# How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realise the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal

Pete Smith, Jean-François Soussana, Denis Angers, Louis Schipper, Claire

Chenu, Daniel P. Rasse, Niels H. Batjes, Fenny van Egmond, Stephen Mcneill, Matthias Kuhnert, et al.

► To cite this version:

Pete Smith, Jean-François Soussana, Denis Angers, Louis Schipper, Claire Chenu, et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realise the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Global Change Biology, 2020, 26 (1), pp.219-241. 10.1111/gcb.14815 . hal-02628961

HAL Id: hal-02628961

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02628961

Submitted on 23 Jun 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal

Pete Smith<fnref n="1" /> ID

Jean-François Soussana<fnref n="2" />

Denis Angers<fnref n="3" />

Louis Schipper<fnref n="4" /> ID

Claire Chenu<fnref n="5" />

Daniel P. Rasse<fnref n="6" /> ID

Niels H. Batjes<fnref n="7" />

Fenny van Egmond<fnref n="7" />

Stephen McNeill<fnref n="8" />

Matthias Kuhnert<fnref n="1" />

Cristina Arias-Navarro<fnref n="2" /> ID

Jorgen E. Olesen<fnref n="9" />

Ngonidzashe Chirinda<fnref n="10" />

Dario Fornara<fnref n="11" /> ID

Eva Wollenberg<fnref n="12" />

Jorge Álvaro-Fuentes<fnref n="13" />

Alberto Sanz-Cobena<fnref n="14" />

Katja Klumpp<fnref n="15" />

## Correspondence

Pete Smith, Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK.

Email: pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk

## Funding information

AGRISOST-CM, Grant/Award Number: S2018/BAA-4330; Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Grant/Award Number: AGL2017-84529-C3-1-R; NUEVA; Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases; REMEDIA; Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities, Grant/Award Number: SINKS2; New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre; European Union, Grant/

## Abstract

There is growing international interest in better managing soils to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) content to contribute to climate change mitigation, to enhance resilience to climate change and to underpin food security, through initiatives such as international '4p1000' initiative and the FAO's Global assessment of SOC sequestration potential (GSOCseq) programme. Since SOC content of soils cannot be easily measured, a key barrier to implementing programmes to increase SOC at large scale, is the need for credible and reliable measurement/monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) platforms, both for national reporting and for emissions trading. Without such platforms, investments could be considered risky. In this paper, we review methods and challenges of measuring SOC change directly in soils, before examining some recent novel developments that show promise for quantifying SOC. We describe

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2019 The Authors. *Global Change Biology* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

<footnote n="1">¹Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²INRA, Paris Cedex 07, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Quebec, QC, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵INRA, AgroParisTech., Thiverval-Grignon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Ås, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ISRIC - World Soil Information, Wageningen, The Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Belfast, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²CGIAR CCAFS Programme, University of Vermont (UVM), Burlington, VT, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Soil and Water Department, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Zaragoza, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Research Center for the Management of Environmental and Agricultural Risks (CEIGRAM), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵INRA, VetAgro-Sup, UCA, Clermont Ferrand, France</footnote>
Award Number: 774378; DEVIL, Grant/
Award Number: NE/M021327/1; Soils-R-
GRREAT, Grant/Award Number: NE/
P019455/1; CGIAR Trust Fund; UKERC

how repeat soil surveys are used to estimate changes in SOC over time, and how long-term experiments and space-for-time substitution sites can serve as sources of knowledge and can be used to test models, and as potential benchmark sites in global frameworks to estimate SOC change. We briefly consider models that can be used to simulate and project change in SOC and examine the MRV platforms for SOC change already in use in various countries/regions. In the final section, we bring together the various components described in this review, to describe a new vision for a global framework for MRV of SOC change, to support national and international initiatives seeking to effect change in the way we manage our soils.

KEYWORDS

measurement, monitoring, MRV, reporting, soil organic carbon, soil organic matter, verification

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Soil organic carbon (SOC) represents a stock of around 1,500–2,400 Gt C (~5500–8800 Gt CO₂) in the top metre of soils globally (Batjes, 1996; Sanderman, Hengl, & Fiske, 2017). The lower estimate in the range is approximately three times the stock of carbon (C) in vegetation and twice the stock of C in the atmosphere (Smith, 2012). Small changes in C stocks can therefore have significant impacts on the atmosphere and climate change. Since the onset of agriculture around 8,000 years ago (Ruddiman, 2005), soils have lost around 140–150 Gt C (~510–550 Gt CO₂; Sanderman et al., 2017) through cultivation. It is known that best management practices can restore some at least some of this lost carbon (Lal et al., 2018), so it has been suggested that soil C sequestration could be a significant greenhouse gas (GHG) removal strategy (also called negative emission technology, or carbon dioxide removal option; Smith, 2016). Global estimates of soil C sequestration potential vary considerably, but a recent systematic review by Fuss et al. (2018) suggests an annual technical potential of 2–5 Gt CO₂/year. Estimates of economic potentials are at the lower end of this range (Smith, 2016; Smith et al., 2008).

An incomplete understanding on how SOC changes are influenced by climate, land use, management and edaphic factors (Stockmann et al., 2013), adds complexity to designing appropriate monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) platforms. For instance, process-level knowledge on how these variables influence changes in C stocks and fluxes remains incomplete (Bispo et al., 2017). Furthermore, the reversibility of C sequestration, when practices that retain C are not maintained, or due to climate variability or climate change, increases uncertainty in the time frames needed to monitor SOC enhancement activities (Rumpel et al., 2019). In addition, the large background stocks, inherent spatial and temporal variability and slow soil C gains make the detection of short-term changes (e.g. 3–5 years) in SOC stocks and the design of reliable, cost-effective and easy to apply MRV platforms challenging (Post, Izaurralde, Mann, & Bliss, 1999).

Smith et al. (2012) described a framework, building on available models, data sets and knowledge, to quantify the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon. That paper concluded

by presenting a future vision for a global framework to assess soil carbon change, based on a combination of mathematical models, spatial data to drive the models, short- and long-term data to evaluate the models, and a network of benchmarking sites to verify estimated changes. Here, we review the new knowledge since then, and further develop this vision in the light of the need to provide credible and robust MRV capabilities to support the growing International and National initiatives to increase SOC, such as the International ‘4p1000’ initiative (Chabbi et al., 2017; Rumpel et al., 2018, 2019).

We focus on methods to measure and/or estimate SOC change, but these measurement/estimation methods also form the basis of how changes in SOC can be monitored and reported at plot to national (and even global) scales, and how reported changes could be verified. We begin by reviewing the methods and challenges of measuring SOC change directly in soils (Section 2), before examining some recent developments that show promise for quantifying SOC stocks (and therefore change) using flux measurements, non-destructive field-based spectroscopic methods and the possibility in future of estimating SOC change through earth observation/remote sensing (Section 3). We then review how repeat soil surveys are used to estimate territorial changes in SOC over time (Section 4), and how long-term experiments and space-for-time substitution sites can serve as sources of knowledge and can be used to testing models, and as potential benchmark sites in global platforms to estimate SOC change (Section 5). Section 6 summarizes recent reviews on models available for simulating and predicting change in SOC, after which Section 7 describes MRV platforms for SOC change already in use in various countries/regions. We finish the review (Section 8) by describing a new vision for a global framework for MRV of SOC change to support national and international initiatives.

# 2 | DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF SOC STOCK CHANGES

Accurate estimates of SOC stocks rely strongly on baseline SOC values, which are determined by physical sampling and soil C content
measurements. This approach traditionally involves the quantification of (a) fine earth (<2 mm) and coarse mineral (>2 mm) fractions of the soil; (b) organic carbon (OC) concentration (%) of the fine earth fraction; and (c) soil bulk density or fine earth mass (FAO, 2019a). In some instances, such as grasslands or forest soils, it may be of interest to quantify and account for the coarse fraction of belowground OC (FAO, 2019a). The challenge remains to accurately estimate the rock content of sampled soils, which can significantly affect soil bulk density (Page-Dumroese, Jurgensen, Brown, & Mroz, 1999; Poeplau, Vos, & Don, 2017; Throop, Archer, Monger, & Waltman, 2012). Changes in management that influence carbon content also affect the bulk density of the soil (Haynes & Naidu, 1998), and thereby the amount of soil that is sampled within a given sampling depth. It is therefore recommended to use an 'equivalent mass basis' approach when comparing SOC stocks across land uses and different management regimes (Ellert & Bettany, 1995; Upson, Burgess, & Morison, 2016; Wendt & Hauser, 2013).

Direct measurements also rely on appropriate study designs and sampling protocols to deal with high spatial variability of SOC stocks (Minasny et al., 2017). To reduce potential sources of error in SOC stock estimation and minimize the minimum detectable difference (i.e. the smallest difference in SOC stock that can be detected as statistically significant between two sampling periods; FAO, 2019a), a large number of soil samples is often required (Garten & Wullschleger, 1999; Vanguelova et al., 2016). Sufficient sampling depth is a crucial factor for properly evaluating changes in soil C content (IPCC recommends a minimum depth of 30 cm). Several long-term agronomy experiments suffer from an increase in ploughing depth during more recent decades, as agricultural machinery became more powerful. Insufficient information on historical sampling depth can also add uncertainty to the results.

Several methods for increasing soil C content require deeper sampling for confirming the expected effect. The positive effect of no-till on soil C content measured in the surface soil may not be apparent when measuring to 60 cm depth (Angers & Eriksen-Hamel, 2008; Blanco-Canqui & Lal, 2008). Crops with deep root phenotypes are considered a promising method to increase C sequestration in soils (Paustian et al., 2016), though demonstrating their effect requires deep soil sampling. Deeper soil sampling (100 cm) is recommended (FAO, 2019a), but often requires specific machinery and is costly.

Costs associated with collecting, processing and storing soil samples and C content measurements using, for example, common dry combustion methods (Nelson & Sommers, 1996) can make large-scale direct measurements of soil SOC stocks prohibitively expensive. It was estimated that to detect meaningful changes in soil C stocks across forest ecosystems in Finland (i.e. 3,000 plots at the national scale) might cost 4 million Euro for one sampling campaign (e.g. baseline measurement from 1 year) and then again for the following sampling interval (e.g. 10 years later; Mäkipää, Häkkinen, Muukkonen, & Peltoniemi, 2008). Thus, there is the need to evaluate these costs against the value of soil C sequestered (Mäkipää et al., 2008; Smith, 2004b) and search for trade-offs between costs

involved and alternative SOC estimation methods including different modelling approaches.

A combination of direct measurements (at the plot scale) and modelling (at larger spatial scales) can greatly help defining the efficacy of different land management practices in enhancing soil C sequestration and has been used for estimating soil C change in national GHG inventory platforms (e.g. VandenBygaart et al., 2008). It is, therefore, crucial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of measuring and sequestering C across different land uses and socio-economic conditions (Alexander, Paustian, Smith, & Moran, 2015).

# 3 | NOVEL METHODS OF MEASURING SOC CHANGE

## 3.1 | Inferring SOC stock changes from flux measurements

An alternative to repeated measurements is to draw up a full carbon budget. This indirect approach accounts for the initial uptake of carbon through photosynthesis (gross primary production), its subsequent partial losses through respiration (soil, plant and litter) to give net ecosystem exchange (NEE) or net ecosystem production and further C inputs (organic fertilization) and outputs (harvest) to and from the system (see Smith, Lanigan, et al., 2010; Soussana, Tallec, & Blanfort, 2010). The measurements of the net balance of C fluxes exchanged (i.e. estimating NEE) can be achieved by chamber measurements or by the eddy covariance (EC) method (e.g. Baldocchi, 2003). During recent decades, estimates of C sequestration from flux measurements have been reported to be comparatively uncertain due to (a) necessary assumptions associated with data processing (e.g. footprint, spectral corrections, i.e. Aubinet, Vesala, & Papale, 2012); the fact that (b) this method is a point-in-space measurement; and (c) net changes in soil C pools are relatively small compared to C stored in biomass and litter when measured over short time periods (i.e. <5 years).

Despite this, recent developments in instrumentation (analyser performance and set-ups, e.g. Rebmann et al., 2018), data acquisition and processing (i.e. data loggers, software, QA/QC checks) have greatly improved the reliability of estimates (e.g. Fratini & Mauder, 2014). Furthermore, harmonized networks of long-term observation sites, created to provide access to standardized data and to quantify the effectiveness of carbon sequestration and/or GHG emission at European (Integrated Carbon Observation System, ICOS; Franz et al., 2018) and global scale (FLUXNET global network, e.g. Baldocchi, Housen, & Reichstein, 2018; Figure 1), have greatly reduced uncertainties in flux and supplementary measurements. Moreover, ongoing analyses on peculiarities of flux measurement likely to increase uncertainties in flux measurements, such as integration of (moving) point sources, that is, grazing animals (Felber, Münger, Neftel, & Ammann, 2015; Gourlez de la Motte et al., 2019), ditches (Nugent, Strachan, Strack, Roulet, & Rochefort, 2018) and fallow periods, have been studied thoroughly and have allowed routine data analyses to be updated (e.g. Sabbatini et al., 2018).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** Map of flux towers and available time series worldwide
Source: Fluxnet, 2019</figcaption></figure>

Concerning the comparison between C sequestration deter-
mined via the EC technique (i.e. full C balance) and soil C stock
changes, some studies have shown poor agreement (Jones et al.,
2017), but a number of studies have shown comparable estimates,
when applied for time frames >10 year and with soil data including
at least both top and medium soil depths (i.e. 0–60 cm; e.g. *grassland*:
Leifeld, Ammann, Neftel, & Fuhrer, 2011; Skinner & Dell, 2014; Stahl
et al., 2017; *cropland*: Emmel et al., 2018; Hoffmann et al., 2017; *for*-
est: Ferster, Trofymow, Coops, Chen, & Black, 2015). Coupling of EC
with soil C stock change studies has become a favoured approach
to understand both short- and long-term effects of principal drivers
(e.g. management, climate) on ecosystem functioning (i.e. Eugster &
Merbold, 2015), *in natura* measurement and modelling approaches
(e.g. Beer et al., 2010; Besnard et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2009).

3.2 | Spectral methods for measuring SOC stocks

New spectral methods for measuring SOC concentration and stocks
are rapidly becoming available for direct point measurements in field
and in the lab, but also for measurement of patterns at larger scales
across landscapes and regions. Each comes with a specific associ-
ated accuracy and cost (Bellon-Maurel & McBratney, 2011; England
& Viscarra Rossel, 2018; Nayak et al., 2019). A smart combination
of these and more traditional methods can either bring down costs
(Nocita et al., 2015), provide more exhaustive spatial patterns of
SOC stocks (Aitkenhead, 2017; Rosero-Vlasova, Vlassova, Pérez-
Cabello, Montorio, & Nadal-Romero, 2019) or provide indications for
change in stocks (Li et al., 2018; Zhao, Ye, Li, Yu, & Mcclellan, 2016).

The methods for measuring SOC concentration mainly rely on the
reflectance of light on soil in the infrared region. The organic bonds
and minerals in the soil absorb light at specific wavelengths, result-
ing is a soil content-specific absorbance or reflectance spectrum. This
spectrum is measured with high level of spectral detail (hyperspectral,
often in the lab) or limited level of detail in wider bands (multispectral,
often from satellites or cheaper field instruments). Using a statisti-
cal model based on a spectral library, the soil carbon percentage can
be predicted from spectral measurements of the unknown samples.

The spectral library is derived from samples on which soil properties
have been determined by traditional laboratory methods, such as dry
combustion, alongside reflectance measurements. Relevant wave-
lengths for soil and SOC are mainly in the mid- (4,000-600 cm⁻¹) and
the near- or short-wave infrared region (2,000-2,500 nm). Other key
soil properties can also be simultaneously determined if present in
the spectral libraries, including fractions of OC and vulnerability of
soil carbon to loss (Baldock, Beare, Curtin, & Hawke, 2018; Baldock,
Hawke, Sanderman, & Macdonald, 2013), soil texture, pH and others
(Stenberg, Viscarra Rossel, Mouazen, & Wetterlind, 2010), which can
be used to inform modelling approaches. Partial least squares regres-
sion (PLSR) is a statistical method that is currently most widely used
to predict soil properties from spectra. These machine learning ap-
proaches (e.g. Cubist, Random Forests, Support Vector [regression]
Machines and others) are rapidly developing, and new techniques are
becoming available, currently referred to as deep learning (Padarian,
Minasny, & Mcbratney, 2019) and memory based learning (Dangal,
Sanderman, Wills, & Ramirez-Lopez, 2019; Ramirez-Lopez et al.,
2013). These techniques, such as locally weighted PLSR, use local cal-
ibrations based on spectrally similar subsets of a spectral library. This
will likely lead to considerable improvement, reducing the prediction
errors. This does not resolve the inherent laboratory measurement
uncertainties associated with both reference and spectral data.

Standardization of reference laboratory methods, spectral mea-
surements and soil data exchange to some extent negates these is-
sues, and they are addressed in several international co-operations,
one of which is Pillar 5 of the Global Soil Partnership (GSP, 2017).
If standardization and calibration transfer challenges can be solved,
combining spectral libraries can provide a vast data resource for not
only local but also more regional and global SOC analyses (England &
Viscarra Rossel, 2018; Viscarra Rossel, Behrens, et al., 2016; Viscarra
Rossel, Brus, Lobsey, Shi, & Mcclachlan, 2016).

Laboratory costs could be reduced by using Fourier transform mid-
infrared (MIR) diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for estimation of total
carbon, OC, clay content and sand fraction (Viscarra Rossel, Walvoort,
Mcbratney, Janik, & Skjemstad, 2006; Wijewardane, Ge, Wills, &
Libohova, 2018). Several commercial laboratories use near-infrared
(NIR) for this purpose but once a sufficient spectral library or calibration set is compiled, MIR outperforms NIR (Reeves, 2010; Viscarra Rossel et al., 2006; Vohland, Ludwig, Thiele-Bruhn, & Ludwig, 2014). In such studies or applications, bigger libraries are spiked or subselected to build local (spectral or geographical) prediction models using machine learning techniques (Janik, Skjemstad, Shepherd, & Spencer, 2007). Sample preparation is very simple (dry, sieve to <2 mm, fine grind (Soil Survey Staff, 2014) and after a library is built, the measurements are fast and inexpensive, and can assess all of the listed properties at the same time (Nocita et al., 2015).

These spectral libraries can also be used to calibrate field spectrometers, although accuracy will often be lower, mostly due to moisture and surface roughness of the soil. Higher cost in situ systems are available for both NIR and MIR (Dhawale et al., 2015; Hutengs, Ludwig, Jung, Eisele, & Vohland, 2018). Alternatives are cheap in-field NIR spectrometers for point measurements (Tang, Jones, & Minasny, 2019) which tend to have low(er) accuracies due to hardware constraints and which may have bias. On-the-go systems with 2-5 wavelengths are on the market as well as penetrometers with visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (VNIR), which also provide a measure for penetration resistance or compacted soil (Ackerson, Morgan, & Ge, 2017; Al-Asadi & Mouazen, 2018; Poggio, Brown, & Bricklemeyer, 2017; Wetterlind, Piikki, Stenberg, & Söderström, 2015). A final possibility is a core sampler which measures the extracted soil core in field with VNIR and active gamma radiation for (total) bulk density (Lobsey & Viscarra Rossel, 2016).

An important property for calculating SOC stocks is soil bulk density which is difficult to measure accurately in field (Bellon-Maurel & McBratney, 2011). A method used in a number of set-ups is gamma attenuation. This can be measured on the extracted soil core (England & Viscarra Rossel, 2018; Lobsey & Viscarra Rossel, 2016) or directly in the soil (Jacobs, Eelkema, Limburg, & Winterwerp, 2009). With this technique, the attenuation by matter of gamma radiation originating from a small radioactive source is measured over a known volume between source and detector. The matter in this case consists of both soil and moisture. The volume is simulated using Monte Carlo simulations. This provides a measure of dry bulk density after correction for moisture content as measured for instance with a time domain reflectometry (Jacobs et al., 2009) or VNIR (Lobsey & Viscarra Rossel, 2016).

The benefit of these techniques is the possibility to acquire more samples and/or more in-field measurements, allowing a user to address the potential of carbon sequestration of the soil adequately. Some of these techniques are most suitable for describing the spatial distribution of soil carbon, while others are suitable for quantitative estimates or monitoring (in time, allowing the impacts of management on soil carbon to be detected). Choices can be made based on cost and required accuracy of the purpose (value of information or decision analysis).

At larger scales, remote sensing offers added possibilities. This can either be by relating UAV, airplane or satellite data directly to soil properties, or by inferring changes in SOC by vegetation changes, or by using remote imagery as a covariate in digital soil mapping of SOC. Direct interpretation can be performed on hyperspectral imagery in combination with spectral libraries for direct quantification of bare

soil patterns (top 1 cm; Gomez, Lagacherie, & Bacha, 2012; Jaber, Lant, & Al-Qinna, 2011), or by using multivariate imagery for mapping bare soil patterns as indication of SOC or soil class differences either using raw or enhanced imagery such as by multi-temporal composites (Gallo et al., 2018; Rogge et al., 2018).

Changes in vegetation patterns visible in remote imagery can be used to detect (changes in) land use and thus infer soil properties and SOC change. Analysis of land-use change, net primary productivity and SOC stocks are instrumental for identifying hotspots of SOC sequestration potential (Caspari, Lynden, & Bai, 2015; van der Esch et al., 2017).

The third option is to use satellite imagery products as covariates in digital soil mapping, where the relation between soil properties and satellite information is used to predict SOC maps at various depths using point observations and satellite imagery products (Hengl et al., 2017; McBratney, Mendonça Santos, & Minasny, 2003; Minasny & McBratney, 2016).

Remote sensing offers a range of possibilities, detail and spatial scales that are not feasible with point measurements alone (Ge, Thomasson, & Sui, 2011; Mulder, Bruin, Schaepman, & Mayr, 2011). That said, a combination of remote and in situ or point data will remain necessary to derive high resolution and accurate SOC maps. Apart from the limited penetration depth (top 1 cm while a soil profile would be desirable), this is also due to the fact that in many regions, bare soil is never visible, or areas are too often covered in clouds. At the same time, the high temporal frequency and high spatial resolution of remote imagery offer an unprecedented possibility to study and monitor space-time dynamics of SOC change if used in combination with (long-term) monitoring stations (Chabrillat et al., 2019).

## 4 | REPEATED SOIL SURVEYS—NATIONAL/ SUB NATIONAL

Repeat soil sampling programmes have been conducted in a number of countries, such as England and Wales (Bellamy, Loveland, Bradley, Lark, & Kirk, 2005; Kirkby et al., 2005), Denmark (Heidmann, Christensen, & Olesen, 2002; Taghizadeh-Toosi, Olesen, et al., 2014), Belgium (Sleutel, Neve, & Hofman, 2003) and New Zealand (Schipper et al., 2014—see below). These rely on resampling of previously sampled locations after varying periods. Advantages are that repeat sampling schemes measure actual soil carbon contents over large spatial scales and over long periods (Bellamy et al., 2005), but the main disadvantage is that land-use change and land management between sampling periods are mostly unknown, making attribution of any observed changes in soil carbon to specific drivers (such as management or climate change) very difficult (Smith et al., 2007). In some cases, records of land use and management have been available allowing the effect of management changes to be assessed for better verification of modelling approaches to quantifying SOC stock changes (Taghizadeh-Toosi, Olesen, et al., 2014).

Resampling of soil survey sites originally sampled in the 1970s–1990s in New Zealand has played an important role in identifying changes in soil carbon stocks in grazed pastures (Schipper et al., 2014). The difficulty with these historical resampling efforts was that
sites were not chosen with national survey purposes in mind, so their representativeness was questionable. Additionally, sampling efforts were not carried out uniformly over space and time, so resampling was potentially confounded by the effects of soil type, climate and other factors. However, these data have been central to development and subsequent implementation of more robust sampling designs of grazed lands. Alongside, resampling of site impacts of management practices on carbon stock has been explored through the sampling of adjacent long-term management practices (e.g. Barnett, Schipper, Taylor, Balks, & Mudge, 2014; Mudge et al., 2017).

In the case of Europe, differences exist in the availability of soil surveys among countries. As highlighted in the final report of the ENVASSO project, soil monitoring networks are much denser in northern and eastern European countries compared with countries located in the southern part of the continent (Kibblewhite et al., 2008). For example, countries such as France, Sweden or Poland maintain systematic soil monitoring systems at national level with different density of monitoring sites and sampling frequencies. In the case of France, different soil monitoring system levels exist which operates to either forest and non-forest areas. The Soil Quality Monitoring Network was created 20 years ago for non-forested areas, covering the main land uses in France in a 16 × 16 km grid (King, Stengel, Jamagne, Le Bas, & Arrouays, 2005). Similarly, in Sweden, soil monitoring is performed at two geographical levels (national and regional) and with different levels of application: forest land, integrated monitoring (areas with minor impact of forest management), intensive monitoring plots (223 forest plots) and arable land monitoring (Olsson, 2005). Poland has also different soil monitoring systems for forest and cropland soils. For the case of croplands, monitoring soils started in 1994 and since then soils have been sampled every 8 years with different soils' properties measured (Białousz, Marcinek, Stuczyński, & Turski, 2005). In Denmark, soils are sampled every 8–10 years to 1 m depth on a regular 7 km grid covering both agricultural and forest soils (Taghizadeh-Toosi, Olesen, et al., 2014).

In contrast, EU Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Spain or Greece are examples of European regions where systematic national soil monitoring systems are underdeveloped or non-existent, despite the risks of SOC losses, and soil erosion events resulting from a combination of crop management and regional impacts of climate change (Trnka et al., 2011). For example, in the case of Italy, there is no monitoring system, but there is willingness to develop it. In Spain, over the last 20 years, two independent soil national inventories have been performed; one to assess soil erosion and the other to assess soil heavy metal pollution (Ibáñez, Sánchez Díaz, de Alba, López Arias, & Bioxadera, 2005). However, the inventories have not been linked and there is no firm schedule for future resampling yet in place.

## 5 | LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS OF SOC CHANGE

Since changes in bulk soil carbon occur slowly (Smith, 2004a), long-term measurements are required to show the relatively small

change against the large background carbon stock. To this end, long-term field experiments exist in various parts of the world, with some dating from the 19th century. Although many of these experiments were originally set up to examine the effects of management (often fertilization) on crop or grass yield, many have a history of measurements of soil carbon and nitrogen change. Over recent decades, results from these field experiments have been central to testing the accuracy of models of turnover of SOC. As noted by Smith et al. (2012), the long-term experiments in various parts of the world existed largely in isolation of each other, but in the 1990s, there were attempts to bring the various experiments together into shared networks (Barnett, Payne, & Steiner, 1995), with two such networks focussing on soil C; the Soil Organic Matter Network (SOMNET) and EuroSOMNET (the more detailed European component of the larger global network) were two attempts to couple SOC models with observations from long-term experiments (Smith et al., 1997), with the aims or both testing models and the sharing, comparing and use of data from across the experiments to estimate carbon sequestration potential (Smith, Powlson, Smith, Falloon, & Coleman, 2000). SOMNET later evolved into an online, real-time inventory project with a website known as Long-Term Soil-Ecosystems Experiments, which now has collected metadata on well over 200 long-term soil experiments Richter, Hofmockel, Callaham, Powlson, and Smith (2007), with the metadata currently hosted by the International Soil Carbon Network (iscn.fluxdata.org/partner-networks/long-term-soil-experiments/). Smith et al. (2012) showed the locations and purpose of these long-term experiments. Most (>80%) of the world's long-term field studies address agricultural research questions, and most of the field studies test agricultural questions in the temperate zone. Nonagricultural sites and experiments in the bioclimatic zones other than the temperate region are under-represented (Smith et al., 2012).

Long-term field studies have proved extremely valuable for understanding the long-term dynamics of SOC and wider issues of soil sustainability (Richter et al., 2007). In terms of MRV, the long-term experiments serve as (a) a long-term record of change; (b) a test bed for SOC models; (c) locations where new practices could be tested and measured; and (d) sites where shorter term (e.g. flux measurements) could be taken to better understand shorter term processes. Such experiments could therefore form vital components of national and international MRV platforms for SOC change. Existing long-term monitoring sites are extremely valuable but do not exist in every global region, making a compelling case for starting new long-term experimental/ monitoring sites in under-represented regions.

## 6 | MODELS OF SOC CHANGE

The soil organic matter (SOM) dynamics can be described by different mathematical formulations (Parton, Grosso, Plante, Adair, & Luz, 2015), as presented in Table 1, and different model approaches (Campbell & Paustian, 2015; Manzoni & Porporato, 2009). Most
<table><caption>**TABLE 1** List of different functions to simulate the decomposition in models following the discussion of Parton et al. (2015). The publications listed refer to the example models. The abbreviations describe the carbon (C) at the start ($C_0$) and at a certain time (t) step ($C_t$), the decomposition rate (k), the Michaelis–Menten constant ($K_m$) and the maximum reaction velocity for the process ($V_m$), the carbon demand by the microbes ($X_0$), the Monod constant ($K_t$) and the maximum growth rate ($\mu_{max}$). The graphs show $C_t$ in a time series for one set of arbitrary parameters</caption><thead><tr><th>Approach</th><th>Equation</th><th>Graphical relation (C(t))</th><th>Example model</th><th>Publications</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Zero-order kinetics</td><td>C<sub>t</sub> = C<sub>0</sub> - kt</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>First-order kinetics</td><td>C<sub>t</sub> = C<sub>0</sub>e<sup>-kt</sup></td><td></td><td>RothC, ICBM</td><td>Jenkinson and Rayner (1977), Andrén and Kätterer (1997)</td></tr><tr><td>Enzyme kinetics</td><td>dC/dt = V<sub>m</sub> C / (K<sub>m</sub> + C)</td><td></td><td>CLM, SEAM</td><td>Wieder et al. (2013), Wutzler et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Microbial growth</td><td>-dC/dt = &mu;<sub>max</sub> (C / (K<sub>t</sub> + C)) (C<sub>0</sub> + X<sub>0</sub> - C)</td><td></td><td>NICA</td><td>Blagodatsky and Richter (1998)</td></tr></tbody></table>

common SOM models are compartment models, which use between two and five carbon pools (Falloon & Smith, 2000). While the stability and complexity of the organic compounds is not represented explicitly in models, it is represented by varying turnover and residence times of OC in different carbon pools (Stockmann et al., 2013). The residence times are controlled by the decay rate of the carbon in the different pools, which is usually described by the first-order kinetics (e.g. Falloon & Smith, 2000; Parton et al., 2015; Paustian, 1994). A wide range of different models show this structure, either as independent SOM model or as part of an ecosystem model, dynamic vegetation model or a general circulation model (Campbell & Paustian, 2015; Ostle et al., 2009; Parton et al., 2015). Manzoni and Porporato (2009) identified about 250 different models, but there are still new developments, as there are still unresolved challenges.

Despite the development of different approaches that allow the measurement of different carbon pools in the models (e.g. Janik et al., 2007; Skjemstad, Spencer, Cowie, & Swift, 2004; Zimmermann, Leifeld, Schmidt, Smith, & Fuhrer, 2007), SOC pools are often still initialized in a spin-up run (Nemo et al., 2017). This is a practical approach if information about the fractionation is not available, but it relies on ideal assumptions of equilibrium (Smith, Smith, Monaghan, & MacDonald, 2002) which impacts the results (Bruun & Jensen, 2002). Furthermore, the residence times of most pools exceed the duration of available measurements, which makes the calibration and validation of the models difficult (Campbell & Paustian, 2015; Falloon & Smith, 2000). Additionally, not all relevant processes (e.g. priming) are represented in the models (Guenet, Moyano, Peylin, Ciais, & Janssens, 2016; Wutzler & Reichstein, 2013). Recently, there has been a discussion about the ability of existing models to reflect changes in temperature (Conant

et al., 2011; Moyano, Vasilyeva, & Menichetti, 2018), which is most relevant to simulate climate change impacts (Conant et al., 2011). In short, it is not clear, if the slower, more stable pools get differently affected by temperature changes (e.g. Campbell & Paustian, 2015; Conant et al., 2011). For these and other purposes, there are an increasing number of new model approaches and hypotheses (e.g. Cotrufo, Wallenstein, Boot, Denef, & Paul, 2013; Lehmann & Kleber, 2015; Wieder, Bonan, & Allison, 2013; Wutzler, Zaehle, Schrumpf, Ahrens, & Reichstein, 2017). Therefore, long-term data sets (Section 5) are needed to test the performance of the established and the new models.

Many operational SOC models only simulate turnover and decomposition of the SOC pools and the added OC (Toudert et al., 2018). These models thus rely heavy on proper estimation of carbon inputs in residues and organic amendments (manure, compost, etc.) as well as on information on the biological quality of these inputs. Most modelling approaches used for inventory purposes rely on input data from harvest residues or decaying plant parts and external organic amendments. The plant C inputs are mostly derived from measured agricultural yields using simple allometric equations, where the C inputs is related linearly or non linearly to crop yield (Keel, Leifeld, & Mayer, 2017). Comparison of different published approaches of estimating C input, but using the same decomposition model, has demonstrated large uncertainties in simulated changes in SOC (Keel et al., 2017). The selection of allometric functions for estimating C input is therefore a critical step in the choice of model approach. Recent research has also questioned the appropriateness of using simple allometric functions such as fixed shoot:root ratios for estimating C input (e.g. Hu et al., 2018). Rather than assuming a fixed shoot:root ratio, using a fixed amount of belowground C input depending on site and crop may provide the
most robust estimate (Hirte, Leifeld, Abiven, Oberholzer, & Mayer, 2018; Taghizadeh-Toosi, Christensen, Glendining, & Olesen, 2016). This has implications for modelling application where changes in crop productivity are a main driver of C inputs.

## 7 | WHAT MRV PLATFORMS ARE CURRENTLY IN USE

A number of GHG emission and soil carbon change quantification schemes have been developed in various parts of the world. For example, the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative/Emission reduction fund has guidance relating to sampling and measurement of SOC and estimating and reporting SOC stock change for SOC management projects (Australian Government, 2018). In Alberta in Canada, there is a Conservation Cropping Protocol, a tool used to quantify GHG emission reductions from conservation cropping (Alberta Government, 2012). For certain production systems (e.g. livestock production), FAO has published guidance on measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes (FAO, 2019a). In this section, we examine methods already in use in countries participating in the Global Research Alliance of Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA).

### 7.1 | Operational soil MRV systems in use in GRA countries

We first searched the GRA publications library (https://globalrese
archalliance.org/publication-library/) for operational soil MRV
systems/procedures, giving limited results (e.g. Minamikawa,
Yamaguchi, Tokida, Sudo, & Yagi, 2018). Subsequently, we searched
the Web-of-Science using "((soil AND carbon) OR soc) AND ((moni-
toring OR reporting OR verification) OR mrv)," giving 91 potential
sources. Adding the GRA country names (56 as of October 2018)
to the initial search reduced this to 14 papers. These studies cover
parts of a country (McHenry, 2009; Nerger, Funk, Cordsen, & Fohrer,
2017; Steinmann et al., 2016; Wilson, Barnes, Koen, Ghosh, & King,
2010), consider selected agro-ecosystems or agricultural prac-
tices (Allen, Pringle, Page, & Dalal, 2010; de Gruijter et al., 2016;
McHenry, 2009; Scott et al., 2002; Wu, Clarke, & Mulder, 2010), out-
line the basis for a possible national soil monitoring system (Spencer,
Ogle, Breidt, Goebel, & Paustian, 2011; Visschers, Finke, & Gruijter,
2007), were discontinued due to lack of funding (Goidts, Wesemael,
& Oost, 2009; Taghizadeh-Toosi, Olesen, et al., 2014; Yagasaki &
Shirato, 2014) or, alternatively, concern measurement systems that
are in their first (Mäkipää, Liski, Guendehou, Malimbwi, & Kaaya,
2002; Nijbroek et al., 2018) or second round (Orgiazzi, Ballabio,
Panagos, Jones, & Fernández-Ugalde, 2018; Spencer et al., 2011).

Much early work has been done in Australia (McKenzie,
Henderson, & Mcdonald, 2002), and in 2014, the Australian
Government approved the first methodology for soil carbon se-
questration for use at farm level (de Gruijter et al., 2016); recom-
mended procedures of stratification and sampling, however, may

vary between countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand, see Malone
et al., 2018). Overall, a lack of common procedures between (and
within) countries affects the suitability of using the SOC stock as ab-
solute indicator for monitoring changes in land quality and soil deg-
radation, for example, in relation to the SDG monitoring framework
(Sims et al., 2019). Earlier reviews (Batjes & van Wesemael, 2015;
de Brogniez, Mayaux, & Montanarella, 2011; Lorenz, Lal, & Ehlers,
2019) also indicated that basic soil data and SOC stock change mon-
itoring systems are not available, or inconsistent (Jandl et al., 2014),
for many regions and nations. Within the GRA and the CGIAR CCAFS
programme, the initial focus has been on MRV resources for the live-
stock sector (Wilkes, Reisinger, Wollenberg, Van, & Dijk, 2017).

There are three main approaches (experimental field trials, chro-
nosequence studies or paired land-use comparisons, and monitor-
ing networks) to determine relationships between environmental
and management factors, and SOC dynamics and GHG emissions
(Batjes & van Wesemael, 2015; McKenzie et al., 2002; Morvan
et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2011) or changes in soil quality/health
(Bai et al., 2018; Leeuwen et al., 2017). An overview of long-term
terrestrial soil experiments (LTEs) is maintained by the International
Soil Carbon Network, including those from a European Network of
long-term studies for soil organic matter (SOMNET, Powlson et al.,
1998). Examples of chronosequence studies include those carried
out in Brazil (Cerri et al., 2007; de Moraes Sá et al., 2009), Ethiopia
(Lemenih, Karltun, & Olsson, 2005) and China (He, Wu, Wang, & Han,
2009), while paired land-use comparisons have been reviewed by
various researchers (Bai et al., 2018; Murphy, Rawson, Ravenscroft,
Rankin, & Millard, 2003; Oliver et al., 2004).

Following up from the review of European soil monitoring net-
works (Morvan et al., 2008), the Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission launched an initiative to sample the topsoil
at 22,000 points of the Land Use/Cover Area Survey (LUCAS proj-
ect, see Montanarella, Tóth, & Jones, 2011). The first soil sampling
round (2009), based on standard sampling and analytical procedures,
followed a stratified sampling design to produce representative soil
samples for major landforms and types of land cover of the partici-
pating countries. A new LUCAS sampling round is presently under-
way, providing the basis for a longer term monitoring system (Orgiazzi
et al., 2018). Similarly, for the United States, Spencer et al. (2011) dis-
cuss the design of a national soil monitoring network for carbon on ag-
ricultural lands, including determination of sample size, allocation and
site-scale plot design. Teng et al. (2014) indicated that for accurate soil
monitoring in China, it will be necessary to set up routine monitoring
systems at various scales (national, provincial and local scales), taking
into consideration monitoring indicators and quality assurance.

Table 2 serves to illustrate the diversity in soil monitoring networks and sample designs in selected GRA countries. The most common sampling design for networks aimed at monitoring regional/national SOC stocks is either stratified (according to soil/land use/climate) or grid based. Large countries with a low sampling density (<1 site per 100 km²) generally adopt a stratified design to include all important units (van Wesemael et al., 2011). The (expected) variability within these units should be determined to assess the optimal number of
<table><caption>TABLE 2 Examples of soil monitoring networks and sample design in selected GRA countries<sup>a</sup></caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Belgium</th><th>Brazil</th><th>China</th><th>Mexico</th><th>New Zealand</th><th>Sweden</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Objective</th><td>National SOC monitoring</td><td>SOC response to land use/ management change</td><td>Regional SOC monitoring</td><td>National SOC monitoring</td><td>National SOC monitoring</td><td>National SOC monitoring</td></tr><tr><th>Region covered</th><td>Cropland and grassland in southern Belgium</td><td>Rodônia, Mato Grosso, Central Amazonia</td><td>Northeast (120 sites), North (241), East (356), South (119), Northwest (148), Southwest (97)</td><td>Forest and non-forest land in particular pasture and shrubs</td><td>All regions and land uses</td><td>Cropland~3 Mha</td></tr><tr><th>Starting date</th><td>National Soil Survey 1950-1970; resampled 2004-2007</td><td>~2007</td><td>78% started before 1985 and 87.5% continued until at least 1996</td><td>Started in 2003; each year one-fifth of the sites will be resampled</td><td>National soils database from 1938; Land use and carbon analysis system started in 1996<sup>c</sup></td><td>Full scale in 1995, some data from 1988</td></tr><tr><th>Site density (km<sup>2</sup> per site)</th><td>18 km<sup>2</sup></td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td>78 km<sup>2</sup></td><td>202 km<sup>2</sup></td><td>10 km<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><th>Site selection</th><td>Stratified</td><td>Stratified</td><td>Stratified</td><td>Grid</td><td>Stratified</td><td>Grid</td></tr><tr><th>Soil sampling</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Subsamples</th><td>Composite</td><td>Composite</td><td>Composite</td><td>Composite</td><td>Single</td><td>Composite</td></tr><tr><th>Depth</th><td>0-30 and 0-100 cm</td><td>0-10, 10-20, 20-30, and 30-40 cm</td><td>0-20 cm</td><td>0-30 and 30-60 cm</td><td>Variable, sampled by soil horizon; in 2009, 1,235 samples to 30 cm</td><td>0-20 and 40-60 cm</td></tr><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>Future sampling rounds largely depend on funding (Goidts et al., 2009)</td><td>Once (chronosequences and paired sites)</td><td>Annual sampling from 2010, see Teng et al. (2014)<sup>b</sup></td><td>Every 5 years</td><td>A fit-for-purpose method is being designed to monitor SOC stocks at ~5 year intervals over upcoming decades</td><td>1995 and 2005 round completed; in principle repeated every 10 years</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: SOC, soil organic carbon.

<sup>a</sup>Adapted from Van Wesemael et al. (2011).

<sup>b</sup>For accurate soil monitoring in China, it will be necessary to set up routine monitoring systems at various scales (national, provincial and local scales), taking into consideration monitoring indicators and quality assurance (Teng et al., 2014).

<sup>c</sup>For recent developments, see https://soilslandcareresearch.co.nz/index.php/soils-at-manaaki-whenua/our-projects/soil-organic-carbon.
samples for each stratum (Brus & de Gruijter, 1997; De Gruijter, Brus, Bierkens, & Knottters, 2006; Louis et al., 2014). Such an approach will allow a (geo)statistical analysis of SOC stock changes for the soil/land use/climate units under consideration as an alternative or test for process-based models. Continuous soil monitoring for SOC at time intervals of 10 year is often proposed as a compromise between minimum detectability of changes (Garten & Wullschleger, 1999) and temporal shifts in trends (Bellamy et al., 2005; Schrumpf, Schulze, Kaiser, & Schumacher, 2011; Steinmann et al., 2016). This may be longer than the duration of many land-use management projects that involve the measurement of SOC stock changes (Milne et al., 2012).

New Zealand has developed a model-based approach (McNeill, Golubiewski, & Barringer, 2014; Tate et al., 2005) to track SOC stock changes with time assuming that SOC stock values vary by soil type, climate and land use, and that the key driver for long-term (decadal) changes in SOC stocks are due to changes in land use, with all other changes due to soil, climate or erosion assumed constant. This country-specific (Tier 2) empirical method was initially described in Tate et al. (2005) reflecting land-use change issues relevant to New Zealand. As further soil profile data were collected (currently 2050 profiles) the model was increasingly improved (McNeill et al., 2014) adding data from specific land-use classes (notably indigenous and exotic forest, cropland, horticulture and wetlands). The approach was also refined to account for spatial autocorrelation to improve the assessment of the overall significance of land-use change and reports three validation studies for the model (McNeill et al., 2014). Using low-producing grassland on a high-activity clay IPCC default soil and moist-temperate IPCC default climate class as a reference, the 0–30 cm SOC stock is 133.1 tonnes/ha, the change as a result of land use can be determined, along with the marginal significance. For example, a transition to high-producing grassland results in a change of –0.22 tonnes/ha (not significant), while a transition to perennial cropland results in a change of –19.5 tonnes/ha (significant).

While changes in national or large regional scale carbon stock measurements can be addressed using geostatistical sampling approaches, aligned targeted approaches (such as sampling of chro-nosequences and paired land uses) can directly determine land-use

change factors, while controlling for other spatially dependent vari-ables, that is, they can determine the carbon gain/loss that will occur with a change in land use or management. When coupled with mon-itored changes in land area undergoing these changes, estimates of national scale carbon stock changes can be calculated. The change in carbon stocks determined from paired site sampling can also be used to validate interpretations derived from national scale measurements.

## 7.2 | Methods used by GRA countries for estimating SOC changes for the 'cropland remaining cropland' category in national inventories

All countries that are party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are required to provide national inventories of emissions and removals of GHG due to human activities. The IPCC methodologies are intended to yield national GHG inventories that are transparent, complete, accurate, consistent over time and comparable across countries. Because different countries have different capacities to produce inventories, the guidelines lay out tiers of methods for each emissions source, with higher tiers being more complex and/or resource intensive than lower tiers. In the context of agricultural GHG emissions, inventories remain the main tool connecting policy with mitigation.

Figure 2 shows the categories of methods used by GRA countries for estimating the changes in mineral soil carbon stock for the 'Cropland remaining Cropland' category. Countries listed as non-annex I face major challenges with either non-existent data (15 countries do not have country-specific information they can use to develop their inventory and eight countries do not consider for SOC changes in croplands because do not have the technical capacity to monitor these sources) or a lack of relevant data (with the exception of Ghana and Malaysia) GRA non-annex I countries use a Tier 1 approach to report SOC changes associated with areas defined as Cropland land use.

Soil C stocks are influenced by multiple factors that affect primary production and decomposition, including changes in land use and management and feedbacks between management activities, climate and soils. However, only a few countries have taken into

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**FIGURE 2** Tier methods used by Global Research Alliance of Agricultural Greenhouse Gases countries for estimating the changes in mineral soil carbon stock for the 'Cropland remaining Cropland' category. NA indicates that the country has not developed a GHG inventory. NE indicates that the country has not included soil organic carbon changes in croplands in the inventory. Countries reporting carbon stock change associated with agricultural land use and management activities are indicated by (*)
<table><caption>**TABLE 3** Methodology used to estimate changes in soil C stocks for cropland remaining cropland, including agricultural land use and management activities on mineral soils</caption><thead><tr><th>GRA country</th><th>Tier</th><th>Land management activities</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">Australia</td></tr><tr><td>The Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM)</td><td>Tier 3</td><td>Crop type and rotation (including pasture leys)<br>Stubble management, including burning practices<br>Tillage techniques<br>Fertilizer application and irrigation<br>Application of green manures (particularly legume crops)<br>Soil ameliorants (application of manure, compost or biochar)<br>Changes in land use from grassland</td><td>Richards (2001)</td></tr><tr><td>Crop-specific coefficients sourced from the literature combined with ABS agricultural commodities statistics</td><td>Tier 2</td><td>Changes in the area of perennial woody crops</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Process model (CENTURY) based on the National Soil Database of the Canadian Soil Information System</td><td>Tier 3</td><td>Change in mixture of crop type (increase in perennial crops and increase in annual crops)<br>Change in tillage practices<br>Change in area of summer fallow<br>Land use, tillage, type and amount of input<br>Crop residue, farmyard manure and presence or absence of vegetative cover<br>Perennial and organic management systems</td><td>McConkey et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Average SOC calculated annually per soil type and region based on process-based model (C-TOOL) using data on temperature and estimated C input from crop residues and manure using national databases</td><td>Tier 3</td><td>Crop type and crop yield<br>Cover crops<br>Residue management<br>Manure application<br>Grassland management</td><td>Taghizadeh-Toosi and Olesen (2016)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">France</td></tr><tr><td>The IPCC Guidelines and OMINEA database</td><td>Tier 1</td><td>Land use<br>Tillage<br>Type and amount of input</td><td>CITEPA (2019)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Japan</td></tr><tr><td>Average carbon stock changes in each year by land-use subcategory (rice fields, upland fields, orchards and pastural land) calculated by the Roth C model by the mineral soil area of each prefecture obtained from statistical material, map data and questionnaire survey</td><td>Tier 2</td><td>Carbon input from crop residue<br>Farmyard manure<br>Presence or absence of vegetative cover</td><td>Shirato and Taniyama (2003)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Lithuania</td></tr><tr><td>National statistics for woody crops and available data of arable land certified as organic in FAOSTAT and ecological agricultural land statistics.</td><td>Tier 2</td><td>Crop type (perennial crops, certified organic crops, other crops)<br>Amount of input</td><td>Statistics Lithuania (2018)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Norway</td></tr><tr><td>Reference stock and stock change factors estimated by the Introductory Carbon Balance Model (ICBM) in a study where CO<sub>2</sub> emissions were estimated for Norwegian cropland</td><td>Tier 2</td><td>Crop rotations<br>Carbon inputs<br>Tillage</td><td>Borgen et al. (2012)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 3 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>GRA country</th><th>Tier</th><th>Land management activities</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">Spain</td></tr><tr><td>SOC values calculated by use and province, together with the reference values of the management factors provided by the IPCC Guidelines</td><td>Tier 1</td><td>Land use<br>Crop rotations<br>Amount of input<br>Tillage</td><td>Rovira et al. (2007)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Review UK relevant literature on the effects of cropland management practices on soil carbon stocks to model UK-specific emission factors (methodology developed in Defra project SP1113)</td><td>Tier 1</td><td>Manure<br>Residue inputs<br>Crop type (perennial, cropland, set-aside)</td><td rowspan="2">Moxley et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Tier 2</td><td>Tillage</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">United States</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Published literature to determine the impact of management practices on SOC storage. Activity data based on the historical land use/management patterns recorded in the 2012 NRI (USDA, 2018)</td><td rowspan="4">Tier 2</td><td>Tillage</td><td rowspan="4">Ogle, Breidt, Eve, and Paustian (2003); Ogle, Breidt, and Paustian (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping rotations</td></tr><tr><td>Intensification</td></tr><tr><td>Land-use change between cultivated and uncultivated conditions</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics; GRA, Global Research Alliance of Agricultural Greenhouse Gases.

account cropland management activities. Table 3 provides an overview of the methods used in GRA countries for estimating carbon stock change and emissions associated with agricultural land use and management activities on mineral soil.

There are still high levels of uncertainty in the estimates; however, uncertainties are relatively low for Annex I countries due to their well-developed statistical systems and capacity to use higher tier methods. In contrast, national inventories of many developing countries generally have greater uncertainty and are not sufficiently rigorous to enable monitoring of emissions. For Tier 2 inventory development, countries could use the expertise of other GRA members, for instance from those countries that have adopted a Tier 3 method (see Table 4) to estimate soil organic C stock changes in agricultural land.

With increased obligations for reporting on GHG emissions and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris agreement, it is important that all countries are able to estimate their GHG emissions to maximize transparency, accuracy, completeness and consistency. Improving inventories requires enhanced national capability to gather relevant activity data to develop country-specific emission factors. There is a need to improve the evidence base and to better connect governments and relevant expertise to subsequently improve the quality of agricultural NDCs and the way their achievements are reflected by national GHG inventories.

## 8 | PROPOSED GLOBAL SOIL MRV PLATFORM

The sections above describe the methods available to measure and monitor carbon; models that can be used to simulate and

project changes in SOC, different types of experimental platform and the data needed to test models and allow them to be run from plot to global scale; and methods/platforms that could be used to verify any simulated change in SOC (summarized in Figure 3). These form the components of a system suitable for MRV of SOC change (Figure 3).

Central to the system are benchmark sites, which could be located at existing or new long-term experiments (Figure 3, item 2; Richter et al., 2007), or could consist of well-characterized chromosequences or paired sampling sites (e.g. He et al., 2009; Oliver et al., 2004). The benchmark sites would preferably be located on representative land cover/land-use types, soil types and with representative management. At these sites, proposed practices to increase SOC could be tested in fully randomized block designs, and SOC change measured over time (measurements every few years), while measuring shorter term processes (such as GHG emissions) more frequently (continuously with EC flux towers or frequently with automated chambers; Figure 3, item 2; Baldocchi, 2003). The same sites could be used to test novel spectral methods for measuring SOC change against traditional direct SOC measurement (England & Viscarra Rossel, 2018). Careful alignment of site selection and experimental design with other goals of land owners, managers and regulators (e.g. quantification of soil quality change or nutrient use efficiency) will promote stronger uptake of an international suite of benchmark sites with additional benefits.

Since it would be prohibitively expensive to set up benchmark sites covering all possible combinations of land use, climate, soil type and management practice, models of SOC change are required to interpolate and infer change across all combinations, and to project changes into the future, across landscapes and under
<table><caption>**TABLE 4** Models used to estimate carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the cropland remaining cropland soils component (Tier 3 method) in GRA countries</caption><thead><tr><td>GRA country</td><td>Model</td><td>Reference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Australia</td><td>The Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM)</td><td>Estimates emissions from soil through a process involving all on-site carbon pools (living biomass, dead organic matter and soil) on a pixel by pixel (25 m × 25 m) level</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>CENTURY</td><td>Process model used for estimating CO2 emissions and removals as influenced by management activities, based on the National Soil Database of the Canadian Soil Information System</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>C-TOOL</td><td>3-Pool dynamic soil model parameterized and validated against long-term field experiments (100–150 years) conducted in Denmark, United Kingdom (Rothamsted) and Sweden and is ‘State-of-the-art’</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>Yasso07 soil carbon model</td><td>The parameterization of Yasso07 used in cropland was the one reported in Tuomi, Rasinmäki, Repo, Vanhala, and Liski (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>Soil Carbon RothC model</td><td>In order to apply the model to Japanese agricultural conditions, the model was tested against long-term experimental data sets in Japanese agricultural lands (Shirato & Taniyama, 2003)</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Soil Carbon model ICBM-region</td><td>Calculate annual C balance of the soil based on national agricultural crop yield and manure statistics, and uses allometric functions to estimate the annual C inputs to soil from crop residues</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>Soil Carbon RothC model</td><td>The implementation of RothC in the Swiss GHG inventory is described in detail in Wüst-Galley, Keel, and Leifeld (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>CARBINE Soil Carbon Accounting model (CARBINE-SCA)</td><td>Simplified version of the ECOSSE model (Smith, Gottschalk et al., 2010), coupled with a litter decomposition model derived from the ForClim-D model (Liski, Perruchoud, & Karjalainen, 2002; Perruchoud, Joos, Fischlin, Hajdas, & Bonani, 1999)</td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td>DAYCENT biogeochemical model</td><td>Utilizes the soil C modelling framework developed in the Century model (Parton et al., 1987, 1988, 1994; Metherell, 1993), but has been refined to simulate dynamics at a daily time step</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: GRA, Global Research Alliance of Agricultural Greenhouse Gases.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** Components of a soil measurement/monitoring, reporting and verification framework, indicating which components contribute to measurement/monitoring (M), reporting (R) or verification (V). See text in Section 8 for explanation of linkages between the components</figcaption></figure>
novel combinations (Figure 3, item 3; e.g. Richards et al., 2017). To establish confidence that the chosen model or models are capable of accurately and reliably simulating SOC change, they need to be tested across the full range of parameter space (i.e. multiple soils types, climate zones, land-use types and soil management options; Ehrhardt et al., 2018; Smith et al., 1997). If necessary, the models can be further developed or parameterized using data from the same long-term experiments, or from shorter term experiments, before being evaluated again against a data set not used in development or parameterization (Smith & Smith, 2007).

When the model(s) are deemed to be reliable, they could be applied (a) to derive IPCC Tier 2 emission or SOC stock change factors, which are specific to the region and conditions represented within the region (e.g. Begum et al., 2018); or (b) spatially over the whole landscape (or the entire land area of a country) using spatial databases of soil characteristics, and land cover, management and climate data (Figure 3, item 4), to directly simulate SOC change and GHG emissions, thereby delivering a Tier 3 methodology to report emissions (Smith et al., 2012). Data on changes in soil management are necessary for estimating changes in SOC/GHG emissions, and this could also be provided by self-reported or farm survey-derived activity data (Figure 3, item 5).

If self-reported activity data are used as the primary mechanism for reporting, such activity data could be verified through spot checks/ farm visits or could be done using remote sensing (Figure 3, item 7), which can show, for example, the presence of bare fallow, cover crop or residue retention (Gallo et al., 2018; Rogge et al., 2018). In addition to providing a mechanism for verification of activity data, remotely sensed earth observation products could also provide spatial data to run the SOC/ GHG models. For example, earth observation can be used to estimate changes in carbon input to soils, through changes in NPP/GPP (Chen et al., 2019; Neumann & Smith, 2018), land degradation (Sims et al., 2019) and can also be used to determine land cover/ land cover change (e.g. Chen et al., 2019).

Well-calibrated models, supported by measurements, can also be used to establish relationships between a management change in a particular situation (combination or soil, climate, land use and management) and a change in SOC/ GHG emissions, including estimates of uncertainty (Fitton et al., 2017). This would allow activity data (Figure 3, item 5), self-reported by the farmer/land manager, to be used as the primary source of data for reporting, in place of the need to directly measure SOC of GHG emission change (Smith, 2004b). More broadly, uncertainties and potential biases in all components of the MRV framework, including all measurements and modelling schemes, need to be addressed. For transparency, there is a need for unified protocols for such uncertainty assessments.

In terms of verification, change in SOC stocks, spatial soil monitoring networks (Figure 3, item 6) could be used to ground-truth SOC changes estimated by the Tier 2 method or Tier 3 model projections over time. If resampled every few years, the soil monitoring network (on a grid as shown in Figure 3 item 7, e.g. Bellamy et al., 2005, or using a stratified sampling protocol; Montanarella et al., 2011) could provide independent estimates of large-scale SOC change.

Some basic methodological requirements and recommendations can be formulated for 'good SOC-monitoring and MRV practice' to support scientific and policy decisions (Batjes & van Wesemael, 2015; Desaules, Ammann, & Schwab, 2010; Morvan et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2011). These include: (a) the provision of long-term continuity and consistency under changing boundary conditions, such as biophysical site conditions, climate change, methodologies, socio-economic setting and policy context; (b) adoption of a scientifically and politically (e.g. for GRA, UNFCCC, UNNCCD) appropriate spatial and temporal resolution for the measurements; (c) ensuring continuous quality assurance at all stages of the measurement and monitoring process; (d) measurement/observation and documentation of all potential drivers of SOC and GHG change; and (e) soil monitoring network-collated, georeferenced samples archived and the associated (harmonized) data made accessible through distributed databases to enhance the value of the collated data for multiple uses. In addition to this, soil monitoring networks should be included in a broader cross-method validation programme to ultimately permit spatially and temporally validated comparisons both within and between countries. An open-access database, where short- or long-term soil C measurements could be uploaded and shared (e.g. https://dataverse.org/ or an online collaborative platform as used in the CIRCASA project: https://www.circasa-project.eu/), would also be of great benefit for progressing a global MRV system.

As indicated, the implementation of soil monitoring networks poses several scientific, technical and operational challenges. From an operational point of view, to implement an integrated monitoring system, it will be crucial to overcome initialization costs and unequal access to monitoring technologies. For developing countries, this will require international cooperation, capacity building and technology transfer (de Brogniez et al., 2011), which could be facilitated within GRA, CCAFS and similar organizations, in synergy with relevant funding mechanisms, or via the recently established 'GSOCseq' programme of the UN FAO (FAO, 2019b).

While other components of a soil MRV framework could be added, the components outlined in Figure 3 could certainly fulfil all of the functions necessary for an MRV system. As seen in Sections 4–7, the existing capacity in terms of existing benchmark sites, soil monitoring programmes and access to models in different countries varies greatly. While some countries are already using Tier 2 and 3 monitoring of soil C change, others have barely begun to build capacity. Recently, the UN FAO has established a programme called 'GSOCseq' (FAO, 2019b) which aims to build this capacity internationally. Programmes such as this could pave the way for making this proposed MRV framework a reality.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

P.S., J.F.S., C.C., N.B., M.K., C.A. and J.O. acknowledge support from the CIRCASA project which received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no 774378. The input of P.S. also contributes to the projects: DEVIL (NE/M021327/1), Assess-BECCS (funded by UKERC)
and Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1). AS-C acknowledges support from the AGRISOST-CM project (S2018/BAA-4330) and MACSUR-JPI initiative, as well as the inspiration and support from the Spanish research networks REMEDIA and NUEVA. J.A.-F. acknowledges support from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of Spain (project number AGL2017-84529-C3-1-R). The participation of N.C. and E.W. was funded as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements (https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors). J.E.O. was funded by the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities as part of the SINKS2 project. L.S. and S.M. acknowledge support from the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Global Research Alliance. This paper contributes to the work of the Soil Carbon Sequestration network of the Integrative Research Group of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (https://globalresearchalliance.org/). The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of the funding organizations.

## ORCID

Pete Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124

Louis Schipper https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9899-1276

Daniel P. Rasse https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5977-3863

Cristina Arias-Navarro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5125-4962

Dario Fornara https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5381-0803

## REFERENCES

Ackerson, J. P., Morgan, C. L. S., & Ge, Y. (2017). Penetrometer-mounted VisNIR spectroscopy: Application of EPO-PLS to in situ VisNIR spectra. *Geoderma*, 286, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2016.10.018

Aitkenhead, M. J. (2017). Mapping peat in Scotland with remote sensing and site characteristics. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 68, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12393

Al-Asadi, R. A., & Mouazen, A. M. (2018). A prototype measuring system of soil bulk density with combined frequency domain reflectometry and visible and near infrared spectroscopy. *Computers and Electronics in Agriculture*, 151, 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.06.045

Alberta Government. (2012). Quantification protocol for conservation cropping (version 1.0). Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9780778596288

Alexander, P., Paustian, K., Smith, P., & Moran, D. (2015). The economics of soil C sequestration and agricultural emissions abatement. *Soil*, 1, 331–339. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-331-2015

Allen, D. E., Pringle, M. J., Page, K. L., & Dalal, R. C. (2010). A review of sampling designs for the measurement of soil organic carbon in Australian grazing lands. *The Rangeland Journal*, 32, 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ09043

Andrén, O., & Kätterer, T. (1997). ICBM: The introductory carbon balance model for exploration of soil carbon balance. *Ecological Applications*, 7(4), 1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641210

Andrén, O., & Kätterer, T. (2001). Basic principles for soil carbon sequestration and calculating dynamic country-level balances including future scenarios. *Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon*, 495–511.

Angers, D. A., & Eriksen-Hamel, N. S. (2008). Full-inversion tillage and organic C distribution in soil profiles: A meta-analysis. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 72, 1370–1374. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj2007.0342

Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., & Papale, D. (2012). *Eddy covariance: A practical guide to measurement and data analysis*. Dordrecht, the Netherlands/ Heidelberg, Germany/London, UK/New York, NY: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2351-1

Australian Government. (2018). *The supplement to the carbon credits (carbon farming initiative—measurement of soil carbon sequestration in agricultural systems) methodology determination 2018*. Retrieved from http://www/environment.gov.au/system/files/consultations/072b4 825-ec0f-49d9-991e-42dfa1fbeae3/files/supplement-soil-carbon- agricultural-systems.pdf

Bai, Z., Caspari, T., Gonzalez, M. R., Batjes, N. H., Mäder, P., Bünemann, E. K., ... Tóth, Z. (2018). Effects of agricultural management practices on soil quality: A review of long-term experiments for Europe and China. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, 265, 1–7. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.028

Baldocchi, D. (2003). Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluation carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: Past, present and future. *Global Change Biology*, 9, 479–492. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00629.x

Baldocchi, D., Housen, C., & Reichstein, M. (2018). Inter-annual variability of net and gross ecosystem carbon fluxes: A review. *Agricultural and Forest Meteorology*, 249, 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agrformet.2017.05.015

Baldock, J. A., Beare, M. H., Curtin, D., & Hawke, B. (2018). Stocks, composition and vulnerability to loss of soil organic carbon predicted using mid-infrared spectroscopy. *Soil Research*, 56, 468. https://doi. org/10.1071/SR17221

Baldock, J. A., Hawke, B., Sanderman, J., & Macdonald, L. M. (2013). Predicting contents of carbon and its component fractions in Australian soils from diffuse reflectance mid-infrared spectra. *Soil Research*, 51, 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR13077

Barnett, A. L., Schipper, L. A., Taylor, A., Balks, M. R., & Mudge, P. L. (2014). Soil C and N contents in a paired survey of dairy and dry stock pastures in New Zealand. *Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment*, 185, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.12.008

Barnett, V., Payne, R., & Steiner, R. (1995). *Agricultural sustainability*. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Batjes, N. H. (1996). Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 47, 151–163. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01386.x

Batjes, N. H., & Van Wesemael, B. (2015). Measuring and monitoring soil carbon. In S. A. Banwart, E. Noelmeyer, & E. Milne (Eds.), *Soil carbon: Science, management and policy for multiple benefits* (pp. 188–201). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Beer, C., Reichstein, M., Tomelleri, E., Ciais, P., Jung, M., Carvalhais, N., ... Papale, D. (2010). Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: Global distribution and covariation with climate. *Science*, 329, 834–838. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184984

Begum, K., Kuhnert, M., Yeluripati, J., Ogle, S., Parton, W., Pan, G., ... Smith, P. (2018). Modelling greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potentials in fertilized paddy rice fields in Bangladesh. *Geoderma*, 341, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2019.01.047

Bellamy, P. H., Loveland, P. J., Bradley, R. I., Lark, R. M., & Kirk, G. J. D. (2005). Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978–2003. *Nature*, 437, 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04038

Bellon-Maurel, V., & Mcbratney, A. (2011). Near-infrared (NIR) and mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopic techniques for assessing the amount of carbon stock in soils - Critical review and research perspectives. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 43, 1398–1410. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.soilbio.2011.02.019
Besnard, S., Carvalhais, N., Arain, M. A., Black, A., de Bruin, S., Buchmann, N., ... Reichstein, M. (2018). Quantifying the effect of forest age in annual net forest carbon balance. *Environmental Research Letters*, **13**, 124018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaeab

Białousz, S., Marcinek, J., Stuczyński, T., & Turski, R. (2005). Soil survey, soil monitoring and soil databases in Poland. In R. J. A. Jones, B. Houšková, P. Bullock & L. Montanarella (Eds.), *Soil resources of Europe*. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, EUR 20559 EN (2nd ed., pp. 263–273). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Bispo, A., Andersen, L., Angers, D. A., Bernoux, M., Brossard, M., Cécillon, L., ... Eglin, T. K. (2017). Accounting for carbon stocks in soils and measuring GHGs emission fluxes from soils: Do we have the necessary standards? *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, **5**, 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00041

Blagodatsky, S., & Richter, O. (1998). Microbial growth in soil and nitrogen turnover: A theoretical model considering the activity state of microorganisms. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, **30**(13), 1743–1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00028-5

Blanco-Canqui, H., & Rattan Lal, R. (2008). No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, **72**, 693–701. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj.2007.0233

Borgen, S. K., Grønlund, A., Andrén, O., Kätterer, T., Tveito, O. E., Bakken, L. R., & Paustian, K. (2012). CO₂ emissions from cropland in Norway estimated by IPCC default and Tier 2 methods. *Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management*, **2**(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430779.2012.672306

Brus, D. J., & De Gruijter, J. J. (1997). Random sampling for geostatistical modelling? Choosing between design-based and model-based sampling strategies for soil (with discussion). *Geoderma*, **80**, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7061(97)00072-4

Bruun, S., & Jensen, L. S. (2002). Initialisation of the soil organic matter pools of the Daisy model. *Ecological Modelling*, **153**(3), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00017-0

Campbell, E. E., & Paustian, K. (2015). Current developments in soil organic matter modeling and the expansion of model applications: A review. *Environmental Research Letters*, **10**(12), 123004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123004

Caspari, T., van Lynden, G., & Bai, Z. G. (2015). Land degradation neutrality: An evaluation of methods. Environmental research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Project No. 46658 Report No. (UBA-FB) 002163/E. Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt. 53 pp.

Cerri, C. E. P., Easter, M., Paustian, K., Killian, K., Coleman, K., Bernoux, M., ... Cerri, C. C. (2007). Simulating SOC changes in 11 land use change chronosequences from the Brazilian Amazon with RothC and Century models. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment*, **122**, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.007

Chabbi, A., Lehmann, J., Ciais, P., Loescher, H. W., Cotrufo, M. F., Don, A., ... Rumpel, C. (2017). The 4% initiative: A nexus between agriculture and climate policy to offset CO₂ emissions. *Nature Climate Change*, **7**, 307–309.

Chabrillat, S., Ben-Dor, E., Cierniewski, J., Gomez, C., Schmid, T., & Van Wesemael, B. (2019). Imaging spectroscopy for soil mapping and monitoring. *Surveys in Geophysics*, **40**, 361–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-019-09524-0

Chen, C., Park, T., Wang, X. H., Piao, S. L., Xu, B. D., Chaturvedi, R. K., ... Myneni, R. B. (2019). China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. *Nature Sustainability*, **2**, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7

CITEPA. (2019). Rapport OMINEA - 16 ème édition. Organisation et méthodes des inventaires nationaux des émissions atmosphériques en France. Paris, France: CITEPA. Retrieved from https://www.citepa.org/en/activities/emission-inventories/ominea

Coleman, K., & Jenkinson, D. S. (1987). *RothC - A model for the turnover of carbon in soil. Model description and users guide, ROTHC manual*. Harpenden, Herts, UK: Lawes Agricultural Trust.

