Cited by 569Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Carbon sequestration in croplands: the potential in Europe and the global context

Smith, Pete·2004·European Journal of Agronomy

Abstract

Biospheric carbon sinks and sources can be included in attempts to meet emission reduction targets during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Forest management, cropland management, grazing land management and re-vegetation are allowable activities under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Soil carbon sinks (and sources) can, therefore, be included under these activities. In this paper, the role of croplands in the European carbon budget and the potential for carbon sequestration in European croplands are reviewed. The global context is then considered. Croplands are estimated to be the largest biospheric source of carbon lost to the atmosphere in Europe each year, but the cropland estimate is the most uncertain among all land-use types. It is estimated that European croplands (for Europe as far east as the Urals) lose 300 Mt C per year. The mean figure for the European Union is estimated to be 78 (S.D. 37) Mt C per year. There is significant potential within Europe to decrease the flux of carbon to the atmosphere from cropland, and for cropland management to sequester soil carbon, relative to the amount of carbon stored in cropland soils at present. The biological potential for carbon storage in European (EU15) cropland is of the order of 90-120 Mt C per year with a range of options available including reduced and zero tillage, set-aside, perennial crops and deep rooting crops, more efficient use of organic amendments (animal manure, sewage sludge, cereal straw…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eja.2003.08.002

Cites

1 of 1 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
Smith, P.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Pete
Venue
European Journal of Agronomy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
229-236
ISSN
1161-0301 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082057957
Cited by
569
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 37
FWCI
23.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
European Journal of Agronomy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Royal Society
  • European Commission
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
carbon sequestration, agricultural soils, soil carbon sink, Kyoto Protocol, carbon balance, carbon flux, land use change, reduced tillage, set-aside, perennial crops, organic amendments, crop rotation, energy crops, organic farming, greenhouse gas emissions reduction

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