Cited by 82Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Geostatistics and MappingSoil erosion and sediment transport

A simple soil mass correction for a more accurate determination of soil carbon stock changes

Open access
Fowler, Ames F., Basso, Bruno, Millar, Neville, Brinton, William F.·2023·Scientific Reports

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Agricultural soils can act as a sink for large quantities of soil organic carbon (SOC) but can also be sources of carbon to the atmosphere. The international standard for assessing SOC stock and measuring stock change stipulates fixed depth sampling to at least 30 cm. The tendency of bulk density (BD) to decrease with decreasing disturbance and increasing SOC concentration and the assumption of constant SOC and BD within this depth profile promotes error in the estimates of SOC stock. A hypothetical but realistic change in BD from 1.5 to 1.1 g cm −3 from successive fixed depth sampling to 30 cm underestimates SOC stock change by 17%. Significant effort has been made to evaluate and reduce this fixed depth error by using the equivalent soil mass (ESM) approach, but with limited adoption. We evaluate the error in SOC stock assessment and change generated from fixed depth measurements over time relative to the ESM approach and propose a correction that can be readily adopted under current sampling and analytical methods. Our approach provides a more accurate estimate of SOC stock accumulation or loss that will help incentivize management practice changes that reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture and further legitimize the accounting practices used by the emerging carbon market and organizations that have pledged to reduce their supply chain greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-023-29289-2

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • To address these issues, we applied improved analytical methods, compared SOC stocks using equivalent soil mass to correct for temporal BD differences, and benchmarked AMP pastures against a non-grazed reference area.

    “To address these issues, we applied improved analytical methods, compared SOC stocks using equivalent soil mass to correct for temporal BD differences (Fowler et al., 2023), and benchmarked AMP pastures against a non-grazed reference area (Fig. A.7;Table A.10).”

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: 30

  1. [1]IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)) (2019) doi:10.1017/9781009157988.001. · DOI
  2. [2]Lal R Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security Science 2004 304 1623 1627 10.1126/science.1097396 15192216 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Wiese L Countries’ commitments to soil organic carbon in Nationally Determined Contributions Clim. Policy 2021 21 1005 1019 10.1080/14693062.2021.1969883 · DOI
  4. [4]Oldfield EE Crediting agricultural soil carbon sequestration Science 2022 375 1222 1225 10.1126/science.abl7991 35298251 · DOI
  5. [6]Smith P How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal Glob. Chang Biol. 2020 26 219 241 10.1111/gcb.14815 31469216 PMC6973036 · DOI
  6. [8]Spertus JV Spertus JV Optimal sampling and assay for estimating soil organic carbon Open J. Soil Sci. 2021 11 93 121 10.4236/ojss.2021.112006 · DOI
  7. [11]Lark RM Some considerations on aggregate sample supports for soil inventory and monitoring Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2012 63 86 95 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01415.x · DOI
  8. [12]Goidts E van Wesemael B Crucifix M Magnitude and sources of uncertainties in soil organic carbon (SOC) stock assessments at various scales Eur. J. Soil. Sci. 2009 60 723 739 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01157.x · DOI
  9. [14]de Lima RP Keller T Impact of sample dimensions, soil-cylinder wall friction and elastic properties of soil on stress field and bulk density in uniaxial compression tests Soil Tillage Res. 2019 189 15 24 10.1016/j.still.2018.12.021 · DOI
  10. [15]Walter K Don A Tiemeyer B Freibauer A Determining soil bulk density for carbon stock calculations: A systematic method comparison Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016 80 579 591 10.2136/sssaj2015.11.0407 · DOI
  11. [16]Zhou W How does uncertainty of soil organic carbon stock affect the calculation of carbon budgets and soil carbon credits for croplands in the US Midwest? Geoderma 2023 429 116254 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116254 · DOI
  12. [17]de Gruijter JJ Bierkens MFP Brus DJ Knotters M Sampling for natural resource monitoring Sampl. Nat. Resour. Monit. 2006 10.1007/3-540-33161-1 · DOI
  13. [19]Brus DJ Noij IGAM Designing sampling schemes for effect monitoring of nutrient leaching from agricultural soils Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2008 59 292 303 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00996.x · DOI
  14. [20]Rovira P Sauras-Yera T Romanyà J Equivalent-mass versus fixed-depth as criteria for quantifying soil carbon sequestration: How relevant is the difference? Catena (Amst) 2022 214 106283 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106283 · DOI
  15. [24]Celik I Gunal H Budak M Akpinar C Effects of long-term organic and mineral fertilizers on bulk density and penetration resistance in semi-arid Mediterranean soil conditions Geoderma 2010 160 236 243 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.09.028 · DOI
  16. [25]Gál A Vyn TJ Michéli E Kladivko EJ McFee WW Soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation with long-term no-till versus moldboard plowing overestimated with tilled-zone sampling depths Soil Tillage Res. 2007 96 42 51 10.1016/j.still.2007.02.007 · DOI
  17. [26]Wendt JW Hauser S An equivalent soil mass procedure for monitoring soil organic carbon in multiple soil layers Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2013 64 58 65 10.1111/ejss.12002 · DOI
  18. [27]Lee J Hopmans JW Rolston DE Baer SG Six J Determining soil carbon stock changes: Simple bulk density corrections fail Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009 134 251 256 10.1016/j.agee.2009.07.006 · DOI
  19. [28]McBratney AB Minasny B Comment on “Determining soil carbon stock changes: Simple bulk density corrections fail” [Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 134 (2009) 251–256] Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010 136 185 186 10.1016/j.agee.2009.12.010 · DOI
  20. [29]Gifford RM Roderick ML Soil carbon stocks and bulk density: Spatial or cumulative mass coordinates as a basis of expression? Glob. Chang Biol. 2003 9 1507 1514 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00677.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. [30]Pribyl DW A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor Geoderma 2010 156 75 83 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.02.003 · DOI
  22. [31]Minasny B McBratney AB Wadoux AMJC Akoeb EN Sabrina T Precocious 19th century soil carbon science Geoderma Reg. 2020 22 e00306 10.1016/j.geodrs.2020.e00306 · DOI
  23. [32]Rovira P Sauras T Salgado J Merino A Towards sound comparisons of soil carbon stocks: A proposal based on the cumulative coordinates approach Catena (Amst) 2015 133 420 431 10.1016/j.catena.2015.05.020 · DOI
  24. [33]Sollins P Gregg JW Soil organic matter accumulation in relation to changing soil volume, mass, and structure: Concepts and calculations Geoderma 2017 301 60 71 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.04.013 · DOI
  25. [34]von Haden AC Yang WH DeLucia EH Soils’ dirty little secret: Depth-based comparisons can be inadequate for quantifying changes in soil organic carbon and other mineral soil properties Glob. Chang Biol. 2020 26 3759 3770 10.1111/gcb.15124 32307802 · DOI
  26. [36]Jobbágy EG Jackson RB The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation Ecol. Appl. 2000 10 423 436 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  27. [37]Hobley EU Wilson B The depth distribution of organic carbon in the soils of eastern Australia Ecosphere 2016 7 e01214 10.1002/ecs2.1214 · DOI
  28. [38]Heuscher, S. A., Brandt, C. C. & Jardine, P. M. using soil physical and chemical properties to estimate bulk density. 10.2136/sssaj2005.0051a. · DOI
  29. [39]Zinke, P. J., Stangenberger, A. G., Post, W. M., Emanuel, W. R. & Olson, J. S. Worldwide organic soil carbon and nitrogen data (1986) (NDP-018). (1986). 10.3334/CDIAC/LUE.NDP018. · DOI
  30. [40]Crespo C Effect of the intensification of cropping sequences on soil organic carbon and its stratification ratio in contrasting environments Catena (Amst) 2021 200 105145 10.1016/j.catena.2021.105145 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fowler, A. F., Basso, B., Millar, N., & Brinton, W. F.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Maine (US)
Corresponding author
Basso, Bruno
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2023-02-08
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
2242-2242
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319596298
Cited by
82
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 5
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NR213A750013G00)
  • Risk Management Agency (FBC21CPT0011802)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FC02-07ER64494)
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2020-67021-32799)
  • AgBioResearch, Michigan State University
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 carbon, bulk density, soil depth distribution, carbon accounting, emissions trading, agricultural soils, greenhouse gas footprint, soil disturbance

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