Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning
Soil organic matter (SOM) stocks are crucial for soil fertility and food provision and also contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, assessing SOM changes in cropping systems is difficult due to the varying quantity and quality of input data. SOM processes have been described...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Agronomy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/1/109 |
| _version_ | 1797447192860950528 |
|---|---|
| author | Lúcia Barão Abdallah Alaoui Rudi Hessel |
| author_facet | Lúcia Barão Abdallah Alaoui Rudi Hessel |
| author_sort | Lúcia Barão |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Soil organic matter (SOM) stocks are crucial for soil fertility and food provision and also contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, assessing SOM changes in cropping systems is difficult due to the varying quantity and quality of input data. SOM processes have been described by several models, but these are complex and require high amounts of input data. In this work, we identified and selected frameworks that simulate SOM pools and stocks as well as the effects of different management practices. We also required that the frameworks be easily accessible for farm-related end users and require limited and accessible amounts of input data. In all, six frameworks met our inclusion criteria: SOCRATES (Soil Organic Carbon Reserves and Transformations in EcoSystems), CCB (CANDY and-Carbon Balance), AMG, CENTURY, CQESTR, and RothC (Rothamsted Carbon Model). We collected information on these frameworks and compared them in terms of their accessibility, the model time steps used, the nutrient cycles included in the simulation, the number of SOM pools, and the agricultural management options included. Our results showed that CCB was the most robust of the frameworks considered, while AMG, CQESTR, and RothC performed the least well. However, all frameworks have strengths which may match the specific requirements and abilities of individual users. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T13:52:19Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b0e89282ffd0404d81f8506539f1c9b1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2073-4395 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T13:52:19Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Agronomy |
| spelling | doaj.art-b0e89282ffd0404d81f8506539f1c9b12023-11-30T20:49:03ZengMDPI AGAgronomy2073-43952022-12-0113110910.3390/agronomy13010109Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter FunctioningLúcia Barão0Abdallah Alaoui1Rudi Hessel2Center for Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Changes (cE3c) & CHANGE-Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, PortugalInstitute of Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern, SwitzerlandWageningen Environmental Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB Wageningen, The NetherlandsSoil organic matter (SOM) stocks are crucial for soil fertility and food provision and also contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, assessing SOM changes in cropping systems is difficult due to the varying quantity and quality of input data. SOM processes have been described by several models, but these are complex and require high amounts of input data. In this work, we identified and selected frameworks that simulate SOM pools and stocks as well as the effects of different management practices. We also required that the frameworks be easily accessible for farm-related end users and require limited and accessible amounts of input data. In all, six frameworks met our inclusion criteria: SOCRATES (Soil Organic Carbon Reserves and Transformations in EcoSystems), CCB (CANDY and-Carbon Balance), AMG, CENTURY, CQESTR, and RothC (Rothamsted Carbon Model). We collected information on these frameworks and compared them in terms of their accessibility, the model time steps used, the nutrient cycles included in the simulation, the number of SOM pools, and the agricultural management options included. Our results showed that CCB was the most robust of the frameworks considered, while AMG, CQESTR, and RothC performed the least well. However, all frameworks have strengths which may match the specific requirements and abilities of individual users.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/1/109sustainabilitysoilfarmingorganic poolstools |
| spellingShingle | Lúcia Barão Abdallah Alaoui Rudi Hessel Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning Agronomy sustainability soil farming organic pools tools |
| title | Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning |
| title_full | Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning |
| title_fullStr | Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning |
| title_full_unstemmed | Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning |
| title_short | Identifying and Comparing Easily Accessible Frameworks for Assessing Soil Organic Matter Functioning |
| title_sort | identifying and comparing easily accessible frameworks for assessing soil organic matter functioning |
| topic | sustainability soil farming organic pools tools |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/1/109 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT luciabarao identifyingandcomparingeasilyaccessibleframeworksforassessingsoilorganicmatterfunctioning AT abdallahalaoui identifyingandcomparingeasilyaccessibleframeworksforassessingsoilorganicmatterfunctioning AT rudihessel identifyingandcomparingeasilyaccessibleframeworksforassessingsoilorganicmatterfunctioning |