Articles | Volume 21, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4301-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4301-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
02 Oct 2024
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 02 Oct 2024
| 02 Oct 2024
The effects of land use on soil carbon stocks in the UK
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK
Laura Bentley
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Peter Danks
Reading Agricultural Consultants, Beechwood Court, Long Toll, Woodcote, Reading, RG8 0RR, UK
Bridget Emmett
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Angus Garbutt
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Stephen Heming
Reading Agricultural Consultants, Beechwood Court, Long Toll, Woodcote, Reading, RG8 0RR, UK
Peter Henrys
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP, UK
Aidan Keith
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP, UK
Inma Lebron
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Niall McNamara
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP, UK
Richard Pywell
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK
John Redhead
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK
David Robinson
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Alexander Wickenden
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK
Related authors
Alice Emily Ramsden, Anita Ganesan, Matthew Rigby, Chris Rennick, Tim Arnold, Emmal Safi, Edward Chung, Dafina Kikaj, Cameron Yeo, Dave Lowry, Pete Levy, Simon O'Doherty, Kieran Stanley, Dickon Young, Joe Pitt, Damien Martin, Morgan Lopez, Michel Ramonet, Grant Forster, Arnoud Frumau, and Alistair Manning
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-779, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-779, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Methane is emitted from a range of anthropogenic and natural sources, each with a characteristic isotope ratio signature. We present a method for estimating emissions from multiple sources using isotopic signatures and observations of atmospheric methane isotope ratios. We show the importance of considering isotopic signature uncertainty and demonstrate how our current understanding of these signatures may be limiting this method’s ability to reduce uncertainties in emissions estimates.
Galina Y. Toteva, David Reay, Matthew Jones, Ajinkya Deshpande, Nicholas Cowan, Peter Levy, Duncan Harvey, Agata Iwanicka, and Julia Drewer
Biogeosciences, 22, 7829–7844, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7829-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7829-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The impacts of increasing nitrogen deposition on the fluxes of nitrous oxide from a temperate birch forest were investigated in-situ and ex-situ. Nitrogen levels had a limited effect on emissions. Instead, emissions of nitrous oxide were modulated by soil carbon availability and meeting a dual temperature-moisture threshold. An implication of these findings is that forests could be used for mitigating nitrogen pollution without incurring a greenhouse gas penalty, at least in the short term.
Peter E. Levy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4765, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Eddy covariance is the state-of-the-art technique for measuring fluxes of energy and gases between the land surface and the atmosphere. However, quantifying the uncertainty in the results is difficult and usually treated simplistically or avoided completely. Here we use a Bayesian approach, in which the uncertainty is correctly represented. The approach produce estimates of the fluxes, (e.g. the long-term net carbon balance), in the form of posterior probability distributions.
Nicholas Cowan, Toby Roberts, Mark Hanlon, Aurelia Bezanger, Galina Toteva, Alex Tweedie, Karen Yeung, Ajinkya Deshpande, Peter Levy, Ute Skiba, Eiko Nemitz, and Julia Drewer
Biogeosciences, 22, 3449–3461, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3449-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3449-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We measured soil hydrogen (H2) fluxes from two field sites, a managed grassland and a planted deciduous woodland, with flux measurements of H2 covering full seasonal cycles. We estimate annual H2 uptake of −3.1 ± 0.1 and −12.0 ± 0.4 kg H2 ha−1 yr−1 for the grassland and woodland sites, respectively. Soil moisture was found to be the primary driver of H2 uptake, with the silt/clay content of the soils providing a physical barrier which limited H2 uptake.
Peter E. Levy and the COSMOS-UK team
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4819–4836, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4819-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4819-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Having accurate up-to-date maps of soil moisture is important for many purposes. However, current modelled and remotely sensed maps are rather coarse and not very accurate. Here, we demonstrate a simple but accurate approach that is closely linked to direct measurements of soil moisture at a network sites across the UK, to the water balance (precipitation minus drainage and evaporation) measured at a large number of catchments (1212) and to remotely sensed satellite estimates.
Hannah Chawner, Eric Saboya, Karina E. Adcock, Tim Arnold, Yuri Artioli, Caroline Dylag, Grant L. Forster, Anita Ganesan, Heather Graven, Gennadi Lessin, Peter Levy, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Alistair Manning, Penelope A. Pickers, Chris Rennick, Christian Rödenbeck, and Matthew Rigby
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 4231–4252, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4231-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4231-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The quantity of atmospheric potential oxygen (APO), derived from coincident measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2), has been proposed as a tracer for fossil fuel CO2 emissions. In this model sensitivity study, we examine the use of APO for this purpose in the UK and compare our model to observations. We find that our model simulations are most sensitive to uncertainties relating to ocean fluxes and boundary conditions.
Alice E. Ramsden, Anita L. Ganesan, Luke M. Western, Matthew Rigby, Alistair J. Manning, Amy Foulds, James L. France, Patrick Barker, Peter Levy, Daniel Say, Adam Wisher, Tim Arnold, Chris Rennick, Kieran M. Stanley, Dickon Young, and Simon O'Doherty
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 3911–3929, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3911-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3911-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying methane emissions from different sources is a key focus of current research. We present a method for estimating sectoral methane emissions that uses ethane as a tracer for fossil fuel methane. By incorporating variable ethane : methane emission ratios into this model, we produce emissions estimates with improved uncertainty characterisation. This method will be particularly useful for studying methane emissions in areas with complex distributions of sources.
Alice Emily Ramsden, Anita Ganesan, Matthew Rigby, Chris Rennick, Tim Arnold, Emmal Safi, Edward Chung, Dafina Kikaj, Cameron Yeo, Dave Lowry, Pete Levy, Simon O'Doherty, Kieran Stanley, Dickon Young, Joe Pitt, Damien Martin, Morgan Lopez, Michel Ramonet, Grant Forster, Arnoud Frumau, and Alistair Manning
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-779, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-779, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Methane is emitted from a range of anthropogenic and natural sources, each with a characteristic isotope ratio signature. We present a method for estimating emissions from multiple sources using isotopic signatures and observations of atmospheric methane isotope ratios. We show the importance of considering isotopic signature uncertainty and demonstrate how our current understanding of these signatures may be limiting this method’s ability to reduce uncertainties in emissions estimates.
Galina Y. Toteva, David Reay, Matthew Jones, Ajinkya Deshpande, Nicholas Cowan, Peter Levy, Duncan Harvey, Agata Iwanicka, and Julia Drewer
Biogeosciences, 22, 7829–7844, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7829-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7829-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The impacts of increasing nitrogen deposition on the fluxes of nitrous oxide from a temperate birch forest were investigated in-situ and ex-situ. Nitrogen levels had a limited effect on emissions. Instead, emissions of nitrous oxide were modulated by soil carbon availability and meeting a dual temperature-moisture threshold. An implication of these findings is that forests could be used for mitigating nitrogen pollution without incurring a greenhouse gas penalty, at least in the short term.
Peter E. Levy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4765, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Eddy covariance is the state-of-the-art technique for measuring fluxes of energy and gases between the land surface and the atmosphere. However, quantifying the uncertainty in the results is difficult and usually treated simplistically or avoided completely. Here we use a Bayesian approach, in which the uncertainty is correctly represented. The approach produce estimates of the fluxes, (e.g. the long-term net carbon balance), in the form of posterior probability distributions.
Nicholas Cowan, Toby Roberts, Mark Hanlon, Aurelia Bezanger, Galina Toteva, Alex Tweedie, Karen Yeung, Ajinkya Deshpande, Peter Levy, Ute Skiba, Eiko Nemitz, and Julia Drewer
Biogeosciences, 22, 3449–3461, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3449-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3449-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We measured soil hydrogen (H2) fluxes from two field sites, a managed grassland and a planted deciduous woodland, with flux measurements of H2 covering full seasonal cycles. We estimate annual H2 uptake of −3.1 ± 0.1 and −12.0 ± 0.4 kg H2 ha−1 yr−1 for the grassland and woodland sites, respectively. Soil moisture was found to be the primary driver of H2 uptake, with the silt/clay content of the soils providing a physical barrier which limited H2 uptake.
Peter E. Levy and the COSMOS-UK team
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4819–4836, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4819-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4819-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Having accurate up-to-date maps of soil moisture is important for many purposes. However, current modelled and remotely sensed maps are rather coarse and not very accurate. Here, we demonstrate a simple but accurate approach that is closely linked to direct measurements of soil moisture at a network sites across the UK, to the water balance (precipitation minus drainage and evaporation) measured at a large number of catchments (1212) and to remotely sensed satellite estimates.
Hannah Chawner, Eric Saboya, Karina E. Adcock, Tim Arnold, Yuri Artioli, Caroline Dylag, Grant L. Forster, Anita Ganesan, Heather Graven, Gennadi Lessin, Peter Levy, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Alistair Manning, Penelope A. Pickers, Chris Rennick, Christian Rödenbeck, and Matthew Rigby
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 4231–4252, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4231-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4231-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The quantity of atmospheric potential oxygen (APO), derived from coincident measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2), has been proposed as a tracer for fossil fuel CO2 emissions. In this model sensitivity study, we examine the use of APO for this purpose in the UK and compare our model to observations. We find that our model simulations are most sensitive to uncertainties relating to ocean fluxes and boundary conditions.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Alice E. Ramsden, Anita L. Ganesan, Luke M. Western, Matthew Rigby, Alistair J. Manning, Amy Foulds, James L. France, Patrick Barker, Peter Levy, Daniel Say, Adam Wisher, Tim Arnold, Chris Rennick, Kieran M. Stanley, Dickon Young, and Simon O'Doherty
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 3911–3929, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3911-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-3911-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying methane emissions from different sources is a key focus of current research. We present a method for estimating sectoral methane emissions that uses ethane as a tracer for fossil fuel methane. By incorporating variable ethane : methane emission ratios into this model, we produce emissions estimates with improved uncertainty characterisation. This method will be particularly useful for studying methane emissions in areas with complex distributions of sources.
Claire M. Wood, Jamie Alison, Marc S. Botham, Annette Burden, François Edwards, R. Angus Garbutt, Paul B. L. George, Peter A. Henrys, Russel Hobson, Susan Jarvis, Patrick Keenan, Aidan M. Keith, Inma Lebron, Lindsay C. Maskell, Lisa R. Norton, David A. Robinson, Fiona M. Seaton, Peter Scarlett, Gavin M. Siriwardena, James Skates, Simon M. Smart, Bronwen Williams, and Bridget A. Emmett
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4155–4173, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4155-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4155-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (GMEP) ran from 2013 until 2016, as a national programme of ecological study in Wales. GMEP included a large field survey component, collecting data on a range of elements including vegetation, land cover and land use, soils, freshwater, birds, and insect pollinators. GMEP was designed so that surveys could be repeated at regular intervals to monitor the Welsh environment. Data from GMEP have been used to address many applied policy questions.
Cited articles
Alliance, G.: The Opportunities of Agri-Carbon Markets: Policy and Practice Green Alliance, ISBN 978-1-912393-69-5, 2022. a
Baker, J. M., Ochsner, T. E., Venterea, R. T., and Griffis, T. J.: Tillage and Soil Carbon Sequestration–What Do We Really Know?, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 118, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014, 2007. a
Ball, D. F.: Loss-on-Ignition as an Estimate of Organic Matter and Organic Carbon in Non-Calcareous Soils, J. Soil Sci., 15, 84–92, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1964.tb00247.x, 1964. a
Bellamy, P. H., Loveland, P. J., Bradley, R. I., Lark, R. M., and Kirk, G. J. D.: Carbon Losses from All Soils across England and Wales 1978–2003, Nature, 437, 245–248, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04038, 2005. a
Berthrong, S. T., Jobbágy, E. G., and Jackson, R. B.: A Global Meta-Analysis of Soil Exchangeable Cations, pH, Carbon, and Nitrogen with Afforestation, Ecol. Appl., 19, 2228–2241, 2009. a
Betancourt, M.: A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02434, 10 January 2017. a
Black, H. I. J., Reed, M. S., Kendall, H., Parkhurst, R., Cannon, N., Chapman, P. J., Orman, M., Phelps, J., Rudman, H., Whalley, S., Yeluripati, J., and Ziv, G.: What Makes an Operational Farm Soil Carbon Code? Insights from a Global Comparison of Existing Soil Carbon Codes Using a Structured Analytical Framework, Carbon Manag., 13, 554–580, https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2022.2135459, 2022. a
Bürkner, P.-C.: Bayesian Item Response Modeling in R with brms and Stan, J. Stat. Softw., 100, 1–54, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v100.i05, 2021. a
Chamberlain, P. M., Emmett, B. A., Scott, W. A., Black, H. I. J., Hornung, M., and Frogbrook, Z. L.: No change in topsoil carbon levels of Great Britain, 1978–2007, Biogeosciences Discuss., 7, 2267–2311, https://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-7-2267-2010, 2010. a
Ellert, B. H. and Bettany, J. R.: Calculation of Organic Matter and Nutrients Stored in Soils under Contrasting Management Regimes, Can. J. Soil Sci., 75, 529–538, 1995. a
Gifford, R. M. and Roderick, M. L.: Soil Carbon Stocks and Bulk Density: Spatial or Cumulative Mass Coordinates as a Basis of Expression?, Glob. Change Biol., 9, 1507–1514, 2003. a
Gitz, V. and Ciais, P.: Future Expansion of Agriculture and Pasture Acts to Amplify Atmospheric CO2 Levels in Response to Fossil-Fuel and Land-Use Change Emissions, Clim. Change, 67, 161–184, 2004. a
Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Gonzalez, M. R., Kilibarda, M., Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X., Bauer-Marschallinger, B., Guevara, M. A., Vargas, R., MacMillan, R. A., Batjes, N. H., Leenaars, J. G. B., Ribeiro, E., Wheeler, I., Mantel, S., and Kempen, B.: SoilGrids250m: Global Gridded Soil Information Based on Machine Learning, PLOS ONE, 12, e0169748, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748, 2017. a
Hoogsteen, M. J. J., Lantinga, E. A., Bakker, E. J., Groot, J. C. J., and Tittonell, P. A.: Estimating Soil Organic Carbon through Loss on Ignition: Effects of Ignition Conditions and Structural Water Loss, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 66, 320–328, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12224, 2015. a, b, c
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, IPCC Methodology Reports, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Kanagawa, Japan, https://www.ipcc.ch/publication/good-practice-guidance-for-land-use-land-use-change-and-forestry/ (last access: 1 October 2024), 2003. a
Jones, S. K., Helfter, C., Anderson, M., Coyle, M., Campbell, C., Famulari, D., Di Marco, C., van Dijk, N., Tang, Y. S., Topp, C. F. E., Kiese, R., Kindler, R., Siemens, J., Schrumpf, M., Kaiser, K., Nemitz, E., Levy, P. E., Rees, R. M., Sutton, M. A., and Skiba, U. M.: The nitrogen, carbon and greenhouse gas budget of a grazed, cut and fertilised temperate grassland, Biogeosciences, 14, 2069–2088, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2069-2017, 2017. a
Keith, A., Bottoms, E., Henrys, P., Oxley, J., Parmar, K., Perks, M., Rowe, R., Sohi, S., Vanguelova, E., and McNamara, N.: Ecosystem Land Use Modelling & Soil C Flux Trial (ELUM) – Chronosequence Methodology Approaches in Literature, Including Specific Recommendations for Sampling for ELUM, ETI, https://doi.org/10.5286/UKERC.EDC.000045, 2011. a
Kravchenko, A. N. and Robertson, G. P.: Whole-Profile Soil Carbon Stocks: The Danger of Assuming Too Much from Analyses of Too Little, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 75, 235, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0076, 2011. a, b
Lawrence, D. M., Hurtt, G. C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Calvin, K. V., Jones, A. D., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, P. J., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Pongratz, J., Seneviratne, S. I., and Shevliakova, E.: The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2973–2998, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016, 2016. a
Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R., Canadell, J. G., Marland et al., G., Le Quéré et al., C., Le Quéré et al., C., Raupach, M. R., Canadell, J. G., Marland, G., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Conway, T. J., Doney, S. C., Feely, R. A., Foster, P., Friedlingstein, P., Gurney, K., Houghton, R. A., House, J. I., Huntingford, C., Levy, P. E., Lomas, M. R., Majkut, J., Metzl, N., Ometto, J. P., Peters, G. P., Prentice, I. C., Randerson, J. T., Running, S. W., Sarmiento, J. L., Schuster, U., Sitch, S., Takahashi, T., Viovy, N., van der Werf, G. R., and Woodward, F. I.: Trends in the Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide, Nat. Geosci., 2, 831–836, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo689, 2009. a
Levy, P., van Oijen, M., Buys, G., and Tomlinson, S.: Estimation of gross land-use change and its uncertainty using a Bayesian data assimilation approach, Biogeosciences, 15, 1497–1513, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-1497-2018, 2018. a
Levy, P. E., Friend, A. D., White, A., and Cannell, M. G. R.: The Influence of Land Use Change on Global-Scale Fluxes of Carbon from Terrestrial Ecosystems, Clim. Change, 67, 185–209, 2004. a
Miller, D. M.: Reducing Transformation Bias in Curve Fitting, Am. Stat., 38, 124–126, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1984.10483180, 1984.
Milne, R. and Brown, T. A.: Carbon in the Vegetation and Soils of Great Britain, J. Environ. Manage., 49, 413–433, https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1995.0118, 1997. a
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D., and Schielzeth, H.: The Coefficient of Determination R2 and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient from Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models Revisited and Expanded, J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 14, 20170213, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213, 2017. a
Nayak, A. K., Rahman, M. M., Naidu, R., Dhal, B., Swain, C. K., Nayak, A. D., Tripathi, R., Shahid, M., Islam, M. R., and Pathak, H.: Current and Emerging Methodologies for Estimating Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: A Review, Sci. Total Environ., 665, 890–912, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.125, 2019. a
Obermeier, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Loughran, T., Hartung, K., Bastos, A., Havermann, F., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Goll, D. S., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Luyssaert, S., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Poulter, B., Sitch, S., Sullivan, M. O., Tian, H., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., Zaehle, S., and Pongratz, J.: Modelled land use and land cover change emissions – a spatio-temporal comparison of different approaches, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021. a
Ostle, N., Levy, P., Evans, C., and Smith, P.: UK Land Use and Soil Carbon Sequestration, Land Use Policy, 26, S274–S283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.006, 2009. a
Poeplau, C., Don, A., Vesterdal, L., Leifeld, J., Van Wesemael, B., Schumacher, J., and Gensior, A.: Temporal Dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon after Land-Use Change in the Temperate Zone – Carbon Response Functions as a Model Approach, Glob. Change Biol., 17, 2415–2427, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x, 2011. a, b, c, d
Post, W. M. and Kwon, K. C.: Soil Carbon Sequestration and Land-Use Change: Processes and Potential, Glob. Change Biol., 6, 317–327, 2000. a
Reynolds, B., Chamberlain, P., Poskitt, J., Woods, C., Scott, W., Rowe, E., Robinson, D., Frogbrook, Z., Keith, A., Henrys, P., Black, H., and Emmett, B.: Countryside Survey: National “Soil Change” 1978–2007 for Topsoils in Great Britain–Acidity, Carbon, and Total Nitrogen Status, Vadose Zone J., 12, vzj2012.0114, https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2012.0114, 2013. a
Robinson, D., Astbury, S., Barrett, G., Burden, A., Carter, H., Emmett, B., Garbutt, A., Giampieri, C., Hall, J., Henrys, P., Hughes, S., Hunt, A., Jarvis, S., Jones, D., Keenan, P., Lebron, I., Nunez, D., Owen, A., Patel, M., Pereira, M., Seaton, F., Sharps, K., Tanna, B., Thompson, N., Williams, B., and Wood, C.: Topsoil Physico-Chemical Properties from the Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme, Wales 2013–2016, NERC Environmental Information Data Centre [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/0fa51dc6-1537-4ad6-9d06-e476c137ed09, 2019. a, b
Robinson, D., Alison, J., Andrews, C., Brentegani, M., Chetiu, N., Dart, S., Emmett, B., Fitos, E., Garbutt, R., Gray, A., Henrys, P., Hunt, A., Keenan, P., Keith A.M., Koblizek, E., Lebron, I., Millani Lopes Mazzetto, J., Pallett, D., Pereira, M., Pinder, A., Rose, R., Rowe, R., Scarlett, P., Seaton, F., Smart, S., Towill, J., Wagner, M., Williams, B., and Wood, C.: Topsoil Physico-Chemical Properties from the UKCEH Countryside Survey, Great Britain, 2019, NERC Environmental Information Data Centre [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/aaada12b-0af0-44ba-8ffc-5e07f410f435, 2020. a, b, c
Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E. D., Kaiser, K., and Schumacher, J.: How accurately can soil organic carbon stocks and stock changes be quantified by soil inventories?, Biogeosciences, 8, 1193–1212, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1193-2011, 2011. a, b
