Soil Carbon pp 381-391 | Cite as

Carbon Balance in Soils of Northern Eurasia

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Progress in Soil Science book series (PROSOIL)

Abstract

Current rise in temperature and precipitation in Northern Eurasia leads to a positive carbon balance (CB) and C sequestration (72 ± 32 million tons of carbon (Mt C) annually) in the soils of tundra, forest-steppe, steppe, and semidesert natural zones. The CB of deep peat bogs (about −141 Mt C) and surface O horizons (about 221 Mt C) under grasses and shrubs are the main drives of the regional CB.

Spatially explicit analysis demonstrates a complex mosaic of CB by different Land Use and Cover (LUC) classes (from −0.1 Mt C under cropland to 221 Mt C under grasses and shrubs) and natural zones (from −71 Mt C in the forest-tundra and northern taiga to 193 Mt C in the steppe zone). These differences make it difficult to establish representative CB for the entire region. The extrapolation of the negative CB in deep peat bogs occupying about 16 Mha over the entire tundra zone (nearly 260 Mha) results in a misleading conclusion about enhanced degradation of soil organic matter (SOM) in this zone upon climate warming, which might further increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The regional analysis of the spatially explicit CB contributes to our understanding of the pedogenic processes and mechanisms driving regional C dynamics in soils.

Keywords

Carbon cycle Soil carbon balance Greenhouse gases 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. World soil resources reports No. 103. FAO, Rome, p 132Google Scholar
  2. Kramer JR (1994) Old sediment carbon in global budgets. In: Rounsevell MDA, Loveland PJ (eds) Soil responses to climate change, vol 23, NATO ASI series, ser. I: global environment change. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Krylatov AK (1996) Physicochemical characteristics of agricultural land and humus balance of cropland in the Russian Federation. Russlit, Moscow, p 39, (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. Lal R (2012) World soils and the carbon cycle in relation to climate change and food security. Available at http://globalsoilweek.org/wp-content/uploads/GSW_IssuePaper_Soils_in_the_Global_Cycle.pdf
  5. Nilsson S, Shvidenko A, Stolbovoi V, Gluck M, Jonas M, Obersteiner M (2000) Full carbon account for Russia, Interim report IR-00-021, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, p 180Google Scholar
  6. Raich JW, Schlesinger WH (1992) The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relation to vegetation and climate. Tellus 44B:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Romankevich EA, Vetrov AA (2001) Carbon cycle in the Russian Arctic Seas. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Stevenson FJ (1994) Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions. Wiley, New York, p 281Google Scholar
  9. Stolbovoi V (2000) Carbon pools in tundra soils of Russia: improving data reliability. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Stewart BA (eds) Advances in soil science, global climate change and cold regions ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 39–58Google Scholar
  10. Stolbovoi V (2002) Carbon in Russian soils. Clim Change 55(1–2):131–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stolbovoi V (2003) Soil respiration and its role in Russia’s terrestrial C flux balance for the Kyoto baseline year. Tellus 55B:258–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stolbovoi V (2006) Soil carbon in the forests of Russia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stolbovoi V, McCallum I (2002) Land resources of Russia, CD-ROM, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/russia_cd/index.htm
  14. Stolbovoi VS, Nilsson S, Shvidenko AZ, McCallum I (2004) Aggregated estimate of basic parameters of biological production and the carbon budget of Russian terrestrial ecosystems, 3, biogeochemical fluxes of carbon. Russ J Ecol 3:150–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tarnocai C, Stolbovoy V (2006) Northern peatlands: their characteristics, development and sensitivity to climate change. In: Martini IP, Cortias AM, Chesworth W (eds) Peatlands evolution and records of environmental and climate changes, Development in earth surface processes, vol 9, Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp 17–58Google Scholar
  16. The Fifth National Communication of the Russian Federation (2010) Ministry of natural resources and ecology of Russian Federation, Federal Agency on Hydrometeorology and Environment Monitoring, Moscow. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/rus_nc5_resubmit.pdf
  17. Thurman EM (1985) Humic substances in groundwater. In: Alken GR, Mcknight DM, Wershaw RL, Maccarthy P (eds) Humic substances in soil, sediment and water: geochemistry, isolation and characterization. Wiley, New York, pp 87–104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dokuchaev Soil Science InstituteRussian Academy of Agricultural SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations