Cited by 245Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Geostatistics and MappingSoil erosion and sediment transport

Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process‐based model

Open access
OGLE, STEPHEN M., BREIDT, F. JAY, EASTER, MARK, WILLIAMS, STEVE, KILLIAN, KENDRICK, PAUSTIAN, KEITH·2010·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Process‐based model analyses are often used to estimate changes in soil organic carbon (SOC), particularly at regional to continental scales. However, uncertainties are rarely evaluated, and so it is difficult to determine how much confidence can be placed in the results. Our objective was to quantify uncertainties across multiple scales in a process‐based model analysis, and provide 95% confidence intervals for the estimates. Specifically, we used the Century ecosystem model to estimate changes in SOC stocks for US croplands during the 1990s, addressing uncertainties in model inputs, structure and scaling of results from point locations to regions and the entire country. Overall, SOC stocks increased in US croplands by 14.6 Tg C yr−1 from 1990 to 1995 and 17.5 Tg C yr−1 during 1995 to 2000, and uncertainties were ±22% and ±16% for the two time periods, respectively. Uncertainties were inversely related to spatial scale, with median uncertainties at the regional scale estimated at ±118% and ±114% during the early and latter part of 1990s, and even higher at the site scale with estimates at ±739% and ±674% for the time periods, respectively. This relationship appeared to be driven by the amount of the SOC stock change; changes in stocks that exceeded 200 Gg C yr−1 represented a threshold where uncertainties were always lower than ±100%. Consequently, the amount of uncertainty in estimates derived from process‐based models will partly depend on the level of SOC accumulation or loss. In general, the majority of uncertainty was associated with model structure in this application, and so attaining higher levels of precision in the estimates will largely depend on improving the model algorithms and parameterization, as well as increasing the number of measurement sites used to evaluate the structural uncertainty.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01951.x

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Even with limitations in process-based understanding, process-based models are likely to provide the most robust framework for estimating soil C stock and GHG flux changes in climate smart agriculture programs.

    “Even with the limitations in process-based understanding, process-based models are likely to provide the most robust framework for estimating soil C stock and GHG flux changes in climate smart agriculture programs 77”

    From Climate-smart soils (2016) · cites this paper as [77]

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: 5

  1. Daly C, Neilson RP, Phillips DL (1994) A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 33, 140- 158.
  2. IPCC (2006b) Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land Use Categories. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume IV, Chapter 2, (eds
  3. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K), pp. 2.1-2.
  4. IPCC (2006c) Cropland. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume IV, Chapter 5, (eds
  5. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K), pp. 5.1-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
OGLE, S. M., BREIDT, F. J., EASTER, M., WILLIAMS, S., KILLIAN, K., & PAUSTIAN, K.
Affiliations
Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
OGLE, STEPHEN M.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01-04
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
810-822
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2012503797
Cited by
245
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 14
FWCI
20.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Global Change Biology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNG05GL07G)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2001-38700-11092)
  • Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
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, cropland, CENTURY model, uncertainty quantification, spatial scale, structural uncertainty, model input data, carbon accumulation

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