Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Vulnerability of Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services due to Land Cover Change in the State of New Hampshire, USA

Vulnerability of Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services due to Land Cover Change in the State... Article Vulnerability of Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services due to Land Cover Change in the State of New Hampshire, USA 1 , 2 2 1 , 3 1 Elena A. Mikhailova *, Lili Lin , Zhenbang Hao , Hamdi A. Zurqani , Christopher J. Post , 4 5 Mark A. Schlautman and Gregory C. Post Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; hzurqan@clemson.edu (H.A.Z.); cpost@clemson.edu (C.J.P.) University Key Lab for Geomatics Technology and Optimized Resources Utilization in Fujian Province, No. 15 Shangxiadian Road, Fuzhou 350002, China; lililin@fafu.edu.cn (L.L.); zhenbanghao@fafu.edu.cn (Z.H.) Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli 13538, Libya Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA; mschlau@clemson.edu Economics Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, USA; grpost@reed.edu * Correspondence: eleanam@clemson.edu Abstract: Valuation of soil carbon (C) regulating ecosystem services (ES) at the state level is important for sustainable C management. The objective of this study was to assess the value of regulating ES from soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) stocks, based on the concept of the avoided social cost of carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions for the state of New Hampshire (NH) in the United States of America (USA) by soil order and county using Citation: Mikhailova, E.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The total estimated monetary Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. mid-point value for TSC stocks in the state of New Hampshire was $73.0B (i.e., 73.0 billion U.S. Vulnerability of Soil Carbon dollars (USD), where B = billion = 10 ), $64.8B for SOC stocks, and $8.1B for SIC stocks. Soil orders Regulating Ecosystem Services due to with the highest midpoint value for SOC were Histosols ($33.2B), Spodosols ($20.2B), and Inceptisols Land Cover Change in the State of ($10.1B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SIC were Inceptisols ($5.8B), Spodosols New Hampshire, USA. Earth 2021, 2, ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value 208–224. https://doi.org/10.3390/ for TSC were Histosols ($33.8B), Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B). The counties with the earth2020013 highest midpoint SOC values were Rockingham ($15.4B), Hillsborough ($9.8B), and Coös ($9.2B). The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), and Rockingham Academic Editor: Krishna ($1.0B). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough Prasad Vadrevu ($10.8B), and Coös ($10.3B). New Hampshire has experienced land use/land cover (LULC) changes between 2001 and 2016. The changes in LULC across the state have not been uniform, but rather Received: 17 April 2021 have varied by county, soil order, and pre-existing land cover. The counties that have exhibited the Accepted: 14 May 2021 Published: 19 May 2021 most development (e.g., Rockingham, Hillsborough, Merrimack) are those nearest the urban center of Boston, MA. Most soil orders have experienced losses in “low disturbance” land covers (e.g., Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral evergreen forest, hay/pasture) and gains in “high disturbance” land covers (e.g., low-, medium-, with regard to jurisdictional claims in and high-intensity developed land). In particular, Histosols are a high-risk carbon “hotspot” that published maps and institutional affil- contributes over 50% of the total estimated sequestration of SOC in New Hampshire while covering iations. only 7% of the total land area. Integration of pedodiversity concepts with administrative units can be useful to design soil- and land-cover specific, cost-efficient policies to manage soil C regulating ES in New Hampshire at various administrative levels. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Keywords: accounting; carbon emissions; CO ; climate change; inorganic; organic; pedodiversity Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 1. Introduction Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Determining the value of soil carbon is critical for achieving the United Nations creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 13: “Take urgent action to 4.0/). Earth 2021, 2, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth2020013 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/earth Earth 2021, 2 209 combat climate change and its impacts on future climate” [1]. The ecosystem services (ES) framework is frequently utilized with UN SDGs because it is aimed at the valuation of benefits (ES) and/or ecosystem disservices (ED) people obtain from nature based on three general categories of services: provisioning, regulating/maintenance, and cultural services [2]. Soil carbon regulating ES/ED are associated with the sequestration/stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC) (derived from living matter), soil inorganic carbon (SIC) (different types of carbonates), and total soil carbon (TSC = SOC + SIC), which vary with geographic location and soil type. Soil carbon sequestration in the forms of SOC and SIC is an ES, which results in “avoided” social costs associated with the emission of carbon dioxide (CO ) to the atmosphere [3]. Release of CO to the atmosphere from losses of SOC 2 2 and SIC is an ED, which results in “realized” social costs [3,4]. Traditionally, soil resources are primarily valued for their provisioning ES (e.g., food production) with limited consideration of regulating ES (e.g., carbon sequestration), but increased concerns over global warming require assessment of soil ED associated with greenhouse gas emissions from soils [5,6]. Soil C regulating ES/ED are dependent on soil pedodiversity, which defines a soil “portfolio” and its SOC, SIC, and TSC stocks in a geographic area under various land covers [3]. For example, the state of New Hampshire has five soil orders (Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols, Mollisols, and Spodosols) with soil- specific characteristics and constraints related to soil ES/ED, which are all part of the intricate mosaic of land use/land covers (LULC) within the landscape [7] (Table 1, Figure 1). Soils of New Hampshire have undergone three varying degrees of weathering: slightly weathered (Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols), moderately weathered (Mollisols), and strongly weathered (Spodosols) (Table 1). Entisols (5% of the total area) and Inceptisols (36%) contain low soil C contents with limited capacity to sequester C because of their slight degree of weathering and soil development [8]. Spodosols are common soils in New Hampshire (52% of the total area) and contain low soil C contents in their mineral horizons because of their strong degree of weathering and soil development [8]. New Hampshire selected Spodosols to be the State Soil (soil series name: Marlow) for its importance in timber production [9]. Jevon et al. [10] conducted research on soil C stocks and concentrations in an actively managed forest of northern New Hampshire and reported lower soil C in this managed forest compared to less disturbed forests in the state. In addition, Jevon et al. [10] reported “legacy” effects of previous management decisions in the vertical distribution of SOC. Table 1. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) is expressed as taxonomic diversity at the level of soil order and ecosystem service types in New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (adapted from Mikhailova et al., 2021 [3]). Stocks Ecosystem Services Regulation/ Soil Order General Characteristics and Constraints Provisioning Cultural Maintenance Slightly Weathered Entisols Embryonic soils with ochric epipedon x x x Inceptisols Young soils with ochric or umbric epipedon x x x Histosols Organic soils with 20% of organic carbon x x x Moderately Weathered Mollisols Carbon-enriched soils with B.S.  50% x x x Strongly Weathered Spodosols Coarse-textured soils with albic and spodic horizons x x x Note: B.S. = base saturation. Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 3 Moderately Weath- ered Carbon-enriched soils Mollisols x x x with B.S. ≥ 50% Strongly Weathered Coarse-textured soils Spodosols with albic and spodic x x x Earth 2021, 2 210 horizons Note: B.S. = base saturation. 0  0 Figure 1. General soil map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45 18 N; Longitude: Figure 1. General soil map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42° 42′ N to 45° 18′ N; longitude: 0  0 70° 70 36′ 36 W W to to72 72 ° 33′ 33 W) W) (adapt (adapted ed from from [12]) [11]). . Although limited in their soil C regulating ES, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Spodosols serve Mollisols are nutrient-rich soils high in C, but they are almost negligible in New important cultural ES (e.g., recreation) as documented by research on soils of the White Hampshire. Histosols (7% of the total area) are organic carbon-rich soils commonly found Mountains of New Hampshire and their suitability for recreational development [12]. in different types of wetlands and can be a large source of greenhouse gases emissions Mollisols are nutrient-rich soils high in C, but they are almost negligible in New from changes in LULC (e.g., drainage, development, etc.) [13]. Hampshire. Histosols (7% of the total area) are organic carbon-rich soils commonly found The ES framework increasingly is being used as “an operational framework” [14], in different types of wetlands and can be a large source of greenhouse gas emissions from but because of “the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully changes in LULC (e.g., drainage, development, etc.) [13]. considered in the territorial planning decision process” [14]. Past research on avoided so- The ES framework is increasingly being used as “an operational framework” [14], cial costs of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the USA has been conducted at various scales using but because of “the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully both biophysical (e.g., soil orders) and administrative accounts (e.g., states, regions, coun- considered in the territorial planning decision process” [14]. Past research on avoided social ties, farm, etc.) [15–18], and has showed the need for soil- and carbon-specific manage- costs of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the USA has been conducted at various scales using both ment strategies at the state level. The hypothesis of this study is that pedodiversity (e.g., biophysical (e.g., soil orders) and administrative accounts (e.g., states, regions, counties, taxonomic categories) overlaid with administrative units (Figures 1 and 2) can be used to farm, etc.) [15–18], and has shown the need for soil- and carbon-specific management strate- gies at the state level. The hypothesis of this study is that pedodiversity (e.g., taxonomic categories) overlaid with administrative units (Figures 1 and 2) can be used to locate spatial patterns of soil carbon hotspots for sustainable carbon management in the state of New Hampshire. The specific objective of this study was to assess the value of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the state of New Hampshire (USA) based on the social cost of carbon (SC–CO ) and avoided emissions provided by carbon sequestration, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined to be $46 per metric ton of CO , applicable for the year 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars and an average discount rate of 3% [19]. Our calculations provide estimates for the monetary values of SOC, SIC, and TSC across the state and by Earth 2021, 2 211 different spatial aggregation levels (i.e., county) using the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database and information previously reported by Guo et al. [20]. 2. Materials and Methods This study used both biophysical (science-based, Figure 1) and administrative (bound ary-based, Figure 2) accounts to calculate monetary values for SOC, SIC, and TSC (Tables 2 and 3). Table 2. A conceptual overview of the accounting framework used in this study (adapted from Groshans et al., 2018 [16]). STOCKS FLOWS VALUE Administrative Biophysical Accounts Accounts Monetary Account(s) Benefit(s) Total Value (Science-Based) (Boundary-Based) Ecosystem good(s) and Soil extent: Administrative extent: Sector: Types of value: service(s): Separate constitute stock 1: Soil organic carbon (SOC) Separate constitute stock 2: Soil inorganic carbon (SIC) Composite (total) stock: Total soil carbon (TSC) = Soil organic carbon (SOC) + Soil inorganic carbon (SIC) Environment: The social cost of carbon (SC-CO ) and avoided emissions: Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW - $46 per metric ton of CO (20075 - State - Regulating (e.g., - Carbon - Soil order U.S. dollars with an average - County carbon sequestration) sequestration discount rate of 3% [19]) 0  0 Figure 2. Administrative map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45 18 N; Longi- Figure 2. Administrative map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42° 42′ N to 45° 18′ N; Longi- 0  0 tude: 70 36 W to 72 33 W) with 10 counties [21]. tude: 70° 36′ W to 72° 33′ W) with 10 counties [21]. Table 3. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) by soil order (taxonomic pedodiversity) and county in New Hampshire (U.S.A.) based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (2020) [12]. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development County Total Slight Moderate Strong Area Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols 2 2 (km ) Area (km ) Belknap 993.1 29.9 397.4 87.8 0 478.0 Carroll 1625.2 57.0 644.7 23.3 0 900.2 Cheshire 1785.5 77.7 799.7 82.8 0 825.4 Coös 3690.3 30.0 840.9 97.4 0 2722.0 Grafton 2857.0 72.9 802.6 14.8 0 1966.7 Hillsboroug 2169.6 192.4 693.4 272.1 0 1011.8 Merrimack 2276.5 166.4 1051.5 189.6 0 869.1 Rockingha 1631.6 136.6 793.3 584.5 0 117.2 Strafford 564.6 128.2 403.2 33.0 0 0.2 Sullivan 1276.0 45.1 317.3 20.2 2.9 890.5 Totals 18869.5 936.1 6744.0 1405.6 2.9 9780.9 Earth 2021, 2 212 Table 3. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) by soil order (taxonomic pedodiversity) and county in New Hampshire (U.S.A.) based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (2020) [11]. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County Area Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (km ) Area (km ) Belknap 993.1 29.9 397.4 87.8 0 478.0 Carroll 1625.2 57.0 644.7 23.3 0 900.2 Cheshire 1785.5 77.7 799.7 82.8 0 825.4 Coös 3690.3 30.0 840.9 97.4 0 2722.0 Grafton 2857.0 72.9 802.6 14.8 0 1966.7 Hillsborouh 2169.6 192.4 693.4 272.1 0 1011.8 Merrimack 2276.5 166.4 1051.5 189.6 0 869.1 Rockinghm 1631.6 136.6 793.3 584.5 0 117.2 Strafford 564.6 128.2 403.2 33.0 0 0.2 Sullivan 1276.0 45.1 317.3 20.2 2.9 890.5 Totals 18869.5 936.1 6744.0 1405.6 2.9 9780.9 The present study estimates monetary values associated with stocks of SOC, SIC, and TSC in New Hampshire based on reported contents (in kg m ) from Guo et al. [20]. Values were calculated using the avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO ) of $46 per metric ton of CO , applicable for 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars and an average discount rate of 3% [19]. According to the EPA, the SC-CO is intended to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages. Still, it can underestimate the true damages and cost of CO emissions due to the exclusion of various important climate change impacts recognized in the literature [19]. Area-normalized monetary values ($ m ) were calculated using Equation (1), and total monetary values were summed over the appropriate area(s) (noting that a metric ton is equivalent to 1 megagram (Mg) or 100 kilograms (kg)): $ kg 1 Mg 44 Mg CO $46 = SOC/SIC/TSC Content,    (1) 2 2 3 m m 10 kg 12 Mg TSC Mg CO 2 2 Table 4 presents area-normalized contents (kg m ) and monetary values ($ m ) of soil carbon, which were used to estimate stocks of SOC, SIC, and TSC and their correspond- ing values by multiplying the contents/values by the area of a particular soil order within a county (Table 3). For example, for the soil order Inceptisols, Guo et al. [20] reported a midpoint SOC content of 8.9 kgm for the upper 2-m soil depth (Table 4). Using this SOC content in Equation (1) results in an area-normalized SOC value of $1.50 m . Multiplying the SOC content and its corresponding area-normalized value each by the total area of Inceptisols present in New Hampshire (6744 km , Table 3) results in an SOC stock of 6.0 10 kg (Table 5) with an estimated monetary value of $10.1B (Table 6). Land use/land cover change in New Hampshire between 2001 and 2016 was analyzed using classified land cover data from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) [22]. Changes in land cover, with their associated soil types, were calculated in ArcMap 10.7 [23] by comparing the 2001 and 2016 data, converting the land cover to vector format, and unioning the data with the soils layer in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database [11]. Earth 2021, 2 213 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 2 2 Table 4. Area-normalized content (kg m ) and monetary values ($ m ) of soi−l 2 organic carbon (SOC), soil inor−g 2 anic carbon Table 4. Area-normalized content (kg m ) and monetary values ($ m ) of soil organic (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order based on data reported by Guo et al. [20] for the upper 2 m of soil and an avoided carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order based social cost of carbon (SC-CO ) of $46 per metric ton of CO (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [19]). 2 2 on data reported by Guo et al. [20] for the upper 2 m of soil and an avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount SOC Content SIC Content TSC Content SOC Value SIC Value TSC Value rate of 3% [19]). Soil Order Minimum—Midpoint—Maximum Values Midpoint Values SOC Content SIC Content TSC Content SOC Value SIC Value TSC Value 2 2 2 2 2 (kg m ) (kg m ) (kg m ) ($ m ) ($ m ) Soil Order Minimum—Midpoint—Maximum Values Midpoint Values ($ m ) −2 −2 −2 −2 −2 −2 (kg m) (kg m) (kg m) ($ m) ($ m ) ($ m ) Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered Entisols 1.8–8.0–15.8 1.9–4.8–8.4 3.7–12.8–24.2 1.35 0.82 2.17 Entisols 1.8–8.0–15.8 1.9–4.8–8.4 3.7–12.8–24.2 1.35 0.82 2.17 Inceptisols 2.8–8.9–17.4 2.5–5.1–8.4 5.3–14.0–25.8 1.50 0.86 2.36 Inceptisols 2.8–8.9–17.4 2.5–5.1–8.4 5.3–14.0–25.8 1.50 0.86 2.36 Histosols 63.9–140.1–243.9 0.6–2.4–5.0 64.5–142.5–248.9 23.62 0.41 24.03 Histosols 63.9–140.1–243.9 0.6–2.4–5.0 64.5–142.5–248.9 23.62 0.41 24.03 Moderately Weathered Moderately Weathered Mollisols 5.9–13.5–22.8 4.9–11.5–19.7 10.8–25.0–42.5 2.28 1.93 4.21 Mollisols 5.9–13.5–22.8 4.9–11.5–19.7 10.8–25.0–42.5 2.28 1.93 4.21 Strongly Strongly Weathered Weathered Spodosols 2.9–12.3–25.5 0.2–0.6–1.1 3.1–12.9–26.6 2.07 0.10 2.17 Spodosols 2.9–12.3–25.5 0.2–0.6–1.1 3.1–12.9–26.6 2.07 0.10 2.17 Note: TSC = SOC + SIC. Note: TSC = SOC + SIC. Table 5. Midpoint soil organic carbon (SOC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 5. Midpoint soil organic carbon (SOC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SOC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SOC contents shown in Table 4. Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County Storage Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (kg) Total SOC Storage (kg) 10 8 9 10 9 Belknap 2.2 × 10 2.4 × 10 3.5 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 5.9 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Carroll 2.1 × 10 4.6 × 10 5.7 × 10 3.3 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 8 9 10 10 Cheshire 2.9 × 10 6.2 × 10 7.1 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 10 8 9 10 10 Coös 5.5 × 10 2.4 × 10 7.5 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 3.3 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Grafton 3.4 × 10 5.8 × 10 7.1 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Hillsborough 5.8 × 10 1.5 × 10 6.2 × 10 3.8 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Merrimack 4.8 × 10 1.3 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 9 9 10 9 Rockingham 9.1 × 10 1.1 × 10 7.1 × 10 8.2 × 10 0 1.4 × 10 9 9 9 9 6 Strafford 9.2 × 10 1.0 × 10 3.6 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 2.3 × 10 10 8 9 9 7 10 Sullivan 1.7 × 10 3.6 × 10 2.8 × 10 2.8 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 11 9 10 11 7 11 Totals 3.8 × 10 7.5 × 10 6.0 × 10 2.0 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.2 × 10 3. Results 3. Results Based on avoided SC–CO2, the total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in Based on avoided SC–CO , the total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC the state of New Hampshire was $73.0B (i.e., 73.0 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = in the state of New Hampshire was $73.0B (i.e., 73.0 billion U.S. dollars, where B = bil- 10 ), $64.8B for SOC (89% of the total value), and $8.1B for SIC (11% of the total value). lion = 10 ), $64.8B for SOC (89% of the total value), and $8.1B for SIC (11% of the total Previously, we have reported that among the 48 conterminous states of the U.S., New value). Previously, we have reported that among the 48 conterminous states of the U.S., th Hampshire ranked 40th for TSC [18], 40 for SOC [15], and 45th for SIC [16]. th New Hampshire ranked 40th for TSC [18], 40 for SOC [15], and 45th for SIC [16]. 3.1. Storage and Value of SOC by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire 3.1. Storage and Value of SOC by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SOC were Histosols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SOC were Histosols ($33.2B), ($33.2B), Spodosols ($20.2B), and Inceptisols ($10.1B) (Tables 5 and 6). The counties with Spodosols ($20.2B), and Inceptisols ($10.1B) (Tables 5 and 6). The counties with the highest the highest midpoint SOC values were Rockingham ($15.4B), Hillsborough ($9.8B), and midpoint SOC values were Rockingham ($15.4B), Hillsborough ($9.8B), and Coös ($9.2B) Coös ($9.2B) (Tables 5 and 6). Rockingham has the largest area occupied by Histosols (Tables 5 and 6). Rockingham has the largest area occupied by Histosols (Table 3), which −2 (Table 3), which has a high SOC midpoint content (140.1 kg m ; Table 4) and therefore a has a high SOC midpoint content (140.1 kg m ; Table 4) and therefore a corresponding corresponding high monetary value of $13.8B (Table 6). Note that soil survey data can high monetary value of $13.8B (Table 6). Note that soil survey data can overestimate SOC overestimate SOC contents, because SOC is extrapolated with soil depth [17]. Despite this Earth 2021, 2 214 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 7 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 7 contents, because SOC is extrapolated with soil depth [17]. Despite this limitation, the overall trends for soil orders and counties should be informative in sustainable soil C limitation, the overall trends for soil orders and counties should be informative in limitation, the overall trends for soil orders and counties should be informative in management. sustainable soil C management. sustainable soil C management. Table 6. Monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by soil order and county for the state of New Table 6. Monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by soil order and county for the state of Table 6. Monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by soil order and county for the state of Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint monetary New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint values monetary values shown in T shown in Table 4. able 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) ($) SC-CO2 ($) SC-CO2 ($) 9 7 8 9 8 Belknap 3.7 × 10 4.0 × 10 6.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 9.9 × 10 9 7 8 9 8 Belknap 3.7 × 10 4.0 × 10 6.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 9.9 × 10 9 7 8 8 9 Carroll 3.5 × 10 7.7 × 10 9.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 9 7 8 8 9 Carroll 3.5 × 10 7.7 × 10 9.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Cheshire 5.0 × 10 1.0 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 1.7 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Cheshire 5.0 × 10 1.0 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 1.7 × 10 9 7 9 9 9 Coös 9.2 × 10 4.1 × 10 1.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 5.6 × 10 9 7 9 9 9 Coös 9.2 × 10 4.1 × 10 1.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 5.6 × 10 9 7 9 8 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 9.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 0 4.1 × 10 9 7 9 8 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 9.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 0 4.1 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Hillsborough 9.8 × 10 2.6 × 10 1.0 × 10 6.4 × 10 0 2.1 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Hillsborough 9.8 × 10 2.6 × 10 1.0 × 10 6.4 × 10 0 2.1 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Merrimack 8.1 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.5 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Merrimack 8.1 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.5 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 10 8 9 10 8 Rockingham 1.5 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 8 9 10 8 Rockingham 1.5 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 9 8 8 8 5 Strafford 1.6 × 10 1.7 × 10 6.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 3.8 × 10 9 8 8 8 5 Strafford 1.6 × 10 1.7 × 10 6.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 3.8 × 10 9 7 8 8 6 9 Sullivan 2.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 4.8 × 10 4.8 × 10 6.6 × 10 1.8 × 10 9 7 8 8 6 9 Sullivan 2.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 4.8 × 10 4.8 × 10 6.6 × 10 1.8 × 10 10 9 10 10 6 10 Totals 6.5 × 10 1.3 × 10 1.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 6.6 × 10 2.0 × 10 10 9 10 10 6 10 Totals 6.5 × 10 1.3 × 10 1.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 6.6 × 10 2.0 × 10 3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by Soil Order and County for the State of New Hampshire 3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by Soil Order and County for the State of New Hampshire 3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by Soil Order and County for the State of New Hampshire Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SIC were: Inceptisols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SIC were: Inceptisols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SIC were: Inceptisols ($5.8B), ($5.8B), Spodosols ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ) (Tables 7 and 8). ($5.8B), Spodosols ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ) (Tables 7 and 8). Spodosols ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ) (Tables 7 and 8). The The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), and and Rockingham ($1.0B) (Tables 7 and 8). Similar to SOC data, SIC is typically and Rockingham ($1.0B) (Tables 7 and 8). Similar to SOC data, SIC is typically Rockingham ($1.0B) (Tables 7 and 8). Similar to SOC data, SIC is typically extrapolated with extrapolated with soil depth and can be overestimated by soil survey data [17]. Again, extrapolated with soil depth and can be overestimated by soil survey data [17]. Again, soil depth and can be overestimated by soil survey data [17]. Again, however, the overall however, the overall trends for soil orders and counties are informative for sustainable however, the overall trends for soil orders and counties are informative for sustainable trends for soil orders and counties are informative for sustainable soil C management. soil C management. soil C management. Table 7. Midpoint soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 7. Midpoint soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 7. Midpoint soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SIC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SIC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SIC contents shown in Table 4. Table 4. Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County Storage County Storage Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (kg) (kg) Total SIC Storage (kg) Total SIC Storage (kg) 9 8 9 8 8 Belknap 2.7 × 10 1.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.9 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Belknap 2.7 × 10 1.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.9 × 10 9 8 9 7 8 Carroll 4.2 × 10 2.7 × 10 3.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 0 5.4 × 10 9 8 9 7 8 Carroll 4.2 × 10 2.7 × 10 3.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 0 5.4 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Cheshire 5.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 4.1 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 5.0 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Cheshire 5.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 4.1 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 5.0 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Coös 6.3 × 10 1.4 × 10 4.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 1.6 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Coös 6.3 × 10 1.4 × 10 4.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 1.6 × 10 9 8 9 7 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 3.5 × 10 4.1 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 9 8 9 7 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 3.5 × 10 4.1 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Hillsborough 5.7 × 10 9.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 6.5 × 10 0 6.1 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Hillsborough 5.7 × 10 9.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 6.5 × 10 0 6.1 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Merrimack 7.1 × 10 8.0 × 10 5.4 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 5.2 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Merrimack 7.1 × 10 8.0 × 10 5.4 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 5.2 × 10 9 8 9 9 7 Rockingham 6.2 × 10 6.6 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 7.0 × 10 9 8 9 9 7 Rockingham 6.2 × 10 6.6 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 7.0 × 10 9 8 9 7 5 Strafford 2.8 × 10 6.2 × 10 2.1 × 10 7.9 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 9 8 9 7 5 Strafford 2.8 × 10 6.2 × 10 2.1 × 10 7.9 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 9 8 9 7 7 8 Sullivan 2.5 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.8 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.3 × 10 9 8 9 7 7 8 Sullivan 2.5 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.8 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.3 × 10 10 9 10 9 7 9 Totals 4.8 × 10 4.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.9 × 10 10 9 10 9 7 9 Totals 4.8 × 10 4.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.9 × 10 Earth 2021, 2 215 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 Table 8. Monetary value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by soil order and county for the state of New Table 8. Monetary value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by soil order and county for the state of Table 8. Monetary value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by soil order and county for the state of Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint monetary New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint values shown in Table 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) ($) SC-CO2 ($) SC-CO2 ($) 8 7 8 7 7 Belknap 4.5 × 10 2.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 4.8 × 10 8 7 8 7 7 Belknap 4.5 × 10 2.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 4.8 × 10 8 7 8 6 7 Carroll 7.0 × 10 4.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 9.6 × 10 0 9.0 × 10 8 7 8 6 7 Carroll 7.0 × 10 4.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 9.6 × 10 0 9.0 × 10 8 7 8 7 7 Cheshire 8.7 × 10 6.4 × 10 6.9 × 10 3.4 × 10 0 8.3 × 10 8 7 8 7 7 Cheshire 8.7 × 10 6.4 × 10 6.9 × 10 3.4 × 10 0 8.3 × 10 9 7 8 7 8 Coös 1.1 × 10 2.5 × 10 7.2 × 10 4.0 × 10 0 2.7 × 10 9 7 8 7 8 Coös 1.1 × 10 2.5 × 10 7.2 × 10 4.0 × 10 0 2.7 × 10 8 7 8 6 8 Grafton 9.5 × 10 6.0 × 10 6.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 0 2.0 × 10 8 7 8 6 8 Grafton 9.5 × 10 6.0 × 10 6.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 0 2.0 × 10 8 8 8 8 8 Hillsborough 9.7 × 10 1.6 × 10 6.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 8 8 8 8 8 Hillsborough 9.7 × 10 1.6 × 10 6.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 9 8 8 7 7 Merrimack 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 9.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 8.7 × 10 9 8 8 7 7 Merrimack 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 9.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 8.7 × 10 9 8 8 8 7 Rockingham 1.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 6.8 × 10 2.4 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 9 8 8 8 7 Rockingham 1.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 6.8 × 10 2.4 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 8 8 8 7 4 Strafford 4.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 3.5 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 8 8 8 7 4 Strafford 4.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 3.5 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 8 7 8 6 6 7 Sullivan 4.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 2.7 × 10 8.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 8.9 × 10 8 7 8 6 6 7 Sullivan 4.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 2.7 × 10 8.