Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32021820›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2020

Improving carbon sequestration estimation through accounting carbon stored in grassland soil.

M F Ricard, E F Viglizzo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M F RicardInstituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Mendoza 109, L6300, Santa Rosa, La Pampa, Argentina.
E F ViglizzoInstituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Mendoza 109, L6300, Santa Rosa, La Pampa, Argentina.
Austral University · ARConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on international guidelines, the elaboration of national carbon (C) budgets in many countries has tended to set aside the capacity of grazing lands to sequester C as soil organic carbon (SOC). A widely applied simple method assumes a steady state for SOC stocks in grasslands and a long-term equilibrium between annual C gains and losses. This article presents a theoretical method based on the annual conversion of belowground biomass into SOC to include the capacity of grazing-land soils to sequester C in greenhouse gases (GHG) calculations. Average figures from both methods can be combined with land-use/land-cover data to reassess the net C sequestration of the rural sector from a country. The results of said method were validated with empirical values based on peer-reviewed literature that provided annual data on SOC sequestration. This methodology offers important differences over pre-existing GHG landscape approach calculation methods: •improves the estimation about the capacity of grazing-land soils to sequester C assuming these lands are not in a steady state and•counts C gains when considering that grazing lands are managed at low livestock densities.

Indexed as

Carbon balance in grazing landsEmpirical validationGrazing landsSOC sequestrationTheoretical method

Identifiers

PMID32021820
PMCPMC6992986
OpenAlexW2992368861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.