sign in sign up
<<
Home , Soil carbon, Soil erosion

doi:10.2489/jswc.71.3.

FEATURE Impact of on soil organic stocks Kenneth R. Olson, Mahdi Al-Kaisi, Rattan Lal, and Larry Cihacek

oil erosion by wind and and impacted the net primary productivity of reported that the SOC stock of timberland subsequent transport and the land as a source for SOC stocks and and prairie declined with cultivation Sdepositional processes may lead to the environment (Lal et al. 1998). in North America. The rate of decline was soil organic carbon (SOC) loss especially Before determining the impacts of 25% + 33% for southwestern, 36% + 29% from a sloping agricultural land unit. wind and water erosion, and their related for southeastern, 34% + 24% for northwest- The erosion processes change land unit processes of transport and on ern, and 22% + 10% for the northeastern SOC stock by transporting SOC-rich SOC stocks, we need to establish clear United States. Lal (1999) reported SOC sediment off an agricultural land unit, standard for SOC stock recharge. This stock loss by cultivation of 30% in the oxidizing SOC stocks, and releasing car- mechanism is referred to as SOC seques- north-central United States. This compares bon dioxide (CO2) into the , tration (Olson 2013; Olson et al. 2014a, with a summary of historical studies in the as well as causing loss of SOC through 2014b; Sundermeier et al. 2005; Lal et by Cihacek and Ulmer (1995). . Thus, erosion, transport, al. 1998; Mann 1986). The definition of Depending on the length of time, cultiva- and depositional processes redistribute soil C sequestration requires that an agri- tion resulted in SOC losses of 7% to 51% landscape SOC, enhance oxidation, and cultural land unit with borders must be with longer periods of cultivation showing create a SOC source and a sink. However, identified for monitoring soil C seques- more SOC loss than shorter terms of culti- redistributed SOC to bottomland soils tration, storage, retention, and loss. There vation (see table 1). They also summarized is not sequestered SOC if it originates are three basic types of land units (study the effects of or residue management outside the borders of the measured land plots) often used by researchers for actu- where the latter showed positive increases unit. In order to establish an active sink ally measuring SOC stock change and in SOC while various intensities of - for (C) sequestration, sequestration: (1) eroding, (2) depositional, age reduced SOC by 1% to 51% (see table on a land unit must take CO2 from the and (3) mixed landscape (combined erod- 2) (Cihacek and Ulmer 1995). However atmosphere and store it in the ing and depositional). The SOC of these these “classical” studies do not often clearly or SOC fraction within the agricultural three types of land units is impacted dif- define what their baseline SOC stock was land unit. Therefore, the objective of this ferently by the mechanisms of wind and at the start of the studies to permit verifica- review and analysis paper is to understand water erosion, transport, and deposition. tion of results. and highlight the effects of , The underlying effects of soil erosion pro- These losses in SOC can be attributed to transport, and deposition of SOC stock. cess are biological, physical, and chemical several processes that include the accelera- Natural or so-called geological erosion, changes of the SOC stocks. Soil erosion tion of SOC loss by mineralization of SOC an important terrestrial process, has shaped processes and mechanisms negatively stock and water and wind erosion where the surface of the earth and formed some affect the SOC sequestration amounts and sloping soils are devoid of residue cover. of the most fertile (alluvial and ) soils rate, and jeopardize soil productivity (Lal The role of erosion process in changing soil since the beginning of time. However, 2003) and increase (GHG) C stocks is by a preferential transport of the acceleration of this process by anthropo- emissions (MEA 2005). light organic component and alteration of genic activities (e.g., , Land units, especially sloping and erod- the soil physical and biological properties, removal/burning, plowing, , and ing, under row cropping systems with which are drivers for soil C sequestration. change in by conversion of natural intensive tillage, can lose considerable Results from field experiments to managed agroecosystems) amount of sequestered SOC stock and (Salemme and Olson 2014; Olson et al. has adversely affected the SOC stock, sediment through water and wind ero- 2014c, 2013a, 2011; Kumar et al. 2012; impacted water resources, and negatively sion. Troeh et al. (2004) state, “The sorting Gennadiyev et al. 2010) have shown, after action of either water or wind removes a approximately 150 years of agricultural high proportion of the and humus use and accelerated soil erosion, that the Kenneth R. Olson is professor emeritus in the Department of NRES, College of , Con- from the soil and leaves the less productive agricultural lands have significantly less sumer, and Environmental Sciences, University coarse , gravel, and stones behind. Most SOC stocks of the same soil than when of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. Mahdi Al-Kaisi is a of the fertile soil is associated with the clay previously under a native or prairie. professor of agronomy, Department of Agron- omy, College of Agriculture, Iowa State Univer- and humus.” Change in land use is a major Table 1 summarizes the percent change sity, Ames, Iowa. Rattan Lal is a professor in the factor affecting the SOC stock, especially in in native SOC stocks after 90 to 150 School of Environment and Natural Resources, sloping soils prone to erosion, as the land years of agricultural use. Some research- The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. use is changed from native prairie or forest ers (Salemme and Olson 2014; Olson et Larry Cihacek is an associate professor of , School of Natural Resources Science, to conventional and erosive row crop agri- al. 2014c, 2013a, 2011; Kumar et al. 2012; North Dakota State University. cultural systems (Olson et al. 2012, 2013a, Gennadiyev et al. 2010) reported that the 2013b). Franzluebbers and Follett (2005) conversion of prairie to agricultural land

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 61A for 90 to 140 years resulted in a loss of Table 1 between 20% and 51% of the SOC stock, The effects of soil erosion through land use change on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. and conversion of forest to agricultural land for 100 to 150 years resulted in a Soil organic carbon SOC stock loss of 10% to 52%. Thus, it Years of (% change from native is essential to understand the effects of Location Land use cultivation baseline) References soil erosion in the context of agricultural Brookings, South Dakota Prairie — Baseline Olson et al. 2014c use, especially in intensive agriculture Cropland 90 –20% production systems, where erosion pro- Harlan, Iowa Prairie — Baseline Salemme and Olson 2014 cess becomes a driver in establishing C Cropland 140 –51% Knoxville, Illinois Forest — Baseline Olson et al. 2013a sources and loss as CO2 rather than a sig- nificant contributor to soil C retention Cropland 150 –52% within a land unit (Lance et al. 1986). Albany, Illinois Forest — Baseline Olson et al. 2011 Olson et al. (2013b) and Young et al. Cropland 150 –48% (2014) showed that nearly level (<1%) Dixon Springs, Illinois Forest — Baseline Olson 2007 upland agricultural plots were also subject Cropland 140 –10% to erosion, transport, and deposition of Hanover, Illinois Forest — Baseline Gennadiyev et al. 2010 SOC-rich . It has often assumed Cropland 140 –35% that plots with nearly level (<1%) slope Hoytville, Ohio Forest — Baseline Kumar et al. 2012 gradients have been significantly affected Cropland 100 –52% by erosion. Tillage can accelerate the loss Wooster, Ohio Forest — Baseline Kumar et al. 2012 of soil C stocks in conventional agriculture Cropland 130 –35% systems. Intensive tillage plays significant role in accelerating soil C loss through WIND AND WATER EROSIONAL Cihacek et al. (1992) worked with sand oxidation of organic matter, destruction PROCESSES IMPACT ON SOIL ORGANIC grain–sized wind erosion sediments on of soil aggregates, and reduction in water CARBON STOCK high clay soils () and soils with rate leading to significant water Soil erosion is a four-step process: (1) higher SOC stock. Soil particles smaller erosion and surface runoff of C-rich sedi- breakdown of structural aggregates, (2) than sand moved if wind has enough ments. Olson et al. (2013b) used a fly ash transport of C and sediment in water energy. In contrast, heavy particles (sand method and determined the SOC concen- runoff or wind, (3) redistribution of C and fine gravels) move in close proxim- tration of Muscatune and Sable soils for a and sediment over the landscape, and (4) ity to the ground surface (Stoke’s law) by nearly level (<1%) agricultural plot area deposition and burial of C and sediment a process called “” by which one located near Monmouth, Illinois. The crop in depressions under inundated anaerobic particle strikes another setting up a chain sequence was corn (Zea mays) and soybean conditions (figure 1) (Lal 2003). reaction (Troeh et al. 2004). (Glycine max) for the previous 27 years, and Basic principles governing the fluvial Deposition of soil particles by salta- plot area had been cultivated for the last processes are similar for wind erosion tion or surface creep also results in wind 130 years. There was no tile drainage sys- whereby aggregates are disrupted exposing erosion sediments often being deposited tem in the plot area. The 0 to 50 cm (0 to the hitherto encapsulated C to microbial on the leeward side of landscapes and on 20 in) layer of Sable soil had a 19% higher attack and mineralization. The lighter frac- specific landscape features (e.g., depo- fly ash content and 4% more SOC than the tion is carried much farther than a heavier sitional areas or drainage features) that Muscatune soil. The erosion rate, using the fraction by both wind and water processes. reduce wind velocity (Bagnold 1941). fly ash method, was 4.35 Mg ha–1 y–1 (1.98 The enrichment ratio (ER) of SOC for Areas of permanent vegetation near tn ac–1 yr–1), which was more than the cal- wind-driven sediments (e.g., ratio of C in wind eroding soils can capture substantial culated RUSLE2 erosion rate of 3.3 Mg the sediments carried by wind to the C quantities of SOC-containing sediments ha–1 y–1 (1.50 tn ac–1 yr–1). Approximately, in the original soil [Chepil 1945]) can be (Cihacek and Ulmer 1997; Cihacek and 6 cm (2 in) of the 21 cm (8 in) differ- greater than 5. Similarly, the ER for SOC Meyer 2002). Direct deposition of fresh ence between Sable and Muscatune A in water-carried sediments from run- or aged materials occurs where the horizons was a result of the erosion of the off plots with short slope length (~25 m materials move along with soil sediments Muscatune soils and the deposition on the [82 ft]) may range from 3 to 5 (Lal 1976a, in wind erosion events, sliding across the Sable soils. The remaining difference (15 1976b, 1976c). The high ER for soil C soil surface until a leeward face of a drift cm [6 in]) was a result of higher water table (organic and inorganic) for wind-blown is reached. At this point, the plant mate- and saturated or anaerobic soil conditions deposit is due to fine size (<2 μm [79 rials drop out of the wind stream and for much of the time, which protected the μin]) for both organic and inorganic par- are buried within the sediment deposit, SOC from decomposition. ticles. Once air-borne, the light C fraction enriching the SOC as the plant materials can be carried long distances. However, decompose at a later time.

62A MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Figure 1 2014b). This process is a redistribution of Fate of soil organic carbon (SOC) transport by erosional processes. Modified and already sequestered and stored SOC. The adapted from Lal (2003). total SOC stock of the depositional unit is a combination of sequestered SOC by unit On-site effects plants and deposition of previously stored • Depletion of SOC pool SOC transported from adjacent eroding • Preferential removal • Increased rate of mineralization units. The erosion-caused change in SOC • Acidification of calciferous stocks creates an unbalanced C sink and layer (35 Pg C y–1) source that leads to significant C stock loss as indicated above through different pathways (mineralization, , surface

Fate of carbon en route to Landscape effects runoff, etc.). These outcomes are acceler- depositional state • Breakdown of aggregates and ated by modern agriculture management • Emissions: , Soil erosion increase in mineralization practices coupled with erosion as a driver. , nitrous oxide and carbon • Exposure of SOC to climatic • Burial: in shallow dynamics elements (2.8 to 4.3 Pg C y–1­) It has been documented that sloping lands depressions under shifting land use between culti- vation and fallow act as a conveyor that

stores atmospheric CO2 in soils during

the regeneration of natural fallows (CO2 Depositional site effects stored by volunteered weeds and other • Loss by: mineralization, (0.8 to plants and in some cases no tillage when 1.2 Pg C y–1) fallow) and ultimately transfers it by water • Gain by: reaggregation, erosion process from the steepest areas of complexation, deep burial (0.4 to 0.6 Pg C y–1­) hill slopes to bottomland soils, where it is accumulated (Chaplot et al. 2009). Change in soil C distribution within a land unit Soil erosion is caused by energy from time. Breakdown of structural aggregates cannot be interpreted as soil C sequestra- water, wind, gravity, and chemical reac- exposes the SOC hitherto encapsulated tion because of the absence of the plant’s tions. However, water erosion receives and protected against microbial processes role in the capture and storage of atmo- most attention because its after-effects (Jacinthe and Lal 2009; Lal 2003; Polyakov spheric CO2 (Olson et al. 2014a, 2014b). are more noticeable and it is linked to and Lal 2004, 2005). Breakdown of aggre- other negative outcomes, such as water gates and redistribution of SOC over the LAND UNIT TYPE CONSIDERATIONS quality and loss of productivity that reso- landscape with different soil temperature WHEN MEASURING SOIL ORGANIC nate with the general populations of the and moisture regimes can accelerate its CARBON STOCK United States through its link with food decomposition and emission of GHGs The three basic types of agricultural land insecurity. Transport of SOC and nutrients into the atmosphere as CO2 under aerobic units often used for measuring SOC by windblown soil particles is of poten- conditions and methane (CH4) and nitrous sequestration and monitoring SOC stock tial relevance to (Cihacek oxide (N2O) under anaerobic environ- change include (1) eroding, (2) deposi- et al. 1992) Wind eroded sediments have ments (Lal 2009). tional, and (3) mixed landscape (combined been analyzed for SOC and major nutri- eroding and depositional). ents by other investigators but primarily PRACTICES AND Eroding Agricultural Land Unit. On in relation to the effects of wind erosion SOIL ORGANIC CARBON CHANGE an eroded agricultural land unit, some on and productivity (Larney et Conversion of native or natural ecosys- sequestered SOC stock can be transported al. 1998; Leys 1994; Stoorvogel et al. 1997; tem soil to conventional agriculture use to the adjacent depositional land unit, car-

