Next Article in Journal
Potential Habitat Suitability Analysis Under Climate Change for the Native Grass, Kengyilia thoroldiana, on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau
Previous Article in Journal
The Addition of Straw Affects the Response of Labile Soil Organic Carbon to the Freezing and Thawing Process
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/agronomy15020480
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

A Global Meta-Analysis of Soil Carbon Stock in Agroforestry Coffee Cultivation

by
Vanessa Matos Gomes
1,2,*,
Marcos Santana Miranda Júnior
1,3,
Libério J. Silva
1,
Marcus Vinícius Teixeira
1,
Guilherme Teixeira
1,
Karina Schossler
1,3,
Diego Antônio França de Freitas
1 and
Dener Márcio da Silva Oliveira
1,2
1
Laboratório de Manejo e Conservação do Solo e da Água, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Florestal, Florestal 35690-000, MG, Brazil
2
Research Centre for Gas Innovation, Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-900, SP, Brazil
3
Postgraduate Program in Manejo e Conservação de Sistemas Naturais e Agrários, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Florestal, Florestal 35690-000, MG, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 480; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020480
Submission received: 16 December 2024 / Revised: 7 February 2025 / Accepted: 13 February 2025 / Published: 17 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Given the climate crisis, the search for sustainable production with potential to reduce excess of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has been the subject of global agreements. Soils are fundamental carbon storage systems, with a relevant role in CO2 mitigation emissions. Considering coffee as an important commodity for several countries and agroforestry systems (AFSs) as important allies for mitigating greenhouse gases emitted by the agricultural sector, this study aimed to investigate the ability of coffee plantations in AFSs to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, through soil carbon sequestration. For this purpose, we performed a meta-analysis of 45 AFSs, including simple and diversified ones, from a detailed literature search of scientific research investigating soil organic carbon in AFSs including coffee cultivation. Overall, no effect of AFSs on carbon stock change rates was found, but an increment of soil carbon storage was observed when comparing AFSs with conventional coffee cultivation. Generally, climatic variables and soil texture positively affect soil carbon stock. When comparing diversified and simple AFSs, the first had a positive effect on carbon stock change rates. Agroforestry coffee showed capacity to mitigate climate effects through carbon storage in the soil, especially when the system is diversified. This is a climate-smart strategy and should be implemented in preference to conventional coffee cultivation.

1. Introduction

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gaseous chemical compound, playing a fundamental role in the processes of respiration and photosynthesis and in the greenhouse effect [1,2]. The excess of CO2 in the atmosphere causes ecosystem imbalance and climate change, responsible for extreme meteorological events across the planet [3]. This excess comes mainly from the intense use of fossil fuels, deforestation and conventional agricultural activities [4]. Terrestrial ecosystems, which include wetlands, vegetation and soils, play a very important role in the carbon cycle (C), being a sink of CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, when in natural conditions [5]. Soils are one of the main C storage systems, with a relevant role in CO2 mitigation emissions [6,7]. They play an essential role in the C biogeochemical circle, as they have three times more C than aboveground biomass and twice more than the atmosphere [8]. Thus, soil C stock is a highly relevant ecosystem service and also an environmental indicator for soil and water qualities [9].
Agriculture has been one of the main sources of excess greenhouse gases (GHGs), being responsible for the release of ~78 Gt of C from soil as CO2 to the atmosphere, globally, between 1850 and 1998 [10]. In this context, sustainable food production is at the top of the global political agenda. Plans addressed in the Paris agreement, such as those for land consolidation and low-carbon agriculture, make commitments to reduce GHG emissions, considering the reduction of C emissions from soils through soil conservation management [11].
Agroforestry systems (AFSs) are important allies for mitigating GHGs emitted by the agricultural sector [12]. This type of production system consists of combinations of woody perennial species with agricultural crops, livestock or fodder, promoting economic, ecological and social benefits [13,14]. They represent an alternative for C retention, both in biomass and by increasing soil carbon stocks [15]. Stefano and Jacobson [16], analyzing various studies, found that the conversion of agricultural land to agroforestry significantly increased soil C stocks; while Sahoo et al. [17] found that the conversion of agroforestry to conventional agriculture resulted in the loss of C from all pools. Manaye et al. [18] showed that agroforestry practices in Ethiopia, Africa, have resulted in the removal of GHG and sequester 71.69–112.74 Mg ha−1 of C in soil. AFSs are known to be a soil conservative and sustainable practice, favoring soil organic matter, nutrient cycling, water infiltration and soil quality [14].
Coffee is an important commodity for several countries’ economies [19]. The expectation for the 2023/2024 world production was approximately 174.3 million bags, with Brazil being responsible for 31.4% of this production, followed by Vietnam with 18% and Colombia with 6.6% [20]. Tree intercropped with coffee contributes to a more sustainable system, leading to benefits such as windbreaks, temperature reduction, increasing water infiltration and acting as sinks of atmospheric CO2 [21,22]. Agroforestry coffee in Togo, Africa, for example, stocked more than three times C in the soil compared to coffee grown in the open [23]. In Guatemala, coffee agroforestry systems were able to store 64% of carbon stock found in a natural forest [24].
The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of coffee plantations in AFSs to mitigate GHG emissions, assessing literature data on soil C stocks in coffee plantations implemented conventionally and in AFSs. We aimed to (1) quantify soil C stocks in coffee plantations in AFSs compared to full-sun cultivation; and (2) assess the influence of system age, temperature, precipitation and soil texture in the soil C stock changes between the two cultivation systems. We hypothesize that coffee cultivation in AFSs favors soil carbon storage compared to full-sun cultivation.

2. Materials and Methods

A detailed literature analysis was carried out to locate scientific research investigating the soil organic C (SOC) in agroforestry systems (AFSs) that included coffee cultivation. The search was made in the digital platforms Web of Science and Google Scholar, based on the following terms, included in the studies’ titles, abstract, and keywords: “Carbon” and “Coffee Agroforestry” OR “Carbon Stock” and “Coffee Agroforestry” OR “Organic Matter” and “Coffee Agroforestry”.
The inclusion criteria were studies (i) presenting data of soil C stock in AFSs with the inclusion of coffee in the system, and (ii) in which it would be possible to calculate the soil C stock with the data presented in the paper, in AFSs with the inclusion of coffee in the system. After selection by inclusion criteria, a total of 14 papers were identified, covering the period from 2011 to 2023, encompassing nine different countries (Figure 1), and generating 45 AFSs (Table 1), including simple systems (SASs) and diversified systems (DASs). SASs encompass the combination of coffee with one forest species cultivation, while DASs are the combination of coffee with more than one forest species cultivation.
The systems in the studies were classified as follows: (1) AFSs with coffee cultivation and at least one forest species at the same time in the same area, and (2) conventional coffee cultivation (full sun). We also extracted information such as latitude, longitude, altitude, temperature, precipitation, soil type, soil texture, number of samples, type of system (SAS or DAS), previous use of the area, depth at which soil was sampled, soil density, the method used to quantify soil C content and soil C content for the sampled soil layers.
For studies that did not present the soil C stock already calculated, but presented SOC concentration and also had data on soil bulk density, we calculated soil C stock using the equation [38]:
Cstock = (SOC × Bd × L)/10
where: Cstock = soil C stock (Mg/ha); SOC = soil organic C content (g/kg); Bd = soil bulk density (Mg/m3); L = soil layer thickness (cm).
For a uniform comparison and high-level approach, SOC data were converted into C stock change rates (ΔSOC; Mg ha−1), calculated from the difference in C stocks between AFSs with coffee and a reference area (full-sun coffee cultivation), as follow [39]:
ΔSOCstock = (Ct − Ct0)/t
where ΔSOCstock = rate of change of SOC stock (Mg ha−1 yr−1), Ct is the SOC stock (Mg ha−1 yr−1) in the evaluated agroforestry systems, Ct0 is the SOC stock (Mg ha−1 yr−1) in the conventional coffee cultivation and t is the time interval of each system.
A response ratio (RR) was also calculated for each pairwise comparison between C stocks in AFSs with coffee and conventional (full sun) coffee plantations.
To understand the effects of temperature, precipitation, soil texture and AFS age in the soil C stock, the data were grouped into subcategories as follow: (i) temperature: <18 °C, 18–23 °C and >23 °C; (ii) precipitation: <1200 mm, 1200–1800 mm and >1800 mm; (iii) soil texture (according to clay content): medium (15 to 35%), clayey (36 to 60%) and very clayey (>60%); and (iv) AFS age: 6–11 years, 12–16 years and >16 years.
We used the meta-analysis technique to evaluate the influence of integrated systems on the dynamics of C stocks, considering only independent studies, and the random effect model (Figure 2). This model assumes that explanatory variables have fixed relationships with the response variable in all observations, but these fixed effects may vary from one observation to another.
For each variable (i.e., AFS age, soil texture, temperature and precipitation), ΔSOC stock and effect size (RR), as well as its 95% CI, were calculated using the “Meta” package in R software (R Core team v4.1.2). Changes in ΔSOC and RR were considered significant if the 95% CI did not overlap 0. To consider the effect of the samples number presented in each study, more weight was given to studies that had more samples (n), according to [40].
As a result of Bootstrapping procedure (1000 iterations) using the “Boot” package of R software (R core team), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated for each weighted average effect size. This resampling technique is important to determine the importance of meta-analytic metrics, since data often have small samples and can violate some basic distribution assumptions. Bootstrapping chooses n studies from a sample size N and then calculates the statistics, and this process is repeated several times (e.g., 1000 times) to generate a distribution of possible values [41].

