| Title |
Reforestation can sequester two petagrams of carbon in US topsoils in a century
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1719685115 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucas E. Nave, Grant M. Domke, Kathryn L. Hofmeister, Umakant Mishra, Charles H. Perry, Brian F. Walters, Christopher W. Swanston |
| Abstract |
Soils are Earth's largest terrestrial carbon (C) pool, and their responsiveness to land use and management make them appealing targets for strategies to enhance C sequestration. Numerous studies have identified practices that increase soil C, but their inferences are often based on limited data extrapolated over large areas. Here, we combine 15,000 observations from two national-level databases with remote sensing information to address the impacts of reforestation on the sequestration of C in topsoils (uppermost mineral soil horizons). We quantify C stocks in cultivated, reforesting, and natural forest topsoils; rates of C accumulation in reforesting topsoils; and their contribution to the US forest C sink. Our results indicate that reforestation increases topsoil C storage, and that reforesting lands, currently occupying >500,000 km2in the United States, will sequester a cumulative 1.3-2.1 Pg C within a century (13-21 Tg C·y-1). Annually, these C gains constitute 10% of the US forest sector C sink and offset 1% of all US greenhouse gas emissions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 23 | 38% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Austria | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 28 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 66% |
| Scientists | 17 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 227 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 46 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Professor | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 15% |
| Unknown | 53 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 67 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 18% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 24 | 11% |
| Engineering | 8 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 68 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2021.
All research outputs
#275,183
of 25,152,132 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#5,097
of 102,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,363
of 336,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#110
of 1,042 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,152,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 102,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,042 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.