Coleman, K., Jenkinson, D. S., Crocker, G. J., Grace, P. R., Klir, J., Körschens, M., ... Richter, D. D. (1997). Simulating trends in soil organic carbon in long-term experiments using RothC-26.3. *Geoderma*, **81**(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00079-7

Conant, R. T., Ryan, M. G., Ågren, G. I., Birge, H. E., Davidson, E. A., Eliasson, P. E., ... Bradford, M. A. (2011). Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates - Synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. *Global Change Biology*, **17**(11), 3392–3404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x

Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., & Paul, E. (2013). The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: Do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? *Global Change Biology*, **19**(4), 988–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12113

Dangal, S., Sanderman, J., Wills, S., & Ramirez-Lopez, L. (2019). Accurate and precise prediction of soil properties from a large mid-infrared spectral library. *Soil Systems*, **3**, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems3010011

De Brogniez, D., Mayaux, P., & Montanarella, L. (2011). *Monitoring, reporting and verification systems for carbon in soils and vegetation in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries*. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

De Gruijter, J. J., Brus, D. J., Bierkens, M. F. P., & Knottters, M. (Eds.). (2006). *Sampling for natural resource monitoring*. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

De Gruijter, J. J., Mcbratney, A. B., Minasny, B., Wheeler, I., Malone, B. P., & Stockmann, U. (2016). Farm-scale soil carbon auditing. *Geoderma*, **265**, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.11.010

de Moraes Sa, J. C., Cerri, C. C., Lal, R., Dick, W. A., de Cassia Piccolo, M., & Feigl, B. E. (2009). Soil organic carbon and fertility interactions affected by a tillage chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. *Soil and Tillage Research*, **104**, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.11.007

Del Grosso, S., & Parton, W. J. (2011). Quantifying nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils and management impacts. In L. Guo, A. Gunasekara, & L. McConnell (Eds.), *Understanding greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural management*, ACS Symposium Series, **1072** (pp. 3–13). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Del Grosso, S., Parton, W. J., Mosier, A. R., Hartman, M. D., Brenner, J., Ojima, D. S., & Schimel, D. S. (2001). Simulated interaction of carbon dynamics and nitrogen trace gas fluxes using the DAYCENT Model. In M. Schaffer, L. Ma, & S. Hansen (Eds.), *Modeling carbon and nitrogen dynamics for soil management* (pp. 301–332). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Desaules, A., Ammann, S., & Schwab, P. (2010). Advances in long-term soil-pollution monitoring of Switzerland. *Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science*, **173**, 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200900269

Dhawale, N. M., Adamchuk, V. I., Prasher, S. O., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Ismail, A. A., & Kaur, J. (2015). Proximal soil sensing of soil texture and organic matter with a prototype portable mid-infrared spectrometer. *European Journal of Soil Science*, **66**, 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejsj.12265

Ehrhardt, F., Soussana, J. F., Bellocchi, G., Grace, P., McAuliffe, R., Recous, S., ... Zhang, Q. (2018). Assessing uncertainties in crop and pasture ensemble model simulations of productivity and N₂O emissions. *Global Change Biology*, **24**, e603–e616. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13965

Ellert, B. H., & Bettany, J. R. (1995). Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes. *Canadian Journal of Soil Science*, **75**, 529–538. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss95-075
Emmel, C., Winkler, A., Hörtnagl, L., Revill, A., Ammann, C., D'Odorico, P., ... Eugster, W. (2018). Integrated management of a Swiss crop-land is not sufficient to preserve its soil carbon pool in the long term. *Biogeosciences*, 15, 5377-5393. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5377-2018

England, J. R., & Viscarra Rossel, R. A. (2018). Proximal sensing for soil carbon accounting. *SOIL*, 4, 101–122. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-101-2018

Eugster, W., & Merbold, L. (2015). Eddy covariance for quantifying trace gas fluxes from soils. *SOIL*, 1(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-187-2015

Falloon, P. D., & Smith, P. (2000). Modelling refractory soil organic matter. *Biology and Fertility of Soils*, 30(5), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050019

FAO. (2019a). Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems: Guidelines for assessment (Version 1). In *Livestock environmental assessment and performance (LEAP) partnership*. Rome, Italy: FAO. 170 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

FAO. (2019b). Submission by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in relation to the Koronivia joint work on agriculture (4/CP.23) on Topics 2(b) and 2(c). Retrieved from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/SubmissionsStaging/Documents/201905031649--FAO%20Submission%20on%20KJWA_2(b)_c.pdf

Felber, R., Münger, A., Neftel, A., & Ammann, C. (2015). Eddy covariance methane flux measurements over a grazed pasture: Effect of cows as moving point sources. *Biogeosciences*, 12, 3925–3940. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3925-2015

Ferster, C. J., Trofymow, J. A., Coops, N. C., Chen, B., & Black, T. A. (2015). Comparison of carbon-stock changes, eddy-covariance carbon fluxes and model estimates in coastal Douglas-fir stands in British Columbia. *Forest Ecosystems*, 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0038-3

Fitton, N., Datta, A., Cloy, J. M., Rees, R. M., Topp, C. F. E., Bell, M. J., ... Smith, P. (2017). Modelling spatial and inter-annual variations of nitrous oxide emissions from UK cropland and grasslands using DailyDayCent. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment*, 250, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.08.032

FLUXNET. (2019). Fluxnet datasets list. Retrieved from https://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dataset_lister.pl?p=9

Franz, D., Acosta, M., Altimir, N., Arriga, N., Arrouays, D., Aubinet, M., ... Vesala, T. (2018). Towards long-term standardised carbon and greenhouse gas observations for monitoring Europe's terrestrial ecosystems: A review. *International Agrophysics*, 32, 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1515/intag-2017-0039

Fratini, G., & Mauder, M. (2014). Towards a consistent eddy-covariance processing: An intercomparison of EddyPro and TK3. *Atmospheric Measurement Technology*, 7, 2273–2281. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2273-2014

Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., ... Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. *Environmental Research Letters*, 13, 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

Gallo, B., Demattè, J., Rizzo, R., Safanelli, J., Mendes, W., Lepsch, I., ... Lacerda, M. (2018). Multi-temporal satellite images on topsoil attribute quantification and the relationship with soil classes and geology. *Remote Sensing*, 10(10), 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101571

Garten, C. T., & Wullschleger, S. D. (1999). Soil carbon inventories under a bioenergy crop (Switchgrass): Measurement limitations. *Journal of Environmental Quality*, 28, 1359–1365. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800040041x

Ge, Y., Thomasson, J. A., & Sui, R. (2011). Remote sensing of soil properties in precision agriculture: A review. *Frontiers of Earth Science*, 5(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-011-0175-0

Global Soil Partnership. (2017). *Implementation plan for Pillar Five of the Global Soil Partnership, harmonization of methods, measurements and indicators for the sustainable management and protection of soil resources, providing mechanisms for the collation, analysis and exchange of consistent and comparable global soil data and information*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/pillars-action/5-harmonization/en/

Goidts, E., Wesemael, B. V., & Van Oost, K. (2009). Driving forces of soil organic carbon evolution at the landscape and regional scale using data from a stratified soil monitoring. *Global Change Biology*, 15, 2981–3000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01940.x

Gomez, G., Lagacherie, P., & Bacha, S. (2012). Using Vis-NIR hyperspectral data to map topsoil properties over bare soils in the Cap Bon region, Tunisia. In B. Minasny, B. P. Malone, & A. B. McBratney (Eds.), *Digital soil assessments and beyond* (pp. 387–392). New York, NY: Springer.

Gourlez de la Motte, L., Dumortier, P., Beckers, Y., Bodson, B., Heinesch, B., & Aubinet, M. (2019). Herd position habits can bias net CO₂ ecosystem exchange estimates in free range grazed pastures. *Agricultural and Forest Meteorology*, 268, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.015

Guenet, B., Moyano, F. E., Peylin, P., Ciais, P., & Janssens, I. A. (2016). Towards a representation of priming on soil carbon decomposition in the global land biosphere model ORCHIDEE (version 1.9.5.2). *Geoscientific Model Development*, 9(2), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-841-2016

Haynes, R. J., & Naidu, R. (1998). Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: A review. *Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems*, 51, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009738307837

He, N., Wu, L., Wang, Y., & Han, X. (2009). Changes in carbon and nitrogen in soil particle-size fractions along a grassland restoration chronosequence in northern China. *Geoderma*, 150, 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.02.004

Heidmann, T., Christensen, B. T., & Olesen, S. E. (2002). Changes in soil C and N content in different cropping systems and soil types. Report 81. In S. O. Petersen & J. E. Olesen (Eds.), *Greenhouse gas inventories for agriculture in the Nordic countries* (pp. 77–86). Foulum, Denmark: Agriculture and Fisheries, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Ministry of Food.

Hengl, T., Mendes de Jesus, J., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Ruiperez Gonzalez, M., Kilibarda, M., Blagotić, A., ... Kempen, B. (2017). SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. *PLoS ONE*, 12, e0169748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748

Hirte, J., Leifeld, J., Abiven, S., Oberholzer, H.-R., & Mayer, J. (2018). Below ground carbon inputs to soil via root biomass and rhizodeposition of field-grown maize and wheat at harvest are independent of net primary productivity. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment*, 265, 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.010

Hoffmann, M., Jurisch, N., Garcia Alba, J., Albiac Borraz, E., Schmidt, M., Huth, V., ... Augustin, J. (2017). Detecting small-scale spatial heterogeneity and temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks: A comparison between automatic chamber-derived C budgets and repeated soil inventories. *Biogeosciences*, 14, 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-1003-2017

Hu, T., Sørensen, P., Wahlström, E. M., Chirinda, N., Sharif, B., Li, X., & Olesen, J. E. (2018). Root biomass in cereals, catch crops and weeds does not depend on aboveground biomass. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment*, 251, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.024

Hutengs, C., Ludwig, B., Jung, A., Eisele, A., & Vohland, M. (2018). Comparison of portable and bench-top spectrometers for mid-infrared diffuse reflectance measurements of soils. *Sensors (Basel)*, 18(4), E993. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18040993
Ibáñez, J. J., Sánchez Díaz, J., de Alba, S., López Arias, M., & Bioxadera, J. (2005). Collection of soil information in Spain: A review in 2003. In R. J. A. Jones, B. Houšková, P. Bullock, & L. Montanarella (Eds.), *Soil resources of Europe* (2nd ed., pp. 357–363). European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, EUR 20559 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Jaber, S. M., Lant, C. L., & Al-Qinna, M. I. (2011). Estimating spatial variations in soil organic carbon using satellite hyperspectral data and map algebra. *International Journal of Remote Sensing*, 32, 5077–5103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.494637

Jacobs, W., Eelkema, M., Limburg, H., & Winterwerp, J. C. (2009). A new radiometric instrument for in situ measurements of physical sediment properties. *Marine and Freshwater Research*, 60(7), 727. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF08056

Jandl, R., Rodeghiero, M., Martinez, C., Cotrufo, M. F., Bampa, F., van Wesemael, B., ... Miglietta, F. (2014). Current status, uncertainty and future needs in soil organic carbon monitoring. *Science of the Total Environment*, 468–469, 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito.tenv.2013.08.026

Janik, L. J., Skjemstad, J. O., Shepherd, K. D., & Spencer, L. R. (2007). The prediction of soil carbon fractions using mid-infrared-partial least square analysis. *Soil Research*, 45(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR06083

Jenkinson, D. S., & Rayner, J. H. (1977). The turnover of soil organic matter in some of the Rothamsted classical experiments. *Soil Science*, 123, 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-197705000-00005

Jones, S. K., Helfter, C., Anderson, M., Coyle, M., Campbell, C., Famulari, D., ... Skiba, U. M. (2017). The nitrogen, carbon and greenhouse gas budget of a grazed, cut and fertilised temperate grassland. *Biogeosciences*, 14, 2069–2088. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2069-2017

Keel, S. G., Leifeld, J., Mayer, J., Taghizadeh-Toosi A., Olesen, J. E. (2017). Large uncertainty in soil carbon modelling related to carbon input calculation method. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 117, 953–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12454

Kibblewhite, M. G., Jones, R. J. A., Montanarella, L., Baritz, R., Huber, S., Arrouays, D., ... Stephens, M. (2008). *Environmental assessment of soil for monitoring volume VI: Soil monitoring system for Europe*. EUR 23490 EN/6. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, 72 pp.

King, D., Stengel, P., Jamagne, M., Le Bas, C., & Arrouays, D. (2005). Soil mapping and soil monitoring: State of progress and use in France. In R. J. A. Jones, B. Houskova, P. Bullock, & L. Montanarella (Eds.), *Soil resources of Europe*. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, EUR 20559 EN (2nd ed., pp. 139–146). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Kirkby, K. J., Smart, S. M., Black, H. I. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Corney, P. M., & Smithers, R. J. (2005). *Long term ecological change in British woodland* (1971–2001). English Nature Research Report 653. Peterborough, UK: English Nature. 139 pp.

Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H., Mitsch, W., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. K., ... Ravindranath, N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. *Journal of Soil and Water Conservation*, 73, 145A–152A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A

Leeuwen, J. P. V., Saby, N. P. A., Jones, A., Louwagie, G., Micheli, E., Rutgers, M., ... Creamer, R. E. (2017). Gap assessment in current soil monitoring networks across Europe for measuring soil functions. *Environmental Research Letters*, 12, 124007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5c

Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic matter. *Nature*, 528, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069

Leifeld, J., Ammann, C., Neftel, A., & Fuhrer, J. (2011). A comparison of repeated soil inventory and carbon flux budget to detect soil carbon stock changes after conversion from cropland to grasslands. *Global Change Biology*, 17, 3366–3375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02471.x

Lemenih, M., Karltun, E., & Olsson, M. (2005). Soil organic matter dynamics after deforestation along a farm field chronosequence in southern highlands of Ethiopia. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, 109, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.015

Li, W., Ciais, P., Guenet, B., Peng, S., Chang, J., Chaplot, V., ... Yue, C. (2018). Temporal response of soil organic carbon after grassland-related land-use change. *Global Change Biology*, 24, 4731–4746. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14328

Liski, J., Perruchoud, D., & Karjalainen, T. (2002). Increasing carbon stocks in the forest soils of western Europe. *Forest Ecology and Management*, 169(1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00306-7

Lobsey, C. R., & Viscarra Rossel, R. A. (2016). Sensing of soil bulk density for more accurate carbon accounting. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 67, 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12355

Lorenz, K., Lal, R., & Ehlers, K. (2019). Soil organic carbon stock as an indicator for monitoring land and soil degradation in relation to United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. *Land Degradation & Development*, 30(7), 824–838. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3270

Louis, B. P., Saby, N., Orton, T. G., Lacarce, E., Boulonne, L., Jolivet, C., ... Arrouays, D. (2014). Statistical sampling design impact on predictive quality of harmonization functions between soil monitoring networks. *Geoderma*, 213, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode.rma.2013.07.018

Mäkipää, R., Häkkinen, M., Muukkonen, P., & Peltoniemi, M. (2008). The costs of monitoring changes in forest soil carbon stocks. *Boreal Environmental Research*, 13(suppl. B), 120–130.

Mäkipää, R., Liski, J., Guendehou, S., Malimbwi, R., & Kaaya, A. (2002). *Soil carbon monitoring using surveys and modelling - General description and application in the United Republic of Tanzania*. FAO Forestry Paper 168. Rome, Italy: FAO, 46 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/32545-078ade939238335dea8570f134cd68fca.pdf

Malone, B., Hedley, C., Roudier, P., Minasny, B., Jones, E., & Mcbratney, A. B. (2018). Auditing on-farm soil carbon stocks using downscaled national mapping products: Examples from Australia and New Zealand. *Geoderma Regional*, 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.02.002

Manzoni, S., & Porporato, A. (2009). Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization: Theory and models across scales. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 41(7), 1355–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031

Matthews, R., Malcolm, H., Buys, G., Henshall, P., Moxley, J., Morris, A., & Mackie, E. (2014). *Changes to the representation of forest land and associated land-use changes in the 1990–2012 UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory*. Report to Department of Energy and Climate Change, Contract GA0510, Edinburgh.

Mcbratney, A. B., Mendonça Santos, M. L., & Minasny, B. (2003). On digital soil mapping. *Geoderma*, 117, 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00223-4

McConkey, B. G., Angers, D. A., Bentham, M., Boehm, M., Brierley, T., Cerkowniak, D., ... Worth, D. (2014). *Canadian agricultural greenhouse gas monitoring, accounting and reporting system. Methodology and greenhouse gas estimates for agricultural land in the LULUCF sector*. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

McHenry, M. P. (2009). Farm soil carbon monitoring developments and land use change: Unearthing relationships between paddock carbon stocks, monitoring technology and new market options in Western Australia. *Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change*, 14, 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9170-0

Mckenzie, N., Henderson, B., & Mcdonald, W. (2002). *Monitoring soil change: Principles and practices for Australian conditions* (112 pp). CSIRO Land & Water, CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences, National Land and Water Resources Audit. Retrieved from http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/technical2002/tr18-02.pdf

McNeill, S. J. E., Golubiewski, N., & Barringer, J. (2014). Development and calibration of a soil carbon inventory model for New Zealand. *Soil Research*, 52(8), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR14020
Metherell, A. K., Harding, L., Cole, C. V., & Parton, W. J. (1993). CENTURY soil organic matter model environment. Agroecosystem version 4.0. Technical documentation. GPSR Tech. Report No. 4, USDA/ARS. FT. Collins, CO. Retrieved from https://www2.nrel.colostate.edu/projeccts/century/MANUAL/html_manual/man96.html#CONTENTS

Milne, E., Neufeldt, H., Smalligan, M., Rosenstock, T., Bernoux, M., Bird, N., ... Steglich, E. (2012). Methods for the quantification of emissions at the landscape level for developing countries in smallholder contexts. CCAFS Report 9. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), 59 pp. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10568/24835

Minamikawa, K., Yamaguchi, T., Tokida, T., Sudo, S., & Yagi, K. (2018). Handbook of monitoring, reporting, and verification for a greenhouse gas mitigation project with water management in irrigated rice paddies. Tsukuba, Japan: Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, NARO, 42 pp. Retrieved from https://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/publicity_report/publication/files/MRV_guidebook.pdf

Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., ... Winowiecki, L. (2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille. *Geoderma*, *292*, 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002

Minasny, B., & Mcbratney, A. B. (2016). Digital soil mapping: A brief history and some lessons. *Geoderma*, *264*, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.07.017

Montanarella, L., Tóth, G., & Jones, A. (2011). Soil component in the 2009 LUCAS Survey. In G. Tóth & T. Németh (Eds.), *Land quality and land use information in the European Union*. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/40725

Morvan, X., Saby, N., Arrouays, D., Le Bas, C., Jones, R., Verheijen, F., ... Kibblewhite, M. G. (2008). Soil monitoring in Europe: A review of existing systems and requirements for harmonisation. *Science of the Total Environment*, *391*, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitenv.tenv.2007.10.046

Moxley, J., Anthony, S., Begum, K., Bhogal, A., Buckingham, S., Christie, P., ... Yeluripati, J. (2014). Capturing cropland and grassland management impacts on soil carbon in the UK LULUCF inventory. Contract Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Project SP1113. Retrieved from http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18355

Moyano, F. E., Vasilyeva, N., & Menichetti, L. (2018). Diffusion limitations and Michaelis-Menten kinetics as drivers of combined temperature and moisture effects on carbon fluxes of mineral soils. *Biogeosciences*, *15*(16), 5031–5045. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5031-2018

Mudge, P. L., Kelliher, F. M., Knight, T., O'Connell, D., Fraser, S., & Schipper, L. A. (2017). Irrigating grazed pasture decreases soil carbon and nitrogen stocks. *Global Change Biology*, *23*, 945–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13448

Mulder, V. L., De Bruin, S., Schaepman, M. E., & Mayr, T. R. (2011). The use of remote sensing in soil and terrain mapping - A review. *Geoderma*, *162*, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.018

Murphy, B., Rawson, A., Ravenscroft, L., Rankin, M., & Millard, R. (2003). Paired site sampling for soil carbon estimation - New South Wales (360 pp.), Canberra, ACT: Australian Greenhouse Office. Retrieved from http://www.fullcam.com/FullCAMServer/Help/reps/TR34%20Pai red%20Site%20Sampling%20for%20Soil%20Carbon%20Estimati on%20-%20New%20South%20Wales.pdf

Nayak, A. K., Rahman, M. M., Naidu, R., Dhal, B., Swain, C. K., Nayak, A. D., ... Pathak, H. (2019). Current and emerging methodologies for estimating carbon sequestration in agricultural soils: A review. *Science of the Total Environment*, *665*, 890–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.125

Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In D. L. Sparks, A. L. Page, P. A. Helmke, R. H. Loppert, P. N. Soltanpour, M. A. Tabatabai, & R. E. Yoder (Eds.), *Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods* (pp. 961–1010). SSSA Book Series No. 5. Madison, WI: SSSA and ASA.

Nemo, Klumpp, K., Coleman, K., Dondini, M., Goulding, K., Hastings, A., ... Smith, P. (2017). Soil organic carbon (SOC) equilibrium and model initialisation methods: An application to the Rothamsted carbon (RothC) model. *Environmental Modeling & Assessment*, *22*(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-016-9536-0

Nerger, R., Funk, R., Cordsen, E., & Fohrer, N. (2017). Application of a modeling approach to designate soil and soil organic carbon loss to wind erosion on long-term monitoring sites (BDF) in Northern Germany. *Aeolian Research*, *25*, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2017.03.006

Neumann, M., & Smith, P. (2018). Carbon uptake by European agricultural land is greater than in forests and could be increased further. *Science of the Total Environment*, *643*, 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.268.

Nijbroek, R., Piikki, K., Söderström, M., Kempen, B., Turner, K., Hengari, S., & Mutua, J. (2018). Soil organic carbon baselines for land degradation neutrality: Map accuracy and cost tradeoffs with respect to complexity in Otjozondjupa. *Namibia. Sustainability*, *10*, 1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051610

Nocita, M., Stevens, A., Van Wesemael, B., Aitkenhead, M., Bachmann, M., & Barthès, B., ... Dardenne, P. (2015). Soil spectroscopy: An alternative to wet chemistry for soil monitoring. *Advances in Agronomy*, *132*, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2015.02.002

Nugent, K. A., Strachan, I. B., Strack, M., Roulet, N. T., & Rochefort, L. (2018). Multi-year net ecosystem carbon balance of a restored peat-land reveals a return to carbon sink. *Global Change Biology*, *24*, 5751–5768. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14449

Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., Eve, M. D., & Paustian, K. (2003). Uncertainty in estimating land use and management impacts on soil organic carbon storage for US agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. *Global Change Biology*, *9*(11), 1521–1542. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00683.x

Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., & Paustian, K. (2006). Bias and variance in model results associated with spatial scaling of measurements for parameterization in regional assessments. *Global Change Biology*, *12*(3), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01106.x

Oliver, G. R., Beets, P. N., Garrett, L. G., Pearce, S. H., Kimberly, M. O., Ford-Robertson, J. B., & Robertson, K. A. (2004). Variation in soil carbon in pine plantations and implications for monitoring soil carbon stocks in relation to land-use change and forest site management in New Zealand. *Forest Ecology and Management*, *203*, 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.045

Olsson, M. (2005). Soil survey in Sweden. In R. J. A. Jones, B. Houšková, P. Bullock, & L. Montanarella (Eds). *Soil resources of Europe* (2nd ed., pp. 357–363). European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 9, EUR 20559 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Orgiazzi, A., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Jones, A., & Fernández-Ugalde, O. (2018). LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: A review. *European Journal of Soil Science*, *69*, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499

Ostle, N. J., Smith, P., Fisher, R., Woodward, F. I., Fisher, J. B., Smith, J. U., ... Bardgett, R. D. (2009). Integrating plant-soil interactions into global carbon cycle models. *Journal of Ecology*, *97*, 851–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x

Padarian, J., Minasny, B., & Mcbratney, A. B. (2019). Using deep learning to predict soil properties from regional spectral data. *Geoderma Regional*, *16*, e00198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.e00198

Page-Dumroese, D. S., Jurgensen, M. F., Brown, R. E., & Mroz, G. D. (1999). Comparison of methods for determining bulk densities of rocky soils. *Soil Science Society American Journal*, *63*, 379–383. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.03615995006300020016x
Palosuo, T., Heikkinen, J., & Regina, K. (2015). Method for estimating soil carbon stock changes in Finnish mineral cropland and grassland soils. *Carbon Management*, 6(5-6), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2015.1131383

Parton, W. J., Del Grosso, S. J., Plante, A. F., Adair, E. C., & Luz, S. M. (2015). Modeling the dynamics of soil organic matter and nutrient cycling. In E. A. Paul (Ed.), *Soil microbiology, ecology and biochemistry* (4th ed., pp. 505-537). London, UK: Academic Press.

Parton, W. J., Hartman, M., Ojima, D., & Schimel, D. (1998). DAYCENT and its land surface submodel: Description and testing. *Global and Planetary Change*, 19, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(98)00040-X

Parton, W. J., Ojima, D. S., Cole, C. V., & Schimel, D. S. (1994). A general model for soil organic matter dynamics: Sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. In R. B. Bryant & R. W. Arnold (Eds.), *Quantitative modeling of soil forming processes* (pp. 147-167). SSSA Spec. 677 S. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.

Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V., & Ojima, D. S. (1987). Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. *1. Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 51, 1173-1179. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100050015x

Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B., & Cole, C. V. (1988). Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: A model. *Biogeochemistry*, 131, 109-131.

Paustian, K. (1994). Modeling soil biology and biochemical processes for sustainable agricultural research. In C. E. Pankhurst, B. M. Double, & V. V. S. R. Gupta (Eds.), *Soil biota: Management in sustainable farming systems* (pp. 135-162). East Melbourne, Vic.: CSIRO.

Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. *Nature*, 532, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174

Perruchoud, D., Joos, F., Fischlin, A., Hajdas, I., & Bonani, G. (1999). Evaluating timescales of carbon turnover in temperate forest soils with radiocarbon data. *Global Biogeochemical Cycles*, 13(2), 555-573. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GB900003

Poeplau, C., Vos, C., & Don, A. (2017). Soil organic carbon stocks are systematically overestimated by misuse of the parameters bulk density and rock fragment content. *Soil*, 3, 61-66. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-3-61-2017

Poggio, M., Brown, D. J., & Bricklemyer, R. S. (2017). Comparison of VIS-NIR on in situ, intact core and dried, sieved soil to estimate clay content at field to regional scales. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 68, 434-448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12434

Post, W. M., Izaurralde, R. C., Mann, L. K., & Bliss, N. (1999). Monitoring and verifying soil organic carbon sequestration. In N. J. Rosenberg, R. C. Izaurralde, & E. L. Malone (Eds.), *Carbon sequestration in soils: science, monitoring, and beyond* (pp. 41-66). Columbus, OH: Batelle Press.

Powlson, D. S., Smith, P., Coleman, K., Smith, J. U., Glendining, M. J., Korschens, M., & Franko, U. (1998). A European network of long-term sites for studies on soil organic matter. *Soil & Tillage Research*, 47, 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(98)00115-9

Ramirez-Lopez, L., Behrens, T., Schmidt, K., Stevens, A., Dematté, J. A. M., & Scholten, T. (2013). The spectrum-based learner: A new local approach for modeling soil vis-NIR spectra of complex datasets. *Geoderma*, 195-196, 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.12.014

Rebmann, C., Aubinet, M., Schmid, H. P., Arriga, N., Aurela, M., Burba, G., ... Franz, D. (2018). ICOS eddy covariance flux-station site setup: A review. *International Agrophysics*, 32, 471-494. https://doi.org/10.1515/intag-2017-0044

Reeves, J. B. (2010). Near- versus mid-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for soil analysis emphasizing carbon and laboratory versus on-site analysis: Where are we and what needs to be done? *Geoderma*, 158, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.04.005

Richards, G. P. (2001). *The FullCAM carbon accounting model: development, calibration and implementation for the National Carbon Accounting System (National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 28)*. Canberra, ACT: Australian Greenhouse Office.

Richards, M., Pogson, M., Dondini, M., Jones, E. O., Hastings, A., Henner, D. N., ... Smith, P. (2017). High-resolution spatial modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change to energy crops in the United Kingdom. *Global Change Biology Bioenergy*, 9, 627-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12360

Richter, D. D., Hofmockel, M., Callaham, M. A., Powlson, D. S., & Smith, P. (2007). Long-term soil experiments: Keys to managing earth's rapidly changing terrestrial ecosystems. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 71, 266-279. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0181

Rogge, D., Bauer, A., Zeidler, J., Mueller, A., Esch, T., & Heiden, U. (2018). Building an exposed soil composite processor (SCMaP) for mapping spatial and temporal characteristics of soils with Landsat imagery (1984-2014). *Remote Sensing of Environment*, 205, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.004

Rosero-Vlasova, O. A., Vlassova, L., Pérez-Cabello, F., Montorio, R., & Nadal-Romero, E. (2019). Soil organic matter and texture estimation from visible-near infrared-shortwave infrared spectra in areas of land cover changes using correlated component regression. *Land Degradation & Development*, 30, 544-560. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ldr.3250

Rovira, P., Romanyà, J., Rubio, A., Roca, N., Alloza, J. A., & Vallejo, V. R. (2007). Estimación del carbono orgánico en los suelos peninsulares españoles. In F. B. Oviedo (Ed.), *El papel de los bosques españoles en la mitigación del cambio climático* (pp. 197-222). Barcelona, Spain: Fundación Gas Natural.

Ruddiman, W. F. (2005). *Plows, plagues and petroleum: How humans took control of climate* (Vol. 240). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Chenu, C., Garcia Cardenas, M., Kaonga, M., Koutika, L.-S., ... Wollenberg, E. (2019). The 4p1000 initiative: Opportunities, limitations and challenges for implementing soil organic carbon sequestration as a sustainable development strategy. *Ambio*, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01165-2

Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Koutika, L. S., Smith, P., Whitehead, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2018). Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. *Nature*, 564, 32-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4

Sabbatini, S., Mammarella, I., Arriga, N., Fratini, G., Graf, A., Hörtnagl, L., ... Papale, D. (2018). Eddy covariance raw data processing for CO₂ and energy fluxes calculation at ICOS ecosystem stations. *International Agrophysics*, 32, 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1515/ intag-2017-0043

Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., & Fiske, G. J. (2017). Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 114, 9575-9580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114

Schipper, L. A., Parfitt, R. L., Fraser, S., Littler, R. A., Baisden, W. T., & Ross, C. (2014). Soil order and grazing management effects on changes in soil C and N in New Zealand pastures. *Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment*, 184, 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.11.012

Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E. D., Kaiser, K., & Schumacher, J. (2011). How accurately can soil organic carbon stocks and stock changes be quantified by soil inventories? *Biogeosciences*, 8, 1193-1212. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1193-2011

Scott, N. A., Tate, K. R., Giltrap, D. J., Smith, C. T., Wilde, R. H., Newsome, P. F. J., & Davis, M. R. (2002). Monitoring land-use change effects on soil carbon in New Zealand: Quantifying baseline soil carbon stocks. *Environmental Pollution*, 116, S167-S186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00249-4
Shirato, Y., & Taniyama, I. (2003). Testing the suitability of the Rothamsted Carbon model for long-term experiments on Japanese non-volcanic upland soils. *Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 49*(6), 921-925. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2003.10410357

Sims, N. C., England, J. R., Newnham, G. J., Alexander, S., Green, C., Minelli, S., & Held, A. (2019). Developing good practice guidance for estimating land degradation in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. *Environmental Science and Policy, 92*, 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.014

Skinner, R. H., & Dell, C. J. (2014). Comparing C sequestration estimates from eddy covariance and soil cores. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 199*, 52-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.020

Skjemstad, J. O., Spencer, L. R., Cowie, B., & Swift, R. S. (2004). Calibration of the Rothamsted organic carbon turnover model (RothC ver. 26.3), using measurable soil organic carbon pools. *Australian Journal of Soil Research, 42*, 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR03013

Sleutel, S., De Neve, S., & Hofman, G. (2003). Estimates of carbon stock changes in Belgian cropland. *Soil Use and Management, 19*, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1079/SUM2003187

Smith, J., Gottschalk, P., Bellarby, J., Chapman, S., Lilly, A., Towers, W., ... Hillier, J. (2010). Estimating changes in national soil carbon stocks using ECOSSÉ – A new model that includes upland organic soils. Part I. Model description and uncertainty in national scale simulations of Scotland. *Climate Research, 45*, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00899

Smith, J. U., & Smith, P. (2007). *Environmental modelling. An introduction*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 180 pp.

Smith, J. U., Smith, P., Monaghan, R., & MacDonald, A. J. (2002). When is a measured soil organic matter fraction equivalent to a model pool? *European Journal of Soil Science, 53*(3), 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2002.00458.x

Smith, P. (2004a). How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected? *Global Change Biology, 10*, 1878-1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00854.x

Smith, P. (2004b). Monitoring and verification of soil carbon changes under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. *Soil Use and Management, 20*, 264-270. https://doi.org/10.1079/SUM2004239

Smith, P. (2012). Soils and climate change. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4*, 539-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.06.005

Smith, P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. *Global Change Biology, 22*, 1315-1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13178

Smith, P., Chapman, S. J., Scott, W. A., Black, H. I. J., Wattenbach, M., Milne, R., ... Smith, J. U. (2007). Climate change cannot be entirely responsible for soil carbon loss observed in England and Wales, 1978-2003. *Global Change Biology, 13*, 2605-2609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01458.x

Smith, P., Davies, C. A., Ogle, S., Zanchi, G., Bellarby, J., Bird, N., ... Braimoh, A. K. (2012). Towards an integrated global framework to assess the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon: Current capability and future vision. *Global Change Biology, 18*, 2089-2101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02689.x

Smith, P., Lanigan, G., Kutsch, W. L., Buchmann, N., Eugster, W., Aubinet, M., ... Jones, M. (2010). Measurements necessary for assessing the net ecosystem carbon budget of croplands. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139*, 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.04.004

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H. H., Kumar, P., ... Smith, J. U. (2008). Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363*, 789-813. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184

Smith, P., Powlson, D. S., Smith, J. U., Falloon, P. D., & Coleman, K. (2000). Meeting Europe's climate change commitments: Quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation

by agriculture. *Global Change Biology, 6*, 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00331.x

Smith, P., Smith, J. U., Powlson, D. S., McGill, W. B., Arah, J. R. M., Chertov, O. G., ... Whitmore, A. P. (1997). A comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models using seven long-term experimental datasets. *Geoderma, 81*, 153-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7061(97)00087-6

Soil Science Staff. (2014). R. Burt; Soil Survey Staff (Eds.), *Kellogg soil survey laboratory methods manual*. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. Lincoln, NE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1253871.pdf

Soussana, J. F., Tallec, T., & Blanfort, V. (2010). Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. *Animal, 4*, 334-350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990784

Spencer, S., Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., Goebel, J. J., & Paustian, K. (2011). Designing a national soil carbon monitoring network to support climate change policy: A case example for US agricultural lands. *Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management, 1*, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430779.2011.637696

Stahl, C., Fontaine, S., Klumpp, K., Picon-Cochard, C., Grise, M. M., Dezécache, C., ... Blanfort, V. (2017). Continuous soil carbon storage of old permanent pastures in Amazonia. *Global Change Biology, 23*, 3382-3392. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13573

Statistics Lithuania. (2018). *Agricultural statistics database*. Retrieved from https://www.stat.gov.lt/web/lsd/

Steinmann, T., Welp, G., Wolf, A., Holbeck, B., Große-Rüschkamp, T., & Amelung, W. (2016). Repeated monitoring of organic carbon stocks after eight years reveals carbon losses from intensively managed agricultural soils in Western Germany. *Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 179*, 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201500503

Stenberg, B., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Mouazen, A. M., & Wetterlind, J. (2010). Visible and near infrared spectroscopy in soil science. *Advances in Agronomy, 107*, 163-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(10)07005-7

Stockmann, U., Adams, M. A., Crawford, J. W., Field, D. J., Henakaarchi, N., Jenkins, M., ... Zimmermann, M. (2013). The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 164*, 80-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.10.001

Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., Christensen, B. T., Glendining, M., & Olesen, J. E. (2016). Consolidating soil carbon turnover model by improved estimates of belowground carbon input. *Scientific Reports, 6*, 32568. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32568

Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., Christensen, B. T., Hutchings, N. J., Vejlin, J., Kätterer, T., Glendining, M., & Olesen, J. E. (2014). C-TOOL: A simple model for simulating whole-profile carbon storage in temperate agricultural soils. *Ecological Modelling, 292*, 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.016

Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., & Olesen, J. E. (2016). Modelling soil organic carbon in Danish agricultural soils suggests low potential for future carbon sequestration. *Agricultural Systems, 145*, 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.004

Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., Olesen, J. E., Kristensen, K., Elsgaard, L., Østergaard, H. S., Laegdsmand, M., ... Christensen, B. T. (2014). Changes in carbon stocks of Danish agricultural mineral soils between 1986 and 2009. *European Journal of Soil Science, 65*, 730-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12169

Tang, Y., Jones, E., & Minasny, B. (2019). Evaluating low-cost portable near infrared sensors for rapid analysis of soils from South Eastern Australia. *Geoderma Regional*, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2019.e00240.

Tate, K. R., Wilde, R. H., Giltrap, D. J., Baisden, W. T., Saggar, S., Trustrum, N. A., ... Barton, J. R. (2005). Soil organic carbon stocks and flows in New Zealand: System development, measurement and
modelling. *Canadian Journal of Soil Science*, 85(4), 481-489. https://doi.org/10.4141/S04-082

Teng, Y., Wu, J., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Jiao, X., & Song, L. (2014). Soil and soil environmental quality monitoring in China: A review. *Environment International*, 69, 177-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.014

Throop, H. L., Archer, S. R., Monger, H. C., & Waltman, S. (2012). When bulk density methods matter: Implications for estimating soil organic carbon pools in rocky soils. *Journal of Arid Environments*, 77, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.08.020

Toudert, A., Braimoh, A., Bernoux, M. M. Y., St-Louis, M., Abdelmagied, M., Bockel, L., ... Zhao, Y. (2018). *Carbon accounting tools for sustainable land management*. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 135 pp. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/318251544164909341/Carbon-Accounting-Tools-for-Sustainable-Land-Management

Trnka, M., Olesen, J. E., Kersebaum, A. C., Skjelvåg, A. O., Eitzinger, J., & Seguin, B., ... Dubrovský, M. (2011). Agrolimatic conditions in Europe under climate change. *Global Change Biology*, 17, 2298-2318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02396.x

Tuomi, M., Rasinmäki, J., Repo, A., Vanhala, P., & Liski, J. (2011). Soil carbon model Yasso07 graphical user interface. *Environmental Modelling and Software*, 26, 1358-1362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.05.009

Upson, M. A., Burgess, P. J., & Morison, J. I. L. (2016). Soil carbon changes after establishing woodland and agroforestry trees in a grazed pasture. *Geoderma*, 283, 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2016.07.002

Van Der Esch, S., ten Brink, B., Stehfest, E., Bakkenes, M., Sewell, A., Bouwman, A., ... Van Den Berg, M. (2017). *Exploring future changes in land use and land condition and the impacts on food, water, climate change and biodiversity: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook*. The Hague, the Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved from https://www.pbl.nl/en/publi cations/exploring-future-changes-in-land-use

Van Wesemael, B., Paustian, K., Andrén, O., Cerri, C. E. P., Dodd, M., Etchevers, J., ... Siebner, C. (2011). How can soil monitoring networks be used to improve predictions of organic carbon pool dynamics and CO₂ fluxes in agricultural soils? *Plant and Soil*, 338, 247-259. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0567-z

VandenBygaart, A. J., McConkey, B. G., Angers, D. A., Smith, W. S., de Gooijer, H., Bentham, M., & Martin, T. (2008). Soil carbon change factors for the Canadian agriculture national greenhouse gas inventory. *Canadian Journal of Soil Science*, 88, 671-680. https://doi. org/10.4141/CJSS07015

Vanguelova, E. I., Bonifacio, E., De Vos, B., Hoosbeek, M. R., Berger, T. W., Vesterdal, L., ... Zhiyanski, M. (2016). Sources of errors and uncertainties in the assessment of forest soil carbon stocks at different scales – Review and recommendations. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment*, 188, 630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5608-5

Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Behrens, T., Ben-Dor, E., Brown, D. J., Dematté, J., Shepherd, K. D., ... Ji, W. (2016). A global spectral library to characterize the world's soil. *Earth-Science Reviews*, 155, 198-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.01.012

Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Brus, D. J., Lobsey, C., Shi, Z., & Mclachlan, G. (2016). Baseline estimates of soil organic carbon by proximal sensing: Comparing design-based, model-assisted and model-based inference. *Geoderma*, 265, 152-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2015.11.016

Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Walvoort, D. J. J., Mcbratney, A. B., Janik, L. J., & Skjemstad, J. O. (2006). Visible, near infrared, mid infrared or combined diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for simultaneous assessment of various soil properties. *Geoderma*, 131, 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.007

Visschers, R., Finke, P. A., & De Gruijter, J. J. (2007). A soil sampling program for the Netherlands. *Geoderma*, 139, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.01.008

Vohland, M., Ludwig, M., Thiele-Bruhn, S., & Ludwig, B. (2014). Determination of soil properties with visible to near- and mid-infrared spectroscopy: Effects of spectral variable selection. *Geoderma*, 223-225, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode rma.2014.01.013

USDA. (2018). *Summary report: 2015 national resources inventory*. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, IA: Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University. Retrieved from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/15summary.

Wendt, J. W., & Hauser, S. (2013). An equivalent soil mass procedure for monitoring soil organic carbon in multiple soil layers. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 64, 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12002

Wetterlind, J., Piikki, K., Stenberg, B., & Söderström, M. (2015). Exploring the predictability of soil texture and organic matter content with a commercial integrated soil profiling tool. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 66, 631-638. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12228

Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., & Allison, S. D. (2013). Global soil carbon projections are improved by modelling microbial processes. *Nature Climate Change*, 3(10), 909-912. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate1951

Wijewardane, N. K., Ge, Y., Wills, S., & Libohova, Z. (2018). Predicting physical and chemical properties of US soils with a mid-infrared reflectance spectral library. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 82, 722-731. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.10.0361

Wilkes, A., Reisinger, A., Wollenberg, E., & Van Dijk, S. (2017). Measurement, reporting and verification of livestock GHG emissions by developing countries in the UNFCCC: current practices and opportunities for improvement. CCAFS Report 17, 114 pp., Wageningen, the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://ccafs.cgiar. org/publications/measurement-reporting-and-verification-lives tock-ghg-emissions-developing-countries#XSmwnOhKjIU

Williams, M., Richardson, A. D., Reichstein, M., Stoy, P. C., Peylin, P., Verbeeck, H., ... Wang, Y.-P. (2009). Improving land surface models with FLUXNET data. *Biogeosciences*, 6, 1341-1359. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1341-2009

Wilson, B. R., Barnes, P., Koen, T. B., Ghosh, S., & King, D. (2010). Measurement and estimation of land-use effects on soil carbon and related properties for soil monitoring: A study on a basalt landscape of northern New South Wales, Australia. *Soil Research*, 48, 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR09146

Wu, Y., Clarke, N., & Mulder, J. (2010). Dissolved organic carbon concentrations in throughfall and soil waters at level II monitoring plots in Norway: Short- and long-term variations. *Water, Air, and Soil Pollution*, 205, 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-009-0073-1

Wüst-Galley, C., Keel, S. G., & Leifeld, J. (2019). A model-based carbon inventory for National greenhouse gas reporting of mineral agricultural soils (in preparation).

Wutzler, T., & Reichstein, M. (2013). Priming and substrate quality interactions in soil organic matter models. *Biogeosciences*, 10(3), 2089-2103. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-2089-2013

Wutzler, T., Zaehle, S., Schrumpf, M., Ahrens, B., & Reichstein, M. (2017). Adaptation of microbial resource allocation affects modelled long-term soil organic matter and nutrient cycling. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 115, 322-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilb io.2017.08.031

Yagasaki, Y., & Shirato, Y. (2014). Assessment on the rates and potentials of soil organic carbon sequestration in agricultural lands in Japan using a process-based model and spatially explicit land-use change inventories Part 1: Historical trend and validation based on nationwide soil monitoring. *Biogeosciences*, 11, 4429-4442. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4429-2014
Zhao, G., Ye, S., Li, G., Yu, X., & McClellan, S. A. (2016). Soil organic carbon storage changes in coastal wetlands of the Liaohe Delta, China, based on landscape patterns. *Estuaries and Coasts, 40*, 967-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0194-x

Zimmermann, M., Leifeld, J., Schmidt, M. W. I., Smith, P., & Fuhrer, J. (2007). Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC model. *European Journal of Soil Science, 58*, 658-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00855.x

**How to cite this article:** Smith P, Soussana J-F, Angers D, et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. *Glob Change Biol.* 2020;26:219-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815