Cited by 125Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportSoil Management and Crop Yield

Soil organic carbon sequestration potential of cropland in China

Qin, Zhangcai, Huang, Yao, Zhuang, Qianlai·2013·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

Abstract Soil organic carbon (SOC) in cropland is of great importance to the global carbon (C) balance and to agricultural productivity, but it is highly sensitive to human activities such as irrigation and crop rotation. It has been observed that under certain improved management practices, cropland soils can sequestrate additional C beyond their existing SOC level before reaching the C saturation state. Here we use data from worldwide, long‐term agricultural experiments to develop two statistical models to determine the saturated SOC level (SOCS) in upland and paddy agroecosystems, respectively. We then use the models to estimate SOC sequestration potential (SOCP) in Chinese croplands. SOCP is the difference between SOCS and existing SOC level (SOCE). We find that the models for both the upland and paddy agroecosystems can reproduce the observed SOCS data from long‐term experiments. The SOCE and SOCS stock in Chinese upland and paddy croplands (0–30 cm soil) are estimated to be 5.2 and 7.9 Pg C with national average densities of 37.4 and 56.8 Mg C ha−1, respectively. As a result, the total SOC sequestration potential is estimated to be 2.7 Pg C or 19.4 Mg C ha−1 in Chinese cropland. Paddy has a relatively higher SOCE (45.4 Mg C ha−1) than upland (34.7 Mg C ha−1) and also a greater SOCP at 26.1 Mg C ha−1 compared with 17.2 Mg C ha−1 in the upland. The SOC varies dramatically among different regions. Northeast China has the highest SOCE and SOCS density, while the Loess Plateau has the greatest SOCP density. The time required to reach SOC saturation in Chinese cropland is highly dependent on management practices applied. Chinese cropland has relatively low SOC density in comparison to the global average but could have great potentials for C sequestration under improved agricultural management strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gbc.20068

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qin, Z., Huang, Y., & Zhuang, Q.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2013-08-12
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
711-722
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W1935940986
Cited by
125
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
9.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles (publishedVersion)
  • Institute of Botany, CAS Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
soil organic carbon, carbon sequestration potential, cropland, paddy fields, long-term agricultural experiments, carbon saturation, agricultural management practices, carbon stock estimation, Loess Plateau, Northeast China, China

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review