g kg-1)

Agroforestry systems 0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90 Mean 0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90 Mean

Acacia tortilis 1.72a 1.24a 0.77a 0.54a 1.07 0.81a 0.65a 0.43a 0.28a 0.54

Hardwickia binata 1.58b 1.22a 0.75ab 0.52a 1.02 0.75b 0.61a 0.40ab 0.26a 0.51

Tecomella undulata 1.56bc 1.21a 0.72b 0.51a 1.00 0.72bc 0.54b 0.37b 0.25a 0.47

Fallow land 0.79d 0.65b 0.44c 0.32b 0.55 0.63d 0.49c 0.29c 0.24a 0.41

Mean 1.41 1.08 0.67 0.48 0.91 0.73 0.57 0.37 0.26 0.48

Less labile carbon fraction (g kg-1) Recalcitrant carbon fraction (g kg-1)

Agroforestry systems 0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90 Mean 0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90 Mean
Acacia tortilis 0.84a 0.83a 0.65a 0.51a 0.71 1.07a 1.04a 0.91a 0.73a 0.94

Hardwickia binata 0.82a 0.73b 0.62a 0.49a 0.66 1.01a 0.97b 0.87a 0.71a 0.89

Tecomella undulata 0.80ab 0.72bc 0.56b 0.47ab 0.64 0.99ab 0.96bc 0.81ab 0.69a 0.86

Fallow land 0.78ac 0.70bcd 0.53bc 0.43c 0.61 0.87c 0.82d 0.74c 0.67a 0.78

Mean 0.81 0.75 0.59 0.47 0.65 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.70 0.87
255
256 Within a column, values indicated by different small letters are significantly different at the (p ≤ 0.05) level of probability by DMRT method

9
257 3.3. Active carbon pool (ACP) and Passive carbon pools (PCP) of soil organic carbon:
258 The data pertaining to active carbon pool and passive carbon pool under different
259 agroforestry systems and fallow land in different soil depths are presented in Fig 3. Among
260 agroforestry systems, maximum active carbon pool at top soil layer (0-30 cm) was observed
261 under Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system (1.88 g kg-1) followed by Hardwickia binata
262 based agroforestry system (1.78 g kg-1), Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system (1.74
263 g kg-1) and fallow land (1.59 g kg -1). Similarly, the highest passive carbon pool was observed
264 under Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system and lowest was observed under fallow land.
265 The ACP was increased by 68.3%, 59% and 53.6% under Acacia tortilis, Hardwickia binata
266 and Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system, respectively over fallow land. The PCP
267 was increased by 18.4%, 11.8% and 8.2% under Acacia tortilis, Hardwickia binata and
268 Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system, respectively over fallow land at top soil layer
269 (0-30 cm). At the deep soil layers (30-90cm), similar trend was also observed for both ACP
270 and PCP (Fig 3).
271 Fig.3.Active carbon pool (g kg-1) and Passive carbon pool (g kg -1) in in top and deep soil
272 layers under different tree-based agroforestry systems (37 years old) in semi-arid region
273 of western India.
274

Acacia tortilis Hardwickia binata Tecomella undulata Fallow land

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0-30 cm 30-90cm 0-30 cm 30-90cm
Active carbon pool (g kg-1) Passive carbon pool (g kg-1)

275
276

10
277 Table 4. Soil organic carbon content of varying lability in in top and deep soil layers (0-
278 90 cm) under different tree-based agroforestry systems (37 years old )in semi-arid
279 region of western India.
Agroforestry systems TOC VLC LC LLC RC ACP PCP
Acacia tortilis 3.25a 1.07a 0.54a 0.71a 0.94a 1.61a 1.64a

Hardwickia binata 3.08b 1.02b 0.51a 0.66b 0.89a 1.52b 1.55b

Tecomella undulata 2.98bc 1.00bc 0.47ab 0.64bc 0.86ab 1.47bc 1.50bc

Fallow land 2.35d 0.55d 0.41c 0.61cd 0.78c 0.96d 1.39d

Mean 2.92 0.91 0.48 0.65 0.87 1.39 1.52
280 Column wise, values indicated by identical small letters are statistically similar at the (p ≤ 0.05) level of
281 probability by DMRT method
282
283 3.4. Soil organic carbon stock (sequestrated organic carbon)
284 Soil organic carbon stock in soil profile (up to 90 cm depth )was highest in the Acacia tortilis
285 based agroforestry system (39.34 Mg C ha-1) and the least in fallow land (30.65 Mg C ha-1)
286 (Table 5). The SOC stock was significantly higher in deeper layers and under all the
287 agroforestry systems compared to fallow land. At top soil layer (0-30 cm), Acacia tortilis
288 based agroforestry system registered an increase of 31.7 %, Hardwickia binata based
289 agroforestry system registered an increase of 26.5 % and Tecomella undulata based
290 agroforestry system registered an increase of 25.7 % over fallow land. However, at the
291 deeper soil layer (30-90 cm), Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system registered an increase
292 of 67.7 %, Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system registered an increase of 61.6 % and
293 Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system registered an increase of 55.8 % over fallow
294 land. Thus, agro-forestry systems accumulated higher SOC stock at the deeper layers,
295 compare to top layers. Soil organic carbon stock distribution in the different tree-based
296 agroforestry systems was of the following order: Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system >
297 Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system > Tecomella undulata based agroforestry
298 system > fallow land.
299 Table 5. SOC stock (Mg ha−1) in top and deep soil layers under different 37 years old
300 tree-based agroforestry systems.
301
SOC stock (Mg ha−1)
Agroforestry systems
Top soil layer (0-30 cm) Deep soil layer (30-90 cm)
Acacia tortilis 8.65a 11.02a

11
 Hardwickia binata 8.31 b 10.62ab
Tecomella undulata 8.25 b 10.2 b
Fallow land 6.57c 8.75c
Mean 7.94 10.15
302 Within a column, values indicated by same small letters are not significantly different at the (p ≤ 0.05) level of
303 probability by DMRT method
304 3.5. Soil carbon management indices under different agroforestry systems
305 3.5.1. Carbon lability index
306 The carbon lability index (CLI) value was higher in Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system
307 throughout the depth of soil profile (0-90 cm) followed by Hardwickia binata based
308 agroforestry system, Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system and least in fallow land
309 (Table 6). The CLI in three agro-forestry systems was significantly higher than fallow land
310 but insignificant among themselves. At top soil layer (0-30cm), the Acacia tortilis based
311 agroforestry system had maximum CLI value of 1.18. Moreover, irrespective of treatments
312 CLI decreased with soil profile depth.
313 3.5.2. Carbon pool index (CPI)
314 A perusal of data presented in table 6 reveals that, the carbon pool index (CPI) value was
315 significantly higher in Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system in both soil layers, followed
316 by Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system, Tecomella undulata based agroforestry
317 system and fallow land.
318 A CPI value of 1.43 was recorded in Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system at top soil
319 layer. Similar to CLI, CPI was increased in all the agroforestry systems over fallow land. A
320 high CPI value in Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system throughout the soil profile
321 indicate the high potential of Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system in restoring the
322 original soil organic carbon stocks. On an average, CPI was increased to 37 %, 30 % and 26
323 % under Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system, Hardwickia binata based agroforestry
324 system and Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system, respectively over fallow land.
325 Under all the agroforestry systems and fallow land, the CPI was decreased with depth
326 increment.
327 3.5.3. Carbon management index
328 The CMI value was significantly higher in Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system through
329 the depth of soil profile (0-90 cm). A high CMI value of 166.6 was recorded in Acacia
330 tortilis based agroforestry system at top soil layer (0-30 cm) followed by Hardwickia binata
331 based agroforestry system (157.6), and Tecomella undulata based agroforestry system

12
332 (153.4). As a whole, CMI increased in all the agroforestry systems over fallow land. As a
333 whole (0-90 cm) depth, CMI was increased to 58%, 50% and 45% under Acacia tortilis based
334 agroforestry system, Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system and Tecomella undulata
335 based agroforestry system respectively, over fallow land (Table 6). Similar to CPI and CLI,
336 there was a reduction in CMI with increasing depths in all the tree-based agroforestry
337 systems.
338 Table 6. Carbon pool index, Lability index and Carbon management index in top and
339 deep soil layers under different 37 years old tree-based agroforestry systems in semi-
340 arid region of western India.
Top soil layer (0-30 cm) Deep soil layer (30-90 cm)
Agroforestry
CPI CLI CMI CPI CLI CMI
systems
Acacia tortilis 1.43a 1.18a 166.58a 1.31a 1.14a 149.13a
Hardwickia
1.34 b 1.17a 157.68 b 1.26a b 1.14a 142.42 b
binata
Tecomella
1.31 b 1.16a 153.44 c 1.21 b 1.13a 136.82 c
undulata
Fallow
1c 1b 100d 1c 1b 100 d
land
341 Within a column, values indicated by different small letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) by DMRT
342 method
343
344 3.6. Relationship among different soil organic carbon fractions.
345 The correlation analysis among different soil organic carbon fractions showed that all the
346 carbon fractions were significantly and positively correlated with each other (Table 7). C VL
347 showed a positive and highly significant correlation with, TOC (r= 0.983), C L (r= 0.936), CLL
348 (r= 0.882), and CR (r= 0.936). The CL is also positively and significantly correlated with,
349 TOC (r=0.979), CVL (r=0.936), CLL (r=0.975), and CR (r=0.936). CLL showed positive and
350 highly significant correlation with, TOC, C VL, CL, and CR with r value of 0.95, 0.88, 0.975
351 and 0.94, respectively. The CR also showed a positive and highly significant correlation with,
352 TOC (r=0.970), CVL (r=0.936), CL (r=0.936), and CLL (r=0.944).
353 Table 7. Pearson’s Correlation coefficient between various organic carbon fractions in
354 soils (0-90 cm soil depth) under various tree-based agroforestry systems.
355

13
 TOC CVL CL CLL CR
TOC 1
CVL 0.983** 1
CL 0.979** 0.936** 1
CLL 0.951** 0.882** 0.975** 1

CR 0.970** 0.936** 0.936** 0.944** 1

356

357 ** significant at the 1% level * significant at the 5% level

358 CVL - Very labile carbon, CL - Labile carbon, CLL – Less labile carbon, CR – Recalcitrant
359 carbon,
360
361 4.Discussion
362 4.1. Total organic carbon

363 There was a notable difference (p < 0.05) in TOC between the various tree-based
364 agroforestry systems. This difference could potentially be attributed to the inclusion of litter
365 fall, the yearly recycling of fine root biomass and root exudates, and reduced oxidation of
366 organic matter under tree shade. The research showed that changes in TOC are mainly
367 affected by several factors, such as organic matter, favourable temperature and moisture
368 conditions, quantity of litter fall, chemical composition of tree roots and litter fall under
369 varying climates and soils. These results are in accordance with the findings of Benbi et al.,
370 (2015) and Kaushal et al., (2021). The results also revealed that the TOC decreased with an
371 increasing soil depth. However, the decrease in TOC content with increasing soil depth is
372 comparatively low under agroforestry systems, which may be due to noticeable rise in root
373 development in the upper layers and lack of mechanical soil disturbance. On the other hand,
374 the TOC concentration of fallow land decreased sharply in the deeper layers, probably due to
375 greater intensity of soil erosion in the absence of perennial trees (Sahoo et al., 2019).
376 Decreasing TOC in deeper soil layers has also been reported by many researchers (Singh et
377 al., 2018; Maini et al., 2020).

378 4.2. Soil organic carbon fractions

379 4.2.1. Very Labile carbon fraction

380 The portion of very labile carbon fraction in TOC was found very high in tree-based
381 agroforestry systems. It may be due to constant supply of easily decomposable organic matter
14
382 in tree-based agroforestry systems as compared to fallow land. The results clearly show that
383 all agroforestry systems had a higher level of very labile carbon fraction over fallow land.
384 This finding was in agreement with Thangavel et al., (2018), who reported that the readily
385 oxidizable carbon increased by up to 46% when fallow land was converted to fruit tree
386 plantations, with C. reticulate showing the largest increase (51%) and P. persica showing the
387 lowest increase (38%), relative to fallow land. Irrespective of agroforestry systems, the very
388 labile carbon fraction decreased with an increase in soil depth. This was in conformity with
389 the findings of Maia et al., (2019), who also reported that high carbon stock was in the very
390 labile carbon fraction at the surface layer, which indicated the occurrence of easily
391 mineralized organic compounds at upper soil depths in agroforestry systems as compared to
392 lower depths.

393 4.2.2. Labile carbon fraction

394 Labile organic carbon is the portion of soil organic carbon that can be easily
395 decomposed by soil microbes but comparatively less than very labile carbon fraction. The
396 labile carbon fraction follows the order: Acacia tortilis based system > Hardwickia binata
397 based system > Tecomella undulata based system > fallow land in all soil depths. The reason
398 for the increasing labile carbon fraction may be a consequence of deposition and subsequent
399 turnover of high amounts of litter, roots, and stump material.

400 Continuous and year-round addition of easily decomposable leaf litter in the
401 agroforestry systems might have increased the labile carbon fraction in our current study.
402 Similar results were also reported by Kumar et al., (2020) and Maini et al., (2020) where,
403 higher amounts of labile carbon fraction under agroforestry systems were reported as
404 compared to fallow land.

405 4.2.3. Less labile carbon fraction

406 The less labile organic carbon fraction is the portion of soil organic carbon whose
407 lability in soil is quite limited and hence not readily decomposed by soil organisms. Results
408 indicated that all agroforestry systems had higher less labile carbon fraction than fallow land.
409 Comparable results were also observed by Santos et al., (2019) and Kumar et al., (2020).
410 Less labile carbon fraction is mainly formed during aggregation and through strong chemical
411 bonding of the microbial products of decomposition to mineral soil matrix (Cotrufo et al.,
412 2013).

15
413 4.2.4. Recalcitrant carbon fraction

414 Under tree-based systems, the greater recalcitrant carbon fraction levels suggest that
415 the decreased oxidation of TOC may have been caused by lignin and other recalcitrant
416 organic molecules released from roots and leaf litters (Datta et al., 2015). Also, the increase
417 in the recalcitrant carbon fraction improves the safety of carbon pools both physically and
418 chemically, highlighting the unceasing plant carbon inputs for soil organic reserve formation
419 (Liu et al., 2006). Similar to our findings, Thangavel et al., (2018) reported an increase of
420 13.1% non-oxidizable carbon in C. reticulata compared to control. Additionally, woody
421 plants are one of the potential sources of recalcitrant biomolecules, particularly in acidic soils
422 found in tree-based agroecosystems (Lorenz et al. 2007). According to Singh et al. (2021),
423 the occurrence of high molecular compounds such as lignin, suberin, cutins, and tannins may
424 have caused the labile fraction of carbon to become less labile and recalcitrant over time,
425 increasing the stability of carbon pools under various tree-based agroforestry systems.
426 Irrespective of agroforestry systems, the recalcitrant carbon fraction decreased with depth
427 increment. The results are supported by the findings of Nath et al., (2018) and Sahoo et al.,
428 (2019).

429 4.3. Active carbon pool and passive carbon pool

430 The active carbon pool (CVL+CL) is the main source of nutrients in soil and hence greatly
431 impacts the soil quality and productivity (Chan et al. 2001), but owing to its low residence
432 time, active C pool has also very low carbon sink potential (Luo et al. 2003). Under these
433 agroforestry systems, the organic inputs from litter fall may have reached the active carbon
434 pool, serve as a microorganism's substrate, and raise the amount of the very labile carbon
435 fraction. A general decrease in the active carbon pool was observed with an increase in soil
436 depth from top soil layer to deeper soil layer. The active carbon pool was higher under all
437 agroforestry systems than fallow land. This may be due to the availability of fresh organic
438 matter as well as higher litter under agroforestry systems over fallow land. The active carbon
439 pool was dominated under surface soil depths and the passive pool was dominated under
440 lower depths because higher organic matter is available at upper soil depths than at lower
441 depths as well as the very labile and labile carbon fraction dominated under upper depths.
442 The results are further supported by the findings of Naik et al. (2017) and Sahoo et al. (2019).
443 The passive carbon pools (CLL+CR) are the prime drivers of long-term soil carbon sink
444 management due to its long residence time (Paul et al. 2001). Passive carbon pools were

16
445 dominated under lower depths as compared to active carbon pool due to the dominance of
446 less labile and recalcitrant carbon fractions under lower depths as compared to upper depths.
447 The passive carbon pool gradually decreased with an increase in soil depth. Nath et al.,
448 (2018) have found similar results, where the passive C pool decreased slowly with an
449 increase in depth of the soil profile. The results are further supported by the findings of Naik
450 et al. (2017), Sahoo et al. (2019) and Singh et al. (2021).

451 4.4. Soil organic carbon stock

452 The TOC content, BD, and soil profile depth were multiplied to determine the soil
453 organic carbon stock. Thus, significant variation in the carbon stock were observed owing to
454 a greater variation in BD and depth of soil profile. Similar to TOC content, the total SOC
455 stock value (0-90 cm) also followed the exact trend in the order: Acacia tortilis based system
456 (39.07 Mg C ha-1) > Hardwickia binata based system (38.19 Mg C ha-1) > Tecomella
457 undulata based system (37.37 Mg C ha-1) > fallow land (30.83 Mg C ha -1), which explains the
458 varying SOC stock under agroforestry systems. The results are in agreement with the findings
459 of Tanwar et al., (2019) who reported that Acacia tortilis based farm forestry had higher SOC
460 stock than Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system and fallow land. The nature and
461 quantity of root exudates as well as the plant and root litter quality characterized by lignin
462 and polyphenol contents also determine the rate of decomposition vis-a-vis the accumulation
463 of soil organic carbon stock under different agroforestry systems at various depths. All the
464 agroforestry systems had higher soil organic carbon stock as compared to fallow land due to
465 the higher availability of organic matter under agroforestry systems compared to fallow land.
466 Similar findings were also reported by Gupta et al., (2019) and Tanwar et al., (2019).

467 4.5. Carbon pool index

468 The CPI was increased by 38%, 28% and 19% in Acacia tortilis based agroforestry
469 system, Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system and Tecomella undulata based
470 agroforestry system, respectively over fallow land. This was due to the higher availability of
471 organic carbon, litter fall, plant biomass and root biomass under all agroforestry systems.
472 Kumar et al., (2020) also reported a higher CPI under different agroforestry systems than
473 fallow land. The agroforestry systems had a CPI >1, indicating greater breakdown of organic
474 residues (like litter and associated root products), resulting in SOM-related benefits and
475 improved soil quality. In the present study, Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system had
476 higher CPI (1.43) at top soil layer (0-30 cm) than deeper soil layer (30-90 cm). This was due

17
477 to the presence of more organic carbon, total organic carbon, very labile carbon and more
478 organic matter in the surface soil. Similar findings were also reported by Kaushal et al.,
479 (2021) and Kumar et al., (2020).

480 4.6. Carbon lability index

481 In the present investigation, CLI follows the order: Acacia tortilis based agroforestry
482 system (1.18) > Hardwickia binata based agroforestry system (1.17) >Tecomella undulata
483 based agroforestry system (1.16). The high value of CLI indicates the presence of higher
484 amount of easily decomposable compounds in the leaf litter of Acacia tortilis and other
485 agroforestry systems (Lorenz and Lal, 2007). The results of the present investigation are also
486 in agreement with the findings of Datta et al., (2015), Naik et al., (2017), Kumar et al.,
487 (2020) and Kaushal et al., (2021). Irrespective of agroforestry systems, the CLI decreased
488 with soil depth. As soil depth increases, the proportion of labile carbon may have decreased
489 and the recalcitrant carbon fraction have increased. Comparable results were also
490 demonstrated by Kumar et al., (2020) and Kaushal et al., (2021).

491 4.7. Carbon management index

492 The CMI was observed to vary significantly from 136.8 to 166.6. The highest and lowest
493 CMI were observed for the Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system (166.6) at top soil layer
494 (0-30) and Tecomella undulata (136.8) at deep soil layer (30-90), respectively. The higher
495 CMI values signify the greater potential for storing soil carbon and thereby improvement of
496 soil quality (Kalambukattu et al., 2013). Agroforestry systems promoted higher CMI values,
497 due to improvement in both the quality and quantity of organic matter. Therefore, higher CMI
498 results from both enhanced organic matter formation due to an increase in annual carbon
499 addition and changes in the quality of organic matter, including the C/N ratio and the
500 amounts of lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, proteins, and carbohydrates, which modifies the
501 lability of C towards more oxidized form (Tirol-Padre and Ladha, 2004). Irrespective of
502 agroforestry systems, the CMI decreased with an increase in soil depth. This was attributed to
503 higher CPI and CLI, the two constituents of CPI in the surface soils than subsurface soils.
504 Similar results also reported by, Kumar et al., (2020), Maini et al., (2020) and Kaushal et al.,
505 (2021).

506 Conclusion

18
507 The tree based agro-forestry systems enhances the proportion of very labile C fractions in
508 soil, thereby promoting the nutrient availability, and better soil quality. Higher recalcitrant C
509 in these systems indicates greater well protected C and C-sequestration. Further, among the
510 different tree-based agroforestry systems, the Acacia tortilis based agroforestry system is
511 very promising in terms of soil total organic carbon, active and passive carbon pools, CMI,
512 CPI, CLI and C sequestration potential. Thus, conversion of fallow land into these tree-based
513 agroforestry systems can play a tremendous role in mitigating GHS emissions through
514 sequestering atmospheric CO2 in the soil as high amounts of well protected soil organic
515 carbon. In hilly terrain, promoting agro-forestry in fallow lands can check huge soil loss,
516 uplift farmers income beside C sequestration.

517 Acknowledgment:

518 The first author sincerely thanks ICAR-AICRP Unit on Agroforestry, Jhansi for their support
519 and motivation behind the research.

520 Reference:
521 Ajit, Dhyani, S. K., Handa, A. K., Newaj, R., Chavan, S. B., Alam, B. (2017) Estimating
522 carbon sequestration potential of existing agroforestry systems in India. Agroforestry
523 Systems, 90, 1101-1118.
524 Benbi, D. K., Brar, K., Toor, A. S. and Singh, P. (2015) Total and labile pools of soil organic
525 carbon in cultivated and undisturbed soils in northern India. Geoderma, 237, 149-158.
526 Blair, G. J., Lefroy, R. D., and Lisle, L. (1995) Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of
527 oxidation and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural
528 systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 46, 1459-1466.
529 Blair, N., Faulkner, R.D., Till, A.R. and Poulton, P.R. (2006) Long-term management
530 impacts on soil C, N and physical fertility: part I: Broad balk experiment. Soil and
531 Tillage Research, 91, 30-38.
532 Chan, K. Y., Bowman, A. and Oates, A. (2001) Oxidizable organic carbon fractions and soil
533 quality changes in an Oxic Paleustalf under different pasture leys. Soil Science, 166,
534 61-67.
535 Chavan, S.B., Newaj, R., Rizvi, R.H., Prasad, R., Alam, B., Handa, A.K. and Tripathi, D.
536 (2021) Reduction of global warming potential vis-à-vis greenhouse gases through
537 traditional agroforestry systems in Rajasthan, India. Environment, Development and
538 Sustainability, 23, 4573-4593.

