Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling carbon dynamics in vegetation and soil under the impact of soil erosion and deposition

Liu, Shuguang, Bliss, Norman, Sundquist, Eric, Huntington, Thomas G.·2003·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

Soil erosion and deposition may play important roles in balancing the global atmospheric carbon budget through their impacts on the net exchange of carbon between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. Few models and studies have been designed to assess these impacts. In this study, we developed a general ecosystem model, Erosion‐Deposition‐Carbon‐Model (EDCM), to dynamically simulate the influences of rainfall‐induced soil erosion and deposition on soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics in soil profiles. EDCM was applied to several landscape positions in the Nelson Farm watershed in Mississippi, including ridge top (without erosion or deposition), eroding hillslopes, and depositional sites that had been converted from native forests to croplands in 1870. Erosion reduced the SOC storage at the eroding sites and deposition increased the SOC storage at the depositional areas compared with the site without erosion or deposition. Results indicated that soils were consistently carbon sources to the atmosphere at all landscape positions from 1870 to 1950, with lowest source strength at the eroding sites (13 to 24 gC m−2 yr−1), intermediate at the ridge top (34 gC m−2 yr−1), and highest at the depositional sites (42 to 49 gC m−2 yr−1). During this period, erosion reduced carbon emissions via dynamically replacing surface soil with subsurface soil that had lower SOC contents (quantity change) and higher passive SOC fractions (quality change). Soils at all landscape positions became carbon sinks from 1950 to 1997 due to changes in management practices (e.g., intensification of fertilization and crop genetic improvement). The sink strengths were highest at the eroding sites (42 to 44 gC m−2 yr−1), intermediate at the ridge top (35 gC m−2 yr−1), and lowest at the depositional sites (26 to 29 gC m−2 yr−1). During this period, erosion enhanced carbon uptake at the eroding sites by continuously taking away a fraction of SOC that can be replenished with enhanced plant residue input. Overall, soil erosion and deposition reduced CO 2 emissions from the soil into the atmosphere by exposing low carbon‐bearing soil at eroding sites and by burying SOC at depositional sites. The results suggest that failing to account for the impact of soil erosion and deposition may potentially contribute to an overestimation of both the total historical carbon released from soils owing to land use change and the contemporary carbon sequestration rates at the eroding sites.

Overview

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 · 10.1029/2002gb002010

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Liu, S., Bliss, N., Sundquist, E., & Huntington, T. G.
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2003-06
Volume
17
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W1624044426
Cited by
269
References
63
FWCI
14.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modeling carbon dynamics in vegetation and soil under the impact of soil erosion and deposition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2002gb002010
The paper
Liu, S., Bliss, N., Sundquist, E., & Huntington, T. G. (2003). Modeling carbon dynamics in vegetation and soil under the impact of soil erosion and deposition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002gb002010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.