CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsForest ecology and managementForest Management and Policy

Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C accounting model (CAMFor) to models of forest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC)

Paul, K.I, Polglase, P.J, Richards, G.P·2003·Forest Ecology and Management
DOI 10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00454-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A complete carbon (C) accounting model for forest systems, GRC3, links a C tracking model (CAMFor) with independently verified models of forest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC). GRC3 was tested in seven regional case studies of eucalypt or Pinus radiata plantations in Australia to predict rates of change in soil C after afforestation and to determine controlling factors. The model was calibrated as far as possible to above-ground growth of plantations, litterfall, accumulation of litter and in some cases root biomass, and was then run to determine expected change in soil C. Between 0 and 10 years soil C was predicted to decrease by an average of 1.7% per year (0.79 t C ha−1 per year) and between 10 and 40 years it was predicted to increase by 0.82% per year (0.46 t C ha−1 per year). The mean rate of change after 40 years was 0.09% per year (0.06 t C ha−1 per year). These values and pattern of change were consistent with a recent review of the global literature of change in soil C after afforestation [For. Ecol. Manage. (2002a)]. Modelling analyses suggests the main reasons for this pattern are: (i) initially, there are limited inputs of C to soil as plantation net primary production (NPP) is small and goes to building biomass. Residues from the previous crop decompose leading to net loss of C unless a groundcover (intercrop or weeds) is maintained in the inter-rows, (ii) much of the plantation NPP is allocated to long-lived woody components (stems, branches, and coarse roots), which are temporarily or permanently (by harvesting) removed from the soil C cycle, and (iii) as the stand develops, inputs from the more lignified, resistant material increases. The amount of input may be less under plantation than pasture but the quality of residues is the over-riding factor and in the long-term soil C accumulates. Actual trends in soil C may vary according to site and management conditions, but the main controlling factors will be different between pasture and plantation in the amount and allocation of NPP, and the quantity and quality of residue inputs to soil. Sensitivity (Monte Carlo) analyses showed that model parameters and processes for which it will be important to have good estimates include the amount of NPP and its allocation to various plant components, rate constants for decomposition of litter and root residues, the proportion of C lost to respiration during decomposition of litter and soil C, and rate constants for humification (the proportion of decomposing above-ground litter that is transferred to soil). Changes in soil C were small compared with other forest pools and fluxes—after 40 years of afforestation less than 3% of the cumulative NPP was predicted to accumulate in soil. It is debatable whether it will be feasible or cost-effective to directly measure change in soil C over short-time frames (such as 5 years) for the purpose of claiming C credits under an emissions trading scheme. Modelling provides a useful alternative and at the very least can be used to identify sites and time frames where investment in soil C measurement may be warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00454-1

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Previous work showed that the C cycle in forest systems needed a chemical model for litter decomposition to integrate RothC with plant residues.

    “However, previous work [168] showed that the C cycle in forest systems needed a chemical model for litter decomposition to integrate RothC with plant residues.”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [168]

  • Not only yield but harvest management, such as removal of residues in Miscanthus, would affect SOC through the input rate of surface litter.

    “Figure 5a clearly implies that not only yield but harvest management (e.g. removal of residues in Miscanthus) would affect SOC through the input rate of surface litter which is an important input of ecosystem models [151, 168] and LCA for energy crops [177].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [168]

  • C turnover derived from laboratory incubation of soil and residues overestimates those in undisturbed, natural systems.

    “Further, C turnover derived from laboratory incubation of soil and residues overestimate those in undisturbed, natural systems [168, 171, 172]).”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [168]

  • Limitations of process-based models become more apparent at larger scales regarding soil depth, temporal resolution, and surface litter decomposition.

    “However, the limitations of process-based models become more apparent when simulating at larger scales with regard to their limits to consider the effect of soil depth [168], adequate temporal resolution [171] and surface litter decomposition [173, 174].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [168]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Paul, K. I., Polglase, P. J., & Richards, G. P.
Affiliations
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Australian Government (AU)
Corresponding author
Paul, K.I
ORCID
Paul, K.I
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-04
Volume
177
Issue
1-3
Pages
485-501
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0378-1127(02)00454-1
OpenAlex
W2172003209
Cited by
158
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
19.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
soil carbon change, afforestation, reforestation, forest plantations, Pinus radiata, eucalyptus plantations, litter decomposition, soil carbon turnover, net primary productivity, residue quality, ground cover, carbon sequestration, Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis

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