Next Article in Journal
Potential of Coagulation, Chlorine Dioxide Oxidation and Sand Biofiltration in Quaternary Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability of Industrial Competitiveness of the Textile and Apparel Industry in Asian Countries—A Systematic Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Carbon Sequestration in Barley via Silicon-Induced Phytolith Accumulation for Climate Change Mitigation

by
Wiesław Piotr Szulc
1,
Maciej Szymański
1,
Witold Szulc
2,
Elżbieta Wszelaczyńska
3,*,
Jarosław Pobereżny
3 and
Beata Rutkowska
1
1
Division of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture and Ecology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 166 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
2
Institute of Safety Engineering, Fire University, 52/54 Juliusza Slowackiego St., 01-629 Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Agronomy and Food Processing, Faculty of Agriculture and Biotechnology, University of Science and Technology, 6/8 Bernardyńska St., 85-225 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(7), 3403; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073403
Submission received: 13 January 2026 / Revised: 10 March 2026 / Accepted: 19 March 2026 / Published: 1 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)

Abstract

Background: Phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) is highly stable and constitutes an important long-term carbon pool in agroecosystems, particularly in nutrient-poor, sandy soils. Silicon (Si) uptake by plants is strongly associated with phytolith formation, with Si accounting for up to 90% of phytolith composition. However, the role of Si fertilization in enhancing PhytOC sequestration under field conditions remains insufficiently quantified. Integrated fertilization strategies supporting sustainable development in climate-resilient agriculture can enhance biological carbon sequestration by increasing phytolith formation and phytolith-occluded carbon accumulation, thereby improving the carbon sink potential of cereal-based agroecosystems. Methods: A field experiment was conducted to assess phytolith and PhytOC accumulation in barley biomass under different fertilization regimes, including foliar silicon application using the liquid immune stimulant Optysil and compost fertilization. Phytolith content was determined separately for grain and straw, and PhytOC stocks were converted into CO2 equivalents to estimate annual sequestration potential. Results: Barley produced substantial amounts of phytoliths, with consistently higher concentrations in straw than in grain. Phytolith content ranged from 18.46 to 21.28 mg g−1 DM in grain and from 27.89 to 38.97 mg g−1 DM in straw. Depending on fertilization treatment, annual carbon sequestration through PhytOC ranged from 16.86 to 55.17 kg CO2 equivalents ha−1. Foliar silicon application increased PhytOC accumulation in barley biomass by up to threefold compared with treatments without Si. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that optimizing silicon fertilization can substantially enhance carbon sequestration in cropping systems via phytolith formation and PhytOC stabilization. Given the dominant role of cereals in crop rotations and their high phytolith-producing capacity as monocotyledonous plants, Si-mediated PhytOC sequestration represents a promising pathway for strengthening soil carbon storage and contributing to climate change mitigation.

1. Introduction

Climate change is the primary challenge faced by humanity in the 21st century. It is estimated that global CO2 emission will have reached 36.1 Gt CO2 by 2022 [1]. Carbon dioxide emission shows high temporal variability. Before the industrial revolution, the emission was very low. A slow increase was recorded until the mid-20th century. In 1950, the world emitted 6 billion tonnes of CO2. Over only 40 years, the amount increased four times, exceeding 22 billion tonnes. We are currently emitting more than 34 billion tonnes of CO2 annually [2]. The share of individual countries in global emissions is variable. China takes the lead with a share of as much as 58.4%, followed by the USA with a share of 16.5%, and Europe with a share of 14.3% [3]. The contribution of agriculture in global CO2 emissions currently accounts for approximately 20% [4], and half of that emission is directly related to the use of agricultural land. Carbon dioxide emitted from agriculture is produced as a result of cultivation operations such as plowing, harrowing, and cultivating. When performing these treatments, we supply oxygen to the soil, which oxidizes carbon compounds according to the reaction C6H12O6 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O. Easily decomposable buds that are part of the so-called “food humus” are oxidized [5,6]. This process is very fast, especially on well-aerated sandy soils. Therefore, to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, cultivation systems that limit mechanical tillage are increasingly being introduced. Agriculture contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases, including CO2, but it is also a major absorber of this gas [5,6,7].
Plants assimilate CO2 through the process of photosynthesis to build their biomass, thereby playing a key role in the carbon cycle and in mitigating climate change. An element that may play a crucial role in increasing plant productivity, and thus in enhancing carbon dioxide absorption from the atmosphere, is silicon [8,9]. Plants absorb silicon from the soil in the form of monosilicic acid (H4SiO4), and then, through the process of polymerization, transform it into SiO2·nH2O, which accumulates in cellular structures as amorphous particles called phytoliths [8]. Phytoliths are microscopic bodies of amorphous hydrated silica formed within plant tissues during silica deposition. They are characteristic of specific plant groups, and their content in above-ground parts ranges from 0.5% dry matter in dicotyledonous plants to more than 15% dry matter in grasses [9,10,11]. The variable content of phytoliths between monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants results from different mechanisms of silicon uptake and accumulation [12]. Plants of the same species may differ in the amount of phytoliths produced, depending on climate and soil conditions [13]. During phytolith formation, between 0.1% and 3% of organic carbon can be incorporated into their structure as phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) [14,15] but according to de Tombeur et al. [16] the changes are greater and range within the limits of 8.3–34.7%.
In terrestrial ecosystems, the total sequestration of organic carbon in the form of PhytOC is estimated at 156.7 ± 91.6 Tg CO2 per year [17]. Therefore, the formation of PhytOC by plants can be considered a method of carbon sequestration, with carbon retained in this form in soils for several thousands of years as phytoliths are released during the decomposition of dead plant material [15,18,19]. The literature includes publications indicating that carbon sequestration through the use of phytoliths is significantly lower than previously estimated [16,20]. Although silicon is a commonly occurring element in soil, its availability to plants is low and depends on many biotic and abiotic factors [21,22,23]. Therefore, exogenous supplementation of silicon in the form of soil or foliar fertilizers may stimulate phytolith formation and carbon sequestration in the form of PhytOC [19,24]. Silicon fertilization plays a significant role in enhancing crop productivity, increasing stress tolerance, and strengthening long-term carbon sequestration through phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC). Silicon improves nutrient-use efficiency, reinforces cell walls, and modulates stress-responsive metabolic pathways, thereby enhancing photosynthetic performance and ultimately leading to greater biomass accumulation [25].
Field and greenhouse fertilization experiments consistently confirm that silicon application promotes improvements in crop yield and physiological resilience [26]. Vegetation experiments on rice, in which combined silicon and phosphorus fertilization was applied, demonstrated a substantial increase in shoot biomass and phytolith production. At the same time, it was found that higher silicon supply increased phytolith stocks in above-ground tissues [27]. The key climate-related impact of silicon, however, lies in its capacity to promote the formation of highly durable phytoliths that encapsulate organic carbon [13,25]. Studies conducted in forest ecosystems clearly show that the addition of silicon—either alone or in combination with biochar—significantly increases PhytOC content in both plants and soil, thereby enhancing long-term soil carbon storage. It should be noted, however, that the long-term stability of carbon trapped within phytoliths depends strongly on the physicochemical environment, particularly soil temperature and CO2 concentration. These factors determine the dissolution rate of phytoliths and may influence the duration for which carbon remains sequestered [8,13,16,28].
Due to their widespread cultivation, cereals can play a role in carbon sequestration [10,13,29]. However, despite the recognized role of silicon in plant physiology and soil carbon dynamics, the combined application of Si fertilizer and compost in barley cultivation remains poorly explored, particularly under temperate climate conditions. Investigating this interaction is therefore novel and significant, as temperate regions represent major cereal-producing areas where optimized nutrient management could simultaneously improve crop productivity and strengthen long-term carbon stabilization in agroecosystems [15,30].
In the context of increasing pressure to develop climate-resilient and sustainable agricultural systems, identifying practices that enhance biological carbon sequestration has become a key research priority. Agricultural soils are increasingly recognized not only as sources of greenhouse gas emissions but also as important potential carbon sinks [15,17]. Therefore, understanding the agronomic factors that influence phytolith formation and phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) accumulation in crop biomass is essential for improving carbon management in agroecosystems. In particular, integrated fertilization strategies combining mineral nutrients, organic amendments, and silicon may play a significant role in strengthening the climate mitigation potential of cereal-based production systems [15,17,30].
This study examined the effect of mineral, organic, and silicon fertilization on the concentration of phytoliths and PhytOC in the biomass of spring barley, as well as the potential for carbon dioxide biosequestration by barley under different fertilization conditions. Moreover, the authors sought to demonstrate, from a practical and policy-oriented perspective, how cereal-based cropping systems can be effectively leveraged to support the gradual and long-term accumulation of organic carbon in soils. The findings provide an evidence base for the development of agricultural and climate policies aimed at enhancing soil carbon sequestration through crop and residue management strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Site Descriptions

The experiments (Figure 1A,B) were conducted in the years 2021–2022 at the Experimental Station in Skierniewice (51°57′535 N, 20°9′254 E).
It was established on Luvisol soil [31] with each experimental plot being 15 m2 in three replicates. The initial soil properties are presented in Table 1.
The soil pH was determined in 1 M KCl by the potentiometric method on an automatic pH meter [32]. Total soil N was determined by the Kjeldahl method [33]. Total soil organic carbon was determined by means of the Vario Max analyser CHNS [34]. Available forms of phosphorus and potassium were determined by the Egner–Riehm method [35] and magnesium by the Schachtschabel method [36]. Both extraction procedures were selected due to their widespread applicability in European agronomic diagnostics and their suitability for soils of moderate to high organic matter content.
The atmospheric conditions were collected from the weather station localized in the experimental field in Skierniewice (Figure 2). The average annual temperature was 8.3 °C and the average rainfall was 685 mm. These data were further validated against long-term climatic normals (1991–2020) to confirm that experimental years exhibited typical regional conditions. The meteorological conditions indicate that the experimental years were neither cold nor exceptionally warm, but rather represented the midpoint of the climatic norm. Precipitation levels reflected moderately moist conditions, as the typical range for the region is 550–700 mm. Overall, it can be concluded that the meteorological conditions did not exert a confounding influence on the conducted experiment.

2.2. Experimental Design

Spring barley cv. Fantex were sown in Poland. The experiment covered the following fertilizer combinations (Table 2):
-
Control (fertilization 0 kg ha−1);
-
NPK (100 kg Nmin ha−1—CO(NH2)2, 35 kg P ha−1—Ca(H2PO4)2, and 100 kg K ha−1—KCl);
-
NPK + Si (100 kg Nmin ha−1—CO(NH2)2, 35 kg P∙ha−1—Ca(H2PO4)2, and 100 kg K ha−1—KCl and 139.8 g Si ha−1);
-
Compost170 (170 kg Norg ha−1, Table 2);
-
Compost170 + Si (170 kg Norg ha−1 and 139.8 g Si ha−1);
-
Compost120 + Nmin (120 kg Norg ha−1 and 30 kg Nmin ha−1);
-
Compost120 + Nmin + Si (120 kg Norg ha−1 and 30 kg Nmin ha−1 and 139.8 g Si ha−1).
The maximum dose of N in organic fertilizers was 170 kg ha−1 (the permissible dose of N by Polish and EU legislation).
The dose of compost (Compost120) was reduced to 120 kg of Norg ha−1 and 30 kg of Nmin ha−1 in the form of urea and was additionally applied to check whether the accumulation of phytolites is greater with organic fertilization alone or with organic–mineral fertilization.
Mineral fertilization was applied at the following doses: 100 kg Nmin ha−1—CO(NH2)2, 35 kg P ha−1—Ca(H2PO4)2, and 100 kg K ha−1—KCl. The compost was applied at a dose corresponding to 170 kg Norg ha−1 and 120 kg Norg ha−1. The Norg is the dose of organic nitrogen. The Nmin is the dose of mineral nitrogen in the form of urea [CO(NH2)2]. In the experiment, compost and mineral fertilization were applied before sowing silicon was applied as foliar fertilization at a dose 139.8 g Si ha−1 as “Optysil” (200 mg SiO2 L−1) at three plant development stages: I: phase 3 of leaves (BBCH 18), II: beginning of stem shooting (BBCH 35), III: end of the flowering phase (BBCH 72). The experiment was conducted with three replicates (Table 2). Foliar application was performed under low-wind conditions (<2 m s−1) to ensure adequate adherence of the Si formulation to leaf surfaces and to minimize spray drift. The compost used in field trials was produced through composting four organic waste substances, namely municipal sewage sludge, municipal green waste, sawdust, and spent mushroom substrate. The composting process was carried out in aerobic conditions for 12 weeks and included periodic mechanical turning to maintain optimal temperature (55–65 °C) and moisture levels (45–55%), ensuring pathogen reduction and stable humification. The chemical composition of compost pellets is presented in Table 3.

2.3. Analyses

After harvest, grain and straw samples were oven-dried at 70 °C and then ground using a laboratory mill (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) at 5000 rpm. According to [40,41,42], phytolith content was determined following microwave-assisted acid digestion. Briefly, 0.25 g of plant material was placed in a Teflon vessel and treated with 3 cm3 HNO3, 2.5 cm3 H2O2, and 0.5 cm3 HCl, followed by digestion for 50 min. The samples were rinsed with distilled water, centrifuged four times at 3500 rpm for 5 min, and the isolated phytoliths were dried at 70 °C for 24 h. Residual organic matter (peripheral organic carbon) was removed using the Walkley–Black method [43] with H2SO4 at 102–135 °C. Purified phytoliths were dried at 60 °C for 48 h and analyzed for carbon content using an Vario CNS (Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany), with quality control performed using certified reference material GBW07405 (precision >5%).
Silicon content in plant tissues was determined via microwave digestion in HNO3 and HF [21]. For each sample, 0.3 g of plant material was digested with 5 cm3 HNO3 and 0.1 cm3 HF for 60 min. Silicon concentrations were measured using a ThermoElementar ICP-MS (Thermo Elemental Ltd., Winsford, UK), with reference to certified Corn Gluten Organic Analytical Standard 502-272, and a limit of Si detection (LOD) of 0.28 mg dm−3.

2.4. Calculations

The calculations were performed according to the methodology described by Song et al. [30].
(1)
The concentration of phytolith-occluded carbon (mg g−1 DM) was determined as the product of phytolith concentration and carbon concentration within phytoliths:
PhytOC content of organ = phytolith content × carbon concentration in phytoliths
where phytolith content refers to the mass of phytoliths per unit dry matter of plant material (mg g−1 DM), while carbon concentration in phytoliths indicates the amount of carbon contained in phytoliths per unit dry matter.
(2)
Annual phytolith accumulation in aboveground crop biomass, expressed as phytolith production flux (kg ha−1 year−1), was estimated by multiplying phytolith concentration by aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP):
Phytolith production flux = phytolith content × ANPP
where phytolith content represents phytolith concentration in aboveground dry biomass (mg g−1 DM), and ANPP corresponds to crop aboveground biomass production per hectare per year (kg ha−1 year−1).
(3)
Annual sequestration of carbon dioxide through PhytOC in aboveground biomass (kg CO2 ha−1 year−1) was calculated from phytolith production flux using the carbon-to-carbon dioxide conversion coefficient:
PhytOC production flux = phytolith production flux × 44/12
where the phytolith production flux (kg ha−1 year−1) was derived using Equation (2), whereas PhytOC content refers to the amount of occluded carbon contained within phytoliths, expressed on a dry matter basis (mg g−1 DM); 44/12 is the molecular weight ratio of CO2/C to C used for conversion.

2.5. Analysis of Experimental Data

All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica 14.0 software. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the effect of fertilization treatments on the studied quantitative and qualitative characteristics of barley. When the ANOVA indicated significant treatment effects (p < 0.05, n = 3), post hoc multiple comparison procedures were performed using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test at a significance level of p = 0.05 to identify pairwise differences between means. Linear regression analysis was applied to determine the relationships between (1) silicon concentration and phytolith content in grain and straw, and (2) phytolith content and PhytOC concentration. Correlation strength and significance were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. All results are presented in tables and figures as average values, and differences between treatments are considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Barley responded positively to silicon fertilization (Figure 3).
The highest grain yield was obtained in the NPK + Si treatment (4.18 Mg·ha−1), whereas the lowest yield occurred in the Compost170 treatment (3.06 Mg·ha−1). The application of silicon in combination with mineral fertilization (NPK + Si) significantly increased crop yield compared to all other fertilization treatments (19%), except for the treatment with mineral fertilization alone (NPK). Combined mineral–organic fertilization (Compost120 + Nmin) as well as mineral–organic fertilization supplemented with silicon (Pelet120 + Nmin + Si) also significantly enhanced barley grain yield relative to the control (20%). At the same time, no significant differences in grain yield were observed between these two combinations. Straw yield increased (39%) significantly in all fertilization treatments compared with the control (0.88 Mgha−1). Similar to grain yield, the highest straw yield was recorded in the NPK + Si treatment (1.59 Mg·ha−1). The introduction of organic matter into the fertilization dose (Compost170 + Si) resulted in a significant decrease in straw yield (1.10 Mg·ha−1) relative to the NPK + Si combination (31%). Phytolith content in barley grain varied from 20.16 to 22.79 mg g−1 DM (Table 4).
Phytolith content in straw was more than twice higher, and ranged from 52.53 to 73.01 mg g−1 DM (Table 4). The phytolith content in grains under the NPK, NPK + Si, and Compost170 treatments was lower than in the control (9%). The other fertilization treatments did not have a significant effect on phytolith content compared to the control. In the case of straw, a significant increase in phytolith content compared to the control was observed under the NPK and NPK + Si treatments (7%). This is confirmed by the calculated correlation coefficients between the use of silicon and the content of phytolites in barley. With the increase in silicon content in the plant, there was a significant increase in the content of phytoliths in both the grain (r = 0.49*) and the straw (r = 0.36*) (Figure 4).
In the case of foliar Si application, phytolith content was usually significantly higher in comparison to the same treatment without silicon fertilization. The highest phytolith content in grain was recorded for the Compost120 + Nmin + Si treatment. In straw, it was determined for the NPK treatment.
The smallest PhytOC content in grain was determined in the NPK object (5.96 mg C g−1 phytolith), and the highest (10.21 mg C g−1 phytolith) in the case of excluded mineral fertilization (NPK170). In straw, the lowest value occurred in the case of the Compost170 + Si treatment (46.30 mg phytolith C g−1), and the highest for the Compost120 + Nmin treatment (52.65 mg C g−1 phytolith), as shown in Table 4. This is confirmed by the calculated correlation coefficients between the content of phytolith and the content of PhytOC in barley. In our studies we obtained a positive correlation between phytolith content with PhytOC content both in grain (r = 0.51*) and a stronger correlation in straw (r = 0.55*) (Figure 5).
This PhytOC content was used for the calculation of its equivalent in kg e-CO2 ha−1. For grain, the amount corresponded to 1.74–2.49 kg e- CO2 ha−1, and for straw from 8.95 to 20.16 kg e-CO2 ha−1, respectively. The total carbon equivalent accumulated in permanent bonds (grain + straw) was variable depending on treatments, and ranged from 11.44 to 22.49 kg e-CO2 ha−1 (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study demonstrated that silicon (Si) amendment positively affected spring barley, increasing yield (Figure 3) and enhancing phytolith and phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) content in biomass. Similar responses of monocotyledonous crops to Si fertilization have been widely reported. For example, Prabha et al. [29] found that the form of applied silicon did not influence yield, while Stephano et al. [44] showed that Si fertilization increased maize straw and grain yields by 10.6% and 4.8%, respectively.
Our results further confirm that both foliar and soil Si applications stimulate phytolith formation and PhytOC accumulation, thereby increasing the potential of barley for long-term CO2 sequestration. These findings are consistent with recent studies indicating that Si fertilization enhances plant Si uptake, promotes phytolith production, and expands the phytolith-bound carbon pool in cereals and other species [45,46]. Silicon increases the concentration of plant-available monosilicic acid, which is polymerized and deposited in plant tissues as amorphous silica. During this process, small fractions of organic carbon become occluded and protected from microbial decomposition [13,24,47]. In the present study, positive correlations between tissue Si content, phytolith concentration, and PhytOC were observed, in agreement with previous reports [11,48]. Similar relationships have been documented in wheat and maize, where Si fertilization substantially increased phytolith and PhytOC contents [13,24].
The interaction between Si fertilization and organic amendments appears particularly important. In our study, compost combined with Si increased phytolith content in barley grain relative to NPK-based treatments, although responses varied depending on compost dose. Recent research suggests that combining Si with organic materials such as compost or biochar may enhance phytolith production and influence PhytOC stability by modifying soil Si availability, organic matter dynamics, and aggregate formation [28,49].
Higher phytolith concentrations in straw than in grain observed in this study are consistent with the preferential silica accumulation in vegetative tissues. Similar patterns have been reported in rice, where Si fertilization increased phytolith content mainly in vegetative organs [12,50]. This has practical implications, as straw retention may increase phytolith inputs to soil and promote long-term carbon stabilization [28,45,49,51].
Species and genotype also play a key role in Si uptake and PhytOC accumulation. Previous studies have demonstrated significant variability among grasses and sedges across habitats [52], and barley has been identified as a crop with considerable potential for phytolith and PhytOC accumulation alongside rice, maize, sorghum, sugarcane, and wheat [53]. Consequently, Si management strategies should be crop- and cultivar-specific, considering soil properties, climate, and agronomic objectives. Optimization of Si form, dose, and application timing also remains essential [11,26]. Phytolith formation represents a plant-mediated pathway of long-term CO2 sequestration. In the present study, PhytOC was strongly correlated with phytolith content, supporting earlier findings [54]. Previous estimates indicate substantial sequestration potential in cereal systems [10,55], with particularly high values reported for sugarcane, maize, and bamboo [24,55,56].
Overall, our results indicate that silicon fertilization, especially when combined with organic amendments and crop residue retention, may enhance cereal productivity while contributing to climate mitigation through stable carbon storage in phytoliths [14,25,42,57]. The estimated CO2 sequestration in spring barley ranged from 12.15 to 22.49 kg CO2 eq ha−1, suggesting a significant cumulative effect at a regional scale. In Poland, this could represent a meaningful contribution to climate-smart agriculture.
Building on previous modeling studies showing that arable soils can act as long-term carbon sinks under appropriate management [58], our findings highlight PhytOC as a complementary, plant-driven sequestration mechanism. Management-induced increases in phytolith production may therefore link crop physiology with long-term soil carbon dynamics, particularly in sandy soils, and reinforce the role of nutrient management as a key strategy for climate mitigation in croplands [59].

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that cereals cultivated under temperate conditions, such as spring barley, have a substantial capacity to produce phytoliths and sequester carbon in the form of phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC). The results indicate that barley strongly responds to diversified fertilization strategies, with silicon (Si) playing a particularly influential role in promoting phytolith formation. Foliar Si applications increased silica uptake and phytolith content in plant tissues, while mineral–organic fertilization further enhanced PhytOC accumulation. Across all treatments, straw consistently served as the primary phytolith reservoir, emphasizing its key role in carbon storage. Notably, carbon retained in phytoliths—expressed as CO2 equivalents—was nearly three times higher in the NPK + Si treatment compared with the control, highlighting the potential of targeted Si management to strengthen the phytolith carbon sink in croplands. The findings suggest that both soil and foliar Si applications can be integrated into existing fertilization programs without major alterations to production routines. Retaining straw residues on the field, rather than removing or burning them, facilitates the gradual accumulation of phytoliths in the soil, enabling long-term stabilization of occluded carbon. Optimizing Si fertilization, in combination with organic matter management and conservation-oriented cultivation practices, can therefore substantially enhance the carbon sequestration potential of cereal-based agroecosystems. Beyond their scientific implications, the results provide practical insights for farmers and policymakers. Si fertilization represents a promising, readily adoptable strategy for improving crop resilience and productivity while simultaneously contributing to climate mitigation through soil carbon storage. Moreover, understanding the dynamics of PhytOC in cereal straw can inform strategies and recommendations aimed at promoting long-term carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. Overall, these findings highlight the potential of integrating Si management and sustainable residue practices to support climate-smart, sustainable agriculture in Central Europe.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.R. and W.P.S.; methodology, W.P.S. and B.R.; software, J.P. and W.S.; validation, B.R. and E.W.; formal analysis, E.W., J.P. and B.R.; investigation, W.P.S. and M.S.; resources, M.S., W.S. and J.P.; data curation, M.S., W.S. and J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, B.R. and W.P.S.; writing—review and editing, E.W.; visualization, J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the financial support through the partners of the Joint Call of the Cofund ERA-Nets SusCrop (Grant N° 771134), FACCE ERA-GAS (Grant N° 696356), ICT-AGRI-FOOD (Grant N° 862665) and SusAn (Grant N° 696231).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Additional materials and datasets can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Liu, Z.; Deng, Z.; Davis, S.; Ciais, P. Monitoring global carbon emissions in 2022. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 205–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M.; Rosado, P. CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2020. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  3. Ritchie, H. Global Inequalities in CO2 Emissions. 2023. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/inequality-co2 (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  4. European Commission. The Share of Agri-Food Systems in Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Global, Regional and Country Trends—1990–2019. 2021. Available online: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/share-agri-food-systems-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-global-regional-country-trends_en (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  5. Yan, M.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, G. Effects of irrigation and plowing on soil carbon dioxide efflux in a poplar plantation chronosequence in northwest China. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2011, 57, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Buivydienė, A.; Deveikytė, I.; Veršulienė, A.; Feiza, V. The Influence of Cropping Systems and Tillage Intensity on Soil CO2 Exchange Rate. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gerke, J. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Arable Land and Grassland: The Case for Organic Farming—A Critical Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wani, A.H.; Mir, S.H.; Kumar, S.; Malik, M.A.; Tyub, S.; Rashid, I. Silicon en route-from loam to leaf. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 99, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Parr, J.F.; Sullivan, L.A. Phytolith occluded carbon and silica variability in wheat cultivars. Plant Soil 2011, 342, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wenjuan, L.; Tan, L.; Peng, M.; Chen, H.; Tan, C.; Zhao, E.; Zhang, L.; Peng, H.; Liang, Y. The spatial distribution of phytoliths and phytolith-occluded carbon in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) ecosystem in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 850, 158005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xu, R.; Huang, J.; Guo, H.; Wang, C.; Zhan, H. Functions of silicon and phytolith in higher plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2023, 8, e2198848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Guo, F.; Song, Z.; Sullivan, L.; Wang, H.; Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Li, Z.; Zhao, Y. Enhancing phytolith carbon sequestration in rice ecosystems through basalt powder amendment. Sci. Bull. 2015, 60, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rehman, I.U.; Malik, M.A.; Rashid, I. Silicon Fertilization Increases Carbon Sequestration by Augmenting PhytOC Production in Wheat. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 23, 1149–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hodson, M. The Relative Importance of Cell Wall and Lumen Phytoliths in Carbon Sequestration in Soil: A Hypothesis. Front. Earth Sci. 2019, 7, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Song, Z.; Liu, H.; Strömberg, C.A.; Yang, X.; Zhang, X. Phytolith carbon sequestration in global terrestrial biomes. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 603, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. de Tombeur, F.; Hodson, M.J.; Saunders, M.; Clode, P.L. How important is carbon sequestration in phytoliths within the soil? Plant Soil 2024, 505, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Song, Z.; McGrouther, K.; Wang, H. Occurrence, turnover and carbon sequestration potential of phytoliths in terrestrial ecosystems. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 158, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, L.; Chang, S.X.; Huang, C.; Zhi, Y.; Jie, Y.; Yu, X.; Jiang, P. Enhancement of phytolith-occluded carbon accumulation of Moso bamboo response to temperatures elevation and different fertilization. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1144961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rehman, I.U.; Rashid, I. Role of silicon in phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) sequestration. Vegetos 2023, 37, 1221–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Reyerson, P.E.; Alexandre, A.; Harutyunyan, A.; Corbineau, R.; Martinez De La Torre, H.A.; Badeck, F.; Cattivelli, L.; Santos, G.M. Unambiguous evidence of old soil carbon in grass biosilica particles. Biogeosciences 2016, 13, 1269–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Katz, O.; Puppe, D.; Kaczorek, D.; Parkash, N.B.; Schaller, J. Silicon in the Soil–Plant Continuum: Intricate Feedback Mechanisms within Ecosystems. Plants 2021, 10, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Szulc, W.; Rutkowska, B.; Hoch, M.; Ptasiński, D.; Kazberuk, W. Plant available silicon in differentiated fertilizing conditions. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 65, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Szulc, W.; Rutkowska, B.; Hoch, M.; Spychaj-Fabisisk, E.; Murawska, B. Exchangeable silicon content of soil in a long-term fertilization experiment. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 458–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Prabha, A.M.; Mary, P.C.N.; Saravana Pandian, P.; Sivakumar, T.; Shanthi, M. Sway of silicon fertilizers on carbon sequestration in maize crop ecosystem. J. Pharm. Innov. 2021, 10, 1219–1222. [Google Scholar]
  25. Khan, A.L. Silicon: A valuable soil element for improving plant growth and CO2 sequestration. J. Adv. Res. 2025, 71, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Barão, L. The Use of Si-Based Fertilization to Improve Agricultural Performance. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 23, 1096–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, Z.; Guo, F.; Cornelis, J.T.; Song, Z.; Wang, X.; Delvaux, B. Combined Silicon-Phosphorus Fertilization Affects the Biomass and Phytolith Stock of Rice Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, C.P.; Wang, L.; Gong, X.; Huang, Z.; Zhou, M.; Li, J.; Jiang, P. Silicon fertilizer and biochar effects on plant and soil PhytOC concentration and soil PhytOC stability and fractionation in subtropical bamboo plantations. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Prabha, A.M.; Mary, P.C.N.; Saravana Pandian, P.; Sivakumar, T.; Shanthi, M. Silicon Fertilizer—An Imperative Source for Enhancing Yield and Phytolith Content of Maize Hybrid in Desilicated Soil (Typic Rhodustalf). Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2022, 28, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Song, Z.; Wu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Van Zwieten, L.; Bolan, N.; Wang, H. High potential of stable carbon sequestration in phytoliths of China’s grasslands. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 28, 2736–2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2023).
  32. ISO 10390:2021; Soil, Treated Biowaste and Sludge—Determination of pH. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/75243.html?utm (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  33. ISO 11261:1995; Soil Quality—Determination of Total Nitrogen Modified Kjeldahl Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/19239.html?utm (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  34. ISO 10694:1995; Soil Quality. Determination of Organic and Total Carbon After Dry Combustion (Elementary Analysis). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/18782.html?utm (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  35. Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Siuda, A. Effect of the Application Date of Fertilizer Containing Silicon and Potassium on the Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet Roots. Plants 2021, 10, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. PN-R-04020:1994/Az1:2004; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis-Determination of the Content Available Magnesium in Soil. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2004. Available online: https://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-r-04020-1994-az1-2004p.html (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  37. Datnoff, L.E.; Snyder, G.H.; Korndörfer, G.H. (Eds.) Silicon in Agriculture; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Available online: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/silicon-in-agriculture/datnoff/978-0-444-50262-9 (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  38. Klute, A. (Ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods; American Society of Agronomy—Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Available online: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  39. Sparks, D.L. (Ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; Available online: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.2136/sssabookser5.3 (accessed on 5 March 2026).
  40. Li, Z.; Song, Z.; Parr, J.F.; Wang, H. Occluded C in rice phytoliths: Implications to biogeochemical carbon sequestration. Plant Soil 2013, 370, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, Y.; Wang, F.; Jin, J.; Hu, S.; Gao, Y. Carbon storage potential and seasonal dynamics of phytolith from different vegetation types in a subtropical region, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 29834–29844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Liu, L.; Wang, L.; Song, L.; Sheng, M. Carbon sequestration law by phytoliths in the bamboo forests: Insights for the management of phytolith carbon sink. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2025, 58, e03491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stephano, M.F.; Geng, Y.; Cao, G.; Wang, L.; Meng, W.; Meiling, Z. Effect of Silicon Fertilizer and Straw Return on the Maize Yield and Phosphorus Efficiency in Northeast China. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2021, 52, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Anjum, M.; Prakash, N.B. Production of phytolith and PhytOC and distribution of extractable Si pools in aerobic rice as influenced by different Si sources. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1146416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, Y.; He, D.; Wu, H.; Li, Y.; Li, P.; Huang, H.; Liao, X.; Qiu, Q.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; et al. Silicon fertilizer application increases the terrestrial carbon pool by enhancing plant productivity and soil carbon storage. Geoderma 2024, 442, 116806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Majumdar, S.; Prakash, N.B. Relationship of Properties of Rice and Sugarcane Soils and Plant Available Silicon in Karnataka, South India. Silicon 2022, 14, 5647–5660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, W.; Tan, L.; Zhang, N.; Chen, H.; Fan, X.; Miao, P.; Ye, M.; Yan, G.; Peng, H.; Nikolic, N.; et al. Phytolith-occluded carbon in residues and economic benefits under rice/single-season Zizania latifolia rotation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McCarty, J.S.; Sharma, N.; Kumar, R.; Lalrammawii, C.; Dwivedi, N.; Srivastava, H.; Farooq, F.; Mehta, S. Impact of silicon fertilization on crop growth, productivity and nutrients enhancement in rice: A review. Plant Sci. 2025, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sun, X.; Liu, Q.; Tang, T.; Chen, X.; Luo, X. Silicon Fertilizer Application Promotes Phytolith Accumulation in Rice Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Davamani, V.; Piriya, R.S.; Rakesh, S.S.; Parameswari, E.; Sebastian, S.P.; Kalaiselvi, P.; Maheswari, M.; Santhi, R. Phytolith-occluded carbon sequestration potential of oil palm plantation in Tamil Nadu. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 2809–2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Qi, L.; Sun, T.; Guo, X.; Guo, Y.; Li, F.Y. Phytolith-occluded carbon sequestration potential in three major steppe types along a precipitation gradient in Northern China. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 1085–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rajendiran, S.; Vassanda Coumar, M.; Kundu Ajay, S.; Dotaniya, M.L.; Subba Rao, A. Role of Phytolith Occluded Carbon of Crop Plants for Enhancing Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agro-Ecosystems. Cur. Sci. 2012, 103, 911–920. [Google Scholar]
  54. Malik, M.A.; Wani, A.H.; Mir, S.H.; Rehman, I.U.; Tahir, I.; Ahmad, P.; Rashid, I. Elucidating the role of silicon in drought stress tolerance in plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 165, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Parr, J.; Sullivan, L.; Quirck, R. Sugarcane phytoliths: Encapsulation and sequestration of a long-lived carbon fraction. Sugar Tech 2009, 11, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lv, W.; Zhou, G.; Chen, G.; Zhou, Y.; Ge, Z.; Niu, Z.; Shi, Y. Effects of different management practices on the increase in phytolith-occluded carbon in Moso bamboo forests. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 591852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rutkowska, B.; Schröder, P.; Mench, M.; Rineau, F.; Szulc, W.; Szulc, W.; Pobereżny, J.; Tiideberg, K.; Niedziński, T.; Loit, E. Role of phytolith occluded carbon of cereales plants for climate change mitigation. J. Water Land Dev. 2024, 60, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Qiu, S.; Yang, H.; Zhang, S.; Huang, S.; Zhao, S.; Xu, X.; He, P.; Zhou, W.; Zhao, Y.; Yan, N.; et al. Carbon storage in an arable soil combining field measurements, aggregate turnover modeling and climate scenarios. CATENA 2023, 220, 106708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chen, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; Ye, Z.; Ma, W.; Mao, R.; Zhang, S.; Dahlgren, R.A.; Gao, H.; et al. Combined application of nitrate and schwertmannite promotes As(III) immobilization and greenhouse gas emission reduction in flooded paddy fields. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 119845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Localization of experimental field in Poland ((A)–detailed location and (B)–general Location). The red box marks the area of interest on the satellite image.
Figure 1. Localization of experimental field in Poland ((A)–detailed location and (B)–general Location). The red box marks the area of interest on the satellite image.
Sustainability 18 03403 g001
Figure 2. Weather conditions at the experimental station in Skierniewice.
Figure 2. Weather conditions at the experimental station in Skierniewice.
Sustainability 18 03403 g002
Figure 3. The effect of fertilization on yield of barley. Objects marked with the same letters do not differ significantly from each other at p = 0.05.
Figure 3. The effect of fertilization on yield of barley. Objects marked with the same letters do not differ significantly from each other at p = 0.05.
Sustainability 18 03403 g003
Figure 4. Relationship between silicon content and phytoliths content (A)—in grain, (B)—in straw. *—significant at p = 0.05. The solid line shows the fitted regression line, and the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4. Relationship between silicon content and phytoliths content (A)—in grain, (B)—in straw. *—significant at p = 0.05. The solid line shows the fitted regression line, and the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.
Sustainability 18 03403 g004aSustainability 18 03403 g004b
Figure 5. Relationship between phytolith content and Phyt(OC) content (A)—in grain, (B)—in straw. *—significant at p = 0.05. The solid line shows the fitted regression line, and the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5. Relationship between phytolith content and Phyt(OC) content (A)—in grain, (B)—in straw. *—significant at p = 0.05. The solid line shows the fitted regression line, and the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.
Sustainability 18 03403 g005aSustainability 18 03403 g005b
Table 1. Characteristics of soil physicochemical properties—original research.
Table 1. Characteristics of soil physicochemical properties—original research.
Properties *UnitContent
Soil texture 1%sand 76, silt 8, clay 16
pH 2-4.75
Total nitrogen (TN) 3g kg−10.76
Total organic carbon (TOC) 4g kg−18.40
P available 5mg kg−138.57
K available 5mg kg−1 mg70.60
Mg available 6kg−126.10
* according to: 1 IUSS Working Group WRB [31], 2 ISO 10390 [32], 3 ISO 11261 [33], 4 ISO 10694 [34], 5 PN-R-04023 [35], 6 PN-R-04020 [36].
Table 2. The flowchart for one replicate including all treatments of field experiment.
Table 2. The flowchart for one replicate including all treatments of field experiment.
ControlCompost170NPK + SiCompost170 + SiNPKCompost120 + NminCompost120Compost120 + Nmin + Si
Compost120Compost120 + NminControlNPKCompost170 + SiNPK + SiCompost120 + Nmin + SiCompost170
Compost170Compost170 + SiCompost120NPK + SiCompost120 + Nmin + SiControlNPKCompost120 + Nmin
Table 3. Chemical composition of compost *—original research.
Table 3. Chemical composition of compost *—original research.
pHCorgSiNSPNaCaMgK
6.7158.740.212.81.4911.051.0284.65.410.7
Corg—organic carbon, and macroelements—g kg−1 dry matter. * Chemical analyses were performed according to standard procedures described in Datnoff et al. [37], Klute [38] and Sparks [39].
Table 4. Phytolith content and phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) in barley grain and straw from the field experiment in Skierniewice, and estimated PhytOC yield expressed as CO2 equivalents.
Table 4. Phytolith content and phytolith-occluded carbon (PhytOC) in barley grain and straw from the field experiment in Skierniewice, and estimated PhytOC yield expressed as CO2 equivalents.
TreatmentGRAIN—Phytoliths GRAIN—
C Occluded in Phytoliths
GRAIN—
PhytOC Yield
STRAW—
Phytoliths
STRAW—
C Occluded in Phytoliths
STRAW—
PhytOC Yield
GRAIN + STRAW Total PhytOC Yield
mg g−1 DMmg g−1 * mg g−1 DMG **kg CO2 eq ha−1mg g−1 DMmg g−1 *mg g−1 DMG **kg CO2 eq ha−1kg CO2 eq ha−1
1. Control22.38 b8.97 d0.201 c0.576 b2.11 ab63.72 b48.83 a3.11 b2.74 a10.04 a12.15 a
2. NPK20.16 a5.96 a0.120 a0.476 a1.74 a73.01 d46.97 a3.43 c4.49 d16.47 d18.22 d
3. NPK + Si20.45 a7.42 c0.152 b0.635 c2.33 b66.45 c52.04 a3.46 c5.50 e20.16 e22.49 e
4. Compost17020.75 a10.21 e0.222 d0.680 c2.49 b52.53 a46.30 a2.68 a2.44 a8.95 a11.44 a
5. Compost170 + Si21.73 ab7.85 c0.163 bc0.558 b2.05 a57.70 a51.06 a2.67 a2.94 a10.77 b12.82 a
6. Compost120 + Nmin21.51 ab6.97 b0.150 b0.534 b1.96 a62.71 b48.46 a3.30 b3.70 b13.56 c15.51 b
7. Compost120 + Nmin + Si22.79 b6.01 a0.137 a0.502 a1.84 a64.43 bc52.65 a3.12 b4.00 c14.66 d16.49 c
Mean21.40 ± 0.92 #7.63 ± 1.430.164 ± 0.030.566 ± 0.072.07 ± 0.2462.94 ± 6.0549.47 ± 2.29 3.11 ± 0.303.69 ± 1.0213.52 ± 3.6815.59 ± 3.63
* mg g−1 phytolith; ** in yield g; a–e The significance of differences between treatment means was assessed using a post hoc multiple comparison procedure based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test at the 5% probability level; # SD (standard deviation).
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

Szulc, W.P.; Szymański, M.; Szulc, W.; Wszelaczyńska, E.; Pobereżny, J.; Rutkowska, B. Enhancing Carbon Sequestration in Barley via Silicon-Induced Phytolith Accumulation for Climate Change Mitigation. Sustainability 2026, 18, 3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073403

AMA Style

Szulc WP, Szymański M, Szulc W, Wszelaczyńska E, Pobereżny J, Rutkowska B. Enhancing Carbon Sequestration in Barley via Silicon-Induced Phytolith Accumulation for Climate Change Mitigation. Sustainability. 2026; 18(7):3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073403

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szulc, Wiesław Piotr, Maciej Szymański, Witold Szulc, Elżbieta Wszelaczyńska, Jarosław Pobereżny, and Beata Rutkowska. 2026. "Enhancing Carbon Sequestration in Barley via Silicon-Induced Phytolith Accumulation for Climate Change Mitigation" Sustainability 18, no. 7: 3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073403

APA Style

Szulc, W. P., Szymański, M., Szulc, W., Wszelaczyńska, E., Pobereżny, J., & Rutkowska, B. (2026). Enhancing Carbon Sequestration in Barley via Silicon-Induced Phytolith Accumulation for Climate Change Mitigation. Sustainability, 18(7), 3403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073403

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