Van Pelt and Zobek 2009). can result in 30% loss of the original SOC ried into water bodies, or released as CO2 Detachment of soil particles and stock (it is no longer remaining within the to the atmosphere. These losses can result breakdown of aggregates by the kinetic land unit) (Lal et al. 1998; Lal 1999). The in a lower reported SOC stock or seques- energy of raindrops and/or the velocity other 70% of the SOC is subjected to wind tration rate in the eroded agricultural land of flowing water and blowing wind is a or water erosion and transported as SOC- unit than depositional land unit. Some process exactly the opposite of formation rich sediment. It may be retained and researchers (Kreznor et al. 1992; Olson et of aggregates according to the hierarchy redeposited on foot-slope or depositional al. 2011, 2013b) measured the SOC on theory (Tisdall and Oades 1982). The land unit soils in the upland. If transported stable uncultivated or forested sum- SOC encapsulated within the stable SOC is deposited on an adjacent deposi- mits, slightly eroded cultivated interfluves, aggregates is protected against microbial tional land unit, it can increase the SOC severely eroded side-slopes, and deposi- processes and has a long mean residence stock of that unit (Olson et al. 2014a, tional basins (134 Mg C ha–1 [60.9 tn C

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 63A ac–1]). The depositional agricultural land The SOC status within an agricultural component of SOC deposition is through unit had more SOC present in the 0.5 to landscape unit has a different dynamic geological deposition, which can be sepa- 1 m (1.6 to 3.3 ft; soil profile) layer as a once it is retained within its boundar- rated from accelerated erosion, transport, result of soil erosion, transport, and depo- ies. Therefore, the SOC losses from the and deposition SOC since geological sedi- sition of SOC stock that was sequestered eroded part of the land unit can be added ments do not contain fly ash spheres. on another landscape position and pro- to the depositional land unit SOC stock Often the eroded agricultural land unit tected by anaerobic conditions, but it was and considered as sequestered SOC within used by most researchers is large scale (1 not sequestered SOC by plants growing landscape unit boundaries. However, if to 2 ha [2.5 to 5 ac] in size), and SOC within the borders of the depositional some of this redistributed SOC-rich sedi- stocks are only measured in plot areas land unit. The SOC lost from the eroded ment leaves the landscape unit, it would and do not include buffer or filter strips side-slope land units (table 2) through result in a loss of the transported SOC between the plot areas and a waterway. different pathways made the accurate (across land unit borders) to the water Consequently, any SOC-rich sediment determination of the SOC sequestration and adjacent landscape by surface runoff deposited and retained on the lower part of the depositional land unit more difficult. or wind erosion or to the atmosphere as of the slope and outside of the defined

Similar results were reported by Salemme CO2 during the oxidation process, which agricultural land unit is not measured. and Olson (2014) and Olson et al. (2013a). no longer can be counted as sequestered Even if the SOC stock of pretreatment Sediment erosion, transport, and deposi- SOC. Several researchers (Gennadiyev et measurements were made, it would not tion of already stored SOC can result in al. 2010; Golosov et al. 2011; Olson et al. be easy to determine the individual SOC an overestimation of SOC sequestration 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2013b) measured the treatment source when plots are random- in depositional agricultural land units and SOC in agricultural landscape units with ized and transported SOC-rich sediment can underestimate it for adjacent eroding both eroding and depositional sites. The from all treatments are collected in the land units (Olson 2010, 2013). Researchers amount of SOC-rich sediment lost dur- filter or buffer strip. This often leads to need to consider monitoring the eroding ing the erosion process to a depositional unreliable determination of actual soil agricultural source land units in addition unit can be quantified (Kreznor et al. 1989, C change due to the dynamic nature of to the depositional land units. An addi- 1990, 1992; Jones and Olson 1990) using sediment and associated C movement tional concern is the movement by wind the presence of fly ash. The fly ash spheres between land units. and water of plant materials/residues that are a product of coal burning, dating back Depositional Agricultural Land Unit.If can be buried in sediments from eroding to the 1910s (in some cases the 1860s) and transported SOC is deposited on an adja- land units to depositional land units. can be used as indicator for determin- cent depositional land unit, it can increase ing SOC deposition over time. The other the SOC stock of that unit (Olson et al.

