Impacts of forest loss on soil carbon sequestration in an area under anthropogenic threats

Impacts of forest loss on soil carbon sequestration in an area under anthropogenic threats | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Impacts of forest loss on soil carbon sequestration in an area under anthropogenic threats Edith Quiñones-Sánchez, Martín Alejandro Bolaños-González, Adolfo López-Pérez, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6414503/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Forests are essential carbon stocks worldwide; however, they are losing their storage capacity due to deforestation, degradation, and land-use changes caused by anthropogenic activities in forest ecosystems. The soil organic carbon store (SOC) is the most critical reservoir, accounting for over 40% of the total carbon stored in forests. The present study provides information on the SOC storage capacity of forest ecosystems compared to other land uses in the Texcoco Forest Region, State of Mexico. Vegetation was classified into phases: Phase 1, primary or undisturbed land use and vegetation (LUV); Phase 2, modified LUVs with various disturbances; Phase 3, LUVs resulting from anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, forest plantations, and fruit trees. The largest SOC reserve was found in sites with the least anthropogenic disturbance. Forest ecosystems presented up to three times as much SOC as Phase 3 land uses; thus, coniferous forests were the largest SOC reservoirs, more efficient than agricultural and oak ecosystems, which did not show large SOC stocks. anthropogenic disturbance coniferous forest deforestation forest ecosystems land-use change Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 1 Introduction Forests are defined as ecosystems characterized by a tree canopy cover exceeding 10%, encompassing an area greater than 0.5 hectares, with mature trees attaining a minimum height of 5 meters. As of 2015, the global forest area was estimated at approximately 4.06 billion hectares, accounting for 31% of the Earth's total land area [ 1 ]. Furthermore, forests constitute approximately 92% of the planet's terrestrial biomass. Forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services that significantly contribute to societal well-being. They play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, sequestering approximately 33% of anthropogenic carbon emissions [ 2 ]. However, since 1990, global forest area has experienced a decline, with estimated annual loss rates ranging from 0.13% [ 3 ] to 3% [ 4 ]. According to FAO [ 1 ] estimates, a total of 178 million hectares of forest area was lost between 1990 and 2020. Definitions of forests are often tailored to specific purposes, reflecting varying perspectives, conceptual frameworks, and priorities. Nevertheless, it is essential to distinguish between native and non-native tree species within forests to accurately recognize and manage them as natural ecosystems [ 5 ]. Forest ecosystems store huge amounts of carbon, which they assimilate through processes such as biomass production (net primary production), the accumulation of soil organic matter (humification), and the exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen with the atmosphere via photosynthesis and respiration [ 6 ]. As the most substantial carbon sinks globally, forests store more than half of the total carbon found in terrestrial ecosystems, thereby playing a pivotal role in regulating the global carbon cycle [ 7 ]. Nevertheless, land-use changes and unsustainable management of natural resources represent direct anthropogenic drivers that contribute to land degradation, threatening the integrity and functionality of these vital ecosystems. Agriculture is widely acknowledged as a significant driver of ecosystem degradation and loss, contributing substantially to net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [ 8 ]. Research estimates suggest that if the degradation and deforestation caused by anthropogenic activities were halted, recovering forests could sequester approximately 100 to 130 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) from the atmosphere by the year 2100 [ 9 ]. However, despite this potential, the global carbon stock has experienced a decline, decreasing from 668 Pg in 1990 to 662 Pg in 2020 [ 1 ], underscoring the ongoing challenges posed by unsustainable land-use practices. Soil can function as either a sink or a source of carbon dioxide, in addition to methane and nitrous oxide, depending on management practices. Furthermore, global climate change has the potential to influence the quantity of carbon stored in forest soils and its distribution across functionally distinct soil horizons or carbon pools [ 10 ]. Forest soils are typically characterized by dense litter layers and the continuous recycling of organic matter and nutrients, which sustain deep-rooted trees and a diverse array of soil-dwelling organisms, thereby contributing to soil formation processes [ 11 ]. Soils are often considered a more stable and long-term solution for carbon sequestration compared to aboveground biomass [ 12 ]. However, intensive disturbances, such as deforestation and land-use changes, frequently result in reduced rates of carbon accumulation [ 4 ]. The conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land has been shown to deplete soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks by 50–80% [ 8 ], highlighting the significant impact of land-use changes on soil carbon dynamics. Soils in Mexico are experiencing significant deterioration due to widespread ecosystem loss, underscoring the importance of proper forest management to mitigate adverse impacts on ecosystem carbon and enhance carbon sequestration potential [ 13 ]. According to data from the National Forestry Commission [ 14 ], the average annual deforestation rate in Mexico between 2001 and 2018 was approximately 212,070 hectares. Forested areas have predominantly been converted to pastures, with a peak conversion of 260,941 hectares in 2014, and to agricultural land, which saw a notable increase of 108,188 hectares in 2016. Furthermore, the National Inventory of GHG Emissions [ 15 ] indicates that the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) category contributed 4.6% of the total estimated GHG emissions released into the atmosphere [ 16 ]. Regarding SOC stocks in Mexico, Paz et al. [ 17 ] estimated that the SOC content is approximately 9 Pg at a depth of 0 to 30 centimeters and about 15 Pg at a depth of 100 centimeters, highlighting the critical role of soil in carbon storage. Basile-Doelsch et al. [ 18 ] demonstrated that deep soil horizons (> 30 cm) can contribute up to 20% to carbon sequestration over a 20-year period. They also emphasized that the soil organic matter (OM) content at any given time reflects a complex history of land use, which is intricately linked to the functioning and utilization of the soil over hundreds or even thousands of years. Despite these historical influences, numerous factors can significantly affect carbon stocks. Key determinants include physicochemical properties, such as the presence of fine particles that enhance calcium exchange and the abundance of clay within the soil structure. These properties contribute to the higher availability of SOC in surface layers, indicating that the majority of carbon stabilization occurs in these upper horizons [ 19 ]. Additionally, organic inputs, such as leaf litter, play a crucial role in facilitating the mineralization of SOC. This process promotes the exchange of fresh carbon with older carbon, thereby supporting the maintenance and improvement of the health and fertility of surface soil layers [ 20 ]. The interaction between climatic factors and geological processes plays a critical role in determining the capacity of soils to sequester organic carbon. High levels of precipitation and moderate temperatures enhance carbon stabilization through mineralization processes in surface soil layers, which in turn reduce microbial activity and slow the breakdown of organic carbon [ 21 ]. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities, such as urbanization and agriculture, on SOC storage within forest ecosystems in the Texcoco Forest Region. The capacity of forest ecosystems to store SOC varies depending on different forest components, with natural tree components potentially exhibiting a higher SOC storage capacity. Additionally, environmental variables, including soil type, depth, climate, altitude, and others, can significantly influence SOC storage dynamics. Consequently, this study seeks to evaluate and compare SOC storage capacity across various vegetation types in the Texcoco Forest Region, providing insights into the effects of human activities and environmental factors on carbon sequestration in these ecosystems. 2 Materials and Methods 2.1 Study area The Texcoco Forest Region (TFR) is recognized as one of the eight administrative regions within the State of Mexico, as delineated by “La Protectora de Bosques del Estado de México” (PROBOSQUE), an agency of the State of Mexico government [ 22 ]. The region is geographically located within the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, extending between latitudes 18°93' and 19°61' North and longitudes 98°60' and 99°15' West (Fig. 1 ). It encompasses a total area of 2,544 km 2 . 2.2 Sampling sites A total of 122 sampling sites were strategically selected across Forest Region III. To identify the presence of vegetation mosaics, a land-use and vegetation (LUV) map at a scale of 1:250,000 was utilized. This map, provided by Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography [ 23 ], (INEGI, for its acronym in Spanish), encompasses the entire national territory and integrates ecological, floral, physiognomic, agricultural, livestock, forestry, and supplementary data [ 14 ]. For this study, the layers corresponding to the TFR were successfully extracted. The extracted LUV categories and their primary characteristics, as obtained from INEGI, are detailed in Table 1 . Forest succession stages were classified according to the level of disturbance, whether caused by natural processes or anthropogenic activities. Table 1 Types of land use and vegetation (LUV) in the study area. The code and description of each LUV identified are described Code LUV Description CF Cedar Forest Distributed in temperate, semi-cold, and humid environments, Cupressus lusitanica . OF Oak Forest Quercus spp. are the most common species. Distributed from sea level to 2800 masl OPF Oak-Pine Forest Grows in temperate, semi-cold, semi-warm, warm, humid, and sub-humid environments; the most common trees are Quercus spp. and Pinus spp. FF Fir Forest Abies religiosa , Pinus spp., Quercus spp., and Alnus jorullensis are the most common species. PF Pine Forest Grows in temperate and cold sub-humid environments. The most common species are Pinus leiophylla and Pinus hartwegii. CrS Xeric Shrubland Thrives in semi-arid areas on volcanic hillsides and shallow soils. The dominant species is Nolina parviflora. CS Coniferous Shrubland Shrubland or subarboreal vegetation distributed in mountains in temperate and cold sub-humid climates dominated by Pinus pseudostrobu s and Juniperus deppeana. POF Pine-Oak Forest Distributed in temperate, semi-cold, semi-warm, and warm-humid environments dominated by Pinus spp. and Quercus spp. MDS Microphyll Desert Shrubland Covers the driest areas of Mexico. Larrea tridentata and Flourensia cernua make 90–100% of the vegetation; shrubs include species of Cercidium, Lycium, Opuntia, Fouquieria, Hymenoclea, Acacia, Chilopsi s, and others. IA Irrigation Agriculture Requires irrigation for crop development during the agricultural cycle. RA Rainfed Agriculture The vegetative cycle of crops depends on the precipitation pattern and the capacity of the soil to retain water. CuF Cultivated Forest Forest tree plantations, commonly monospecific, intended for commercial forestry. The main species cultivated are Pinus pseudostrobus, Eucalyptus spp., and Cupressus lusitanica. IG Induced Grassland/ pastures Secondary grassland and pastures growing as a result of anthropogenic activities and impacts, including deforestation. FTP Fruit Tree Planting Plantation trees whose vegetative cycle lasts more than ten years, planted for fruit production. The LUV data were classified into two broad categories: natural vegetation and agricultural land use, covering the entire TFR. Following INEGI guidelines [ 24 ], the successional phases were further categorized into three distinct groups: forest, herb-arbustive, and secondary vegetation. For the purposes of this study, these phases are designated as Phase 1 (forest), Phase 2 (herb-arbustive), and Phase 3 (secondary vegetation). 