# Understanding Carbon Sequestration in Sugarcane Plant-soil System: Influence of Nutrient Integration Practices in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

Ajeet Kumar, Sunita Kumari Meena, Sanjay Kumar Singh, S K Sinha, Amrita K Kumari, A K Singh

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ajeet Kumar, Sunita Kumari Meena, Sanjay Kumar Singh, S K Sinha, Amrita K Kumari, et al. Understanding Carbon Sequestration in Sugarcane Plant-soil System: Influence of Nutrient Integration Practices in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Research Advances in Environment, Geography and Earth Science Vol. 9, 2024, pp.84-102. 10.9734/bpi/raeges/v9/1425. hal-04729436

HAL Id: hal-04729436

https://hal.science/hal-04729436v1

Submitted on 10 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Research Advances in Environment,
Geography and Earth Science

Vol. 9

*Edited by Prof. (Dr.) Aysun Turkmen*

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

BP International
Research Advances in
Environment, Geography
and Earth Science

Vol. 9
Research Advances in
Environment, Geography
and Earth Science

Vol. 9

India ■ United Kingdom

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

BP International
**Editor(s)**

Prof. (Dr.) Aysun Turkmen

Giresun University, Turkey.

FIRST EDITION 2024

ISBN 978-93-48006-84-4 (Print)

ISBN 978-93-48006-15-8 (eBook)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/raeges/v9

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

9 789348 006844

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

9 789348 006158
**Peer-Review Policy:** Advanced Open Peer Review policy has been followed for review. All manuscripts are thoroughly checked to prevent plagiarism. As per editorial policy, a minimum two peer-reviewers reviewed each manuscript. After review and revision of the manuscript, the Book Editor approved the manuscript for final publication.

**Book Editor(s)**

Prof. (Dr.) Aysun Turkmen

Giresun University, Turkey.

**Chapter 1**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Christine Wulandari, University of Lampung, Indonesia.

*Reviewers*

(1) Hafiza Ayesha Andleeb, The University of Lahore, Pakistan.

(2) Ravikumar Madugula, Chalapathi institute of Engineering and Technology, India.

(3) Canan Demir, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Turkey.

(4) Farzana Anjum, University of Bedfordshire, Bangladesh & York St John University, United Kingdom.

**Chapter 2**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Ravi Kant Chaturvedi, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.R. China.

*Reviewers*

(1) Chinedu Marcellino Ibegbulam, Heriot-Watt University, UK.

(2) S M Nazmuz Sakib, Switzerland.

(3) Jayakiran Reddy E, Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, India.

**Chapter 3**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Hani Rezgallah Al-Hamed Al-Amoush, Al al-Bayt University, Jordan.

*Reviewers*

(1) Sanjib Kumar Datta, University of Kalyani, India.

(2) Khalida A. Thejeel, Al-Karkh University of Science, Iraq.

**Chapter 4**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Gopal Krishan, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, India.

*Reviewers*

(1) Shweta B. Kukreti, Kerala Forest Research Institute Peechi, India.

(2) Anish MC, Kerala Agricultural University, India.

**Chapter 5**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Christine Wulandari, University of Lampung, Indonesia.

*Reviewers*

(1) Tajinder Kaur, Saroop Rani Government College for Women, India.

(2) Mahrous Abd El-Baset Attia, Field Crops Research Institute Agricultural Research Centre, Egypt.

**Chapter 6**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Hab. Mariusz Cycon, Medical University of Silesia, Poland.

*Reviewers*

(1) S. Suresh Pungaiah, Anna University, India.

(2) C.C. Hong, Hsiuping University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

**Chapter 7**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Hab. Mariusz Cycon, University of Silesia, Poland.

*Reviewers*

(1) Waad S. Faizy, Northern Technical University, Iraq.

(2) Elakiya N, TNAU, India.
**Chapter 8**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Gopal Krishan, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, India.

*Reviewers*

(1) Anand Verdhen, India.

(2) S N Abhishek, Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology, India.

**Chapter 9**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Nedim Özdemir, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Turkey.

*Reviewers*

(1) Farida Nur Rachmawati, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman, Indonesia.

(2) Richard O'Kennedy, DCU, Ireland.

**Chapter 10**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Christine Wulandari, University of Lampung, Indonesia.

*Reviewers*

(1) Ankit A. Yadav, India.

(2) Rabab I. Mahmoud, Egypt.

**Chapter 11**

*Approved by*

(1) Dr. Gopal Krishan, National Institute of Hydrology, India.

*Reviewers*

(1) M. Mohammed Mohaideen, Malla Reddy College of Engineering and Technology, India.

(2) Falana Samuel Olumide, Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria.
# Contents

<table><tr><td>About The Editor</td><td>i</td></tr><tr><td>Preface</td><td>ii</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 1<br>Disaster Risk Reduction of Mangrove Forest Destruction in East Kalimantan Province<br>Hairrun Jariah, Sukindar, Akas Pinaringan Sujalu and Lisa Astria Milasari</td><td>1-10</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 2<br>Agroforestry Systems Prevailing in Garhwal Himalayas: A Review<br>Sunil Prakash, Vishwajeet Sharma, Krishanakant Saklani and Chander Shekhar</td><td>11-18</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 3<br>Impact of Embankment Construction on Sedimentation and Ecosystems in the Ajoy River Basin<br>Hasibur Rahaman Molla</td><td>19-35</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 4<br>Reuse of Impregnated Wood-Possibilities and Limitations<br>Sezen Coşkun and Candan Kuş Sahin</td><td>36-45</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 5<br>Characteristics and Distribution of Soils in the Semiarid Basalt Landscape of Western India: A Case Study<br>S. A. Surwase and P. R. Kadu</td><td>46-61</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 6<br>Identifying Factors Influencing Medium Density Fiberboard Production from Young Eucalyptus grandis, E. amplifolia, Corymbia torelliana and Cottonwood<br>S. A. Surwase and P. R. Kadu</td><td>62-83</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 7<br>Understanding Carbon Sequestration in Sugarcane Plant-soil System: Influence of Nutrient Integration Practices in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India<br>Ajeet Kumar, Sunita Kumari Meena, Sanjay Kumar Singh, S. K. Sinha, Amrita Kumari and A. K. Singh</td><td>84-102</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 8<br>Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network Optimization Using Cluster Analysis: A Case Study of the Gareh-Baygone Aquifer, Shib-Kuh Plain, Shur Watershed of Iran<br>Hamid Hosseinimarandi, Mohammad Mahdavi, Hassan Ahmadi, Baharak Motamedvaziri and Abdolali Adelpur</td><td>103-120</td></tr></table>
Chapter 9 121-145

Water Quality of Ikop Lake and Its Peripheral Fish Farms of
Manipur, India: A Comparative Assessment

Thoudam Bidyarani Devi, Waikhom Mema Devi
and R. K. Rajeshwori Devi

Chapter 10 146-158

Enhancing Silk Fabric with Eco-friendly Natural Dyes: A
Comparative Study

Nisha Joseph, Deepthi A.S. and Rupika N.

Chapter 11 159-166

Clay-TiO₂ Composite as a Sustainable Solution for Wastewater
Treatment: A Case Study of the Marais Masay Lake of
Madagascar

Andrianainarivelo Mahandrimanana, Rasolomampianina Rado
and Andriamirindramanana Herison Lunard
# Understanding Carbon Sequestration in Sugarcane Plant-soil System: Influence of Nutrient Integration Practices in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

Ajeet Kumar a++, Sunita Kumari Meena a#,
Sanjay Kumar Singh b#, S. K. Sinha c†,
Amrita Kumari d# and A. K. Singh a‡

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/raeges/v9/1425

**Peer-Review History:**

This chapter was reviewed by following the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. This chapter was thoroughly checked to prevent plagiarism. As per editorial policy, a minimum of two peer-reviewers reviewed the manuscript. After review and revision of the manuscript, the Book Editor approved the manuscript for final publication. Peer review comments, comments of the editor(s), etc. are available here: https://peerreviewarchive.com/review-history/1425

## ABSTRACT

Sugarcane is a versatile crop with significant potential for carbon sequestration in both soil and plants. This study assessed the carbon sequestration in planted sugarcane and rhizospheric soil under various nutrient management practices. According to the IPCC, rising global temperatures due to GHG emissions are a primary cause of global warming. To stabilize global temperatures, it is essential to mitigate anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and enhance the sequestration of surplus atmospheric CO₂ in plants and soil. Sugarcane cultivation plays a crucial role in this process, as it is a C₄ plant with high efficiency in utilizing CO₂ during photosynthesis. One approach to enhance CO₂ capture is through improved nutrient management practices, which can increase chlorophyll synthesis and nitrogen efficiency in sugarcane. Different treatment compositions can enhance photosynthesis, leading to greater CO₂ capture. Consequently, sugarcane crops and their rhizospheric soils act as important carbon sinks, contributing to atmospheric decarbonization and global cooling.

<footnote>a Department of Soil Science, Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)-848125, Bihar, India.</footnote>

<footnote>b Department of Soil Science, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur, India.</footnote>

<footnote>c Regional Research Station, Madhopur, West Champaran, Bihar-845454, India.</footnote>

<footnote>d Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur-813210, India.</footnote>

<footnote>e Assistant Professor-cum-Scientist (Sr. Scale);</footnote>

<footnote>f Assistant Professor;</footnote>

<footnote>g Associate Professor;</footnote>

<footnote>h Director;</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: E-mail: ajeet.sri@rpcau.ac.in;</footnote>
**Soil Properties and Carbon Storage:** The study results indicated that soil physical and chemical properties varied significantly among treatments due to the application of different organic amendments. Soil organic carbon (SOC) was analyzed and ranged from 0.47% to 0.67%. The different organic amendment treatments notably improved soil bulk density, porosity, and carbon storage.

**Plant Carbon Storage:** Carbon stocks in various sugarcane plant parts, including roots, shoots, and leaves, were significantly different across treatments. The highest carbon stock was found in leaves (877.08 kg ha⁻¹) under T6, followed by roots (668.74 kg ha⁻¹) in T2, and shoots (422.77 kg ha⁻¹) in T5. This indicates that leaves stored 30.41% and 107.58% more carbon than roots and shoots, respectively, while roots stored 58.18% more carbon than shoots. The total carbon storage in sugarcane biomass, including aboveground and belowground parts, varied significantly across treatments. The mean carbon storage in aboveground parts (leaves and stalks) was significantly higher (1239.65 kg ha⁻¹) than in underground parts (roots) at 621.73 kg ha⁻¹. These findings demonstrate that sugarcane farming practices can effectively enhance carbon sequestration, contributing to climate change mitigation. The sugarcane crop and rhizospheric soils act as important carbon sinks in the decarbonisation of the atmosphere, ultimately reducing carbon levels and causing global cooling.

Keywords: Sugarcane; carbon storage; climate change; photosynthesis; carbon sequestration.

# 1. INTRODUCTION

Carbon sequestration is an important process in this recent climate change scenario which can be defined as the "Process of transferring CO₂ from the atmosphere into the soil of a land unit through a unit plant, plant residues and other organic solids, which are stored or retained in the unit as part of the soil organic matter (humus). The sequestrated SOC process should increase the net SOC storage during and at the end of a study to above the previous pre-treatment baseline [1,2]. Sugarcane is an important agro-industrial crop and belongs to the Poaceae family [3]. Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is a perennial grass cultivated commercially in over 90 countries with a widespread global area of approximately 26×10⁶ ha and a worldwide harvest of 1.83 billion tonnes [4]. It is cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions and it is the most produced agricultural commodity worldwide [5]. Sugarcane is mainly used for sugar production. It is also used for livestock feeding and producing ethanol as a biofuel [6]. However, the capability of sugarcane crops being C₄ plants to sequestrate carbon into plants and soil is of great importance. The leading cause of climate change is greenhouse gasses (GHGs), including carbon dioxide (CO₂) mainly emitted from human's unsustainable activities [7,8]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [9] reported that the temperature of the Earth's surface is expected to rise by 1.4°C to 5.8°C at the end of the century, due to GHG emissions and global warming, so in order to stabilize the global temperature, the anthropogenic CO₂ has to be mitigated [10] and the surplus atmospheric CO₂ in plants and soil have to be sunk, under this circumstance, sugarcane cultivation plays pivotal role in utilizing CO₂ from
atmosphere since it is a C4 plant having high efficiency of utilizing solar radiation and consuming more amount of CO2 during photosynthesis. Certain interventions are helpful in enhancing CO2 capture by the nutrient integration strategy which ultimately enhances chlorophyll synthesis by way of increasing nitrogen efficiency [8]. The sustainable approaches might be enhancing the CO2 capture by sugarcane farming [11,12]. The cropland soils act as important carbon sinks [13] which play a potential role in the reduction of atmospheric carbon [14]. Previous studies have indicated that leaving sugarcane leaves and trash on soil, improves the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil [15]. Mulching with the sugarcane residues on the soil improves soil biological activity [16], decreases soil bulk density [17], enhances soil aggregation & infiltration rate [18] and reduces gas emissions compared to the traditional burning of crop residue after harvesting. A farm with burned residues had 30% lower carbon content particulate organic matter and microbial biomass carbon than those of a farm where the trash and residues were left on the soil [19]. A survey also showed that leaving the sugarcane residue biomasses in the soil returned a remarkable organic matter compared to the soils where the sugarcane residues were burned [20]. On the other hand, heavy sugarcane biomass in the above and underground parts of the soils could act as important pools for carbon sequestration and consequently enhance the mitigation of climate change impacts [8]. However, there is not much research carried out on the capability of carbon sequestration in sugarcane farms in India. This study therefore was conducted to examine the status of carbon sequestration in sugarcane farmlands in Bihar. The total area of sugarcane cultivation is about 3.15 lakh ha in a flat plain managed with a plant cultivation system in Bihar. As per the mean value of carbon stored by sugarcane farming @1861.37 kg/ha only Bihar state can sequester carbon up to 586.33 M kg/ha through sugarcane farming. The different treatment composition enhances photosynthesis where more CO2 has been captured. Under this study, the carbon sequestration in planted sugarcane and soil under different nutrient management practices was assessed [8]. This chapter is written with the objectives as to estimate carbon storage in sugarcane plants and soil systems: to evaluate the changes in soil physical, chemical and biological properties; as well as correlation study among soil properties and carbon storage.

## 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

### 2.1 Experimental Site and Treatment Details

The experiment was conducted at the Chhawaniya experimental farm in the year 2022-2023 near the Burhi Gandak river in Bihar, India, situated at coordinates 26.0039° N, 85.6753° E. at an altitude of 52.0 m above sea level. This site experiences an annual rainfall of 1909 mm, a relative humidity of 80.45%, and an average temperature of 22.45 °C. This site falls within the ustic moisture regime of the subtropical region of India. The experimental soil is classified as Entisols order, Fluvents suborder and Typic Ustifluvent great group [8].
The experiment was conducted with eight treatments and three replications in a randomized complete design, the treatment details are as follows [8]:

<table><thead><tr><td>Treatments No.</td><td>Details</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T1</td><td>Control</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>FYM @ 20 t ha<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>BC @20 t ha<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>T4</td><td>VC @ 5.0 t/ha</td></tr><tr><td>T5:</td><td>GM with mung</td></tr><tr><td>T6:</td><td>ST @ 10 t ha<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>T7:</td><td>FYM + BC+ VC</td></tr><tr><td>T8:</td><td>RDF</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Abbreviation list or complete names): FYM: Farm Yard Manure; BC: Biocompost; VC: vermicompost; GM: green manure; ST: sugarcane trash

## 2.2 Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis

The soil samples were randomly collected at 0- 30 cm top layer and soil organic carbon was analysed in laboratory following the standard Procedure [21]. Simultaneously, both aboveground and underground parts of sugarcane plants (at the harvesting growth stage) were sampled and the carbon content of each part was measured separately. The total soil organic carbon and sequestrated carbon in plant parts like root, stem and leaves were analysed. The air-dried soil samples were sieved through a 2-mm screen and prepared for analysis in the soil laboratory. Soil texture was determined using the hydrometer method [8]. Soil pH was determined using an electric pH meter [22] and electrical conductivity (EC) was determined from a soil-water (1:1) suspension using an electric conductivity meter [23,8]. Soil bulk density was determined using a core sampler of 8 cm diameter and soil organic carbon (SOC) was measured using the wet titration method [24].

## 2.3 Plant Sampling Laboratory Analysis

Five plant samples were taken from each treatment randomly, each within an area of 1 m² before the harvesting. The plant samples were weighted immediately to estimate the ground biomass. The leaves and stems were subsequently separated and dried in an oven at 65°C till get the two constant weigh and then re-weighted. The plant's underground parts including roots and basal parts were also sampled within a depth of 0-60 cm and dried in an oven and then weighted accordingly. In order to determine plant organic carbon, the leaves, stems and roots were hammer-milled to pass through a 0.5 mm sieve [8]. The carbon content was then determined using a CHNS (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Sulfur) analyzer and the mean values were used for the statistical analysis using the ANOVA procedure.
# 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

## 3.1 Soil Properties and Carbon Storage

The soil's physical properties under different treatments are summarized in Table 1. The treatments include various organic amendments such as FYM, BC, VC, GM with mung, and ST, as well as inorganic amendments. The soil's physical parameters like sand, silt, and clay composition, moisture content, bulk density and pore space, and mechanical resistance were recorded. Across all treatments, the soil composition in terms of sand, silt, and clay content showed minimal variation [8]. However, it is noteworthy that treatments involving organic amendments generally exhibited slightly higher sand content compared to the control and RDF treatments. Conversely, clay content was slightly higher in treatments involving ST and RDF compared to organic amendment treatments. These variations, although minor, might have implications for soil structure and water retention capacity. The moisture content of the soil varied significantly among treatments, with FYM + BC + VC treatment showing the highest moisture content (42.15%) followed by ST (44.97%) and VC (43.21%) [8]. Conversely, the control treatment exhibited the lowest moisture content (36.42%). This indicates that organic amendments, particularly a combination of FYM, BC, and VC, can significantly improve soil moisture retention, which is crucial for plant growth and drought resistance. The finding is in accordance with the work of Mishra et al. [25]. Bulk density, an indicator of soil compaction, was notably lower in treatments involving organic amendments compared to the control and RDF treatments. Among the organic amendments, BC and FYM + BC + VC treatments exhibited the lowest bulk density, suggesting improved soil structure and porosity. This was further supported by higher pore space percentages observed in these treatments, indicating better aeration and water infiltration capacities [8]. The bulk density and pore space reported in this study are consistent with previous research findings [26], which suggest that organic amendments positively influence to decrease bulk density and increase macro-porosity in soils. Mechanical resistance, representing soil strength or compaction, showed considerable variation among treatments. BC treatment exhibited the lowest mechanical resistance (1.54 MPa), indicating softer and less compacted soil, while the control treatment showed the highest resistance (1.65 MPa). This suggests that organic amendments, particularly BC, can mitigate soil compaction and improve soil workability, facilitating root growth and nutrient uptake Sharifi et al. [27]. Overall, the results demonstrate that organic amendments, especially a combination of FYM, BC, and VC, positively influence soil physical properties, enhancing moisture retention, reducing compaction, and improving soil structure and porosity [8]. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating organic inputs practices in promoting sustainable soil management and enhancing sugarcane productivity that ultimately sequester more carbon from the atmosphere.
## 3.2 Chemical Properties of Rhizospheric Soil under Experimental Field

Table 2 presents the soil chemical properties and the organic carbon storage (SOC) in rhizospheric soil of planted sugarcane under different treatments [8].

