Items

• 

  Storage of soil carbon is not sequestration: Straightforward graphical visualization of their basic differences

  Over the last few years, in the literature on the incorporation of crop residues in agricultural fields to mitigate climate change, there has been a growing tendency to no longer distinguish between the storage and the sequestration of organic carbon in soils. Applying, apparently for the first time, a simple “back-of-the-envelope” calculation to available mineralization kinetics data, we show graphically that there are fundamental differences, both quantitatively and qualitatively, between the two concepts of storage and sequestration. To avoid confusion, they should therefore never be used interchangeably, especially when addressing farmers and policy makers. Several simplifying assumptions made in the calculations, and about which a considerable lack of understanding persists, mean that at this stage, the graphical visualization we obtained is likely to still be optimistic in terms of the already low (10%) efficacy of sequestering carbon in soils. Several research avenues are outlined to deepen our grasp of the processes involved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
• 

  A simple soil organic carbon level metric beyond the organic carbon-to-clay ratio

  Soil is a precious and non-renewable resource that is under increasing pressure and the development of indicators to monitor its state is pivotal. Soil organic carbon (SOC) is important for key physical, chemical and biological soil properties and thus a central indicator of soil quality and soil health. The content of SOC is driven by many abiotic factors, such as texture and climate, and is therefore strongly site-specific, which complicates, for example, the search for appropriate threshold values to differentiate healthy from less healthy soils. The SOC:clay ratio has been introduced as a normalized SOC level metric to indicate soils' structural condition, with classes ranging from degraded (<1:13) to very good (>1:8). This study applied the ratio to 2958 topsoils (0–30 cm) in the German Agricultural Soil Inventory and showed that it is not a suitable SOC level metric since strongly biased, misleading and partly insensitive to SOC changes. The proportion of soils with SOC levels classified as degraded increased exponentially with clay content, indicating the indicator's overly strong clay dependence. Thus, 94% of all Chernozems, which are known to have elevated SOC contents and a favourable soil structure, were found to have either degraded (61%) or moderate (33%) normalized SOC levels. The ratio between actual and expected SOC (SOC:SOCexp) is proposed as an easy-to-use alternative where expected SOC is derived from a regression between SOC and clay content. This ratio allows a simple but unbiased estimate of the clay-normalized SOC level. The quartiles of this ratio were used to derive threshold values to divide the dataset into the classes degraded, moderate, good and very good. These classes were clearly linked to bulk volume (inverse of bulk density) as an important structural parameter, which was not the case for classes based on the SOC:clay ratio. Therefore, SOC:SOCexp and its temporal dynamic are proposed for limited areas such as regions, states or pedoclimatic zones, for example, in a soil health monitoring context; further testing is, however, recommended.
• 

  Soil carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation: Mineralization kinetics of organic inputs as an overlooked limitation

  Over the last few years, the question of whether soil carbon sequestration could contribute significantly to climate change mitigation has been the object of numerous debates. All of these debates so far appear to have entirely overlooked a crucial aspect of the question. It concerns the short-term mineralization kinetics of fresh organic matter added to soils, which is occasionally alluded to in the literature, but is almost always subsumed in a broader modelling context. In the present article, we first summarise what is currently known about the kinetics of mineralization of plant residues added to soils, and about its modelling in the long run. We then argue that in the short run, this microbially-mediated process has important practical consequences that cannot be ignored. Specifically, since at least 90% of plant residues added to soils to increase their carbon content over the long term are mineralized relatively rapidly and are released as CO2 to the atmosphere, farmers would have to apply to their fields 10 times more organic carbon annually than what they would eventually expect to sequester. Over time, because of a well-known sink saturation effect, the multiplier may even rise significantly above 10, up to a point when no net carbon sequestration takes place any longer. The requirement to add many times more carbon than what one aims to sequester makes it practically impossible to add sufficient amounts of crop residues to soils to have a lasting, non-negligible effect on climate change. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that raising the organic matter content of soils is desirable for other reasons, in particular guaranteeing that soils will be able to keep fulfilling essential functions and services in spite of fast-changing environmental conditions. Highlights Attempts to promote soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change have so far ignored the short-term effects of the mineralization of plant residues added to soils. Only about 10%, at most, of added plan residues remain in soils after mineralization by soil organisms. To have a significant effect on climate change, farmers would need to add impractically large amounts of plant residues, requiring unrealistic nitrogen inputs. Therefore, rather than as a mitigation strategy, farmers should aim to increase the carbon content of soils to make them resilient to climate change.