Next Article in Journal
Rural Property Subdivision: Land Use Change Patterns and Water Rights Around Cerro Castillo National Park, Chilean Patagonia
Next Article in Special Issue
Permafrost Degradation: Mechanisms, Effects, and (Im)Possible Remediation
Previous Article in Journal
From Construction to Operation: A Public Service Ecosystem Framework for Urban Rail Transit’s Economic Impact
Previous Article in Special Issue
Land Unit Delineation Based on Soil-Forming Factors: A Tool for Soil Survey in Mountainous Protected Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/land14091876
land-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

Soil C-CO2 Emissions Across Different Land Uses in a Peri-Urban Area of Central Croatia

by
Marija Galic
,
Aleksandra Percin
and
Igor Bogunovic
*
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska Street 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(9), 1876; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091876
Submission received: 28 July 2025 / Revised: 9 September 2025 / Accepted: 11 September 2025 / Published: 13 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers for "Land, Soil and Water" Section)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Soils play an important role in the global carbon cycle by storing organic carbon and releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) through biological processes. Land use management practices influence soil CO2 emissions by changing physical, chemical, and biological soil properties. Seasonal soil C-CO2 emissions (soil CO2 efflux expressed as C-CO2 in kg ha−1 day−1) were analyzed under cropland, orchard, grassland, forest, and abandoned land, in a peri-urban area in central Croatia in 2021 and 2023. Emissions were measured using the static method in a closed chamber, accompanied by measurements of soil temperature, moisture, and total porosity. In both years, grassland and orchards had the highest average soil C-CO2 emissions, whereas cropland showed consistently lower values. However, total soil C-CO2 emissions were significantly lower in 2023, probably influenced by higher precipitation and changes in soil moisture. The seasonal trends differed from year to year, with the highest emissions recorded in fall 2021 and spring 2023. In both years, there was a positive correlation between average soil C-CO2 emissions and soil temperature/moisture, while soil porosity also contributed to the observed emission variations. The results show the significant influence of land use types on soil C-CO2 emissions and emphasize the importance of seasonal and environmental factors in assessing soil carbon cycling. This research enhances understanding of soil contributions to climate change and supports the development of sustainable land management practices aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

1. Introduction

Soil is a key component of the global carbon cycle, acting simultaneously as a dynamic source and sink for carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas in terms of both total emissions and cumulative contribution to global warming [1,2,3]. Globally, soils store more than twice as much carbon as the atmosphere [4] and even small changes in soil carbon stocks can have an impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations [5,6]. The ability of soil to store or release carbon is determined by a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes, many of which are directly influenced by land use and management [7,8]. The way in which the land is managed impacts autotrophic respiration by plant roots and associated symbionts, as well as the level of heterotrophic respiration by soil microbes that decompose organic matter [9,10,11]. In intensively managed agricultural systems, these biological processes are usually intensified, which accelerates the mineralization of organic matter and increases CO2 emissions. In contrast, land uses that maintain continuous vegetation cover and avoid mechanical disturbance, such as forests or established grasslands, favor the stabilization of carbon in the soil and reduce gaseous losses to the atmosphere [12,13,14]. Anthropogenic activity can modify soil properties such as organic carbon content, pH, nutrient availability, porosity, and biological activity [15,16,17]. Among these, total porosity is particularly important, as it influences the balance between air, water and soil [18,19]. Soils with higher porosity generally have improved aeration and gas diffusion capacity, which can increase microbial activity and consequently influence CO2 emission rates [20,21]. Conversely, compacted or poorly structured soils can limit oxygen availability, alter microbial pathways and reduce or divert carbon fluxes [22,23]. However, it is important to emphasize that higher porosity should not be viewed as a limitation; on the contrary, it is a key indicator of good soil structure and overall soil quality. Beyond its role in gas exchange, porosity regulates water infiltration and retention, facilitates root growth, and sustains nutrient cycling, thereby contributing to long-term soil productivity [24]. Thus, while greater porosity may under certain conditions be associated with enhanced CO2 efflux, it remains an essential attribute of healthy and resilient soils. The pore system can alter soil temperature and moisture, key drivers of CO2 release [7,25,26]. However, the interaction between these factors can be complex, where many studies have reported varying results regarding their individual and combined effects on soil CO2 emissions [27,28,29]. These physical differences between land use systems accumulate over time and affect the long-term ability of the soil to store or release carbon. Intensive land uses, such as fertilized and frequently tilled croplands, often lead to a reduction in soil organic carbon [30,31]. In contrast, less intensively managed systems—such as forests, grasslands or abandoned agricultural land—are more likely to retain organic carbon and gradually promote its incorporation into stable soil fractions [32]. Due to their perennial vegetation, orchard management also has a strong influence on carbon and dynamics in soil [33]. Several previous studies have shown the relationship between land use and soil CO2 emissions and confirmed the influence of vegetation type, management intensity, and seasonal dynamics. However, most of these studies were conducted over shorter time periods and focused on fewer land use categories, highlighting the need for more comprehensive, multi-seasonal assessments [34,35,36,37,38]. While these processes are widely recognized, there is still limited understanding of how soil CO2 emissions vary with land use, especially in peri-urban areas where changes are evolving rapidly. This knowledge is essential for making better land use decisions and responding to climate challenges. In this study, the seasonal soil C-CO2 emissions of five different land use types—cropland, orchard, grassland, forest and abandoned land—in a peri-urban area in central Croatia are investigated over two measurement years. Furthermore, this research is the first study in Croatia to directly quantify soil CO2 emissions under different land use types in real field conditions. Due to the absence of national measurements, greenhouse gas inventories in Croatia have so far relied on default IPCC emission factors derived from other countries. Developing country-specific emission factors is one of the key IPCC recommendations for improving the accuracy of greenhouse gas reporting. Therefore, this study provides an important contribution to filling this national data gap.
The study takes into account seasonal variations and the influence of environmental factors such as soil temperature and soil moisture, as well as total porosity. The specific objectives of this study are: (1) to compare and quantify soil C-CO2 emissions in five different land use types; (2) to evaluate the seasonal differences in emission patterns in two consecutive years; and (3) to evaluate the influence of soil temperature, soil moisture, and total porosity on soil C-CO2 emissions under different land use types.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The field experiment was conducted in 2021 at the Šašinovec lighthouse (45.8215° N; 16.1520° E; 121 m a.s.l.), in Zagreb City, Central Croatia (Figure 1). The study area is characterized as predominantly flat and a major part has been continuously cultivated for over a century. It represents a typical agricultural landscape, with annual croplands and surrounding forested areas as the main land use types. Commonly grown crops include winter wheat, maize, soybean, barley, and oats. The experimental station encompasses a total area of 77 ha.
The basic description of mechanical, physical, and chemical soil properties classified as Stagnosol for each land use is presented in Table 1.
For characterizing and illustrating the average climatic conditions of the study area, data from the meteorological station Maksimir [39], were used for the reference period 2000–2020, as well as the study years 2021 and 2023. The average annual temperature (°C) and total annual precipitation (mm) for the study period (2021–2023) and the reference period (2000–2020) are shown in Figure 2. According to Köppen’s climate classification, the climate is “Cfwbx”—moderately warm and rainy, consistent with the broader continental climate of the inland Croatian region [40]. In 2021, total precipitation was 772.2 mm. May had the most precipitation (124.0 mm) and June the least (13.2 mm). The average annual temperature was 12.2 °C, with January being the coldest month (2.8 °C) and July the warmest (24.0 °C). In 2023, total precipitation increased to 1220.2 mm. The wettest month was January (155.7 mm) and February was the driest (35.4 mm). The average annual temperature was 13.3 °C, with February being the coldest month (4.2 °C) and July the warmest month (23.5 °C). Compared to the reference period (2000–2020), in which the average annual temperature was 12.2 °C, 2023 was warmer, with a deviation of +1.1 °C, while the investigated year, 2021, was equal to the reference period. Precipitation in 2021 was lower than the long-term average (−11%), while in 2023, it was well above the reference average (+41%).

2.2. Experimental Design and Management

Of the total 77 ha of the lighthouse, 63 ha are earmarked for research purposes. The study covers five different types of land use: orchard, cropland, grassland, forest, and abandoned agricultural land. Within the trial area, orchard cover 1.1 ha, grassland 0.5 ha, cropland 11 ha, forest 50 ha, and abandoned land 1 ha. The orchard is a conventional apple orchard characterized using mineral fertilizers, plant protection measures, and a structured pruning system (vase training). Management practices include mulching, low soil disturbance, permanent cover, cropping and targeted fertilization. The grassland, established in 1996, is dominated by grass-clover mixtures and managed using sustainable practices. It maintains a permanent vegetation cover without any soil disturbance. Biomass is mechanically mowed three to four times per season using an Ariens Ikon x52 mower (AriensCo, Brillion, SAD) and left on the surface, serving as mulch and a natural nutrient source. This approach—combining mulching, undisturbed soil, and continuous cover—supports and preserves high soil health. The forest is a long-established deciduous ecosystem, made up of native species like Quercus petraea and Robinia pseudoacacia. It has been used as forest for over 200 years, without anthropogenic impact. The nutrient cycle is sustained naturally through the decomposition of leaf litter and woody biomass, enabling the gradual accumulation of organic matter in the topsoil. Abandoned agricultural land that has not been farmed for around two decades has been reforested naturally. These areas show no current soil disturbance and serve as a reference for understanding the processes of secondary succession and soil recovery after agricultural abandonment. Before abandonment, the area was conventionally farmed by the previous owner using a winter wheat–maize rotation, typical of intensive arable systems in the region. The cropland has been under conventional management since 2007 and reflects typical regional arable farming systems. Crop rotation includes winter wheat, barley, oats, soybean, and maize. Management practices involve intensive mineral fertilization, annual plowing, as well as the regular use of herbicides and insecticides. The system lacks conservation measures such as organic fertilization, cover cropping, and mulching. Detailed agro-technical measures for cropland and orchard land uses are presented in Table 2.

2.3. Soil Sampling, CO2 Concentration Measurement and Agro-Ecological Factors

Soil C-CO2 emissions and sampling were measured four times during the year, using static chambers (replicates), in every season. Measurements were taken in 2021 during February, May, July, and November, and in 2023 during May, July, November, and December. At each measurement date, emissions from the eight chambers per land use type were recorded, and mean values were used for statistical analysis. The measurements followed the methodology described by authors using the in-situ closed static chamber method [7]. The chambers are made of lightproof metal, consisting of circular frames and caps with gas sampling ports. After a 30 min incubation period, the CO2 concentration was measured using a portable infrared CO2 detector (GasAlertMicro5 IR, 2011; BW Technologies by Honeywell, Calgary, AB, Canada). The soil C-CO2 emission (kg ha−1 day−1) was calculated according to the authors [41,42] on the basis of the following equation, which was determined by combining Fick’s first law of diffusion and the equation-of-state of an ideal gas:
FCO2 = [M × p × V × (c2 − c1)]/[R × T × A × (t2 − t1)]
where FCO2 represents soil C-CO2 emission (kg ha−1 day−1); M—molar mass of the CO2 (kg mol−1); p—air pressure (Pa); V—chamber volume (m3); c1—CO2 concentration at the beginning of the measurement (µmol−1); c2—CO2 concentration at the end of the measurement (µmol−1); R—the gas constant (J mol−1 K−1); T—air temperature (K); A—chamber surface (m2); t2 − t1—incubation period (day) [7]. For each measurement of the CO2 concentration, the soil parameters ((temperature (°C), moisture (%), electrical conductivity (mS m−1)) were measured using the IMKO HD2 device with the Trime Pico64 (2011) probe (IMKO Micromodultechnik GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany). For each measurement of CO2 concentration, two probes were inserted 10 cm deep into the soil near each chamber. Soil core sampling was performed at 0–10 cm depth in the vicinity of CO2 measurements to determine bulk density, which was then used to calculate total porosity by methods described in the next chapter (Figure 3).

2.4. Soil Analysis

The soil analyses were carried out according to the methodology and described using standardized laboratory protocols for a list of physicochemical parameters [43]. Total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (N) were determined using a CHN elemental analyzer (Vario Macro CHNS, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany, 2006). Carbon was measured by high-temperature combustion of finely ground soil in tin capsules, with organic carbon determined by subtracting inorganic carbon from total C content. Total nitrogen was quantified by combustion in the same analyzer, measuring the nitrogen released as gas. The available phosphorus was extracted using the Bray II (HCl and NH4F, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) or Olsen method (NaHCO3, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and quantified using the colorimetric ascorbic acid method [44]. The Olsen method was used for alkaline soils, while Bray II was used for acidic to neutral soils. Exchangeable potassium (K) was measured after triplicate extraction with 0.1 M BaCl2 (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), followed by quantification by FAAS (AA-7000, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) or ICP-OES (Avio 560 Max, PerkinElmer, Walthman, MA, USA). Soil pH was determined in a soil–water suspension at a ratio of 1:2.5 using a pH meter (Ф72 pH meter (Beckman), while electrical conductivity (EC) was determined in a soil–water extract at a ratio of 1:5 using a conductivity meter (Schott Lab 970, Schott Instruments, Mainz, Germany). Bulk density was calculated gravimetrically by measuring the mass of oven-dried soil and the volume displaced by it in a known container. Particle density was also calculated to determine the total porosity using the standard formula: Porosity (%) = [1 − (bulk density/particle density)] × 100. Soil texture was analyzed using the hydrometer (ASTM 152H, Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) method based on sedimentation rates of particles in suspension. All measured soil parameters were determined to provide a basic characterization of the study area. These values are based on single-point measurements taken prior to the experiment and are not intended to represent seasonal or inter-annual variability. In contrast, soil physical properties and CO2 emissions were monitored repeatedly across multiple seasons and years, as detailed in the relevant sections.

2.5. Data Analysis

The statistical software SAS 9.1. (SAS Inst. Inc., 2002–2004, Cary, NC, USA) was used to analyze the data. The effects of season, land use types, and their interaction on soil C-CO2 emissions were evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). As the two measurement years (2021 and 2023) differed in climatic conditions, analyses were conducted separately for each year, resulting in two independent ANOVA models. When significant effects were detected, mean separations were performed using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test at the 5% significance level. The relationship between soil C-CO2 emission and soil parameters such as soil temperature, soil moisture and soil porosity were analyzed using correlation analysis. The analysis was carried out separately for each of the two years. The strength of the correlation between soil carbon dioxide emissions and soil parameters was interpreted using the Roemer–Orphal scale [45]. The normality of variables was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Soil moisture and porosity (after Box–Cox transformation) showed normal distribution, while C-CO2 emissions and soil temperature did not. Therefore, Spearman’s rank correlation was applied to analyze relationships between variables.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Season, Land Use, and Their Interaction on Soil C-CO2 Emissions

Table 3 shows the results of the analysis of variance between seasons for each land use. In 2021, season had a significant effect on soil C-CO2 emissions in forest, cropland, abandoned land and orchard (p = <0.0001), and in 2023 for all land uses (Table 3). The results of the variance analysis between the different land uses for each season show that in 2021 all seasons have a significant impact on soil C-CO2 emissions, while in 2023 this applies to all months except winter (Table 4). Thus, Table 5 shows a seasonal change in soil C-CO2 emissions with standard deviations during 2021 and 2023 across five types of land use—forest, cropland, grassland, orchard, and abandoned land. In 2021, in all land uses, the highest emissions were generally observed in spring and fall. In forested areas, the highest emissions were measured in fall (26.42 kg ha−1 day−1), and the lowest in summer (14.22 kg ha−1 day−1). Similarly, cropland had the highest emissions in the fall (9.48 kg ha−1 day−1), while significantly lower values were recorded in winter and summer (1.52 and 1.81 kg ha−1 day−1, respectively). Grassland recorded the highest emissions overall, especially in fall (610.0 kg ha−1 day−1) and spring (566.6 kg ha−1 day−1), with the lowest emissions in winter (383.0 kg ha−1 day−1). In orchards, emissions were relatively stable throughout the growing season but dropped sharply during winter (165.92 kg ha−1 day−1). On abandoned land, emissions peaked in fall (16.94 kg ha−1 day−1) and spring (14.36 kg ha−1 day−1) and fell in summer (6.03 kg ha−1 day−1). Within each land use type, statistically significant differences were observed between seasons.
In 2023, all land use systems showed seasonal variation, with emission rates generally highest in spring and summer (Table 5). In forested areas, emissions reached their maximum in spring (33.30 kg ha−1 day−1) and summer (30.47 kg ha−1 day−1), with a significant decrease in fall (19.84 kg ha−1 day−1) and especially in winter (9.64 kg ha−1 day−1). For cropland, a clear seasonal trend was also observed, with emissions in spring (33.59 kg ha−1 day−1) being significantly higher than in all other seasons, especially in winter (5.81 kg ha−1 day−1) and fall (6.94 kg ha−1 day−1), which had the lowest values. Of all the land use types analyzed, grasslands stood out with the highest emission levels, especially in spring (54.84 kg ha−1 day−1) and summer (52.98 kg ha−1 day−1). During the winter months (11.62 kg ha−1 day−1) and fall (17.52 kg ha−1 day−1), these values dropped noticeably. On abandoned land, emissions were more consistent in spring (24.23 kg ha−1 day−1) and summer (22.39 kg ha−1 day−1), with a marked decline in fall (6.52 kg ha−1 day−1). Similarly, orchards showed the highest values in spring (36.85 kg ha−1 day−1), with gradually decreasing emissions in summer (29.19 kg ha−1 day−1), fall (17.54 kg ha−1 day−1) and winter (11.05 kg ha−1 day−1).
When comparing land use types within each season, significant differences in soil C-CO2 emissions were found in both years (Table 5). In 2021, grassland recorded the highest emissions across all seasons, followed by orchard. Forest, abandoned land, and cropland had significantly lower values, with cropland having the lowest emissions overall. This pattern was consistent throughout the year. In 2023, grassland again had the highest emission rates, but the differences between land use types were less pronounced. Emissions from cropland, orchard, and abandoned land were generally higher compared to 2021. Although some differences were observed between years, grassland remained the land use types with the highest emissions, while cropland tended to have the lowest values.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the average annual soil C-CO2 emissions of the different land use types for the years 2021 and 2023, respectively. In 2021, grassland recorded the highest average soil C-CO2 emission rate (511.64 kg ha−1 day−1). Orchards followed with a significantly higher emission level (301.21 kg ha−1 day−1) compared to cropland, abandoned land, and forest, while the lowest emissions were observed in cropland (4.67 kg ha−1 day−1). Grassland also had the highest emissions in 2023 (34.15 kg ha−1 day−1), which were significantly higher than those of all other land use types. This was followed by orchards (22.46 kg ha−1 day−1), which had significantly higher emissions than cropland (15.48 kg ha−1 day−1) but did not differ statistically from forest (21.56 kg ha−1 day−1) and abandoned land (15.84 kg ha−1 day−1).

3.2. Seasonal Correlation Patterns of Soil C-CO2 Emissions and Soil Properties in Different Land Use Systems

Figure 6 presents the seasonal correlations between soil C-CO2 emissions and soil temperature, moisture, and porosity across various land use types in 2021 and 2023, evaluated using the Roemer–Orphal scale [45]. In forests, the strongest positive correlation between soil temperature and emissions occurred in spring 2023 (r = 0.73), while a very strong negative correlation was noted in fall 2021 (r = −0.86). Soil porosity showed a medium positive correlation in spring 2021 (r = 0.36) and a medium negative correlation in winter 2021 (r = −0.47), whereas in 2023 the correlations remained weak. Moisture correlations varied, ranging from strongly negative in summer 2021 (r = −0.56) to weakly positive in fall 2023 (r = 0.27). In cropland, soil temperature correlated most positively with emissions in summer 2023 (r = 0.71), whereas soil porosity had a pronounced negative correlation in fall 2023 (r = −0.78). Porosity showed almost no link in winter 2023 (r = −0.02). Soil moisture was mostly negatively correlated, except for a strong positive correlation in fall 2023 (r = 0.80) and a weak positive in winter and fall 2021. Grasslands exhibited the strongest positive correlation between porosity and emissions in winter 2021 (r = 0.57) and the strongest negative correlation between temperature and emissions in summer 2021 (r = −0.71). Porosity also showed a very weak positive correlation in spring 2021 (r = 0.23), while in 2023, values shifted to a medium negative correlation in winter (r = −0.35), while moisture correlations ranged from −0.62 to 0.25 between spring 2021 and winter 2023. On abandoned land, porosity correlated most positively with emissions in winter 2021 (r = 0.43), while temperature showed the strongest negative correlation in summer 2021 (r = −0.61). The weakest correlation in this category was between moisture and emissions in summer 2023 (r = 0.01). Overall, soil porosity tended to be moderately positively correlated with emissions, while soil temperature often showed negative correlations. In orchards, the highest positive correlation was between soil temperature and emissions in fall 2021 (r = 0.63), and the strongest negative correlation was between moisture and emissions in winter 2023 (r = −0.49). Porosity and emissions showed no meaningful correlation in spring 2023 (r = −0.02).

4. Discussion

Soil CO2 emissions are highly responsive to various environmental and management factors, particularly land use and seasonal fluctuations [46,47]. These fluctuations largely reflect dynamic changes in biological activity—such as root respiration and microbial decomposition—as well as variations in soil microclimate, including temperature and humidity [3,48,49]. The results of this study show that soil C-CO2 emissions vary significantly depending on land use types and season (Table 5). Of all land use types, grassland consistently recorded the highest emission rates in both study years, with seasonal peaks observed in spring and fall 2021, and spring and summer 2023. Although seasonal differences are evident, this emission pattern is primarily driven by land management and vegetation cover [50], especially continuous cover and mulching practices that promote a sustained input of organic matter and microbial activity [51]. These results are consistent with others [52,53], where authors [52] demonstrated that mulching and reduced tillage practices in Hungary maintained higher soil CO2 concentrations compared to conventional tillage, due to improved soil moisture and enhanced microbial activity. Similarly, Birkás [53] emphasized that conservation tillage systems with residue cover tend to enhance soil respiration by improving the thermal and hydrological regime of the surface layer. These findings align with recent studies in grassland soils, where CO2 emissions peak during warm and moist periods and decline under drier or cooler conditions [54]. The exceptionally high values in 2021 can be attributed to a local accumulation of easily degradable biomass, combined with favorable moisture conditions that enhanced microbial respiration [55,56]. This peak occurred only in 2021; in contrast, emissions in 2023 followed a more even seasonal distribution, with higher values in the first half of the year (from 54.80 kg ha−1 day−1) and a significant decrease in winter (to 11.62 kg ha−1 day−1), likely due to excessive soil moisture reducing oxygen availability [57,58,59], especially in a year that received 41% more precipitation than the long-term average (Figure 2).
In contrast to grassland, which consistently had the highest soil C-CO2 emissions, cropland recorded the lowest value across all seasons in 2021 during the soybean vegetation. However, in the winter wheat vegetation (2023), emissions from cropland increased significantly. These results can be attributed to the more extensive and fibrous root system of wheat, which promotes greater rhizosphere activity and microbial respiration [3,60,61]. Such root systems not only increase root surface area and exudate release but also improve soil aeration and the availability of organic substrate in the topsoil, thereby promoting microbial decomposition and CO2 production [62,63]. In addition, a higher amount of mineral fertilizer applied in 2023 probably contributed to increased biological activity and thus soil C-CO2 emissions [64,65]. The effect of mineral fertilizers on soil CO2 emissions varies depending on the study [66,67,68]. Authors found that CO2 emissions in cropland during the growing seasons were strongly correlated with root biomass and leaf area index, while tillage and fertilizer pulses at the beginning of the season significantly increased microbial activity [69,70]. In both years, soil C-CO2 emissions were significantly lower in winter (6.94 kg ha−1 day−1–9.48 kg ha−1 day−1), when the soil remained bare and there was no plant activity, confirming the key role of vegetation in maintaining biological processes in the soil [71,72]. This effect was also influenced by low soil temperatures (Figure 2), which suppressed microbial and root activity, as well as moisture conditions, where lower soil water availability in 2021 and excessive precipitation in 2023 contributed to limiting C-CO2 emissions.
Forest soils, which are generally less disturbed and rich in organic matter, show a variable emission pattern that is influenced by seasonal and climatic factors (Table 5). In forests, carbon input comes mainly from leaf litter and root exudates [73]. This is consistent with our results from 2021, where emissions peaked in fall (26.42 kg ha−1 day−1), likely due to the accumulation of fresh litterfall combined with favorable temperature and humidity conditions that favored microbial decomposition [74,75]. In contrast, the lowest soil C-CO2 emissions were measured in summer (14.22 kg ha−1 day−1), indicating a possible temporary decrease in microbial activity due to lower moisture availability. These results differ from the emissions in 2023, [76,77], where the highest emissions were recorded in spring and summer. These results can be attributed to warmer temperatures and higher soil moisture, which stimulated microbial and root activity earlier in the year. Such interannual variability observed over the two study years suggests that soil respiration in forests is highly responsive to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, despite overall stability and low disturbance [78,79].
Although perennial vegetation is prevalent in both forests and orchards, the active management of orchards leads to additional factors that influence seasonal soil respiration. According to research [80], the storage capacity in orchards depends on climatic conditions, planting density, irrigation, and soil management. In 2021, relatively uniform values during the growing season (309.83–366.65 kg ha−1 day−1) and lower emissions in winter (165.92 kg ha−1 day−1) indicate sustained biological activity throughout the year. Some studies have reported similar results, where perennial orchards maintained high and stable soil respiration rates due to constant root turnover and organic matter input [81,82]. In contrast, emissions in 2023 were lower in all seasons, with a seasonal trend that peaked in spring, declined in summer and fall, and reached a minimum in winter. This remarkable decrease compared to 2021 could be a consequence of the higher precipitation in 2023, which may have led to increased soil moisture and partial waterlogging. This trend has also been confirmed by a study reporting reduced soil respiration with excessive moisture conditions in apple orchards [83].
Soil CO2 emissions from abandoned land are generally lower than those from actively managed systems [84]. In this study, abandoned land had quite low and similar soil C-CO2 emissions in both study years. The lower soil C-CO2 emissions observed in 2021 and 2023 could be related to the absence of regular vegetation management and limited nutrient input, which likely reduced root activity and the availability of microbial substrates [85]. A similar pattern was observed by authors [86] who found that cropland abandonment in the North China Plain reduced soil microbial respiration. The brief increase in emissions in spring and summer 2023 may reflect a temporary boost in microbial and root activity stimulated by favorable moisture and temperature conditions. However, the subsequent decline in fall suggests that without active root turnover, litter deposition, or interventions that improve soil aeration and organic matter availability, microbial communities may remain underdeveloped or decline rapidly once environmental stimuli diminish [87]. In this context, the abandoned site, which has not been cultivated for about two decades and has undergone natural reforestation, could represent an early stage of secondary succession in which soil respiration remains limited due to the slow establishment of vegetation and incomplete recovery of soil structure and microbial communities.
Overall, the results confirm that both land use and seasonality strongly influence soil C-CO2 emissions, and that their interactions are influenced by soil properties, vegetation cover, and management practices. These relationships have also been widely reported by other authors investigating the dynamics of soil respiration in different land use systems and under different climatic conditions [38,88,89,90]. While each system responded differently to climatic variability, it is evident that land use practices that maintain continuous plant cover and promote organic inputs to the soil are more effective in maintaining microbial activity and stable respiratory dynamics. This is also reflected in the average annual emission values, which integrate the seasonal variations into a clear overall picture: grassland and orchards had the highest annual emissions, while cropland had the lowest values in both years (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The significantly lower annual values in 2023 also illustrate the sensitivity of soil respiration to interannual climate fluctuations, especially increased precipitation. The pronounced differences between 2021 and 2023 reflect not only the role of land use and seasonal dynamics but also strong inter-annual climatic variability. The drier 2021 (−11% precipitation compared to the referent period) limited microbial activity and root respiration, whereas the wetter and slightly warmer 2023 (+41% precipitation, +1.1 °C) enhanced biological processes during spring and summer but suppressed winter emissions due to excessive soil moisture and oxygen limitation. Such opposing mechanisms illustrate why soil C-CO2 emissions differed by more than an order of magnitude between years. Similar observations are reported by authors, where deviations in emissions exceed 39% even when average inter-annual variation is lower [91].
Soil temperature, soil moisture, and soil porosity are known to significantly influence respiration rates, but their effects can vary depending on soil management and climatic context [92,93]. Soil respiration occurs throughout the year, but its intensity varies seasonally depending on environmental conditions. In temperate climates, higher soil C-CO2 emissions are generally recorded in spring and summer, when higher temperatures and favourable soil moisture promote microbial activity and organic matter decomposition [94,95]. Conversely, emissions tend to decrease in the colder months [96,97], which is due to lower biological activity and limited gas exchange under saturated or frozen conditions [98]. In this study, soil temperature was found to be the most consistent predictor of soil C-CO2 emissions and showed strong positive correlations in spring and summer in several land uses, particularly in cropland and forest in 2023 as well as in orchards in summer (Figure 6). This pattern is consistent with the general finding that microbial respiration rates increase with temperature, provided that other conditions—such as moisture and oxygen—are not limiting [99,100]. However, the relationships were not uniform across years and land uses. For example, grassland in 2021 showed consistently negative correlations with temperature across all seasons, and in abandoned land, correlations shifted from positive in winter 2021 to negative in several seasons in 2023. (Figure 6). This finding aligns with other authors who also recorded negative trends under such conditions [101,102,103,104], suggesting that the usual positive effect of temperature on respiration may be reduced in saturated soils or low microbial activity. In contrast to temperature, the influence of soil moisture on soil C-CO2 emissions was more dependent on the season and land use (Figure 6). While positive correlations were observed in some periods, negative relationships also occurred frequently, especially in forest (2021), cropland (2023) and abandoned land (2021) in almost every month. This variability reflects the dual role of moisture in regulating microbial respiration, where sufficient moisture is essential for microbial activity [105,106], while conversely, excessive water can inhibit aerobic decomposition [107]. These contrasting patterns in the relationship between soil moisture and CO2 emissions have been widely reported by the literature [56,108,109]. In addition to the moisture availability, the soil physical condition, especially porosity, also plays an important role in regulating gas exchange and microbial habitat conditions [110,111]. In 2021, correlations were consistently positive across all seasons in grassland and abandoned land, possibly due to improved aeration in structurally stable soils (Figure 6). In 2023, positive associations became more widespread across land uses and seasons, including forest (spring, summer, fall), grassland (spring, summer, fall), abandoned land (spring, summer, fall), cropland (summer), and orchard (winter and spring). In contrast, the strong negative correlation observed on cropland suggests that tillage-induced changes in porosity may have negatively affected gas exchange [112]. Previous studies have shown that mechanical disturbance of the soil can reduce the number of interconnected pores, which restrict air and water movement and thus suppresses microbial respiration [49,113]. Even though soil porosity is not a primary factor for microbial activity, it can influence respiration by affecting the physical conditions of the soil, especially when other environmental factors are not limiting.

5. Conclusions

Land use management and seasonal climate variability have a significant impact on soil C-CO2 emissions from peri-urban landscapes in central Croatia. Of the land uses analyzed, grassland and orchards tend to emit the most soil C-CO2 annually and across seasons. This pattern is likely due to the continuous vegetation cover, root activity and abundant input of organic matter they receive. In contrast, croplands showed the lowest emission levels, which can be explained by intensive cultivation methods, the presence of bare soils, especially in winter, and consequently lower biological activity. Soil temperature generally remained the variable most strongly associated with soil C-CO2 emissions, with pronounced correlations during the growing season primarily in croplands and forests, while orchards displayed weaker and less consistent associations. The effects of soil moisture and porosity were even more variable, showing moderate to weak correlations that shifted depending on both season and land use type. In particular, the differences between years, such as lower emissions in wetter years, highlight the sensitivity of soil respiration. These emissions are the result of a complex interplay between climate, soil properties and land management practices. A better understanding of the interplay between these factors can help to promote more sustainable approaches to land use. Good practices, such as absence of tillage and continuous vegetation, can effectively reduce carbon loss. These findings emphasize the important role that soil properties play in improving climate resilience and ensuring the long-term sustainability of land resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G. and I.B.; methodology, I.B., M.G., and A.P.; software, I.B.; validation, I.B. and A.P.; formal analysis, M.G., I.B., and A.P.; investigation, M.G., I.B., and A.P.; resources, I.B.; data curation, M.G. and I.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G.; writing—review and editing, I.B.; visualization, M.G.; supervision, I.B.; project administration, I.B.; funding acquisition, I.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the project “Monetary valuation of soil ecosystem services and creation of initiatives to invest in soil health: setting a framework for the inclusion of soil health in business and in the policy making process” (InBestSoil) (Horizon Europe, Grant agreement ID: 101091099).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ivan Dugan and Manuel Matisic for their assistance during fieldwork.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ANOVAAnalysis of variance
CO2Carbon dioxide
CHNCarbon–Hydrogen–Nitrogen
ECElectrical Conductivity
FAASFlame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
ICP-OESInductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry
LSDLast significant difference
KANCalcium Ammonium Nitrate
NPKNitrogen–Phosphorus–Potassium
R2R square
SASStatistical Analysis System
TOCTotal Organic Carbon

References

  1. Jones, A.B.; Smith, C.D.; Brown, E.F. National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Nat. Commun. 2023, 10, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. EPA. Report on Greenhouse Gases. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhouse-gases (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  3. Galic, M. Dinamika Disanja tla u Vegetaciji Ratarskih Kultura. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Zagreb, Croatia, 2024. Available online: https://repozitorij.agr.unizg.hr/en/islandora/object/agr%3A3499 (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  4. Kopittke, P.M.; Dalal, R.C.; McKenna, B.A.; Smith, P.; Wang, P.; Weng, Z.; van der Bom, F.J.T.; Menzies, N.W. Soil is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Soil 2024, 10, 873–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thornton, P.E.; Lamarque, J.F.; Rosenbloom, N.A.; Mahowald, N.M. Influence of carbon-nitrogen cycle coupling on land model response to CO2 fertilization and climate variability. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2007, 21, GB4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stockmann, U.; Adams, M.A.; Crawford, J.W.; Field, D.J.; Henakaarchchi, N.; Jenkins, M.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B.; Courcelles, V.D.R.D.; Singh, K.; et al. The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 164, 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Galic, M.; Bilandzija, D.; Zgorelec, Z. Influence of Long-Term Soil Management Practices on Carbon Emissions from Corn (Zea mays L.) Production in Northeast Croatia. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Telo da Gama, J. The Role of Soils in Sustainability, Climate Change, and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Ecologies 2023, 4, 552–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zeng, W.; Chen, J.; Liu, H.; Wang, W. Soil respiration and its autotrophic and heterotrophic components in response to nitrogen addition among different degraded temperate grasslands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 124, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rankin, T.E.; Roulet, N.T.; Moore, T.R. Controls on autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration in an ombrotrophic bog. Biogeosciences 2022, 19, 3285–3303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Riutta, T.; Khoon Kho, L.; Arn The, Y.; Ewers, R.; Majalap, N.; Malhi, Y. Major and persistent shifts in below-ground carbon dynamics and soil respiration following logging in tropical forests. Glob. Chan. Biolog. 2021, 27, 2225–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Isbell, F.; Craven, D.; Connolly, J.; Loreau, M.; Schmid, B.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Bezemer, T.M.; Bonin, C.; Bruelheide, H.; de Luca, E.; et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem carbon fluxes to climate extremes. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 112. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bai, Y.; Cotrufo, M.F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science 2022, 377, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shi, J.; Deng, L.; Gunina, A.; Alharbi, S.; Wang, K.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Shangguan, Z.; Kuzyakov, Y. Carbon stabilization pathways in soil aggregates during long-term forest succession: Implications from δ13C signatures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 180, 108988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, L.; Gong, J.; Fu, B.; Huang, Z.; Huang, Y.; Gui, L. Effect of land use conversion on soil organic carbon sequestration in the loess hilly area, Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Res. 2007, 22, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, B.; Li, P.; Yang, X.; Xiao, H.; Xu, M.; Liu, G. Land-use conversion changes deep soil organic carbon stock in the Chinese Loess Plateau. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 32, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lan, G.; Liu, C.; Wang, H.; Cao, J.; Hu, B. The effect of land use change and soil redistribution on soil organic carbon dynamics in karst graben basin of China. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 2511–2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brusseau, M.L.; Peng, S.; Schnaar, G.; Costanza-Robinson, M.S. Relationships among air–water interfacial area, capillary pressure, and water saturation for a sandy porous medium. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, W03501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hamamoto, S.; Ohko, Y.; Ohtake, Y.; Moldrup, P.; Nishimura, T. Water- and air-filled pore networks and transport parameters under drying and wetting processes. Vadose Zone J. 2022, 21, e20205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yan, Z.; Liu, C.; Todd-Brown, K.E.; Liu, Y.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Bailey, V.B. Pore-scale investigation on the response of heterotrophic respiration to moisture conditions in heterogeneous soils. Biogeochemistry 2016, 130, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gui, W.; You, Y.; Yang, F.; Zhang, M. Soil Bulk Density and Matric Potential Regulate Soil CO2 Emissions by Altering Pore Characteristics and Water Content. Land 2023, 12, 1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Silva, S.R.; da Silva, I.R.; de Barros, N.F.; de Sá Mendonça, E. Effect of compaction on microbial activity and carbon and nitrogen transformations in two oxisols with different mineralogy. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2011, 35, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Azevedo, L.C.B.; Bertini, S.C.B.; Ferreira, A.S.; Rodovalho, N.S.; Ferreira, L.F.R.; Kumar, A. Author 2, B.; Author Microbial contribution to the carbon flux in the soil: A literature review. Soil Biolog. 2024, 48, e0230065. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bogunovic, I.; Pereira, P.; Kisic, I.; Sajko, K.; Sraka, M. Agricultural and Forest Land-Use Impact on Soil Properties in Zagreb Periurban Area (Croatia). Agronomy 2020, 10, 1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ozlu, E.; Arriaga, F.J.; Bilen, S.; Gozukara, G.; Babur, E. Carbon footprint management by agricultural practices. Biology 2022, 11, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rossi, F.S.; La Scala, N.; Capristo-Silva, F.G.; Della-Silva, J.L.; Pereira Ribeiro Teodoro, L.; Almeida, G.; Vicente Tiago, A.; Teodoro, P.E.; da Silva Junior, C.A. Implications of CO2 emissions on the mainland and forest uses in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. 2023, 227, 115729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Buragiene, S.; Šarauskis, E.; Romaneckas, K.; Adamavičiene, A.; Kriaučiiuiene, Z.; Avižienyte, D.; Marozas, V.; Naujokiene, V. Relationship between CO2 emissions and soil properties of differently tilled soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 786–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kurganova, I.N.; Lopes de Gerenyu, V.O.; Myakshina, T.N.; Sapronov, D.V.; Khoroshaev, D.A.; Ableeva, V.A. Temperature sensitivity of soil respiration in grasslands in temperate continental climate zone: Analysis of 25-year-long monitoring data. Eurasian Soi. Sci. 2023, 56, 1232–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raich, J.W.; Kaiser, M.S.; Dornbush, M.E.; Martin, J.G.; Valverde-Barrantes, J. Multiple factors co-limit short-term in situ soil carbon dioxide emissions. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0279839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Galic, M.; Mesic, M.; Zgorelec, Z. Influence of Organic and Mineral Fertilization on Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions. A Review. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2020, 85, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, C.; He, C.; Chang, S.X.; Chen, X.; An, S.; Wang, D.; Yan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, P. Fertilization and tillage influence on soil organic carbon fractions: A global meta-analysis. Catena 2024, 246, 108404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wiesmeier, M.; Urbanski, L.; Hobley, E.; Lang, B.; von Lützow, M.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; van Wesemael, B.; Rabot, E.; Ließ, M.; Garcia-Franco, N.; et al. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils—A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma 2019, 333, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Denvir, A.; García-Oliva, F.; Arima, E.Y.; Latorre-Cárdenas, M.C.; González-Rodríguez, A.; Young, K.R.; Lara De La Cruz, L.I. Sustainability implications of carbon dynamics on the avocado frontier. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2024, 359, 108746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Raich, J.W.; Tufekcioglu, A. Vegetation and soil respiration: Correlations and controls. Biogeochemistry 2000, 48, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, J.; Lee, B.; Woo, N.C. Soil CO2 flux in upland and paddy fields under different land uses in Korea. Geosci. J. 2009, 13, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yuan, H.; Matthew, C.; He, X.Z.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, T.; Gao, X.; Yan, C.; Chang, S.; Hou, F. Seasonal Variation in Soil and Herbage CO2 Efflux for a Sheep-Grazed Alpine Meadow on the North-East Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and Estimated Net Annual CO2 Exchange. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 860739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Munjonji, L.; Ntuli Innocentia, H.; Ayisi, K.K.; Dlamini, P.; Mabitsela, K.E.; Lehutjo, C.M.; Magnificent Zwane, P.S. Seasonal dynamics of soil CO2 emissions from different semi-arid land-use systems. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil. Plant Sci. 2024, 74, 2312934. [Google Scholar]
  38. Teodoro, P.E.; Saragosa Rossi, F.; Pereira Ribeiro Teodoro, L.; Cordeiro Santana, D.; Ratke, R.F.; de Oliveira, I.C.; Della Silva, J.L.; Gouveia de Oliveira, J.L.; Pereira da Silva, N.; Rojo Baio, F.H.; et al. Soil CO2 emissions under different land-use managements in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 139983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service (DHMZ). 2025. Available online: http://meteo.hr/index.php (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  40. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 2006, 15, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Widen, W.; Lindroth, A. A Calibration System for Soil Carbon Dioxide-efflux Measurement Chambers: Description and Application. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 67, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tóth, T.; Fórizs, I.; Kuti, L.; Wardell, J.L. Data on the elements of carbon cycle in a solonetz and solonchak soil. Cereal Res. Commun. 2005, 33, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sánzhez-Navarro, V.; Peñalver, A.; Zornoza, R.; Fernández-Calviño, D. InBestSoil Handbook for soil sampling procedures and methodologies for the measurment of soil health indicators (1.0). Zenodo 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Murphy, J.; Riley, J.P. A modified single-solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 1962, 27, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vasilj, D. Biometrika i Eksperimentiranje u Bilinogojstvu; Croatian Agronomic Society: Zagreb, Croatia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  46. Iqbal, J.; Ronggui, H.; Lijun, D.; Lan, L. Differences in soil CO2 flux between different land use types in mid-subtropical China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2324–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rocha, A.M.d.; Franceschi, M.; Panosso, A.R.; Carvalho, M.A.C.d.; Moitinho, M.R.; Martins Filho, M.V.; Oliveira, D.M.d.S.; Freitas, D.A.F.d.; Yamashita, O.M.; La Scala, N., Jr. Effects of Land Use Changes on CO2 Emission Dynamics in the Amazon. Agronomy 2025, 15, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yuste, J.C.; Baldocchi, D.B.; Gershenson, A.; Goldstein, A.; Misson, L.; Wong, S. Microbial soil respiration and its dependency on carbon inputs, soil temperature and moisture. Glob. Change Biol. 2007, 13, 2018–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bogunovic, I. Soil physical properties, infiltration and CO2 emissions across different land use in an urban area of Zagreb, Croatia. In Proceedings of the CASEE Conference, Smart Life Sciences and Technology for Sustainable Development, Chișinău, Moldova, 28–30 June 2023; Bostan, V., Ed.; Technical University of Moldova: Chișinău, Moldova, 2023; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
  50. Abdalla, K.; Mutema, M.; Chivenge, P.; Everson, C.; Chaplot, V. Grassland rehabilitation significantly increases soil carbon stocks by reducing net soil CO2 emissions. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1250–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Varga, K.; Halász, A.; Kovács, G.P.; Csízi, I. Investigation of carbon-dioxide emissions from underutilized grassland between 2019 and 2020. Agronomy 2022, 12, 931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zsembeli, J.; Szűcs, L.; Tuba, G.; Czimbalmos, R. Nedvességtakarékos talajművelési rendszer fejlesztése Karcagon. In Környezetkímélő Talajművelési Rendszerek Magyarországon; Madarász, B., Ed.; MTA CSFK FTI: Budapest, Hungary, 2015; pp. 122–133. [Google Scholar]
  53. Birkás, M. Földművelés és Földhasználat; Mezőgazda Lap-és Könyvkiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 2017; pp. 1–482. [Google Scholar]
  54. Peterson, B.L.; Starks, P.J.; Steiner, J.L. Seasonal greenhouse gases fluxes from monoculture and mixed native grasslands in the Southern Plains, USA. Agrosys. Geosci. Environ. 2021, 4, e20227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, W.J.; Dalal, R.C.; Moody, P.W.; Smith, C.J. Relationships of soil respiration to microbial biomass, substrate availability and clay content. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hao, Y.; Mao, J.; Bachmann, C.M.; Hoffman, F.M.; Koren, G.; Chen, H.; Tian, H.; Liu, J.; Tao, J.; Tang, J.; et al. Soil moisture controls over carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions: A review. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2025, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ebrahimi, A.; Or, D. Hydration and diffusion processes shape microbial community organization and function in model soil aggregates. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 9804–9827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wanzek, T.; Keiluweit, M.; Baham, J.; Dragila, M.I.; Fendorf, S.; Fiedler, S.; Nico, P.S.; Kleber, M. Quantifying biogeochemical heterogeneity in soil systems. Geoderma 2018, 324, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lacroix, E.M.; Rossi, R.J.; Bossio, D.; Fendorf, S. Effects of moisture and physical disturbance on pore-scale oxygen content and anaerobic metabolisms in upland soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Li, X.; Zeng, R.; Liao, H. Improving crop nutrient efficiency through root architecture modifications. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2015, 58, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Bach, L.; Gojon, A. Root system growth and development responses to elevated CO2: Underlying signalling mechanisms and role in improving plant CO2 capture and soil C storage. Biochem. J. 2023, 480, 753–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lei, X.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, J.; Huang, J.; Wang, H.; Yu, Y.; Xiao, C. Root Exudates Mediate the Processes of Soil Organic Carbon Input and Efflux. Plants 2023, 12, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wegner, R.; Plassmann, M.; Sauerland, L.; Carter, A.; Monteux, S.; Oburger, E.; Wild, B. Back to the roots: Characterizing root exudates of dominant tundra plants to improve the understanding of plant–soil interactions in a changing Arctic. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2025, 209, 109897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Poeplau, C.; Zopf, D.; Greiner, B.; Flessa, H. Why does mineral fertilization increase soil carbon stocks in temperate grasslands? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 265, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Howe, J.A.; McDonald, M.D.; Burke, J.; Robertson, I.; Coker, H.; Gentry, T.J.; Lewis, K.L. Influence of fertilizer and manure inputs on soil health: A review. Soil Secur. 2024, 16, 100155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Iqbal, J.; Hu, R.G.; Lin, S.; Hatano, R.; Feng, M.L. CO2 Emission in a Subtropical Red Paddy Soil (Ultisol) as Affected by Straw and N Fertilizer Applications: A Case Study in Southern China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 131, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Galic, M.; Bilandzija, D.; Percin, A.; Sestak, I.; Mesic, M.; Blazinkov, M.; Zgorelec, Z. Effects of Agricultural Practices on Carbon Emission and Soil Health. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2019, 7, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sosulski, T.; Szymańska, M.; Szara, E.; Sulewski, P. Soil Respiration under 90 Year-Old Rye Monoculture and Crop Rotation in the Climate Conditions of Central Poland. Agronomy 2021, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yeboah, S.; Zhang, R.; Cai, L.; Li, L.; Xie, J.; Luo, Z.; Liu, J.; Wu, J. Tillage effect on soil organic carbon, microbial biomass carbon and crop yield in spring wheat-field pea rotation. Plant Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Salinas-Alcántara, A.; Mendoza, R.B.; Rodríguez-Lizana, A.; Ordóñez-Fernández, R.; Almagro, M. Soil CO2 emissions and microbial activity as affected by tillage and nitrogen management under rainfed cereal cropping systems. Agric. Syst. 2022, 195, 103282. [Google Scholar]
  71. Shishegaran, A.; Shishegaran, A.; Najari, M.; Ghotbi, A.; Nazem Boushehri, A. Effect of plants on an environment with high carbon dioxide concentration. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2020, 1, 100002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Volk, G.M.; Byrne, P.F.; Moreau, T.L. Importance of plants for mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. In Conserving and Using Climate-Ready Plant Collections; Volk, G.M., Moreau, T.L., Byrne, P.F., Eds.; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2023; Available online: https://colostate.pressbooks.pub/climatereadyplantcollections/chapter/importance-of-plants/ (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  73. Park, J.H.; Matzner, E. Controls on the release of dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen from a deciduous forest floor investigated by manipulations of aboveground litter inputs and water flux. Biogeochemistry 2003, 66, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, D.; Hui, D.; Luo, Y.; Zhou, G. Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: Global patterns and controlling factors. J. Plant Ecol. 2008, 1, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Giweta, M. Role of litter production and its decomposition, and factors affecting the processes in a tropical forest ecosystem: A review. J. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 44, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, M.; Sayer, E.J.; Zhang, W.; Ye, J.; Yuan, Z.; Lin, F.; Hao, Z.; Fang, S.; Mao, Z.; Ren, J.; et al. Seasonal Influence of Biodiversity on Soil Respiration in a Temperate Forest. Plants 2022, 11, 3391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Samariks, V.; Ķēniņa, L.; Īstenais, N.; Ozoliņš, K.; Köster, K.; Jansons, Ā. Organic soil greenhouse gas flux rates in hemiboreal old-growth Scots pine forests at different groundwater levels. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2024, 143, 1237–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Beckstoffer, C.; Hall, J.S.; Silver, W.L. Rapid recovery of soil respiration during tropical forest secondary succession on former pastures. For. Ecol. Manag. 2024, 572, 122263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lv, W.; Liu, X.; Ding, H. Characteristics, Sources, and Mechanisms of Soil Respiration under Simulated Rainfall in a Native Karst Forest in Southwestern China. Forests 2024, 15, 945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zanotelli, D.; Vendrame, N.; Lopez-Bernal, A.; Caruso, G. Carbon sequestration in orchards and vineyard. Italus Hortus 2018, 25, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hou, T.; Wang, Y.; Guo, F.; Jia, Q.; Wu, X.; Wang, E.; Hong, J. Soil Respiration Characteristics and Influencing Factors for Apple Orchards in Different Regions on the Loess Plateau of Shaanxi Province. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Janke, R.R.; Menezes-Blackburn, D.; Al Hamdi, A.; Rehman, A. Organic Management and Intercropping of Fruit Perennials Increase Soil Microbial Diversity and Activity in Arid Zone Orchard Cropping Systems. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ito, D.; Ishida, S. Short- and long-term effects of soil moisture on soil respiration in an apple orchard. J. Agric. Meteorol. 2016, 72, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Maljanen, M.; Hytönen, J.; Mäkiranta, P.; Alm, J.; Minkkinen, K.; Laine, J.; Martikainen, P.J. Greenhouse gas emissions from cultivated and abandoned organic croplands in Finland. Boreal Environ. 2007, 12, 133–140. [Google Scholar]
  85. Oggioni, S.D.; Ochoa-Hueso, R.; Peco, B. Livestock grazing abandonment reduces soil microbial activity and carbon storage in a Mediterranean Dehesa. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 153, 103588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lei, L.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Li, N.; Zhao, C.; Li, Q. Cropland abandonment alleviates soil carbon emissions in the North China Plain. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jiao, H.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Frew, A.; Li, W.; Zhai, K.; Yu, Q.; Zhou, G. Contrasting effects of above and belowground litter inputs in shaping the soil microbiome worldwide. Plant Soil 2025, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. MacCarthy, D.S.; Zougmoré, R.B.; Akponikpè, P.B.I.; Koomson, E.; Savadogo, P.; Adiku, S.G.K. Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Different Land-Use Systems: A Case Study of CO2 in the Southern Zone of Ghana. App. Environ. Soil Sci. 2018, 2018, e057242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Poeplau, C.; Don, A.; Vesterdal, L.; Leifeld, J.; van Wesemael, B.; Schumacher, J.; Gensior, A. Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone—Carbon response functions as a model approach. Glob. Change Biolog. 2011, 17, 2415–2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, L. Assessment of land use change and carbon emission: A Log Mean Divisa (LMDI) approach. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Bond-Lamberty, B.; Pennington, S.C.; Jian, J.; Megonigal, J.P.; Sengupta, A.; Ward, N. Soil Respiration Variability and Correlation Across a Wide Range of Temporal Scales. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2019, 124, 3672–3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hao, W.; Xia, B.; Li, J.; Xu, M. Deep soil CO2 flux with strong temperature dependence contributes considerably to soil–atmosphere carbon flux. Ecol. Inform. 2023, 74, 101957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Inoue, T.; Nagai, S.; Inoue, S.; Ozaki, M.; Sakai, S.; Muraoka, H.; Koizumi, H. Seasonal variability of soil respiration in multiple ecosystems under the same physical–geographical environmental conditions in central Japan. For. Sci. Tech. 2012, 8, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Galic, M.; Bilandcija, D.; Reis, I.; Zgorelec, Z. Soil fluxes of carbon dioxide in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) agroecosystem. In Proceedings of the 57th Croatian & 17th International Symposium on Agriculture, Vodice, Croatia, 19–24 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  95. Chiapponi, E.; Silvestri, S.; Zannoni, D.; Antonellini, M.; Giambastiani, B.M.S. Driving and limiting factors of CH4 and CO2 emissions from coastal brackish-water wetlands in temperate regions. Biogeosciences 2024, 21, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Munjonji, L.; Ayisi, K.K.; Mafeo, T.P.; Maphanga, T.; Mabitsela, K.E. Seasonal variation in soil CO2 emission and leaf gas exchange of well-managed commercial Citrus sinensis (L.) orchards. Plant Soil 2021, 465, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kurganova, I.; Lopes de Gerenyu, V.; Kuzyakov, Y. Carbon dioxide emission from soils under freeze–thaw cycles estimated by laboratory and field experiments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2007, 43, 532–539. [Google Scholar]
  98. Sierra, C.A.; Malghani, S.; Loescher, H.W. Interactions among temperature, moisture, and oxygen concentrations in controlling decomposition rates in a boreal forest soil. Biogeosciences 2017, 14, 703–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Azizi-Rad, M.; Guggenberger, G.; Ma, Y.; Carlos, S. Sensitivity of soil respiration rate with respect to temperature, moisture and oxygen under freezing and thawing. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 165, 108488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Moyano, F.E.; Manzoni, S.; Chenu, C. Responses of soil heterotrophic respiration to moisture availability: An exploration of processes and models. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 59, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Li, G.; Kim, S.; Han, S.; Chang, H.; Son, Y. Effect of Soil Moisture on the Response of Soil Respiration to Open-Field Experimental Warming and Precipitation Manipulation. Forests 2017, 8, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Okello, J.; Bauters, M.; Verbeeck, H.; Bodé, S.; Kasenene, J.; Françoys, A.; Engelhardt, T.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Kiese, R.; Boeckx, P. Temperature sensitivity of soil organic carbon respiration along a forested elevation gradient in the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. Biogeosciences 2023, 20, 719–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Metz, E.-M.; Vardag, S.N.; Feldman, A.F.; Poulter, B.; Butz, A. Sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystem respiration to soil moisture under different aridity conditions in Australia. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 April–2 May 2025. [Google Scholar]
  104. Cruz-Paredes, C.; Tájmel, D.; Rousk, J. Can moisture affect temperature dependences of microbial growth and respiration? Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2021, 156, 108223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bian, H.; Li, C.; Zhu, J.; Xu, L.; Li, M.; Zheng, S.; He, N. Soil Moisture Affects the Rapid Response of Microbes to Labile Organic C Addition. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 857185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wood, T.E.; Detto, M.; Silver, W.L. Sensitivity of soil respiration to variability in soil moisture and temperature in a humid tropical forest. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Bilandžija, D.; Zgorelec, Ž.; Kisić, I. The Influence of Agroclimatic Factors on Soil CO2 Emissions. Coll. Antropol. 2014, 38, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