## 3.3 pH and Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The pH values of the soil ranged from 8.14 to 8.59 across different treatments, indicating alkaline soil conditions. There were no significant differences in pH among treatments, suggesting that the application of organic amendments or RDF did not significantly alter soil acidity. Similarly, EC values varied slightly among treatments, reflecting variations in soil salinity levels [8]. Overall, the soil remained within acceptable ranges for sugarcane cultivation. The optimal soil pH for sugarcane can range from slightly acidic to alkaline, depending on the specific conditions of the plantation. Organic matters help optimizing the pH of soil making it suitable for the uptake of nutrients, this is similar with the work of Rusli et al. [28].

## 3.4 Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) and its Carbon Storage

The soil organic carbon content ranged from 0.47% to 0.67% across treatments, with the highest value observed in the sugarcane trash treatment and the lowest in the FYM + BC + VC treatment. However, when considering SOC storage, which takes into account soil depth and bulk density, the ST treatment exhibited the highest SOC storage (1376.85 t/ha), followed by VC (1174.50 t/ha) and RDF (1287.00 t/ha). Conversely, the FYM + BC + VC treatment showed the lowest SOC storage (902.40 t/ha). These results suggest that incorporating ST or VC can significantly enhance SOC storage, contributing to soil fertility and carbon sequestration [8]. Soil organic carbon is affected directly by farm management practices such as crop type, manure application, tillage intensities, irrigation efficiency, harvesting approaches and the life period of crop plants [29,30]. It has been reported that soil texture particularly clay content has a key role in the capability of soil carbon sequestration [31]. This is consistent with the results reported by Ghanbarian et al. [32] and Sadeghi and Raeini [12]. However, according to another research, soil bulk density and sand content had negative effects on soil carbon storage. This result is in accordance with the results of a study conducted by Suman et al. [33] who reported that a reduction in soil bulk density would lead to an increase in SOC of sugarcane farms [8]. It seems that the differences in chemical and physical properties of soil in different nutrient management as outlined above might have caused the considerable differences in soil organic carbon content.

## 3.5 Available Macro and Secondary Nutrients

The availability of nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sulphur (S) varied among treatments while there were no significant differences in available N among treatments, ST @ 10 t ha⁻¹ treatment exhibited
significantly lower available phosphorus compared to other treatments. The sugarcane trash treatment exhibited the highest levels of available N (284.36 kg/ha), available P (24.48kg/ha), available K (193.05 kg/ha), and available S (16.98 mg/kg), indicating efficient nutrient cycling and decomposition of organic matter [8]. Conversely, the FYM + BC + VC treatment showed the lowest levels of available nutrients, suggesting potential limitations in nutrient release and availability. These findings highlight the importance of selecting appropriate organic amendments to meet the nutrient requirements of sugarcane crops. Conversely, RDF treatment showed the highest available phosphorus content. Available potassium content was highest in ST @ 10 t ha⁻¹ treatment, while available sulphur content showed no significant differences among treatments. Overall, the results demonstrate that organic amendments, particularly ST and VC, can positively influence soil chemical properties, enhance SOC storage, and improve nutrient availability. However, the effectiveness of organic amendments may vary depending on factors such as application rate, soil type, and environmental conditions [8].

## 3.6 Carbon Sequestration in Different Cane Parts

The plant-sequestered carbon (kg ha⁻¹) content in different plant parts of planted sugarcane under various treatments is summarized in Table 3. The below-ground carbon storage, primarily in roots, ranged from 586.45 to 668.74 kg ha⁻¹ across treatments. The highest below-ground carbon storage was observed in the FYM @ 20 t ha⁻¹ treatment, while the control treatment exhibited the lowest storage [8]. Treatments involving organic amendments generally showed higher below-ground carbon storage compared to the control and RDF treatments. The above-ground carbon storage, including stems and leaves, ranged from 398.77 to 422.77 kg ha⁻¹ for stems and 779.14 to 872.15 kg ha⁻¹ for leaves across treatments. The highest above-ground carbon storage in stems was observed in the ST @ 10 t ha⁻¹ treatment, while the highest storage in leaves was observed in the BC @ 20 t ha⁻¹ treatment. Again, treatments involving organic amendments generally showed higher above-ground carbon storage compared to the control and RDF treatments. The results of this study also indicated that sugarcane leaves and roots had higher carbon storage than shoots (Table 3). Several studies have found that perennial plants with woody organs had a higher potential to reserve organic carbon compared to annual plants [32]. Overall, 1291.82 kg ha⁻¹ (66%)) carbon storage belonged to the above-ground plant organs of T6 and 668.74 kg ha⁻¹ belonged to the roots of sugarcane of T2 showing the considerable carbon storage capability of sugarcane [8]. The total stored carbon above ground, comprising stems and leaves, ranged from 1201.91 to 1291.82 kg ha⁻¹ across treatments. The highest total stored carbon above ground was observed in the ST @ 10 t ha⁻¹ treatment. Additionally, the total stored carbon (combining below-ground and above-ground carbon) ranged from 1774.11 to 1947.19 kg ha⁻¹, with the highest value observed in the ST @ 10 t ha⁻¹ treatment. The carbon sequestration values reported in this study align with previous research findings [34], which suggest that organic amendments positively influence carbon storage in agricultural systems. Overall, the results indicate that treatments involving organic amendments contribute to higher
carbon sequestration in both below-ground and above-ground cane parts compared to conventional treatments. This highlights the importance of organic farming practices in enhancing carbon sequestration potential in sugarcane cultivation, which can contribute to mitigating climate change impacts. However, further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of these treatments on carbon sequestration and soil health [8].

### 3.7 Correlation Coefficients among Different Soil Properties and SOC

Table 4 displays correlation coefficients among different soil properties and the Soil Organic Carbon (SOC %) in the given dataset [8]. Correlation coefficients range from -1 to 1, where -1 indicates a strong negative correlation, 1 indicates a strong positive correlation, and 0 suggests no correlation. Sand (%) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between sand content and SOC% is -0.03448, indicating a very weak negative correlation. This suggests that there is little to no relationship between the sand content in the soil and the percentage of soil organic carbon Arunrat et al. [35]. Silt (%) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between silt content and SOC% is -0.19752, indicating a weak negative correlation. There is a slight tendency for higher silt content to be associated with lower SOC% [36]. Clay (%) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between clay content and SOC% is 0.243831, indicating a weak positive correlation. This suggests that higher clay content in the soil may be associated with a slightly higher percentage of SOC. Moisture (%) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between soil moisture and SOC% is 0.332486, indicating a moderate positive correlation. This suggests that as soil moisture increases, there may be a tendency for higher SOC%. Bulk Density (gcm⁻³) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between bulk density and SOC% is -0.13615, indicating a weak negative correlation [8]. There is a slight tendency for higher bulk density to be associated with lower SOC%. Pore Space (%) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between pore space and SOC% is 0.225035, indicating a weak positive correlation. This suggests that higher pore space in the soil may be associated with a slightly higher percentage of Soil Organic Carbon. Mechanical Resistance (Mpa) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between mechanical resistance and SOC% is -0.19117, indicating a weak negative correlation. There is a slight tendency for higher mechanical resistance to be associated with lower SOC%. pH and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between pH and SOC% is 0.535278, indicating a moderate positive correlation. This suggests that higher pH levels in the soil may be associated with a higher percentage of SOC. EC (dSm⁻¹) and SOC (%): The correlation coefficient between electrical conductivity (EC) and SOC% is -0.37008, indicating a moderate negative correlation. This suggests that higher electrical conductivity may be associated with lower SOC%. In summary, while some correlations are weak, the results suggest that soil properties such as clay content, soil moisture, pH, and electrical conductivity may have some influence on the percentage of SOC in the given dataset [37-39,8].
<table><caption>Table 1. Effect of different organic and inorganic amendments on soil physical properties under sugarcane cultivation</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatments</th><th>Sand (%)</th><th>Silt (%)</th><th>Clay (%)</th><th>Moisture content (%)</th><th>Bulk density (gcm<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>Pore Space (%)</th><th>Mechanical Resistance (Mpa)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T<sub>1</sub></td><td>31.83</td><td>54.75</td><td>13.42</td><td>36.42</td><td>1.37</td><td>45.42</td><td>1.65</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>2</sub></td><td>32.86</td><td>53.89</td><td>13.25</td><td>41.08</td><td>1.39</td><td>46.16</td><td>1.74</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>3</sub></td><td>33.13</td><td>53.61</td><td>13.26</td><td>43.92</td><td>1.32</td><td>45.65</td><td>1.54</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>4</sub></td><td>31.63</td><td>54.12</td><td>14.25</td><td>43.21</td><td>1.35</td><td>47.49</td><td>1.63</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>5</sub></td><td>32.16</td><td>55.69</td><td>12.15</td><td>39.56</td><td>1.36</td><td>46.25</td><td>1.59</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>6</sub></td><td>32.65</td><td>53.23</td><td>14.12</td><td>44.97</td><td>1.34</td><td>46.53</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>7</sub></td><td>31.73</td><td>53.83</td><td>14.44</td><td>42.15</td><td>1.28</td><td>45.13</td><td>1.52</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>8</sub></td><td>31.15</td><td>54.89</td><td>13.96</td><td>38.45</td><td>1.32</td><td>45.18</td><td>1.58</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Value</td><td>32.14</td><td>54.25</td><td>13.60</td><td>41.22</td><td>1.34</td><td>45.97</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>SEm ±</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.49</td><td>1.31</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>CD (P=0.05)</td><td>2.1</td><td>1.98</td><td>1.26</td><td>3.98</td><td>0.09</td><td>2.38</td><td>0.08</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: T1: Control; T2: FYM @ 20 t ha-1; T3: BC @20 t ha-1; T4: VC @ 5.0 t/ha; T5: GM with mung; T6: ST @ 10 t ha-1; T7: FYM + BC + VC; T8: RDF. (Abbreviations or complete first time)
<table><caption>Table 2. Effect of different organic and inorganic amendments on soil chemical properties and soil organic carbon storage of planted sugarcane field</caption><thead><tr><th>Treatments</th><th>pH<br>(1:2.5)</th><th>EC<br>(dSm<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>SOC<br>(%)</th><th>Soil organic<br>carbon storage*<br>(t/ha)</th><th>Available N<br>(kg/ha)</th><th>Available P<br>(kg/ha)</th><th>Available K<br>(kg/ha)</th><th>Available S<br>(mg/kg)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T<sub>1</sub></td><td>8.14</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.51</td><td>1025.51</td><td>254.18</td><td>22.04</td><td>139.62</td><td>15.69</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>2</sub></td><td>8.16</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.49</td><td>1021.65</td><td>219.32</td><td>19.15</td><td>120.59</td><td>14.38</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>3</sub></td><td>8.15</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.59</td><td>1168.20</td><td>228.04</td><td>23.23</td><td>151.62</td><td>15.29</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>4</sub></td><td>8.53</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.58</td><td>1174.50</td><td>284.36</td><td>22.98</td><td>152.38</td><td>16.49</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>5</sub></td><td>8.59</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.53</td><td>1081.20</td><td>235.42</td><td>24.48</td><td>123.69</td><td>16.98</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>6</sub></td><td>8.49</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.67</td><td>1376.85</td><td>168.52</td><td>21.14</td><td>172.32</td><td>16.42</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>7</sub></td><td>8.16</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.47</td><td>902.40</td><td>238.26</td><td>18.98</td><td>152.18</td><td>15.93</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>8</sub></td><td>8.43</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.65</td><td>1287.00</td><td>258.04</td><td>21.09</td><td>193.05</td><td>13.04</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Value</td><td><strong>8.33</strong></td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td><strong>1129.66</strong></td><td><strong>235.77</strong></td><td><strong>21.63</strong></td><td><strong>150.68</strong></td><td><strong>15.53</strong></td></tr><tr><td>SEm ±</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.05</td><td>39.51</td><td>9.4</td><td>0.97</td><td>5.79</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>CD<br>(P=0.05)</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.16</td><td>138.9</td><td>28.20</td><td>2.92</td><td>17.93</td><td>1.97</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*Soil organic carbon storage (t/ha) = 1 ha × soil depth (m) × soil bulk density (g/cm³) × SOC (%)</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 3. Effect of different organic and inorganic amendments on plant sequestered carbon (kg ha⁻¹) in different parts of planted sugarcane</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Treatments</th><th colspan="5">Stored carbon (kg ha⁻¹)</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Below ground</th><th rowspan="2">Total stored carbon above ground</th><th rowspan="2">Total stored carbon (kg ha⁻¹)</th></tr><tr><th>Roots</th><th>Stems</th><th>Stem+ leaf</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T1</td><td>586.45</td><td>403.12</td><td>784.54</td><td>1187.66</td><td>1774.11</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>668.74</td><td>420.12</td><td>785.48</td><td>1205.6</td><td>1874.34</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>598.12</td><td>398.77</td><td>872.15</td><td>1270.92</td><td>1869.04</td></tr><tr><td>T4</td><td>645.31</td><td>405.87</td><td>862.31</td><td>1268.18</td><td>1913.49</td></tr><tr><td>T5</td><td>616.69</td><td>422.77</td><td>779.14</td><td>1201.91</td><td>1818.60</td></tr><tr><td>T6</td><td>655.37</td><td>414.74</td><td>877.08</td><td>1291.82</td><td>1947.19</td></tr><tr><td>T7</td><td>596.53</td><td>419.64</td><td>867.14</td><td>1286.78</td><td>1883.31</td></tr><tr><td>T8</td><td>606.61</td><td>412.15</td><td>792.15</td><td>1204.3</td><td>1810.91</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Value</td><td>621.73</td><td>412.15</td><td>827.50</td><td>1239.65</td><td>1861.37</td></tr><tr><td>SEm ±</td><td>17.29</td><td>7.97</td><td>24.61</td><td>26.31</td><td>49.51</td></tr><tr><td>CD (P=0.05)</td><td>53.82</td><td>23.78</td><td>73.63</td><td>84.23</td><td>163.32</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4. Correlation coefficients among different soil properties and SOC%</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sand (%)</th><th>Silt (%)</th><th>Clay (%)</th><th>Moisture (%)</th><th>Bulk density (gcm<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>Pore Space (%)</th><th>Mechanical Resistance (Mpa)</th><th>pH (1:2.5)</th><th>EC (dSm<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>SOC (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sand (%)</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Silt (%)</td><td>-0.50443</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Clay (%)</td><td>-0.3725</td><td>-0.61342</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moisture (%)</td><td>0.522121</td><td>-0.77546</td><td>0.355895</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bulk density (gcm<sup>-3</sup>)</td><td>0.28321</td><td>0.25712</td><td>-0.53539</td><td>-0.31101</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pore Space (%)</td><td>0.165652</td><td>-0.14636</td><td>0.005791</td><td>0.478477</td><td>0.448434</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mechanical Resistance (Mpa)</td><td>0.206593</td><td>0.013519</td><td>-0.20349</td><td>-0.23237</td><td>0.900452</td><td>0.387794</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>pH (1:2.5)</td><td>-0.30522</td><td>0.36479</td><td>-0.11291</td><td>0.144917</td><td>0.101304</td><td>0.601097</td><td>-0.06322</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EC (dSm<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>-0.72655</td><td>0.78556</td><td>-0.17978</td><td>-0.91598</td><td>0.115572</td><td>-0.36154</td><td>0.039509</td><td>-0.0564</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SOC (%)</td><td>-0.03448</td><td>-0.19752</td><td>0.243831</td><td>0.332486</td><td>-0.13615</td><td>0.225035</td><td>-0.19117</td><td>0.535278</td><td>-0.37008</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4. CONCLUSION

The findings of this study underscore the potential of sugarcane cultivation as a substantial carbon pool in India. Through the accumulation of high biomass and the retention of crop residues on the soil surface, sugarcane cultivation contributes to carbon storage, soil protection against erosion and enhancement of crop productivity [8]. It is concluded that a promising effect of sugarcane cultivation on carbon sequestration, with significant improvements in soil physical and chemical properties due to the application of various organic amendments occurs. Moreover, the carbon storage in different parts of the sugarcane plant demonstrates the efficacy of sugarcane farming practices in carbon sequestration. However, to fully validate these findings, it is imperative to continue this study over multiple cycles of sugarcane cultivation, including ratoon crops. Overall, sugarcane farming emerges as an effective strategy for carbon sequestration, contributing to the mitigation of climate change impacts and the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels. Thus the sugarcane crop and rhizospheric soils act as important carbon sinks in decarbonization of the atmosphere that ultimately reduces carbon levels and causes global cooling.

## DISCLAIMER

This paper is an extended version of a preprint document of the same author.
The preprint document is available in this link:
Available: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4092023/v1/4ecb78e4-b5a5-4dba-a247-4c55cbdf55f3.pdf

[As per journal policy, preprint article can be published as a journal article, provided it is not published in any other journal].

## DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)

Author(s) hereby declare that NO generative AI technologies such as Large Language Models (ChatGPT, COPILOT, etc) and text-to-image generators have been used during writing or editing of this manuscript.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Director, Sugarcane Research Institute, RPCAU, Pusa, for the approval of the Institute Project, entitled S.S.4.5.2: "Impact of nutrient management practices in sugarcane on carbon sequestration in plant-soil system" and for their financial support.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
REFERENCES

1. Tiefenbacher A, Sandén T, Haslmayr HP, Miloczki J, Wenzel W, Spiegel H. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. 2021 Apr 29;11(5):882.

2. Olson KR, Al-Kaisi MM, Lal R, Lowery B. Experimental consideration, treatments, and methods in determining soil organic carbon Sequestration Rates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2014;78:348–360.

3. Cheavegatti-Gianotto A, De Abreu HM, Arruda P, Bespalhok Filho JC, Burnquist WL, Creste S, et al. Sugarcane (Saccharum x officinarum): A reference study for the regulation of genetically modified cultivars in Brazil. Trop Plant Biol 4: 62–89.

4. Anaya CA, Huber-Sannwald E. Long-term soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics after conversion of tropical forest to traditional sugarcane agriculture in East Mexico. Soil and Tillage Research. 2015;147:20–29.

5. Formann S, Hahn A, Janke L, Stinner W, Sträuber H, Logroño W, Nikolausz M. Beyond sugar and ethanol production: value generation opportunities through sugarcane residues. Frontiers in Energy Research. 2020 Nov 27;8:579577.

6. Goldenberg J. Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Science. 2007;315(5813):808-810. Graham MH, Haynes RJ, Meyer JH. Soil organic matter content and quality: effects of fertilizer applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2002;34(1):93-102.

7. D'Alessandro DM, Smit B, Long JR. Carbon dioxide capture: prospects for new materials. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2010;49(35): 6058-6082.

8. Kumar, Ajeet, Meena SK, Singh SK, Sinha SK, Singh AK. Carbon sequestration in sugarcane plant - soil system as influenced by nutrient integration practices under Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology (JABB). 2024; 27(5):116–125.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/jabb/2024/v27i5769

9. IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press. 2015; 3:1435.

10. Davis SJ, Caldeira K, Matthews HD. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science. 2010; 329(5997): 1330-1333.

11. Scharlemann JP, Tanner EV, Hiederer R, Kapos V. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management. 2014; 5(1):81-91.

12. Kumar A, Singh SK, Meena SK, Sinha SK, Rana L. Groundwater contamination with nitrate and human health risk assessment of North East alluvial plains of Bihar. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2024;14(3):17–31.
Available:https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i34016.

13. Nadeu E, Gobin A, Fiener P, Van Wesemael B, Van Oost K. Modelling the impact of agricultural management on soil carbon stocks at the regional
scale: The role of lateral fluxes. Global Change Biology. 2015;21(8):3181-3192.

14. Lal R. World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon. Advances in Agronomy. 2001;71:145-191.

15. Kumar A. Spatial Distribution of Macro- and Micro- Nutrients in soils of Saharsa district of Bihar. An Asian Journal of Soil Science (An International Refereed Research Journal). 2015;10(2):276-282.

16. Yadav RL, Prasad SR, Singh R, Srivastava VK. Recycling sugarcane trash to conserve soil organic carbon for sustaining yields of successive ratoon crops in sugarcane. Bioresource Technology. 1994;49(3):231-235.

17. Tominaga TT, Cassaro FAM, Bacchi OOS, Reichardt K, Oliveira JCM, Timm LC. Variability of soil water content and bulk density in a sugarcane field. Soil Research. 2002;40(4):604-614.

18. Kumar Ajeet, Maurya BR. Efficacy of phosphate solubilising fungi on acidity and solubilisation of tricalcium phosphate in broth. Plant Archive. 2006;6(1):309-311.

19. Alireza Azizi, Gholamabbas Ghanbarian, Ali Hassanli, Mahmoud Shomeili. Carbon sequestration in sugarcane plant and soil with different cultivation systems, Iran Agricultural Research. 2020;38(2):47-54. magiran.com/p2124820.

20. De Figueiredo EB, Panosso AR, Romão R, La Scala N. Greenhouse gas emission associated with sugar production in southern Brazil. Carbon Balance and Management. 2010;5(1):3.

21. Kumar, Ajeet, Chattopadhyay S, Meena SK. Soil Fertility Assessment of Sugarcane Growing Villages in Samastipur District of Bihar. Environment and Ecology. 2023;41(2):759-764.
Available:https://doc.article-environmentandecology.com/external/file/15vy05a767e7a4e17435695f722fc209e2248.

22. Bouyoucos GJ. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agronomy Journal. 1962;54(5):464-465.

23. Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI; 1982.

24. Walkley A, Black CA. An examination of the digestion method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modifications of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science. 1934;37:29-38.

25. Carter MR. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press; 2008.

26. Kumar Ajeet, Paswan D. Response of pea (Pisum sativum L.) to Rhizobium inoculation and nitrogen application in soils of North East Alluvial plains of Bihar. An Asian Journal of Soil Science (An International Refereed Research Journal). 2015;10(2):252-258.

27. Singh S.K, Pal S, Singh P, Tiwari S, Kashiwar SR, Kumar A. Spatial Variability of Soil Chemical Properties in Patna, Vaishali and Saran Districts Adjoining the Ganga River, Bihar, India. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, IJBSM. March 2022;13(3):283-291.

Available:https://doi.org/10.23910/1.2022.2654.
28. Sharifi MA, Mohsenimanesh A. Soil mechanical resistance measurement by an unique multi-cone tips horizontal sensor. Int. Agrophysics. 2011;26.

29. Rusli LS, Abdullah R, Yaacob JS, Osman N. Organic amendments effects on nutrient uptake, secondary metabolites, and antioxidant properties of *Melastoma malabathricum* L. Plants (Basel). 2022; 6; 11(2):153.

30. West TO, Marland G. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: Comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2002;91(1-3):217-232.

31. Smith P. Carbon sequestration in croplands: The potential in Europe and the global context. European Journal of Agronomy. 2004;20(3):229-236.

32. Reeder JD, Schuman GE. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed-grass and short-grass rangelands. Environmental Pollution. 2002;116(3):457-463.

33. Ghanbarian G, Hassanli A, Rajabi V. Comparing potential carbon sequestration of different parts of mountain almond and grape plants and soil in Fars province. Journal of Natural Environment. 2015;68(2):257265.

34. Suman A, Singh KP, Singh P, Yadav RL. Carbon input, loss and storage in sub-tropical Indian Inceptisol under multi-ratooning sugarcane. Soil and Tillage Research. 2009;104(2):221-226.

35. Gao YH, Luo P, Wu N, Chen H, Wang GX. Grazing intensity impacts on carbon sequestration in an alpine meadow on the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. 2007; 3(6):642647.

36. Arunrat N, Kongsurakan P, Sereenonchai S, Hatano R. Soil organic carbon in sandy paddy fields of northeast thailand: A review. Agronomy. 2007;2020(10):1061.

37. Matus FJ. Fine silt and clay content is the main factor defining maximal C and N accumulations in soils: A meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6438.

38. Nosetto MD, Jobbágy EG, Paruelo JM. Carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangelands: Comparison of Pinus ponderosa plantations and grazing exclusion in NW Patagonia. Journal of Arid Environments. 2006;67(1): 142156.

39. Singh SK, Kumar Ajeet and Singh KK. Carbon sequestration potential of different land use pattern in calcareous soils of Muzaffarpur districts, Bihar. Biological Forum-An International Journal (BFIJ). 2023;15(4):498-503.

<footnote>Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.</footnote>
## Biography of author(s)

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

### Dr. Ajeet Kumar, Ph.D., FHAS (Assistant Professor-cum-Scientist (Sr. Scale))

Department of Soil Science, Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)-848125, Bihar, India.

He obtained a PhD (Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India), and FHAS. He is an Assistant Professor and Scientist at the Department of Soil Science, Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University Pusa (Samastipur)-848125, Bihar, India. He has 16 years of teaching, research, and extension experience. He completed his BSc (Ag.) in 2001 and MSc (Ag.) in 2003 from Banaras Hindu University (BHU) Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. He is the recipient of the BHU Binani Gold Medal for standing first in the MSc (Ag.) of the entire Institute of Agricultural Sciences, BHU. He was also awarded with BHU Gold Medal for standing first in the Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry at the MSc (Ag.) level. He is the Recipient of Thakur Das Nikobai Kapoor's endowment scholarship during his MSc (Ag.). He has a specialization in soil microbiology, soil fertility, and soil chemistry. He received a BHU research scholarship during his PhD degree.

He has received several in-service awards and recognitions. He has been awarded with HAS International Young Scientist Award 2017. He has been inducted as a Fellow of many scientific Societies. He was Honored with the Pragaya Ratan Award-2019, by Sushma Films; Sadasya Western India Films Producers Association (WIFPA), Mumbai, India for outstanding contribution to agriculture education/research. He has also performed as an external examiner/question paper setter for different Universities and Boards for several years. He has 186 scientific contributions in his credit involving 65 research papers, 52 popular articles, 13 chapters in books, 04 books/manuals, 24 research/extension bulletins, and 28 edited publications. He has delivered 389 invited lectures as a resource person in many training programs, symposiums, seminars, conferences, summer school, and winter school at national and international levels. He has given several TV talks on the latest technology. He is a member of the editorial/executive/ advisory board of national and international NAAS-rated journals. He is also the president/chairman/member/member-secretary of important committees constituted.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

### Dr. Sunita Kumari Meena (Assistant Professor)

Department of Soil Science, Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)-848125, Bihar, India.

She is an Assistant Professor in Soil Science and has 5 years and 5 months of research and academic experience. Her research primarily focuses on soil fertility, chemistry, and sustainability. She has published 12 papers and has received the Best Doctoral Award in the Area of Plant Nutrition from the Mosaic Foundation in New Delhi, India. Additionally, she has contributed to 6 book chapters, and 8 articles, edited 2 books, and authored 4 technical bulletins.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**Sanjay Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor)**

Department of Soil Science, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur, India.

He is affiliated with Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University in Pusa, Bihar, India and completed his BSc (Ag) in 1994, MSc (Ag) in 1996, and PhD in 2001 from BHU, Varanasi, India. He has guided 1 PhD and 4 MSc (Ag) students in their research programs. He has authored 3 books, 52 research papers, 3 book chapters, and 32 articles. He has led 4 research projects as a principal investigator and 1 as a co-principal investigator. He is currently handling the project AICRP on Soil Test Crop Response. He has been honored with the Best Scientist and Best Teacher Awards. His research areas include soil chemistry, remote sensing, and GIS.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

**Dr. S. K. Sinha (Associate Professor)**

Regional Research Station, Madhopur, West Champaran, Bihar-845454, India.

He is a distinguished scholar and researcher affiliated with the Department of Soil Science at the Regional Research Station, Madhopur, West Champaran, Bihar, India, under Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, India. With an impressive career spanning 20 years in research and academia, he has made significant contributions to the field of soil science. He began his academic journey with a BSc in Agriculture from BAC, Sabour, in 1986, followed by an MSc in Agriculture in 1990 and a PhD from RAU, Pusa, in 1994. His areas of specialization include soil fertility, sugarcane cultivation, and soil microbiology, areas in which he has published 54 papers. His expertise and dedication to the field have earned him prestigious accolades such as the Outstanding Soil Scientist Award and the Lifetime Achievement Award. Additionally, he is an esteemed member of several reputed NAAS journals, further highlighting his remarkable contributions to soil science and agriculture.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

**Dr. Amrita Kumari (Assistant Professor)**

Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur-813210, India.

She is presently working as an Assistant Professor-cum-Scientist at the Department of Horticulture (Vegetable and Floriculture), Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bihar, India. She has completed her graduation and Doctorate degree from BAU Sabour with distinction and postgraduation from BHU, Varanasi, India. She has cleared the ICAR NET as well as the UGC NET Exam. She is an author or co-
author of more than 15 research articles, book chapters, and several conference papers. She is dynamically involved in teaching (graduate and Doctorate students) and research. She has proved herself as an active scientist in the area of Horticulture (Vegetable Science).

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

A. K. Singh, Director Research, RPCAU, PUSA

Department of Soil Science, Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)-848125, Bihar, India.

He obtained a BSc (Agri.) in 1984, an MSc (Agri.) in 1987, and a PhD in 1991 in Agronomy from the Institute of Agricultural Sciences, B.H.U, Varanasi, India. He started his service career as an Assistant Agronomist at the Department of Agronomy at H.P.K.V, Palampur (H.P.) in November 1992. He qualified ARS Examination in 1991 conducted by "ASRB, New Delhi". He has been trained for 'Subject Matter' at ICAR- Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur for six months. He has continued his services at ICAR-Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow up to 10th September 2019. He joined as Director of Sugarcane Research Institute, RPCAU, Pusa on 11th September 2019.

He has signed 8 MOUs with different organizations and developed the Agricultural Heritage Museum in Birth Place of Indian Agricultural Research & Education at RPCAU, Pusa. He has also developed Integrated Nutrient Management Models for quality sugarcane production; sugarcane based integrated farming system modules, crop diversification vis-à-vis input use, drought management in sugarcane, ratoon management in sugarcane, and agronomic evaluation of sugarcane genotypes for high nitrogen use efficiency. He has published more than 80 research papers in National and International Journals, 15 review articles, 176 popular articles, 9 books, 56 training manual and short communications, 04 papers published on policy issues. He also conferred with Rajiv Gandhi Gyan Vigyan Purashkar from the Hon'ble President of India (2012) and ICAR-Dr. Rajendra Prasad Purashkar (2013). Besides these, he has been a recipient of prestigious awards like the Sugar Technologist Association of India- Noel Deerr Gold Medal (2016), U.P. Council of Agricultural Research-UPAAS Fellow (2016), Eminent Scientist Award, BHU, 2019, fellow of Indian Society of Agronomy (2015) and ISA- Gold Medal (2021). He has successfully completed management training on "Sugarcane Crop Modelling" at CIRAD, Reunion, France (2004).

© Copyright (2024): Author(s). The licensee is the publisher (BP International).

DISCLAIMER

This chapter is an extended version of the article published by the same author(s) in the following journal.
Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology, 27(5): 116-125, 2024. DOI: 10.9734/JABB/2024/v27i5769

Peer-Review History:

This chapter was reviewed by following the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. This chapter was thoroughly checked to prevent plagiarism. As per editorial policy, a minimum of two peer-reviewers reviewed the manuscript. After review and revision of the manuscript, the Book Editor approved the manuscript for final publication. Peer review comments, comments of the editor(s), etc. are available here: https://peerreviewarchive.com/review-history/1425