Cited by 71Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Geostatistics and MappingSoil erosion and sediment transport

Comparison of approaches for estimating carbon sequestration at the regional scale

Falloon, P., Smith, P., Szabó, J., Pásztor, L.·2002·Soil Use and Management

Abstract

Abstract. Many former estimates of regional scale C sequestration potential have made use of linear regressions based on long‐term experimental data, whilst some have used dynamic soil organic matter (SOM) models linked to spatial databases. Few studies have compared the two methods. We present a case study in which the potential of different land management practices to sequester carbon in soil in arable land is estimated by different methods. Two dynamic SOM models were chosen for this study, RothC (a soil process model) and CENTURY (a whole ecosystem model with a SOM module). RothC and CENTURY are the two most widely used and validated SOM models worldwide. A Geographic Information System (GIS) containing soil, land use and climate layers, was assembled for a case study in central Hungary. GIS interfaces were developed for the RothC and CENTURY models, thus linking them to the spatial datasets at the regional level. This allowed a comparison of estimates of the C sequestration potential of different land management practices obtained using the two models and using regression based approaches. Although estimates obtained by the different approaches were of the same order of magnitude, differences were observed. Some of the land management scenarios studied here showed sufficient C mitigation potential to meet Hungarian CO 2 reduction commitments. For example, afforestation of 12% current arable land could sequester 0.042–0.092 Tg yr –1 in the soil alone, or 0.285–0.588 Tg C yr –1 in both soil and biomass; 1990 level CO 2 emissions for the study area were 4.7 Tg C with a corresponding reduction commitment of 0.282 Tg C. It is not, however, suggested that this is the only, or the most favourable way, in which to meet the commitments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00236.x

Cites

30 of 30 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Falloon, P., Smith, P., Szabó, J., & Pásztor, L.
Affiliations
  • Rothamsted Research (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HU)
Corresponding author
Falloon, P.
Venue
Soil Use and Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-09
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
164-174
ISSN
  • 0266-0032 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2743
OpenAlex
W2105722089
Cited by
71
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Use and Management (publishedVersion)
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 sequestration, RothC, CENTURY model, land management practices, arable land, afforestation, Central Hungary

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