Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Design of Ecological Buildings Using the Matrix of Eco-Efficiency in Residential Sectors of Ecuador
Previous Article in Journal
Slope Runoff Process and Regulation Threshold under the Dual Effects of Rainfall and Vegetation in Loess Hilly and Gully Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097584
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Interplay between Plant Functional Traits and Soil Carbon Sequestration under Ambient and Elevated CO2 Levels

by
Siddhartha Shankar Bhattacharyya
1,2,*,
Pedro Mondaca
3,4,
Oloka Shushupti
5 and
Sharjeel Ashfaq
6
1
Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
2
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX 77843, USA
3
Center of Biotechnology “Dr. Daniel Alkalay Lowitt”, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, General Bari 699, Valparaiso 1680, Chile
4
Molecular Microbiology and Environmental Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España, Valparaiso 1680, Chile
5
Department of Soil, Water and Environment, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
6
Institute of Soil Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7584; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097584
Submission received: 8 March 2023 / Revised: 30 April 2023 / Accepted: 3 May 2023 / Published: 5 May 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Unique plant functional traits (morpho-physio-anatomical) may respond to novel environmental conditions to counterbalance elevated carbon dioxide (eCO2) concentrations. Utilizing CO2, plants produce photoassimilates (carbohydrates). A mechanistic understanding of partitioning and translocation of carbon/photoassimilates into different plant parts and soils under ambient and eCO2 is required. In this study, we examine and present the intrinsic relationship between plant functional traits and eCO2 and seek answers to (i) how do plant functional traits (morpho-physio-anatomical features) affect C storage and partitioning under ambient and eCO2 in different plant parts? (ii) How do plant functional traits influence C transfer to the soil and rhizosphere services? Our study suggests that morpho-physio-anatomical features are interlinked, and under eCO2, plant functional traits influence the quantity of C accumulation inside the plant biomass, its potential translocation to different plant parts, and to the soil. The availability of additional photoassimilates aids in increasing the above- and belowground growth of plants. Moreover, plants may retain a predisposition to build thick leaves due to reduced specific leaf area, thicker palisade tissue, and higher palisade/sponge tissue thickness. eCO2 and soil-available N can alter root anatomy, the release of metabolites, and root respiration, impacting potential carbon transfer to the soil.

1. Introduction

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the main source of carbon (C) for plants, has risen in concentration by around 146% since 1750 [1], being now equivalent to or much higher than 8 to 15 million years ago [2,3]. Gayathri et al. [4] quantified an elevated CO2 concentration (eCO2) from 250 to 418 ppm (parts per million) during the past 150 years and speculated it may exceed 700 ppm by the end of the 21st century [5]. Fossil fuel combustion, agricultural land use change, and anthropogenic activities are the major causes of eCO2 [1,4,6]. For example, studies have estimated that 78–133 Pg (Pg = petagram) of CO2 has been emitted from agricultural soils in the past two decades [1,7,8]. Additionally, Gilfillan and Marland [9] recorded that global CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion and anthropogenic activities (e.g., cement manufacturing) was 9.79 Pg.
eCO2 is responsible for the catastrophic impacts of climate change [10,11], and a 2–8 °C increase in global mean annual surface temperatures is also foretold (global warming) [10,12]. Under such novel environmental contexts, atmospheric CO2 removal (CDR) technologies are widely implemented to mitigate the hazardous impacts of climate change and global warming [13,14]. However, most of them are not feasible to implement due to their intrinsic material-intensive and energy-consuming nature [15]. Of these, soil carbon sequestration (SCS) appears as one of the most sustainable options of CDR that intends to reduce atmospheric CO2 and global warming by transferring and storing CO2 to soils through plants for a longer period [13,16,17]. Prospects, constraints, and inconsistencies of SCS have been widely reported [18,19,20]. Yet, reducing uncertainties, as well as strengthening and upgrading SCS potential, are crucial tasks, albeit it is impossible without plants and an enhancement in plant functional traits. Plant functional traits include morpho-physio-phenological traits that determine individual species performance in terms of environmental stimuli, different trophic levels, and other ecosystem properties [21,22], and these traits are responsible for in-plant C sequestration (CS), long-term storage in plant biomass (the bulk of the plant), and later transfer into soils (Figure 1).
Functionally, plants rely on sunlight for survival and take materials from the soil and the atmosphere. Under the influence of sunlight, leaves reduce CO2 in the chloroplasts of mesophyll cells, allowing CO2 to be transformed into carbohydrates (e.g., glucose) [25,26]. The generated photoassimilates are then partitioned, translocated, and stored in different plant parts to meet their energy demands (e.g., in woods). While certain portions become fixed in soils by roots, resulting in SCS, this conversion is fully dependent on plant functional traits. Hence, an in-depth understanding of these traits affecting CS and SCS is required because these traits will also be changing (adjustments) under new normal environmental conditions.
There is now a plethora of literature showing morpho-physio-anatomical characteristics of plants impacted either explicitly or implicitly under eCO2 [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], higher temperatures [35,36], and even under light quality changes [32,37,38]. Studies have shown that eCO2, in general, may increase the photosynthetic efficiency, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, water usage efficiency, C content of plant tissues (stem, leaves, and root), shoot and root biomass, stem diameter, wood density, and root growth of plants [39,40,41,42,43]. Increased photosynthesis leads to increased photoassimilate production, and in this context, resource allocation patterns (C partitioning) in plants are critical [44] because C acts as a regulator of many morpho-physio-anatomical characteristics. Additionally, eCO2 coupled with temperature rise may exhibit the opposite effect, e.g., root growth may be aided by eCO2, whereas root growth may be hampered by higher temperatures [42]. Such responses of plants to environmental stimuli may be subjected to the responses of plant functional traits [43].
Therefore, our motive for this study is to examine and present the influence of plant functional traits, viz., morphological, physiological, and anatomical, on C sequestration in both biomass/vegetation and soils. We will answer the following questions throughout the study:
  • How do plant functional traits (morpho-physio-anatomical features) affect C storage and partitioning under eCO2 in different plant parts?
  • How do plant functional traits influence C transfer to the soil and rhizosphere services?
The literature used in this review was collected and synthesized from previous peer-reviewed studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals. We used “Web of Science”, “Scopus”, and “Google Scholar” for the literature search. Our keywords included (a) plant morphology and elevated carbon dioxide, (b) plant morphological traits change and ambient, elevated carbon dioxide, (c) photosynthesis and eCO2, (d) respiration and eCO2/elevated/ambient carbon dioxide, (e) root functional traits and elevated carbon dioxide, and (f) plant anatomical traits and elevated carbon dioxide. We searched for global literature in order to include different plants, vegetation, ecosystems, and the corresponding environmental conditions. Then, we selected the cases deemed most relevant to our study. Our criteria aimed to report a general trend instead of specific cases.

2. Impacts of Morphological Characteristics on Carbon Accumulation in Biomass and Soil

The C storage capabilities of many woody and crop plant species are found to be highest in the trunk, wood stems, branches, and roots [45,46,47]. The perception of morphological characteristics is crucial in understanding their role in C accumulation (CA). Plant morphology refers to the physical appearance, size, shape, and positioning of external structures of plants and may include shoot length or height, leaf angle, leaf length, leaf width, total leaf area, number of nodes, node density, culm thickness, root diameter, specific root length, number of pod plants−1, 1000 seeds’ weight, fruit shape, etc. [48,49,50,51]. Such morphological traits affecting the stages of CA have been considered while exploring the literature. Ideally, soil organic carbon (SOC) is accumulated in two ways: (i) the littering of plant parts that have stored C in them (leaves, wood, stem, branches, etc.) and (ii) the addition of root exudates and dead root biomass to soil. Bhattacharyya et al. [13] simplified the steps involved in SCS as: “atmospheric C capture in shoots by photosynthesis and CA > translocation of C in roots > soils > SOC stock increase > SCS” [52].
Studies have shown that eCO2 may alter global plant structures [53]. Even though there might be contrasting relationships between eCO2 and plant structure alterations, changes in plant traits are inevitable due to the competition in natural plant communities [5,54]. For example, an increased rate of photosynthesis under eCO2 results in increased growth in most plant species [55]. However, this positive response may only persist when a plant grows alone because competition due to increased growth might outweigh the positive effects when grown in a community [55,56]. Competition is more affected by structural characteristics than photosynthetic capacity [53].
eCO2 generally leads to larger leaf area, size, thickness, increased number of veins, and decreased stomatal density in crop plants. Increased plant height, altered root and shoot branching characteristics, increased ratio of internode length to node number, and increased stem diameter under eCO2 have also been reported [53,57,58]. Root traits such as root length, root diameter, and other root morphological developments may be enhanced under eCO2, which implies increased potential for CS [53,59].
Several studies have shown that leaf angle plays an important role in CS. For example, when a single leaf of rice plants is more vertical and has steeper angles with the stem, the total CA may be higher [60]. This indicates that if the leaves are steeper, light can penetrate through both sides of the leaves and also induce photosynthesis in the lower leaves. Moreover, steeper leaf angles can reduce exposure to excess light and radiation during the middle of the day rather than maximize C gain, thereby making it less exhaustive for plants. Hence, woody perennial shrub plant species with shallow-angled leaves can gain higher C because of higher daily light interception than species with steeper leaves. The sun angle, time of day, and seasonality also determine their daily CA [61]. Again, when the leaf elevation angle ranges between 15° and −23°, optimal photosynthesis takes place [62]. Strauss et al. [63] found that a decrease in the angle between leaves and stem causes a decrease in the light capture efficiency and vice versa in the leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana and Cardamine hirsute, which corroborates with the findings of Falster and Westoby [61] that steeper angles are less efficient. Even though the literature shows contrasting observations for leaf angle, these studies suggest that the main factor contributing to the CA is the light penetration on leaves due to their angles. The angles that favor overall higher light penetration into leaves cause greater CA. This is because different species of plants have different types of leaves. Moreover, leaf shape also influences CA, e.g., longer and narrower leaves have greater light absorption than shorter and wider leaves [62]. Additionally, an increase in internodal length and petiole length can augment the light absorption and photosynthesis of canopies [62,64] because they allow more space for light penetration. However, narrow leaves are conditioned to have higher light-capture efficiencies than petiole leaves when they have comparatively shorter internodal lengths [64]. These studies suggest that the morphological traits, i.e., leaf shape, internodal length, and petiole, can interplay together to affect CA.
Leaf curvature has also been found to impact CA, e.g., drooping leaves reduce CA, whereas erect leaves have a higher CA [60]. Leaf area may affect CA by influencing the photosynthesis rate [65]. For instance, an analysis by Kuronoma and Watanabe [66] among three different green roof plants demonstrated that the plant species with the lowest leaf area ratio per whole plant C content had the maximum CS rate. Zoysia matrella (a C4 grass species) had the lowest leaf area ratio per whole plant C content of 0.0094 m2(g-C)−1 with a very high CS rate of 2.95 (g-C) pot−1year−1 or 670 (g-C) m−2year−1. On the other hand, Ophiopogon japonicus and Sedum mexicanum had a higher leaf area ratio per whole plant C content of 0.0155 m2(g-C)−1 and 0.0277–0.0281 m2(g-C)−1, respectively, with a comparatively lower CS rate of 1.24 (g-C) pot−1year−1 and 1.21–1.60 (g-C) pot−1year−1, respectively. However, this study indicates that physiological and morphological traits contribute simultaneously toward CS. Low specific leaf area indicates greater leaf thickness and may give a higher single-leaf net photosynthetic rate [67]. Likewise, a higher specific leaf area can be coupled with low C retention due to its exploitative nature [68]. Overall, both lower leaf area ratio and lower specific leaf area favor higher CA.
Among all types of crops and plants, many species of grasses have a relatively high capacity to store C both in plants and soil [69,70,71,72]. This is because grasses have a high growth rate and turnover, which allows for rapid accumulation and turnover of biomass. The average root-to-shoot C stock ratios are highest under grasses and can accumulate up to 45% of their C stocks in the roots [71]. Some grass species (e.g., switchgrass) can be used as bioenergy crops to increase belowground SOC stock, particularly in deeper soil horizons. This can be attributed to their higher root biomass and long-lived root systems [69]. Contrarily, grass species can exhibit lower C storage potential in drought conditions [73]. In addition, soybeans and legumes can significantly increase SOC stock due to their ability to fix atmospheric N2 and increase soil organic matter levels. However, crop choices for SCS depend on the regional climate, soil type, and agronomic management practices [71].
Bamboos have a high potential to sequester C, which are giant grasses with woody vascular bundles having a mean CS rate of 6–13 Mg ha−1 year−1 and C storage of 30–121 Mg ha−1 [74,75,76]. Devi and Singh [77] reported that Bambusa tulda, because of its comparatively greater culm diameter, could store C at 27.79 Mg ha−1 year−1 more than Dendrocalamus longispathus, even though it had lower aboveground biomass. Likewise, Moso bamboos, a fast-growing bamboo species, can accumulate three-fourths of their lifetime C storage (1.58–8.04 kg culm−1) within 40 days (initial growth period) and can preserve it for a long time. Highland bamboo (Yushania alpina), when combined with agroforestry systems, can sequester up to 200 tons of C ha−1 over a 30-year rotation period due to its high potential to store C in both biomass and soil [75]. From these studies, it can be concluded that bamboo should be considered superior species for aboveground C storage [76], especially in their culms, which is, however, influenced by the morphological traits of the culms.
Aboveground C inputs only have a conversion factor to SOC of 9%, whereas belowground C inputs have a staggering conversion factor to SOC of 76% [78]. Extensively rooted plants have a high potential to store stable C at a greater depth where dead root biomass is protected from decomposition and microbial activity [73]. Mounting bodies of evidence suggest that plant roots play a significant role in SCS [79,80,81,82]. In fact, Rasse et al. [83] acknowledged that the contribution of root-derived C is 2.4 times that of shoot-derived C to SOC, which reinforces the urge to consider root morphology while discussing C accumulation in soil.
eCO2, in conjunction with higher temperatures, may greatly alter root morphological traits (Table 1). Root diameter and root length are mentionable morphological properties that affect SCS, especially if the root diameter is less than 2 mm [84] because such fine roots have a faster turnover rate and greater specific root length [85,86,87,88,89].
Another root morphological trait, root length, impacts SCS. Studies show that deeper root length (preferably a length extending to 2 m) promotes higher SCS [73,82]. Greater root length, root surface area, and specific root length maintain a positive correlation with CA because they stipulate increased root surface area per unit root biomass for root exudation [91,92,93,94,95,96]. They also add to the labile C pool because they are easily decomposable [97,98]. These phenomena also stabilize C in soil by providing substrates for microbial activity [99]. Besides those, for stabilizing SOC, roots form symbiotic relationships with fungi that help in the formation of macroaggregates (>250 μm), whereas root exudates help in the formation of microaggregates [100,101,102,103,104]. Fine roots, root mass density, and root length density positively affect aggregate stability [105]. Higher root length density, such as that of extensive fibrous roots of grasses, can be linked with greater macroaggregates in topsoil than taproots [106,107,108]. In addition, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonizing forest plant roots can increase aggregation in soils, preventing a loss in C through decomposition [109]. The size and quantity of macroaggregates may increase or decrease through the influence of root diameter [110,111], e.g., roots having <0.2 mm diameter can induce a greater formation of 1000–2000 μm stable macroaggregates, while those of 0.2–1 mm roots promote stable macroaggregates of size > 2000 μm in soils [112,113]. Moreover, macroaggregates influence the development of microaggregates because the formation of microaggregates is enhanced within macroaggregates [83]. Increased root length density can further augment SOC by occlusion within microaggregates [114]. Thus, plant root traits enable them to explore a greater volume of soil and facilitate soil aggregation. The relationship of morphological traits of the associated plant compartments affecting different stages of CS is summarized in Table 2. These studies suggest that smaller root diameters, greater root lengths, and greater root surface area promote higher CA in soil.
Although plant morphological traits can influence the amount of C inputs into the soil through their impacts on CA, it is important to note that understanding plant morphology alone is insufficient for interpreting SCS. SCS is primarily driven by soil processes, e.g., humification, which involves the conversion of organic matter into humic substances. This process incorporates the plant C inputs into the SOC pool, ultimately leading to SCS. However, both are interlinked with each other [115].

3. Impacts of Physiological Traits on Carbon Retention

The eCO2 concentration can affect plant physiological processes directly or indirectly [127]. Studies have shown that photosynthesis, transpiration, respiration, stomatal conductance, and plant enzymatic activities may alter in response to eCO2 concentrations (Figure 2) [28,121,128,129,130,131]. For instance, Wang et al. [128] revealed a higher net photosynthetic rate, a substantial decrease (59%) in the leaf transpiration rate, decreased stomatal conductance, and increased intercellular CO2 concentration under 700 ± 50 ppm CO2 concentration in soybean (Glycine max) plants. Likewise, in tea (Longjing changye) plants, Li et al. [129] quantified net photosynthesis and intercellular CO2 concentration augmented by 20% and 15.74 %, respectively, whereas stomatal conductance and transpiration rate declined by 5.52 % and 9.40 %, respectively. Moreover, eCO2 can increase water use efficiency (the ratio of photosynthesis to stomatal conductance) in evergreen species over deciduous species [132]. These studies indicate that there might be a shift in the physiological responses of plants depending on the species (Table 3). Moreover, such a shift in physiological responses is associated with a reduction in foliar nutrient concentrations, as evidenced in Mediterranean and temperate forests [133].
However, these physiological changes termed as “physiological forcing” may lessen “transpiration and associated cooling effect” [134]. eCO2 usually provides a greater gradient for CO2 diffusion into the leaves, which increases intercellular CO2 concentration. Consequently, stomatal closure may decrease transpiration [120]. Stomatal/leaf conductance is important for the plant–water relationship and photosynthetic efficiency (Figure 2) [35,135]. For instance, when water is not limited, eCO2 may cause a 20% reduction in stomatal conductance and enhance photosynthesis by 24% in a native Eucalypt woodland. However, stomatal behavior and leaf water potential remain unchanged under eCO2 [127]. Contrarily, Urban et al. [35] observed a 40% increase in stomatal conductance in poplar (Populus deltoises x nigra) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) under rising temperatures. Although higher transpiration, intercellular CO2 level, and increased xylem and mesophyll hydraulic conductivity were observed, increases in stomatal conductance were not related to these processes. Even these events were not associated with C partitioning and photosynthesis. Such kinds of temperature-dependent openings of stomata can be explained by an increase in xylem and mesophyll hydraulic conductance resulting from lower water viscosity [136]. These findings suggest that our knowledge of plant stomatal conductance in changing environments may be skewed, and it is not reasonable to assume that all plants would respond to environmental stimuli in the same way.
However, a shift in the photosynthetic efficiency of leaves due to biochemical and metabolic alterations derived from long-term exposure to high CO2 is termed as photosynthetic acclimation [137,138]. Photosynthetic acclimation may cause a reduction in the maximum carboxylation velocity of Rubisco and Rubisco activase protein contents, as well as a decrease in stomatal conductance [121,125,130]. A Rubisco decrease may cause amino acid and total N content reductions [130]. Despite suppressing Rubisco activity, elevated CO2 may promote dark respiration as well as higher photosynthetic C gain and net primary productivity (NPP), known as the “CO2 fertilization effect” [28,131]. Quick et al. [131] observed that decreasing Rubisco activity may cause a decline in photosynthesis, but a three- to four-fold increase in leaf area may compensate for the drop in photosynthesis. Although lower starch and free hexose in leaves may result from reduced photosynthesis, diurnal starch may compensate for this. Moreover, eCO2 levels can increase or decrease the activities of several enzymes, e.g., 8% and 36% increases in fructose 1,6-bisphosphate and ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase were observed in maize (Zea mays L.) (C4plant) [139]. Additionally, in wheat (Triticum durum Desf., cv. Regallo), phosphoglycerate mutase and ATP synthase protein content may increase whereas, ADP-glucose pyrophosphatase may decrease in response to eCO2 (700 ppm) concentration [130]. Similarly, the Rubisco content was considerably decreased under eCO2 in two forest species, i.e., Fraxinus rhynchophylla and Sorbus alnifolia [122]. However, photosynthetic acclimation or adjustments are strongly linked with the strength of sink tissues. Adequately strong sink tissues can preserve actual photosynthetic capacity if there is enough N supply [130,140,141,142]. Sanz-Saez et al. [141] suggested that maintaining C/N balance can prevent this physiological dysfunction in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L. cv. Aragon).
Again, C4plants (e.g., maize) may gain the additional capacity to synthesize more sucrose and starch to generate additional energy through respiration under eCO2 [139]. Such accelerated respiration may act as a source of CO2, leaving a negative influence on plant-dominated C balance [11]. Moreover, eCO2 may inhibit photorespiration [143]. Wujeska-Klause et al. [143] revealed that decreased nitrate (NO3-) reductase activity led to a 31% decrease in photorespiration under eCO2 in mature leaves of Eucalyptus. Similarly, Asensio et al. [144] showed that eCO2 inhibits mitochondrial respiration and the conversion of NO3- to protein. This limits NO3- translocation in chloroplasts, forcing the plant to rely on shoot NO3- assimilation throughout both light and dark periods. Contrarily, Bravdo and Canvin [145] showed that, in sunflowers (Helianthus annus L.), photorespiration may trivially reduce, but it is not suppressed under eCO2. CO2 rises if it lies between 200 to 800 ppm; then, the rate of dark respiration in plant tissue may frequently decrease [146].

