Cited by 38Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Geostatistics and MappingSoil erosion and sediment transport

Changes in organic matter contents and carbon stocks in Dutch soils, 1998–2018

Open access
Knotters, Martin, Teuling, Kees, Reijneveld, Arjan, Lesschen, Jan Peter, Kuikman, Peter·2022·Geoderma

Abstract

Changes in soil organic matter (SOM) content and soil organic carbon (SOC) stock in the 0–30 cm and 30–100 cm soil layers between 1998 and 2018 in the Netherlands were estimated by repeated sampling of 1152 locations in the Soil Sampling Programme (SSP). These locations were selected following a stratified simple random sampling design. We discuss various barriers we met: restricted accuracy of information on soil bulk density, uncertainties due to positional errors, differences in sampling support, and changes in laboratory analysis methods since 1998. Domains of interest such as mineral soils were defined either on the basis of the stratification of the SSP sample (geomatching) or on the basis of soil profiles observed at the selected locations (classmatching). The mean SOM content changed significantly in the 30–100 cm layer (-17.68 gkg-1) in the entire area of interest (non-built-up area in the Netherlands) between 1998 and 2018 (at a 5% significance level). A decrease in SOM content between 1998 and 2018 could be shown for the 0–30 cm layer in mineral soils under cropland if classmatching was applied (at a 5% significance level), but no change could be shown in this layer in the remaining domains of interest, whether geomatching or classmatching were applied. For the 30–100 cm layer in mineral soils, significant changes in mean SOM content were shown by classmatching: −8.59 gkg-1 under cropland and −4.75 gkg-1 under grassland. The calculations indicate that SOC stocks decreased between 1998 and 2018 in both the 0–30 cm and the 30–100 cm layer of mineral soils under both cropland and grassland. The accuracy of the bulk density data needs to be improved in future measurements to increase the accuracy of calculations of the SOC stock changes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.115751

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Depth is inconsistently reported in review papers, potentially combining estimates of sequestration rates that are not directly comparable, which contributes to discrepancies between global estimates.

    “We also observe that depth is inconsistently reported in review papers.”

    From Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon (2023) · cites this paper as Knotters et al., 2022

    Section 4.4 (page unavailable) says sampling depths vary between countries and points to reviews that compare monitoring methods. It does not say that review papers report depth inconsistently, or that combining incomparable sequestration rates contributes to discrepancies between global estimates. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Cochran, W.G., 1977. Sampling techniques. Wiley, New York, third edition.
  2. de Bakker, H., Schelling, J., 1989. Systeem van bodemclassificatie voor Nederland. De hogere niveaus, Second, revised edition. Pudoc, Wageningen.
  3. de Gruijter, J.J., Brus, D.J., Bierkens, M.F.P., Knotters, M., 2006. Sampling for Natural Resource Monitoring. Springer, Berlin. European Union, 2013a. Decision no 529/2013/eu of the European parliament and of the council of 21 may 2013 on accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities. European Union, 2013b. Regulation (eu) no 525/2013 of the European parliament and of the council of 21 may 2013 on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and union level relevant to climate change and repealing decision no 280/2004/ec.
  4. European Union, 2018. Regulation (eu) 2018/841 of the European parliament and of the council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending regulation (eu) no 525/2013 and decision no 529/2013/ eu. FAO, 2018. Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems -Guidelines for assessment (Draft for public review). Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  5. Fernández-Ugalde, O., Orgiazzi, A., Jones, A., Lugato, E., Panagos, P., 2017. In: LUCAS 2018 -SOIL COMPONENT: sampling instructions for surveyors. Techreport EUR 28501 EN. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/023673. · DOI
  6. Gubler, A., Wächter, D., Schwab, P., Müller, M., Keller, A., 2019. Twenty-five years of observations of soil organic carbon in Swiss croplands showing stability overall but with some divergent trends. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191-277. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10661-019-7435-y. · DOI
  7. Hanegraaf, M.C., Hoffland, E., Kuikman, P.J., Brussaard, L., 2009. Trends in soil organic matter contents in Dutch grasslands and maize fields on sandy soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60, 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01115.x. · DOI
  8. Hoogland, T., van den Akker, J., Brus, D., 2012. Modeling the subsidence of peat soils in the Dutch coastal area. Geoderma, 171-172:92-97. Entering the Digital Era: Special Issue of Pedometrics 2009, Beijing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.02.01 · DOI
  9. ISO, 1995. ISO 10694 Soil quality -Determination of organic and total carbon after dry combustion (elementary analysis). Available at www.nen.nl. · DOI
  10. Lettens, S., Van Orshoven, J., Van Wesemael, B., De Vos, B., Muys, B., 2005. Stocks and fluxes of soil organic carbon for landscape units in Belgium derived from heterogeneous data sets for 1990 and 2000. Geoderma 127, 11-23. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.11.001. · DOI
  11. Lettens, S., Van Orshoven, J., Van Wesemael, B., Muys, B., 2004. Soil organic and inorganic carbon contents of landscape units in Belgium derived using data from 1950 to 1970. Soil Use Manage. 20, 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1079/SUM2003221. · DOI
  12. Olsson, M., 2005. Soil resources of Europe. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, EUR 20559 EN., chapter Soil survey in Sweden, 2nd edition. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 357-363.
  13. Poeplau, C., Bolinder, M.A., Eriksson, J., Lundblad, M., Kätterer, T., 2015. Positive trends in organic carbon storage in Swedish agricultural soils due to unexpected socio- economic drivers. Biogeosciences 12, 3241-3251. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12- 3241-2015. · DOI
  14. Pribyl, D.W., 2010. A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma 156, 75-83.
  15. Reijneveld, A., van Wensem, J., Oenema, O., 2009. Soil organic carbon contents of agricultural land in the Netherlands between 1984 and 2004. Geoderma 152, 231-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.06.007. · DOI
  16. Reijneveld, J.A., van Oostrum, M.J., Brolsma, K.M., Fletcher, D., Oenema, O., 2022. Empower innovations in routine soil testing. Agronomy 12 (191), 1-20. https://doi. org/10.3390/agronomy12010191. · DOI
  17. Rosell, R.A., Casparoni, J.C., Galantini, J.A., 2001. Assessment methods for soil carbon., chapter Soil organic matter evaluation. In: Advances in Soil Sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Boston, pp. 311-322.
  18. Schipper, L.A., Parfitt, R.L., Fraser, S., Littler, R.A., Baisden, W.T., Ross, C., 2014. Soil order and grazing management effects on changes in soil C and N in New Zealand pastures. Agricul., Ecosyst. Environ. 184, 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2013.11.012. · DOI
  19. Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E.D., Kaiser, K., Schumacher, J., 2011. How accurately can soil organic carbon stocks and stock changes be quantified by soil inventories? Biogeosciences 8, 1193-1212. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1193-2011. · DOI
  20. Sleutel, S., De Neve, S., Singier, B., Hofman, G., 2006. Organic C levels in intensively managed arable soils -long-term regional trends and characterization of fractions. Soil Use Manage. 22, 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00019.x. · DOI
  21. Smith, P., Soussana, J.-F., Angers, D., Schipper, L., Chenu, C., Rasse, D.P., Batjes, N.H., van Egmond, F., McNeill, S., Kuhnert, M., Arias-Navarro, C., Olesen, J.E., Chirinda, N., Fornara, D., Wollenberg, E., Álvaro-Fuentes, Sanz-Cobena, Klumpp, K., 2019. A How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse removal. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 219-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815. · DOI
  22. Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., Olesen, J.E., Kristensen, K., Elsgaard, L., Østergaard, H.S., Lægdsmand, M., Greve, M.H., Christensen, B.T., 2014. Changes in carbon stocks of Danish agricultural mineral soils between 1986 and 2009. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65, 730-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12169. · DOI
  23. Teng, Y., Wu, J., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Jiao, X., Song, L., 2014. Soil and environmental quality monitoring in China: a review. Environ. Int. 69, 177-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envint.2014.04.014. · DOI
  24. Wösten, J.H.M., 1997. Bodemkundige vertaalfuncties bij SC-DLO; state of the art/ Pedotransfer functions at SC-DLO; state of the art (in Dutch). Rapport 563, DLO- Staring Centrum, Wageningen, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815. · DOI
  25. Wösten, J.H.M., Pachepsky, Y.A., Rawls, W.J., 2001. Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics. J. Hydrol. 251, 123-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000581. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knotters, M., Teuling, K., Reijneveld, A., Lesschen, J. P., & Kuikman, P.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Eurofins (Netherlands) (NL)
Corresponding author
Knotters, Martin
Venue
Geoderma
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
414
Pages
115751
ISSN
0016-7061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4213044138
Cited by
38
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geoderma (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (BO-53–002-001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
soil organic matter, soil organic carbon stocks, long-term soil monitoring, soil bulk density, positional error, soil depth stratification, agricultural soils, grassland soils, mineral soils, soil carbon change, Netherlands

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