A Comparative Study of Agroecological Intensification Across Diverse European Agricultural Systems to Assess Soil Structure and Carbon Dynamics

Ci a ion: Doyeni, M.O.; Kadziene, G.;
P anai iene, S.; Slepe iene, A.;
Ske siene, A.; Shamshi o , A.;
T inche a, A.; Wa en Ra a, D.;
Tes ani, E.; Fon aine, S.; e al. A
Compa a i e S udy o Ag oecological
In ensi ica ion Ac oss Di e se
Eu opean Ag icul u al Sys ems o
Assess Soil S uc u e and Ca bon
Dynamics. Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/
ag onomy14123024
Academic Edi o : Joji Mu amo o
Recei ed: 31 Oc obe 2024
Re ised: 12 Decembe 2024
Accep ed: 13 Decembe 2024
Published: 18 Decembe 2024
Copy igh : © 2024 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/).
A icle
A Compa a i e S udy o Ag oecological In ensi ica ion Ac oss
Di e se Eu opean Ag icul u al Sys ems o Assess Soil S uc u e
and Ca bon Dynamics
Modupe Olu emi Doyeni 1,* , G azina Kadziene 1,* , Simona P anai iene 1, Al y a Slepe iene 1,
Aida Ske siene 1, A man Shamshi o 1, Alessand a T inche a 2, Dylan Wa en Ra a 2, Elena Tes ani 2,
Sebas ien Fon aine 3, An onio Rod iguez-He nandez 3,4, Jim Rasmussen 5, Sa a Sánchez-Mo eno 6,
Ma joleine Haneg aa 7, Akin Un 8, Simon Sail 9and Skaid e Sup oniene 1
1Ins i u e o Ag icul u e, Li huanian Resea ch Cen e o Ag icul u e and Fo es y (LAMMC), Ins i u o al. 1,
Kedainiai Dis ic , LT-58344 Akademija, Li huania; [email p o ec ed] (S.P.);
[email p o ec ed] (A.S.); [email p o ec ed] (A.S.); [email p o ec ed] (A.S.);
skaid e.sup [email p o ec ed] (S.S.)
2Council o Ag icul u al Resea ch and Economics (CREA), Via della Na icella 2, 00184 Rome, I aly;
[email p o ec ed].i (A.T.); dylan.wa en a a@c ea.go .i (D.W.R.); elena. es ani@c ea.go .i (E.T.)
3F ench Na ional Ins i u e o Ag icul u e, Food, and En i onmen (INRAE), Uni e si éCle mon
Au e e gne, Ve Ag o Sup, UREP, 5 chemin de Beaulieu, 63000 Cle mon -Fe and, F ance;
[email p o ec ed] (S.F.); [email p o ec ed] (A.R.-H.)
4URP3F, INRAE, Le Chêne-RD 150, CS 80006, 86600 Lusignan, F ance
5Depa men o Ag oecology, Aa hus Uni e si y (AU), Vibo g, Bliche s Allé20, 8830 Tjele, Denma k;
[email p o ec ed]
6Na ional Ins i u e o Ag icul u al and Food Resea ch and Technology, Spanish Na ional Resea ch
Council (INIA-CSIC), C a. Co uña km 7.5, 28040 Mad id, Spain; [email p o ec ed]
7S ich ing Wageningen Resea ch (WR), D oe endaalses eeg 4, 6708PB Wageningen, The Ne he lands;
ma joleine.haneg aa @wu .nl
8GAP Ag icul u al Resea ch Ins i u e, Gene al Di ec o a e o Ag icul u al Resea ch and Policies (TAGEM),
Republic o Tu kiye Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y, Pasabagi s ., Recep Tayyip E do˘gan Bl d., No. 106,
7563040 Haliliye, Tü kiye; [email p o ec ed]
9The Walloon Ag icul u al Resea ch Cen e (CRAW), ue de Li oux 9, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium;
[email p o ec ed]
*Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] (M.O.D.); [email p o ec ed] (G.K.)
Abs ac : Con inuous ag icul u al ac i i ies lead o soil o ganic ca bon (SOC) deple ion, and ag oe-
cological in ensi ica ion p ac ices (i.e., educed soil dis u bance and c op di e si ica ion) ha e been
sugges ed as s a egies o inc ease SOC s o age. The s udy aims o assess he e ec o ag oecological
in ensi ica ion le els (lowe (T1) and highes (T2)) on he soil C pool and agg ega e s abili y and
alida e he co ela ion be ween di e en a iables compa ed o he con ol (lowes /none (T3), whe e
ag oecological in ensi ica ion was no applied. The C-s ock, soil mic obial biomass ca bon (SMB-C),
SOC, wa e ex ac able o ganic ca bon (WEOC) in bulk soil, ine and coa se soil agg ega es, and
wa e -s able agg ega es (WSA) we e measu ed du ing maximum nu ien up ake in plan s unde
di e si ied ag oecological p ac ices ac oss di e en en i onmen al condi ions (co e si es: I aly (CS1),
F ance (CS2), Denma k (CS4), Spain (CS5), Ne he lands (CS6), Li huania (CS7), Tu key (CS8), and
Belgium (CS9)). The soil agg ega e s abili y a ied among he CSs and ea men s. A si es CS7 and
CS9, WSA was highe in T1 and T2 compa ed o he con ol; a simila end was obse ed a o he
si es, excep CS1. SMB-C di e ed among he co e si es, wi h he lowes alue ob ained in CS5 (52.3
µ
g
g
−1
) and he highes in CS6 (455.1
µ
g g
−1
). The highes a e age con en s o SOC and WEOC we e
ob ained in bulk soil a CS2 (3.1 % and 0.3 g kg
−1
espec i ely). Posi i e and s a is ically signi ican
(p< 0.001) co ela ions we e de ec ed among all a iables es ed wi h SOC in bulk soil and WSA. This
s udy demons a es he signi icance o ag oecological p ac ices in imp o ing soil ca bon s ock and
op imizing plan –soil–mic obe in e ac ions.
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ag onomy14123024 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/ag onomy
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 2 o 19
Keywo ds: agg ega e s abili y; ag oecological in ensi ica ion; mic obial biomass ca bon; soil ca bon;
wa e ex ac able o ganic ca bon
1. In oduc ion
The in e es in soil heal h is inc easing globally due o i s ac i e ole in sus ainable ag i-
cul u e, enhanced biodi e si y, and ecosys em se ices. As soil biodi e si y and esilience
a e suscep ible o an h opogenic dis u bances and clima e change impac s, implemen ing
e ec i e ag icul u al managemen and conse a ion s a egies becomes impe a i e [
1
]. The
challenges o clima e change o ag icul u e a e changing and daun ing, equi ing inno a i e
solu ions. Adop ing sus ainable ag oecological p ac ices is i al o main aining soil p o-
duc i i y and esilience while p ese ing key unc ions like ca bon seques a ion o suppo
sus ainable ag icul u e and mi iga e clima e change [
2
]. Simul aneously, he in e ac ions
be ween plan s and soil bio a a e c ucial o egula ing soil o ganic ca bon (SOC) dynamics
and o e all soil heal h. The di e se pedoclima ic condi ions ac oss Eu ope, combined wi h
a ying le els o ag icul u al in ensi ica ion, ha e in oduced nume ous d i e s, such as
plan di e si y, hizosphe e ai s, soil meso auna, mic obial unc ional di e si y, nu ien
cycles (C, N, and P), and wa e a ailabili y, ha in luence c i ical soil unc ions in di e en
c opping sys ems. Fo example, pe ennial plan co e and high-inpu annual c ops can
yield simila biomass wi hin he same pedoclima ic con ex [
3
]. Howe e , he pe ennial
co e has he added bene i o p ese ing soil o ganic ma e (SOM) and e ili y while
deli e ing essen ial egula ing se ices like wa e pu i ica ion and ca bon s o age. Simi-
la ly, inco po a ing pe ennial legumes in o annual c op o a ions o e s mul iple bene i s.
I inc eases he o al and labile ac ions o wa e -ex ac able o ganic ca bon (WEOC) and
enhances he po en ial o o ganic ma e leaching and apid mic obial ans o ma ion o
dissol ed o ganic ma e ials in soils [
4
]. In some ag icul u al se ings, high-inpu annual
c ops, p e alen in many a ming sys ems, equen ly cause soil deg ada ion, nu ien
losses, and ele a ed GHG emissions by dis up ing na u al plan –soil in e ac ions. Ag oe-
cological a ming p ac ices ha e been adop ed as a p omising pa hway o add ess hese
challenges. This will encou age he shi in ag icul u al in ensi ica ion owa d bene icial
p ac ices ha enhance c i ical soil unc ions such as a shi in mic obial communi ies and
he b eakdown and e-syn hesis o SOM. Ag oecological p ac ices ha e posi i ely impac ed
soil unc ions, especially he e iciency o plan –soil bio a in e ac ions [
5
]. These p ac ices
op imize he synch oniza ion be ween soil nu ien supply and plan demand, educe
nu ien losses and g eenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and enhance ca bon seques a ion [
3
].
The ag oecological p ac ices include bu a e no limi ed o conse a ion illage p ac ices,
ecological se ice c ops (co e c ops, in e c opping), di e si ica ion s a egies ( o a ions,
mul i-c opping, ag o o es y), and o ganic inpu s (compos , biocha , diges a e). These
s a egies os e bene icial mic obial associa ions, including symbio ic ela ionships wi h
hizobia [
6
]. Amongs he di e en soil indica o s conside ed in soil heal h, he desc ip ion
o soil agg ega e s abili y wi h soil C nu ien cycling is hugely impo an . Soil agg ega e
s abili y is an impo an physical indica o o soil heal h, as imp o emen s in agg ega e
s abili y a e ela ed o educed esis ance agains e osion [
7
]. The ele ance o soil agg ega e
s abili y in main aining soil s uc u e emains c i ical due o he mul iple unc ions played
by mic o- and mac oagg ega es [
8
–
10
]. The di e se pedoclima ic condi ions ac oss Eu ope,
combined wi h a ying le els o ag icul u al in ensi ica ion, ha e in oduced nume ous
d i e s, such as plan di e si y, hizosphe e ai s, soil meso auna, mic obial unc ional
di e si y, nu ien cycles (C, N, and P), and wa e a ailabili y, ha in luence c i ical soil
unc ions in di e en c opping sys ems. Fo example, pe ennial plan co e and high-inpu
annual c ops can yield simila biomass wi hin he same pedoclima ic con ex [
3
]. Howe e ,
he pe ennial co e has he added bene i o p ese ing soil o ganic ma e (SOM) and e il-
i y while deli e ing essen ial egula ing se ices like wa e pu i ica ion and ca bon s o age.
Simila ly, inco po a ing pe ennial legumes in o annual c op o a ions has mul iple bene i s.
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 3 o 19
I inc eases he o al and labile ac ions o wa e -ex ac able o ganic ca bon (WEOC) and
enhances he po en ial o o ganic ma e leaching and apid mic obial ans o ma ion o
dissol ed o ganic ma e ials in soils [
4
]. In some ag icul u al se ings, high-inpu annual
c ops, p e alen in many a ming sys ems, equen ly cause soil deg ada ion, nu ien
losses, and ele a ed GHG emissions by dis up ing na u al plan –soil in e ac ions. To ad-
d ess hese challenges, ag oecological a ming p ac ices ha e been adop ed o encou age
he shi in ag icul u al in ensi ica ion owa d bene icial p ac ices ha enhance c i ical soil
unc ions, such as a shi in mic obial communi ies and he b eakdown and e-syn hesis
o SOM. Ag oecological p ac ices ha e posi i ely impac ed soil unc ions, especially he
e iciency o plan –soil bio a in e ac ions. These p ac ices op imize he synch oniza ion
be ween soil nu ien supply and plan demand, educe nu ien losses, and enhance ca bon
seques a ion [
3
,
5
]. Addi ionally, hese s a egies os e bene icial mic obial associa ions,
including symbio ic ela ionships wi h hizobia [
6
]. The ag oecological p ac ices include
bu a e no limi ed o conse a ion illage p ac ices, ecological se ice c ops (co e c ops,
in e c opping), di e si ica ion s a egies ( o a ions, mul i-c opping, ag o o es y), and
o ganic inpu s (compos , biocha , diges a e). The desc ip ion o soil agg ega e s abili y
wi h soil C nu ien cycling among he soil indica o s conside ed in soil heal h is hugely
impo an . Soil agg ega e s abili y is an impo an physical indica o o soil heal h, as
imp o emen s in agg ega e s abili y a e ela ed o educed esis ance agains e osion [
7
].
The ele ance o soil agg ega e s abili y in main aining soil s uc u e emains c i ical due o
he mul iple unc ions played by mic o- and mac oagg ega es [8–10].
The impac o ag oecological in ensi ica ion on agg ega e s abili y canno be o e em-
phasized. Fo ins ance, se e al s udies ha e demons a ed ha in ensi e illage weakens
soil s uc u e and enhances soil e osion [
11
]. In con as , no- ill as a o m o conse a i e
ag icul u e educes soil dis u bance and s eng hens he soil’s physical a ibu es. The
bene i s ha e been well s udied, wi h some o he bene i s lis ed as he o ma ion o la ge
agg ega es [
11
], g adual build-up in soil o ganic ca bon due o a slowe a e o c op esidue
b eakdown [
12
], and be e soil p oduc i i y [
13
,
14
]. Addi ionally, managing co e c ops
as pa o ag oecological in ensi ica ion le els can o e many ad an ages o he soil’s
physical, chemical, and biological cha ac e is ics, wi h imp o ed agg ega ion o ming a
c ucial pa [15,16].
The complex in e ac ion be ween soil s uc u e and mic obiome is c ucial in s a-
bilizing SOM. I is acknowledged ha soil managemen p ac ices signi ican ly a ec
SOC [
17
,
18
]. This connec ion is u he emphasized by implemen ing speci ic managemen
p ac ices, such as o ganic ma e ial inpu s (diges a e, li es ock manu es, compos s, biosolids,
e c.)
[19,20]
. SOM con en and he s abili y o soil agg ega es, being closely linked and
mu ually in luen ial, se e as signi ican indica o s o soil quali y and deg ada ion [
21
].
Fu he mo e, inc eased o ganic ma e inpu s enhance mic obial ac i i y and acili a e he
syn hesis o o ganic subs ances ha bind soil pa icles in o agg ega es bu also se e as a
nu ien ese oi , p omo ing he o ma ion o s able agg ega es [22].
Conside ing he in e linked mul iple ac o s a ec ing soil agg ega e o ma ion and
dis ibu ion, he e a e ques ions abou how o measu e he e ec s o ag oecological in-
ensi ica ion on soil ca bon cycling ac oss a ied EU pedoclima ic condi ions. The e is a
need o iden i y he ele an and mos sensi i e d i e s ha can desc ibe and enhance
he p oduc i i y o ag oecosys ems in di e en c opping sys ems conce ning soil ca bon
dynamics and agg ega e s abili y. Hence, i was opined ha ag icul u al in ensi ica ion
could shape soil s uc u e and ca bon cycling while p omo ing nu ien supply-plan de-
mand synch ony and SOC pe sis ence in soil. I was hypo hesized ha educing soil
dis u bance and inc easing plan di e si y imp o e soil C e ainmen and soil agg ega e
s abili y. The e o e, his s udy aimed o assess he e ec o he ag oecological in ensi ica ion,
in oduced in di e en EU ag icul u al c opping sys ems, on soil ca bon (C) pool and
agg ega e s abili y. To achie e his, we es ed a g adien o ag icul u al p ac ices, anging
om he mos in ensi e (in ense illage, monoc opping, mine al e iliza ion) o he mos
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 4 o 19
dis up i e ones (ag o o es y, in oduc ion o ecosys em se ice plan s) in a ne wo k o
long- e m expe imen si es ep esen a i e o se e al pedoclima ic EU egions.
2. Ma e ials and Me hods
2.1. Expe imen al Design and T ea men s
The expe imen was ca ied ou in 8 expe imen al ields/co e si es ac oss Eu ope—6
long- e m expe imen s (LTE) and 2 ecen ly es ablished (Figu e 1). The selec ed si es we e
ep esen a i e o wo c ossed g adien s o ag oecological in ensi ica ion: (i) a local-scale
g adien and (ii) a Eu opean-scale g adien buil in he ame o his s udy (Figu e 1).
Ag onomy2024,14,30244o 22


oiden i y he ele an andmos sensi i ed i e s ha candesc ibeandenhance he
p oduc i i yo ag oecosys emsindiffe en c oppingsys emsconce ningsoilca bondy-
namicsandagg ega es abili y.Hence,i wasopined ha ag icul u alin ensi ica ioncould
shapesoils uc u eandca boncyclingwhilep omo ingnu ien supply-plan demand
synch onyandSOCpe sis enceinsoil.I washypo hesized ha  educingsoildis u bance
andinc easingplan di e si yimp o esoilC e ainmen andsoilagg ega es abili y.
The e o e, hiss udyaimed oassess heeffec o  heag oecologicalin ensi ica ion,in o-
ducedindiffe en EUag icul u alc oppingsys ems,onsoilca bon(C)poolandagg e-
ga es abili y.Toachie e his,we es edag adien o ag icul u alp ac ices, anging om
hemos in ensi e(in ense illage,monoc opping,mine al e iliza ion) o hemos dis-
up i eones(ag o o es y,in oduc iono ecosys emse iceplan s)inane wo ko long-
e mexpe imen si es ep esen a i eo se e alpedoclima icEU egions.
2.Ma e ialsandMe hods
2.1.Expe imen alDesignandT ea men s
Theexpe imen wasca iedou in8expe imen al ields/co esi esac ossEu ope—6
long- e mexpe imen s(LTE)and2 ecen lyes ablished(Figu e1).Theselec edsi eswe e
ep esen a i eo  woc ossedg adien so ag oecologicalin ensi ica ion:(i)alocal-scale
g adien and(ii)aEu opean-scaleg adien buil in he ameo  hiss udy(Figu e1).

Figu e1.Selec edsi esa e ep esen edas(i)local-scaleand(ii)Eu opean-scaleg adien so ag oe-
cologicalin ensi ica ion.SeeTable1 o  he ulldesc ip iono  heexpe imen alco esi es.
Se e alc i e iawe econside ed o selec ion:(i)a ailabili yo long- e mexpe i-
men ssi es—LTEs;(ii)in oduc iono c opdi e si y(co e c ops,in e c opping,ag o o -
es y);(iii) educ iono soildis u bance( educed illage,no- illage);(i )o ganicinpu s
(plan  esidues,animalmanu e,compos s,bioinoculan s).Eachsampledsi eincludesa
lowe ag oecologicalin ensi ica ionle el(T1), hehighes ag oecologicalin ensi ica ion
(T2),and helowes /noag oecologicalin ensi ica ion“con ol”si e(T3),whe eag oeco-
logicalin ensi ica ionwasno applied( illage,monoc opping,nose icec op
Figu e 1. Selec ed si es a e ep esen ed as (i) local-scale and (ii) Eu opean-scale g adien s o ag oeco-
logical in ensi ica ion. See Table 1 o he ull desc ip ion o he expe imen al co e si es.
Se e al c i e ia we e conside ed o selec ion: (i) a ailabili y o long- e m expe imen s
si es—LTEs; (ii) in oduc ion o c op di e si y (co e c ops, in e c opping, ag o o es y);
(iii) educ ion o soil dis u bance ( educed illage, no- illage); (i ) o ganic inpu s (plan
esidues, animal manu e, compos s, bioinoculan s). Each sampled si e includes a lowe
ag oecological in ensi ica ion le el (T1), he highes ag oecological in ensi ica ion (T2),
and he lowes /no ag oecological in ensi ica ion “con ol” si e (T3), whe e ag oecological
in ensi ica ion was no applied ( illage, monoc opping, no se ice c op in oduc ion, no
o ganic inpu s), and applied in ou ield eplica es (Table 1), allowing he e ec o si e-scale
ecological in ensi ica ion on ecosys em a iables o be es ed.
To limi he immedia e e ec o managemen p ac ices on soil sampling, samples we e
p edominan ly collec ed a di e en ime in e als, ep esen ing he peak o g een biomass
(maximum nu ien up ake when soil unc ions as a C sou ce) a he espec i e co e si es.
The soil samples we e aken a a 0–20 cm dep h ange o soil agg ega e s abili y, soil o ganic
ca bon (SOC), wa e -ex ac able o ganic ca bon (WEOC), and soil mic obial biomass C
(SMBC). Mac oagg ega es a e essen ial in o ganic ma e s abiliza ion, C accumula ion,
seques a ion, and mac oagg ega e o ma ion. Hence, in his s udy, we ocused on he
cha ac e iza ion o SOC and WEOC in coa se >1.0 mm (1.0–4.0 mm) and ine (0.25–1.0 mm)
soil mac oagg ega es unde di e en si e condi ions and ag oecological in ensi ica ion a
he Eu opean-scale g adien s. In all he eigh co e si es, h ee ea men s (T1, T2, T3)
×
4 blocks
×
1 eplica e/block = 96 soil samples. Each sample was made as a composi e
sample om 4 sub-samples collec ed wi hin each plo . To ensu e s anda diza ion and
app op ia e quali y con ol measu es, soil samples collec ed a a speci ied ime in any
co e si es we e immedia ely dispa ched a e ollowing he s anda d p o ocol o each
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 5 o 19
soil analysis o he ecei ing labo a o y o u he analysis. Addi ionally, o indi idual
analysis, such as soil agg ega e analysis, he sampling was ca ied ou when he soil was o
adequa e mois u e (no mally mois —mois u e close o ield capaci y) a sampling. I he soil
is oo we o oo d y, he soil s uc u e can be damaged, and i would in luence he esul s
o he analysis. Fo SMB-C, eshly collec ed ield samples we e analyzed immedia ely.
Table 1. T ea men classi ica ions in he expe imen al co e si es.
Co e Si e Expe imen al
Loca ion
Expe imen al
Plo Size pH Soil Tex u e T ea men s YFE Sampling
Time Code
Fe iliza ion Ra e
CS1 (ITALY) I aly, Rome,
41◦79′89′′ N
12◦57′21′′ E6.9 Sandy clay
loam
INC—compos ,
no- illage,
spon aneous
co e
T1
Municipal was e
compos 3% N:
4909 kg ha−1,
locally
dis ibu ed
132 m2ICC—compos ,
illage, mixed
co e c ops 2017 Ap il 2023 T2
Municipal was e
compos 3% N:
4909 kg ha−1
locally
dis ibu ed
BAU— illage,
o ganic
e ilize , no
CC (con ol)
T3
Comme cial
o ganic e ilize
5% N:
3030 kg ha−1,
locally
dis ibu ed
CS2 (FRANCE)
F ance,
Cle mon
Fe and,
45◦46′27.03” N
3◦8′31.02” E
6.1 Sandy clay
loam
GLN—g asses,
legumes—new
sys em T1 None
490.9 cm2
(Mesocosms
o 25 cm
diame e ).
WGLN—
sp ing whea ,
g asses,
legumes—new
sys em
2016 May 2023 T2 None
WN—sp ing
whea —new
sys em
(con ol)
T3 None
CS4
(DENMARK)
Denma k,
Foulum,
56◦30′N,
9◦34′E al i ude
45 m a.s.l.
5.8 Sandy loam
LP + TR—
Lolium pe enne
and whi e
clo e
New Ex-
pe imen
T1 N 75, P 24, K
303 kg ha−1y−1
18 m2MS6—Six-
species mix u e
July 2022 T2 N 75, P 24, K
303 kg ha−1y−1
LP—Lolium
pe enne
(con ol) T3 N 75, P 24, K
303 kg ha−1y−1
CS5 (SPAIN)
Spain, Alcalá
de Hena es,
40◦52′34′′ N
3◦12′42′′ W
250 m2
Loam
No illage,
monoc op T1
NPK 15:15:15 a
200 kg ha−1a
sowing and
200 kg ha−1o
ammonium
ni a e 27% in
sp ing.
8.0 No illage,
o a ion 1994 May 2023 T2
NPK 15:15:15 a
200 kg ha−1a
sowing and
200 kg ha−1o
ammonium
ni a e 27% in
sp ing.
Minimum
illage,
monoc op
(con ol)
T3
NPK 15:15:15 a
200 kg ha−1a
sowing and
200 kg ha−1o
ammonium
ni a e 27% in
sp ing.
CS6 (NETHER-
LANDS)
Ne he lands,
Wageningen,
51◦59′41.9′′ N,
5◦39′17.5′′ E
VO—Ve ch +
oa T1 None
50 m25.3 Loamy sand VOR—Ve ch +
oa + adish 2016 Ap il 2023 T2 None
F—Fallow
(con ol) T3 None

Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 6 o 19
Table 1. Con .
Co e Si e Expe imen al
Loca ion
Expe imen al
Plo Size pH Soil Tex u e T ea men s YFE Sampling
Time Code
Fe iliza ion Ra e
CS7
(LITHUANIA)
Li huania,
Akademija,
Kedainiai dis .,
55◦39′72′′ N
23◦86′11′′ E
6.7 Loam
NT—No illage
wi hou co e
c ops
Oc obe 2022
T1 N–219; P–72;
K–136; S–140
45 m2NT + CC—No
illage + co e
c ops 2013 T2 N–219; P–72;
K–136; S–140
T—
Con en ional
illage wi hou
co e c ops
(con ol)
T3 N–219; P–72;
K–136; S–140
CS8 (TURKEY)
Tu key,
Sanliu a;
36
◦
53
′
12.72
′′
N–
38◦55′15.04′′ E
7.7 Clay
NFC—No
ungi inoculum
wi h co e c op
New Ex-
pe imen Sep embe
2023
T1
109.4 kg ha
−1
y
−1
57.6 m2FC—Fungi
inoculum wi h
co e c op T2
109.4 kg ha
−1
y
−1
NFNC—No
ungi inoculum
wi hou co e
c op (con ol)
T3
109.4 kg ha
−1
y
−1
CS9 (BELGIUM)
Belgium,
Gembloux,
La i ude =
50.5606556,
Longi ude =
4.7264556,
Al i ude =
170 m
6.8 Sil loam
SBWB-FYM—
Suga bee ,
whea , ba ley +
a mya d
manu e
1959 Ap il 2023
T1
O ganic
e iliza ion:
10000 kg ha−1
y −1
(0.6% N—0.4%
P—0.8% K)
48 m2
SBWB-CR—
SBWB + c op
es. es i u ion
and co e c op
T2 Mine al
e iliza ion:
N–143; P–0; K–0
SBWB—SBWB
+ esidue
expo a ion
(con ol)
T3 Mine al
e iliza ion:
N—63; P–0; K–0
T1 = lowe ag oecological in ensi ica ion, T2 = highes ag oecological in ensi ica ion, T3 = lowes /no ag oecological
in ensi ica ion (con ol), YFE—yea o ield expe imen es ablishmen .
2.2. Soil Sampling and P epa a ion o he Agg ega e S abili y Analysis
The analysis p ocedu e o he soil agg ega e s abili y was ca ied ou acco ding o
he me hod desc ibed in [
23
]. Soil sampling was ca ied ou a he maximum c op demand
and when he soil was su icien ly mois . Undis u bed soil monoli hs we e collec ed by
la sho el, app oxima ely 5 cm
×
15 cm ( hickness and wideness) om a 0 o 20 cm dep h.
Immedia ely a e he collec ion, each soil monoli h was gen ly b oken in o ~1 cm
3
size soil
clods (agg ega es) by emo ing la ge s ones, oo s, s aw, e c., and le a oom empe a u e
o app oxima ely 1 mon h o ai d y be o e he sie ing p ocedu e.
2.2.1. D y Sie ing P ocess
Ai -d ied soil samples (200 g) we e weighed and sie ed by he Re sch AS200 basic
(Re sch GmbH, Haan, Ge many) sie e shake wi h a se o 8000, 5600, 4000, 2000, 1000,
500, and 250
µ
m mesh sizes. The sie ing p ocedu e p oceeded o 2 min a he shaking
ampli ude o 60 pm. The soil samples om he 1 mm sie e we e analyzed o he we
sie ing p ocedu e. The agg ega es om d y sie ing we e also used o main ain he SOC and
WEOC con en analysis wi h ine mac oagg ega es (0.25–1.0 mm ac ions: om 0.5 mm
and 0.25 mm sie es) and coa se mac oagg ega es (>1.0 mm (1.0–4.0 mm) ac ions: om
2.0 mm and 1.0 mm sie es).
2.2.2. We Sie ing P ocedu e by Ejkelkamp Appa a us
A 4 g sample o each 1.0–2.0 mm soil ac ion ( om 1 mm sie e) sample was weighed,
placed on numbe ed 0.25 mm sie es, mois ened wi h dis illed wa e by hand og-sp aye ,
and allowed o become adequa ely we o abou 15 min. A e ha , he samples wi h
sie es we e placed in he Ejkelkamp we sie ing appa a us (Eijkelkamp Soil & Wa e ,
Ze enaa , The Ne he lands) appa a us, wi h numbe ed holes, and he cylinde was placed
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 7 o 19
below he sie es acco ding o numbe s. A measu emen o 100 mL o dis illed wa e was
added o each cylinde , he sie es wi h samples we e imme sed down o he cylinde s wi h
dis illed wa e , and he appa a us was u ned on o 3 min. a in e als o he sie ing
p ocedu e. The non-s able agg ega es a e sepa a ed by his p ocedu e and emain in he
cylinde s wi h dis illed wa e . The sie es wi h wa e -s able soil agg ega es we e placed on
he side o he appa a us hole and allowed o d ain. Fu he mo e, an alkalic solu ion o 2 g
sodium hexame aphospha e (NaPO
3
)
6
/1 L dis illed wa e was p epa ed o sepa a e he
wa e -s able agg ega es. New, numbe ed cylinde s illed wi h 100 mL p epa ed solu ion
we e placed below he sie es acco ding o he abo e-men ioned p ocedu e and he sie ing
p ocess o abou 0.5–3 h, depending on he soil ype. The sie ing p ocedu e las s un il
he e is no soil le , lea ing only ga bage and pebbles. A e he sie ing, all he cylinde s
a e o en-d ied a 110
◦
C o abou 17–24 h (including an ex a sample o con ol 100 mL
alkalic solu ion wi hou he soil). Be o e weighing, he cylinde s a e placed in an exica o
o le in an o en o cool down. WSA was calcula ed wi h Equa ion (1).
WSA(%)=(WSA(g)–AC(g))
(NSA(g)+WSA(g)–AC(g)) ∗100 (1)
whe e WSA e e s o wa e s able agg ega es (g), NSA indica es non-s able agg ega es (g),
and AC is he alkalic con ol (g).
2.3. Soil Mic obial Biomass Ca bon De e mina ion
The umiga ion-ex ac ion me hod was used o de e mine he soil’s mic obial biomass
ca bon om he soil samples (sie ed wi h 2 mm mesh) ha we e collec ed om all he
co e si es a a dep h o 0–20 cm [
24
]. A 20 g sample o he sie ed soil was measu ed
and umiga ed by exposing he soil o he alcohol- ee chlo o o m (CHCl
3
) apo in a
sealed acuum desicca o o 24 h. The umiga ed soil was e acua ed epea edly in a clean,
emp y desicca o un il he odo o chlo o o m (CHCl
3
) was no longe de ec ed and hen
u he ex ac ed wi h 0.5 M K
2
SO
4
(soil (20 g): K
2
SO
4
(80 mL) in a a io 1:4) o 30 min by
oscilla ing shaking a 200 pm and hen il e ed h ough a Wha man No. 42 il e pape . The
same p ocedu e was applied o sie ed soil samples (20 g) wi hou exposu e o alcohol- ee
chlo o o m o ob ain un umiga ed soil ex ac s.
O ganic ca bon con en in he ex ac ed samples was subsequen ly de e mined using
he dich oma e diges ion me hod. Two mL o po assium dich oma e (K
2
C
2
O
7
(66.7 mM)
and 15 mL o he diges ion mix u e (2:1 conc. H
2
SO
4
:H
3
PO
4
( / ) was added o 8 mL o
ex ac in a 250 mL conical lask. The mix u e was gen ly e luxed o 30 min, cooled, and
dilu ed wi h 20 mL dis illed wa e . The excess K
2
C
2
O
7
was measu ed by back i a ion wi h
e ous ammonium sul a e solu ion (40.0 mM) using a 1.10-phenan h oline- e ous sul a e
complex [Fe(C
12
H
8
N
2
)
3
]SO
4
(25 mM) solu ion as an indica o . SMB-C was calcula ed om
he di e ences in ex ac able o ganic ca bon be ween he umiga ed and non- umiga ed
soil samples wi h a con e sion ac o (KEC) o 0.38 [24].
2.4. SOC, WEOC, and C-S ock Concen a ions in Fine Mac oagg ega es (0.25–1.0 mm) and
Coa se Mac oagg ega es (>1.0 mm) o Soil
The SOC con en in bulk soil and soil agg ega e ac ions was analyzed acco ding
o he Niki in-modi ied Tyu in dich oma e oxida ion me hod using we combus ion a
160
◦
C. SOC measu emen was pe o med using an au oma ic spec opho ome e Ca y
50 a a wa eleng h o 590 nm, wi h glucose as a s anda d [
25
]. The WEOC de e mina ion
was pe o med acco ding o he me hodology guided by SKALAR, using C
8
H
5
KO
4
as a
s anda d. The soil p epa ed o he chemical analyses was dispensed wi h dis illed wa e
a a a io o 1:5, and he ex ac was p epa ed by shaking, cen i uga ing o 15 min a
4500 pm, and il a ion. A e ha , he au oma ed measu emen p ocedu e was pe o med
based on he IR de ec ion me hod ollowing UV-ca alyzed pe sul a e oxida ion unde a
ni ogen en i onmen (SKALAR, The Ne he lands). Each soil sample was analyzed in
iplica e a e d y sie ing wi h a 1 mm mesh size sie e, and he mean alue was calcula ed.
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 8 o 19
Fo calcula ing he C-s ock, he soil bulk densi y was de e mined by es ima ing he
Soil olume weigh (SVW). The sie ed soil (<2 mm) was used o measu e he SVW and
hen calcula ed as he a io o he o en-d ied (105
◦
C) soil mass o a known olume. A
coa se ac ion (s ones, g a els) was weighed o de i e bulk densi y.
2.5. S a is ical Analysis
The obse ed da a we e s a is ically p ocessed using R S udio 4.3.2 so wa e [
26
]. The
Shapi o–Wilk es o no mali y and Le ene’s es o homogenei y o a iance we e applied
o each indica o sepa a ely o each co e si e. Based on hese es s, indica o s mee ing bo h
assump ions in a gi en CS we e analyzed using ANOVA, ollowed by Tukey’s HSD o
pos hoc compa isons. Fo indica o s in CSs whe e no mali y o homogenei y assump ions
we e no me , K uskal–Wallis es s we e used, ollowed by Dunn’s es o pos hoc analysis.
Pea son’s co ela ion analysis was used o analyze he ela ionship be ween he C-s ock,
SMB-C, WSA, SOC, and WEOC da a.
3. Resul s
3.1. Wa e -S able Agg ega es
The da a dis ibu ion in he co e si es was closely ela ed o he Eu opean-scale g adien
o ag oecological in ensi ica ion. The pe cen age o wa e -s able agg ega es a ied ac oss
he expe imen al si es and ea men s (Figu e 2). The lowes WSA alue was de e mined
a CS5 (Spain), while highe WSA alues we e obse ed a CS2 (F ance), CS1 (I aly), and
CS4 (Denma k), espec i ely. Signi ican di e ences (p< 0.05) we e ound wi hin he CS7
(Li huania) and CS9 (Belgium) ea men s, wi h he lowes WSA alues in he con ol g oup
in bo h ea men s. In con as , he WSA alue a he CS1 (I aly, o ganically managed sys em)
si e was g ea e in he con ol ea men , whe e minimum illage (0–10 cm) was applied,
compa ed o T1 and T2 (no- illage). O e all, signi ican di e ences we e ound be ween
he le el o ag oecological in ensi ica ion and he con ol a he ollowing co e si es: CS7
(Li huania)—T1 = T2 > T3; CS9 (Belgium)—T2 and T3; and CS1 (I aly)—T1 = T2 < T3.
Ag onomy2024,14,30249o 22


pos hocanalysis.Pea son’sco ela ionanalysiswasused oanalyze he ela ionshipbe-
ween heC-s ock,SMB-C,WSA,SOC,andWEOCda a.
3.Resul s
3.1.Wa e ‐S ableAgg ega es
Theda adis ibu ionin heco esi eswasclosely ela ed o heEu opean-scaleg a-
dien o ag oecologicalin ensi ica ion.Thepe cen ageo wa e -s ableagg ega es a ied
ac oss heexpe imen alsi esand ea men s(Figu e2).Thelowes WSA aluewasde e -
mineda CS5(Spain),whilehighe WSA alueswe eobse eda CS2(F ance),CS1(I -
aly),andCS4(Denma k), espec i ely.Signi ican diffe ences(p<0.05)we e oundwi hin
heCS7(Li huania)andCS9(Belgium) ea men s,wi h helowes WSA aluesin hecon ol
g oupinbo h ea men s.Incon as , heWSA aluea  heCS1(I aly,o ganicallymanaged
sys em)si ewasg ea e in hecon ol ea men ,whe eminimum illage(0–10cm)wasap-
plied,compa ed oT1andT2(no- illage).O e all,signi ican di e enceswe e oundbe ween
hele elo ag oecologicalin ensi ica ionand hecon ola  he ollowingco esi es:CS7(Li h-
uania)—T1andT3;CS9(Belgium)—T2andT3;andCS1(I aly)—T2andT3.

Figu e2.Amoun o wa e s ableagg ega es(WSA)(%)wi hin0.25–1.0mmsoil ac ionsunde 
di e si iedag oecologicalp ac icesanddiffe en en i onmen alcondi ionsin es edsi es.Thesi es
a ea angedacco ding oEu opean-scaleg adien so ecologicalin ensi ica ion(Figu e1).Eachbox
plo  ep esen s hedis ibu iono  ou  eplica es,showing hemedian,in e qua ile ange,andda a
ange(whiske s).Thecompac le e sshownabo eeachboxplo indica esigni ican diffe ences
be ween ea men sineachco esi e(p<0.05)basedonTukey’sHSD es o Dunn’s es .
3.2.SoilCa bonS ock
Thehighes amoun o C-s ockinbulksoil(ona e age49.6 ha
−1
)wasobse eda 
CS1(I aly), ollowedbyC-s ock aluesinCS4(Denma k)andCS6(Ne he lands)(Figu e
3).Thelowes C-s ock(ona e age27.3 ha
−1
)was ounda si eCS7(Li huania).Addi ion-
ally,lowca bons ockso 27.7 ha
−1
,31.3 ha
−1
,and31.1 ha
−1
we e oundinCS5(Spain),
CS8(Tu key),andCS9(Belgium), espec i ely.Signi ican diffe ences(p<0.05)we e
oundamong he ea men sinCS2(T1andT2)andCS9(T2andT3).
Figu e 2. Amoun o wa e s able agg ega es (WSA) (%) wi hin 0.25–1.0 mm soil ac ions unde
di e si ied ag oecological p ac ices and di e en en i onmen al condi ions in es ed si es. The si es
a e a anged acco ding o Eu opean-scale g adien s o ecological in ensi ica ion (Figu e 1). Each box
plo ep esen s he dis ibu ion o ou eplica es, showing he median, in e qua ile ange, and da a
ange (whiske s). The compac le e s shown abo e each box plo indica e signi ican di e ences
be ween ea men s in each co e si e (p< 0.05) based on Tukey’s HSD es o Dunn’s es .
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 9 o 19
3.2. Soil Ca bon S ock
The highes amoun o C-s ock in bulk soil (on a e age 49.6 ha
−1
) was obse ed a
CS1 (I aly), ollowed by C-s ock alues in CS4 (Denma k) and CS6 (Ne he lands) (Figu e 3).
The lowes C-s ock (on a e age 27.3 ha
−1
) was ound a si e CS7 (Li huania). Addi ionally,
low ca bon s ocks o 27.7 ha
−1
, 31.3 ha
−1
, and 31.1 ha
−1
we e ound in CS5 (Spain),
CS8 (Tu key), and CS9 (Belgium), espec i ely. Signi ican di e ences (p< 0.05) we e ound
among he ea men s in CS2 (T1 = T3 < T2) and CS9 (T1 = T2 > T3).
Ag onomy2024,14,302410o 22



Figu e3.TheC-s ock( ha
−1
)inbulksoil,unde di e si iedag oecologicalp ac icesanddiffe en 
en i onmen alcondi ionsa expe imen alsi es.Thesi esa ea angedacco ding oEu opean-scale
g adien so ecologicalin ensi ica ion(Figu e1).Eachboxplo  ep esen s hedis ibu iono  ou 
eplica es,showing hemedian,in e qua ile ange,andda a ange(whiske s).Thecompac le e s
shownabo eeachboxplo indica esigni ican diffe encesbe ween ea men sineachco esi e(p<
0.05)basedonTukey’sHSD es o Dunn’s es .
3.3.SoilMic obialBiomassCa bon
TheSMB-C,asshowninFigu e4,showedhighe SMB-C aluesinCS6(Ne he -
lands),CS2(F ance),andCS1(I aly).Thelowes SMB-Cmean alue(52.3µgg
−1
)was
oundinCS5(Spain)unde T3while hehighes SMB-C alue eached455.1µgg
−1
as
obse edinCS6unde T2.Thes udydemons a ed heimpac o di e si iedsys ems,
especiallywheninco po a ingco e c opsandex e nalo ganicma e ( a mmanu e,
c op esidue)onsoilmic obialbiomass.Thele elso ag oecologicalin ensi ica ionon
SMB-Cwe ee iden ,as ea men sinCS4T1(Denma k)andCS9T2(Belgium)showed
s a is icallysigni ican diffe ences(p<0.05)compa ed oo he  ea men swi hin hei 
espec i eco esi es.Fo CS4,ana e ageSMB-C alue(144.8µgg
−1
)in heT1 ea men s
wi hLoliumpe enneandwhi eclo e .Fo CS9, hemeanSMB-C aluewas174.4µgg
−1
in
heT2 ea men ,ha ingc op o a iono suga bee ,whea ,andba leyinco po a edwi h
c op es i u ionandco e c op.
Figu e 3. The C-s ock ( ha
−1
) in bulk soil, unde di e si ied ag oecological p ac ices and di e en
en i onmen al condi ions a expe imen al si es. The si es a e a anged acco ding o Eu opean-scale
g adien s o ecological in ensi ica ion (Figu e 1). Each box plo ep esen s he dis ibu ion o ou
eplica es, showing he median, in e qua ile ange, and da a ange (whiske s). The compac le e s
shown abo e each box plo indica e signi ican di e ences be ween ea men s in each co e si e
(p< 0.05) based on Tukey’s HSD es o Dunn’s es .
3.3. Soil Mic obial Biomass Ca bon
The SMB-C, as shown in Figu e 4, showed highe SMB-C alues in CS6 (Ne he lands),
CS2 (F ance), and CS1 (I aly). The lowes SMB-C mean alue (52.3
µ
g g
−1
) was ound in
CS5 (Spain) unde T3 while he highes SMB-C alue eached 455.1
µ
g g
−1
as obse ed in
CS6 unde T2. The s udy demons a ed he impac o di e si ied sys ems, especially when
inco po a ing co e c ops and ex e nal o ganic ma e ( a m manu e, c op esidue) on soil
mic obial biomass. The le els o ag oecological in ensi ica ion on SMB-C we e e iden ,
as ea men s in CS4 T1 (Denma k) and CS9 T2 (Belgium) showed s a is ically signi ican
di e ences (p< 0.05) compa ed o o he ea men s wi hin hei espec i e co e si es. Fo
CS4, he highes a e age SMB-C alue (259.6
µ
g g
−1
) was ound in he T2 ea men wi h a
six-species mix u e. Fo CS9, he highes mean SMB-C alue was 174.4
µ
g g
−1
in he T2
ea men , ha ing c op o a ion o suga bee , whea , and ba ley inco po a ed wi h c op
es i u ion and co e c op.
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 16 o 19
s eng hen he connec ions be ween WEOC, SMB-C, and SOC [
63
]. This is demons a ed
by he highe a ios o SMQ, and WEOC:SOC, which p o ide key insigh s in o mic obial
e iciency and he a ailabili y o eadily decomposable ca bon. A highe SMQ sugges s
mo e e icien mic obial ca bon u no e , wi h op imal alues indica ing heal hie , esilien
soils ha suppo e icien ca bon cycling [
64
]. No wi hs anding, ou s udy, in alignmen
wi h Ren e al. [
65
] showed ha he scale a which in ensi ica ion le els and a ming
p ac ices impac ed hese ela ionships was mos ly limi ed compa ed o he impac s o
clima e and soil ac o s. The posi i e co ela ions among he ca bon pools (SMB-C, SOC,
WEOC, and WSA) unde sco e he s ong connec ion be ween hese in ensi ica ion le els
and soil ca bon p ocesses h ough soil agg ega e s abili y. This implies ha soil agg ega ion
is i al o SOC s o age and p ese a ion, as i se es as a ba ie be ween decompose s
and SOC; howe e , his s uc u e emains suscep ible o managemen p ac ices [
66
]. These
indings u he ein o ce p e ious esea ch indica ing ha he physical (WSA), chemical
(WEOC), and mic obiological (MBC) o ganic ca bon pools a e mo e sensi i e o illage
dis u bance han he o al SOC [60].
5. Conclusions
This s udy emphasizes he complex ela ionship be ween di e en ag oecological
in ensi ica ion le els and SOM s abiliza ion ac oss a ious en i onmen al condi ions.
Ag oecological in ensi ica ion p ac ices, such as co e c opping, educed illage, c op
di e si ica ion, and o ganic ma e inpu s, a e i al o imp o ing soil ca bon dynamics and
agg ega e s abili y, wi h WEOC and SMB-C se ing as c i ical indica o s o soil heal h. The
di e ences in he esul s ob ained ac oss he s udied si e loca ions showed ha soil ca bon
dynamics esponded o he in luence o en i onmen al ac o s and managemen p ac ices.
Al hough a ia ions in SOC, WEOC, and SMB-C we e no ed ac oss he expe imen al si es,
he s onges co ela ions we e be ween SOC and WEOC, especially wi hin he a ious soil
agg ega es. Fu he mo e, WSA is s ongly and s a is ically co ela ed wi h SOC in bulk soil,
ine agg ega es (0.25–1.0 mm), and SMB-C, which highligh s i s impo ance in p ese ing
soil s uc u e and o ganic ca bon pools. The e is hus a s ong a gumen pinpoin ing ha
p ac ices p omo ing all hese labile ca bon pools signi ican ly in luence soil s uc u e and
ca bon seques a ion, enhance soil mic obial ac i i y, and, in e ec , boos he sus enance
o long- e m soil heal h and esilience o clima e a iabili y. Howe e , he impac s and
oles o speci ic ac o s such as clima e and soil ypes canno be downplayed, as a ia ions
in en i onmen al ac o s and managemen p ac ices play a c ucial ole in shaping soil
ca bon dynamics and agg ega e s abili y. Hence, consis en and conce ed e o s mus
be implemen ed in sus ainable ag icul u al s a egies o ensu e long- e m soil heal h and
ca bon s abili y, pa icula ly in ecological a eas suscep ible o clima e change.
Au ho Con ibu ions: Concep ualiza ion, M.O.D., G.K., A.S. (Al y a Slepe iene) and S.S. (Skaid e
Sup oniene); me hodology, G.K., A.T. and S.F.; so wa e A.S. (A man Shamshi o ); alida ion, G.K.,
S.S. (Skaid e Sup oniene), A.S. (Al y a Slepe iene), A.S. (A man Shamshi o ) and D.W.R.; o mal
analysis, S.P. and A.S. (Aida Ske siene); in es iga ion, G.K., A.S. (Al y a Slepe iene), A.S. (Aida
Ske siene) and M.O.D.; esou ces G.K., E.T., A.R.-H., J.R., S.S.-M., M.H., A.U. and S.S. (Simon Sail);
da a cu a ion, G.K. and S.S. (Skaid e Sup oniene); w i ing—o iginal d a p epa a ion, M.O.D.;
w i ing— e iew and edi ing, G.K., A.S. (Al y a Slepe iene), A.S. (Aida Ske siene), A.S. (A man
Shamshi o ), A.T., D.W.R., A.R.-H. and S.S. (Skaid e Sup oniene); isualiza ion, M.O.D., A.S. (A man
Shamshi o ), A.T., G.K. and S.S. (Skaid e Sup oniene); supe ision, S.S. (Skaid e Sup oniene); p ojec
adminis a ion, A.T. and S.F.; unding acquisi ion, A.T. and S.F. All au ho s ha e ead and ag eed o
he published e sion o he manusc ip .
Funding: This esea ch was unded by he Eu opean Union Ho izon 2020 esea ch and inno a ion
p og am ia he AGROECOseqC p ojec , g an numbe 862695.
Da a A ailabili y S a emen : The o iginal con ibu ions p esen ed in he s udy a e included in he
a icle, u he inqui ies can be di ec ed o he co esponding au ho .

Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 17 o 19
Acknowledgmen s: We g a e ully acknowledge he suppo we ecei ed om he echnical s a
o he Depa men o Soil and C op Managemen , Chemical Resea ch Labo a o y, Ag obiology
Labo a o y, and he Depa men o Field T ial Se ices.
Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic s o in e es .
Re e ences
1.
Cá celes Rod íguez, B.; Du án-Zuazo, V.H.; So iano Rod íguez, M.; Ga cía-Teje o, I.F.; Gál ez Ruiz, B.; Cuad os Ta i a, S.
Conse a ion Ag icul u e as a Sus ainable Sys em o Soil Heal h: A Re iew. Soil Sys . 2022,6, 87. [C ossRe ]
2.
Nazi , M.J.; Li, G.; Nazi , M.M.; Zul iqa , F.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Iqbal, B.; Du, D. Ha nessing soil ca bon seques a ion o add ess
clima e change challenges in ag icul u e. Soil Tillage Res. 2024,237, 105959. [C ossRe ]
3.
Fon aine, S.; Abbadie, L.; Aube , M.; Ba o , S.; Bloo , J.M.G.; De ien, D.; Duchene, O.; G oss, N.; Henne on, L.; Le Roux, X.; e al.
Plan –soil synch ony in nu ien cycles: Lea ning om ecosys ems o design sus ainable ag osys ems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2024,30,
e17034. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
4.
Xu, N.; Wilson, H.F.; Saie s, J.E.; En z, M. E ec s o C op Ro a ion and Managemen Sys em on Wa e -Ex ac able O ganic Ma e
Concen a ion, S uc u e, and Bioa ailabili y in a Che nozemic Ag icul u al Soil. J. En i on. Qual. 2013,42, 179–190. [C ossRe ]
5.
Teixei a, H.M.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Ca doso, I.M.; Ti onell, P.; Peña-Cla os, M. Impac o ag oecological managemen on plan
di e si y and soil-based ecosys em se ices in pas u e and co ee sys ems in he A lan ic o es o B azil. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on.
2021,305, 107171. [C ossRe ]
6.
Wezel, A.; Casag ande, M.; Cele e, F.; Vian, J.F.; Fe e , A.; Peigné, J. Ag oecological p ac ices o sus ainable ag icul u e. A
e iew Ag oecological p ac ices o sus ainable ag icul u e. A e iew. Ag onomy o Sus ainable De elop-men Ag oecological
p ac ices o sus ainable ag icul u e. A e iew. Ag on. Sus ain. De . 2014,34, 1–20. [C ossRe ]
7.
Rieke, E.L.; Bagnall, D.K.; Mo gan, C.L.; Flynn, K.D.; Howe, J.A.; G eub, K.L.; Mac Bean, G.; Cappellazzi, S.B.; Cope, M.; Lip zin,
D.; e al. E alua ion o agg ega e s abili y me hods o soil heal h. Geode ma 2022,428, 116156. [C ossRe ]
8.
Ayoubi, S.; Mi baghe i, Z.; Mosaddeghi, M.R. Soil o ganic ca bon physical ac ions and agg ega e s abili y in luenced by land
use in humid egion o no he n I an. In . Ag ophys. 2021,34, 343–353. [C ossRe ]
9.
Wu, H.; Cui, H.; Fu, C.; Li, R.; Qi, F.; Liu, Z.; Yang, G.; Xiao, K.; Qiao, M. Un eiling he c ucial ole o soil mic oo ganisms in
ca bon cycling: A e iew. Sci. To al En i on. 2024,909, 168627. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
10.
Xu, L.; Xing, X.; Bai, J.; Li, D. Soil agg ega e s uc u e, s abili y, and s oichiome ic cha ac e is ics in a smel e -impac ed soil unde
phy o emedia ion. F on . En i on. Sci. 2022,10, 900147. [C ossRe ]
11.
Weidhune , A.; Hanaue , A.; K ausz, R.; C i enden, S.J.; Gage, K.; Sadeghpou , A. Tillage impac s on soil agg ega ion and
agg ega e-associa ed ca bon and ni ogen a e 49 yea s. Soil Tillage Res. 2021,208, 104878. [C ossRe ]
12.
Zheng, H.; Liu, W.; Zheng, J.; Luo, Y.; Li, R.; Wang, H.; Qi, H. E ec o long- e m illage on soil agg ega es and agg ega e-associa ed
ca bon in black soil o no heas China. PLoS ONE 2018,13, e0199523. [C ossRe ]
13. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Ruis, S.J. No- illage and soil physical en i onmen . Geode ma 2018,326, 164–200. [C ossRe ]
14.
Doyeni, M.O.; Sup oniene, S.; Ve suliene, A.; Meskauskiene, L.; Kadziene, G. In luence o he Long-Te m Applica ion o
Managemen P ac ices (Tillage, Co e C op and Glyphosa e) on G eenhouse Gas Emissions and Soil Physical P ope ies.
Sus ainabili y 2024,16, 2859. [C ossRe ]
15.
Koudahe, K.; Allen, S.C.; Djaman, K. C i ical e iew o he impac o co e c ops on soil p ope ies. In . Soil Wa e Conse . Res.
2022,10, 343–354. [C ossRe ]
16.
Lynch, D.H.; Halbe g, N.; Bha a, G.D. En i onmen al impac s o o ganic ag icul u e in empe a e egions. CAB Re . Pe spec .
Ag ic. Ve . Sci. Nu . Na . Resou . 2012,7, 1–17. [C ossRe ]
17.
Ramesh, T.; Bolan, N.S.; Ki kham, M.B.; Wijeseka a, H.; Kanchike ima h, M.; S ini asa Rao, C.; Sandeep, S.; Rinklebe, J.; Ok, Y.S.;
Choudhu y, B.U.; e al. Soil o ganic ca bon dynamics: Impac o land use changes and managemen p ac ices: A e iew. Ad .
Ag on. 2019,156, 1–107.
18.
Šimon, T.; Mada as, M.; Maye o á, M.; Kunzo á, E. Soil O ganic Ca bon Dynamics in he Long-Te m Field Expe imen s wi h
Con as ing C op Ro a ions. Ag icul u e 2024,14, 818. [C ossRe ]
19.
Bhogal, A.; Nicholson, F.A.; Rolle , A.; Taylo , M.; Li e ick, A.; Whi ingham, M.J.; Williams, J.R. Imp o emen s in he Quali y o
Ag icul u al Soils Following O ganic Ma e ial Addi ions Depend on Bo h he Quan i y and Quali y o he Ma e ials Applied.
F on . Sus ain. Food Sys . 2018,2, 9. [C ossRe ]
20.
Johns on, A.E.; Poul on, P.R.; Coleman, K. Chap e 1 Soil O ganic Ma e : I s Impo ance in Sus ainable Ag icul u e and Ca bon
Dioxide Fluxes. Ad . Ag on. 2009,101, 1–57.
21.
Ju iga, M.; Aydln, E.; Ho ák, J.; Chlpík, J.; Rizhiya, E.Y.; Buchkina, N.P.; Balasho , E.V.; Šimanský, V. The impo ance o ini ial
applica ion and eapplica ion o biocha in he con ex o soil s uc u e imp o emen . J. Hyd ol. Hyd omech. 2021,69, 87–97.
[C ossRe ]
22.
Ho land, E.; Kuype , T.W.; Comans, R.N.J.; C eame , R.E. Eco- unc ionali y o o ganic ma e in soils. Plan Soil 2020,455, 1–22.
[C ossRe ]
23.
Velykis, A.; Sa kus, A. Ž
˙
emes di bimo, kalki
u˛
pu o i a pinio paselio po
˙
eikis sunkaus p iemolio di ožemio izinei b
¯
uklei.
Zemdi bys e 2018,105, 3–10. [C ossRe ]
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 18 o 19
24.
Vance, E.D.; B ookes, P.C.; Jenkinson, D.S. An ex ac ion me hod o measu ing soil mic obial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987,
19, 703–707. [C ossRe ]
25. Niki in, B.A. Me hod o soil humus de e mina ion. Ag ic. Chem. 1999,3, 156–158.
26.
R Co e Team. R Co e Team 2023 R: A Language and En i onmen o S a is ical Compu ing. R Founda ion o S a is ical
Compu ing. R Founda ion o S a is ical Compu ing. 2023. A ailable online: h ps://www.R-p ojec .o g/ (accessed on 30
Oc obe 2024).
27.
Guo, L.; Shen, J.; Li, B.; Li, Q.; Wang, C.; Guan, Y.; D’Acqui, L.P.; Luo, Y.; Tao, Q.; Xu, Q.; e al. Impac s o ag icul u al land use
change on soil agg ega e s abili y and physical p o ec ion o o ganic C. Sci. To al En i on. 2020,707, 136049. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
28.
O , D.; Kelle , T.; Schlesinge , W.H. Na u al and managed soil s uc u e: On he agile sca olding o soil unc ioning. Soil Tillage
Res. 2021,208, 104912. [C ossRe ]
29.
Abbas, F.; Hammad, H.M.; Ishaq, W.; Fa ooque, A.A.; Bakha , H.F.; Zia, Z.; Fahad, S.; Fa had, W.; Ce dà, A. A e iew o soil
ca bon dynamics esul ing om ag icul u al p ac ices. J. En i on. Manag. 2020,268, 110319. [C ossRe ]
30.
Pu wan o, B.H.; Alam, S. Impac o in ensi e ag icul u al managemen on ca bon and ni ogen dynamics in he humid opics.
Soil Sci. Plan Nu . 2020,66, 50–59. [C ossRe ]
31.
Xue, R.; Wang, C.; Zhao, L.; Sun, B.; Wang, B. Ag icul u al in ensi ica ion weakens he soil heal h index and s abili y o mic obial
ne wo ks. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2022,339, 108118. [C ossRe ]
32.
Dignac, M.F.; De ien, D.; Ba é, P.; Ba o , S.; Cécillon, L.; Chenu, C.; Che allie , T.; F esche , G.T.; Ga nie , P.; Guene , B.; e al.
Inc easing soil ca bon s o age: Mechanisms, e ec s o ag icul u al p ac ices and p oxies. A e iew. Ag on. Sus ain. De . 2017,
37, 14. [C ossRe ]
33.
Zhang, K.; Liu, Z.; McCa l, B.A.; Fei, C.J. Enhancing Ag icul u al Soil Ca bon Seques a ion: A Re iew wi h Some Resea ch
Needs. Clima e 2024,12, 151. [C ossRe ]
34. Amézke a, E. Soil agg ega e s abili y: A e iew. J. Sus ain. Ag ic. 1999,14, 83–151. [C ossRe ]
35.
Bedolla-Ri e a, H.I.; Neg e e-Rod íguez, M.d.l.L.X.; Gámez-Vázquez, F.P.; Ál a ez-Be nal, D.; Conde-Ba ajas, E. Analyzing he
Impac o In ensi e Ag icul u e on Soil Quali y: A Sys ema ic Re iew and Global Me a-Analysis o Quali y Indexes. Ag onomy
2023,13, 2166. [C ossRe ]
36.
Bai, Z.; Caspa i, T.; Gonzalez, M.R.; Ba jes, N.H.; Mäde , P.; Bünemann, E.K.; de Goede, R.; B ussaa d, L.; Xu, M.; Fe ei a, C.S.S.;
e al. E ec s o ag icul u al managemen p ac ices on soil quali y: A e iew o long- e m expe imen s o Eu ope and China.
Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2018,265, 1–7. [C ossRe ]
37.
Zhang, Y.; Shengzhe, E.; Wang, Y.; Su, S.; Bai, L.; Wu, C.; Zheng, X. Long- e m manu e applica ion enhances he s abili y
o agg ega es and agg ega e-associa ed ca bon by egula ing soil physicochemical cha ac e is ics. Ca ena 2021,203, 105342.
[C ossRe ]
38.
Souza K upek, F.; Red ea n, D.; Esk idge, K.M.; Basche, A. Ecological in ensi ica ion wi h soil heal h p ac ices demons a e
posi i e impac s on mul iple soil p ope ies: A la ge-scale a me -led expe imen 2. Geode ma 2021,409, 115594. [C ossRe ]
39.
Jakab, G.; Mada ász, B.; Masoudi, M.; Ka lik, M.; Ki ály, C.; Zachá y, D.; Filep, T.; Dekema i, I.; Cen e i, C.; Al-G ai i, T.; e al. Soil
o ganic ma e gain by educed illage in ensi y: S o age, pools, and chemical composi ion. Soil Tillage Res. 2023,226, 105584.
[C ossRe ]
40.
Ka ami, A.; Homaee, M.; A zalinia, S.; Ruhipou , H.; Basi a , S. O ganic esou ce managemen : Impac s on soil agg ega e s abili y
and o he soil physico-chemical p ope ies. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2012,148, 22–28. [C ossRe ]
41.
K auss, M.; Be ne , A.; Pe oche , F.; F ei, R.; Niggli, U.; Mäde , P. Enhanced soil quali y wi h educed illage and solid manu es in
o ganic a ming—A syn hesis o 15 yea s. Sci. Rep. 2020,10, 4403. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
42.
Zheng, F.; Liu, X.; Ding, W.; Song, X.; Li, S.; Wu, X. Posi i e e ec s o c op o a ion on soil agg ega ion and associa ed o ganic
ca bon a e mainly con olled by clima e and ini ial soil ca bon con en : A me a-analysis. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2023,355, 108600.
[C ossRe ]
43.
Sa ke , J.R.; Singh, B.P.; Cowie, A.L.; Fang, Y.; Collins, D.; Badge y, W.; Dalal, R.C. Ag icul u al managemen p ac ices impac ed
ca bon and nu ien concen a ions in soil agg ega es, wi h minimal in luence on agg ega e s abili y and o al ca bon and nu ien
s ocks in con as ing soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2018,178, 209–223. [C ossRe ]
44.
Luo, Z.; Feng, W.; Luo, Y.; Baldock, J.; Wang, E. Soil o ganic ca bon dynamics join ly con olled by clima e, ca bon inpu s, soil
p ope ies and soil ca bon ac ions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017,23, 4430–4439. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
45.
Rod igues, C.I.D.; B i o, L.M.; Nunes, L.J.R. Soil Ca bon Seques a ion in he Con ex o Clima e Change Mi iga ion: A Re iew.
Soil Sys . 2023,7, 64. [C ossRe ]
46.
Aguile a, E.; Guzmán, G.I.; Ál a o-Fuen es, J.; In an e-Ama e, J.; Ga cía-Ruiz, R.; Ca anza-Gallego, G.; So o, D.; de Molina,
M.G. A his o ical pe spec i e on soil o ganic ca bon in Medi e anean c opland (Spain, 1900–2008). Sci. To al En i on. 2018,621,
634–648. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
47.
Das, S.; Cha e jee, S.; Rajbanshi, J. Responses o soil o ganic ca bon o conse a ion p ac ices including clima e-sma ag icul u e
in opical and sub opical egions: A me a-analysis. Sci. To al En i on. 2022,805, 150428. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
48.
F anca iglia, R.; Almag o, M.; Vicen e-Vicen e, J.L. Conse a ion Ag icul u e and Soil O ganic Ca bon: P inciples, P ocesses,
P ac ices and Policy Op ions. Soil Sys . 2023,7, 17. [C ossRe ]
49.
Muhammad, I.; Wang, J.; Sainju, U.M.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, F.; Khan, A. Co e c opping enhances soil mic obial biomass and a ec s
mic obial communi y s uc u e: A me a-analysis. Geode ma 2021,381, 114696. [C ossRe ]
Ag onomy 2024,14, 3024 19 o 19
50.
S ickland, M.S.; Thomason, W.E.; A e a, B.; F anklin, J.; Minick, K.; Yamada, S.; Badgley, B.D. Sho -Te m E ec s o Co e C ops
on Soil Mic obial Cha ac e is ics and Biogeochemical P ocesses ac oss Ac i ely Managed Fa ms. Ag osys ems Geosci. En i on.
2019,2, 1–9. [C ossRe ]
51.
Kim, N.; Zabaloy, M.C.; Guan, K.; Villamil, M.B. Do co e c ops bene i soil mic obiome? A me a-analysis o cu en esea ch. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 2020,142, 107701. [C ossRe ]
52.
Mondaca, P.; Celis-Diez, J.L.; Díaz-Sie e , P.; Olmos-Moya, N.; Mon e o-Sil a, F.; Molina, S.; Fon ú bel, F.E.; Apon e, H.;
Mandako ic, D.; Bas idas, B.; e al. E ec s o sus ainable ag icul u al p ac ices on soil mic obial di e si y, composi ion, and
unc ions. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2024,370, 109053. [C ossRe ]
53.
Peng, Y.; Rieke, E.L.; Chahal, I.; No is, C.E.; Jano icek, K.; Mi chell, J.P.; Roozeboom, K.L.; Hayden, Z.D.; S ock, J.S.; Machado, S.;
e al. Maximizing soil o ganic ca bon s ocks unde co e c opping: Insigh s om long- e m ag icul u al expe imen s in No h
Ame ica. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2023,356, 108599. [C ossRe ]
54.
Anuo, C.O.; Coope , J.A.; Koehle -Cole, K.; Rami ez, S.; Kaise , M. E ec o co e c opping on soil o ganic ma e cha ac e is ics:
Insigh s om a i e-yea ield expe imen in Neb aska. Ag ic. Ecosys . En i on. 2023,347, 108393. [C ossRe ]
55.
Poeplau, C.; Don, A. Ca bon seques a ion in ag icul u al soils ia cul i a ion o co e c ops—A me a-analysis. Ag ic. Ecosys .
En i on. 2015,200, 33–41. [C ossRe ]
56.
Jian, J.; Du, X.; Rei e , M.S.; S ewa , R.D. A me a-analysis o global c opland soil ca bon changes due o co e c opping. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 2020,143, 107735. [C ossRe ]
57.
Ade unji, A.T.; Ncube, B.; Mulidzi, R.; Lewu, F.B. Managemen impac and bene i o co e c ops on soil quali y: A e iew. Soil
Tillage Res. 2020,204, 104717. [C ossRe ]
58.
Bhogal, A.; Nicholson, F.A.; Chambe s, B.J. O ganic ca bon addi ions: E ec s on soil bio-physical and physico-chemical p ope ies.
Eu . J. Soil Sci. 2009,60, 276–286. [C ossRe ]
59.
Zhang, Z.; Yan, J.; Han, X.; Zou, W.; Chen, X.; Lu, X.; Feng, Y. Labile o ganic ca bon ac ions d i e soil mic obial communi ies
a e long- e m e iliza ion. Glob. Ecol. Conse . 2021,32, e01867. [C ossRe ]
60.
Awale, R.; Emeson, M.A.; Machado, S. Soil o ganic ca bon pools as ea ly indica o s o soil o ganic ma e s ock changes unde
di e en illage p ac ices in Inland Paci ic No hwes . F on . Ecol. E ol. 2017,5, 96. [C ossRe ]
61.
Hu isso, T.T.; Culman, S.W.; Ho wa h, W.R.; Wade, J.; Cass, D.; Benis on, J.W.; Bowles, T.M.; G andy, A.S.; F anzluebbe s, A.J.;
Schipanski, M.E.; e al. Compa ison o Pe mangana e-Oxidizable Ca bon and Mine alizable Ca bon o Assessmen o O ganic
Ma e S abiliza ion and Mine aliza ion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016,80, 1352–1364. [C ossRe ]
62.
Bongio no, G.; Bünemann, E.K.; Oguejio o , C.U.; Meie , J.; Go , G.; Comans, R.; Mäde , P.; B ussaa d, L.; de Goede, R. Sensi i i y
o labile ca bon ac ions o illage and o ganic ma e managemen and hei po en ial as comp ehensi e soil quali y indica o s
ac oss pedoclima ic condi ions in Eu ope. Ecol. Indic. 2019,99, 38–50. [C ossRe ]
63.
Mu aškien
˙
e, M.; A molai is, K.; Va nagi y
˙
e-Kabašinskien
˙
e, I.; Baliuckas, V.; Aleiniko ien
˙
e, J. E alua ion o Soil O ganic Ca bon
S abili y in Di e en Land Uses in Li huania. Sus ainabili y 2023,15, 16042. [C ossRe ]
64.
Wiesmeie , M.; U banski, L.; Hobley, E.; Lang, B.; on Lü zow, M.; Ma in-Spio a, E.; an Wesemael, B.; Rabo , E.; Ließ, M.;
Ga cia-F anco, N.; e al. Soil o ganic ca bon s o age as a key unc ion o soils—A e iew o d i e s and indica o s a a ious
scales. Geode ma 2019,333, 149–162. [C ossRe ]
65.
Ren, F.; Sun, N.; Xu, M.; Zhang, X.; Wu, L.; Xu, M. Changes in soil mic obial biomass wi h manu e applica ion in c opping
sys ems: A me a-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2019,194, 104291. [C ossRe ]
66.
No elli, L.E.; Ca iglia, O.P.; Piñei o, G. Inc eased c opping in ensi y imp o es c op esidue inpu s o he soil and agg ega e-
associa ed soil o ganic ca bon s ocks. Soil Tillage Res. 2017,165, 128–136. [C ossRe ]
Disclaime /Publishe ’s No e: The s a emen s, opinions and da a con ained in all publica ions a e solely hose o he indi idual
au ho (s) and con ibu o (s) and no o MDPI and/o he edi o (s). MDPI and/o he edi o (s) disclaim esponsibili y o any inju y o
people o p ope y esul ing om any ideas, me hods, ins uc ions o p oduc s e e ed o in he con en .