Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152

www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

Carbon sequestration potential estimates with changes

in land use and tillage practice in Ohio, USA
Zhengxi Tan *, Rattan Lal
School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Received 18 June 2004; received in revised form 16 May 2005; accepted 31 May 2005

Abstract

Soil C sequestration through changes in land use and management is one of the important strategies to mitigate the global
greenhouse effect. This study was conducted to estimate C sequestration potential of the top 20 cm depth of soil for two
scenarios in Ohio, USA: (1) with reforestation of both current cropland and grassland where SOC pools are less than the baseline
SOC pool under current forest; (2) with the adoption of NT on all current cropland. Based on Ohio Soil Survey Characterization
Database and long-term experimental data of paired conservation tillage (CT) versus no-till (NT), we specified spatial variations
of current SOC pools and C sequestration potentials associated with soil taxa within each major land resource area (MLRA). For
scenario I, there would be 4.56 Mha of cropland having an average SOC sequestration capacity of 1.55 kg C m
2 and 0.80 Mha
of grassland with that of 1.35 kg C m
2. Of all potential area, 73% are associated with Alfisols and 15% with Mollisols, but the
achievable potential could vary significantly with individual MLRAs. Alternately, an average SOC sequestration rate of
62 g C m
2 year
1 was estimated with conversion from CT to NT for cultivated Alfisols, by which a cumulative increase of
71 Tg C resulted from reforestation of cropland could be realized in 25 years. Soils with lower antecedent C contents have higher
C sequestration rates. In comparison with the results obtained at the state scale, the estimates of SOC sequestration potentials
taxonomically associated with each specific MLRA may be more useful to the formulation of C credit trading programs.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Alfisols; Carbon sequestration; Carbon sequestration potential; Conventional tillage; Cropland; Forestland; No-till; Reforestation;
Soil organic carbon

1. Introduction ment practice. Losses of SOC often occur upon

The soil organic carbon pool (SOCP) in surface soil
is sensitive to changes in land use and soil manage-
* Corresponding author. Present address: USGS National Center
for EROS, 47914 252nd ST, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, USA.
Tel.: +1 605 594 6903; fax: +1 605 594 6529.
E-mail address: ztan@usgs.gov (Z. Tan).
conversion from natural to agricultural ecosystems
due to reduced inputs of organic matter, reduced
physical protection of soil organic C (SOC) as a result
of tillage (Davidson and Ackerman, 1993), a lower
fraction of non-soluble materials in more readily
decomposed crop residues (Post and Kwon, 2000),
and soil erosion (Lal, 2003). Conversion to agricul-
tural ecosystems can reduce SOCP by as much as 50%

0167-8809/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.05.012
 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
in the top 20 cm depth of soil and 25–30% in the top
100 cm depth following 30–50 years of cultivation
(Davidson and Ackerman, 1993; Post and Kwon,
2000). Enhancing SOC sequestration with changes in
land use and management practice has been recog-
nized one of the important strategies for reducing
atmospheric CO2 level.
Recently, reforestation is taking place in developed
countries of the Northern hemisphere, which is
predicted to increase soil C storage. Guo and Gifford
(2002) reported an average increase in SOC storage by
18% after conversion of cropland to woodland
plantations. Post and Kwon (2000) estimated a
global average SOC sequestration rate of 33.8 g
C m
2 year
1 by reforestation of cultivated lands. In
addition, the adoption of conservation tillage or
intensified cropping systems also leads to SOC
sequestration. West and Post (2002) estimated a
global SOC sequestration rate of 57  14 g C
m
2 year
1 with conversion from conventional tillage
(CT) to no-till (NT) and 20  12 g C m
2 year
1
by increasing the number of crops in a rotation
system.
Potentials for SOC sequestration in U.S. terrestrial
ecosystems are generally estimated at the national or
regional scale. For example, Lal et al. (1998, 1999)
estimated that potential soil C sequestration from
improved management on U.S. cropland is between 75
and 208 Tg C year
1 (Tg = 1012 g) for several dec-
ades, and Bruce et al. (1999) also claimed a
sequestration potential of 75 Tg C year
1 attainable
from U.S. agricultural soils in the next 20 years.
Following the approach proposed by Eve et al. (2001),
Sperow et al. (2003) included interactions of climate
and management practice into the estimation of
potential soil C sequestration in U.S. agricultural soils,
and estimated a potential of 60–70 Tg C year
1
increase over the present rate of 17 Tg C year
1.
Obviously, there is a great potential of soils for C
sequestration through reforestation and conservation
tillage practices. However, land use planning for
enhancing SOC sequestration and its implementation
must consider the spatial variability in site char-
acteristics that influence SOC sequestration rates.
Tan et al. (2004b) reported the geographic and
taxonomic distribution patterns of SOC storage (to
100 cm depth) and observed significant differences
in SOC storage magnitudes associated with soil taxa
141
and land uses at the major land resources area
(MLRA) and state scales in Ohio, USA. Within
either a MLRA or a soil order, the SOCP (0–30 cm
depth) depends, to a significant extent, on land use,
drainage class, and soil texture (Tan et al., 2004a).
For either local or regional C credit trading programs
(American Farm Bureau, 2000), there is a strong
need to identify C sequestration potentials of
individual soil taxa by specifying spatial variations
at more detail scales. Because of the strong influence
of site features and land use category on SOC
dynamics, a greater precision is achievable if the
baseline for C sequestration potential estimate is
established for individual soil taxa within the region
containing comparable climatic conditions. The
MLRA is a geographic unit that contains similar
patterns of climate, soils, water resources, and land
uses (USDA-Soil Conservation Service, 1981). It
offers an appropriate scale unit for estimating SOCPs
(Brejda et al., 2001; Tan et al., 2004b).
When settlers first came to Ohio over 200 years
ago, the territory was about 95% forest. Between 1900
and 1910, the average forest cover in the region
decreased to about 10% of all land surface area due to
a wide expansion of agriculture (Ohio Division of
Forestry, 2004). Assuming that a mean 27.5% loss of
initial SOC storage (to 100 cm depth) over a 50-year
period following deforestation (Davidson and Acker-
man, 1993; Houghton et al., 1999) took place on 70%
of total land area in this state, the cumulative
deforestation-induced SOC loss could amount to
270 Tg. Using the SOCP in current forestland as the
baseline in comparison with that in cultivated land
should be a good indicator of either the C source
contribution to the greenhouse effect by deforestation
or the potential of SOC sequestration through
reforestation of cultivated land.
We hypothesized that reforestation of cultivated
lands or adoption of conservation tillage practices
(such as NT with >30% residue) enhances SOC
sequestration, and the C sequestration potential is
proportional to the difference in current SOCPs either
between forestland and cultivated land or between
soils under NT and CT. Therefore, this study was
conducted to estimate C sequestration rates and
potentials of the top 20 cm depth of soil for two
scenarios in Ohio, USA: (1) with reforestation of both
current cropland and grassland where SOCPs are less
142 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152

than the baseline SOCP under current forest, and (2)
with the adoption of NT practice on all current
cropland.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The state of Ohio is located between 388240 0000 –
418580 4800 N and 808300 0400 –848490 1600 W and covers
an area of 107,100 km2. The territory of this state is
regionalized into eight major land resources areas
(Fig. 1) according to common features in climate,
topography, origin of soil parent materials, and
vegetation (USDA-Soil Conservation Service,
1981). The western half and northeast quadrants of
the State were glaciated during the Wisconsinan Age.
The southern half of the southwest quadrant is
Illinoisan age glacial till. Both tills are covered by
variable thickness of Wisconsinan loess. Outwash
deposits are associated with the glacial termini,
abandoned glacial lakeshores, and major stream
valleys. Locally significant lacustrine deposits are

Fig. 1. Major land resource areas (MLRA) in Ohio, USA.

 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
found between the ridge moraines and also extensive
in the northwest quadrant because of ice blockage of
northward flowing drainage systems into ancestral
Lake Erie. The southeastern and south central parts of
the state are unglaciated. The soils there are mostly
developed from residuum and colluvium derived from
sandstone, shale, and limestone (Calhoun et al., 2001).
Soils in Ohio have either a udic or an aquic
moisture regime and a mesic temperature regime. The
1997 National Resources Inventory (NRI) (USDA-
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000) shows
that, of the state land area in 1997, 44.0% was used for
crop cultivation, 7.6% for grass, and 26.8% for forest.
Alfisols covered 69.2% of all land area. According to
the climatic data provided by Ohio Agricultural
Research & Development Center, the mean annual
precipitation is 979 mm, spatially ranging from
846 mm in the northwest to 1098 mm in the southeast.
The mean annual temperature is 10.1 8C, ranging from
9.2 8C in the north to 11.6 8C in the south.
2.2. Data sources
The SOC data of about 1500 pedons with sample
depths 20 cm were obtained from the Ohio Soil
Survey Characterization Database (Calhoun et al.,
1999). All pedons are classified as Alfisols, Entisols,
Inceptisols, Mollisols, Ultisols, or Histosols. Only
areas classified as cropland, grassland (including
pasture, hay, weeds, grasses, grasses, and shrubs),
and forests were adopted for the SOCP calculation
based on the vegetation recorded at the time of
sampling. Soil spatial distribution and areas covered
by each soil order were obtained from the State Soil
Geographic (STATSGO) soil map and attribute table.
The USGS 1992 National Land Cover Data (NLCD),
derived from landsat TM imagery (USGS, 2001),
was used to define spatial distribution of cropland,
grassland, and forestland. The NLCD datasets and
files in GeoTIFF format are available at http://
landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.asp. The 1992
NLCD imagery of Ohio contains 19 land use/cover
classes. We define the forestland category to include
deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest
classes; the grassland to contain grassland/herbac-
eous and pasture/hay classes; and the cropland to
consist of row crops, small grains, and fallow.
Through image processing, the relevant original land
143
use classes of the imagery were merged into
forestland, grassland, and cropland, respectively,
and other land use/cover classes remained with no
change. The reclassified land use theme was then
used to identify land use category for each pedon
defined by the Ohio Soil Survey Characterization
Database (Calhoun et al., 1999), which was then
overlain with the STATSGO soil theme. The areas of
cropland, grassland, forestland, and individual
MLRAs provided by the 1997 NRI (USDA-Natural
Resource Conservation Service, 2000) were used as
the area baseline for computation of current SOCPs
and C sequestration potentials.
2.3. Computation of SOC pools
2.3.1. SOCP for pedons
Data presented in terms of soil organic matter
(SOM) percentage in STATSGO attribute table were
first converted to SOC percentage by multiplying a
factor of 0.58. The SOCP in the top 20 cm depth for
each pedon was expressed in mass per unit area
(kg C m
2) by multiplying the SOM percentage by
respective measurements of soil bulk density
(g cm
3), sampled soil depth (cm), and fine soil
fraction <2 mm in size (Tan et al., 2004b). In case the
SOM measurements were provided without data on
bulk density, the bulk density was estimated using the
method of Calhoun et al. (2001) for mineral soils and
the method of Adams (1973) for organic soils. The top
20 cm depth of soil considered in this study is because
the upper 20 cm is usually the depth of CT and used to
long-term NT versus CT experiments.
2.3.2. Generation of taxon-land use-MLRA theme
and area data
The procedure for creating the taxon-land use-
MLRA theme and aggregating data is outlined as
follows:
(1) Classify all pedons into respective orders; (2)
geographically locate each pedon on a 1:100,000-
scale 30  60 minute Quadrangle Topographic map
by referencing initial records of sampling location and
relevant on-line USGS Quad maps (USGS, 2002) to
create the pedon theme; (3) generate the taxon-land
use theme and its attribute table by loading the NLCD
GeoTIFF file into ArcView 3.1 (ESRI, 1999) and
converting it to a grid file (land use theme), then
144 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
intersect the pedon theme created from step (1) with
the land use theme, by which the land use category
code was assigned to each pedon; (4) assign a MLRA
code to each pedon by intersecting the taxon-land
use theme with the MLRA coverage. Thus, the
taxon-land use-MLRA theme was generated and
each pedon record in the attribute table includes
STATSGO map unit ID, taxonomic name (soil order)
and areal percentage of individual taxon components
within a map unit, land use category, and MLRA
code.
2.3.3. Areas of land uses associated with taxon
and MLRA
The areas of individual soil orders were directly
derived from the STATSGO attribute table that
provides the total area of each map unit and areal
percentages for all taxon components within each map
unit. The areas covered by individual land use
categories in Ohio and the areas covered by individual
land use categories within each MLRA adapted from
the 1997 NRI (USDA-Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service, 2000) were used as the baseline to
estimate the areas of order-associated land uses within
each MLRA.
Each soil order may not only contain crop, grass, or
forest, but also other land use categories, while a land
use may be distributed on different orders. Therefore,
the area of an order-associated land use within a
specific MLRA was calculated with the assumption
that every soil order contains same relative proportion
of a land use as the land use constitute of total area of
the MLRA. For example, if the order O has been
identified as cropland within the MLRA M; within the
MLRA the area of the order O is Aom, the total area of
MLRA M is Am, and the area of cropland is CPm;
assuming that the order O in the MLRA M has same
percent of cropland as the percentage of all cropland in
the MLRA; then the estimated area of the order O-
associated cropland within the MLRA should be
(Aom  (CPm/Am)).
The area data derived from the above procedures
were also used to calculate the means of area–
weighted SOCP at MLRA scale.
2.3.4. Area–weighted mean of SOCP
The SOCP means for each land use category at both
soil order and MLRA levels were calculated with an
area-weight because basic units for data aggregation
may have different areas associated with individual
taxa and MLRAs.
(1) The mean of area–weighted SOCP at an order
level.
The following equation was used to calculate
the mean of area–weighted SOCP at an order
level:
Xn


Ai
SOCPO ¼ SOCPi  (1)
i¼l
Ao
where SOCPO is the average area–weighted
SOCP for an order in the state, SOCPi the SOC
pool size under the ith land use category, Ai the
area of the ith land use category associated with
the order, Ao the area of the order in the state and n
is the number of land use categories (3), i.e.,
cropland, grassland, or forestland.
The results derived from Eq. (1) are presented
in Table 2.
(2) The mean of area–weighted SOCP for each
MLRA.
A specific MLRA may include m soil orders
and each soil order may be shared by n land use
categories. We first calculated the area–weighted
SOCP value for each soil order (SOCPij) using
Eq. (1) in which Ai was replaced by Aij is the area
of the ith land use category associated with the jth
soil order within a specific MLRA, and Ao was
replaced by Am is the area of the jth soil order
within the MLRA. Then the average SOCP for
each MLRA was computed as follows:
X m X n


Ai j
SOCPMLRA ¼ SOCPi j  (2)
j¼l i¼l
Am
where SOCPMLRA isthearea–weighted SOCPvalue
oftheMLRA,SOCPij theSOCPundertheithlanduse
category associated with the jth soil order within the
MLRA, Aij the area of the ith land use category
associated with the jth soil order within the MLRA,
Am theareaoftheMLRA,mthenumberofsoilorders
present in the MLRA (m  6), and n is the number of
land use categories (n  3).
The SOC content and area of the three land use
categories may have changed since the date of soil
 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152 145

sampling. These changes may have enhanced SOC
sequestration on the target lands, or depleted the SOC
due to CT, over-grazing, etc., especially if samples
were collected before the 1980s. Therefore, changes in
land use and SOC dynamics were not considered when
calculating average SOCPs.
The area–weighted mean and standard deviation
(Stdev) were calculated for SOCP values at either soil
order level or MLRA level using the SAS software
(SAS Institute, 2001). Fisher’s least significant
difference (LSD) was used to test differences among
land uses at a = 0.05.
2.4. Estimation of potentials for SOC
sequestration
Carbon sequestration potentials for individual soil
taxa were computed by aggregating the point SOCPs of
pedonsforeach landusewithin individual soil ordersand
MLRAs to the MLRA level. The SOCP value on current
forestland was considered as the baseline. Thus, a
positive difference between the baseline and the SOCP
on either current cropland or grassland within each
MLRA was defined as the potential for C sequestration
until the SOCP level reaches the average SOCP level of
the current forestland. Then, the areas of both cropland
and grassland where SOCP levels are less than that of
forestland in the same MLRA are hypothetically
converted to forest.
Changes in bulk density often occur following
changes in land use and management with sequestra-
tion or depletion of SOC. It would be ideal to make
density correction to the calculation of C sequestra-
tion potentials with changes in land use and
management. However, we used the equivalent soil
volume (same depth of soil) rather than the
‘‘equivalent soil mass’’ as defined by Ellert and
Bettany (1995) because (1) many soil pedons used in
this study have no initial bulk density measurements;
(2) few similar research papers have been found to
use the equivalent soil mass protocol in the
computation of either SOC stock or C sequestration
potentials because of the limited availability of soil
bulk density measurements from literature (West
et al., 2004). Another uncertainty is that the extent of
changes in soil bulk density is time-dependent and
also varies with individual soil taxa. For the volume
of soil defined by a fixed depth, the current method
with no density correction, in comparison with the
computation based on the equivalent soil mass, leads
either to an underestimate of SOCP for current
forestland or to an overestimate for the land to be
reforested. The results presented here were com-
puted for the top 20 cm depth of soil regardless of
changes in soil bulk density.
2.5. Calculation of SOC sequestration rate from
reduced tillage
The data of 15 paired NT–CT treatments used for
calculating SOC sequestration rates were adapted
from literature (Table 1). They were recalculated from

Table 1
Soil organic carbon sequestration ratesa upon conversion from conventional tillage to no-till
Location Sample Duration Antecedent C C change rate Soil taxon
size year contentb g C m
2 Mean Standard deviation
g C m
2 year
1
Choshoctonc 2 17 924 47 9 Rayne silt loam, Typic Hapludalfs
Hoytvilled 3 16–19 589 50 36 Hoytville silty clay loam, Mollic
Ochraqualfs
Woostere 7 18–30 396 60 9 Wooster silt loam, Typic Fragiudalfs
S. Charlestonf 3 18–28 266 87 50 Crosby silt loam, Aeric Ochraqualfs
Mean 62 29
a
Calculated for the top 20 cm depth of soil.
b
Derived from the data reported by Dick (1983) and Dick et al. (1997).
c
Data source: Puget et al. (2002).
d
Data source: Dick (1983); Jarecki and Lal (2003).
e
Data source: Dick (1983); Dick et al. (1997).
f
Data source: Jarecki and Lal (2003); Mahboubi et al. (1993).
146 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
long-term experimental results that were initially
obtained from four different agricultural experimental
stations in Ohio. Soils and site characteristics of each
station were described by Dick et al. (1997). All
experiments were used which had two or more
sampling times documented throughout the experi-
ment duration. Analysis of paired treatment data can
reduce the variability in estimates of the C sequestra-
tion rates caused by deviations in precipitation and
temperature from the average annual means (West and
Post, 2002). The average annual rate of SOC
sequestration from reduced tillage was computed
using the following equation:
 
ðNT2
CT2 Þ
ðNT1
CT1 Þ
Rcs ¼ (3)
t2
t1
where Rcs is the rate of SOC sequestration
(g C m
2 y
1), NT1 and 2 and CT1 and 2 represent
SOCPs under NT and CT during the first and second
years in which SOC was measured, and t1 and t2 are
the beginning and ending time of the experiment in
which SOC was measured. A paired T-test (SAS
Institute, 2001) was used on all groups of paired
treatments to test significance of differences in the
rates between NT and CT treatments.
Finally, based on the results derived from the 15
paired experiments, we analyzed the influences of the
antecedent SOC content (under CT) on the C
sequestration rate with the adoption of NT by
regression of the SOCP magnitudes under NT with
those under CT.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Current SOCPs in the top 20 cm depth of soil
The area–weighted SOCPs in the top 20 cm depth
for each land use associated with soil orders are
presented in Table 2. The average SOCPs differ
significantly among soil orders except between
Alfisols and Ultisols, ranging from 3.7 kg C m
2 in
Entisols to 7.1 kg C m
2 in Mollisols. The overall
average SOCP is 4.9  1.4 kg C m
2 (mean  stan-
standard deviation, same for all cases below). Alfisols,
the most extensive in Ohio, have a mean SOCP of
4.6  1.4 kg C m
2.
The data in Table 2 show that the SOCPs are
generally differentiated by land use category. The
highest average SOCP of 8.5 kg C m
2 is observed
on Mollisols-associated forestland and the lowest
of 2.8 kg C m
2 on Entisols-associated grassland.
Averaging across all MLRAs, the SOCP on forest-
land is significantly higher than that on cropland and
grassland, with an exception of that on cropland for
Entisols and Inceptisols. Both Entisols and Incepti-
sols that occur in floodplains were preferentially
selected for crop production because of high fertility,
whereas those occurring on steep slopes in the
southeast Ohio with low SOCPs have rarely been
cultivated or have been reforested after unsuccessful
cultivation attempts (Tan et al., 2004b). Forest and
grass are prevalent on steep slopes where soils have
low SOCPs. That is why there are many cases where
SOCP values on cropland are equal to or greater than
those on forestland or grassland (Table 2, or see
Table 4). Therefore, soils/MLRAs where the current
SOCPs associated with either cropland or grassland
are greater than the SOCP associated with forestland
were removed from the analysis in the next section
because reforestation of the cropland would lead to
SOC losses. On the other hand, lower SOCPs are
observed in MLRAs 114, 121, 124, and 126, which
are linked to steeper slopes and well-drained
conditions in the south and southeastern regions.
But the spatial variation in the SOCP is smaller with
MLRAs than with soil taxa due to less spatial
variation in soil formation factors at the MLRA scale
than that at the statewide scale. Such information is
more useful for the planning and implementation of
C credit trading programs at a district level, or even
at a more detailed scale because the potential
estimates are confined to each land use category
associated with specific soil taxa within individual
MLRAs. The differences in SOCP associated with
soil taxa, land uses, and MLRAs in Ohio have been
discussed in detail by Tan et al. (2004b).
The SOC storage amounts presented in Table 3
were derived from the data in Table 2 and respective
area of each land use category associated with both
soil taxa and MLRAs. For the State on the whole, the
top 20 cm depth of soil preserves about 409  9 Tg C,
of which 55% is on cropland, 37% is on forestland,
and 8% is on grassland. About 65% of the total C
storage potential is in Alfisols, 14% in Mollisols, 9%
 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152 147

Table 2
Soil organic carbon poolsa in the top 20 cm depth of soil
Soil order Land use MLRAb (kg m
2) Meanc Standard deviation
99 100 111 114 121 124 126 139
Alfisols Crop 5.07 4.67 4.07 3.37 3.24 3.27 4.12 4.45 4.18 4.56 1.38
Grass 5.41 6.01 4.18 3.48 3.55 3.44 3.84 4.88 3.96
Forest 6.47 6.11 5.67 4.61 4.61 5.07 4.96 6.39 5.41
Entisols Crop 4.41 5.54 4.60 4.48 n/a 3.69 3.26 4.28 4.29 3.69 1.21
Grass 4.68 5.42 6.27 4.34 n/a 0.91 2.39 5.07 2.80
Forest 4.88 5.46 6.46 4.37 n/a 1.24 2.54 7.36 3.28
Histosols Crop 17.19 n/a 23.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a 29.47 24.68 24.98 1.62
Grass 16.99 n/a 22.92 n/a n/a n/a n/a 27.69 24.89
Forest n/a n/a 23.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a 27.49 25.90
Inceptisols Crop 6.50 4.57 8.55 4.16 2.98 4.71 3.10 4.30 5.90 5.39 1.85
Grass 6.73 6.05 5.61 4.05 6.14 2.57 5.02 5.66 3.55
Forest 7.98 2.76 8.67 3.94 2.93 5.17 5.15 5.26 5.27
Mollisols Crop 7.71 5.11 6.80 6.68 6.03 6.08 3.78 8.12 6.92 7.12 1.59
Grass 6.55 6.85 6.62 3.42 6.55 6.99 5.22 8.30 6.63
Forest 9.39 6.97 8.58 6.73 6.59 7.02 5.34 8.33 8.46
Ultisols Crop n/a n/a 6.24 3.64 n/a 3.88 4.38 3.34 4.01 4.24 1.37
Grass n/a n/a 6.12 3.56 n/a 3.18 3.48 1.64 3.31
Forest n/a n/a 6.17 4.03 n/a 4.82 4.20 3.34 4.58
Land USEd Crop 5.63 4.79 4.87 3.50 3.33 3.76 4.01 4.65 4.77 1.30
Grass 5.79 5.86 4.93 3.56 3.68 3.04 3.70 5.10 3.96 1.03
Forest 7.02 5.21 6.50 4.54 4.61 4.78 4.60 6.57 5.30 1.75
Meane 5.75 5.06 5.09 3.82 4.00 4.31 4.32 5.50 4.87
Standard deviation 2.30 0.24 1.24 0.95 0.90 1.38 1.33 1.80 1.43
n/a: No data available.
a
Weighted by the area of each land use associated with soil orders and MLRAs. Histosols were excluded in all other mean value calculations
because of an ignorable area proportion.
b
LSDlanduse = 1.18 (a = 0.05) for significance test between means for MLRAs within a soil order.
c
LSDsoil = 0.90 and LSDlanduse = 0.23 (a = 0.05) for significance test between means for soil orders and land uses within a soil order,
respectively.
d
LSDlanduse = 0.98 and LSDfinal = 0.69 (a = 0.05) for significance test between means for land uses within each MLRA and between means of
land uses for all data, respectively.
e
LSDMLRA = 0.94 (a = 0.05) for significance test between means for MLRAs.

Table 3
Current soil organic carbon storagea in the top 20 cm depth of soil
Landuse Tg (1012 g) Sum Standard deviation
Alfisols Entisols Histosols Inceptisols Mollisols Ultisols
Cropland 139.9 9.3 4.2 19.5 46.3 5.3 224.4 13.4
Grassland 21.4 1.5 0.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 32.2 1.5
Forestland 102.1 6.5 1.5 15.5 9.8 16.8 152.1 6.8
Sum 263.4 17.4 6.0 37.5 59.1 25.3 408.7
Standard deviation 15.5 0.8 0.9 3.0 8.0 3.0 8.9
a
Calculated from SOCP values in Table 2 and the respective areas associated with individual soil orders and land use categories within each
MLRA.
148 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152

Table 4
Estimates of potentials for carbon sequestration in the top 20 cm depth of soil by reforestation of cropland and grassland (derived from Table 2)
Soil order Land use MLRA (kg m
2) Meana
99 100 111 114 121 124 126 139
Alfisols Crop 1.40 1.44 1.60 1.24 1.37 1.81 0.84 1.95 1.57 1.53
Grass 1.06 0.10 1.49 1.13 1.06 1.63 1.12 1.52 1.35
Entisols Crop 0.47
0.08 1.87
0.03 n/a
2.45
0.73 3.09 1.69 1.35
Grass 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.03 n/a 0.33 0.14 2.29 0.38
Inceptisols Crop 1.48
1.81 0.12
0.22
0.05 0.46 2.05 0.96 1.15 1.30
Grass 1.24
3.29 3.06
0.11
3.21 2.61 0.13
0.40 2.02
Mollisols Crop 1.68 1.86 1.78 0.05 0.56 0.94 1.56 0.21 1.75 1.75
Grass 2.84 0.12 1.96 3.31 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.03 1.87
Ultisols Crop n/a n/a
0.07 0.39 n/a 0.94
0.18 0.00 0.85 1.05
Grass n/a n/a 0.05 0.47 n/a 1.63 0.72 1.70 1.23
Land use Crop 1.40 1.46 1.64 1.19 1.32 1.27 0.95 1.97 1.55
Grass 1.23 0.08 1.58 1.04 1.00 1.74 0.89 1.56 1.35
Mean a 1.39 1.28 1.63 1.16 1.25 1.48 0.91 1.92 1.52
n/a: No data are available as indicated in Table 2.
a
Weighted by the area of each land use associated with soil orders and MLRAs. The cells whose values are 0.0 were excluded for mean
calculation because these areas may loss C follow conversion from crop or grass to forest, therefore, no land use change is projected to them.

in Inceptisols, and only 1.5% in Histosols due to a
small portion of the area.
3.2. Potentials of SOC sequestration and spatial
variation
As presented in Table 4, an overall average capacity
for SOC sequestration with the conversion of cropland
or grassland to forest is estimated at 1.52 kg C m
2,
with the highest capacity in Mollisols (1.75 kg C m
2),
followed by Alfisols (1.53 kg C m
2), and the least in
Ultisols (1.05 kg C m
2). The overall average capacity
for SOC sequestration is 1.55 kg C m
2 for cropland
converted to forest and 1.35 kg C m
2 for grassland
converted to forest. Geographically, the highest capacity
of 1.92 kg C m
2 is associated with MLRA 139,
followed by MLRAs 111, 124, 99, 100, 121, and 114,
and the least capacity of 0.91 kg C m
2 for MLRA 126.
The areas of cropland and grassland for poten-
tially sequestering C are presented in Table 5. The
results indicate that the total sequestration potential
of 1.52 kg C m
2 is applicable on 5.36 Mha (Mha =
106 ha) or 50.1% of all land area of the state, with a
cumulative potential of 82 Tg C in the top 20 cm
depth of soil, 86.7% of which would be contributed
by reforesting current cropland. Because of their
prevalent distribution over the state, Alfisols would
represent 59.6 Tg C or 73.0% of the total potential
sequestration. In comparison, Mollisols could
sequester 12.5 Tg C, Entisols 2.8 Tg, and Ultisols
2.0 Tg under this scenario. Geographically, of total
SOC sink potential, 51.8% is associated with MLRA
111, 14.5% with MLRA 99, 14.1% with MLRA 139,
and about 19% with other MLRAs.
If the area of currently cultivated land having
potential to sequester C would be reverted to forest, it
would take about 46 years at an average SOC
sequestration rate of 33.8 g m
2 year
1 (Post and
Kwon, 2000) to raise SOCP level in the reforested area
to the baseline SOCP level. In other words, given an
average period of 50 years (Polglase et al., 2000,
estimated 40–60 years) to reach a new equilibrium
following reforestation of cropland, the C sequestra-
tion rate needed to achieve the capacity of
1.55 kg C m
2 would be 31.1 g C m
2 year
1 which
is very close to the forest SOC estimate of
30.2 g C m
2 year
1 provided by Paul et al. (2002),
or 34.4 g C m
2 year
1 over a period of 45 years that
is comparable with the estimate made by Post and
Kwon (2000).
As indicated by the data in Table 2, the antecedent
SOCP level varies significantly with soil taxon
 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152 149

Table 5
Areasa potentially available for C sequestration by reforestation of current cropland and grassland and total SOC amount to be sequestered
Soil order Land MLRA 1000 ha Area 1000 ha Sum 1000 ha SOCP
use 99 100 111 114 121 124 126 139 Tg %
Alfisols Crop 519 23 1749 239 73 137 134 471 3344 3885 59.6 73.0
Grass 8.2 2.6 129 53 24 101 154 69 540
Entisols Crop 46.8 71.9 n/a 32.3 151 205 2.8 3.4
Grass 0.7 1.0 5.3 3.4 n/a 14.5 24.0 4.7 54
Inceptisols Crop 187 25.5 61.5 12.2 18.2 304 368 4.8 5.9
Grass 3.0 1.9 45.4 14.1 64
Mollisols Crop 86.6 1.4 570 1.1 4.2 1.1 0.1 4.3 669 715 12.5 15.4
Grass 1.4 0.2 41.9 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.1 0.6 47
Ultisols Crop n/a n/a 14.8 n/a 74.8 90 188 2.0 2.4
Grass n/a n/a 0.3 3.3 n/a 55.3 38.5 0.7 98
Area (1000 ha) Crop 839 24 2417 255 77 274 146 525 4558
Grass 13 4 178 60 25 217 231 75 803
Total 853 28 2595 314 102 492 377 600 5361
% of total land area 8.0 0.3 24.2 2.9 1.0 4.6 3.5 5.6 50.1
SOCP (Tg) Crop 11.7 0.4 39.5 3.0 1.0 3.5 1.4 10.3 70.8 86.7
Grass 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.6 0.3 3.8 2.1 1.2 10.9 13.3
Total 11.9 0.4 42.3 3.6 1.3 7.3 3.4 11.5 81.7
% of SOCP 14.5 0.4 51.8 4.5 1.6 8.9 4.2 14.1 100.0
Note: Except for cells with n/a (no data available as shown in Table 4), the blank cells are the soils/MLRAs where no C sequestration potential
can be expected for conversion from crop or grass to forest because their current SOCP sizes are greater than those on respective forestland.
a
Computed from land use areas provided by the 1997 Ohio Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) Report.

because different taxa have different capacities of
preserving C under comparable land use and manage-
ment. However, land use effects on the SOCP are
likely confounded by the preferential selection of
specific land for cropland as addressed in the previous
section. Note that not all projected cropland and
grassland can sequester SOC by reforestation at the
estimated rates and changes in soil C storage following
reforestation are not always positive. For example,
after 50 years of reforestation from agriculture in the
Maumee of Ohio, the rate of SOC accumulation
ranged from 0.15 to 0.58 Mg C ha
1 year
1 on
deciduous sites but SOC loss was observed at a rate
of 0.85 Mg C ha
1 year
1 under conifers (Paul et al.,
2002).
3.3. Carbon sequestration in cultivated Alfisols
induced by eliminating tillage
The cultivated Alfisols were introduced here to
demonstrate the potential of C sequestration by
conversion from CT to NT practice because this order
of soils has the largest area and is a principal contributor
to SOC sequestration in Ohio. Also, the long-term
experimental data obtained from four different agri-
cultural experimental stations are commonly associated
with Alfisols (Table 1). The duration of these
experiments ranged from 16 to 30 years. Crossing
three cropping systems, the SOC sequestration rate with
conversion from CT to NT is estimated at the rate of
62  29 g C m
2 year
1 (Table 1), which is in the
range reported by other investigators (Lal et al., 1998,
1999; Follett and McConkey, 2000; Follett, 2001). The
difference in the C sequestration rate may substantially
affect the implementation of local SOC trading
programs. As shown in Table 4, the potential of C
sequestration on the cropped Alfisols with conversion
from crop to forest is 1.57 kg m
2. Assuming that the
potential SOCP under forest can be obtained on
cropland by adopting NT, to realize this potential at the
rate of 62 g C m
2 year
1 with adoption of NT may
take 25 years. West and Post (2002) analyzed data of
150 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
experiments with a chronosequence of soil C measure-
ments to estimate the time period over which
sequestration occurs following NT and the dynamics
of annual sequestration rates over time. They found that
C sequestration was estimated to occur over a period of
15–20 years. If the period of the delay in C sequestration
in the early years (West et al., 2004) is considered, the
total time needed to reach a new equilibrium of SOC
may be longer. An average period of about 25 years has
been indicated by the C Management Response model
(West et al., 2004). Our estimates of C sequestration
rates and duration are comparable to the results reported
in current literature.
Note that soil bulk density will increase following
conversion from CT to NT, and the current method
likely leads to an overestimate of C sequestration
potential for NT scenario because the ‘‘equivalent soil
volume’’ rather than the ‘‘equivalent soil mass’’ was
used in the estimation of C sequestration potentials.
We compared the data of SOCP values calculated
from 15 paired experimental observations and found
that there is a strong relation between the SOCPs
under NT and CT (Fig. 2) and the relation can be
described by Eq. (4). The total SOC storage under NT
increases significantly with the SOCP under CT.
However, the SOC increase rate following NT likely
depends on the antecedent SOCP. As indicated by the
data in Table 1, the conversion from CT to NT for the
soils with lower antecedent SOCPs tends to have a
Fig. 2. Relationship between sol organic C storages under no-till
(NT) and conventional tillage (CT) practices (Data sources are the
same as those for Table 1).
higher C sequestration rate than that for the soils with
higher antecedent SOC levels.
SOCPNT ¼ 1:391ðSOCPCT Þ0:8986
(4)
ðR2 ¼ 0:93; n ¼ 15Þ
where SOCPNT and SOCPCT are the soil organic C
pools under NT and CT, respectively.
According to this equation, an average 10% SOC
increase following conversion from CT to NT can be
expected in the soils whose antecedent SOCPs are less
than 10 kg m
2. However, conversion from CT to NT
may not enhance C sequestration in the soils whose C
contents are high enough (e.g., organic soils) as
indicated by Fig. 3. A similar result was reported by
Ogle et al. (2003). Fig. 3 shows the relationship
between the SOCP under CT and the SOCP under NT,
and represents a snapshot of what could happen to the
SOCP if a system is converted from CT to NT. Fig. 3
also indicates that the SOC increase for a CT system
converted to NT will be higher when the SOC content
of the soil has been depleted. Compared with the
Carbon Management Response Curve developed by
West et al. (2004), our model does not show a delay of
C accumulation in the early years of adopting NT and
may overestimate the C increase rate for soils with
extremely low antecedent SOC content. Fortunately,
the organic C contents of most agricultural soils in
Ohio range from 4 to 12 kg m
2 (equivalent to 15–
45 g C kg
1) in the top 20 cm layer. In practice, it is
easy for one to use Eq. (4) to estimate C sequestration
Fig. 3. Soil organic C increased percent under no-till (NT) as related
to the antecedent SOCP (i.e., the SOCP under conventional tillage
(CT)).
 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
potentials for target soils by referring to soil survey
data.
4. Conclusion
Soil organic C sequestration potentials with land
use change to current agricultural lands are most often
induced by previous C loss from SOM decomposition
or erosion. The rates and potentials of SOC
sequestration following the hypothetical reforestation
of cropland and grassland in Ohio vary substantially
with soil taxon, geographic location, and land use
category, though they have been confounded by
preferential selection of land use for crop production.
To what extent the reforestation of agricultural land
can be realized depends on many factors such as socio-
economic, land use balance to meet farm production
demands, etc. However, the information about the
potentials of SOC sequestration following reforesta-
tion will certainly help the public being aware of the C
sink capacity with changes in land use and the spatial
distribution of C sequestration capability. On the other
hand, the site-specific SOC sequestration rate with
conversion from CT to NT is related to the antecedent
SOCP level and the cumulative potential of SOC
sequestration is higher for soils with lower antecedent
SOCP levels. This conclusion and its graphic
illustration can guide policy-makers to set up the
priority to C credit trading programs.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Mershon
Center, The Ohio State University, for funding
this research and Dr. F.G. Calhoun for providing
the Ohio Soil Survey Characterization Database.
Especially, we appreciate Dr. N.B. Bliss and other
anonymous reviewers for their critical comments on
revision.
References
Adams, W.A., 1973. The effect of organic matter on the bulk and
true densities of some uncultivated podzolic soils. J. Soil. Sci.
24, 10–17.
151
American Farm Bureau, 2000. Agriculture’s role discussed in
carbon trading [Online]. Available at: http://www.fb.org/news/
fbn/html/agriculture.html.
Brejda, J.J., Mausbach, M.J., Goebel, J.J., Allan, D.L., Dao, T.H.,
Karlen, D.L., Moorman, T.B., Smith, J.L., 2001. Estimating
surface soil organic carbon content at a regional scale using the
national resource inventory. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65, 842–849.
Bruce, J.P., Frome, M., Haites, E., Janzen, H., Lal, R., Paustian, K.,
1999. Carbon sequestration in soils. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54,
382–389.
Calhoun, F.G., Smeck, N.E., Slater, B.L., Bigham, J.M., Hall, G.F.,
2001. Predicting bulk density of Ohio soils from morphology,
genetic principles, and laboratory characterization data. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 65, 811–819.
Calhoun, N.E., Slater, F.G., Smeck, B.L., Bigham, J.M., 1999.
Intuitive, user-friendly approaches to entry and storage of soil
characterization data in Ohio and Australia. Soil resources: their
inventory, analysis, and interpretation for use in the 21st Century.
Poster No. 13, June 10–12, 1999. Minneapolis, MN (abstract).
Davidson, E.A., Ackerman, I.L., 1993. Changes of soil carbon
inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils.
Biogeochemistry 20, 161–193.
Dick, W.A., 1983. Organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus con-
centrations and pH in soil profiles as affected by tillage intensity.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47, 102–107.
Dick, W.A., Edwards, W.M., McCoy, E.L., 1997. Continuous appli-
cation of no-tillage to Ohio soils: changes in crop yields and
organic matter-related soil properties. In: Paul, E.A., et al.
(Eds.), Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems—
Long-term Experiments in North America. CRC Press, New
York, pp. 171–182.
Ellert, B.H., Bettany, J.R., 1995. Calculation of organic matter and
nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes.
Can. J. Soil Sci. 75, 529–538.
ESRI, 1999. ArcView 3.1 Version. Redland, CA.
Eve, M.D., Paustian, K., Follett, R., Elliott, E.T., 2001. A national
inventory of changes in soil carbon from national resources
inventory data. In: Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., Follett, R.F., Stewart,
B.A. (Eds.), Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon. Lewis Pub-
lishers, New York, pp. 593–610.
Follett, R.F., 2001. Soil management concepts and carbon seques-
tration in cropland soils. Soil Tillage Res. 61, 77–92.
Follett, R.F., McConkey, B., 2000. The role of cropland agriculture
for C sequestration in the Great Plains. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Great Plains Soil Fertility, vol. 8. pp. 1–15.
Guo, L.B., Gifford, R.M., 2002. Soil carbon sequestration and land-
use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biol. 8, 345–360.
Houghton, R.A., Hackler, J.L., Lawrence, K.T., 1999. The U.S.
carbon budget: contributions from land-use change. Science
285, 574–578.
Jarecki, M.K., Lal, R., 2003. Crop management for soil carbon
sequestration. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 22, 471–502.
Lal, R., 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ.
Int. 29, 437–450.
Lal, R., Follett, R.F., Kimble, J.M., Cole, C.V., 1999. Managing U.S.
cropland to sequester carbon in soil. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54,
374–381.
152 Z. Tan, R. Lal / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 111 (2005) 140–152
Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., Follett, R.F., Cole, C.V. (Eds.), 1998. The
Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the
Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Mahboubi, A.A., Lal, R., Faussey, N.R., 1993. Twenty-eight year of
tillage effects on two soils in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 506–
512.
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 Biol. 9, 21–1542.
Ohio Division of Forestry, 2004. Ohio forest cover and population
trends [Online]. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/for-
estry/forest/forestpoptrends.htm.
Paul, K.I., Polglase, P.J., Nyakuengama, J.G., Khanna, P.K., 2002.
Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecol.
Manage. 168, 241–257.
Polglase, P.J., Paul, K.I., Khanna, P.K., Nyakuengama, J.G., O’Con-
nell, A.M., Grove, T.S., Battaglia, M., 2000. Change in Soil
Carbon Following Afforestation or Reforestation. Technical
Report No. 20. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, Aus-
tralia.
Post, W.M., Kwon, K.C., 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and
land-use: processes and potential. Global Change Biol. 6,
317–327.
Puget, P., Lal, R., Izaurralde, R.C., Post, W.M., 2002. Management
effects on stock and distribution of soil organic carbon in a silt
loam soil (poster). 2002 Annual Meetings, ASA–CSSA–SSSA.
October 21–25. Indianapolis, IN, USA.
SAS Institute, 2001. SAS User’s Guide, Release 8.2. SAS Institute
Inc., Cary, NC.
Sperow, M., Eve, M., Paustian, K., 2003. Potential soil C seques-
tration on U.S. agricultural soils. Climat. Changes 57, 319–339.
Tan, Z.X., Lal, R., Smeck, N.E., Calhoun, F.G., 2004a. Relationships
between soil organic carbon pool and site variables in Ohio.
Geoderma 121, 187–195.
Tan, Z.X., Lal, R., Smeck, N.E., Calhoun, F.G., Slater, B.K.,
Parkinson, B., Gehring, B., 2004b. Taxonomic and geographic
distribution of soil organic carbon pools in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 68, 1896–1904.
USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000. 1997 Ohio
Broad Land Cover/Use by Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA)
[Online]. Available at http://www.oh.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/
nri/tbl_1997broad_lulc.html.
USDA-Soil Conservation Service, 1981. Land resource regions and
major land resource areas of the United States. USDA-SCS,
Agric. Handb. 296. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
USGS, 2001. 1992 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) [Online].
Available at: http://landcover.usgs.gov/nationallandcover.asp.
USGS, 2002. USGS Quad maps [Online]. Available at: http://
erg.sgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/uusgsmaps/usgsmaps.html#state.
West, T.O., Post, W.M., 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration
rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 66, 1930–1946.
West, T.O., Marland, G., King, A.W., Post, W.M., Jain, A.K.,
Andrasko, K., 2004. Carbon management response: estimates
of temporal soil carbon dynamics. Environ. Manage. 33, 507–518.