Abstract

Integration of land cover change with soil information is important for valuation of soil carbon (C) regulating ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (ED) and for site-specific land management. The objective of this study was to assess the change in value of regulating ES from soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) stocks, based on the concept of the avoided social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for the state of South Carolina (SC) in the United States of America (U.S.A.) by soil order (Soil Taxonomy), land cover, and land cover change (National Land Cover Database, NLCD) using information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) and Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) databases. Classified land cover data for 2001 and 2016 were downloaded from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) website. The total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in the state of South Carolina was $124.42B (i.e., $124.42 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 109) with the following monetary distribution in 2016 and percent change in value between 2001 and 2016: barren land ($259.7M, −9%) (i.e., $259.7 million U.S. dollars, where M = million = 106), woody wetlands ($33.8B, −1%), shrub/scrub ($3.9B, +9%), mixed forest ($6.9B, +5%), deciduous forest ($10.6B, −7%), herbaceous ($4.8B, −5%), evergreen forest ($28.6B, +1%), emergent herbaceous wetlands ($6.9B, −3%), hay/pasture ($7.3B, −10%), cultivated crops ($9.9B, 0%), developed, open space ($7.0B, +5%), developed, medium intensity ($978M, +46%), developed, low intensity ($2.9B, +15%), and developed, high intensity ($318M, +39%). The percent change in monetary values was different from percent change in areas because different soil orders have different TSC contents. The percent changes (between 2001 and 2016) both in areas and monetary values varied by soil order and land cover with $1.1B in likely “realized” social cost of C mostly associated with Ultisols ($658.8M). The Midlands region of the state experienced the highest gains in the “high disturbance” classes and corresponding SC-CO2 with over $421M for TSC, $354.6M for SOC, and $66.4M for SIC. Among counties, Horry County ranked first with over $142.2M in SC-CO2 for TSC, followed by Lexington ($103.7M), Richland ($95.3M), Greenville ($81.4M), York ($77.5M), Charleston ($70.7M), Beaufort ($64.1M), Berkeley ($50.9M), Spartanburg ($50.0M), and Aiken ($43.0M) counties. Spatial and temporal analyses of land cover can identify critical locations of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services at risk.

Highlights

  • IntroductionEcosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from nature, which fall into

  • Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from nature, which fall intoEcosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from nature, which fall into three categories: provisioning, regulation/maintenance

  • This study provides monetary values of total soil carbon (TSC) for soil depth (0–200 cm) across the state state and different land covers using State Soil and different land covers using State Soil GeoGeographic (STATSGO) database, National Land Cover Database (NLCD), and information graphic (STATSGO) database, National Land Cover Database (NLCD), and information previously reported by Guo et al (2006) [17]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from nature, which fall into. Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from nature, which fall into three categories: provisioning (e.g., food, etc.), regulation/maintenance (e.g., gas regulathree categories: provisioning (e.g., food, etc.), regulation/maintenance (e.g., gas regulation, tion, etc.), and cultural (e.g., recreation, etc.) [1,2]. Ecosystem disservices (ED) are damages, ages, which can be of natural and/or anthropogenic origin [2]. Soil C sequestration is a regulating ES, which results in the results in the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and subsequent storremoval of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the atmosphere and subsequent storage in the soil, age in theavoiding soil, thereby avoiding costs of CO (SC-CO2) emissions [3,4].

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call