4. Impacts of Plant Anatomical Traits on Carbon Storage in Plant Biomass and Soil

The association between CS and vegetation types (including the corresponding morphological traits) has been well studied (as seen in Section 2). However, less is known at the plant anatomical level. In this section, we show how plant anatomy (both above- and belowground) drives and/or alters potential SCS. Once photosynthetically assimilated, C is partitioned among a wide range of C pools, including respiration, growth, root exudation, chemical or structural defense, and mutual organisms [147]. Thus, these C allocation patterns/partitioning in plants are crucial to the potential SCS and even dependent on vascular cambium (xylem and phloem). Under eCO2, xylem cells may become larger and cell walls may become thinner [148]. During the cell division of vascular cambium to the secondary growth of the xylem and phloem, they act as the largest C sink in vascular plants. The cambial zone shows all layers of meristematic cells between the xylem and phloem [149]. Most of the C used by vascular plants is transported to different metabolically active areas by phloem, which is a part of the vascular system that moves carbohydrates from storage tissue (sources) to areas of active growth (sinks). Since C transport is influenced by source-to-sink activity, it can integrate changes that occur throughout the plant, potentially influencing everything from growth, respiration, defense, and reproduction [150,151,152].
Xylem tissues can also transport C [153]. C allocation is affected by protophloem and fine-root turnover rate, which may influence the transport of photosynthates in roots [154]. Seasonal fluctuations may influence the formation of xylem density, and precise quantification of the seasonal dynamics of aboveground woody biomass production is essential [118].

4.1. Aboveground Plant Anatomical Features and Carbon Sequestration

Aboveground plant parts include the leaves, flowers, stems, branches, wood, etc. They may have distinct anatomical features as follows: (a) flower: calyx, corolla, and petals; (b) leaf: epidermis, stomata, and palisade cells; (c) stem: stem structure, vascular tissues, buds, and shoot apex; (d) wood: bark, cork, xylem, phloem, and vascular cambium. Studies have shown that these components may exhibit varied impacts in response to eCO2 [32,52,155]. For instance, CO2 may be fixed in the corollas of flowers under both light and dark conditions. The age at which a plant blooms has a significant influence on C fixation, i.e., the C fixation rate in the corollas of parade rose flowers was found to be considerably greater in mature red corollas than in juvenile parrot-green corollas [155].
Leaf attributes, e.g., leaf thickness, spongy parenchyma thickness, and highest adaxial cuticle thickness, respond positively under eCO2 [52]. Additionally, a 14% decrease in specific leaf area, a 23% increase in palisade tissue thickness, and a 14% increase in the ratio of palisade tissue to spongy tissue thickness were observed [32]. These attributes are also dependent on the light intensity from the sun and can be more prevalent in sun leaves than in shaded leaves, as observed in evergreen oak (Quercus ilex L.). Leaf thickness is related to the length of palisade cells, which can enhance photosynthetic capability and is a key factor in C fixation. The increased thickness of leaves occurs due to the higher thickness of palisade parenchyma tissues compared to spongy parenchyma tissues. Leaves grown in strong light have a higher light-saturated rate of photosynthesis per unit leaf area than leaves growing in low light [32,156]. However, at high levels of light, there may be a positive impact on the thickening of leaves, and the advantage of more light is, nevertheless, limited to specific growth conditions and species, e.g., the leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana, but thickening may push away the resources from the area of growth [152]. Stomatal response to CO2 is crucial since it determines the concentration and assimilation of C through mesophyll cells [157]. Stomatal traits, e.g., stomatal size (μm2) and diameter, respond to environmental changes from minutes to millennia [158].
The stem and branches of trees account for about 50 to 60% of the total biomass and are good sinks of aboveground C [159]. Both stem radial growth and wood density must be included when assessing woody biomass because they store almost half of the plant’s aboveground C. However, they differ between species and are considered as genetic characteristics [160,161], as well as reliant on climatic circumstances [160].
The stem plays a significant role in balancing C in the form of non-structural C (NSC) reserves [162]. NSC concentrations may start decreasing in younger sapwood toward the boundary of sapwood–heartwood and become constant along the heartwood to the pith. However, significantly high levels of NSCs have also been observed in the xylem part of broadleaf evergreen trees [123,126]. C fixation within stems and branches occurs through cuticular, wood, or leaf photosynthesis in the stem and branch tissues. Cuticular and wood photosynthesis do not involve stomata; so, these two may have little loss of water and high CO2 contents in woody tissues, leading to low photorespiration [116,163]. In tree biomass, stems may retain ca. 50% of C. The stem C concentration may increase with an increase in the size and age of the tree [164].
Variations in C contents of heartwood, sapwood, and bark may occur because of the varied chemical and physical characteristics of tissues. The physical variations caused by physiological and chemical alterations in heartwood’s activities may occur throughout its production [119]. Sapwood C storage is temporary and is available for respiration when the tree requires it. The heartwood of a tree contains xylem; it is biologically inactive, plays an important role in structural strength, and no longer stores carbohydrates. For instance, C concentration in the heartwood, sapwood, and bark of Pinus pinaster and Pinus sylvestris may be (87, 156, and 137) and (76, 166, and 166) cg g−1 of dry matter, respectively [119]. However, CO2 escapes to the atmosphere and another part is fixed by photosynthetic cells in woody tissues and leaves. The woody tissue respiration measures CO2 fluxes and depicts that the CO2 flux rate to the atmosphere is poorer than the actual rate of respiration [151].

4.2. In-Depth Overview of Anatomical Features of Belowground Plant Parts in Soil Carbon Sequestration

Plant roots are one of the crucial components of SCS because they control belowground C fluxes (Figure 3) [117]. Roots gain C through photoassimilates produced from photosynthetic organs and the uptake of organic molecules from the soil. Studies have shown that C loss may occur through roots while exporting it to the shoot, or by respiration, rhizodeposition, and symbiosis [165,166]. Under eCO2, root diameter may increase by 15%, and root tissue density may decline by 14% for absorptive roots, demonstrating the plants’ tendency to form greater roots with looser tissue. Additionally, enlarged root cortical thickness and the ratio of cortical thickness to stele radius may imply an upsurge in the potential absorption capacity of roots [32]. However, C compounds (photoassimilates) are transported to numerous plant sinks either symplastically via cell connections (plasmodesmata) or apoplastically via membrane transporters, which regulate monosaccharide and sucrose fluxes [167]. The amount of C used or transported by roots is known to be high. For example, fine roots represent 33% of global annual net primary productivity (NPP) [168], and 8–52% of the total assimilated C during a day is respired by roots [169].
Primary meristems in the root apices support root primary growth, which allows the plant to seek nutrients and water and absorb them [154]. Secondary meristems (vascular cambium and cork cambium) promote root secondary growth, which increases the girth of roots [173]. Secondary growth tissues are related to several functions, such as structure, allocation, and storage, thereby roots of a higher branch order predominantly consist of secondary tissues, whereas absorption is performed mainly by primary tissues of a few terminal branch orders [154]. The growth pattern of higher branch order roots remains very robust even with external supplies [174]. In contrast, root primary growth in fine roots is highly environment-dependent, e.g., a temperature rise may inhibit fine-root growth and number, while eCO2 may exhibit a 44% increase in fine-root length and a 39% increase in fine-root numbers, as observed in a Danish grassland [36]. However, such findings are essential to percept rhizospheric chemistry, symbiosis, and even tracking their probable impact on C cycling [175]. Kong et al. [154] distinguished between the stele (the central part of the root), which is specialized in resource transportation, and the tissue outside the stele, which is responsible for resource uptake and facilitates symbiotic interactions in fine roots. The amount of C allocated to these tissues would be determined by a trade-off between maximizing resource acquisition or conservation (root economics spectrum (RES) theory) [124]. Recent findings have shown that this theory may not apply to all plants since C allocation is influenced by more factors than those considered by RES, being especially relevant to symbiotic associations [176,177,178].
The C allocated in primary growth is tightly related to soil physicochemical parameters. Soil nutrient limitations can promote root primary growth, which increases the allocation of C to roots [179]. This has been well studied under a phosphorus (P) deficit, where C allocation to roots increases with a consequent increase in belowground biomass [180,181]. Low P conditions can also lead to a higher release of phosphatase, which favors soil P availability, but it demands higher use of C [182]. Similarly, soil N and water deficiency can also increase C allocation to roots [183]. In response to a deficiency of nutrients, root secondary growth can be suppressed, which reduces the C cost of producing root length and facilitates soil exploration rather than radial thickening of roots [184]. Root exploration in deep soil layers can also represent a high metabolic cost for plants; however, studies dealing with fine-root dynamics in deep soil layers (depth > 1 m) are still scarce ([185] and references therein).
Light quality changes may cause a variation in secondary metabolism in plants, changing the root structure and the profile of root exudates [37]. High levels of eCO2 (720 ppm of CO2) increased tissue thickness but decreased root length and root tissue density, among others, compared to ambient CO2 concentrations (380 ppm of CO2) [32]. Similarly, Wu et al. [186] and Gray et al. [187] found that high eCO2 may alter root anatomy and the release of metabolites. The increase of eCO2 can also decrease root respiration, although this effect would be dependent on soil-available N (the highest available nitrogen, the most amino acid abundance, and the least abundance of sugars and organic acids) [38,188].
Rhizosphere and materials lost from plant roots (rhizodeposition) may be influenced by eCO2 (Table 4). Rhizodeposition is crucial for SCS, as a high amount of C, in the form of lysates, root border cells, and exudates, are released into the soil [189]. Root exudates are low-molecular-weight organic compounds released by the rhizosphere as a complex mixture of sugars, amino acids, organic acids, enzymes, and other substances [190]. For instance, root secretion of Sorghum known as sorgoleone may act as a C source for some specific soil microflora [191]. Rhizodeposits are rapidly incorporated into soil organic matter (SOM), consumed by microorganisms, and their decomposition may emit CO2. Therefore, rhizodeposition is rarely quantified and remains the most uncertain part of the soil C fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [192]. Plants may alter their exudation patterns during their distinct development stages to assist in tuning microbial recruitment to meet greater nutritional needs during periods requiring quicker growth [193]. Once in the soil, the potential SCS would be determined by the C/N ratio of litter or available N in the soil [193,194]. However, a recent meta-analysis claimed that the chemical quality of organic C (categorized as labile, intermediate, or recalcitrant) determines microbial response rather than the C/N ratio [195]. Root exudates influence the general microbial community in the rhizosphere and its biological activities. This effect can be both direct (e.g., by providing C substrates for growth) and indirect (e.g., by altering pH or increasing the bioavailability of nutrients) [135,196].
Potential SCS involves not only plants but also soil characteristics. Organic C derived from roots is generally more sequestered in the soil than organic C coming from aboveground litter [185]. Estimations indicate that the mean residence time in soils of root-derived C is 2.4 times that of shoot-derived C [83]. Root exudates also allow the creation of micro-environments and ecological niches for diverse microbial species [198,199] and facilitate nutrient acquisition/cycling [182]. For example, carboxylate exudation in the rhizosphere can augment SOM decomposition and N mineralization by destabilizing soil aggregates and other organo-mineral compounds [182]. In addition, although plant mutualist fungi AMF can increase soil aggregation and SOC storage [182], they may stimulate the additional decomposition of SOC, resulting in a net source of CO2 [200]. These contrasting processes make the role of AMFs in SCS controversial. Details about the SCS by AMFs can be found in Parihar et al. [201]. Additionally, plant root traits explicitly maintain a continuum between C cycling and microbial functioning, and any deviation from this will result in an anomaly in the environment [52].

5. Conclusions and Perspectives

Our study indicates that eCO2 levels have a significant impact on plant growth and development and modify the role of plant functional traits in C fixation and storage. CS in both plant biomass and soil is closely linked to plant functional traits, regardless of species. Particularly, under eCO2, plant functional traits play a key role in determining the amount of C captured and stored within plant biomass and its subsequent transfer to other plant parts and soil. We showed that morpho-physio-anatomical traits, such as leaf area, plant height, stem diameter, and wood density, are substantially altered under eCO2, which can affect C retention within biomass. While some of these changes may be beneficial for C retention—e.g., an increased shoot-to-root ratio—other changes, e.g., leaf thickness, may weaken the C sink capacity of plants. Additionally, competition within a plant community can also affect CS.
Moreover, the key regulators of plant C metabolism, e.g., photosynthesis and stomatal responses are also significantly altered under eCO2. Stomatal density regulates light and CO2 concentration within mature leaves, which, in turn, affects photosynthesis in the developing leaves. The specific leaf area and leaf angle are also crucial factors for CS because they determine the amount of light penetration into the leaves. The availability of additional photoassimilates can aid in increasing the above- and belowground growth of plants.
A thorough understanding of root functional traits and rhizospheric C storage ability is also essential for effective SCS. Future research involving the improvement in root architecture may also prove to be an effective management strategy for coping with changing environmental conditions. Overall, this paper highlights the importance of plant functional traits in CS and provides directions while considering SCS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S.B.; Investigation, S.S.B., P.M., O.S. and S.A.; Writing—original and final draft preparation led by S.S.B. with contributions of P.M., O.S. and S.A.; writing—review and editing, S.S.B., P.M., O.S. and S.A.; Figures, S.S.B. and P.M.; Tables, S.S.B. and O.S.; Supervision, S.S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

P.M. was funded by ANID/PIA/ACT192027.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data corresponding to this work have been given and discussed appropriately. No additional or linked data are available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in any capacity, including financial and competing.

References

  1. Lal, R. Soil management for carbon sequestration. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2021, 38, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lindsey, R. Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide; NOAA Climate: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Van De Wal, R.S.W.; De Boer, B.; Lourens, L.J.; Köhler, P.; Bintanja, R. Reconstruction of a continuous high-resolution CO2 record over the past 20 million years. Clim. Past 2011, 7, 1459–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gayathri, R.; Mahboob, S.; Govindarajan, M.; Al-Ghanim, K.A.; Ahmed, Z.; Al-Mulhm, N.; Vodovnik, M.; Vijayalakshmi, S. A review on biological carbon sequestration: A sustainable solution for a cleaner air environment, less pollution and lower health risks. J. King Saud Univ.—Sci. 2021, 33, 101282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. The Core Writing Team IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 9789291691432. [Google Scholar]
  6. Friedlingstein, P.; O’Sullivan, M.; Jones, M.W.; Andrew, R.M.; Hauck, J.; Olsen, A.; Peters, G.P.; Peters, W.; Pongratz, J.; Sitch, S.; et al. Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2020, 12, 3269–3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lal, R. World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon. Adv. Agron. 2001, 71, 145–191. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sanderman, J.; Hengl, T.; Fiske, G.J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9575–9580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gilfillan, D.; Marland, G. CDIAC-FF: Global and National CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion and Cement Manufacture: 1751–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2021, 13, 1667–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ward, D.S.; Mahowald, N.M. Contributions of developed and developing countries to global climate forcing and surface temperature change. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 74008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wei, D.; Qi, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wang, X.; Ma, W.; Gao, T.; Huang, L.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X. Plant uptake of CO2 outpaces losses from permafrost and plant respiration on the Tibetan Plateau. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, 2015283118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, H.; Zhang, R.; Shi, G. An updated estimation of radiative forcing due to CO2 and its effect on global surface temperature change. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2013, 30, 1017–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bhattacharyya, S.S.; Leite, F.F.G.D.; Adeyemi, M.A.; Sarker, A.J.; Cambareri, G.S.; Faverin, C.; Tieri, M.P.; Castillo-Zacarías, C.; Melchor-Martínez, E.M.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; et al. A paradigm shift to CO2 sequestration to manage global warming—With the emphasis on developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Honegger, M.; Michaelowa, A.; Roy, J. Potential implications of carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals. Clim. Policy 2021, 21, 678–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yoro, K.O.; Daramola, M.O. CO2 emission sources, greenhouse gases, and the global warming effect. In Advances in Carbon Capture; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2020; pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lal, R.; Negassa, W.; Lorenz, K. Carbon sequestration in soil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 15, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bossio, D.A.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Ellis, P.W.; Fargione, J.; Sanderman, J.; Smith, P.; Wood, S.; Zomer, R.J.; von Unger, M.; Emmer, I.M.; et al. The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zomer, R.J.; Bossio, D.A.; Sommer, R.; Verchot, L.V. Global Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland Soils. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Janzen, H.H. Beyond carbon sequestration: Soil as conduit of solar energy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2015, 66, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W.T. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 62, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Violle, C.; Navas, M.L.; Vile, D.; Kazakou, E.; Fortunel, C.; Hummel, I.; Garnier, E. Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 2007, 116, 882–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pérez-Harguindeguy, N.; Díaz, S.; Garnier, E.; Lavorel, S.; Poorter, H.; Jaureguiberry, P.; Bret-Harte, M.S.; Cornwell, W.K.; Craine, J.M.; Gurvich, D.E.; et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 2013, 61, 167–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Deyn, G.B.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Bardgett, R.D. Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 516–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Faucon, M.P.; Houben, D.; Lambers, H. Plant Functional Traits: Soil and Ecosystem Services. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Colman, B.; Espie, G.S. CO2 uptake and transport in leaf mesophyll cells. Plant. Cell Environ. 1985, 8, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Emerson, R.; Arnold, W. The photochemical reaction in photosynthesis. J. Gen. Physiol. 1932, 16, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dusenge, M.E.; Duarte, A.G.; Way, D.A. Plant carbon metabolism and climate change: Elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on photosynthesis, photorespiration and respiration. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Leakey, A.D.B.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Bernacchi, C.J.; Rogers, A.; Long, S.P.; Ort, D.R. Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: Six important lessons from FACE. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2859–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harrison, E.L.; Arce Cubas, L.; Gray, J.E.; Hepworth, C. The influence of stomatal morphology and distribution on photosynthetic gas exchange. Plant J. 2020, 101, 768–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, Y.; Yu, Z.; Liu, X.; Mathesius, U.; Wang, G.; Tang, C.; Wu, J.; Liu, J.; Zhang, S.; Jin, J. Elevated CO2 increases Nitrogen fixation at the reproductive phase contributing to various yield responses of soybean cultivars. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barickman, T.C.; Olorunwa, O.J.; Sehgal, A.; Walne, C.H.; Reddy, K.R.; Gao, W. Interactive impacts of temperature and elevated CO2 on basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) root and shoot morphology and growth. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, N.; Gao, G.; Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Wang, Z.; Gu, J. Coordinated responses of leaf and absorptive root traits under elevated CO2 concentration in temperate woody and herbaceous species. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 179, 104199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. de Roo, L.; Lauriks, F.; Salomón, R.L.; Oleksyn, J.; Steppe, K. Woody tissue photosynthesis increases radial stem growth of young poplar trees under ambient atmospheric CO2 but its contribution ceases under elevated CO2. Tree Physiol. 2020, 40, 1572–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, J.; Kang, S.; Davies, W.J.; Ding, R. Elevated [CO2] alleviates the impacts of water deficit on xylem anatomy and hydraulic properties of maize stems. Plant Cell Environ. 2020, 43, 563–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Urban, J.; Ingwers, M.; McGuire, M.A.; Teskey, R.O. Stomatal conductance increases with rising temperature. Plant Signal. Behav. 2017, 12, 1356534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Arndal, M.F.; Tolver, A.; Larsen, K.S.; Beier, C.; Schmidt, I.K. Fine Root Growth and Vertical Distribution in Response to Elevated CO2, Warming and Drought in a Mixed Heathland–Grassland. Ecosystems 2018, 21, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhou, C.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, W.; Zha, L.; Shao, M.; Li, B. Light quality affected the growth and root organic carbon and autotoxin secretions of hydroponic lettuce. Plants 2020, 9, 1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cohen, I.; Halpern, M.; Yermiyahu, U.; Bar-Tal, A.; Gendler, T.; Rachmilevitch, S. CO2 and nitrogen interaction alters root anatomy, morphology, nitrogen partitioning and photosynthetic acclimation of tomato plants. Planta 2019, 250, 1423–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Srinivasan, V.; Kumar, P.; Long, S.P. Decreasing, not increasing, leaf area will raise crop yields under global atmospheric change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 1626–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ali, A.; Yan, E.R.; Chen, H.Y.H.; Chang, S.X.; Zhao, Y.T.; Yang, X.D.; Xu, M.S. Stand structural diversity rather than species diversity enhances aboveground carbon storage in secondary subtropical forests in Eastern China. Biogeosciences 2016, 13, 4627–4635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Druart, N.; Rodriguez-Buey, M.; Barron-Gafford, G.; Sjödin, A.; Bhalerao, R.; Hurry, V. Molecular targets of elevated [CO2] in leaves and stems of Populus deltoides: Implications for future tree growth and carbon sequestration. Funct. Plant Biol. 2006, 33, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Benlloch-Gonzalez, M.; Bochicchio, R.; Berger, J.; Bramley, H.; Palta, J.A. High temperature reduces the positive effect of elevated CO2 on wheat root system growth. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 165, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bu, W.; Huang, J.; Xu, H.; Zang, R.; Ding, Y.; Li, Y.; Lin, M.; Wang, J.; Zhang, C. Plant functional traits are the mediators in regulating effects of abiotic site conditions on aboveground carbon stock-evidence from a 30 ha tropical forest plot. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thompson, M.; Gamage, D.; Hirotsu, N.; Martin, A.; Seneweera, S. Effects of elevated carbon dioxide on photosynthesis and carbon partitioning: A Perspective on root sugar sensing and hormonal crosstalk. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wang, Y.C. Carbon sequestration and foliar dust retention by woody plants in the greenbelts along two major Taiwan highways. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2011, 159, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Han, H.; Shi, Z.; Yang, X. Biomass accumulation and carbon sequestration in an age-sequence of Mongolian pine plantations in Horqin sandy land, China. Forests 2019, 10, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Panahi, P.; Pourhashemi, M.; Nejad, M.H. Estimation of leaf biomass and leaf carbon sequestration of Pistacia atlantica in National Botanical Garden of Iran. Iran. J. For. 2011, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  48. Birouste, M.; Kazakou, E.; Blanchard, A.; Roumet, C. Plant traits and decomposition: Are the relationships for roots comparable to those for leaves? Ann. Bot. 2012, 109, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Igbari, A.D.; Nodza, G.I.; Adeusi, A.D.; Ogundipe, O.T. Morphological characterization of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars from south-west Nigeria. Ife J. Sci. 2019, 21, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kaplan, D.R. The science of plant morphology: Definition, history, and role in modern biology. Am. J. Bot. 2001, 88, 1711–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van De Wouw, M.; Mohammed, J.; Jorge, M.A.; Hanson, J. Agro-morphological characterisation of a collection of Cynodon. Trop. Grassl. 2009, 43, 151–161. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gratani, L.; Catoni, R.; Varone, L. Quercus ilex L. carbon sequestration capability related to shrub size. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 178, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pritchard, S.G.; Rogers, H.H.; Prior, S.A.; Peterson, C.M. Elevated CO2 and plant structure: A review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1999, 5, 807–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Diaz, S. Elevated CO2 Responsiveness, Interactions at the Community Level and Plant Functional Types. J. Biogeogr. 1995, 22, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Taub, D. Effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide on plants. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 2010, 3, 21. [Google Scholar]
  56. Poorter, H.; Navas, M.L. Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: On winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytol. 2003, 157, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cha, S.; Chae, H.M.; Lee, S.H.; Shim, J.K. Effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on growth and leaf litter decomposition of Quercus acutissima and Fraxinus rhynchophylla. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Thinh, N.C.; Kumagai, E.; Shimono, H.; Kawasaki, M. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on morphology of leaf blades in Chinese yam. Plant Prod. Sci. 2018, 21, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nie, M.; Lu, M.; Bell, J.; Raut, S.; Pendall, E. Altered root traits due to elevated CO2: A meta-analysis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2013, 22, 1095–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tanaka, T. Regulation of plant type and carbon assimilation of rice. Japan Agric. Res. Q. 1976, 10, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  61. Falster, D.S.; Westoby, M. Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: What consequences for light interception? New Phytol. 2003, 158, 509–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sarlikioti, V.; De Visser, P.H.B.; Buck-Sorlin, G.H.; Marcelis, L.F.M. How plant architecture affects light absorption and photosynthesis in tomato: Towards an ideotype for plant architecture using a functional structural plant model. Ann. Bot. 2011, 108, 1065–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Strauss, S.; Lempe, J.; Prusinkiewicz, P.; Tsiantis, M.; Smith, R.S. Phyllotaxis: Is the golden angle optimal for light capture? New Phytol. 2020, 225, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Takenaka, A. Effects of leaf blade narrowness and petiole length on the light capture efficiency of a shoot. Ecol. Res. 1994, 9, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Righetti, T.L.; Vasconcelos, C.; Sandrock, D.R.; Ortega-Farias, S.; Moreno, Y.; Meza, F.J. Assessments of CO2 assimilation on a per-leaf-area basis are related to total leaf area. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2007, 132, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kuronuma, T.; Watanabe, H. Relevance of Carbon Sequestration to the Physiological and Morphological Traits of Several Green Roof Plants during the First Year after Construction. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Peng, S. Single-leaf and canopy photosynthesis of rice. In Studies in Plant Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000; Volume 7, pp. 213–228. [Google Scholar]
  68. Grigulis, K.; Lavorel, S.; Krainer, U.; Legay, N.; Baxendale, C.; Dumont, M.; Kastl, E.; Arnoldi, C.; Bardgett, R.D.; Poly, F.; et al. Relative contributions of plant traits and soil microbial properties to mountain grassland ecosystem services. J. Ecol. 2013, 101, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Masters, M.D.; Black, C.K.; Zeri, M.; Hussain, M.Z.; Bernacchi, C.J.; DeLucia, E.H. Altered Belowground Carbon Cycling Following Land-Use Change to Perennial Bioenergy Crops. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hudiburg, T.W.; Davis, S.C.; Parton, W.; Delucia, E.H. Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mathew, I.; Shimelis, H.; Mutema, M.; Chaplot, V. What crop type for atmospheric carbon sequestration: Results from a global data analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 243, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Singh, M.; Guleria, N.; Prakasa Rao, E.V.S.; Goswami, P. Efficient C sequestration and benefits of medicinal vetiver cropping in tropical regions. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stewart, C.E.; Roosendaal, D.; Denef, K.; Pruessner, E.; Comas, L.H.; Sarath, G.; Jin, V.L.; Schmer, M.R.; Soundararajan, M. Seasonal switchgrass ecotype contributions to soil organic carbon, deep soil microbial community composition and rhizodeposit uptake during an extreme drought. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 112, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nath, A.J.; Lal, R.; Das, A.K. Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 3, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nigatu, A.; Wondie, M.; Alemu, A.; Gebeyehu, D.; Workagegnehu, H. Productivity of highland bamboo (Yushania alpina) across different plantation niches in West Amhara, Ethiopia. For. Sci. Technol. 2020, 16, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yen, T.M. Culm height development, biomass accumulation and carbon storage in an initial growth stage for a fast-growing moso bamboo (Phyllostachy pubescens). Bot. Stud. 2016, 57, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Devi, A.S.; Singh, K.S. Carbon storage and sequestration potential in aboveground biomass of bamboos in North East India. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Berhongaray, G.; Cotrufo, F.M.; Janssens, I.A.; Ceulemans, R. Below-ground carbon inputs contribute more than above-ground inputs to soil carbon accrual in a bioenergy poplar plantation. Plant Soil 2019, 434, 363–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Balesdent, J.; Balabane, M. Major contribution of roots to soil carbon storage inferred from maize cultivated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 1261–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Broadbent, F.E.; Nakashima, T. Mineralization of Carbon and Nitrogen in Soil Amended with Carbon-13 and Nitrogen-15 Labeled Plant Material. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1974, 38, 313–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chimento, C.; Amaducci, S. Characterization of fine root system and potential contribution to soil organic carbon of six perennial bioenergy crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 83, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kell, D.B. Large-scale sequestration of atmospheric carbon via plant roots in natural and agricultural ecosystems: Why and how. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 367, 1589–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rasse, D.P.; Rumpel, C.; Dignac, M.F. Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant Soil 2005, 269, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Finér, L.; Helmisaari, H.S.; Lõhmus, K.; Majdi, H.; Brunner, I.; Børja, I.; Eldhuset, T.; Godbold, D.; Grebenc, T.; Konôpka, B.; et al. Variation in fine root biomass of three European tree species: Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.), and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Plant Biosyst. 2007, 141, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Guo, D.; Li, H.; Mitchell, R.J.; Han, W.; Hendricks, J.J.; Fahey, T.J.; Hendrick, R.L. Fine root heterogeneity by branch order: Exploring the discrepancy in root turnover estimates between minirhizotron and carbon isotopic methods. New Phytol. 2008, 177, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Guo, D.; Mitchell, R.J.; Withington, J.M.; Fan, P.P.; Hendricks, J.J. Endogenous and exogenous controls of root life span, mortality and nitrogen flux in a longleaf pine forest: Root branch order predominates. J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rytter, R.M. The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 36, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tierney, G.L.; Fahey, T.J. Fine root turnover in a northern hardwood forest: A direct comparison of the radiocarbon and minirhizotron methods. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 1692–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wells, C.E.; Eissenstat, D.M. Marked differences in survivorship among apple roots of different diameters. Ecology 2001, 82, 882–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nelson, L.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Williams, D.G.; Pendall, E. Digging into the roots of belowground carbon cycling following seven years of Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment (PHACE), Wyoming USA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 115, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Czarnota, M.A.; Paul, R.N.; Weston, L.A.; Duke, S.O. Anatomy of sorgoleone-secreting root hairs of Sorghum species. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2003, 164, 861–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Groleau-Renaud, V.; Plantureux, S.; Guckert, A. Influence of plant morphology on root exudation of maize subjected to mechanical impedance in hydroponic conditions. Plant Soil 1998, 201, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Darwent, M.J.; Paterson, E.; McDonald, A.J.S.; Tomos, A.D. Biosensor reporting of root exudation from Hordeum vulgare in relation to shoot nitrate concentration. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nguyen, C. Rhizodeposition of organic C by plants: Mechanisms and controls. Agronomie 2003, 23, 375–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Piñeros, M.A.; Magalhaes, J.V.; Carvalho Alves, V.M.; Kochian, L.V. The physiology and biophysics of an aluminum tolerance mechanism based on root citrate exudation in maize. Plant Physiol. 2002, 129, 1194–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Tückmantel, T.; Leuschner, C.; Preusser, S.; Kandeler, E.; Angst, G.; Mueller, C.W.; Meier, I.C. Root exudation patterns in a beech forest: Dependence on soil depth, root morphology, and environment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 107, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Guo, D.L.; Mitchell, R.J.; Hendricks, J.J. Fine root branch orders respond differentially to carbon source-sink manipulations in a longleaf pine forest. Oecologia 2004, 140, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Norby, R.J.; Jackson, R.B. Root dynamics and global change: Seeking an ecosystem perspective. New Phytol. 2000, 147, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cotrufo, M.F.; Soong, J.L.; Horton, A.J.; Campbell, E.E.; Haddix, M.L.; Wall, D.H.; Parton, W.J. Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 776–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Amézketa, E. Soil aggregate stability: A review. J. Sustain. Agric. 1999, 14, 83–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Chantigny, M.H.; Angers, D.A.; Prévost, D.; Vézina, L.-P.; Chalifour, F.-P. Soil Aggregation and Fungal and Bacterial Biomass under Annual and Perennial Cropping Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Helfrich, M.; Ludwig, B.; Potthoff, M.; Flessa, H. Effect of litter quality and soil fungi on macroaggregate dynamics and associated partitioning of litter carbon and nitrogen. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 1823–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Totsche, K.U.; Amelung, W.; Gerzabek, M.H.; Guggenberger, G.; Klumpp, E.; Knief, C.; Lehndorff, E.; Mikutta, R.; Peth, S.; Prechtel, A.; et al. Microaggregates in soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2018, 181, 104–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tisdall, J.M.; Oades, J.M. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci. 1982, 33, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Demenois, J.; Rey, F.; Ibanez, T.; Stokes, A.; Carriconde, F. Linkages between root traits, soil fungi and aggregate stability in tropical plant communities along a successional vegetation gradient. Plant Soil 2018, 424, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Angers, D.A.; Caron, J. Plant-induced changes in soil structure: Processes and feedbacks. Biogeochemistry 1998, 42, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Pérès, G.; Cluzeau, D.; Menasseri, S.; Soussana, J.F.; Bessler, H.; Engels, C.; Habekost, M.; Gleixner, G.; Weigelt, A.; Weisser, W.W.; et al. Mechanisms linking plant community properties to soil aggregate stability in an experimental grassland plant diversity gradient. Plant Soil 2013, 373, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Stokes, A.; Atger, C.; Bengough, A.G.; Fourcaud, T.; Sidle, R.C. Desirable Plant root traits for protecting natural and engineered slopes against landslides. Plant Soil 2009, 324, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Fernandez, C.W.; Kennedy, P.G.E. Moving beyond the Black-box: Fungal Traits, Community Structure, and Carbon Sequestration in Forest Soils. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1378–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Erktan, A.; Cécillon, L.; Graf, F.; Roumet, C.; Legout, C.; Rey, F. Increase in soil aggregate stability along a Mediterranean successional gradient in severely eroded gully bed ecosystems: Combined effects of soil, root traits and plant community characteristics. Plant Soil 2016, 398, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Poirier, V.; Roumet, C.; Munson, A.D. The root of the matter: Linking root traits and soil organic matter stabilization processes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 120, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Jastrow, J.D.; Miller, R.M.; Lussenhop, J. Contributions of interacting biological mechanisms to soil aggregate stabilization in restored prairie. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1998, 30, 905–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Miller, R.; Jastrow, J. The application of VA mycorrhizae to ecosystem restoration and reclamation. In Mycorrhizal Functioning—An Integrative Plant-Fungal Process; Allen, M., Ed.; Chapman and Hall: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1992; pp. 438–467. [Google Scholar]
  114. Ontl, T.A.; Cambardella, C.A.; Schulte, L.A.; Kolka, R.K. Factors influencing soil aggregation and particulate organic matter responses to bioenergy crops across a topographic gradient. Geoderma 2015, 255–256, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Al Jaouni, S.; Saleh, A.M.; Wadaan, M.A.M.; Hozzein, W.N.; Selim, S.; AbdElgawad, H. Elevated CO2 induces a global metabolic change in basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) and peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) and improves their biological activity. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 224–225, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Teskey, R.O.; McGuire, M.A. Carbon dioxide transport in xylem causes errors in estimation of rates of respiration in stems and branches of trees. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25, 1571–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Marco, A.; Napoletano, P.; Panico, S.C.; Memoli, V.; Santorufo, L.; Ruggiero, A.R.; Colombo, C.; Barile, R.; Maisto, G. Combined Effect of Black Locust Invasion and Fire on Soils of Mediterranean Shrublands and Pine Forests. Catena 2023, 220, 106656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Heid, L.; Calvaruso, C.; Andrianantenaina, A.; Granier, A.; Conil, S.; Rathgeber, C.B.K.; Turpault, M.P.; Longdoz, B. Seasonal time-course of the above ground biomass production efficiency in beech trees (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ann. For. Sci. 2018, 75, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Teskey, R.O.; Saveyn, A.; Steppe, K.; McGuire, M.A. Origin, fate and significance of CO2 in tree stems. New Phytol. 2008, 177, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Field, C.B.; Jackson, R.B.; Mooney, H.A. Stomatal responses to increased CO2: Implications from the plant to the global scale. Plant. Cell Environ. 1995, 18, 1214–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rogers, A.; Humphries, S.W. A mechanistic evaluation of photosynthetic acclimation at elevated CO2. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2000, 6, 1005–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Byeon, S.; Song, W.; Park, M.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, H.; Jeon, J.; Kim, K.; Lee, M.; Lim, H.; et al. Canopy Height Affects the Allocation of Photosynthetic Carbon and Nitrogen in Two Deciduous Tree Species under Elevated CO2. J. Plant Physiol. 2021, 268, 153584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Smith, M.G.; Miller, R.E.; Arndt, S.K.; Kasel, S.; Bennett, L.T. Whole-tree distribution and temporal variation of non-structural carbohydrates in broadleaf evergreen trees. Tree Physiol. 2018, 38, 570–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Shen, Y.; Gilbert, G.S.; Li, W.; Fang, M.; Lu, H.; Yu, S. Linking Aboveground Traits to Root Traits and Local Environment: Implications of the Plant Economics Spectrum. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Halpern, M.; Bar-Tal, A.; Lugassi, N.; Egbaria, A.; Granot, D.; Yermiyahu, U. The role of nitrogen in photosynthetic acclimation to elevated [CO2] in tomatoes. Plant Soil 2019, 434, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Smith, N.G. Plant Respiration Responses to Elevated CO2: An Overview from Cellular Processes to Global Impacts. In Plant Respiration: Metabolic Fluxes and Carbon Balance. Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration (Including Bioenergy and Related Processes; Tcherkez, G., Ghashghaie, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 43, pp. 69–87. [Google Scholar]
  127. Gimeno, T.E.; Crous, K.Y.; Cooke, J.; O’Grady, A.P.; Ósvaldsson, A.; Medlyn, B.E.; Ellsworth, D.S. Conserved stomatal behaviour under elevated CO2 and varying water availability in a mature woodland. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, Y.; Yan, D.; Wang, J.; Ding, Y.; Song, X. Effects of Elevated CO2 and Drought on Plant Physiology, Soil Carbon and Soil Enzyme Activities. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 846–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Li, L.; Wang, M.; Pokharel, S.S.; Li, C.; Parajulee, M.N.; Chen, F.; Fang, W. Effects of elevated CO2 on foliar soluble nutrients and functional components of tea, and population dynamics of tea aphid, Toxoptera aurantii. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 145, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Aranjuelo, I.; Cabrera-Bosquet, L.; Morcuende, R.; Avice, J.C.; Nogués, S.; Araus, J.L.; Martínez-Carrasco, R.; Pérez, P. Does ear C sink strength contribute to overcoming photosynthetic acclimation of wheat plants exposed to elevated CO2? J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 3957–3969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Quick, W.P.; Schurr, U.; Fichtner, K.; Schulze, E.-D.; Rodermel, S.R.; Bogorad, L.; Stitt, M. The impact of decreased Rubisco on photosynthesis, growth, allocation and storage in tobacco plants which have been transformed with antisense rbcS. Plant J. 1991, 1, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Soh, W.K.; Yiotis, C.; Murray, M.A.; Parnell, A.C.; Wright, I.M.R.; Spicer, R.A.; Lawson, T.; Caballero, R.; McElwain, J.C. Rising CO2 Drives Divergence in Water Use Efficiency of Evergreen and Deciduous Plants. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax7906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Peñuelas, J.; Fernández-Martínez, M.; Vallicrosa, H.; Maspons, J.; Zuccarini, P.; Carnicer, J.; Sanders, T.G.M.; Krüger, I.; Obersteiner, M.; Janssens, I.A.; et al. Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Correlate with Declining Nutritional Status of European Forests. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Skinner, C.B.; Poulsen, C.J.; Mankin, J.S. Amplification of heat extremes by plant CO2 physiological forcing. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wong, S.C.; Cowan, I.R.; Farquhar, G.D. Stomatal conductance correlates with photosynthetic capacity. Nature 1979, 282, 424–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Purcell, C.; Batke, S.P.; Yiotis, C.; Caballero, R.; Soh, W.K.; Murray, M.; McElwain, J.C. Increasing stomatal conductance in response to rising atmospheric CO2. Ann. Bot. 2018, 121, 1137–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ghildiyal, M.C.; Sharma-Natu, P. Photosynthetic acclimation to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2000, 38, 961–966. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  138. Long, S.P.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A.; Ort, D.R. Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Plants FACE the future. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 591–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Maroco, J.P.; Edwards, G.E.; Ku, M.S.B. Photosynthetic acclimation of maize to growth under elevated levels of carbon dioxide. Planta 1999, 210, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Dingkuhn, M.; Luquet, D.; Fabre, D.; Muller, B.; Yin, X.; Paul, M.J. The case for improving crop carbon sink strength or plasticity for a CO2-rich future. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 56, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Sanz-Sáez, Á.; Erice, G.; Aranjuelo, I.; Nogués, S.; Irigoyen, J.J.; Sánchez-Díaz, M. Photosynthetic down-regulation under elevated CO2 exposure can be prevented by nitrogen supply in nodulated alfalfa. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 1558–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A.; Nelson, R.; Long, S.P. Testing the “source-sink” hypothesis of down-regulation of photosynthesis in elevated [CO2] in the field with single gene substitutions in Glycine max. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2004, 122, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Wujeska-Klause, A.; Crous, K.Y.; Ghannoum, O.; Ellsworth, D.S. Lower photorespiration in elevated CO2 reduces leaf N concentrations in mature Eucalyptus trees in the field. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 1282–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Asensio, J.S.R.; Rachmilevitch, S.; Bloom, A.J. Responses of arabidopsis and wheat to rising CO2 depend on nitrogen source and nighttime CO2 levels. Plant Physiol. 2015, 168, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bravdo, B.-A.; Canvin, D. Effect of Carbon Dioxide on Photorespiration. Plant Physiol. 1979, 63, 399–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Bunce, J.A. Three new methods indicate that CO2 concentration affects plant respiration in the range relevant to global change. AoB Plants 2021, 13, plab004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Fry, E.L.; De Long, J.R.; Bardgett, R.D. Plant communities as modulators of soil carbon storage. In Soil Carbon Storage: Modulators, Mechanisms and Modeling; Singh, B., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 29–71. ISBN 9780128127667. [Google Scholar]
  148. Kim, K.; Labbé, N.; Warren, J.M.; Elder, T.; Rials, T.G. Chemical and anatomical changes in Liquidambar styraciflua L. xylem after long term exposure to elevated CO2. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 198, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Milhinhos, A.; Miguel, C.M. Hormone interactions in xylem development: A matter of signals. Plant Cell Rep. 2013, 32, 867–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Savage, J.A.; Clearwater, M.J.; Haines, D.F.; Klein, T.; Mencuccini, M.; Sevanto, S.; Turgeon, R.; Zhang, C. Allocation, stress tolerance and carbon transport in plants: How does phloem physiology affect plant ecology? Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 709–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Liesche, J.; Schulz, A. Phloem transport in gymnosperms: A question of pressure and resistance. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2018, 43, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Lambers, H.; Oliveira, R.S. Plant Physiological Ecology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 9783030296391. [Google Scholar]
  153. Tarvainen, L.; Wallin, G.; Linder, S.; Näsholm, T.; Oren, R.; Ottosson Löfvenius, M.; Räntfors, M.; Tor-Ngern, P.; Marshall, J.D. Limited vertical CO2 transport in stems of mature boreal Pinus sylvestris trees. Tree Physiol. 2021, 41, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kong, D.; Wang, J.; Valverde-Barrantes, O.J.; Kardol, P. A framework to assess the carbon supply–consumption balance in plant roots. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 659–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Weiss, D.; Shomer-Ilan, A.; Vainstein, A.; Halevy, A.H. Photosynthetic carbon fixation in the corollas of Petunia hybrida. Physiol. Plant. 1990, 78, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Niinemets, Ü. Photosynthesis and resource distribution through plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 1052–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Woodward, F.I.; Lake, J.A.; Quick, W.P. Stomatal development and CO2: Ecological consequences. New Phytol. 2002, 153, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hetherington, A.M.; Woodward, F.I. The role of stomata in sensing and driving environmental change. Nature 2003, 424, 901–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Seo, Y.O.; Lumbres, R.I.C.; Lee, Y.J. Partitioning of above and belowground biomass and allometry in the two stand age classes of Pinus rigida in South Korea. Life Sci. J. 2012, 9, 3553–3559. [Google Scholar]
  160. Nabais, C.; Hansen, J.K.; David-Schwartz, R.; Klisz, M.; López, R.; Rozenberg, P. The effect of climate on wood density: What provenance trials tell us? For. Ecol. Manage. 2018, 408, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Lundqvist, S.O.; Seifert, S.; Grahn, T.; Olsson, L.; García-Gil, M.R.; Karlsson, B.; Seifert, T. Age and weather effects on between and within ring variations of number, width and coarseness of tracheids and radial growth of young Norway spruce. Eur. J. For. Res. 2018, 137, 719–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Furze, M.E.; Trumbore, S.; Hartmann, H. Detours on the phloem sugar highway: Stem carbon storage and remobilization. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2018, 43, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Cernusak, L.A.; Marshall, J.D. Photosynthetic refixation in branches of Western White Pine. Funct. Ecol. 2000, 14, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ma, S.H.; Eziz, A.; Tian, D.; Yan, Z.B.; Cai, Q.; Jiang, M.W.; Ji, C.J.; Fang, J.Y.; Sun, O.J. Size- and age-dependent increases in tree stem carbon concentration: Implications for forest carbon stock estimations. J. Plant Ecol. 2020, 13, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Farrar, J.F.; Jones, D.L. The control of carbon acquisition by roots. In New Phytologist; Kroon, H.D., Visser, E.J.W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; Volume 147, pp. 43–53. [Google Scholar]
  166. Lynch, J.; Marschner, P.; Rengel, Z. Effect of Internal and External Factors on Root Growth and Development. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Marschner, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 331–346. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
  167. Hennion, N.; Durand, M.; Vriet, C.; Doidy, J.; Maurousset, L.; Lemoine, R.; Pourtau, N. Sugars en route to the roots. Transport, metabolism and storage within plant roots and towards microorganisms of the rhizosphere. Physiol. Plant. 2019, 165, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Jackson, R.B.; Mooney, H.A.; Schulze, E.D. A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 7362–7366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Lambers, H.; Atkin, O.; Millenaar, F. Respiratory Patterns in Roots in Relation to Their Functioning. In Plant Roots; Waisel, Y., Eshel, A., Kafkaki, U., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 521–552. [Google Scholar]
  170. Kuzyakov, Y.; Domanski, G. Carbon input by plants into the soil. Review. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2000, 163, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Gougoulias, C.; Clark, J.M.; Shaw, L.J. The role of soil microbes in the global carbon cycle: Tracking the below-ground microbial processing of plant-derived carbon for manipulating carbon dynamics in agricultural systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 2362–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Lehmann, J.; Kleber, M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 2015, 528, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Hoang, N.V.; Park, C.; Kamran, M.; Lee, J.Y. Gene Regulatory Network Guided Investigations and Engineering of Storage Root Development in Root Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Le Deunff, E.; Lecourt, J.; Malagoli, P. Fine-tuning of root elongation by ethylene: A tool to study dynamic structure-function relationships between root architecture and nitrate absorption. Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 607–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Iversen, C.M. Digging deeper: Fine-root responses to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration in forested ecosystems. New Phytol. 2010, 186, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. de la Riva, E.G.; Prieto, I.; Marañón, T.; Pérez-Ramos, I.M.; Olmo, M.; Villar, R. Root economics spectrum and construction costs in Mediterranean woody plants: The role of symbiotic associations and the environment. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 1873–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kong, D.; Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Valverde-Barrantes, O.J.; Wang, R.; Zeng, H.; Kardol, P.; Zhang, H.; Feng, Y. Nonlinearity of root trait relationships and the root economics spectrum. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Kurze, S.; Engelbrecht, B.M.J.; Bilton, M.C.; Tielbörger, K.; Álvarez-Cansino, L. Rethinking the Plant Economics Spectrum for Annuals: A Multi-Species Study. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 640862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hishi, T.; Tateno, R.; Fukushima, K.; Fujimaki, R.; Itoh, M.; Tokuchi, N. Changes in the anatomy, morphology and mycorrhizal infection of fine root systems of Cryptomeria japonica in relation to stand ageing. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Funayama-Noguchi, S.; Shibata, M.; Noguchi, K.; Terashima, I. Effects of root morphology, respiration and carboxylate exudation on carbon economy in two non-mycorrhizal lupines under phosphorus deficiency. Plant Cell Environ. 2021, 44, 598–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Nielsen, K.L.; Eshel, A.; Lynch, J.P. The effect of phosphorus availability on the carbon economy of contrasting common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. J. Exp. Bot. 2001, 52, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Ding, W.; Cong, W.F.; Lambers, H. Plant phosphorus-acquisition and -use strategies affect soil carbon cycling. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Escandón, A.B.; Rojas, R.; Morales, L.V.; Corcuera, L.J.; Coopman, R.E.; Paula, S. Physiological differences between root suckers and saplings enlarge the regeneration niche in Eucryphia cordifolia Cav. Tree Physiol. 2018, 38, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Strock, C.F.; Lynch, J.P. Root secondary growth: An unexplored component of soil resource acquisition. Ann. Bot. 2020, 126, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Germon, A.; Laclau, J.P.; Robin, A.; Jourdan, C. Tamm Review: Deep fine roots in forest ecosystems: Why dig deeper? For. Ecol. Manage. 2020, 466, 118135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Wu, X.J.; Sun, S.; Xing, G.M.; Wang, G.L.; Wang, F.; Xu, Z.S.; Tian, Y.S.; Hou, X.L.; Xiong, A.S. Elevated carbon dioxide altered morphological and anatomical characteristics, ascorbic acid accumulation, and related gene expression during taproot development in carrots. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Gray, S.B.; Rodriguez-Medina, J.; Rusoff, S.; Toal, T.W.; Kajala, K.; Runcie, D.E.; Brady, S.M. Translational regulation contributes to the elevated CO2 response in two Solanum species. Plant J. 2020, 102, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Cohen, I.; Rapaport, T.; Berger, R.T.; Rachmilevitch, S. The effects of elevated CO2 and nitrogen nutrition on root dynamics. Plant Sci. 2018, 272, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Neumann, G.; Römheld, V. Rhizosphere Chemistry in Relation to Plant Nutrition. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Marschner, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 347–368. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
  190. Koo, B.J.; Adriano, D.C.; Bolan, N.S.; Barton, C.D. Root Exudates and Microorganisms. In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 4, pp. 421–428. ISBN 9780080547954. [Google Scholar]
  191. Cuny, H.E.; Rathgeber, C.B.K.; Frank, D.; Fonti, P.; Makinen, H.; Prislan, P.; Rossi, S.; Del Castillo, E.M.; Campelo, F.; Vavrčík, H.; et al. Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Pausch, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. Carbon input by roots into the soil: Quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Zhou, G.; Xu, S.; Ciais, P.; Manzoni, S.; Fang, J.; Yu, G.; Tang, X.; Zhou, P.; Wang, W.; Yan, J.; et al. Climate and litter C/N ratio constrain soil organic carbon accumulation. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2019, 6, 746–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Kicklighter, D.W.; Melillo, J.M.; Monier, E.; Sokolov, A.P.; Zhuang, Q. Future nitrogen availability and its effect on carbon sequestration in Northern Eurasia. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Cao, Y.; He, Z.; Zhu, T.; Zhao, F. Organic-C quality as a key driver of microbial nitrogen immobilization in soil: A meta-analysis. Geoderma 2021, 383, 114784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Zhao, M.; Zhao, J.; Yuan, J.; Hale, L.; Wen, T.; Huang, Q.; Vivanco, J.M.; Zhou, J.; Kowalchuk, G.A.; Shen, Q. Root exudates drive soil-microbe-nutrient feedbacks in response to plant growth. Plant Cell Environ. 2021, 44, 613–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Ochoa-Hueso, R.; Hughes, J.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Drake, J.E.; Tjoelker, M.G.; Piñeiro, J.; Power, S.A. Rhizosphere-driven increase in nitrogen and phosphorus availability under elevated atmospheric CO2 in a mature Eucalyptus woodland. Plant Soil 2017, 416, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Saleem, M.; Law, A.D.; Sahib, M.R.; Pervaiz, Z.H.; Zhang, Q. Impact of root system architecture on rhizosphere and root microbiome. Rhizosphere 2018, 6, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Ostle, N.; Smith, P.; Fisher, R.; Woodward, F.I.; Fisher, J.B.; Smith, J.; Galbraith, D.W.; Levy, P.M.; Meir, P.; McNamara, N.P.; et al. Integrating Plant-Soil Interactions into Global Carbon Cycle Models. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 851–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Kowalchuk, G.A. Bad news for soil carbon sequestration? Science 2012, 337, 1049–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Parihar, M.; Rakshit, A.; Meena, V.S.; Gupta, V.K.; Rana, K.; Choudhary, M.; Tiwari, G.; Mishra, P.K.; Pattanayak, A.; Bisht, J.K.; et al. The potential of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in C cycling: A review. Arch. Microbiol. 2020, 202, 1581–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07584 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the role of plant functional traits on soil properties and ecosystem services based on De Deyn et al., 2008, and Faucon et al., 2017 [23,24].
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the role of plant functional traits on soil properties and ecosystem services based on De Deyn et al., 2008, and Faucon et al., 2017 [23,24].
Sustainability 15 07584 g001
Sustainability 15 07584 g002 550
Figure 2. Conceptual schematic representation of the relationship between leaf conductance and other plant- and soil-associated processes altered by elevated CO2. Upward arrows indicate an increase, while downward arrows indicate a decrease. Solid arrows for positive impact, and dashed arrows for negative impact. Note: LC—leaf conductance, LA—leaf area, NPP—net primary productivity (reproduced and modified from [120]).
Figure 2. Conceptual schematic representation of the relationship between leaf conductance and other plant- and soil-associated processes altered by elevated CO2. Upward arrows indicate an increase, while downward arrows indicate a decrease. Solid arrows for positive impact, and dashed arrows for negative impact. Note: LC—leaf conductance, LA—leaf area, NPP—net primary productivity (reproduced and modified from [120]).
Sustainability 15 07584 g002
Sustainability 15 07584 g003 550
Figure 3. Summary of belowground carbon fluxes (based on [168,169,170,171,172]). Circles: assimilable and fast turnover time carbon compounds; triangles: non-assimilable fast-turnover-time carbon compounds; rectangles: slow-turnover-time carbon compounds.
Figure 3. Summary of belowground carbon fluxes (based on [168,169,170,171,172]). Circles: assimilable and fast turnover time carbon compounds; triangles: non-assimilable fast-turnover-time carbon compounds; rectangles: slow-turnover-time carbon compounds.
Sustainability 15 07584 g003
Table
Table 1. Effect of ambient and elevated CO2; ambient and elevated temperature on some root morphological characters of some selected species [90].
Table 1. Effect of ambient and elevated CO2; ambient and elevated temperature on some root morphological characters of some selected species [90].
SpeciesTreatmentsRD
(mm)		RTD
(mg mm−3)		SRL
(mm mg−1)		SRSA
(mm2 mg−1)
Bouteloua gracilisAC + AT0.26 (0.01) 0.554 (0.039)35 (3)28 (2)
AC + ET0.29 (0.01) 0.523 (0.030)30 (3)27 (2)
EC + AT0.26 (0.01) 0.552 (0.024)34 (2)28 (1)
EC + ET0.28 (0.01) 0.520 (0.015)32 (2)28 (1)
Carex eleocharisAC + AT0.23 (0.02)0.476 (0.032)56 (8)39 (4)
AC + ET0.22 (0.01)0.466 (0.013)57 (6)39 (2)
EC + AT0.24 (0.02)0.520 (0.019)44 (6)32 (3)
EC + ET0.22 (0.01)0.502 (0.032)56 (5)37 (3)
Pascopyrum smithiiAC + AT0.41 (0.04)0.540 (0.032)16 (4) 19 (3)
AC + ET0.41 (0.04)0.472 (0.021)17 (3) 21 (2)
EC + AT0.35 (0.03)0.467 (0.047)25 (5) 26 (2)
EC + ET0.32 (0.05)0.431 (0.026)35 (9) 31 (4)
CommunityAC + AT0.23 (0.004)0.495 (0.015)50 (3) 36 (2)
AC + ET0.25 (0.02) 0.475 (0.022)44 (4) 34 (1)
EC + AT0.22 (0.01) 0.494 (0.024)55 (4) 37 (2)
EC + ET0.20 (0.01) 0.507 (0.048)65 (7) 40 (3)
Note: AC—ambient CO2, AT—ambient temperature, EC—elevated CO2, ET—elevated temperature, RD—root diameter (mm), RTD—root tissue density (mg mm−3), SRL—specific root length (mm mg−1), SRSA—specific root surface area (mm2 mg−1).
Table
Table 2. Summary of impacts of morphological traits on plant and soil CS.
Table 2. Summary of impacts of morphological traits on plant and soil CS.
Explored Morphological TraitsDefinitionRelationship with Plant CS Relationship with Soil CSDeduced Stage of C Accumulation That Is AffectedRefs.
Leaf angle Angle between stem and leaves+/−n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C		[49,116,117]
Leaf curvatureTo the degree leaves are curved−n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C		[117]
Leaf shapeStructural outline and appearance of leaf+ (Length),
− (width)		n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C		[118]
Internode lengthDistance between leaf nodes+/−n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C		[118,119]
Petiole lengthLength of leaf petiole+n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C		[119]
Leaf area
Leaf area ratio per whole plant CLeaf area to whole plant C ratio−n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C
and C storage in plant body		[93]
Specific leaf areaLeaf area to leaf drymass ratio and indicates leaf thickness−n.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C
and C storage in plant body		[62]
Crown diameterDiameter of the span of tree crownn.kn.dPhotoassimilation of
atmospheric C		[120]
Culm diameterDiameter of culm (modified stem)+n.dC Storage in plant body[40]
Root diameterDiameter of rootsn.d−SOC sequestration[39,52]
Root length and area [34,35,63,85,121,122,123,124]
Root length The depth to which root extendsn.d+SOC sequestration
Specific root lengthRoot length to root drymass ration.d+SOC sequestration
Root surface areaTotal surface area of root massn.d+SOC sequestration
Root length densityTotal length of roots per unit soil volumen.d+SOC sequestration[7,39,125,126]
Table
Table 3. Impact of elevated CO2 on some selected crop plants’ physiological parameters.
Table 3. Impact of elevated CO2 on some selected crop plants’ physiological parameters.
Species/CropsNet Photosynthesis RateLeaf TranspirationStomatal ConductanceIntercellular CO2 Concentration Reference(s)
Soybean (Glycine max)+++−−−−−−+++[45]
Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.)+++n.d−−−n.d[115]
Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.)+++n.d−−−n.d[115]
Tea (Longjing changye)+++−−−−−−+++[129]
Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. MV 16)+++−−−000000[96]
Note: +++—increase, −−−—decrease, 000—statistically insignificant.
Table
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients among elevated CO2, root biomass of Eucalyptus, and enzymes involved in C cycling (modified from [197]).
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients among elevated CO2, root biomass of Eucalyptus, and enzymes involved in C cycling (modified from [197]).
Rhizosphere AGBGCBHXYL
Fine-root biomass0.333−0.3730.5610.496
Rhizosphere soil mass0.273−0.0970.330.69
Coarse-root biomass0.646−0.3290.0990.389
Total root biomass0.677−0.3730.1750.449
Note: AG—α-1,4-glucosidase; BG—β-1,4-glucosidase; CBH—β-D-cellobiohydrolase; XYL—β-xylosidase.
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 MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI 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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bhattacharyya, S.S.; Mondaca, P.; Shushupti, O.; Ashfaq, S. Interplay between Plant Functional Traits and Soil Carbon Sequestration under Ambient and Elevated CO2 Levels. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097584

AMA Style

Bhattacharyya SS, Mondaca P, Shushupti O, Ashfaq S. Interplay between Plant Functional Traits and Soil Carbon Sequestration under Ambient and Elevated CO2 Levels. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097584

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bhattacharyya, Siddhartha Shankar, Pedro Mondaca, Oloka Shushupti, and Sharjeel Ashfaq. 2023. "Interplay between Plant Functional Traits and Soil Carbon Sequestration under Ambient and Elevated CO2 Levels" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097584

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop