Cited by 43Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil erosion and sediment transportLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Modeling the impact of agricultural land use and management on US carbon budgets

Open access
Drewniak, B. A., Mishra, U., Song, J., Prell, J., Kotamarthi, V. R.·2015·Biogeosciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract. Cultivation of the terrestrial land surface can create either a source or sink of atmospheric CO2, depending on land management practices. The Community Land Model (CLM) provides a useful tool for exploring how land use and management impact the soil carbon pool at regional to global scales. CLM was recently updated to include representation of managed lands growing maize, soybean, and spring wheat. In this study, CLM-Crop is used to investigate the impacts of various management practices, including fertilizer use and differential rates of crop residue removal, on the soil organic carbon (SOC) storage of croplands in the continental United States over approximately a 170-year period. Results indicate that total US SOC stocks have already lost over 8 Pg C (10%) due to land cultivation practices (e.g., fertilizer application, cultivar choice, and residue removal), compared to a land surface composed of native vegetation (i.e., grasslands). After long periods of cultivation, individual subgrids (the equivalent of a field plot) growing maize and soybean lost up to 65% of the carbon stored compared to a grassland site. Crop residue management showed the greatest effect on soil carbon storage, with low and medium residue returns resulting in additional losses of 5 and 3.5%, respectively, in US carbon storage, while plots with high residue returns stored 2% more carbon. Nitrogenous fertilizer can alter the amount of soil carbon stocks significantly. Under current levels of crop residue return, not applying fertilizer resulted in a 5% loss of soil carbon. Our simulations indicate that disturbance through cultivation will always result in a loss of soil carbon, and management practices will have a large influence on the magnitude of SOC loss.

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 · 10.5194/bg-12-2119-2015

Cites

66 of 66 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?

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

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Drewniak, B. A., Mishra, U., Song, J., Prell, J., & Kotamarthi, V. R.
Affiliations
  • Argonne National Laboratory (US)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
Venue
Biogeosciences
Published
2015-04-09
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
2119-2129
ISSN
  • 1726-4170 (ISSN-L)
  • 1726-4189
OpenAlex
W2004025702
Cited by
43
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biogeosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Office of Science (DE-AC02-06CH11357)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
soil organic carbon, agricultural land use, land management practices, crop residue management, nitrogen fertilization, maize, soybean, spring wheat, Community Land Model, carbon balance, grassland conversion, soil carbon stocks, continental United States

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