1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve Soilsof t heTai tPreserve ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve A ssessing th esoilc h aracteristicsand carbon storag e ofR IT' sTaitP reserve A lexis Ch iang , W illiam G oy ette, S awy erN icastro, R en S tag g s N ovember2 9 , 2 0 2 3 SoilProfileD escri pt ions N ew YorkS t at e, M ax ar 1 , 0 0 0 ft Pow eredb y E sri TaitS oilS am ple G P S P oints2 0 2 3 Th e soilwe tooka core from fallsunder th e " A tF 3 " soilseriesaccording to th e U S DA : eroded soilson a 2 0 to 6 0 percent slope. H owever, th isincludessoilsfrom Dunki rk, A rkport, and Colonie series. In orderto accurately com pare oursam ple to th e U S DA ' sdescriptionsofsoilph y sical and ch em icalproperties, we h ave to fig ure outwh ich ofth e th ree soilseries Th e U S DA W eb S oilS urvey description ofA tF 3 : oursam ple com esfrom . A rkportsoilseries. N ote th at, wh ile th is ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 2 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve description liststh e soilasbasic ( CaCO 3 1 5 % ) , oth erdescriptionsofA rkportliststh e soil seriesasacidic. W e use th isdescription of A rkportasourU S DA com parison forseveral reasons: th isdata ism ore recentth an th e conflicting descriptions, italig nswellwith our U sing th e Mo nroe County " S oilB ible, " and th e U S DA W eb S oilS urvey ' sdescriptions ofth e soilch aracteristics, we determ ined th atth e A rkportseriesm ostclosely m atch ed with th e soilcore we tookfrom sam ple data, and itisth e only description of th e h illside, th oug h none m atch ed A rkportsoilsth atspecifically fallunderth e perfectly . Th e " ty picalprofile" A tF 3 series. descriptionsforth e A rkportseriesunder th e A tF 3 description fitalm ostperfectly with oursoilcore, exactly alig ning with oursoilh oriz on boundaries and nearly exactly with oursoiltextures. A rkportsoilsare deep soilswith g ood drainag e with a lotoffine and very fine sand. Th in bandsofloam y m aterialrun in h oriz ontal bandsth roug h th e subsoil. Th e saturated h y draulic conductivity of th issoilish ig h . Th issoilism ade from sedim entsbeing deposited by g lacialm eltwater. A rkportisan A lfisol, wh ich are h ardwood forestsoils. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 3 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print Soilsof t heTaitPreserve 4 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve Th e soilboundarieswe delineated m atch ed perfectly with th e U S DA ' sdescription ofA tF 3 : A rkportsoilseries. Th e only exception isth e " H 3 " h oriz on, wh ich extendspastth e m axim um depth ofoursoilcore. H owever, because th e 2 0 " m arkis sim ply wh ere ourcore ended, itispossible th atth e m axim um depth ofth e H 3 h oriz on in oursam ple m atch esth e U S DA ' s description, at4 4 " . ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 5 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve O ursam ple textureswere nottoo farofffrom th e U S DA ' s, with th e exception ofth e A / H 1 h oriz on, in wh ich th e clay contentofour sam ple appeared h ig h erth an th e U S DA h ad listed. Th e soiltexture analy siswe perform ed forth istable wasa sim ple ball- and- ribbon test, wh erein soiltexture isdeterm ined by touch and by observing th e soil' sability to be rolled into a balland extruded with outcrum bling . A sim ple explanation forth isdiscrepancy isth atth e subjective nature ofth isfield testled usto m isdiag nose th ish oriz on. A noth er explanation isth atth e org anic m atterin ourA h oriz on acted asa colloid, m im icki ng th e effectsofa h ig h clay content. Th is explanation issupported by oth ersoiltests( see: P article siz e and S oilcarbon estim ates) wh ich confirm th atourA h oriz on h asa low clay contentand som e org anic m atter. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 6 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve Th e soilstructure we observed deviated from th e N R CS descriptionsatevery h oriz on. O ursam ple site used to be a m ine, so itish ig h ly altered and m ay notexactly m atch th e U S DA ' sdescription ofth issoilseries. Th e conflicting structurescould be attributed to th isalteration. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 7 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve Th issoilh ad a friable consistence allth e way down, according to th e U S DA and confirm ed by oursoilcore analy sis. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 8 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve B y spray ing vineg aron oursoilcore and watch ing and listening for a fiz z ing reaction, we determ ined th atoursam ple wasbasic ( pH > 7 ) atevery h oriz on. Th e U S DA W eb S oilS urvey listed th e entire soilseriesash aving a m axim um calcium carbonate content( a basic salt) of1 5 % , th oug h itdid notlistindividualh oriz ons' basicity . W e extrapolated from th is inform ation th ateach h oriz on m ay be som ewh atbasic, alig ning with ourtestsin th e lab. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 9 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve O ursoilcore boundariesdid notalig n with th e U S DA ' s, th oug h th ere could be a few explanationsforth isbesidesa true discrepancy . O ne explanation isth atth israting isquite subjective, and would vary from person to person ifth e person perform ing th e analy sisis inexperienced in soilh oriz on delineation ( asisourclass) . O th erfactors, liketh e com paction ofth e soilcore wh en taki ng our sam ple, could h ave altered wh atwould h ave oth erwise been a som ewh atclearboundary between h oriz ons. Itisalso possible th atth e alteration ofth e site due to itspastuse asa m ine leftth e h oriz on boundariesdifferentfrom wh atth ey would h ave looke d likeifundisturbed. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 0 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve O verall, oursoilcore descriptionsm atch ed fairly wellwith th e g overnm ent' sdescription ofoursoilseries, asth e differencesin ourdescriptionscan be attributed to difficulty disting uish ing between som ewh atindistinctcateg ories, like" blocky" and " g ranular, " or" wavy " and " g radual" . Colorcom parison S oilcolorscan be described using a Mu nsellS oilColorCh arts( rig h t) . B y visually com paring th e soilto colored ch ipson th e pag e, y oucan m atch y our sam ple to a code th atdescribesth e h ue, value, and ch rom a ofany soil. S oilcolordescriptionsforA tF 3 : A rkport were take n from th e Mo nroe County " S oil B ible. " Th issource liststh e soilh oriz ons A n exam ple ofa M unsellcolorch artpag e H 1 , H 2 , and H 3 as1 0 Y R ( y ellow- red) 5 / 2 , listing all7 . 5 Y / R soilcolors ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 1 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve 6 / 6 , and 6 / 4 , respectively . O ursoilcore' sh oriz onsA , B 1 and B 2 m ostclosely m atch ed 1 0 Y R 5 / 3 , 4 / 3 , and 3 / 3 , respectively ( see ch artbelow) . Th e h ue forallh oriz onsin both th e U S DA ' sand ourdescriptions forth e soilseriesis1 0 Y R , th oug h th e ch rom a and value differfor allh oriz ons. O ne explanation forth e difference iswatercontent. It wasraining wh ile we tookoursoilcoresfrom th e h illside, and itis possible th atth e m oisture in oursoilcore caused ourfirsttwo h oriz onsto appearm uch darke rth an th e U S DA ' scolorrating , especially in th e A orH 1 h oriz on. M unsellcolorch artrating com parison between oursam ple and th e reported colorfrom th e U S DA forth e firstth ree h oriz onsofoursoilcore BulkD ensit y B ulkdensity isa m easure ofh ow m uch pore space existswith in a soilh oriz on. P ore space iscrucialforh ealth y soils, influencing waterinfiltration, rooting depth , watercontent, and aeration. To calculate bulkdensity , we tooka sh allow sam ple from th e surface ofeach ofoursam pling locationsby h am m ering a h ollow cy linderinto th e soiluntilflush with th e g round, th en rem oving th e ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 2 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve cy linderand em pty ing th e captured soil. W e weig h ed oursam ples and recorded th e wetweig h t, and th en th e sam pleswere putinto a dry ing oven to rem ove allm oisture, and weig h ed ag ain. B ulk density , in g ram spercubic centim eter, can be calculated using th e equation below: W h ere th e volum e ofth e sam ple iscalculated g eom etrically by finding th e volum e ofth e cy lindricaltoolused to taketh e sh allow core. W atercontent, in g ram sofwaterperg ram ofsoil, wasfound using th e following equation: B ulkdensity calculationscom pared to th e N R CS rating sforbulkdensity forA rkportand P its& Q uarries. N ote: we ch ose to use th e valuespublish ed in M onroe County ' ssoilproperty table, because itliststh e bulkdensitiesforeach soilh oriz on, wh ereasth e valuespublish ed in th e U S DA web soilsurvey listsan averag e bulkdensity value forth e soilseries, wh ich was1 . 2 5 forA tF 3 . W e only tooka sam ple from th e A h oriz on, so th e M onroe County value wasm ore appropriate for com parison. ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 3 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve O urcalculated bulkdensitieswere m uch lowerth an th e N R CS rating s, nearly h alfasdense asth e upperrang e ofbulkdensity valuespublish ed. Th ere are a few explanationsforth is: oursam ple could h ave a h ig h erclay contentth an th e g overnm ent' s, butth isis notexactly supported by ourh y drom eterparticle siz e analy sis( see: P article siz e) . Th e A tF 3 soilseriesish ig h ly eroded, and on a steep slope. H owever, we' re com paring ourbulkdensity to th e publish ed bulk density forA rkport, notspecifically to th e A tF 3 series. Itispossible th atth e erosion and slope forth e soilserieswe sam pled caused a sig nificantdeviation from th e ty picalbulkdensity ofth e restofth e A rkportsoilseries. Part icleSiz e S oilm ineralparticlesare sorted into th ree differentcateg ories based on th eirdiam eter: sand ( 0 . 5 - 2 m m ) , silt( 0 . 0 0 2 - 0 . 0 5 m m ) , and clay ( < 0 . 0 0 2 m m ) . Th e ratiosofsand, silt, and clay in a soil determ ine th eirsoiltexture. W h en suspended in solution, soilparticleswillsinkto th e bottom ofth e watercolum n atvary ing speedsbased on th eirsiz e. H eavier particles, likesand, sinkm ore quickl y , wh ile sm allerparticles, like clay , rem ain suspended forlong erperiodsoftim e. Th e m ore soil particlesin solution, th e denserth e solution is. H y drom eterparticle siz e analy sisusesth isprinciple to calculate th e percentag e ofsand, silt, and clay in a sam ple. B y suspending 5 0 g ram sofsoilsam ple in solution and m easuring th e density of th e solution overtim e using a h y drom eter, soiltexture can be determ ined with h ig h accuracy . ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 4 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve Th e densitiesm easured atselecttim e intervalswere entered into an existing excelspreadsh eetpublish ed by th e S tillwater, O K S oilS urvey O ffice, wh ich autom atically calculated th e percentag es ofsand, silt, and clay in oursam ples. 1 0 0 0 m L g raduated cy linderscontaining 5 0 g ofsoilsam ple suspended in solution. A com parison ofourcalculated soiltexture resultswith th e U S DA ' ssoiltextures forA tF 3 . N ote: P uh asno publish ed data forsoiltexture. Mo stofourresultsalig ned with th e U S DA ' sdata, with h ig h sand and silt, and low clay content. A llofoursand, clay , and silt percentag esrelatively m atch wh atth e U S DA g ivesforA rkport soils. Th e only exception isourH illC sam ple, wh ich m ay h ave differed due to th e depth sam pled; we were only able to obtain 2 0 " ofsoilbefore h itting a h ard surface, wh ile th e U S DA ' sH 3 h oriz on endsat4 4 " . A bout2 feetofsam ple are unaccounted forin our ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 5 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve results, wh ich could h ave caused a difference in ourcalculated texture. S oiltexturesofoursam plesdeterm ined using ourh y drom eteranaly sis SoilCarbon E st im at es Th e table in th e docum entprovidesvaluable data on soil propertiessuch asbulkdensity , soilorg anic m atter, org anic m atter, carbon content, A h oriz on depth , area, and volum e of varioussoilsam ples. Th ese propertiesare essentialfor understanding th e com position and ch aracteristicsofth e soil, particularly in relation to carbon sequestration. Th e calculationsin th e table are crucialfordeterm ining th e soil' sweig h t, org anic m atterm ass, and carbon content, wh ich are essentialfor estim ating carbon sequestration potentialin th e soilson cam pus. B y com paring th e publish ed bulkdensity valueswith th e calculated valuesand m ultiply ing th em by th e percentorg anic m atterofeach h oriz on, th e m assoforg anic m atterin each h oriz on can be determ ined. Th isisth en m ultiplied by 5 0 % carbon content, wh ich isapproxim ately 4 5 - 5 5 % to estim ate soil ofsoilorg anic m atter. Th e purpose ofth ese calculationsisto assessh ow closely th e org anic m atterpercentag esm atch th e W eb S oilS urvey org anic m atterpercentag esand to understand th e im plicationsfor ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 6 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve estim ating carbon sequestration in th e soilson cam pus. Th e analy sisofth e data in th e table revealssig nificantvariationsin bulkdensity , org anic m attercontent, and carbon contentacross differentsam ple locations. Th e com parison between th e N R CS standardsand th e sam ple valuesindicatesdeviationsin bulk density , org anic m atter, and carbon content, wh ich h ave im plicationsforsoilh ealth and carbon sequestration potential. Th e calculationsprovide valuable insig h tsinto th e com position and ch aracteristicsofth e soils, h ig h lig h ting th e im portance ofaccurate m easurem entsforunderstanding carbon sequestration in th e soils on cam pus. Th ese finding sunderscore th e need forcareful consideration ofsoilpropertiesand com position in assessing th e potentialforcarbon sequestration and sustainable soil m anag em entpractices. Im proving Carbon Sequest ra t ion in R IT Soils W et lands ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 7 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve W etlandsare one ofth e m osteffective land coverty pesat sequestering and h olding carbon. S tudiessug g estth atth ey can sequestercarbon ten tim esasquickly asm ature tropicalforests and th ey can store 3 - 5 x m ore carbon perarea th an m ature tropical forests( N O A A , 2 0 2 3 ) . Th isisbecause wetland soilsare anaerobic, m eaning th atth ey h ave little orno oxy g en available to th em . B ecause ofth is, ittake ssoilm icrobesa very long tim e to break down org anic m atterlikefallen leavesordead plants, wh ich causesth e carbon in th atorg anic m atterto be stored fora long tim e ( N O A A , 2 0 2 3 ) . Th ere are severalway sto h elp protectwetlandsth roug h sustainable land m anag em entpractices. W etlandsare often drained to m aketh em m ore suitable forh um an needs. Th ism ake s th e wetlandssig nificantly worse assequestering and storing carbon because th e lay erofwaterwash elping ke ep th e carbon in th e soils. N otdraining wetlandsh elpsto ke ep th em storing carbon ( B W S R ) ( Kraussetal, 2 0 2 1 ) . Ifa wetland isalready drained, restoring itcan h elp itreg ain som e ofitscarbon- h olding ability . Th isoften involvesre- wetting th e area ( B W S R ) ( Kraussetal, 2 0 2 1 ) . Itislessexpensive to protecta wetland th an to restore one, so protecting th em isoften a m uch betteroption ( Kraussetal, 2 0 2 1 ) . W h en a wetland isdrained, m uch ofth e plantlife isunable to survive because ofch ang ed conditions. R eintroducing native plant life and rem oving invasive speciesth atcom pete with native speciesh elpsm akewetlandsm ore productive. Ifa wetland h asnot already been drained, protecting native species, and rem oving invasive speciescan h elp ke ep itproductive ( B W S R ) . P eat h arvesting isa practice th atdam ag eswetland soilsinvolving rem oving peatfrom th e wetlands. P eatisrich in org anic carbon and isoften used asa fuelsource. U sing a h ig h - carbon fuelsource releaseslotsofcarbon into th e atm osph ere. Controlling peat h arvesting can h elp preventdeg radation ofwetlands( B W S R ) . To h elp store m ore carbon in th e soil, R IT sh ould notdrain any wetlands, and sh ould restore any italready h asdrained. R IT can also im plem entrulesth ath elp to protectwetlandson cam pus, like ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 8 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve restricting accessto th em , forbidding peath arvesting , and protecting native speciesand controlling invasive ones. F orest s F orestsare g enerally carbon sinks , m eaning th ey store m ore carbon th an th ey produce. Th ey absorb and store carbon with in th em selvesand th e soil, reducing th e am ountofg reenh ouse g assesin th e atm osph ere ( Durka y and S ch ultz , 2 0 1 6 ) . Mo re th an h alfofth e org anic carbon stored on land isstored with in forests ( Me lillo etal. , 2 0 1 1 ) . R IT h asm any old g rowth forestson itscam pus, wh ich are able to sequesterm assive am ountsofcarbon pery ear. O ld g rowth forests are able to store m ore carbon th an y oung erforests, butsequester ata slowerrate ( G ray , 2 0 1 5 ) . U nfortunately , h um an activitiessuch astree h arvesting , fires, and deforestation, can forcefully release th e stored carbon, disrupting th e naturalcarbon cy cle ( U N EC E, 2 0 1 5 ) . R educing th e am ountoftreesalso reducesth e carbon intakeofth e forests. To increase carbon sequestration, R IT could eith erincrease forest siz esby planting treesin th e abandoned fieldson cam pus, oravoid lowering carbon sequestration ratesby notdestroy ing forests, and preserving th em instead. Scrublands To specifically enh ance soilorg anic m atterand carbon sequestration in th e sh rublandsofR IT' sS uperblock, em ploy ing evidence- based strateg iesisessential. F orinstance, a study in th e J ournalofA pplied E colog y found th atnative sh rubland restoration can lead to a sig nificantincrease in soilorg anic carbon ( S O C) stocks . In a case study , th e restoration ofa sh rubland ecosy stem increased S O C stocksby 3 5 % overa 2 0 - y earperiod ( B avey e etal. 2 0 2 0 ) . A pply ing th isto th e R IT S uperblock, identify ing and planting native sh rubssuch asth e N ew J ersey tea ( Ceanoth usam ericanus) wh ich are known forth eirh ig h carbon sequestration capabilities could be beneficial. Th ese speciesh ave deep rootsy stem sth at ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 1 9 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve contribute to carbon storag e below g round, enh ancing overall carbon capture. In term sofunderstory m anag em ent, data from th e G lobalCh ang e B iolog y journalsug g eststh atincorporating covercropslike crim son clover( Trifolium incarnatum ) and annualry eg rass( L olium m ultiflorum ) can increase th e inputoforg anic m atterto th e soil, with potentialincreasesin S O C by 0 . 3 2 –0 . 5 8 Mg C h a− 1 y r− 1 ( Y ang etal. , 2 0 1 9 ) . Th ese speciescan be strateg ically planted in th e R IT S uperblocksh rublandsduring off- seasonsto m aintain continuousg round cover, th ereby contributing to increased carbon sequestration. F urth erm ore, controlled m owing practicesh ave been sh own to stim ulate rootg rowth and enh ance S O C. A study publish ed in A g riculture, E cosy stem s& E nvironm entreported th atperiodic m owing , adjusted based on sh rub g rowth ratesand seasonal conditions, resulted in an averag e increase in S O C of0 . 2 4 Mg C h a− 1 y r− 1 overa 1 0 - y earperiod ( Y ang etal. , 2 0 1 9 ) . B y im plem enting a carefully planned m owing sch edule th atalig ns with th e sh rublands' g rowth patternsatR IT, it' spossible to optim iz e carbon sequestration with outdisrupting ecosy stem dy nam ics. It' sim portantto note th atcontinuousm onitoring and adaptive m anag em entare crucialforth ese strateg iesto succeed. Data collection on soilcarbon levelsbefore and afterth e im plem entation ofth ese practiceswillprovide em piricalevidence ofth eireffectivenesswith in th e specific contextofR IT' s S uperblocksh rublands. Th isapproach notonly supportsR IT' s sustainability objectivesbutalso contributesvaluable data to th e broaderscientific com m unity ' sunderstanding ofcarbon sequestration in tem perate sh rubland ecosy stem s( B avey e etal. 2 0 2 0 ). Croplands ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 2 0 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve Mo re and m ore land isbeing converted into croplandsto support th e g rowing g lobaldem and forfood asth e h um an population clim bs. A g riculture causessig nificantsoilorg anic carbon ( S O C) lossesin th e topsoil( Tang etal. , 2 0 1 9 ) . Im plem entation of conservation ag riculture asa solution to S O C lossesh asbeen g rowing asconcernsaboutclim ate ch ang e m ount. S om e conservation ag riculture practicesinclude crop residue m ulch ing , low- and no- tillfarm ing , and covercropping . Crop residue m ulch ing isth e practice ofscattering discarded plant m aterial, such ascorn stalks , backonto th e surface ofth e soilafter h arvesting a crop. Th e plantm aterialactsasa m ulch , reducing erosion, returning nutrientsto th e soil, increasing nutrientcy cling , decreasing evaporation, and increasing soilorg anic m atterin th e A h oriz on by directly returning itto th e soil( R eicosky& W ilts, 2 0 0 5 ) . Covercropsare plants, often leg um es, wh ich are sowed on cropland forth e sole purpose ofprotecting and m aintaining th e h ealth ofth e soilbelow. Covercropping protectsag ainsterosion, fixesnitrog en into th e soil, and h asbeen sh own to increase th e S O C in th e A h oriz on ofsoilsby 1 5 . 5 % ( J ian etal. , 2 0 2 0 ) . L ow- and no- tillfarm ing practices( also called " conservation tillag e" ) h ave been touted asa solution to S O C lossesin ag riculture. O ne study found th atS O M stockswere up to 6 5 % h ig h erin no- tillag riculture th an conventionaltillag e ( B eare etal. , 1 9 9 7 ) . H owever, th ere are som e conflicting opinionsin m etaanaly sesofresearch on S O C and tillag e. O ne paperclaim sth e increase in S O C in no- tillfarm ing h asbeen overem ph asiz ed due to sh allow sam pling ( Duetal. , 2 0 1 7 ) , wh ile oth ersaffirm no- till farm ing practicesash aving a m easurable increase in S O C in th e topsoil( H addaway etal. , 2 0 1 7 ) . A llsourcesag ree, h owever, th at conservation tillag e doesh ave a positive affecton th e S O C stocks in th e A h oriz on ofag riculturalfields. To increase th e carbon storag e capabilitiesofR IT' scam pus, I recom m end im plem enting conservation ag riculture practices ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 2 1 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve including covercropping , crop residue m ulch ing , and conservation tillag e to th e row cropson th e south side ofth e S uperblock, or converting th e existing ag riculturalland into wetlandsorforests. W orksCit ed CoastalB lue Carbon N O A A . “ CoastalB lue Carbon. ” N O A A ’ sN ational O cean S ervice, 5 Dec. 2 0 1 9 . CarbonS equestration in W etlands B W S R . “ Carbon S equestration in W etlands. ” Carbon S equestration in W etlands| M N B oard of W ater, S oilR esources. A ccessed 1 6 Dec. 2 0 2 3 . M anag ing W etlands to Improve Carbon S equestration Ke n W . Krauss, Zh iliang Zh u. “ M anag ing W etlandsto Im prove Carbon S equestration. ” E os, 1 J une 2 0 2 3 . T h e R ole ofF orests in CarbonS equestration and S torag e “ Th e R ole ofF orestsin Carbon S equestration and S torag e. ” N ational Conference ofS tate L eg islatures. A ccessed 1 7 Dec. 2 0 2 3 . S oilwarming , carbon– nitrog en interactions, and forestcarbonbudg ets M elillo, J erry M . , etal. " S oil warm ing , carbon– nitrog en interactions, and forest carbon budg ets. " P roceeding softh e N ationalA cadem y of S ciences1 0 8 . 2 3 ( 2 0 1 1 ) : 9 5 0 8 -9 5 1 2 . ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 2 2 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve T h e role ofold forests and Durkay , J ocely n, and J ennifer bi g trees in forestcarbon S ch ultz . " Th e role offorests sequestration in th e P acific in carbon sequestration and N orth west storag e. " N ational Conference ofS tate L eg islatures, 2 0 1 6 . CarbonS inks and S equestration “ Carbon S inksand S equestration. ” U N E CE , unece. org / forests/ carbonsinks- and- sequestration. A ccessed 1 7 Dec. 2 0 2 3 S oilcarbonsequestration S oilcarbon sequestration accelerated by restoration accelerated by restoration of ofg rassland bi odiversity g rassland biodiversity | N ature Com m unications G lobalS equestration G lobalS equestration P otentialofIncreased P otentialofIncreased O rg anic Carbonin Cropl and S oils O rg anic Carbon in Cropland S oils| S cientific R eports ( nature. com ) S oilCarbonS equestration: S oilCarbon S equestration: M uch M ore T h an a Climate M uch M ore Th an a Clim ate S olution S olution | E nvironm ental S cience & Tech nolog y ( acs. org ) S oilO rg anic M atter R esearch and Climate Ch ang e: M erely R e- storing CarbonV ersus R estoring S oilF unctions S y nth esis ofsoilcarbon losses in response to conversion ofg rassland to ag riculture land F rontiers| S oilO rg anic M atterR esearch and Clim ate Ch ang e: M erely R e- storing Carbon V ersusR estoring S oil F unctions( frontiersin. org ) Tang , S h im ing , etal. “ S y nth esisofsoilcarbon lossesin response to conversion ofg rassland to ag riculture land. ” S oiland Tillag e R esearch , vol. 1 8 5 , J an. 2 0 1 9 , pp. 2 9 – 3 5 Crop R esidue R eicosky , D. C. , and A . R . W ilts. “ Crop R esidue. ” E ncy clopedia ofS oilsin th e E nvironm ent, 2 nd ed. , 2 0 2 3 ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 2 3 /2 4 1 2 / 1 7 / 2 3 , 9 : 0 8 PM Soilsof t heTaitPreserve A meta- analy sis ofg lobal J ian, J insh i, etal. “ A m eta- cropl and soilcarbon analy sisofg lobalcropland ch ang es due to cover soilcarbon ch ang esdue to croppi ng covercropping . ” S oilB iolog y and B ioch em istry , vol. 1 4 3 , A pr. 2 0 2 0 , p. 1 0 7 7 3 5 A g g reg ate- P rotected and U nprotected O rg anic M atterP ools in Conventional- and N oT illag e S oils B eare, M . H . , etal. “ A g g reg ate‐ protected and unprotected org anic m atter poolsin conventional‐and no‐ tillag e soils. ” S oilS cience S ociety ofA m erica J ournal, vol. 5 8 , no. 3 , 1 9 9 4 , pp. 7 8 7 – 7 9 5 T h e effectofno- tillon org anic C storag e in Ch inese soils sh ould notbe overemph asiz ed: A metaanaly sis Du, Zh ang liu, etal. “ Th e effectofno- tillon org anic C storag e in Ch inese soils sh ould notbe overem ph asiz ed: A m etaanaly sis. ” A g riculture, E cosy stem s& E nvironm ent, vol. 2 3 6 , 2 0 1 7 , pp. 1 – 1 1 H ow does tillag e intensity affectsoilorg anic carbon? A sy stematic review H addaway , N ealR . , etal. “ H ow doestillag e intensity affectsoilorg anic carbon? A sy stem atic review. ” E nvironm entalE vidence, vol. 6 , no. 1 , 2 0 1 7 ht t ps: / / st ory m aps. arcg is. com / st ories/ a0 0 8 dd3 f8 5 5 6 4 1 9 cae8 f6 7 6 3 d4 4 fbf3 9 / print 2 4 /2 4
