Cited by 1,273Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsClimate Change Policy and EconomicsLand Use and Ecosystem Services

The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions

Open access
Bossio, D. A., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., Wood, S., Zomer, R. J. +3 more·2020·Nature Sustainability

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/s41893-020-0491-z

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • Proven and cost-effective methods exist that can be implemented now to increase the soil carbon content of agricultural soils without compromising productivity and food security.

    “Proven and cost-effective methods exist that can be implemented now to increase the soil carbon content of agricultural soils without compromising productivity and food security (40).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Status of soil carbon as a climate solution section (page unavailable) describes soil-carbon practices as generally beneficial and readily deployable without additional land, while Soil contribution to Natural Climate Solution Pathways (page unavailable) identifies substantial cost-effective potential and possible productivity benefits. The paper does not establish that the methods can be implemented without compromising productivity or food security in all cases; it treats food security as a reason to exclude croplands from its reforestation pathway. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bossio et al. (2020) found a global technical SOC sequestration potential of 3.3 Gt CO2 year-1, far less than previous estimates which did not constrain the available land area.

    “The authors found a global technical SOC sequestration potential of 3.3 Gt CO 2 year -1 , far less than previous estimates which did not constrain the available land area (Fuss et al., 2018), and with greater recognition of the need to use multiple solutions and address multiple objectives concurrently.”

    From Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon (2023) · cites this paper as Bossio et al. (2020)

    In ‘Soil contribution to Natural Climate Solution Pathways’ (page unavailable), Bossio et al. report 5.5 Gt CO2e per year of soil-carbon mitigation, including 2.2 Gt from avoidable losses; subtracting those losses yields 3.3 Gt for the remaining potential, though the paper does not state that figure directly. ‘Soil science knowledge gaps’ (page unavailable) says its sequestration estimates are lower than Fuss et al.’s, but attributes unconstrained cropland-area availability to Zomer et al., not Fuss et al. The claim conflates those two comparisons. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The more realistic estimate from Bossio et al. (2020) represents 1.2-4.2 years of global emissions.

    “The more realistic estimate from Bossio et al. (2020 ) represents 1.2-­ 4.2 years of global emissions.”

    From Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon (2023) · cites this paper as Bossio et al. (2020)

    The ‘Status of soil carbon as a climate solution’ section reports a global soil-carbon sequestration potential of 2–5 Gt CO₂ per year, so Bossio et al. do provide a relevant estimate. Our copy does not express that estimate as 1.2–4.2 years of global emissions or provide the comparison needed to verify that range; searches for the range and for years-of-emissions comparisons found no such passage. The indexed passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies assume a constant sequestration rate over the defined time period required to reach a new equilibrium.

    “Most studies, however, with one notable exception (namely, Sommer & Bossio, 2014), assume a constant sequestration rate over the defined time period required to reach a new equilibrium (Bossio et al., 2020; Fuss et al., 2018).”

    From Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon (2023) · cites this paper as Bossio et al., 2020

    In “Status of soil carbon as a climate solution” (page unavailable), the paper says sequestration rates generally decline after some decades before reaching a new steady state. In “Estimating soil carbon mitigation potential in NCS pathways” (page unavailable), it uses average annual rates for some estimates, but it does not say that most studies assume a constant rate until equilibrium or identify the stated exception. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The large historic loss of soil carbon implies that agricultural systems have a significant capacity to take up CO2 from the atmosphere and to store it in the form of soil carbon with a wide range of co-benefits in addition to climate change mitigation.

    “However, the large historic loss of soil carbon implies that agricultural systems have a significant capacity to take up CO 2 from the atmosphere and to store it in the form of soil carbon with a wide range of co-benefits in addition to climate change mitigation (40).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

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: 2

  1. de Coninck, H. et al. Chapter 4: Strengthening and implementing the global response. In: Global Warming of 1.5 °C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018).
  2. Chendev, Y.G., et al. Evolution of Soil Carbon Storage and Morphometric Properties of Afforested Soils in the U.S. Great Plains. Soil Carbon Progress in Soil Science, eds. Hartemink AE, McSweeney K (Springer International Publishing, Cham), pp 475-482 (2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bossio, D. A., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., Wood, S., Zomer, R. J., von Unger, M., Emmer, I. M., & Griscom, B. W.
Affiliations
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • Woodwell Climate Research Center (US)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Kunming Institute of Botany (CN)
  • Silvestrum Climate Associates (US)
  • Conservation International (US)
Corresponding author
Bossio, D. A.
Venue
Nature Sustainability
Published
2020-03-16
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
391-398
ISSN
2398-9629 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3011738444
Cited by
1,273
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 185 · 2025: 246 · 2024: 196 · 2023: 388 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 20 · 2013: 1
FWCI
106.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Sustainability (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/M021327/1, NE/P019455/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
soil carbon, natural climate solutions, soil carbon sequestration, carbon sink, climate change mitigation, soil carbon protection, wetlands, forests, grassland, ecosystem services, carbon dioxide removal

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