19
539 Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K. and Paul, E. (2013) The Microbial
540 Efficiency‐Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter
541 decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable
542 soil organic matter? Global change biology, 19, 988-995.
543 Datta, A., Basak, N., Chaudhari, S. K. and Sharma, D. K. (2015) Soil properties and organic
544 carbon distribution under different land uses in reclaimed sodic soils of North-West
545 India. Geoderma Regional, 4, 134-146.
546 Ghosh, B.N., Meena, V.S., Alam, N.M., Dogra, P., Bhattacharyya, R., Sharma, N.K. and
547 Mishra, P.K. 2016 Impact of conservation practices on soil aggregation and the
548 carbon management index after seven years of maize-wheat cropping system in the
549 Indian Himalayas. Agriculture Ecosystem Environment, 216, 247–257.
550 Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd
551 ed., John willey and sons, Inc New York, 680.
552 Gupta, D. K., Bhatt, R. K., Keerthika, A., Noor Mohammed, M. B., Shukla, A. K. and Jangid,
553 B. L. (2019) Carbon sequestration potential of Hardwickia binata Roxb. based
554 agroforestry in hot semi-arid environment of India: an assessment of tree density
555 impact. Current Science, 116, 112-116.
556 Jackson ML (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New
557 Delhi.
558 Kalambukattu, J. G., Singh, R., Patra, A. K. and Arunkumar, K. (2013) Soil carbon pools and
559 carbon management index under different land use systems in the Central Himalayan
560 region. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B–Soil and Plant Science, 63, 200-
561 205.
562 Kaushal, R., Tewari, S., Thapliyal, S. D., Kumar, A., Roy, T., Islam, S. and Durai, J. (2021)
563 Build-up of labile, non-labile carbon fractions under fourteen-year-old bamboo
564 plantations in the Himalayan foothills. Heliyon, 7, e07850.
565 Kumar, M., Panwar, N. R., Kumawat, R. N. and Santra, P. (2020) Influence of different land
566 use systems on soil properties in hot arid Rajasthan. Journal of the Indian Society of
567 Soil Science, 68, 121-127.
568 Lal, R. (2005) World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel.
569 Environment International, 31, 575-584.
570 Liu, X., Herbert, S. J., Hashemi, A. M., Zhang, X. F. and Ding, G. (2006) Effects of
571 agricultural management on soil organic matter and carbon transformation-a review.
572 Plant, Soil and Environment, 52, 531.

20
573 Lorenz, K. and Lal, R. (2014) Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A
574 review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 443-454.
575 Lorenz, K., Lal, R., Preston, C. M. and Nierop, K. G. (2007) Strengthening the soil organic
576 carbon pool by increasing contributions from recalcitrant aliphatic bio (macro)
577 molecules. Geoderma, 142, 1-10.
578 Maia, S. M. F., Otutumi, A. T., de Sa Mendonça, E., Neves, J. C. L. and de Oliveira, T. S.
579 (2019) Combined effect of intercropping and minimum tillage on soil carbon
580 sequestration and organic matter pools in the semiarid region of Brazil. Soil Research,
581 57, 266-275.
582 Maini, A., Sharma, V. and Sharma, S. (2020) Assessment of soil carbon and biochemical
583 indicators of soil quality under rainfed land use systems in North Eastern region of
584 Punjab, India. Carbon Management, 11, 169-182.
585 Naik, S. K., Maurya, S. and Bhatt, B. P. (2017) Soil organic carbon stocks and fractions in
586 different orchards of eastern plateau and hill region of India. Agroforestry Systems,
587 91, 541-552.
588 Nair, P. K. and Mohan Kumar, B. and Nair, Vimala. (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for
589 carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172, 10-23.
590 Nair, P. R., Nair, V. D., Kumar, B. M. and Showalter, J. M. (2010) Carbon sequestration in
591 agroforestry systems. Advances in agronomy, 108, 237-307.
592 Nath, A. J., Brahma, B., Sileshi, G. W. and Das, A. K. (2018) Impact of land use changes on
593 the storage of soil organic carbon in active and recalcitrant pools in a humid tropical
594 region of India. Science of the Total Environment, 624, 908-917
595 Newaj, R., Chaturvedi, O. P. and Handa, A. K. (2016) Recent development in agroforestry
596 research and its role in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indian Journal of
597 Agroforestry, 18, 1-9.
598 Panse, V. G., and Sukhatme, P. V. (1978) Statistical methods for agricultural workers. 3rd
599 ed., ICAR publications, New Delhi. pp,347.
600 Paul, E. A., Collins, H. P. and Leavitt, S. W. (2001) Dynamics of resistant soil carbon of
601 Midwestern agricultural soils measured by naturally occurring 14C abundance.
602 Geoderma, 104, 239-256.
603 Ramesh, T., Manjaiah, K.M., Mohopatra, K.P., Rajasekar, K. and Ngachan, S.V. (2015)
604 Assessment of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions under different agroforestry
605 systems in subtropical hill agroecosystems of north-east India. Agroforestry systems,
606 89, 677-690.

21
607 Rizvi, R. H., Newaj, R., Chaturvedi, O. P., Saxena, A., Karmakar, P. S. and Maurya, A.
608 (2018) State level assessment of area and carbon sequestration under agroforestry
609 systems for Karnataka, India. In Promotion of Agroforestry for Rural Income
610 Generation, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation conference paper, Central
611 Agroforestry Research Institute.
612 Sahoo, U. K., Singh, S. L., Gogoi, A., Kenye, A. and Sahoo, S. S. (2019) Active and passive
613 soil organic carbon pools as affected by different land use types in Mizoram,
614 Northeast India. PLOS ONE, 14, e0219969.
615 Santos, U. J., Duda, G. P., Marques, M. C., Valente de Medeiros, E., de Sousa Lima, J. R.,
616 Soares de Souza, E. and Hammecker, C. (2019) Soil organic carbon fractions and
617 humic substances are affected by land uses of Caatinga forest in Brazil. Arid Land
618 Research and Management, 33, 255-273.
619 Schollenberger, C.J. (1927) A rapid approximate method for determining soil organic matter.
620 Soil Science, 24, 65-68.
621 Singh, I., Rawat, P., Kumar, A. and Bhatt, P. (2018) Soil physico-bio-chemical properties
622 under different agroforestry systems in Terai region of the Garhwal Himalayas.
623 Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7, 2813-2821.
624 Singh, J., Singh, B. and Sharma, S. (2021) Comparison of soil carbon and nitrogen pools
625 among poplar and eucalyptus-based agroforestry systems in Punjab, India. Carbon
626 Management, 12, 693-708.
627 Solomon D, Lehmann J, Zech W (2000) Land use effects on soil organic matter properties of
628 chromic Luvisols in semi-arid northern Tanzania: carbon, nitrogen, lignin and
629 carbohydrates. Agricultural Ecosystem Environment, 78,2.
630 Tan, L. P., He, X. D., Wang, H. T., Zhang, N. and Gao, Y. B. (2008) Analysis of soil water
631 content in relation to accumulation of pedogenic calcium carbonate of Artemisia
632 ordosica community in Tengger Desert. Journal of Desert Research, 28, 701-705.
633 Tanwar, S. P. S., Kumar, P., Verma, A., Bhatt, R. K., Kumar, A., Lal, K. and Mathur, B. K.
634 (2019) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in the Indian arid zone.
635 Current Science, 117, 2014-2022
636 Thangavel, R., Kanchikerimath, M., Sudharsanam, A., Ayyanadar, A., Karunanithi, R.,
637 Deshmukh, N. A. and Vanao, N. S. (2018) Evaluating organic carbon fractions,
638 temperature sensitivity and artificial neural network modeling of CO2 efflux in soils:
639 Impact of land use change in subtropical India (Meghalaya). Ecological Indicators,
640 93, 129-141.

22
641 Tirol-Padre, A., and Ladha, J. K. (2004) Assessing the reliability of permanganate ‐oxidizable
642 carbon as an index of soil labile carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68,
643 969-978.
644 UNFCCC (2007) Report of the conference of parties on its thirteenth session, Bali, Indonesia.
645 United nations framework convention on climate change, Geneva.
646 UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Conference of the Parties Twenty-first
647 session Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015.
648 Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934 Rapid titration method of organic carbon of soils. Soil
649 Science, 37, 29-33.
650 Wang, Z., Guo, S., Sun, Q., Li, N., Jiang, J., Wang, R. and Zhao, M. (2015) Soil organic
651 carbon sequestration potential of artificial and natural vegetation in the hilly regions
652 of Loess Plateau. Ecological Engineering, 82, 547-554.
653

23