3. Results

In general, the AFSs’ effect on ΔSOC was not significant (Figure 3). The change rate in C stock (ΔSOC) ranged from −1.07 to 2.36 Mg ha−1 yr−1, with a positive mean (0.66 ± 0.63). On the other hand, a diversified AFS had a positive effect on ΔSOC (Figure 4). Their response ratio ranged from 0.99 to 4.36. The ΔSOC has a positive mean of 0.88 Mg ha−1 yr−1.
Diversified AFSs showed a mean soil C stock of 111.0 ± 45.28 Mg ha−1, while simple systems showed a mean of 84.47 ± 31.33 Mg ha−1. The data for both simple systems (n = 28) and diversified systems (n = 17) showed high heterogeneity.
Agroforestry systems of all ages showed a positive effect on C stock (Figure 5). The average of C stock change rates was similar for 5–10 years of age (n = 9) and 11–16 years of age (n = 12), with 1.20 and 1.23 Mg ha−1 yr−1, respectively. The C stock change rate for AFSs with 5–10-year age ranged from 1.0 to 1.23 Mg ha−1 yr−1, while for AFSs with 11–16 years it ranged from 0.83 to 1.35 Mg ha−1 yr−1. However, systems implemented more than 16 years ago (n = 24) tended to store more C in the soil, with an average of 1.85 Mg ha−1 yr−1 in the C stock change rate. The last ranged from 0.99 to 4.51 Mg ha−1 yr−1.
Similarly, the AFS showed a positive effect in all temperature ranges tested (Figure 6A). The C stock change rate for the temperature range of 18–23 °C (n = 32) varied between 0.99 and 4.51 Mg ha−1 yr−1, with an average of 1.51 Mg ha−1 yr−1. This result was similar to the C stock change rate found for temperatures above 23 °C (n = 10), which ranged from 1.11 to 4.36 Mg ha−1 yr−1, with an average of 1.69 Mg ha−1 yr−1. The C stock change rate for temperatures below 18 °C (n = 3) was 0.94 Mg ha−1 yr−1 on average.
For all precipitation intervals investigated, the response rates were also positive (Figure 6B). The average C stock change rate for 1200–1800 mm (n = 13) and above 1800 mm (n = 22) were 1.23 and 1.55 Mg ha−1 yr−1, respectively. The average rate for precipitation below 1200 mm (n = 10) was 2.60 Mg ha−1 yr−1, with values ranging widely, from 0.99 to 4.51 Mg ha−1 yr−1.
Also, for all soil texture ranges the response rates were positive (Figure 7). The mean C stock change rate was similar for the three soil texture ranges investigated. For soils with clay content between 15% and 35% (n = 8), the average was 1.12 Mg ha−1 yr−1; while for the range of 36% to 60% clay content (n = 30), the average was 1.65 Mg ha−1 yr−1. Finally, the average for soils with clay content greater than 60% (n = 7) was 1.33 Mg ha−1 yr−1.

4. Discussion

The present results demonstrated the importance of coffee cultivation in AFSs for carbon accumulation in the soil. Despite meta-analysis found no significant effect of AFSs in general on carbon stock, the average SOC stock among all AFSs in our study was expressive (94.64 Mg ha−1 ± 39.01), being greater than that found in coffee crops grown in full sun [31,35,36]. Furthermore, AFSs promote other benefits to coffee cultivation, improving chemical, physical and biological soil attributes [42,43].
Comparing simple and diversified AFSs, the results showed a significant effect of diversified systems on soil carbon stock, highlighting the importance of diversity in the systems. On average, diversified agroforestry systems stored 26.53 Mg ha−1 of C more than simple agroforestry systems. It represents a 31% increase of C in soils under a more diversified system. This corroborates with studies that found the effect of diversity on biomass C accumulation in agroforestry systems, reflecting on the C stock both above and below ground [44,45,46].
The effect of diversified AFSs may be related to the greater floristic diversity of the system, as the quality of the material deposited in the soil is associated to the floristic composition in AFSs [47]. Previous tests evaluated soil carbon stocks in AFSs with distinct floristic composition and concluded that the better quality of soil organic material in more diverse systems contributed to humification process and, thus, to long-term C storage [48]. Moreover, in the presence of a high range of chemical compounds from plants, soil microorganisms must have a variety of enzymes, metabolic pathways and a greater amount of energy to decompose soil organic matter (SOM), leading to its mineralization slowdown, and, consequently, to its greater persistence, through storage in the soil [49].
The AFS’s age is important for carbon sequestration; however, in this study, all ranges of systems’ ages had a positive effect on SOC, with a more pronounced trend in systems older than 16 years. It is important to highlight that all systems evaluated were more than 5 years old. This effect may be related to the management used in AFSs, where there is a continuous supply of plant residues over the years, coupled with the absence of soil disturbance practices. In this sense, AFSs are important systems for maintenance and increasing C in the soil [50]. Furthermore, AFSs have great potential to reestablish soil balance, in addition to improving nutrient cycling over time, contributing to increased SOM levels [51].
Overall, higher average temperatures are expected to lead to a decrease in SOC [52]. Our results showed that, even at higher temperatures, there was an increase in SOC in AFSs with coffee, compared to conventional coffee cultivation. We must consider that in AFSs the soil temperature is lower than in conventional cultivation systems, as the trees in the system prevent direct sunlight on the soil, avoiding excessive heating [53]. This effect also prevents excess of soil water loss, thus favoring SOC accumulation [22].
We also found a trend to store more carbon in the soil where precipitation was lower than 1200 mm. On the contrary, it is expected that there will be greater carbon accumulation in the soil where rainfall is greater [54]. This is because in this condition there is a greater input of plant derived carbon, which promotes microbial processes and leads to SOC accumulation [55]. However, this carbon entry into the soil favors the formation of particulate organic matter (POM), suggesting that this fraction has a sound contribution to the change in SOC [56]. As this fraction is less protected, its decomposition rate increases significantly in situations where there is no microbial inhibition [57]. After precipitation events, soil microorganisms are greatly stimulated to quickly consume POM in a short space of time, leading to a decrease in SOC [58].
Regarding the soil texture effect, SOC change rates were very similar on average, despite a trend to store more carbon in clayey soils. It is known that clayey soils tend to greater storage SOC, due to its protection in the soil aggregate matrix [59]. At a microscopic level, clay and organic matter act in synergy, creating bonds between sand and silt particles and leading to soil microaggregates, which are responsible for protecting SOM from oxidative effects [60]. This favors the persistence of carbon in the soil. However, considering that we are analyzing AFSs, regardless of soil texture, these systems promote high inputs of organic matter [14], which, in addition to a management of no soil disturbance, may compensate for lower clay contents. This may be the reason for the similarity in the average SOC change rates for all texture classes analyzed.
Results compiled in this meta-analysis reinforce the role of agroforestry systems in soil carbon storage, stressing the great potential of agroforestry coffee cultivation. As coffee is a highly relevant global product, its production may represent a major contribution to mitigating greenhouse gases when cultivated in agroforestry systems. It is worth noting that organic matter is central to this process, generating more climatically resilient soils as well as mitigating GHG emissions through carbon sequestration and storage.

5. Conclusions

The coffee cultivation in agroforestry systems showed the capacity to mitigate climate change effects through carbon sequestration and storage in the soil, especially when the system is composed of greater floristic diversity. Our results support the relevance of cultivating coffee in agroforestry systems, as even in climatic conditions outside the optimal levels recommended for the crop cultivation there was compensation in the soil carbon stock, due to positive effects of mixing the crop of interest with others plant species.
The coffee area harvested by the 10 global-leading countries totals about nine million hectares [19]. If 10% of these plantations were converted to agroforestry systems, based on the average of soil C stock of the studies included in the present meta-analysis, we would have an average increase of 595,000 tons per year in soil C stock. If AFSs were diversified, this increment would be even greater (average of 792,000 tons per year). In addition to the gains in soil carbon storage, other environmental services such as soil quality, water quality, pollination and biodiversity are promoted by this sustainable production. In this way, this land use change, from conventional cultivation to agroforestry systems, should be implemented, representing an undoubted global advantage and climate-smart strategy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.M.J., D.A.F.d.F. and D.M.d.S.O.; Methodology, M.S.M.J., L.J.S., M.V.T., G.T. and K.S.; Validation, V.M.G., D.A.F.d.F. and D.M.d.S.O.; Formal analysis, L.J.S.; Investigation, V.M.G., M.S.M.J., M.V.T., G.T. and D.A.F.d.F.; Resources, D.A.F.d.F. and D.M.d.S.O.; Data curation, V.M.G., M.S.M.J. and L.J.S.; Writing—original draft, V.M.G., M.S.M.J. and K.S.; Writing—review & editing, V.M.G. and D.M.d.S.O.; Supervision, D.A.F.d.F. and D.M.d.S.O.; Project administration, D.A.F.d.F. and D.M.d.S.O.; Funding acquisition, D.M.d.S.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the RCGI—Research Centre for Gas Innovation, hosted by the University of São Paulo (USP) and sponsored by FAPESP—São Paulo Research Foundation (2014/50279-4 and 2020/15230-5) and Shell Brasil; strategically supported by ANP (Brazil’s National Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency) through the R&D levy regulation; and also funded by the Fundação Agrisus (PA 3882/24).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mooney, H.A.; Ehleringer, J.R. Photosynthesis. In Plant Ecology, 2nd ed.; Crawley, M.J., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-0-632-03639-4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Martin, R.; Lim, E.J. Understanding the Unseen: CO2′s Connections in Life. Am. Biol. Teach. 2020, 82, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carroll, C.; Ray, J.C. Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 3395–3414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Farooqi, Z.U.R.; Sabir, M.; Qadeer, A.; Naeem, A.; Murtaza, G.; Yousaf, H. Understanding the Causes of Climatic Change in the Environment. In Climate Change; Bandh, S.A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lal, R.; Smith, P.; Jungkunst, H.F.; Mitsch, W.J.; Lehmann, J.; Nair, P.R.; McBratney, A.B.; Sá, J.C.d.M.; Schneider, J.; Zinn, Y.L.; et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 73, 145A–152A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lybbert, T.J.; Sumner, D.A. Agricultural technologies for climate change in developing countries: Policy options for innovation and technology diffusion. Food Policy 2012, 37, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cambou, A.; Cardinael, R.; Kouakoua, E.; Villeneuve, M.; Durand, C.; Barthès, B.G. Prediction of soil organic carbon stock using visible and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (VNIRS) in the field. Geoderma 2016, 261, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Davis, M.R.; Alves, B.J.R.; Karlen, D.L.; Kline, K.L.; Galdos, M.; Abulebdeh, D. Review of Soil Organic Carbon Measurement Protocols: A US and Brazil Comparison and Recommendation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Benbi, D.K.; Brar, K.; Toor, A.S.; Singh, P. Total and labile pools of soil organic carbon in cultivated and undisturbed soils in northern India. Geoderma 2015, 237, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lal, R. World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon. Adv. Agron. 2001, 71, 145–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Silva, E.R.A. Agenda 2030: ODS—Metas Nacionais dos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável; IPEA: Brasília, DF, USA, 2018. Available online: https://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/8855/1/Agenda_2030_ods_metas_nac_dos_obj_de_desenv_susten_propos_de_adequa.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
  12. Nair, P.K.R. (Ed.) Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems: Opportunities and Challenges; Springer: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011; Volume 8, pp. 145–162. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lovison, J.; Gehrke, L.D.; Vieira, M. Proposta de implantação de um sistema silvipastoril no município de restinga seca. In Proceedings of the 13º SIEPE: Salão Internacional de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão, Online, 17–19 November 2021; Volume 13, p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fahad, S.; Chavan, S.B.; Chichaghare, A.R.; Uthappa, A.R.; Kumar, M.; Kakade, V.; Pradhan, A.; Jinger, D.; Rawale, G.; Yadav, D.K.; et al. Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Froufe, L.C.M.; Seoane, C.E.S. Levantamento fitossociológico comparativo entre sistema agroflorestal multiestrato e capoeiras como ferramenta para a execução da reserva legal. Pesqui. Florest. Bras. 2011, 31, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Stefano, A.; Jacobson, M.G. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: A meta-analysis. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sahoo, U.K.; Tripathi, O.P.; Nath, A.J.; Deb, S.; Das, D.J.; Gupta, A.; Devi, N.B.; Charturvedi, S.S.; Singh, S.L.; Kumar, A.; et al. Quantifying Tree Diversity, Carbon Stocks, and Sequestration Potential for Diverse Land Uses in Northeast India. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 724950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Manaye, A.; Tesfamariam, B.; Tesfaye, M.; Worku, A.; Gufi, Y. Tree diversity and carbon stocks in agroforestry systems in northern Ethiopia. Carbon Balance Manag. 2021, 16, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shahbandeh, M. Global Coffee Production 2020, by Country. Statista. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/277137/world-coffee-production-by-leading-countries/ (accessed on 21 October 2024).
  20. EMBRAPA. Produção total de café no Mundo Deverá Atingir Volume Físico Equivalente a 1743 Milhões de Sacas na Safra 2023–2024. 2023. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/82856140/producao-total-de-cafe-no-mundo-devera-atingir-volume-fisico-equivalente-a-1743-milhoes-de-sacas-na-safra-2023-2024 (accessed on 10 August 2024).
  21. Jaramillo-Botero, C.; Santos, R.H.S.; Martinez, H.E.P.; Cecon, P.R.; Fardin, M.P. Production and vegetative growth of coffee trees under fertilization and shade levels. Sci. Agric. 2010, 67, 639–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moreira, S.L.; Pires, C.V.; Marcatti, G.E.; Santos, R.H.; Imbuzeiro, H.M.; Fernandes, R.B. Intercropping of coffee with the palm tree, macauba, can mitigate climate change effects. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 257, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dossa, E.L.; Fernandes, E.C.M.; Reid, W.S.; Ezui, K. Above- and belowground biomass, nutrient and carbon stocks contrasting an open-grown and a shaded coffee plantation. Agrofor. Syst. 2008, 72, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schmitt-Harsh, M.; Evans, T.P.; Castellanos, E.; Randolph, J.C. Carbon stocks in coffee agroforests and mixed dry tropical forests in the western highlands of Guatemala. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Negash, M.; Starr, M. Biomass and soil carbon stocks of indigenous agroforestry systems on the south-eastern Rift Valley escarpment, Ethiopia. Plant Soil 2015, 393, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zaro, G.C.; Caramori, P.H.; Yada Junior, G.M.; Sanquetta, C.R.; Filho, A.A.; Nunes, A.L.P.; Prete, C.E.C.; Voroney, P. Carbon sequestration in an agroforestry system of coffee with rubber trees compared to open-grown coffee in southern Brazil. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ehrenbergerova, L.; Cienciala, E.; Kučera, A.; Guy, L.; Habrová, H. Carbon stock in agroforestry coffee plantations with different shade trees in Villa Rica, Peru. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 433–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ruiz-García, P.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I.; Valdés-Velarde, E.; Escamilla-Prado, E.; Gómez-Díaz, J.D. Carbon stocks in coffee (C. arabica L.) agroforestry systems in the face of climate change: México case. Agron. Mesoam. 2022, 33, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Espinoza-Domínguez, W.; Krishnamurthy, L.; Vázquez-Alarcón, A.; Torres-Rivera, A. Almacén de carbono en sistemas agroforestales con café. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Cienc. For. Ambiente 2012, 18, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Solis, R.; Vallejos-Torres, G.; Arévalo, L.; Marín-Díaz, J.; Ñique-Alvarez, M.; Engedal, T.; Bruun, T.B. Carbon stocks and the use of shade trees in different coffee growing systems in the Peruvian Amazon. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 158, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chatterjee, N.; Nair, P.K.R.; Nair, V.D.; Viswanath, S.; Bhattacharjee, A. Depth-wise distribution of soil-carbon stock in aggregate-sized fractions under shaded-perennial agroforestry systems in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 94, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Niguse, G.; Iticha, B.; Kebede, G.; Chimdi, A. Contribution of coffee plants to carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems of Southwestern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Sci. 2022, 160, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tumwebaze, S.B.; Byakagaba, P. Soil organic carbon stocks under coffee agroforestry systems and coffee monoculture in Uganda. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 216, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chatterjee, N.; Nair, P.R.; Nair, V.D.; Bhattacharjee, A.; Filho, E.D.M.V.; Muschler, R.G.; Noponen, M.R. Do coffee agroforestry systems always improve soil carbon stocks deeper in the soil?—A case study from Turrialba, Costa Rica. Forests 2019, 11, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Segnini, A.; Posadas, A.; da Silva, W.T.; Milori, D.M.; Gavilan, C.; Claessens, L.; Quiroz, R. Quantifying soil carbon stocks and humification through spectroscopic methods: A scoping assessment in EMBU-Kenya. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 234, 476–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hergoualc’h, K.; Blanchart, E.; Skiba, U.; Hénault, C.; Harmand, J.-M. Changes in carbon stock and greenhouse gas balance in a coffee (Coffea arabica) monoculture versus an agroforestry system with Inga densiflora, in Costa Rica. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 148, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Álvarez-Arteaga, G.; Calderón, N.E.; Krasilnikov, P.; García-Oliva, F. Almacenes de carbono en bosques montaños de niebla de la Sierra Norte de Oaxaca, México. Agrociencia 2013, 47, 171–180. [Google Scholar]
  38. Oliveira, D.M.S.; Tavares, R.L.M.; Loss, A.; Madari, B.E.; Cerri, C.E.P.; Alves, B.J.R.; Pereira, M.G.; Cherubin, M.R. Climate-smart ag-riculture and soil C sequestration in Brazilian Cerrado: A systematic review. Rev. Bras. Ciência Solo 2023, 47, e0220055. [Google Scholar]
  39. Silva, L.J.; Oliveira, D.M.; Santos, R.S.; Oliveira, P.A.; Freitas, D.A.; Cherubin, M.R.; Cerri, C.E. Soil carbon dynamics in integrated agricultural systems in Minas Gerais state, Brazil: A meta-analysis. Geoderma Reg. 2024, 36, e00761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Adams, D.C.; Gurevitch, J.; Rosenberg, M.S. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 1997, 78, 1277–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aguilera, E.; Lassaletta, L.; Gattinger, A.; Gimeno, B.S. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 168, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vieira, M.V.M.; Giunti, O.D.; Gris, C.F.; Silva, A.V. Indicadores de Sustentabilidade e Influência de Sistemas Agroflorestal e Convencional Sobre a Qualidade do solo e do café Arábica em Piumhi-MG. Rev. Verde Agroecol. E Desenvolv. Sustentável 2015, 10, 224–238. Available online: https://www.gvaa.com.br/revista/index.php/RVADS/article/view/3329/3499 (accessed on 20 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  43. Bastos, T.R.d.S.; Barreto-Garcia, P.A.B.; Mendes, I.d.C.; Monroe, P.H.M.; de Carvalho, F.F. Response of soil microbial biomass and enzyme activity in coffee-based agroforestry systems in a high-altitude tropical climate region of Brazil. Catena 2023, 230, 107–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Islam, M.; Dey, A.; Rahman, M. Effect of Tree Diversity on Soil Organic Carbon Content in the Homegarden Agroforestry System of North-Eastern Bangladesh. Small Scale For. 2015, 14, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cardozo, E.G.; Rousseau, G.X.; Celentano, D.; Salazar, H.F.; Gehring, C. Effect of species richness and vegetation structure on carbon storage in agroforestry systems in the Southern Amazon of Bo-livia. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2018, 66, 1481–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ma, Z.; Chen, H.Y.H.; Bork, E.W.; Carlyle, C.N.; Chang, S.X. Carbon accumulation in agroforestry systems is affected by tree species diversity, age and regional climate: A global me-ta-analysis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2020, 29, 1817–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rocha, G.P.; Fernandes, L.A.; Cabacinha, C.D.; Lopes, I.D.P.; Ribeiro, J.M.; Frazão, L.A.; Sampaio, R.A. Caracterização e estoques de carbono de sistemas agroflorestaisno Cerrado de Minas Gerais. Cienc. Rural. 2014, 44, 1197–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ribeiro, J.M.; Frazão, L.A.; Fernandes, L.A.; Sampaio, R.A.; Cardoso, P.H.S.; Oliveira, A.L.G. Fertilidade do solo e estoques de carbono e nitrogênio sob sistemas agroflorestais no Cerrado mineiro. Cienc. Florest. 2019, 29, 913–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lehmann, J.; Hansel, C.M.; Kaiser, C.; Kleber, M.; Maher, K.; Manzoni, S.; Nunan, N.; Reichstein, M.; Schimel, J.P.; Torn, M.S.; et al. Persistence of soil organic carbon caused by functional complexity. Nat. Geosci. 2020, 13, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gama-Rodrigues, E.F.; Nair, P.K.R.; Nair, V.D.; Gama-Rodrigues, A.C.; Baligar, V.C.; Machado, R.C.R. Carbon Storage in Soil Size Fractions Under Two Cacao Agroforestry Systems in Bahia, Brazil. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Iwata, B.D.F.; Leite, L.F.C.; Araujo, A.S.F.; Nunes, L.A.P.L.; Gehring, C.; Campos, L.P. Sistemas agroflorestais e seus efeitos sobre os atributos químicos em Argissolo Vermelho-Amarelo do Cerrado piauiense. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 2012, 16, 730–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zeng, X.; Feng, J.; Yu, D.; Wen, S.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, Q.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Liu, Y. Local temperature increases reduce soil microbial residues and carbon stocks. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 6433–6445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wanzeler, R.T.S.; Costa, J.d.P.R.d.; dos Santos, C.A. Variabilidade horária do perfil de temperatura do solo em um pomar de mangueiras (Mangifera indica l.), na localidade de Cuiarana, Salinópolis—PA. Estac. Cient. 2016, 6, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Qin, J.; Liu, Y.; Bi, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, B. Response of leaf and soil C, N and P stoichiometry in different Pinus massoniana forest types to slope aspect in the Dabie mountains region of North subtropical, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1148986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. He, N.; Chen, Q.; Han, X.; Yu, G.; Li, L. Warming and increased precipitation individually influence soil carbon sequestration of Inner Mongolian grasslands, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 158, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Becker, A.E.; Horowitz, L.S.; Ruark, M.D.; Jackson, R.D. Surface-soil carbon stocks greater under well-managed grazed pasture than row crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2022, 86, 758–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lavallee, J.M.; Soong, J.L.; Cotrufo, M.F. Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Haddix, M.L.; Gregorich, E.G.; Helgason, B.L.; Janzen, H.; Ellert, B.H.; Cotrufo, M.F. Climate, carbon content, and soil texture control the independent formation and persistence of particulate and mineral-associated organic matter in soil. Geoderma 2020, 363, 114–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hassink, J.; Whitmore, A.P. A Model of the Physical Protection of Organic Matter in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McLaren, R.G.; Cameron, K.C. Soil Science, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 15 00480 g001
Figure 1. Locations of studies investigating soil organic carbon in agroforestry systems with coffee cultivation, included in the meta-analysis to evaluate soil C stocks.
Figure 1. Locations of studies investigating soil organic carbon in agroforestry systems with coffee cultivation, included in the meta-analysis to evaluate soil C stocks.
Agronomy 15 00480 g001
Agronomy 15 00480 g002
Figure 2. Flowchart of the methodology performed in the study. SOC = soil organic carbon; CI = confidence interval.
Figure 2. Flowchart of the methodology performed in the study. SOC = soil organic carbon; CI = confidence interval.
Agronomy 15 00480 g002
Agronomy 15 00480 g003
Figure 3. Effect of coffee’s agroforestry system on the natural logarithm of soil carbon change rates. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Figure 3. Effect of coffee’s agroforestry system on the natural logarithm of soil carbon change rates. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Agronomy 15 00480 g003
Agronomy 15 00480 g004
Figure 4. Influence of simple agroforestry systems (SSs) and diversified agroforestry systems (DFs) on the natural logarithm of soil carbon change rates. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Figure 4. Influence of simple agroforestry systems (SSs) and diversified agroforestry systems (DFs) on the natural logarithm of soil carbon change rates. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Agronomy 15 00480 g004
Agronomy 15 00480 g005
Figure 5. The effect of system age on the change rate of soil carbon stock in agroforestry systems cultivated with coffee. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero. yr = years.
Figure 5. The effect of system age on the change rate of soil carbon stock in agroforestry systems cultivated with coffee. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero. yr = years.
Agronomy 15 00480 g005
Agronomy 15 00480 g006
Figure 6. Temperature (A) and precipitation (B) effects on the soil carbon change rate in agroforestry systems cultivated with coffee. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Figure 6. Temperature (A) and precipitation (B) effects on the soil carbon change rate in agroforestry systems cultivated with coffee. The dotted line represents the boundary between positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Agronomy 15 00480 g006
Agronomy 15 00480 g007
Figure 7. Influence of soil texture on the soil carbon change rate in agroforestry systems cultivated with coffee. The dotted line represents the boundary between the positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Figure 7. Influence of soil texture on the soil carbon change rate in agroforestry systems cultivated with coffee. The dotted line represents the boundary between the positive and negative response and the response ratio. Effect size was significant when 95% CI did not overlap zero.
Agronomy 15 00480 g007
Table 1. Information extracted from scientific publications compiled to estimate the effect of agroforestry systems with coffee on soil organic carbon stocks. AFS = agroforestry system; P = precipitation; T = temperature.
Table 1. Information extracted from scientific publications compiled to estimate the effect of agroforestry systems with coffee on soil organic carbon stocks. AFS = agroforestry system; P = precipitation; T = temperature.
ReferenceCountryAFS TypeDepth (cm)Time Span (yrs)Clay ContentP (mm)T (°C)
Negash and Starr [25]EthiopiaDiversified0–60100Clayey100020.5
Diversified0–60100Clayey100020.5
Diversified0–60100Clayey100026.5
Zaro et al. [26]BrazilSimple0–7016Clayey164121.1
Ehrenbergerova et al. [27]PeruSimple0–3015Medium155017.8
Simple0–3015Medium154017.8
Simple0–307Medium166017.8
Ruiz Garcia et al. [28]MexicoDiversified0–3050Very Clayey190018.8
Simple0–3050Very Clayey190018.8
Simple0–3050Very Clayey190018.8
Espinoza-Dominguez [29]MexicoSimple0–3020Very Clayey184419
Simple0–3020Very Clayey184419
Simple0–3020Very Clayey184419
Simple0–3020Very Clayey184419
Solis et al. [30]PeruDiversified0–6010Clayey180025
Simple0–6012Clayey180025
Schmitt-Harsh et al. [24]GuatemalaDiversified0–1042Medium250421
Chatterjee et al. [31]IndiaSimple0–10075Clayey240026
Diversified0–10065Medium240026
Niguse et al. [32]EthiopiaDiversified0–6020Medium 195018.5
Simple0–6020Medium195018.5
Tumwebaze and Byakagaba [33]UgandaDiversified0–3020Very Clayey987.321.7
Diversified0–3020Very Clayey87522.7
Chatterjee, et al. [34]Costa RicaSimple0–10015Clayey260022
Simple0–10015Clayey260022
Simple0–10015Clayey260022
Simple0–10015Clayey260022
Segnini et al. [35]KenyaSimple0–3020Clayey290519.3
Hergoualc’h et al. [36]Costa RicaSimple0–409Clayey230021
Arteaga et al. [37]MexicoDiversified0–4030Medium99021.4
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

Gomes, V.M.; Miranda Júnior, M.S.; Silva, L.J.; Teixeira, M.V.; Teixeira, G.; Schossler, K.; Freitas, D.A.F.d.; Oliveira, D.M.d.S. A Global Meta-Analysis of Soil Carbon Stock in Agroforestry Coffee Cultivation. Agronomy 2025, 15, 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020480

AMA Style

Gomes VM, Miranda Júnior MS, Silva LJ, Teixeira MV, Teixeira G, Schossler K, Freitas DAFd, Oliveira DMdS. A Global Meta-Analysis of Soil Carbon Stock in Agroforestry Coffee Cultivation. Agronomy. 2025; 15(2):480. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020480

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gomes, Vanessa Matos, Marcos Santana Miranda Júnior, Libério J. Silva, Marcus Vinícius Teixeira, Guilherme Teixeira, Karina Schossler, Diego Antônio França de Freitas, and Dener Márcio da Silva Oliveira. 2025. "A Global Meta-Analysis of Soil Carbon Stock in Agroforestry Coffee Cultivation" Agronomy 15, no. 2: 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020480

APA Style

Gomes, V. M., Miranda Júnior, M. S., Silva, L. J., Teixeira, M. V., Teixeira, G., Schossler, K., Freitas, D. A. F. d., & Oliveira, D. M. d. S. (2025). A Global Meta-Analysis of Soil Carbon Stock in Agroforestry Coffee Cultivation. Agronomy, 15(2), 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020480

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