Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to 'CO2 emissions from crop residue-derived biofuels'

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 934–935 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Liska et al. reply —

The soil organic carbon (SOC) model that we used1 was parameterized with data from arable land under normal farming conditions in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia2, but the equation is insensitive to changes in tillage, soil texture and moisture. The model has reasonable accuracy, however, in predicting changes in SOC, residue remaining and CO2 emissions from initial SOC, carbon inputs from residue, and daily temperature1,2; the shoot-to-root ratio used in the geospatial simulation was 0.29 (that is, root carbon is 29% of total aboveground carbon), which did not underestimate carbon input to soil (Supplementary Fig. 2 in ref. 1). There is more theoretical confidence in the conserved nature of SOC oxidation due to temperature1,2,3,4,5 relative to other factors such as tillage6,7,8. In a recent comparison of three SOC models (CENTURY, DAYCENT and DNDC), predictions were close to or within the range of uncertainty of estimates derived from soil measurements, showing that these models tend to produce similar results from residue removal5. (A range of soil measurements have also shown net SOC loss from residue removal1,5.) The model also agreed well with CO2 emissions measurements from an AmeriFlux field site1, which since 2000 has been funded with $7,370,000 from the US Department of Energy, the US Department of Agriculture and NASA, leading to over 85 peer-reviewed publications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Liska, A. J. et al. Nature Clim. Change 4, 398–401 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yang, H. S. & Janssen, B. H. Plant Soil 239, 215–224 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kutsch, W. L., Bahn, M. & Heinemeyer, A. Soil Carbon Dynamics: An Integrated Methodology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Conant, R. T. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3392–3404 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith, W. N. et al. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 161, 27–38 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker, J. M. et al. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 118, 1–5 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Blanco-Canqui, H. & Lal, R. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72, 693–701 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Youngs, H. & Somerville, C. Science 344, 1095–1096 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilhelm, W. W., Johnson, J. M. F., Karlen, D. L. & Lightle, D. T. Agron. J. 99, 1665–1667 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang, M., Han, J., Dunn, J. B., Cai, H. & Elgowainy, A. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045905 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liska, A. J. in Sustainable Biofuels: An Ecological Assessment of Future Energy (eds Bhardwaj, A. K., Zenone, T. & Chen, J. K.) Ch. 10 (Walter De Gruyter, in the press).

  12. Sanchez, S. T. et al. J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 1105–1119 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Searchinger, T. et al. Science 319, 1238–1240 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pelton, M. P. Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in Agriculture: Model Development and Application from Daily to Decadal Timescales Master's thesis, Univ. Nebraska-Lincoln (2013).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 68583, Nebraska, USA

    Adam J. Liska & Matthew P. Pelton

  2. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 68583, Nebraska, USA

    Adam J. Liska & Haishun Yang

  3. School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 68583, Nebraska, USA

    Andrew E. Suyker

Authors
  1. Adam J. Liska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haishun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew P. Pelton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew E. Suyker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam J. Liska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liska, A., Yang, H., Pelton, M. et al. Reply to 'CO2 emissions from crop residue-derived biofuels'. Nature Clim Change 4, 934–935 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2423

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2423

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing