Soil Carbon: Policy and Economics

By G. Marland, Bruce A. McCarl, Uwe A. Schneider. 2001

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Agronomy and Crop Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78444dc1f34f940d067e9cf144e9ed0005afced5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Agronomy and Crop Science

1. Pete Smith
2. Uwe A. Schneider
3. Bruce A. McCarl
4. F. O'Mara
5. Z. Cai
6. Alison J Eagle
7. J. Manley
8. T. Smolak

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Pete Smith
2. Uwe A. Schneider
3. Bruce A. McCarl
4. Ing-Marie Gren
5. A. Zeleke
6. M. Howden
7. F. O'Mara
8. H. Janzen

Citations in the corpus

• How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks (2004, background): “Perhaps due in part to the ambiguity surrounding soil carbon and its measurement, the Kyoto Protocol remains unclear as to how soil carbon will be treated ( Marland et al., 2001 ).”
• Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture (2008, background): “The effect of reduced tillage on N2O emissions may depend on soil and climatic conditions: in some areas reduced tillage promotes N2O emissions; elsewhere it may reduce emissions or have no measurable influence (Marland et al. 2001).”
• Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA (2011, background): “Much of the economic literature focuses on greenhouse gas mitigation and the potential for retired lands or altered agricultural operations to sequester carbon (Antle et al., 2007; Feng et al., 2004; Lal et al., 1999;Marland et al., 2001).”
• Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature (2016, background): “As suggested by McCarl and Schneider (2000); Marland et al. (2001), and van Kooten (2008), it would be most straightforward to treat the project as a carbon sink when there is sequestration and as a source when there is carbon reversal.”
• Appraising agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation potentials: effects of alternative assumptions (2006, background): “Discussions with farmers (see Bennett 1999) reveal reservations about the adoption of no-till due to factors such as • potential yield losses due to slower warming of untilled soils during cool spring planting seasons; • potential yield reductions due to other factors; • potential cost increases,…”