Smith, P., Chapman, S., Scott, W., Black, H., Wattenbach, M., Milne, R., Campbell, C., Lilly, A., Ostle, N., Levy, P., Lumsdon, D., Millard, P., Towers, W., Zaehle, S., and Smith, J.: Climate Change Cannot Be Entirely Responsible for Soil Carbon Loss Observed in England and Wales, 1978–2003, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 2605–2609, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01458.x, 2007. a
Smith, P., Soussana, J.-F., Angers, D., Schipper, L., Chenu, C., Rasse, D. P., Batjes, N. H., van Egmond, F., McNeill, S., Kuhnert, M., Arias-Navarro, C., Olesen, J. E., Chirinda, N., Fornara, D., Wollenberg, E., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Sanz-Cobena, A., and Klumpp, K.: How to Measure, Report and Verify Soil Carbon Change to Realize the Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Removal, Glob. Change Biol., 26, 219–241, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815, 2020. a
Soussana, J.-F., Lutfalla, S., Ehrhardt, F., Rosenstock, T., Lamanna, C., Havlík, P., Richards, M., Wollenberg, E. L., Chotte, J.-L., Torquebiau, E., Ciais, P., Smith, P., and Lal, R.: Matching Policy and Science: Rationale for the “4 per 1000 – Soils for Food Security and Climate” Initiative, Soil Till. Res., 188, 3–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.12.002, 2019. a
Thomas, A., Cosby, B. J., Henrys, P., and Emmett, B.: Patterns and Trends of Topsoil Carbon in the UK: Complex Interactions of Land Use Change, Climate and Pollution, Sci. Total Environ., 729, 138330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138330, 2020a. a
Thomas, A. R. C., Cosby, B. J., Henrys, P. A., and Emmett, B. A.: Topsoil carbon concentration estimates from the Countryside Survey of Great Britain, 2007 using a generalized additive model, NERC Environmental Information Data Centre [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/3aaa52d3-918a-4f95-b065-32f33e45d4f6, 2020b. a
Toriyama, J., Kato, T., Siregar, C. A., Siringoringo, H. H., Ohta, S., and Kiyono, Y.: Comparison of Depth- and Mass-Based Approaches for Estimating Changes in Forest Soil Carbon Stocks: A Case Study in Young Plantations and Secondary Forests in West Java, Indonesia, Forest Ecol. Manag., 262, 1659–1667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.027, 2011. a
Wang, X., Wang, J., and Zhang, J.: Comparisons of Three Methods for Organic and Inorganic Carbon in Calcareous Soils of Northwestern China, PLoS ONE, 7, e44334, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044334, 2012. a
Ward, S. E., Smart, S. M., Quirk, H., Tallowin, J. R. B., Mortimer, S. R., Shiel, R. S., Wilby, A., and Bardgett, R. D.: Legacy Effects of Grassland Management on Soil Carbon to Depth, Glob. Change Biol., 22, 2929–2938, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13246, 2016. a, b, c, d
Wilkenskjeld, S., Kloster, S., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., and Reick, C. H.: Comparing the influence of net and gross anthropogenic land-use and land-cover changes on the carbon cycle in the MPI-ESM, Biogeosciences, 11, 4817–4828, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4817-2014, 2014. a
Editorial statement
This study proposes revising the effect sizes of land use on SOC stock across the UK using a large dataset and a more robust analysis. It may serve as the basis for new reports of the nationwide land use emissions following the guidelines of the UNFCCC agreement. In addition, the study demonstrates the limitation of the space-for-time substitution assumption for estimating these effects.
This study proposes revising the effect sizes of land use on SOC stock across the UK using a...
Short summary
We collated a large data set (15 790 soil cores) on soil carbon stock in different land uses. Soil carbon stocks were highest in woodlands and lowest in croplands. The variability in the effects was large. This has important implications for agri-environment schemes seeking to sequester carbon in the soil by altering land use because the effect of a given intervention is very hard to verify.
We collated a large data set (15 790 soil cores) on soil carbon stock in different land uses....
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint