, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 816–827

The Potential Impact of Agricultural Management and Climate Change on Soil Organic Carbon of the North Central Region of the United States

  • Peter R. Grace
  • Manuel Colunga-Garcia
  • Stuart H. Gage
  • G. Philip Robertson
  • Gene R. Safir


Soil organic carbon (SOC) represents a significant pool of carbon within the biosphere. Climatic shifts in temperature and precipitation have a major influence on the decomposition and amount of SOC stored within an ecosystem. We have linked net primary production algorithms, which include the impact of enhanced atmospheric CO2 on plant growth, to the Soil Organic Carbon Resources And Transformations in EcoSystems (SOCRATES) model to develop a SOC map for the North Central Region of the United States between the years 1850 and 2100 in response to agricultural activity and climate conditions generated by the CSIRO Mk2 Global Circulation Model (GCM) and based on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) IS92a emission scenario. We estimate that the current day (1990) stocks of SOC in the top 10 cm of the North Central Region to be 4692 Mt, and 8090 Mt in the top 20 cm of soil. This is 19% lower than the pre-settlement steady state value predicted by the SOCRATES model. By the year 2100, with temperature and precipitation increasing across the North Central Region by an average of 3.9°C and 8.1 cm, respectively, SOCRATES predicts SOC stores of the North Central Region to decline by 11.5 and 2% (in relation to 1990 values) for conventional and conservation tillage scenarios, respectively.


soil carbon simulation North Central Region climate change SOCRATES MASIF 


  1. Andren O, Katterer T. 2001. The ICBM family of analytically solved models of soil carbon, nitrogen and microbial biomass dynamics—descriptions and application examples. Ecol Mod 136:191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batjes NH. 2002. Revised soil parameter estimates for the soil types of the world. Soil Use Man 18:232–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buyanovsky GA, Wagner GH. 1998. Carbon cycling in cultivated land and its global significance. Glob Chan Biol 4:131–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS. 1990. RothC 26.3-A model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU, Eds. Evaluation of soil organic matter models using long-term datasets, NATO ASI Series I, Vol. 38. Berlin Heidelberg New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. Cure JD, Acock B. 1986. Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: a literature survey. Agric For Meteorol 38:127–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donigan AS Jr, Barnwell TO, Jackson RB, Patwardhan AS, Weinrich KB, Rowell AL, Chinnaswamy RV, Cole CV. 1994. Assessment of alternative management practices and policies affecting soil carbon in agroecosystems of the central United States. Publication No. EPA/600/R-94/067. Athens (GA): U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  7. Evrendilek F, Wali MK. 2001. Modelling long-term C dynamics in croplands in the context of climate change: a case study from Ohio. Environ Model Softw 16(4):361–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franzmeier DP, Lemme GD, Miles RJ. 1985. Organic carbon in soils of the North Central United States. Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:702–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gage S, Colunga-Garcia M, Helly JJ, Safir GR, Momin A. 2001. Structural design for management and visualization of information for simulation models applied to a regional scale. Comput Electron Agric 33:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grace PR, Ladd JN. 1995. SOCRATES (Soil Organic Carbon Reserves And Transformations in Agro-Ecosystems): a decision support system for sustainable farming systems in southern Australia. Adelaide (SA): Cooperative Research Centre for Soil and Land Management.Google Scholar
  11. Grace PR, Ladd JN, Robertson GP, Gage SH. 2006. SOCRATES—a simple model for predicting long-term changes in soil organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Izaurralde RC, Haugen-Korzyra KL, Jans DC, McGill WB, Grant RF, Hiley JC. 2001. Soil C dynamics: measurement, simulation and site-to-region scale-up. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Stewart BA, Eds. Assessment methods of soil carbon. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p 553–75Google Scholar
  13. Jackson RB, Canadell J, Erlinger JR, Mooney HA, Dala OE, Schulze ED. 1996. A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecolog 108:389–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkinson DS. 1990. The turnover of organic carbon and nitrogen in soil. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 329:361–8Google Scholar
  15. Jenkinson DS, Adams DE, Wild A. 1991. Model estimates of CO2 emissions from soil in response to global warming. Nature 351:304–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kern JS. 1994. Spatial patterns of soil organic carbon in the contiguous United States. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:439–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kern JS. 1995. Geographic patterns of soil water-holding capacity in the contiguous United States. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:1126–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King AW, Post WM, Wullschleger SD. 1997. The potential response of terrestrial carbon storage to changes in climate and atmospheric CO2. Clim Change 35:199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuchler AW. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. In: American geographical society special publication 36. New York: American Geographical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  20. Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Cole CV. 1998. The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Ann Arbor (MI): Sleeping Bear PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Ladd JN, Amato M, Grace PR, van Veen JA. 1995. Simulation of 14C turnover through the microbial biomass in soils incubated with 14C-labelled plant residues. Soil Biol Biochem 27:777–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lieth H. 1975. Modeling the primary productivity of the world. In: Lieth H, Whittaker RH, Eds. Primary productivity of the biosphere. Berlin Hedelberg New York: Springer. p 237–63Google Scholar
  23. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ. 2003. Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. In: Trends: a compendium of data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge (TN): U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarl BA, Schneider UA. 2000. U.S. Agriculture’s role in a greenhouse gas emission mitigation world: an economic perspective. Rev Agric Econ 22:134–59Google Scholar
  25. Oades JM. 1995. Krasnozems—organic matter. Aust J Soil Res 33:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parton WJ, Rasmussen PE. 1994. Long term effects in crop management-fallow: II. Century model formulation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:530–6Google Scholar
  27. Pittock AB, Nix HA. 1986. The effect of changing climate on Australian biomass production—a preliminary study. Clim Change 8:243–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polglase PJ, Wang YP. 1992. Potential CO2-enhanced carbon storage by the terrestrial biosphere. Aust J Bot 40:641–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Post WM, Peng TH, Emanuel WR, King AW, Dale VH, DeAngelis DL. 1990. The global carbon cycle. Am Sci 78:310–26Google Scholar
  30. Prince SD, Haskett J, Steininger M, Strand H, Wright R. 2001. Net primary production of U.S. Midwest croplands from agricultural harvest yield data. Ecol App 11:1194–205Google Scholar
  31. Ramankutty N, Foley JA. 1999. Estimating historical changes in land cover: North American croplands from 1850 to 1992. Global Ecol Biogeogr 8:381–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skjemstad JO, Janik LJ. 1996. Climate change: determining the potential for carbon sequestration in Australian soils. Final Report to the Rural Industries R & D Corporation. CSO-5A, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  33. USDA. 1994. State soil geographic (STATSGO) data base. NRCS. Miscellaneous Publication 1492, 113 pGoogle Scholar
  34. USDA. 1982. Soil geography—NATSGO map series, national resource inventoryGoogle Scholar
  35. VEMAP Members. 1995. Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP): comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 9:407–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel N. 2001. Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources, photogram. Eng Rem Sens 67:650–2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter R. Grace
    • 1
    • 2
  • Manuel Colunga-Garcia
    • 3
    • 4
  • Stuart H. Gage
    • 3
    • 4
  • G. Philip Robertson
    • 2
    • 5
  • Gene R. Safir
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Natural Resource SciencesQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.W.K. Kellogg Biological StationMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Computational Ecology and Visualization LaboratoryMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  5. 5.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  6. 6.Department of Plant PathologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations