Cited by 221Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Geostatistics and MappingSoil erosion and sediment transport

Soil carbon stocks and bulk density: spatial or cumulative mass coordinates as a basis of expression?

Gifford, Roger M., Roderick, Michael L.·2003·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Accounting for CO2 fluxes by determining changes in stocks of soil carbon (C) as a result of land use change is an option for complying nations under the Kyoto Protocol. The 1996 IPCC guidelines for C accounting recommend that soil C stocks to a depth of 30 cm be used in such accounting. However, the soil bulk density often changes with land use and the soil C per unit ground area to a fixed depth will also change even without any change in the mass fraction of C in dry soil. This problem will generally arise when soil C accounting is taken to a fixed depth (i.e. uses ‘spatial coordinates’). For accuracy in determining the land use change effects on soil C, soil sampling should be referred to a fixed dry soil mass per unit ground area (i.e. use ‘cumulative mass coordinates’). There has been intermittent literature‐discussion about this issue over several decades. Methods to accomplish C accounting on a mass coordinate basis, none of them accurate or efficient, have been suggested. Here, we propose a simple, accurate methodology for determining soil C stocks using cumulative mass coordinates, which does not involve repeat sampling trips, nominal specification of the location of boundaries between soil horizons, or independent sampling for determining soil bulk densities. Each core is taken a little (say 10 cm) below the nominal mass/depth required and the retrieved core is sliced into two at a point a little above the nominal mass/depth (say 10 cm above). An accurate determina…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00677.x

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Converting all SOC stocks to an equivalent mass basis minimizes any potential difference in SOC stocks due to differences in sampling volume to a fixed depth.

    “In order to minimize any potential difference in SOC stocks due to differences in sampling volume to a fixed depth, we converted all SOC stocks to an equivalent mass basis (SOCeq) [51].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gifford, R. M., & Roderick, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Gifford, Roger M.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-10-09
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
1507-1514
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2099534745
Cited by
221
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Global Change Biology (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 › Environmental Engineering › Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
soil carbon stocks, soil bulk density, spatial coordinates, land use change, carbon accounting, Kyoto Protocol, IPCC guidelines, linear interpolation, soil depth

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