2.3 Field work The methodology employed in this study was adapted from the field manual of the State Quantitative Forest Inventory [ 22 ] and the "Proposal for the Establishment of a National Monitoring System of Carbon Dynamics in Forest Ecosystems in Mexico" [ 24 ]. For the collection of SOC content data, a quantitative and systematic sampling approach was implemented as follows: Soil samples were collected at each site using a 2-inch inner diameter tube auger, with a worm auger utilized for harder soils. Quantitative measurements of bulk density and stoniness were also recorded. To determine bulk density, the aboveground plant material was first removed from a 30 cm × 30 cm ground area. Soil was then extracted using a straight steel cylinder of known volume. All extracted material was placed in a bag, weighed on-site using a balance (fresh weight), and properly labeled for transport to the laboratory. Dry soil weight was obtained after oven-drying the samples at 100°C for 48 hours. 2.4 Laboratory work The percentage of the coarse fraction was determined by drying and grinding the soil samples, followed by sieving through a #10 mesh. The resulting fractions (coarse and fine) were weighed, and the percentage of each fraction was calculated. A 5-gram subsample of the fine-particle fraction was obtained, sieved through a 100-mesh screen, and stored for further analysis. The carbon content of each sample was directly measured using a Shimadzu 5050A total organic carbon analyzer. For this analysis, the soil sample (5 gr) was first thoroughly dried at 110°C for a minimum of 6 hours. Total organic carbon (TOC) was then quantified by weighing between 100 mg and 400 mg of soil (depending on sample color) and analyzing it in the Shimadzu 5050A equipment, which was set to a temperature of 900°C. Weight and temperature were monitored over a five-minute period, and the CO 2 released during sample incineration was recorded as a percentage, representing the TOC content of the sample. 2.5 Data analysis In this study, SOC content was calculated to a maximum depth of 30 cm ± 10 cm, although the soil layer was shallower at certain sampling sites. SOC content was estimated using Eq. ( 1 ), following the methodology outlined in the IPCC Good Practice Guide [ 25 ]. The SOC values were determined as follows: Where: SOC = soil organic carbon (Mg ha − 1 ) BD = bulk density (Mg m − 3 ) P = soil depth (m) CF = coarse fraction > 2 mm (%) SOCp = percent soil organic carbon (%) 10000 = Scaling factor (m 2 ha -1 ) The surface area of each LUV category, as well as the total surface area of the Texcoco Forest Region, were calculated. For this purpose, a vector layer of the State of Mexico at a 1:250,000 scale was projected using QGIS software [ 26 ]. Based on this projection, the percentage coverage of each LUV category within the study area was determined. Statistically significant differences between vegetation phases were evaluated using paired t-tests, comparing Phase 1 (forest) versus Phase 2 (herb-arbustive), Phase 1 versus Phase 3 (secondary vegetation), and Phase 2 versus Phase 3. Statistical significance was defined at a threshold of p ≤ 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the R 4.2.0 programming environment and the Stats package version 3.6.2 [ 27 ]. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 The current state of the TFR The TFR encompasses a mosaic of LUV types, among which ecosystems significantly impacted by anthropogenic activities were identified. Based on INEGI's LUV maps for 2021, a total of 29 distinct LUV types were classified within the TFR. Notably, this represents nearly half of the 58 vegetation types currently documented across Mexico, underscoring the region's ecological significance and the importance of conservation efforts. Within the study area, primary and secondary forests were identified, accounting for 11.4% and 17.6% of the total coverage, respectively. Agricultural land use was divided into two modalities: irrigated agriculture (29.8%) and rainfed agriculture (30.1%). Grasslands constituted 3.9% of the area, while cultivated forests covered a minimal portion (0.11%) (Fig. 3 ). The loss of natural vegetation was predominantly observed near human settlements, whereas primary vegetation (natural forest) was typically found in areas farther removed from human activity (Fig. 2 ). Furthermore, Fig. 3 highlights a pronounced disparity in the distribution of LUV types within the TFR, with agricultural land use significantly outweighing natural vegetation at a ratio of 65–19%. Despite the pervasive impact of human activities on native flora, patches of primary vegetation persist and play a crucial role in densely populated regions, such as the study area. These remnants serve as vital support zones, enhancing the provision of ecosystem services [ 28 ]. The vegetation of the Mexico Valley Region faces significant anthropogenic pressure, primarily driven by the presence of Mexico City, the largest urban area in the country. This urban expansion has led to an exponential decline in the remnants of natural forests across the broader Mexico Valley. Recognized as one of the most heavily modified basins globally, the region has experienced a high rate of forest loss. Socioeconomic factors have contributed to substantial population growth over the past few decades, resulting in the expansion of urban areas. Furthermore, the growth of settlements, agricultural activities, grassland conversion, and other land-use changes are directly linked to the ongoing loss of forest cover in the region [ 29 , 30 ]. At the local level, the TFR has been a focal point of significant forest degradation for several decades. Oropeza-Mota [ 31 ] notes that approximately 80% of the basin's natural vegetation was replaced between the 1970s and the 1990s, highlighting the profound anthropogenic impact on the region's ecosystems during this period. More recently, the transition of forested areas has been closely tied to the replacement of grasslands, a process significantly influenced by the expansion of highland landholders. This encroachment has increasingly threatened remnant forest areas, particularly those situated on downhill slopes [ 30 , 32 ]. 3.2 Successional phases of vegetation The classification of vegetation types into distinct phases within the TFR revealed variations in SOC composition across these phases (Fig. 4 ). High SOC densities were recorded in Phase 1 (3.08–81.36 Mg ha⁻¹), which is dominated by natural forests. Key tree species in this phase include Abies spp. and Cupressus spp. , which exhibit a strong capacity for carbon sequestration. A moderate increase in SOC storage was observed during Phase 2, with values ranging from 13.24 to 91.43 Mg ha⁻¹. This phase was characterized by the predominance of secondary forests. Notably, the extent of secondary vegetation coverage surpassed that of primary vegetation. The increase in SOC during Phase 2, particularly in secondary forests, suggests that natural regeneration can effectively restore carbon storage in degraded lands. Regarding, Bongers et al. [ 33 ], highlight that secondary forests can quickly recover biomass and carbon stocks after agricultural or degraded areas when abandoned in tropical regions. Even, after an alteration, regeneration may enhanced SOC storage in secondary forests, increasing potential through their maturity [ 34 , 35 ]. This suggests that even remote areas are at risk of deforestation. According to Almazán-Núñez et al. [ 36 ], secondary vegetation in Mexico typically arises under two conditions: the gradual recovery of forests from the seed bank of tree species or the impact of disturbances leading to succession by shrubs. However, given the extensive expansion of agriculture in the region (> 60% agricultural land and 4% pastures), these soils are likely to be converted to farming uses in the future. Phase 3 exhibited a significant decline in SOC storage (13.31–28.34 Mg ha⁻¹), with crops, secondary grasslands, and pastures dominating this phase, reflecting the influence of anthropogenic activities. The study highlights a substantial increase in land dedicated to anthropogenic uses compared to natural vegetation, underscoring the significant loss of ecosystems in the TFR. Significant differences in SOC density were observed across vegetation phases (t-test; p ≤ 0.05) (Fig. 5 ). Pairwise comparisons using paired t-tests indicated no significant differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2 (p ≥ 0.05). However, Phase 2 exhibited significant differences in SOC density compared to Phase 3 (p ≤ 0.02), as depicted in Fig. 5 . These findings suggest that anthropogenic activities, such as the conversion of natural vegetation to croplands, orchards, or grasslands, significantly reduce SOC storage. Specifically, data on SOC loss due to agricultural practices indicate reductions, depending on the land use type. For instance, orchards are associated with an average SOC reduction of 15% [ 37 ], while pastures can lead to losses of up to 50% [ 38 ]. These reductions depend on intensity, monocropping, and land use management that may lead a significative degradation of ecosystems and drive SOC depletion in deforested areas [ 39 ]. The classification of vegetation phases within the TFR revealed three distinct conditions. Phases 1 and 2, characterized by natural vegetation—either undisturbed or influenced by anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, including forest and fruit tree plantations—were identified as the most critical for SOC storage. Despite covering a relatively small area, these phases exhibited SOC storage levels comparable to those reported in other studies conducted in Mexico and Latin America. For instance, Souza-Oliveira et al. [ 40 ] documented SOC storage ranging from 50 to 65 Mg ha⁻¹ in natural and mature forests across Latin America, including Mexico. Similarly, Chazdon et al. [ 35 ] reported SOC storage levels of 45 to 70 Mg ha⁻¹ across various forest types in the region. Notably, the highest storage values of SOC, ranging from 163 to 207 Mg ha⁻¹ [ 41 ], were observed in the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl National Park, a well-conserved temperate forest located in an adjacent basin to the TFR. These findings highlight the critical role of conserved and semi-natural vegetation phases in sustaining elevated SOC stocks, even in fragmented landscapes. 3.3 Contribution of LUV types Native tree vegetation demonstrated significantly higher SOC storage compared to other native and induced vegetation types (Fig. 6 ). For instance, Abies spp. forests exhibited SOC values exceeding 81.36 Mg C ha⁻¹ (Fig. 6 a, b). However, the percent cover of natural vegetation was notably higher in Phase 1 (Fig. 6 a), whereas Phase 2 showed only 20% coverage of Abies spp. forests (Fig. 6 b). Phase 2 also featured high pine forest coverage, which correlated with elevated SOC densities (± 58 Mg ha⁻¹). Other vegetation types in Phases 1 and 2, such as coniferous shrubland (subarboreal), exhibited lower SOC densities (3–15 Mg ha⁻¹) and minimal percent cover, rarely exceeding 2%. Phase 3, dominated by fruit trees and rainfed agriculture, recorded the lowest SOC densities (13.31–28.34 Mg ha⁻¹) (Fig. 6 c). While fruit trees accounted for only 4% of the cover, rainfed agriculture represented 50% of the total plant cover in this phase. Ecotone changes further influence SOC storage capacity. Segura-Castruita et al. [ 42 ] highlighted the contrasting SOC storage capacities of natural forest ecosystems in Mexico, reporting densities of 40.8 Mg ha⁻¹ for irrigated agriculture and 71.2 Mg ha⁻¹ for rainfed agriculture. These findings align with the present study, which observed an increase in SOC from 19.84 Mg C ha⁻¹ in agricultural ecosystems to 91.43 Mg C ha⁻¹ in natural forests along an ecotone gradient (Fig. 6 ). These results underscore the significant carbon storage potential of natural biological systems. Olsson et al. [ 43 ] emphasize that heavy disturbances, such as deforestation and land-use changes, typically reduce carbon accumulation rates by 50–80% [ 8 ]. In the TFR, the influence of human populations and their activities are detrimental to forest ecosystems and their respective SOC stores. According to Brown [ 6 ] and Quinto-Mosquera et al. [ 44 ], forest vegetation plays a central role in CO 2 sequestration (which is subsequently stored in the soil). The preservation of certain types of arboreal flora plays a critical role in mitigating the emission of CO 2 into the atmosphere, rendering them valuable "filters". Conifers and oak trees, in particular, contribute to SOC storage through the rapid and frequent shedding of broad leaves, which contain easily decomposable compounds such as lignin, soluble sugars, and nitrogenous compounds [ 45 ]. In shallow soils, physical conditions are often unfavorable for the establishment of natural vegetation [ 46 ], leading to lower SOC storage. However, the genus Quercus , commonly found in mountainous regions and isolated highlands—characteristic of Mexico's rugged topography [ 47 , 48 ]—plays a significant role in SOC storage. This study highlights the importance of conserving oak-dominated forests, as land-use changes in these ecosystems could drastically reduce carbon capture and storage processes. Natural forests stored substantially higher amounts of SOC compared to cultivated (monospecific) forests, owing to their complex structural diversity and the long-term accumulation of underground carbon, which can take centuries to develop [ 49 ]. Afforestation outcomes vary depending on the initial SOC status: SOC density may increase in carbon-poor soils but decrease in carbon-rich soils, particularly in deeper layers [ 50 ]. This limitation, combined with ongoing anthropogenic pressures, poses a significant challenge to the partial or full recovery of these ecosystems. Monocultures are associated with reduced soil organic matter, altered soil microbial communities [ 51 ], decreased organic carbon content, and increased susceptibility to water erosion [ 52 ]. Over time, these conditions lead to soil degradation [ 53 ], with soil quality declining with each cropping cycle [ 54 ]. Successive cropping further exacerbates soil degradation [ 55 ]. Zhijun et al. [ 55 ] noted that forest monocultures negatively impact microbial communities, reduce soil fertility, and likely diminish forest productivity compared to mixed-species forests. Despite these challenges, rainfed agriculture presents an opportunity to enhance SOC storage. Studies by Fuentes et al. [ 56 ] and López-Teloxa et al. [ 57 ] suggest that crop rotation, a common practice in rainfed agriculture, could improve SOC storage potential. 