99250 Comparing Estimates of Soil Carbon Content Using Geospatial Analysis of Field and SSURGO Data.

Poster Number 344-305

See more from this Division: SSSA Division: Pedology
See more from this Session: Soil Pedology Poster

Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Phoenix Convention Center North, Exhibit Hall CDE

Elena Mikhailova1, Abduljaleel Altememe2, Abdullah Bawazir2, Rebecca Chandler3, Michael Cope3, Christopher Post3, Roxanne Stiglitz4, Hamdi Zurqani5 and Mark A. Schlautman6, (1)261 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
(2)Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
(3)Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
(4)Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
(5)Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Central, SC
(6)Clemson University, Anderson, SC
Abstract:
Soil carbon is a key soil property related to ecosystem services and it is often used in soil carbon content estimates at various scales. Uncertainties in soil carbon estimates often arise from variability in field, laboratory, and/or geospatial data at a farm scale. The objectives of this study were to quantify and compare levels of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TC) for a 147-hectare field site in upstate New York based on three alternative analysis procedures:  a) using carbon concentrations reported by the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) spatial databases for each soil map unit (SMU) present at the field site and applying that value across each SMU; b) averaging the carbon contents of soil cores collected within a specific SMU boundary and applying the averaged value across each SMU; and c) interpolating carbon contents across the field site based on the individual soil cores. Maps of SOC, SIC, and TC contents based on the interpolated core samples were different from maps created by applying averaged core results or SSURGO values across the SMUs.  Differences in the magnitudes and spatial distributions of carbon can be attributed to several factors. For example, SSURGO soil carbon values are frequently measured for a selected pedon(s) from a “type location” and not from the actual study location.  These “type locations” can be located far from study sites and even in different states.  Also, SSURGO soil carbon values may overestimate the actual contents when compared to systematic field measurements for these types of soils because the values at lower depths are often extrapolated from upper soil horizons. Because regional and/or global carbon estimates are rarely made with detailed field data due to the high costs of field and laboratory measurements, additional field sampling is needed to constrain and improve these estimates and also to assess the potential variability present.

See more from this Division: SSSA Division: Pedology
See more from this Session: Soil Pedology Poster

<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract