journal article·2026-05Open access

Optimal Grazing Exclusion Duration to Enhance Soil Carbon Sequestration in Degraded Grasslands

Bin Zhang, Chongzhi Sun, Dongmei Xue, Paul Christiaan Struik, Tongrui Zhang, Jiayue Liu, Tingting Xing, Ziyang Liu, Shiming Tang, Ke Jin

Advanced Science· Volume 13· Issue 29

Abstract

ABSTRACT Soil organic carbon (SOC) plays a crucial role in mitigating climate change and ensuring food security. Grazing exclusion (GE) is widely recognized as an effective strategy for restoring degraded grasslands and enhancing SOC sequestration, yet the optimal duration for this practice remains uncertain. Here, we conducted a meta‐analysis using 4257 paired observations from 125 studies in China to quantify the impact of GE on SOC content and stock, and to determine the optimal duration for maximizing carbon sequestration. We found that GE increased SOC content and stock by an average of 34.12% and 24.56%, respectively. This positive effect of GE on SOC becomes greater over time in areas with higher mean annual precipitation (MAP), but it is negative below 200 mm. These effects of GE remain consistent across alpine, meadow, desert, and typical grasslands, and are independent of other environmental attributes. Our results indicate that implementing GE on 70% of degraded grasslands nationwide could, on average, sequester 1.52 Pg C in soil over a period of 10 years (about 17% of global annual fossil fuel emissions), with larger gains expected in higher‐MAP regions. Our synthesis provides an evidence‐based framework for optimizing grassland restoration through enhanced soil carbon sequestration in degraded grasslands.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics · Remote Sensing in Agriculture · Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Key Laboratory for Model Innovation in Forage Production Efficiency Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Institute of Grassland Research Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Hohhot China

Department of Grassland Science College of Grassland Science and Technology China Agricultural University Beijing China

Tianjin Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environment Tianjin Normal University Tianjin China

Centre for Crop Systems Analysis Department of Plant Sciences Wageningen University & Research Wageningen Netherlands

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China · National Natural Science Foundation of China · China Postdoctoral Science Foundation

References (89)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/s41467-025-57981-610.1038/s41467-025-57981-6 ↗
2. 10.1073/pnas.242237112210.1073/pnas.2422371122 ↗
3. 10.1126/science.abo238010.1126/science.abo2380 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.10886510.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108865 ↗
5. Limiting Factors of Degraded Grassland Restoration in China and Related Basic Scientific Issues
6. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.10965910.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109659 ↗
7. 10.1038/s43247-024-01330-w10.1038/s43247-024-01330-w ↗
8. 10.1007/s00374-024-01807-y10.1007/s00374-024-01807-y ↗
9. 10.1111/gcb.1313310.1111/gcb.13133 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.08.00810.1016/j.earscirev.2017.08.008 ↗
11. 10.1038/s41467-023-39338-z10.1038/s41467-023-39338-z ↗
12. 10.1186/s13717-024-00561-110.1186/s13717-024-00561-1 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.agee.2023.10860210.1016/j.agee.2023.108602 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.10568010.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105680 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.catena.2024.10806010.1016/j.catena.2024.108060 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.still.2024.10612310.1016/j.still.2024.106123 ↗
17. 10.1002/eap.236310.1002/eap.2363 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.10827810.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108278 ↗
19. 10.1111/gcb.1702810.1111/gcb.17028 ↗
20. 10.1111/1365-2745.1398310.1111/1365-2745.13983 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.11969610.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119696 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.13979210.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139792 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.agee.2024.10942010.1016/j.agee.2024.109420 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.agee.2023.10855310.1016/j.agee.2023.108553 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.still.2022.10538010.1016/j.still.2022.105380 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.catena.2023.10741210.1016/j.catena.2023.107412 ↗
27. 10.1002/ldr.481910.1002/ldr.4819 ↗
28. 10.1002/ece3.1105610.1002/ece3.11056 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.10730210.1016/j.agee.2021.107302 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.10868810.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108688 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.10765510.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107655 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2025.10973610.1016/j.soilbio.2025.109736 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2025.10974310.1016/j.soilbio.2025.109743 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.10811810.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108118 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.11638510.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116385 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.agee.2024.10888310.1016/j.agee.2024.108883 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2020.10317110.1016/j.ejsobi.2020.103171 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.10970810.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109708 ↗
39. 10.3389/fpls.2023.110986010.3389/fpls.2023.1109860 ↗
40. 10.1007/s11104-023-06153-w10.1007/s11104-023-06153-w ↗
41. 10.1038/s41467-023-40768-y10.1038/s41467-023-40768-y ↗
42. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.10398910.1016/j.apsoil.2021.103989 ↗
43. 10.1038/s41586-023-06042-310.1038/s41586-023-06042-3 ↗
44. 10.1007/s10531-011-9992-410.1007/s10531-011-9992-4 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.17508110.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175081 ↗
46. 10.1371/journal.pone.012883710.1371/journal.pone.0128837 ↗
47. 10.1080/27658511.2022.204695910.1080/27658511.2022.2046959 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2024.10526310.1016/j.jaridenv.2024.105263 ↗
49. 10.1073/pnas.230988112010.1073/pnas.2309881120 ↗
50. 10.1126/science.ads363410.1126/science.ads3634 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.10550910.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105509 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.catena.2021.10558210.1016/j.catena.2021.105582 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e0095110.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00951 ↗
54. 10.5194/se-6-1195-201510.5194/se-6-1195-2015 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.04.03210.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.04.032 ↗
56. 10.1111/nph.1726910.1111/nph.17269 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.jia.2024.08.02410.1016/j.jia.2024.08.024 ↗
58. 10.1007/s11104-021-05144-z10.1007/s11104-021-05144-z ↗
59. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.12826910.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128269 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.13318210.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133182 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.10735410.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107354 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.10768410.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107684 ↗
63. 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2016.01.01010.15302/J-SSCAE-2016.01.010 ↗
64. 10.1111/brv.1255410.1111/brv.12554 ↗
65. 10.1002/ldr.319110.1002/ldr.3191 ↗
66. 10.1111/rec.1346310.1111/rec.13463 ↗
67. 10.1002/eap.227110.1002/eap.2271 ↗
68. 10.1016/j.jnc.2009.09.00310.1016/j.jnc.2009.09.003 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.14243910.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142439 ↗
70. Comparison of the Benefits of Conservation and Forage Planting Grasslands in the River Valley Area of Tibet
71. 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e0200610.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02006 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.01510.1016/j.agee.2019.04.015 ↗
73. 10.1111/1365-2664.1385410.1111/1365-2664.13854 ↗
74. 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1a9c10.1088/1748-9326/ac1a9c ↗
75. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.10010.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.100 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.00710.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 ↗
77. 10.1002/joc.508610.1002/joc.5086 ↗
78. 10.1080/07352689.2012.73474210.1080/07352689.2012.734742 ↗
79. 10.1098/rstb.2007.202910.1098/rstb.2007.2029 ↗
80. 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;210.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;2 ↗
81. 10.1038/nature1380910.1038/nature13809 ↗
82. 10.18637/jss.v067.i0110.18637/jss.v067.i01 ↗
83. 10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.01310.1016/j.tree.2003.10.013 ↗
84. Cohen J. · 1983
85. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.12.04210.1016/j.geoderma.2018.12.042 ↗
86. 10.1038/3508357310.1038/35083573 ↗
87. E.Paradis et al. “ape: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution ”https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.ape(2002).
88. 10.1038/s41558-024-01957-910.1038/s41558-024-01957-9 ↗
89. R Core TeamR: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna.