Biogeochemistry

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 107–131 | Cite as

Estimating regional carbon stocks and spatially covarying edaphic factors using soil maps at three scales

  • Eric A. Davidson
  • Paul A. Lefebvre
Article

Abstract

Most estimates of regional and global soil carbon stocks are based on extrapolations of mean soil C contents for broad categories of soil or vegetation types. Uncertainties exist in both the estimates of mean soil C contents and the area over which each mean should be extrapolated. Geographic information systems now permit spatially referenced estimates of soil C at finer scales of resolution than were previously practical. We compared estimates of total soil C stocks of the state of Maine using three methods: (1) multiplying the area of the state by published means of soil C for temperate forests and for Spodosols; (2) calculating areas of inclusions of soil taxa in the 1:5,000,000 FAO/UNESCO Soils Map of the World and multiplying those areas by selected mean carbon contents; and (3) calculating soil C for each soil series and map unit in the 1:250,000 State Soil Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) and summing these estimates for the entire state. The STATSGO estimate of total soil C was between 23% and 49% higher than the common coarse scale extrapolations, primarily because STATSGO included data on Histosols, which cover less than 5% of the area of the state, but which constitute over one-third of the soil C. Spodosols cover about 65% of the state, but contribute less than 39% of the soil C. Estimates of total soil C in Maine based on the FAO map agreed within 8% of the STATSGO estimate for one possible matching of FAO soil taxa with data on soil C, but another plausible matching overestimated soil C stocks. We also compared estimates from the 1:250,000 STATSGO database and from the 1:20,000 Soil Survey Geographic Data Base (SSURGO) for a 7.5 minute quadrangle within the state. SSURGO indicated 13% less total soil C than did STATSGO, largely because the attribute data on depths of soil horizons in SSURGO are more specific for this locality. Despite localized differences, the STATSGO database offers promise of scaling up county soil survey data to regional scales because it includes attribute data and estimates of areal coverage of C-rich inclusions within map units. The spatially referenced data also permit examination of covariation of soil C stocks with soil properties thought to affect stabilization of soil C. Clay content was a poor predictor of soil C in Maine, but drainage class covaried significantly with soil C across the state.

Key words

clay drainage class geographic information systems Histosols Maine Podzols soil carbon soil maps soil organic matter Spodosols SSURGO STATSGO temperate forests 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Billings WD (1987) Carbon balance of Alaskan tundra and taiga ecosystems: past, present and future. Quaternary Science Reviews 6: 165–177Google Scholar
  2. Burke IC, Schimel DS, Yonker CM, Parton WJ, Joyce LA & Lauenroth WK (1990) Regional modeling of grassland bigeochemistry using GIS. Landscape Ecology 4: 45–54Google Scholar
  3. Burke IC, Yonker CM, Parton WJ, Cole CV, Flach K & Schimel DS (1989) Texture, climate, and cultivation effects on soil organic matter content in US grassland soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 800–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Environmental Systems Research Institute (1989) PC ARC/ANFO. Redlands, California USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Eswaran H, Van Den Berg E & Reich P (1993) Organic carbon in soils of the world. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57: 192–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO (1978–1981) FAO/UNESCO Soil Map of the World 1:5,000,000 Volumes II–X. Maps per (Sub)continent and Explanatory Texts. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Fotheringham AS & Wong DWS (1991) The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A23: 1025–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grossman RB, Benham EC, Fortner JR, Waltman SW, Kimble JM & Branham CE (1992) A demonstration of the use of soil survey information to obtain areal estimates of organic carbon. In: Technical papers, Remote Sensing and Data Acquisition (Volume 4: 457–465). American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and American Congress of Surveying and Mapping, Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Houghton RA (1991) Tropical deforestation and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Climatic Change 19: 99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kimble JM, Eswaran H & Cook T (1991) Organic carbon on a volume basis in tropical and temperate soils. In: Transactions of the 14th International Congress of Soil Science (Volume V: 248–253). Commission V. International Society of Soil Science, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  11. Nelson DW & Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH & Keeney DR (Eds) Methods of Soil Analysis (pp 539–579). American Soc. of Agronomy, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Nichols JD (1984) Relation of organic carbon to soil properties and climate in the southern great plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48: 1382–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Post WM, Emanuel WR, Zinke PJ & Stangenberger AG (1982) Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298: 156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Powell DS & Dickson DR (1984) Forest Statistics for Maine 1971 and 1982. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Station Resource Bulletin NE-81Google Scholar
  15. Reinhart KG (1961) The problem of stones in soil-moisture measurement. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25: 268–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rourke RV & Beek C (1969) Chemical and Physical Properties of the Charlton, Sutton, Paxton and Woodbridge Soil Series. Technical Bulletin 34, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Rourke RV & Bull DC (1982) Chemical and Physical Properties of the Becket, Colton, Finch, Lyman, Masardis, Maumburg, and Skerry Soil Mapping Units. Technical Bulletion 108, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Rourke RV (1990) Chemical and Physical Properties of the Aurelie, Burnham, Easton, Lille, Linneus, Monadnock, Nicholville, and Tunbridge Soil Map Units. Technical Bulletin 137, Maine Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. SCS (1992) State Soil Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) Data User Guide. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Sims ZR & Nielsen GA (1986) Organic carbon in Montana soils as related to clay content and climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50: 1269–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soil Science Society of America (1987) Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Soil Science Society of America, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Soil Survey Staff (1975) Soil Taxonomy. Agricultural Handbook No. 436 US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Sombroek WG (1990) Geographic quantification of soils and changes in their properties. In: Bouwman AF (Ed) Soils and the Greenhouse Effect (pp 225–244). John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlesinger WH (1977) Carbon balance in terrestrial detritus. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8: 51–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stone EL, Harris WG, Brown RB & Kuehl RJ (1993) Carbon storage in Florida Spodosols. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57: 179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Baren J (1987) Soils of the World. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., New York, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric A. Davidson
    • 1
  • Paul A. Lefebvre
    • 1
  1. 1.The Woods Hole Research CentreWoods HoleUSA

Personalised recommendations