4.6 Article

The cost-efficiency and reliability of two methods for soil organic C accounting

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 506-520

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2887

关键词

organic carbon stocks; soil carbon monitoring; soil organic carbon; soil sampling; soil sensing; soil carbon accounting

资金

  1. Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) [CSO00043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sequestering organic carbon (C) in soil can help to combat land degradation, improve food security, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. But we need reliable, cost-efficient methods to assess, monitor, and verify the change. Here, we compared two methods for the direct measurement of soil organic C stocks and for monitoring the change. Our aims were to quantify the soil organic C stock in two carbon estimation areas, under cropping and grazing, using composite sampling with two designs and proximal sensing. We compared the two schemes in terms of the (a) accuracy of the estimated C stocks, the total cost, and the cost-efficiency, calculated as the ratio of the accuracy of the estimate and the total cost, and (b) uncertainty of the estimated standard error of the estimated C stocks. We found that compositing was cheaper but more inaccurate than sensing. Sensing was 1.2 to 2.1 times more cost-efficient than compositing. We also found that the uncertainty of the estimated standard errors from compositing was large and unreliable, which can hinder the quantification of a minimum detectable difference in organic C stocks. We show that the sensor-derived spatially explicit data can also be used to map the C stocks, which can help to optimise the sampling design in subsequent monitoring rounds. Our findings have important implications for the development of C measurement and monitoring methodologies. Visible-near infrared and gamma attenuation sensing can accurately, cost-efficiently, and reliably monitor and verify changes in soil C stocks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据