Table 2 The effects of soil erosion through land use change on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks.

Land use prairie Soil organic and/or forest vs. Landscape carbon stocks Site location agricultural land position (Mg C ha–1 layer–1) Reference Bureau County, Illinois Tama Uncultivated sod Summit 90.0 Kreznor et al. 1992 Tama Slightly eroded Interfluve 75.0 Tama Severely eroded Sideslope 17.0 Radford Depositional Toeslope 134.0 Knoxville County, Illinois Rozetta Uncultivated forest Summit 67.3 Olson et al. 2011 Rozetta Slightly eroded Interfluve 37.3 Hickory Severely eroded Sideslope 53.5 Lawson Depositional Toeslope 69.7 Albany County, Illinois Lamont Uncultivated forest Summit 45.5 Olson et al. 2013a Lamont Slightly eroded Interfluve 31.4 Seaton Severely eroded Sideslope 23.1 Mt. Carroll Depositional Toeslope 39.0 Shelby County, Iowa Marshall Uncultivated prairie Summit 214 Salemme and Olson 2014 Marshall Slightly eroded Interfluve 109 Exira Severely eroded Sideslope 46 Judson- Depositional Toeslope 257 Ackmore-Colo

64A MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 2014a). This process is a redistribution of sediment delivery method in Iowa and or one outlet). Therefore, SOC stocks that already sequestered and stored SOC. The Illinois (Stewart et al. 1975; Spomer and were lost from the agricultural landscape total SOC stock of the depositional unit Piest 1982; Water Resource Planning unit can be determined by sampling across is a combination of sequestered SOC by Staff 1984). Approximately 45% of the the entire landscape unit and by way of plants growing on the unit and deposi- SOC-rich sediment was retained in the a difference that was transported to the tion of previously stored SOC transported basin and the other 55% delivered to the , atmosphere, or leached below the from adjacent eroding units. The change high gradient stream using the mean of zone. This leads to a more accurate in SOC stocks because of erosion pro- all these sediment delivery estimates for account of the SOC stocks change in the cesses creates an unbalanced C sink and the 10.54 ha (26 ac) watershed (Kreznor landscape land unit and understanding of source that leads to significant C stock et al. 1990). The tolerable (T) soil loss for the distribution of SOC-rich sediment loss as indicated above through different the Tama soil, the most common soil in from the eroding to the depositional site pathways (mineralization, leaching, surface watershed, is 11 Mg ha–1 y–1 (5 tn ac–1 within the landscape unit. runoff, etc.). These outcomes are acceler- yr–1). The total sediment retained in the ated by modern agricultural management 2.49 ha (6 ac) basin (45%) and delivered CONCLUSIONS practices coupled with erosion as a driver. to the stream (55%) would total 37,455 Soil erosion and agricultural land unit Depositional agricultural land units Mg (41,286 tn; soil erosion rate of 26.5 management affect SOC stock of slop- most often receive previously sequestered Mg ha–1 y–1 [12.05 tn ac–1 yr–1]), which is ing agricultural land units along with the SOC from adjacent or at distance eroded 2.4 times T for the entire 10.54 ha water- attendant changes in SOC sequestration, agricultural land units (Young et al. 2014). shed. Since the watershed had 5% to 10% storage, retention, and loss. It is imperative Sometimes researchers have not separated slopes; was primarily in a corn–soybean to recognize that water and wind erosion the measurements of SOC stocks of an rotation; and did not have conservation processes of transport and deposition of eroded land unit from the SOC stocks practices such as contour farming, ter- SOC enriched-sediments within a land- transported and deposited on the depo- races, cover , and no-tillage used scape unit contribute to redistribution sitional unit (David et al. 2011). This can during the last 134 years, this soil erosion of SOC stock, in particular within the result in an inaccurate overestimation of rate is very realistic. The watershed did, upland agricultural land unit boundaries, SOC sequestration in depositional land however, have a grassed waterway, which water bodies beyond those land units, or units (Kreznor et al. 1989, 1990, 1992). helped trap sediments in the basin. The into the atmosphere. Redistribution of Several approaches can be used to 10.54 ha watershed would have a SOC SOC because of soil erosion process nei- determine the amount of SOC-rich stock loss of 824 Mg C (908 tn C; the rate ther constitutes nor is equivalent to SOC sediment deposited on a depositional agri- of loss of C watershed would be 0.58 Mg sequestration, which involves the dynamic cultural land unit. Kreznor et al. (1989, C ha–1 y–1 [0.26 tn ac–1 yr–1]). interactions between soil, plant, and atmo-

1990, 1992) and Jones and Olson (1990) Mixed Landscape Agricultural Land spheric CO2 within the designated unit. used the presence and quantity of fly ash Unit. If an agricultural land unit is a mixed The absence of such dynamics leads to the and SOC to determine erosion and depo- landscape, it is possible to consider both conclusion that soil erosion is a destruc- sitional rates. Using a fly ash time marker, the eroding unit losses and the depositional tive process altering and changing soil C Jones and Olson (1990) and Kreznor et al. unit gains when determining the SOC stocks (organic and inorganic) causing (1990) measured the sediment and SOC sequestration of the larger agricultural the loss of significant amount of relatively retained in a 2.49 ha (6 ac) basin with one landscape unit. The SOC sequestration stable SOC that has been retained in the outlet. The 10.54 ha (26 ac) watershed was cannot be claimed when the depositional soil system for millennia, and adversely conventionally (moldboard plow) culti- gain from C-rich sediment being depos- affecting net primary productivity and use vated for 134 years. The 2.49 ha basin with ited on a land unit is determined without efficiency of inputs. one outlet retained 16,480 Mg (18,166 tn) measuring and deducting the SOC stock The selection of agricultural land unit of sediment (basin deposition rate of 49.4 loss from the adjacent eroding unit (Lal et and its position for study and determining Mg ha–1 y–1 [22.45 tn ac–1 yr–1]) with an al. 1998; Lal 2003; Kreznor et al. 1990). SOC stock can affect the results and their average SOC concentration of 22 g kg–1 To accurately determine SOC change interpretations. An eroding land unit will (2.2%). The 10.54 ha watershed soil ero- of the agricultural landscape (combined underreport the SOC stock, a depositional sion rate, based on total retained basin eroding and depositional land units) agricultural land unit will overestimate the sediment, would be 12.8 Mg ha–1 y–1 (5.8 within landscape units under various agri- SOC stock, while an agricultural mixed tn ac–1 yr–1). The total SOC retained in the culture management practices that induce landscape (combined eroding and deposi- 2.49 ha basin was 362 Mg C (399 tn C) erosion, a mass balance approach must be tional) land unit can have a different and or a basin C deposition rate of 1.08 Mg C used within large scale unit (1 to 10 ha an uncertain SOC distribution outcome ha–1 y–1 (0.49 tn C ac–1 yr–1). [2.5 to 24.7 ac] in size), where the mea- because of losses by decomposition, leach- Another approach used to estimate sured plot areas are included through the ing, and runoff. gross erosion sediments retained in basin entire landscape and extend from the sum- and delivered to the stream was the mit to the waterways (either closed outlet

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 65A ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ent land uses: Assessment by the magnetic tracer sion rates using Cesium-137. Soil Science Society Published with the funding support of the Director method. Eurasian Soil Science 43(9):1047-1054. of America Journal 50:1303-1309. of the Office of Research at the University of Illinois, Golosov, V.N, A.N. Gennadiyev, K.R. Olson, M.V. Larney, F.J., M.S. Bullock, H.H. Janzen, B.H. Ellert, Urbana, Illinois; the NRES Research Project 65-372; Markelov, A.P. Zhidkin, Y.G. Chendev, and R.G. and E.C.S. Olson. 1998. Wind erosion effects part of Regional Research Project 367; and in Kovach. 2011. Spatial and temporal features on nutrient redistribution and soil productiv- cooperation with North Central Regional Project of soil erosion in the forest-steppe zone of the ity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation NC-1178 (Soil ) and North East-European Plain. Eurasian Soil Science 53:133-140. Central Regional Project NCERA-3 (). 44(7):794-801. Leys, J.F., and G.H. McTainsh. 1994. Soil loss and Jacinthe, P., and R. Lal. 2009. Tillage effects on nutrient decline by wind erosion - cause for REFERENCES carbon sequestration and microbial biomass concern. Australian Journal of Soil and Water Bagnold, R.A. 1941. The Physics of Blown Sand and in reclaimed farmland soils of southwestern Conservation 7:30-40. . London: Chapman and Hall. Indiana. Soil Science Society of America Journal Mann, L.K. 1986. Changes in soil carbon storage after Chaplot, V., P. Podwojewewski, K. Phachomphon, 73(2):605-613. cultivation. Soil Science 142:279-288. and C. Valentin. 2009. Soil erosion impact on soil Jones, R.L., and K.R. Olson. 1990. Use of fly ash MEA (Millennium Assessment). 2005. organic carbon spatial variability on steep tropical as a time marker in studies. Soil Ecosystems and well-being: slopes. Soil Science Society of America Journal Science Society of America Journal 54:855-859. synthesis. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 73(3):769-779. Kreznor, W.R., K.R. Olson, W.L. Banwart, and , DC: World Resources Institute. Chepil, W.S. 1945. Dynamics of wind erosion: D.L. Johnson. 1989. Soil, landscape, and erosion Olson, K.R. 2010. Impacts of tillage, slope and I. Nature of movement of soil by wind. Soil relationships in a northwest Illinois watershed. erosion on soil organic carbon retention. Soil Science 60:305-320. Soil Science Society of America Journal Science 175:562-567. Cihacek, L.J., and D.W. Meyer. 2002. Influence of 53:1763-1771. Olson, K.R. 2013. Soil organic carbon sequestration, fertility management on profile soil Kreznor, W.R., K.R. Olson, and D.L. Johnson. 1992. storage, retention and loss in US croplands: Issues carbon storage under long-term bromegrass pro- Field evaluation of methods to estimate soil ero- paper for protocol development. Geoderma duction. In Agricultural Practices and Policies for sion. Soil Science 153:69-81. 195-196:201-206. Carbon Sequestration in Soils, eds. J.M. Kimble, Kreznor, W.R., K.R. Olson, D.L. Johnson, and R.L. Olson, K.R., M.M. Al-Kaisi, R. Lal, and B. Lowery. R. Lal, and R.F. Follet, 281-286. Boca Raton, FL: Jones. 1990. Quantification of post-settlement 2014a. Experimental consideration, treatments, Lewis Publishers. deposition in a Northwestern Illinois sediment and methods in determining soil organic car- Cihacek, L.J., M.D. Sweeney, M.D., and E.J. Deibert. basin. Soil Science Society of America Journal bon sequestration rates. Soil Science Society of 1992. Characterization of wind erosion sedi- 54:1393-1401. America Journal 78:348-360. ments in the Red of North Dakota. Kumar, S., A. Kadono, R. Lal, and W. Dick. 2012. Olson, K.R., M.M. Al-Kaisi, R. Lal, and B. Lowery. Journal of Environmental Quality 22:305-310. Long-term no-till impacts on organic carbon and 2014b. Examining the paired comparison Cihacek, L.J., and M.G. Ulmer. 1995. Estimated properties of two contrasting soils and corn yields method approach for determing soil organic car- soil organic carbon losses from long-term crop- in Ohio 76(5):1798-1809. bon sequestration rates. Journal of Soil and Water fallow in northern Great Plains of USA. In Soil Lal, R. 1976a. Soil erosion investigations on Conservation 69(6):193A-197A, doi:10.2489/ Management and Greenhouse Effect, eds. R. Lal, in western Nigeria. IITA Monograph I:1-206. jswc.69.6.193A. J. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Steward, 85-92. Lal, R. 1976b. Soil erosion on Alfisols in western Olson, K.R., A.N. Gennadiyev, R.G. Kovach, and Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. Nigeria. 4. Nutrient element losses in runoff and T.E. Schumacher. 2014c. Comparison of prai- Cihacek, L.J., and M.G. Ulmer. 1997. Effects of tillage eroded sediments. Geoderma 16(5):403-417. rie and eroded agricultural lands on soil organic on profile soil carbon distribution in the north- Lal R. 1976c. Soil erosion problems on Alfisols carbon retention (South Dakota). Open Journal ern Great Plains of the U.S. In Management of in western Nigeria and their control. IITA of Soil Science 4(4):136-149, doi:10.4236/ Carbon Sequestration in Soil, eds. R. Lal, J.M. Monograph 1. Ibadan, Nigeria, 208 pp. ojss.2014.4417. Kimble, R.A. Follett, and B.A. Stewart, 83- 91. Lal, R., 1999. Soil management and restoration for C Olson, K.R., A.N. Gennadiyev, A.P. Zhidkin, M.V. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. sequestration to mitigate the accelerated green- Markelov, V.N. Golosov, and J.M. Lang. 2013a. David, M.B., G.F. McIsaac, R.G. Darmody, and house effect. Progressive Environmental Science Magnetic tracer methods to determine cropland R.A. Omonode. 2011. Long-term changes 1:307-326. erosion rates. Catena 104:103-110. http://dx.doi. in organic carbon and nitrogen. Lal, R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon bud- org/10.1016/j.catena.2012.10.015. Journal of Environmental Quality 40:280–285, get. Environment International 29:437-450. Olson, K.R., A.N. Gennadiyev, R.G. Kovach, and doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0132er. Lal, R. 2009. Sequestering atmospheric carbon diox- J.M. Lang. 2013b. The use of fly ash to deter- Franzluebbers, A.J., and R.F. Follett. 2005. ide. Critical Review Plant Science 28:1-7. mine the extent of on nearly Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and C.V. Cole. level western Illinois landscapes. Soil Science potential is agricultural region of North America. 1998. The Potential of US Cropland to Sequester 178(1):24-28. Soil Tillage Research 83:25-52. Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Olson, K.R., A.N. Gennadiyev, A.P. Zhidkin, and Gennadiyev, A.N., A.P. Zhidkin, K.R. Olson, and Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press. M.V. Markelov. 2011. Impact of land use change V.L. Kachinskii. 2010. Soil erosion under differ- Lance, J.C., S.C. McIntyre, J. Naney, and W. Rousseva. and soil erosion in Upper Mississippi River Valley 1986. Measuring sediment movement at low ero-

66A MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION on soil organic carbon retention and greenhouse Young, C.J., S. Liu, J.A. Schumacher, T.E. Schumacher, gas emissions. Soil Science 176(9):449-458. T.C. Kaspar, G.W. McCarty, D. Napton, and D.B. Olson, K.R., A.N. Gennadiyev, A.P. Zhidkin, and M.V. Jaynes. 2014. Evaluation of a model framework Markelov. 2012. Impact of land use change, slope to estimate soil and soil organic carbon redistri- and erosion on soil organic carbon retention and bution by water and tillage using 137Cs in two storage USA. Soil Science 177(4):269-278. US Midwest soils. Geoderma 232-234:437-448, Polyakov, V., and R. Lal. 2004. Soil erosion and carbon doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.05.019. dynamics under simulated rainfall. Soil Science 169(8):590-599. Polyakov, V., and R. Lal. 2005. Modeling dynamics as affected by erosion. Environment International 30(4):547-556. Salemme, R., and K.R. Olson. 2014. Land-use change effects on soil organic carbon and total soil nitro- gen. Temperate . Abstract No. 425-2. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America 2014 International Annual Meetings, Nov. 2-5, 2014. Long Beach, California. Spomer, R.G., and R. F. Priest. 1982. Soil productiv- ity and erosion in Iowa loess soils. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 25:1295-1299. Stewart, B.A., D.A. Woolhiser, W. H. Wischmeier, J.H. Caro, and M.H. Frere. 1975. Control of from cropland. Vol. 1. A manual for guideline development. US Environmental Protection Agency Rep. 600/2-75-026. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Stoorvogel, J.J., N. Van Breeman, and B.H. Jansson. 1997. The nutrient input by Harmattan dust to a forest ecosystem in Cote d'Ivoire, . 37:145-157. Sundermeier, A., R. Reeder, and R. Lal. 2005. Soil carbon sequestration–fundamentals. Soil car- bon fact sheet. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Extension. Tisdall, J., and J. Oades. 1982. Organic-matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal of Soil Science 33(2):141-163. Troeh, F.R., J.A. Hobbs, and R.L. Donohue. 2004. Soil and water conservation: Productivity and environmental protection. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Van Pelt, R.S., and T.M. Zobek. 2009. Carbonaceous materials in soil-derived dusts. In Soil Carbon Sequestration and the Greenhouse Effect, eds. R. Lal and R.F. Follett. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 57. Madison WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crops Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. Water Resources Planning Staff. 1984. Soil and water conservation district inventory and evaluation pro- cedure for land treatment. Champaign, IL: USDA.

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION **PROOF - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION** MAY/JUNE 2016—VOL. 71, NO. 3 67A