  108. Veettil, A.V.; Rahman, A.; Awal, R.; Fares, A.; Green, T.R.; Thapa, B.; Elhassan, A. Threshold Soil Moisture Levels Influence Soil CO2 Emissions: A Machine Learning Approach to Predict Short-Term Soil CO2 Emissions from Climate-Smart Fields. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Or, D. Physical Processes Affecting Microbial Habitats and Activity in Unsaturated Porous Media. J. Agric. Mar. Sci. 2002, 7, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Steponavičienė, V.; Bogužas, V.; Sinkevičienė, A.; Skinulienė, L.; Vaisvalavičius, R.; Sinkevičius, A. Soil Water Capacity, Pore Size Distribution, and CO2 Emission in Different Soil Tillage Systems and Straw Retention. Plants 2022, 11, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mateo-Marín, N.; Bosch-Serra, À.; Molina, M.G.; Poch, R. Impacts of tillage and nutrient management on soil porosity trends in dryland agriculture. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 73, e13139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wolińska, A.; Stępniewska, Z.; Szymańska, M.; Możdżer, P. Soil pore-water environment and CO2 emission in a Luvisol as influenced by contrasting tillage. Intern. Agrophy. 2014, 28, 121–132. [Google Scholar]
  113. Bogunovic, I.; Pereira, P.; Galic, M.; Bilandzija, D.; Kisic, I. Tillage system and farmyard manure impact on soil physical properties, CO2 emissions, and crop yield in an organic farm located in a Mediterranean environment (Croatia). Environ. Ear. Sci. 2020, 79, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01876 g001
Figure 1. Study location with five different land uses (from left to right: 1—orchard; 2—grassland; 3—abandoned land; 4—cropland; 5—forest).
Figure 1. Study location with five different land uses (from left to right: 1—orchard; 2—grassland; 3—abandoned land; 4—cropland; 5—forest).
Land 14 01876 g001
Land 14 01876 g002
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation amount (mm) and mean temperature (°C) throughout the reference period (2000–2020) and investigated 2021 and 2023.
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation amount (mm) and mean temperature (°C) throughout the reference period (2000–2020) and investigated 2021 and 2023.
Land 14 01876 g002
Land 14 01876 g003
Figure 3. Measured parameters affecting soil C-CO2 emissions under five land-use types.
Figure 3. Measured parameters affecting soil C-CO2 emissions under five land-use types.
Land 14 01876 g003
Land 14 01876 g004
Figure 4. Average annual C-CO2 emissions for each land use in 2021. Different letters represent significant differences between land uses (p < 0.05); LSD = 73.50.
Figure 4. Average annual C-CO2 emissions for each land use in 2021. Different letters represent significant differences between land uses (p < 0.05); LSD = 73.50.
Land 14 01876 g004
Land 14 01876 g005
Figure 5. Average annual soil C-CO2 emissions for each land use in 2023. Different letters represent significant differences between land uses (p < 0.05); LSD = 6.79.
Figure 5. Average annual soil C-CO2 emissions for each land use in 2023. Different letters represent significant differences between land uses (p < 0.05); LSD = 6.79.
Land 14 01876 g005
Land 14 01876 g006
Figure 6. Correlation matrix of soil C-CO2 emissions with soil temperature, soil moisture, and soil porosity across land use types and seasons (St—soil temperature (°C); Sm—soil moisture (%); Sp—soil porosity (%)).
Figure 6. Correlation matrix of soil C-CO2 emissions with soil temperature, soil moisture, and soil porosity across land use types and seasons (St—soil temperature (°C); Sm—soil moisture (%); Sp—soil porosity (%)).
Land 14 01876 g006
Table 1. Soil properties on the experimental field in Šašinovec, Zagreb (TOC—total organic carbon (g/kg); pH—soil reaction in KCl (1:5 w/w); EC—electrical conductivity (dS/m); P2O5—available phosphorus (mg/kg); Exch. K—exchangeable potassium (mg/kg); Ntotal—total nitrogen (g/kg)).
Table 1. Soil properties on the experimental field in Šašinovec, Zagreb (TOC—total organic carbon (g/kg); pH—soil reaction in KCl (1:5 w/w); EC—electrical conductivity (dS/m); P2O5—available phosphorus (mg/kg); Exch. K—exchangeable potassium (mg/kg); Ntotal—total nitrogen (g/kg)).
Soil
Properties		ForestCroplandGrasslandOrchardAbandoned
TOC [g/kg]28.513.822.715.522.0
pH in KCl (w/w 1:5)4.437.358.308.506.34
EC [dS/m]0.0500.0710.1510.1290.053
P2O5 [mg/kg]45.241.845.481.556.2
Exch. K [mg/kg]43.788.7118.3159.075.3
Ntotal [g/kg]2.251.552.791.982.31
Bulk density [g/cm3]0.921.321.141.311.15
Sand [%]9.55.816.28.86.8
Silt [%]80.081.572.879.378.2
Clay [%]10.512.811.011.915.0
Table 2. Agro-technical measures and crop information for cropland and orchard.
Table 2. Agro-technical measures and crop information for cropland and orchard.
Land UseYearCrop TypeFertilizationPlant
Protection		Sowing/
Harvest
Orchard-Apple orc.200 kg ha−1 NPK 15-15-15 (fall)-Fungicide: Copper (I) hydroxide 100 g L−1 + Paraffin oil 550 g L−1: 4 L ha−1 (NOVAG AGROCHEMICALS, Novaki, Croatia)-
Cropland2021Soybean300 kg ha−1 NPK 7-20-30-Herbicide: Frontier X2 1 L ha−1 (Dimetenamid-p 720 g L−1) (BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany) + Senat WG 0.5 kg ha−1 (Metribuzin 700 g kg−1) (UPL Europe Ltd., Warrington, UK) + Clematis 0.3 L ha−1 (Klomazon 360 g L−1) (ALBAUGH TKI, Municipality of Rače-Fram, Slovenia)Cropland
Cropland2023Winter wheat500 kg ha−1 NPK + 150 kg/ha KAN-Herbcide: Lancelot 450 WG (Florasulam 150 g kg−1 + Aminopiralid 300 g kg−1) (Corteva Agriscience, Zagreb, Croatia)Cropland
Table 3. Results of the analysis of variance between seasons for each land use (F value, Pr > F, R2, LSD).
Table 3. Results of the analysis of variance between seasons for each land use (F value, Pr > F, R2, LSD).
2021
F ValuePr > FR2LSD
Forest37.02<0.00010.7982.82
Cropland83.59<0.00010.8991.20
Grassland0.780.5150.077326.99
Abandoned land24.59<0.00010.7252.96
Orchard15.48<0.00010.62469.08
2023.
F valuePr > FR2LSD
Forest26.25<0.00010.7406.11
Cropland25.20<0.00010.7307.41
Grassland75.72<0.00010.8907.57
Abandoned land23.78<0.00010.7185.22
Orchard45.95<0.00010.8315.39
Table 4. Results of the analysis of variance between different land uses for each season (F value, Pr > F, R2, LSD).
Table 4. Results of the analysis of variance between different land uses for each season (F value, Pr > F, R2, LSD).
2021
F valuePr > FR2LSD
Winter16.11<0.00010.648117.53
Spring26.92<0.00010.755142.30
Summer24.88<0.00010.740128.46
Fall16.30<0.00010.651192.91
2023.
F valuePr > FR2LSD
Winter4.220.00680.3253.19
Spring14.13<0.00010.6189.28
Summer38.11<0.00010.8136.48
Fall16.58<0.00010.6554.26
Table 5. Seasonal values of average soil C-CO2 emissions (kg ha−1 day−1) with standard deviations in 2021 and 2023. Different uppercase letters represent significant differences between season for each land use (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters represent significant differences between different land uses for each season (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Seasonal values of average soil C-CO2 emissions (kg ha−1 day−1) with standard deviations in 2021 and 2023. Different uppercase letters represent significant differences between season for each land use (p < 0.05). Different lowercase letters represent significant differences between different land uses for each season (p < 0.05).
Forest
20212023
Winter18.24 ± 2.26 Bc9.64 ± 2.72 Ca
Spring25.70 ± 1.72 Ac33.30 ± 3.43 Acd
Summer14.22 ± 2.29 Cc30.47 ± 6.72 Ab
Fall26.42 ± 3.63 Ac19.84 ± 6.18 Ba
Cropland
20212023
Winter1.52 ± 0.37 Cc5.81 ± 2.30 Cb
Spring5.89 ± 1.76 Bc33.59 ± 12.22 Abc
Summer1.81 ± 0.53 Cc15.59 ± 3.92 Bd
Fall9.48 ± 1.11 Ac6.94 ± 3.60 Cc
Grassland
20212023
Winter383.0 ± 240.1 Aa11.62 ± 2.99 Ba
Spring566.6 ± 288.2 Aa54.84 ± 9.88 Aa
Summer487.0 ± 252.9 Aa52.58 ± 8.17 Aa
Fall610.0 ± 390.0 Aa17.52 ± 4.20 Ba
Abandoned land
20212023
Winter8.47 ± 2.29 Bc10.20 ± 3.76 Aa
Spring14.36 ± 1.62 Ac24.23 ± 7.26 Ad
Summer6.03 ± 3.08 Bc22.39 ± 4.38 Ac
Fall16.94 ± 3.43 Ac6.52 ± 2.25 Ac
Orchard
20212023
Winter165.92 ± 31.76 Bb11.05 ± 2.76 Ca
Spring366.65 ± 53.96 Ab36.85 ± 7.37 Ab
Summer309.83 ± 78.18 Ab29.19 ± 5.63 Bb
Fall362.41 ± 76.73 Ab17.54 ± 1.77 Cb
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

Galic, M.; Percin, A.; Bogunovic, I. Soil C-CO2 Emissions Across Different Land Uses in a Peri-Urban Area of Central Croatia. Land 2025, 14, 1876. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091876

AMA Style

Galic M, Percin A, Bogunovic I. Soil C-CO2 Emissions Across Different Land Uses in a Peri-Urban Area of Central Croatia. Land. 2025; 14(9):1876. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091876

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galic, Marija, Aleksandra Percin, and Igor Bogunovic. 2025. "Soil C-CO2 Emissions Across Different Land Uses in a Peri-Urban Area of Central Croatia" Land 14, no. 9: 1876. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091876

APA Style

Galic, M., Percin, A., & Bogunovic, I. (2025). Soil C-CO2 Emissions Across Different Land Uses in a Peri-Urban Area of Central Croatia. Land, 14(9), 1876. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091876

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