4 Conclusions The SOC storage capacity of forest ecosystems was evaluated and compared with that of other land-use types in the Texcoco Forest Region, State of Mexico. The findings confirm the positive impact of natural, undisturbed forest systems on SOC storage, highlighting that significant quantities of carbon are released into the atmosphere when native ecosystems are converted to anthropogenic land uses. To restore and enhance SOC in forest ecosystems, several strategies are recommended: Identify critical areas with high SOC density (e.g., primary coniferous forests) and create nature reserves with strict regulation against any land use change or expand the area of ​​the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl National Park. Protection of Degraded Forest Sites: Prioritize the conservation and restoration of degraded forest areas to prevent further carbon loss and promote ecosystem recovery. Promotion of Tree Plantations: Establish tree plantations in suitable areas to enhance carbon sequestration and restore ecological functions, prioritizing native conifer species. Promote sustainable agricultural practices such as conservation agriculture (minimum tillage, permanent plant cover, crop rotation). Prevention of Soil Loss in Landslide-Prone Areas: Implement physical interventions, such as stabilization measures, in landslide-prone zones to minimize soil erosion and preserve SOC. Expansion of Forest Nurseries: Increase the number of forest nurseries to produce high-quality seedlings that meet the standards for afforestation and reforestation efforts. Regulation of Illegal Deforestation: Enforce stringent regulations to combat illegal deforestation, with the goal of achieving zero deforestation in the region. Implementation of Carbon Capture Projects: Develop and support projects aimed at enhancing carbon capture in forests, contributing to global climate change mitigation efforts. These measures are essential for maintaining and improving SOC storage, thereby supporting the ecological and climatic benefits provided by forest ecosystems. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) for the scholarship granted to Edith Quiñones for her master's degree. The Mexican Carbon Program provided field and laboratory information for estimating carbon stocks. Thanks also to Protectora de Bosques del Estado de México (PROBOSQUE) for the funds and facilities granted to carry out this research. To the LGAC Integral Watershed Management and Climate Change of the Hydrosciences Program of the Colegio de Postgraduados. To Andrés Flores Miguel for elaborating the Percent representation figure of the vegetation in the study area. María Elena Sánchez-Salazar edited the English manuscript. Author contributions E.Q.S. conducted field data collection and organized the gathered information. She was responsible for the initial drafting of the manuscript and performed a detailed analysis of the data. M.B.G. supervised the study, reviewed the collected data, and contributed to updating the information. A.L.P. participated in data review and co-supervised the study. A.B.P. provided critical data and contributed to the creation of visual materials. A.V.H. assisted in field activities and participated in the revision of the manuscript. A.R.S. reviewed the data, conducted formal analysis, and contributed to the discussion section. Clinical trial number not applicable. Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations not applicable. Competing Interest Declaration The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research was not funded by any corporate body. Data availability This study is based on soil samples collected from the designated study areas. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current investigation are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References FAO. Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales 2020. Evaluación los Recur. For. mundiales 2020. FAO; 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825es Forzieri G, Dakos V, McDowell NG, Ramdane A, Cescatti A. Emerging signals of declining forest resilience under climate change. Nat 2022 6087923. 2022;608(7923):534–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04959-9 Sánchez J, Curt MD, Robert N, Fernández J. Biomass resources. Role Bioenergy Emerg Bioeconomy Resour Technol Sustain Policy. Elsevier; 2018. pp. 25–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813056-8.00002-9 Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni LG, Benton TG, Shukla [ P R, Skea J, et al. 5 Food security Coordinating Lead Authors: Lead Authors: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 2020. Chazdon RL, Brancalion PHS, Laestadius L, Bennett-Curry A, Buckingham K, Kumar C, et al. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio. 2016;45(5):538–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-016-0772-Y/FIGURES/3 Brown S. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO For. Pap. Food & Agriculture Org.; 1997. Hui D, Deng Q, Tian H, Luo Y. Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems. Handb Clim Chang Mitig Adapt. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2015. pp. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6431-0_13-2 Lal R, Smith P, Jungkunst HF, Mitsch WJ, Lehmann J, Ramachandran Nair PK, et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J Soil Water Conserv. 2018;73(6):145A-152A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A Houghton RA. Balancing the Global Carbon Budget. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci. 2007;35(1):313–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140057 Nave L, Marín-Spiotta E, Ontl T, Peters M, Swanston C. Soil carbon management. 2019;36:215–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63998-1.00011-2 Boyle JR. FOREST SOILS. Encycl Soils Environ. Elsevier; 2005. pp. 73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00033-3 Marek MV, Marková I, Pavelka M, Havránková K, Macků J, Rejšek K, et al. Potential changes in forest soil carbon stocks under different climate change scenarios. Clim Chang Soil Interact. 2020;21–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818032-7.00002-3 García-Oliva F, Covaleda S, Gallardo JF, Prat C, Velázquez-Durán R, Etchevers JD. La extracción de leña afecta los almacenes de carbono y nutrientes en fragmentos de bisques templados en el Eje Transvolcánico Mexicano. Bosque. 2014;35(3):311–24. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92002014000300006 CONAFOR. Comisión Nacional Forestal | Gobierno | gob.mx. Porta de internet. 2020. Lokupitiya E, Paustian K. Agricultural Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J Environ Qual. 2006;35(4):1413–27. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0157 INCC. Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático. Subtemas sobre Manejo Integr. Cuencas Hídricas. 2013. p. 1. Paz Pellat F, Rojas García F, Salas M, Bolaños Gonzalez MA. Almacenes de carbono en sistemas agroforestales cafetaleros de la Sierra Madre de Chiapas. 2018. Basile-Doelsch I, Balesdent J, Pellerin S. Reviews and syntheses: The mechanisms underlying carbon storage in soil. Biogeosciences. 2020;17(21):5223–42. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5223-2020 O’Brien SL, Jastrow JD, Grimley DA, Gonzalez-Meler MA. Edaphic controls on soil organic carbon stocks in restored grasslands. Geoderma. 2015;251–252:117–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.03.023 Fontaine S, Barot S, Barré P, Bdioui N, Mary B, Rumpel C. Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature. 2007;450(7167):277–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06275 Wilhelm RC, Lynch L, Webster TM, Schweizer S, Inagaki TM, Tfaily MM, et al. Susceptibility of new soil organic carbon to mineralization during dry-wet cycling in soils from contrasting ends of a precipitation gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2022;169:108681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108681 CONAFOR. Inventario Estatal Forestal y de Suelos - Estado de México. 2014. INEGI. Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y geografıa (INEGI). 2021. 2021. PMC. Programa mexicano del carbono. Programa Mex. del carbono. Estado del ciclo del carbono en México. 2019. pp. 150–77. IPCC. 2006 IPCC - Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Directrices para los Inventar Nac GEI. 2006;12. QGIS. Bienvenido al proyecto QGIS! 2022. R Core Team. R: The R Stats Package. Cran. 2019. Yang J, Li A, Yang Y, Li G, Zhang F. Soil organic carbon stability under natural and anthropogenic-induced perturbations. Earth-Science Rev. 2020;205:103199. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2020.103199 Zaragoza Badillo J, Guzmán JR. Economía, crecimiento urbano y el cambio climático local en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México. Inter Discip. 2023;11(29):311–32. https://doi.org/10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2023.29.84493 Bonilla-Moheno M, Aide TM. Beyond deforestation: Land cover transitions in Mexico. Agric Syst. 2020;178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102734 Oropeza Mota JL. Evaluación de la pérdida de suelo y del escurrimiento superficial en terrenos agrícolas con pendiente (cuenca del Río Texcoco). Colegio de Postgraduados; 1992. Hernández Suárez C, Vázquez García V. La problemática socioambiental de la Cuenca del río Texcoco. Una revisión de literatura. Agric Soc y Desarro. 2007;4(1):39–52. Bongers F, Aide TM, Zambrano AMA, Balvanera P, Becknell JM, Boukili V, et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature. 2016;1–15. Powers JS, Corre MD, Twine TE, Veldkamp E. Geographic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks with tropical land-Use changes precludes spatial extrapolation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(15):6318–22. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016774108 Chazdon RL, Broadbent EN, Rozendaal DMA, Bongers F, Zambrano AMA, Aide TM, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci Adv. 2016;2(5). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501639 Almazán-Núñez RC, Del Coro Arizmendi M, Eguiarte LE, Corcuera P. Changes in composition, diversity and structure of woody plants in successional stages of tropical dry forest in southwest Mexico. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2012;83(4):1096–109. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.30403 Zhong Z, Han X, Xu Y, Zhang W, Fu S, Liu W, et al. Effects of land use change on organic carbon dynamics associated with soil aggregate fractions on the Loess Plateau, China. L Degrad Dev. 2019;30(9):1070–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3294 Fu C, Chen Z, Wang G, Yu X, Yu G. A comprehensive framework for evaluating the impact of land use change and management on soil organic carbon stocks in global drylands. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2021;48:103–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.12.005 Poeplau C, Vos C, Don A. Soil organic carbon stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content. Soil. 2017;3(1):61–6. Souza Oliveira M, Finegan B, Casanoves F, Delgado D, Sepulveda N, Aguilar Porras A, et al. Biomass of timber species in Central American secondary forests: Towards climate change mitigation through sustainable timber harvesting. For Ecol Manage. 2021;496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119439 Cruz-Sánchez Y, López-Teloxa LC, Gómez-Diaz JD, Monterroso-Rivas AI. Soil respiration in temperate forest ecosystems of Mexico and its relationship with organic carbon. Madera y Bosques. 2021;27(2):2. https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2021.2722153 Segura-Castruita MA, Sánchez-Guzmán P, Ortiz-Solorio CA, Del Carmen Gutiérrez-Castorena M. Carbono orgánico de los suelos en México. Publ en Terra Latinoam. 2003;23:21–8. Alkan Olsson J, Hanson H, Knaggård Å, Lundmark L, Nielsen T, Zelli F. Mapping the governance complex of land use policies for compensation. 14th Nord Environ Soc Sci Conf Soc Sci Our time. 2019; Quinto-Mosquera H, Moreno-Hurtado FH, Quinto-Mosquera H, Moreno-Hurtado FH. Influencia de los nutrientes del suelo sobre el crecimiento arbóreo en bosques del Pacífico colombiano. Colomb For. 2022;25(2):30–44. https://doi.org/10.14483/2256201X.18232 Berg K. Epiphytic lichen in boreal conifer plantations: community patterns and interactions with throughfall nitrogen [Internet]. Dep. Environ. Biol. University of Guelph; 2008. Hernández-Cuevas L, Guerra-De la Cruz V, Santiago-Martínez G, Cuatlal-Cuahutencos P. Propagación y micorrización de plantas nativas con potencial para restauración de suelos. Rev Mex ciencias For. 2011;2(7):87–96. Pérez Mojica E, Valencia-A. S, Pérez Mojica E, Valencia-A. S. Estudio preliminar del género Quercus (Fagaceae) en Tamaulipas, México. Acta botánica Mex. 2017;2017(120):59–111. https://doi.org/10.21829/ABM120.2017.1264 Uribe-Salas D, España-Boquera ML, Torres-Miranda A, Uribe-Salas D, España-Boquera ML, Torres-Miranda A. Aspectos biogeográficos y ecológicos del género Quercus (Fagaceae) en Michoacán, México. Acta botánica Mex. 2019;(126). https://doi.org/10.21829/ABM126.2019.1342 Waring B, Neumann M, Prentice IC, Adams M, Smith P, Siegert M. Forests and Decarbonization – Roles of Natural and Planted Forests. Front For Glob Chang. 2020;3:58. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00058 Hong S, Yin G, Piao S, Dybzinski R, Cong N, Li X, et al. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(9):694–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0557-y Fernandez Ojeda PR, Acevedo DC, Villanueva Morales A, Uribe Gomez Miguel. State of the essential chemical elements in the soils of natural, agroforestry and monoculture systems. Rev Mex Ciencias For. 2016;7(35):65–77. E. Martínez H, Juan Pablo Fuentes E, Edmundo Acevedo H. Carbono orgánico y propiedades del suelo. Rev la Cienc del Suelo y Nutr Veg. 2008;8(1):68–96. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27912008000100006 Cabrera JA, Zuaznábar R. Impacto sobre el ambiente del monocultivo de la caña de azúcar con el uso de la quema para la cosecha y la fertilización nitrogenada. I. Balance del carbono. Cultiv Trop. 2010;31(1):0. Selvaraj S, Duraisamy V, Huang Z, Guo F, Ma X. Influence of long-term successive rotations and stand age of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantations on soil properties. Geoderma. 2017;306:127–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.014 Zhijun H, Selvalakshmi S, Vasu D, Liu Q, Cheng H, Guo F, et al. Identification of indicators for evaluating and monitoring the effects of Chinese fir monoculture plantations on soil quality. Ecol Indic. 2018;93:547–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.034 Fuentes M, Hidalgo C, Etchevers J, de León F, Guerrero A, Dendooven L, et al. Conservation agriculture, increased organic carbon in the top-soil macro-aggregates and reduced soil CO 2 emissions. Plant Soil. 2012;355(1–2):183–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1092-4 López-Teloxa LC, Monterroso-Rivas AI, Gómez-Díaz JD. Organic carbon in agricultural soils of the Mexican tropics. Rev Geogr Agrícola. 2020;(64):161–81. https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rga.2020.64.07 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 19 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 12 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 06 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 06 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 09 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6414503","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":455492500,"identity":"dd2232cb-f814-4f29-af10-2c35553c871a","order_by":0,"name":"Edith Quiñones-Sánchez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hydrosciences, Postgraduate College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Edith","middleName":"","lastName":"Quiñones-Sánchez","suffix":""},{"id":455492501,"identity":"3110bdb4-06a3-41ae-9b7e-5780d5d1cc77","order_by":1,"name":"Martín Alejandro Bolaños-González","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hydrosciences, Postgraduate College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Martín","middleName":"Alejandro","lastName":"Bolaños-González","suffix":""},{"id":455492502,"identity":"e13c16af-f997-4f0e-8e7f-604dd8cf16f7","order_by":2,"name":"Adolfo López-Pérez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hydrosciences, Postgraduate College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adolfo","middleName":"","lastName":"López-Pérez","suffix":""},{"id":455492503,"identity":"b4ac4d45-ae29-413a-919f-60b1fba1cc76","order_by":3,"name":"Aurelio Báez-Pérez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aurelio","middleName":"","lastName":"Báez-Pérez","suffix":""},{"id":455492504,"identity":"6cca29ba-b06d-42e6-8630-a4ed05a67e7e","order_by":4,"name":"Villa-Herrera Adán","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hydrosciences, Postgraduate College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Villa-Herrera","middleName":"","lastName":"Adán","suffix":""},{"id":455492505,"identity":"31529dfa-b558-409b-8a11-0d688ac8ae16","order_by":5,"name":"Rico-Sánchez Axel Eduardo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hydrosciences, Postgraduate College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rico-Sánchez","middleName":"Axel","lastName":"Eduardo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-09 19:38:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6414503/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6414503/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82768242,"identity":"053601c0-4382-475b-a080-1639a3fbe011","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 05:28:31","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":439305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSpatial distribution of the Texcoco Forest Region, Mexico, and the sampling sites selected within the region\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/424c16773b84eecc81e33352.png"},{"id":82768246,"identity":"8c7f62a6-21e5-47d1-916f-174c6996343e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 05:28:31","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":391927,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLUV rating system, scale 1:250,000\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/55988999fd16154e630393b3.png"},{"id":82768503,"identity":"8bd32a29-fd73-4a5c-a5dc-b3307bf7a1c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 05:36:31","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":682005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercent cover of the different vegetation types in the study area\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/0b805bde0f86738e18b5e4f2.png"},{"id":82768244,"identity":"93bc5818-1c13-4776-ba30-3d9dd9a076a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 05:28:31","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78336,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSOC density in the three phases by vegetation type\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/36dbcf4b459b5438c88d7071.png"},{"id":82768259,"identity":"f509819d-8e8c-460d-b269-3d422bfd407a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 05:28:32","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":88027,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSOC density by the degree of natural or anthropogenic disturbance\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/e82db084b4e8d84a20fcb212.png"},{"id":82768251,"identity":"db155e41-e081-4507-a5b6-cc7928dd6684","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 05:28:32","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":137981,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercent cover of each LUV between phases and their respective average SOC in the Texcoco Forest Region. a) Phase 1. b) Phase 2. c) Phase 3\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/360b3d820b6f5a30a5e5f799.png"},{"id":82769795,"identity":"ea2b6d14-fbad-4c0d-8bb3-0f05166182ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-15 06:00:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2268352,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6414503/v1/49351947-31db-4cf6-a9e2-40242bb81a7f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Impacts of forest loss on soil carbon sequestration in an area under anthropogenic threats","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eForests are defined as ecosystems characterized by a tree canopy cover exceeding 10%, encompassing an area greater than 0.5 hectares, with mature trees attaining a minimum height of 5 meters. As of 2015, the global forest area was estimated at approximately 4.06\u0026nbsp;billion hectares, accounting for 31% of the Earth's total land area [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, forests constitute approximately 92% of the planet's terrestrial biomass. Forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services that significantly contribute to societal well-being. They play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, sequestering approximately 33% of anthropogenic carbon emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. However, since 1990, global forest area has experienced a decline, with estimated annual loss rates ranging from 0.13% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] to 3% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. According to FAO [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] estimates, a total of 178\u0026nbsp;million hectares of forest area was lost between 1990 and 2020. Definitions of forests are often tailored to specific purposes, reflecting varying perspectives, conceptual frameworks, and priorities. Nevertheless, it is essential to distinguish between native and non-native tree species within forests to accurately recognize and manage them as natural ecosystems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eForest ecosystems store huge amounts of carbon, which they assimilate through processes such as biomass production (net primary production), the accumulation of soil organic matter (humification), and the exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen with the atmosphere via photosynthesis and respiration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. As the most substantial carbon sinks globally, forests store more than half of the total carbon found in terrestrial ecosystems, thereby playing a pivotal role in regulating the global carbon cycle [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Nevertheless, land-use changes and unsustainable management of natural resources represent direct anthropogenic drivers that contribute to land degradation, threatening the integrity and functionality of these vital ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgriculture is widely acknowledged as a significant driver of ecosystem degradation and loss, contributing substantially to net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Research estimates suggest that if the degradation and deforestation caused by anthropogenic activities were halted, recovering forests could sequester approximately 100 to 130 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) from the atmosphere by the year 2100 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. However, despite this potential, the global carbon stock has experienced a decline, decreasing from 668 Pg in 1990 to 662 Pg in 2020 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], underscoring the ongoing challenges posed by unsustainable land-use practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil can function as either a sink or a source of carbon dioxide, in addition to methane and nitrous oxide, depending on management practices. Furthermore, global climate change has the potential to influence the quantity of carbon stored in forest soils and its distribution across functionally distinct soil horizons or carbon pools [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Forest soils are typically characterized by dense litter layers and the continuous recycling of organic matter and nutrients, which sustain deep-rooted trees and a diverse array of soil-dwelling organisms, thereby contributing to soil formation processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Soils are often considered a more stable and long-term solution for carbon sequestration compared to aboveground biomass [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. However, intensive disturbances, such as deforestation and land-use changes, frequently result in reduced rates of carbon accumulation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. The conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land has been shown to deplete soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks by 50\u0026ndash;80% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], highlighting the significant impact of land-use changes on soil carbon dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoils in Mexico are experiencing significant deterioration due to widespread ecosystem loss, underscoring the importance of proper forest management to mitigate adverse impacts on ecosystem carbon and enhance carbon sequestration potential [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. According to data from the National Forestry Commission [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], the average annual deforestation rate in Mexico between 2001 and 2018 was approximately 212,070 hectares. Forested areas have predominantly been converted to pastures, with a peak conversion of 260,941 hectares in 2014, and to agricultural land, which saw a notable increase of 108,188 hectares in 2016. Furthermore, the National Inventory of GHG Emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] indicates that the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) category contributed 4.6% of the total estimated GHG emissions released into the atmosphere [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Regarding SOC stocks in Mexico, Paz et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] estimated that the SOC content is approximately 9 Pg at a depth of 0 to 30 centimeters and about 15 Pg at a depth of 100 centimeters, highlighting the critical role of soil in carbon storage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasile-Doelsch et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrated that deep soil horizons (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 cm) can contribute up to 20% to carbon sequestration over a 20-year period. They also emphasized that the soil organic matter (OM) content at any given time reflects a complex history of land use, which is intricately linked to the functioning and utilization of the soil over hundreds or even thousands of years. Despite these historical influences, numerous factors can significantly affect carbon stocks. Key determinants include physicochemical properties, such as the presence of fine particles that enhance calcium exchange and the abundance of clay within the soil structure. These properties contribute to the higher availability of SOC in surface layers, indicating that the majority of carbon stabilization occurs in these upper horizons [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, organic inputs, such as leaf litter, play a crucial role in facilitating the mineralization of SOC. This process promotes the exchange of fresh carbon with older carbon, thereby supporting the maintenance and improvement of the health and fertility of surface soil layers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interaction between climatic factors and geological processes plays a critical role in determining the capacity of soils to sequester organic carbon. High levels of precipitation and moderate temperatures enhance carbon stabilization through mineralization processes in surface soil layers, which in turn reduce microbial activity and slow the breakdown of organic carbon [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objective of this study is to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities, such as urbanization and agriculture, on SOC storage within forest ecosystems in the Texcoco Forest Region. The capacity of forest ecosystems to store SOC varies depending on different forest components, with natural tree components potentially exhibiting a higher SOC storage capacity. Additionally, environmental variables, including soil type, depth, climate, altitude, and others, can significantly influence SOC storage dynamics. Consequently, this study seeks to evaluate and compare SOC storage capacity across various vegetation types in the Texcoco Forest Region, providing insights into the effects of human activities and environmental factors on carbon sequestration in these ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Texcoco Forest Region (TFR) is recognized as one of the eight administrative regions within the State of Mexico, as delineated by \u0026ldquo;La Protectora de Bosques del Estado de M\u0026eacute;xico\u0026rdquo; (PROBOSQUE), an agency of the State of Mexico government [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. The region is geographically located within the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, extending between latitudes 18\u0026deg;93' and 19\u0026deg;61' North and longitudes 98\u0026deg;60' and 99\u0026deg;15' West (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). It encompasses a total area of 2,544 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Sampling sites\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 122 sampling sites were strategically selected across Forest Region III. To identify the presence of vegetation mosaics, a land-use and vegetation (LUV) map at a scale of 1:250,000 was utilized. This map, provided by Mexico\u0026rsquo;s National Institute of Statistics and Geography [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], (INEGI, for its acronym in Spanish), encompasses the entire national territory and integrates ecological, floral, physiognomic, agricultural, livestock, forestry, and supplementary data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. For this study, the layers corresponding to the TFR were successfully extracted. The extracted LUV categories and their primary characteristics, as obtained from INEGI, are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Forest succession stages were classified according to the level of disturbance, whether caused by natural processes or anthropogenic activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypes of land use and vegetation (LUV) in the study area. The code and description of each LUV identified are described\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLUV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCedar Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributed in temperate, semi-cold, and humid environments, \u003cem\u003eCupressus lusitanica\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOak Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuercus\u003c/em\u003e spp. are the most common species. Distributed from sea level to 2800 masl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOPF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOak-Pine Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrows in temperate, semi-cold, semi-warm, warm, humid, and sub-humid environments; the most common trees are \u003cem\u003eQuercus\u003c/em\u003e spp. and \u003cem\u003ePinus\u003c/em\u003e spp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFir Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbies religiosa\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePinus\u003c/em\u003e spp., \u003cem\u003eQuercus\u003c/em\u003e spp., and \u003cem\u003eAlnus jorullensis\u003c/em\u003e are the most common species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePine Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrows in temperate and cold sub-humid environments. The most common species are \u003cem\u003ePinus leiophylla\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePinus hartwegii.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eXeric Shrubland\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrives in semi-arid areas on volcanic hillsides and shallow soils. The dominant species is \u003cem\u003eNolina parviflora.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConiferous Shrubland\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShrubland or subarboreal vegetation distributed in mountains in temperate and cold sub-humid climates dominated by \u003cem\u003ePinus pseudostrobu\u003c/em\u003es and \u003cem\u003eJuniperus deppeana.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePOF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePine-Oak Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDistributed in temperate, semi-cold, semi-warm, and warm-humid environments dominated by \u003cem\u003ePinus\u003c/em\u003e spp. and \u003cem\u003eQuercus\u003c/em\u003e spp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMDS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicrophyll Desert Shrubland\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCovers the driest areas of Mexico. \u003cem\u003eLarrea tridentata\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eFlourensia cernua\u003c/em\u003e make 90\u0026ndash;100% of the vegetation; shrubs include species of \u003cem\u003eCercidium, Lycium, Opuntia, Fouquieria, Hymenoclea, Acacia, Chilopsi\u003c/em\u003es, and others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIrrigation Agriculture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRequires irrigation for crop development during the agricultural cycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRainfed Agriculture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe vegetative cycle of crops depends on the precipitation pattern and the capacity of the soil to retain water.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCuF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultivated Forest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForest tree plantations, commonly monospecific, intended for commercial forestry. The main species cultivated are \u003cem\u003ePinus pseudostrobus, Eucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e spp., and \u003cem\u003eCupressus lusitanica.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInduced Grassland/ pastures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondary grassland and pastures growing as a result of anthropogenic activities and impacts, including deforestation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFTP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFruit Tree Planting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlantation trees whose vegetative cycle lasts more than ten years, planted for fruit production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe LUV data were classified into two broad categories: natural vegetation and agricultural land use, covering the entire TFR. Following INEGI guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], the successional phases were further categorized into three distinct groups: forest, herb-arbustive, and secondary vegetation. For the purposes of this study, these phases are designated as Phase 1 (forest), Phase 2 (herb-arbustive), and Phase 3 (secondary vegetation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Field work\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe methodology employed in this study was adapted from the field manual of the State Quantitative Forest Inventory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] and the \"Proposal for the Establishment of a National Monitoring System of Carbon Dynamics in Forest Ecosystems in Mexico\" [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. For the collection of SOC content data, a quantitative and systematic sampling approach was implemented as follows: Soil samples were collected at each site using a 2-inch inner diameter tube auger, with a worm auger utilized for harder soils. Quantitative measurements of bulk density and stoniness were also recorded. To determine bulk density, the aboveground plant material was first removed from a 30 cm \u0026times; 30 cm ground area. Soil was then extracted using a straight steel cylinder of known volume. All extracted material was placed in a bag, weighed on-site using a balance (fresh weight), and properly labeled for transport to the laboratory. Dry soil weight was obtained after oven-drying the samples at 100\u0026deg;C for 48 hours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Laboratory work\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe percentage of the coarse fraction was determined by drying and grinding the soil samples, followed by sieving through a #10 mesh. The resulting fractions (coarse and fine) were weighed, and the percentage of each fraction was calculated. A 5-gram subsample of the fine-particle fraction was obtained, sieved through a 100-mesh screen, and stored for further analysis. The carbon content of each sample was directly measured using a Shimadzu 5050A total organic carbon analyzer. For this analysis, the soil sample (5 gr) was first thoroughly dried at 110\u0026deg;C for a minimum of 6 hours. Total organic carbon (TOC) was then quantified by weighing between 100 mg and 400 mg of soil (depending on sample color) and analyzing it in the Shimadzu 5050A equipment, which was set to a temperature of 900\u0026deg;C. Weight and temperature were monitored over a five-minute period, and the CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e released during sample incineration was recorded as a percentage, representing the TOC content of the sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, SOC content was calculated to a maximum depth of 30 cm\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 cm, although the soil layer was shallower at certain sampling sites. SOC content was estimated using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(\u003cspan refid=\"Equ1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), following the methodology outlined in the IPCC Good Practice Guide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The SOC values were determined as follows:\u003cdiv id=\"Equ1\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equ1\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSOC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;soil organic carbon (Mg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;bulk density (Mg m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;soil depth (m)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;coarse fraction\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2 mm (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSOCp\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;percent soil organic carbon (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10000\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Scaling factor (m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe surface area of each LUV category, as well as the total surface area of the Texcoco Forest Region, were calculated. For this purpose, a vector layer of the State of Mexico at a 1:250,000 scale was projected using QGIS software [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on this projection, the percentage coverage of each LUV category within the study area was determined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistically significant differences between vegetation phases were evaluated using paired t-tests, comparing Phase 1 (forest) versus Phase 2 (herb-arbustive), Phase 1 versus Phase 3 (secondary vegetation), and Phase 2 versus Phase 3. Statistical significance was defined at a threshold of p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the R 4.2.0 programming environment and the Stats package version 3.6.2 [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results and discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 The current state of the TFR\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TFR encompasses a mosaic of LUV types, among which ecosystems significantly impacted by anthropogenic activities were identified. Based on INEGI's LUV maps for 2021, a total of 29 distinct LUV types were classified within the TFR. Notably, this represents nearly half of the 58 vegetation types currently documented across Mexico, underscoring the region's ecological significance and the importance of conservation efforts. Within the study area, primary and secondary forests were identified, accounting for 11.4% and 17.6% of the total coverage, respectively. Agricultural land use was divided into two modalities: irrigated agriculture (29.8%) and rainfed agriculture (30.1%). Grasslands constituted 3.9% of the area, while cultivated forests covered a minimal portion (0.11%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The loss of natural vegetation was predominantly observed near human settlements, whereas primary vegetation (natural forest) was typically found in areas farther removed from human activity (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e highlights a pronounced disparity in the distribution of LUV types within the TFR, with agricultural land use significantly outweighing natural vegetation at a ratio of 65\u0026ndash;19%. Despite the pervasive impact of human activities on native flora, patches of primary vegetation persist and play a crucial role in densely populated regions, such as the study area. These remnants serve as vital support zones, enhancing the provision of ecosystem services [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe vegetation of the Mexico Valley Region faces significant anthropogenic pressure, primarily driven by the presence of Mexico City, the largest urban area in the country. This urban expansion has led to an exponential decline in the remnants of natural forests across the broader Mexico Valley. Recognized as one of the most heavily modified basins globally, the region has experienced a high rate of forest loss. Socioeconomic factors have contributed to substantial population growth over the past few decades, resulting in the expansion of urban areas. Furthermore, the growth of settlements, agricultural activities, grassland conversion, and other land-use changes are directly linked to the ongoing loss of forest cover in the region [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the local level, the TFR has been a focal point of significant forest degradation for several decades. Oropeza-Mota [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] notes that approximately 80% of the basin's natural vegetation was replaced between the 1970s and the 1990s, highlighting the profound anthropogenic impact on the region's ecosystems during this period. More recently, the transition of forested areas has been closely tied to the replacement of grasslands, a process significantly influenced by the expansion of highland landholders. This encroachment has increasingly threatened remnant forest areas, particularly those situated on downhill slopes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Successional phases of vegetation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe classification of vegetation types into distinct phases within the TFR revealed variations in SOC composition across these phases (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). High SOC densities were recorded in Phase 1 (3.08\u0026ndash;81.36 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1;), which is dominated by natural forests. Key tree species in this phase include \u003cem\u003eAbies spp.\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eCupressus spp.\u003c/em\u003e, which exhibit a strong capacity for carbon sequestration. A moderate increase in SOC storage was observed during Phase 2, with values ranging from 13.24 to 91.43 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1;. This phase was characterized by the predominance of secondary forests. Notably, the extent of secondary vegetation coverage surpassed that of primary vegetation. The increase in SOC during Phase 2, particularly in secondary forests, suggests that natural regeneration can effectively restore carbon storage in degraded lands. Regarding, Bongers et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], highlight that secondary forests can quickly recover biomass and carbon stocks after agricultural or degraded areas when abandoned in tropical regions. Even, after an alteration, regeneration may enhanced SOC storage in secondary forests, increasing potential through their maturity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. This suggests that even remote areas are at risk of deforestation. According to Almaz\u0026aacute;n-N\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;ez et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], secondary vegetation in Mexico typically arises under two conditions: the gradual recovery of forests from the seed bank of tree species or the impact of disturbances leading to succession by shrubs. However, given the extensive expansion of agriculture in the region (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;60% agricultural land and 4% pastures), these soils are likely to be converted to farming uses in the future. Phase 3 exhibited a significant decline in SOC storage (13.31\u0026ndash;28.34 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1;), with crops, secondary grasslands, and pastures dominating this phase, reflecting the influence of anthropogenic activities. The study highlights a substantial increase in land dedicated to anthropogenic uses compared to natural vegetation, underscoring the significant loss of ecosystems in the TFR.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant differences in SOC density were observed across vegetation phases (t-test; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Pairwise comparisons using paired t-tests indicated no significant differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.05). However, Phase 2 exhibited significant differences in SOC density compared to Phase 3 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.02), as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. These findings suggest that anthropogenic activities, such as the conversion of natural vegetation to croplands, orchards, or grasslands, significantly reduce SOC storage. Specifically, data on SOC loss due to agricultural practices indicate reductions, depending on the land use type. For instance, orchards are associated with an average SOC reduction of 15% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], while pastures can lead to losses of up to 50% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. These reductions depend on intensity, monocropping, and land use management that may lead a significative degradation of ecosystems and drive SOC depletion in deforested areas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe classification of vegetation phases within the TFR revealed three distinct conditions. Phases 1 and 2, characterized by natural vegetation\u0026mdash;either undisturbed or influenced by anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, including forest and fruit tree plantations\u0026mdash;were identified as the most critical for SOC storage. Despite covering a relatively small area, these phases exhibited SOC storage levels comparable to those reported in other studies conducted in Mexico and Latin America. For instance, Souza-Oliveira et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] documented SOC storage ranging from 50 to 65 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1; in natural and mature forests across Latin America, including Mexico. Similarly, Chazdon et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] reported SOC storage levels of 45 to 70 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1; across various forest types in the region. Notably, the highest storage values of SOC, ranging from 163 to 207 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e], were observed in the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl National Park, a well-conserved temperate forest located in an adjacent basin to the TFR. These findings highlight the critical role of conserved and semi-natural vegetation phases in sustaining elevated SOC stocks, even in fragmented landscapes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Contribution of LUV types\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNative tree vegetation demonstrated significantly higher SOC storage compared to other native and induced vegetation types (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, \u003cem\u003eAbies spp.\u003c/em\u003e forests exhibited SOC values exceeding 81.36 Mg C ha⁻\u0026sup1; (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ea, b). However, the percent cover of natural vegetation was notably higher in Phase 1 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ea), whereas Phase 2 showed only 20% coverage of \u003cem\u003eAbies spp.\u003c/em\u003e forests (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eb). Phase 2 also featured high pine forest coverage, which correlated with elevated SOC densities (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;58 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1;). Other vegetation types in Phases 1 and 2, such as coniferous shrubland (subarboreal), exhibited lower SOC densities (3\u0026ndash;15 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1;) and minimal percent cover, rarely exceeding 2%. Phase 3, dominated by fruit trees and rainfed agriculture, recorded the lowest SOC densities (13.31\u0026ndash;28.34 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1;) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ec). While fruit trees accounted for only 4% of the cover, rainfed agriculture represented 50% of the total plant cover in this phase.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcotone changes further influence SOC storage capacity. Segura-Castruita et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] highlighted the contrasting SOC storage capacities of natural forest ecosystems in Mexico, reporting densities of 40.8 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1; for irrigated agriculture and 71.2 Mg ha⁻\u0026sup1; for rainfed agriculture. These findings align with the present study, which observed an increase in SOC from 19.84 Mg C ha⁻\u0026sup1; in agricultural ecosystems to 91.43 Mg C ha⁻\u0026sup1; in natural forests along an ecotone gradient (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). These results underscore the significant carbon storage potential of natural biological systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOlsson et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] emphasize that heavy disturbances, such as deforestation and land-use changes, typically reduce carbon accumulation rates by 50\u0026ndash;80% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. In the TFR, the influence of human populations and their activities are detrimental to forest ecosystems and their respective SOC stores. According to Brown [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] and Quinto-Mosquera et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e], forest vegetation plays a central role in CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e sequestration (which is subsequently stored in the soil). The preservation of certain types of arboreal flora plays a critical role in mitigating the emission of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e into the atmosphere, rendering them valuable \"filters\". Conifers and oak trees, in particular, contribute to SOC storage through the rapid and frequent shedding of broad leaves, which contain easily decomposable compounds such as lignin, soluble sugars, and nitrogenous compounds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn shallow soils, physical conditions are often unfavorable for the establishment of natural vegetation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e], leading to lower SOC storage. However, the genus \u003cem\u003eQuercus\u003c/em\u003e, commonly found in mountainous regions and isolated highlands\u0026mdash;characteristic of Mexico's rugged topography [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]\u0026mdash;plays a significant role in SOC storage. This study highlights the importance of conserving oak-dominated forests, as land-use changes in these ecosystems could drastically reduce carbon capture and storage processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural forests stored substantially higher amounts of SOC compared to cultivated (monospecific) forests, owing to their complex structural diversity and the long-term accumulation of underground carbon, which can take centuries to develop [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. Afforestation outcomes vary depending on the initial SOC status: SOC density may increase in carbon-poor soils but decrease in carbon-rich soils, particularly in deeper layers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. This limitation, combined with ongoing anthropogenic pressures, poses a significant challenge to the partial or full recovery of these ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonocultures are associated with reduced soil organic matter, altered soil microbial communities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], decreased organic carbon content, and increased susceptibility to water erosion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Over time, these conditions lead to soil degradation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e], with soil quality declining with each cropping cycle [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Successive cropping further exacerbates soil degradation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. Zhijun et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e] noted that forest monocultures negatively impact microbial communities, reduce soil fertility, and likely diminish forest productivity compared to mixed-species forests. Despite these challenges, rainfed agriculture presents an opportunity to enhance SOC storage. Studies by Fuentes et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e] and L\u0026oacute;pez-Teloxa et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e] suggest that crop rotation, a common practice in rainfed agriculture, could improve SOC storage potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe SOC storage capacity of forest ecosystems was evaluated and compared with that of other land-use types in the Texcoco Forest Region, State of Mexico. The findings confirm the positive impact of natural, undisturbed forest systems on SOC storage, highlighting that significant quantities of carbon are released into the atmosphere when native ecosystems are converted to anthropogenic land uses. To restore and enhance SOC in forest ecosystems, several strategies are recommended:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentify critical areas with high SOC density (e.g., primary coniferous forests) and create nature reserves with strict regulation against any land use change or expand the area of ​​the Iztaccihuatl-Popocatepetl National Park.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtection of Degraded Forest Sites: Prioritize the conservation and restoration of degraded forest areas to prevent further carbon loss and promote ecosystem recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePromotion of Tree Plantations: Establish tree plantations in suitable areas to enhance carbon sequestration and restore ecological functions, prioritizing native conifer species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePromote sustainable agricultural practices such as conservation agriculture (minimum tillage, permanent plant cover, crop rotation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevention of Soil Loss in Landslide-Prone Areas: Implement physical interventions, such as stabilization measures, in landslide-prone zones to minimize soil erosion and preserve SOC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpansion of Forest Nurseries: Increase the number of forest nurseries to produce high-quality seedlings that meet the standards for afforestation and reforestation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation of Illegal Deforestation: Enforce stringent regulations to combat illegal deforestation, with the goal of achieving zero deforestation in the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation of Carbon Capture Projects: Develop and support projects aimed at enhancing carbon capture in forests, contributing to global climate change mitigation efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese measures are essential for maintaining and improving SOC storage, thereby supporting the ecological and climatic benefits provided by forest ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors wish to thank Mexico\u0026rsquo;s National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) for the scholarship granted to Edith Qui\u0026ntilde;ones for her master\u0026apos;s degree. The Mexican Carbon Program provided field and laboratory information for estimating carbon stocks. Thanks also to Protectora de Bosques del Estado de M\u0026eacute;xico (PROBOSQUE) for the funds and facilities granted to carry out this research. To the LGAC Integral Watershed Management and Climate Change of the Hydrosciences Program of the Colegio de Postgraduados. To Andr\u0026eacute;s Flores Miguel for elaborating the Percent representation figure of the vegetation in the study area. Mar\u0026iacute;a Elena S\u0026aacute;nchez-Salazar edited the English manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e E.Q.S. conducted field data collection and organized the gathered information. She was responsible for the initial drafting of the manuscript and performed a detailed analysis of the data. M.B.G. supervised the study, reviewed the collected data, and contributed to updating the information. A.L.P. participated in data review and co-supervised the study. A.B.P. provided critical data and contributed to the creation of visual materials. A.V.H. assisted in field activities and participated in the revision of the manuscript. A.R.S. reviewed the data, conducted formal analysis, and contributed to the discussion section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish declarations\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interest Declaration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e This research was not funded by any corporate body.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e This study is based on soil samples collected from the designated study areas. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current investigation are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n de los recursos forestales mundiales 2020. Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n los Recur. For. mundiales 2020. FAO; 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825es\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForzieri G, Dakos V, McDowell NG, Ramdane A, Cescatti A. Emerging signals of declining forest resilience under climate change. Nat 2022 6087923. 2022;608(7923):534\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04959-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez J, Curt MD, Robert N, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez J. Biomass resources. Role Bioenergy Emerg Bioeconomy Resour Technol Sustain Policy. Elsevier; 2018. pp. 25\u0026ndash;111. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813056-8.00002-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni LG, Benton TG, Shukla [ P R, Skea J, et al. 5 Food security Coordinating Lead Authors: Lead Authors: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 2020. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChazdon RL, Brancalion PHS, Laestadius L, Bennett-Curry A, Buckingham K, Kumar C, et al. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio. 2016;45(5):538\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-016-0772-Y/FIGURES/3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown S. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO For. Pap. Food \u0026amp; Agriculture Org.; 1997. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHui D, Deng Q, Tian H, Luo Y. Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems. Handb Clim Chang Mitig Adapt. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2015. pp. 1\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6431-0_13-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLal R, Smith P, Jungkunst HF, Mitsch WJ, Lehmann J, Ramachandran Nair PK, et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J Soil Water Conserv. 2018;73(6):145A-152A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoughton RA. Balancing the Global Carbon Budget. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci. 2007;35(1):313\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140057\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNave L, Mar\u0026iacute;n-Spiotta E, Ontl T, Peters M, Swanston C. Soil carbon management. 2019;36:215\u0026ndash;57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63998-1.00011-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyle JR. FOREST SOILS. Encycl Soils Environ. Elsevier; 2005. pp. 73\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00033-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarek MV, Markov\u0026aacute; I, Pavelka M, Havr\u0026aacute;nkov\u0026aacute; K, Macků J, Rej\u0026scaron;ek K, et al. Potential changes in forest soil carbon stocks under different climate change scenarios. Clim Chang Soil Interact. 2020;21\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818032-7.00002-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Oliva F, Covaleda S, Gallardo JF, Prat C, Vel\u0026aacute;zquez-Dur\u0026aacute;n R, Etchevers JD. La extracci\u0026oacute;n de le\u0026ntilde;a afecta los almacenes de carbono y nutrientes en fragmentos de bisques templados en el Eje Transvolc\u0026aacute;nico Mexicano. Bosque. 2014;35(3):311\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92002014000300006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCONAFOR. Comisi\u0026oacute;n Nacional Forestal | Gobierno | gob.mx. Porta de internet. 2020. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLokupitiya E, Paustian K. Agricultural Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J Environ Qual. 2006;35(4):1413\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0157\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eINCC. Instituto Nacional de Ecolog\u0026iacute;a y Cambio Clim\u0026aacute;tico. Subtemas sobre Manejo Integr. Cuencas H\u0026iacute;dricas. 2013. p. 1. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaz Pellat F, Rojas Garc\u0026iacute;a F, Salas M, Bola\u0026ntilde;os Gonzalez MA. Almacenes de carbono en sistemas agroforestales cafetaleros de la Sierra Madre de Chiapas. 2018. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBasile-Doelsch I, Balesdent J, Pellerin S. Reviews and syntheses: The mechanisms underlying carbon storage in soil. Biogeosciences. 2020;17(21):5223\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5223-2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Brien SL, Jastrow JD, Grimley DA, Gonzalez-Meler MA. Edaphic controls on soil organic carbon stocks in restored grasslands. Geoderma. 2015;251\u0026ndash;252:117\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.03.023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFontaine S, Barot S, Barr\u0026eacute; P, Bdioui N, Mary B, Rumpel C. Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature. 2007;450(7167):277\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06275\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilhelm RC, Lynch L, Webster TM, Schweizer S, Inagaki TM, Tfaily MM, et al. Susceptibility of new soil organic carbon to mineralization during dry-wet cycling in soils from contrasting ends of a precipitation gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2022;169:108681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108681\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCONAFOR. Inventario Estatal Forestal y de Suelos - Estado de M\u0026eacute;xico. 2014. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eINEGI. Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y geografıa (INEGI). 2021. 2021. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePMC. Programa mexicano del carbono. Programa Mex. del carbono. Estado del ciclo del carbono en M\u0026eacute;xico. 2019. pp. 150\u0026ndash;77. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIPCC. 2006 IPCC - Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Directrices para los Inventar Nac GEI. 2006;12. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQGIS. Bienvenido al proyecto QGIS! 2022. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR Core Team. R: The R Stats Package. Cran. 2019. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang J, Li A, Yang Y, Li G, Zhang F. Soil organic carbon stability under natural and anthropogenic-induced perturbations. Earth-Science Rev. 2020;205:103199. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2020.103199\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZaragoza Badillo J, Guzm\u0026aacute;n JR. Econom\u0026iacute;a, crecimiento urbano y el cambio clim\u0026aacute;tico local en la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de M\u0026eacute;xico. Inter Discip. 2023;11(29):311\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2023.29.84493\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonilla-Moheno M, Aide TM. Beyond deforestation: Land cover transitions in Mexico. Agric Syst. 2020;178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102734\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOropeza Mota JL. Evaluaci\u0026oacute;n de la p\u0026eacute;rdida de suelo y del escurrimiento superficial en terrenos agr\u0026iacute;colas con pendiente (cuenca del R\u0026iacute;o Texcoco). Colegio de Postgraduados; 1992. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez Su\u0026aacute;rez C, V\u0026aacute;zquez Garc\u0026iacute;a V. La problem\u0026aacute;tica socioambiental de la Cuenca del r\u0026iacute;o Texcoco. Una revisi\u0026oacute;n de literatura. Agric Soc y Desarro. 2007;4(1):39\u0026ndash;52. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBongers F, Aide TM, Zambrano AMA, Balvanera P, Becknell JM, Boukili V, et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature. 2016;1\u0026ndash;15. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePowers JS, Corre MD, Twine TE, Veldkamp E. Geographic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks with tropical land-Use changes precludes spatial extrapolation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(15):6318\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016774108\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChazdon RL, Broadbent EN, Rozendaal DMA, Bongers F, Zambrano AMA, Aide TM, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci Adv. 2016;2(5). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501639\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmaz\u0026aacute;n-N\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;ez RC, Del Coro Arizmendi M, Eguiarte LE, Corcuera P. Changes in composition, diversity and structure of woody plants in successional stages of tropical dry forest in southwest Mexico. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2012;83(4):1096\u0026ndash;109. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.30403\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhong Z, Han X, Xu Y, Zhang W, Fu S, Liu W, et al. Effects of land use change on organic carbon dynamics associated with soil aggregate fractions on the Loess Plateau, China. L Degrad Dev. 2019;30(9):1070\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3294\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFu C, Chen Z, Wang G, Yu X, Yu G. A comprehensive framework for evaluating the impact of land use change and management on soil organic carbon stocks in global drylands. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2021;48:103\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.12.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoeplau C, Vos C, Don A. Soil organic carbon stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content. Soil. 2017;3(1):61\u0026ndash;6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSouza Oliveira M, Finegan B, Casanoves F, Delgado D, Sepulveda N, Aguilar Porras A, et al. Biomass of timber species in Central American secondary forests: Towards climate change mitigation through sustainable timber harvesting. For Ecol Manage. 2021;496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119439\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCruz-S\u0026aacute;nchez Y, L\u0026oacute;pez-Teloxa LC, G\u0026oacute;mez-Diaz JD, Monterroso-Rivas AI. Soil respiration in temperate forest ecosystems of Mexico and its relationship with organic carbon. Madera y Bosques. 2021;27(2):2. https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2021.2722153\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSegura-Castruita MA, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Guzm\u0026aacute;n P, Ortiz-Solorio CA, Del Carmen Guti\u0026eacute;rrez-Castorena M. Carbono org\u0026aacute;nico de los suelos en M\u0026eacute;xico. Publ en Terra Latinoam. 2003;23:21\u0026ndash;8. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlkan Olsson J, Hanson H, Knagg\u0026aring;rd \u0026Aring;, Lundmark L, Nielsen T, Zelli F. Mapping the governance complex of land use policies for compensation. 14th Nord Environ Soc Sci Conf Soc Sci Our time. 2019; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuinto-Mosquera H, Moreno-Hurtado FH, Quinto-Mosquera H, Moreno-Hurtado FH. Influencia de los nutrientes del suelo sobre el crecimiento arb\u0026oacute;reo en bosques del Pac\u0026iacute;fico colombiano. Colomb For. 2022;25(2):30\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.14483/2256201X.18232\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerg K. Epiphytic lichen in boreal conifer plantations: community patterns and interactions with throughfall nitrogen [Internet]. Dep. Environ. Biol. University of Guelph; 2008. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez-Cuevas L, Guerra-De la Cruz V, Santiago-Mart\u0026iacute;nez G, Cuatlal-Cuahutencos P. Propagaci\u0026oacute;n y micorrizaci\u0026oacute;n de plantas nativas con potencial para restauraci\u0026oacute;n de suelos. Rev Mex ciencias For. 2011;2(7):87\u0026ndash;96. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez Mojica E, Valencia-A. S, P\u0026eacute;rez Mojica E, Valencia-A. S. Estudio preliminar del g\u0026eacute;nero Quercus (Fagaceae) en Tamaulipas, M\u0026eacute;xico. Acta bot\u0026aacute;nica Mex. 2017;2017(120):59\u0026ndash;111. https://doi.org/10.21829/ABM120.2017.1264\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUribe-Salas D, Espa\u0026ntilde;a-Boquera ML, Torres-Miranda A, Uribe-Salas D, Espa\u0026ntilde;a-Boquera ML, Torres-Miranda A. Aspectos biogeogr\u0026aacute;ficos y ecol\u0026oacute;gicos del g\u0026eacute;nero Quercus (Fagaceae) en Michoac\u0026aacute;n, M\u0026eacute;xico. Acta bot\u0026aacute;nica Mex. 2019;(126). https://doi.org/10.21829/ABM126.2019.1342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaring B, Neumann M, Prentice IC, Adams M, Smith P, Siegert M. Forests and Decarbonization \u0026ndash; Roles of Natural and Planted Forests. Front For Glob Chang. 2020;3:58. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00058\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHong S, Yin G, Piao S, Dybzinski R, Cong N, Li X, et al. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(9):694\u0026ndash;700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0557-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFernandez Ojeda PR, Acevedo DC, Villanueva Morales A, Uribe Gomez Miguel. State of the essential chemical elements in the soils of natural, agroforestry and monoculture systems. Rev Mex Ciencias For. 2016;7(35):65\u0026ndash;77. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eE. Mart\u0026iacute;nez H, Juan Pablo Fuentes E, Edmundo Acevedo H. Carbono org\u0026aacute;nico y propiedades del suelo. Rev la Cienc del Suelo y Nutr Veg. 2008;8(1):68\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27912008000100006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCabrera JA, Zuazn\u0026aacute;bar R. Impacto sobre el ambiente del monocultivo de la ca\u0026ntilde;a de az\u0026uacute;car con el uso de la quema para la cosecha y la fertilizaci\u0026oacute;n nitrogenada. I. Balance del carbono. Cultiv Trop. 2010;31(1):0. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSelvaraj S, Duraisamy V, Huang Z, Guo F, Ma X. Influence of long-term successive rotations and stand age of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantations on soil properties. Geoderma. 2017;306:127\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhijun H, Selvalakshmi S, Vasu D, Liu Q, Cheng H, Guo F, et al. Identification of indicators for evaluating and monitoring the effects of Chinese fir monoculture plantations on soil quality. Ecol Indic. 2018;93:547\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuentes M, Hidalgo C, Etchevers J, de Le\u0026oacute;n F, Guerrero A, Dendooven L, et al. Conservation agriculture, increased organic carbon in the top-soil macro-aggregates and reduced soil CO 2 emissions. Plant Soil. 2012;355(1\u0026ndash;2):183\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1092-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez-Teloxa LC, Monterroso-Rivas AI, G\u0026oacute;mez-D\u0026iacute;az JD. Organic carbon in agricultural soils of the Mexican tropics. Rev Geogr Agr\u0026iacute;cola. 2020;(64):161\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rga.2020.64.07\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-soil","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Soil](https://link.springer.com/journal/44378)","snPcode":"44378","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44378/3","title":"Discover Soil","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"anthropogenic disturbance, coniferous forest, deforestation, forest ecosystems, land-use change","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6414503/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6414503/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eForests are essential carbon stocks worldwide; however, they are losing their storage capacity due to deforestation, degradation, and land-use changes caused by anthropogenic activities in forest ecosystems. The soil organic carbon store (SOC) is the most critical reservoir, accounting for over 40% of the total carbon stored in forests. The present study provides information on the SOC storage capacity of forest ecosystems compared to other land uses in the Texcoco Forest Region, State of Mexico. Vegetation was classified into phases: Phase 1, primary or undisturbed land use and vegetation (LUV); Phase 2, modified LUVs with various disturbances; Phase 3, LUVs resulting from anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, forest plantations, and fruit trees. The largest SOC reserve was found in sites with the least anthropogenic disturbance. Forest ecosystems presented up to three times as much SOC as Phase 3 land uses; thus, coniferous forests were the largest SOC reservoirs, more efficient than agricultural and oak ecosystems, which did not show large SOC stocks.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impacts of forest loss on soil carbon sequestration in an area under anthropogenic threats","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-15 05:28:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6414503/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-08-19T06:02:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-15T14:04:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-10T03:51:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"224328510523947721767820210181015197602","date":"2025-07-02T19:44:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"310464098175686418719876308946179160194","date":"2025-07-01T14:32:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-16T03:25:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"310377043471235712361263070844711307333","date":"2025-05-14T05:54:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-12T05:41:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-06T15:05:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-06T15:01:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Soil","date":"2025-04-09T19:26:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-soil","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Soil](https://link.springer.com/journal/44378)","snPcode":"44378","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44378/3","title":"Discover Soil","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cdc0948c-cdc2-41d9-9c9d-dcd1c82b7e81","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-18T07:09:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-15 05:28:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6414503","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6414503","identity":"rs-6414503","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}