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 8.9 × 10 9 8 9 8 6 8 Totals 8.1 × 10 7.7 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 9.8 × 10 9 8 9 8 6 8 Totals 8.1 × 10 7.7 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 9.8 × 10 3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire 3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire 3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for TSC were Histosols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for TSC were Histosols ($33.8B), Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for TSC were Histosols ($33.8B), Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B) (Tables 9 and 10). The counties with Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B) (Tables 9 and 10). The counties with the ($33.8B), Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B) (Tables 9 and 10). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough ($10.8B), and highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough ($10.8B), and Coös the highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough ($10.8B), and Coös ($10.3B) (Tables 9 and 10). These rankings are the same as for SOC and reflect the ($10.3B) (Tables 9 and 10). These rankings are the same as for SOC and reflect the dominant Coös ($10.3B) (Tables 9 and 10). These rankings are the same as for SOC and reflect the dominant contribution of SOC to TSC in the State. contribution of SOC to TSC in the State. dominant contribution of SOC to TSC in the State. Table 9. Midpoint total soil carbon (TSC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 9. Midpoint total soil carbon (TSC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 9. Midpoint total soil carbon (TSC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint TSC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint TSC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint TSC contents shown in Table 4. Table 4. Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County Storage County Storage Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (kg) (kg) Total TSC Storage (kg) Total TSC Storage (kg) 10 8 9 10 9 Belknap 2.5 × 10 3.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 1.3 × 10 0 6.2 × 10 10 8 9 10 9 Belknap 2.5 × 10 3.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 1.3 × 10 0 6.2 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Carroll 2.5 × 10 7.3 × 10 9.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Carroll 2.5 × 10 7.3 × 10 9.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Cheshire 3.5 × 10 9.9 × 10 1.1 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Cheshire 3.5 × 10 9.9 × 10 1.1 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Coös 6.1 × 10 3.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 3.5 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Coös 6.1 × 10 3.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 3.5 × 10 10 8 10 9 10 Grafton 4.0 × 10 9.3 × 10 1.1 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.5 × 10 10 8 10 9 10 Grafton 4.0 × 10 9.3 × 10 1.1 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.5 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Hillsborough 6.4 × 10 2.5 × 10 9.7 × 10 3.9 × 10 0 1.3 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Hillsborough 6.4 × 10 2.5 × 10 9.7 × 10 3.9 × 10 0 1.3 × 10 10 9 10 10 10 Merrimack 5.5 × 10 2.1 × 10 1.5 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 9 10 10 10 Merrimack 5.5 × 10 2.1 × 10 1.5 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 9 10 10 9 Rockingham 9.8 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 8.3 × 10 0 1.5 × 10 10 9 10 10 9 Rockingham 9.8 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 8.3 × 10 0 1.5 × 10 10 9 9 9 6 Strafford 1.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 5.6 × 10 4.7 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 9 9 9 6 Strafford 1.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 5.6 × 10 4.7 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 8 9 9 7 10 Sullivan 1.9 × 10 5.8 × 10 4.4 × 10 2.9 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 10 8 9 9 7 10 Sullivan 1.9 × 10 5.8 × 10 4.4 × 10 2.9 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 11 10 10 11 7 11 Totals 4.3 × 10 1.2 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.3 × 10 11 10 10 11 7 11 Totals 4.3 × 10 1.2 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.3 × 10 Earth 2021, 2 216 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 9 Table 10. Monetary value of total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order and county for the state of New Table 10. Monetary value of total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint monetary Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint values shown in Table 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) SC-CO2 ($) 9 7 8 9 9 Belknap 4.2 × 10 6.5 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Carroll 4.2 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.5 × 10 5.6 × 10 0 2.0 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Cheshire 5.8 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.9 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 10 7 9 9 9 Coös 1.0 × 10 6.5 × 10 2.0 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 5.9 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Grafton 6.7 × 10 1.6 × 10 1.9 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 4.3 × 10 10 8 9 9 9 Hillsborough 1.1 × 10 4.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 6.5 × 10 0 2.2 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Merrimack 9.3 × 10 3.6 × 10 2.5 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 10 8 9 10 8 Rockingham 1.6 × 10 3.0 × 10 1.9 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 2.5 × 10 9 8 8 8 5 Strafford 2.0 × 10 2.8 × 10 9.5 × 10 7.9 × 10 0 4.0 × 10 9 7 8 8 7 9 Sullivan 3.3 × 10 9.8 × 10 7.5 × 10 4.9 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.9 × 10 10 9 10 10 7 10 Totals 7.3 × 10 2.0 × 10 1.6 × 10 3.4 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.1 × 10 3.4. Land Use/Land Cover Change by Soil Order in New Hampshire from 2001 to 2016 3.4. Land Use/Land Cover Change by Soil Order in New Hampshire from 2001 to 2016 New Hampshire experienced changes in land use/land cover (LULC) over the 15- New Hampshire experienced changes in land use/land cover (LULC) over the 15-year year period from 2001 to 2016 (Table 11, Figure 3). Changes varied by soil order and period from 2001 to 2016 (Table 11, Figure 3). Changes varied by soil order and original original LULC classification, with most soil orders experiencing area losses in “low LULC classification, with most soil orders experiencing area losses in “low disturbance” disturbance” LULC classes (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) while gaining in the areas LULC classes (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) while gaining in the areas of “developed” of “developed” LULC classes. The most dramatic increases in developed land areas LULC classes. The most dramatic increases in developed land areas occurred in Rocking- occurred in Rockingham, Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Belknap counties, which are all ham, Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Belknap counties, which are all in the southern part of in the southern part of the state and geographically closest to the urban centers of Boston, the state and geographically closest to the urban centers of Boston, MA, and Concord, the MA, and Concord, the state capital of New Hampshire. More detailed spatial and state capital of New Hampshire. More detailed spatial and temporal analyses of land cover temporal analyses of land cover can identify critical locations of soil carbon regulating can identify critical locations of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services at risk. ecosystem services at risk. Table 11. Land use/land cover (LULC) change by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Table 11. Land use/land cover (LULC) change by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Slight Moderate Strong 2016 Total 2016 Total NLCD Land Cover Classes Area by LULC Slight Moderate Strong Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (LULC) NLCD Land Cover Classes Area by (km ) E2016 nti- Area by Soil Incep Order ti- , km Histo (Change - in Area, Moll 2001–2016, i- %) Spodo- (LULC) LULC sols sols sols sols sols Barren land 80 25.3 (6.8%) 21.3 (4.5%) 4.2 (5.6%) 0.0 (5.1%) 29.2 (0.1%) (km ) Woody wetlands 1354 83.9 (0.2%) 494.8 (0.4%) 452.7 (2.3%) 0.2 (1.1%) 322.0 (0.4%) 2016 Area by Soil Order, km (Change in Area, 2001–2016, %) Shrub/Scrub 710 12.6 (89.9%) 198.7 (218.1%) 22.5 (219.0%) 0.0 (25.6%) 476.1 (322.0%) Barren land 80 25.3 (−6.8%) 21.3 (−4.5%) 4.2 (−5.6%) 0.0 (5.1%) 29.2 (−0.1%) Mixed forest 6506 146.4 (3.2%) 2362.8 (2.0%) 343.3 (2.0%) 0.2 (6.0%) 3653.7 (1.5%) Woody wetlands 1354 83.9 (−0.2%) 494.8 (0.4%) 452.7 (2.3%) 0.2 (−1.1%) 322.0 (0.4%) Deciduous forest 4022 67.6 (5.8%) 1277.0 (6.0%) 150.4 (9.5%) 0.3 (10.2%) 2526.9 (8.4%) Shrub/Scrub 710 12.6 (89.9%) 198.7 (218.1%) 22.5 (219.0%) 0.0 (−25.6%) 476.1 (322.0%) Herbaceous 249 13.9 (20.4%) 89.7 (25.1%) 12.9 (45.3%) 0.1 (1030.4%) 132.6 (0.9%) Mixed forest 6506 146.4 (−3.2%) 2362.8 (−2.0%) 343.3 (−2.0%) 0.2 (−6.0%) 3653.7 (−1.5%) Evergreen forest 3368 174.2 (6.9%) 1204.3 (4.6%) 194.2 (5.4%) 0.5 (6.6%) 1794.7 (3.7%) Deciduous forest 4022 67.6 (−5.8%) 1277.0 (−6.0%) 150.4 (−9.5%) 0.3 (−10.2%) 2526.9 (−8.4%) Emergent herbaceous wetlands 122 8.4 (3.1%) 33.3 (3.2%) 65.4 (6.2%) 0.0 (8.5%) 14.9 (4.4%) Herbaceous 249 13.9 (20.4%) 89.7 (25.1%) 12.9 (45.3%) 0.1 (1030.4%) 132.6 (−0.9%) Hay/Pasture 628 56.2 (7.6%) 327.2 (5.1%) 15.8 (10.7%) 0.6 (8.6%) 228.5 (5.6%) Cultivated crops Evergreen forest 61 336820.3 (2.3%) 174.2 (−6.9%) 32.9 1204. (3.1%)3 (−4.6%)0.6 194. (14.0%) 2 (−5.4%) 0. 0.35 (17.4%) (−6.6%) 1794. 6.87 ((6.6%) −3.7%) Emergent herbaceous wetlands 122 8.4 (−3.1%) 33.3 (−3.2%) 65.4 (−6.2%) 0.0 (8.5%) 14.9 (−4.4%) Developed, open space 884 83.9 (4.1%) 356.1 (5.5%) 66.0 (14.3%) 0.2 (6.1%) 377.4 (1.0%) Developed, medium intensityHay/Pasture 628 275 95.9 (9.3%)56.2 (−7.6%) 102.4 327. (14.6%)2 (−5.1%) 15. 22.4 (16.3%) 8 (−10.7%) 0. 0.16 (14.9%) (−8.6%) 228. 53.95 (− (10.6%) 5.6%) Developed, low intensity 542 110.0 (4.4%) 225.5 (8.5%) 52.8 (14.0%) 0.2 (0.2%) 153.8 (2.9%) Cultivated crops 61 20.3 (2.3%) 32.9 (3.1%) 0.6 (−14.0%) 0.3 (17.4%) 6.8 (6.6%) Developed, high intensity 68 37.6 (13.2%) 18.1 (32.5%) 2.3 (36.8%) 0.1 (164.9%) 10.4 (17.3%) Developed, open space 884 83.9 (4.1%) 356.1 (5.5%) 66.0 (14.3%) 0.2 (−6.1%) 377.4 (1.0%) Developed, medium intensity 275 95.9 (9.3%) 102.4 (14.6%) 22.4 (16.3%) 0.1 (14.9%) 53.9 (10.6%) Developed, low intensity 542 110.0 (4.4%) 225.5 (8.5%) 52.8 (14.0%) 0.2 (−0.2%) 153.8 (2.9%) Developed, high intensity 68 37.6 (13.2%) 18.1 (32.5%) 2.3 (36.8%) 0.1 (164.9%) 10.4 (17.3%) Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 10 Table 11. Land use/land cover (LULC) change by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development 2016 Total Slight Moderate Strong NLCD Land Cover Classes Area by Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- (LULC) LULC sols sols sols sols sols (km ) 2016 Area by Soil Order, km (Change in Area, 2001–2016) Barren land 80 25.3 (−6.8%) 21.3 (−4.5%) 4.2 (−5.6%) 0.0 (5.1%) 29.2 (−0.1%) Woody wetlands 1354 83.9 (−0.2%) 494.8 (0.4%) 452.7 (2.3%) 0.2 (−1.1%) 322.0 (0.4%) Shrub/Scrub 710 12.6 (89.9%) 198.7 (218.1%) 22.5 (219.0%) 0.0 (−25.6%) 476.1 (322.0%) Mixed forest 6506 146.4 (−3.2%) 2362.8 (−2.0%) 343.3 (−2.0%) 0.2 (−6.0%) 3653.7 (−1.5%) Deciduous forest 4022 67.6 (−5.8%) 1277.0 (−6.0%) 150.4 (−9.5%) 0.3 (−10.2%) 2526.9 (−8.4%) Herbaceous 249 13.9 (20.4%) 89.7 (25.1%) 12.9 (45.3%) 0.1 (1030.4%) 132.6 (−0.9%) Evergreen forest 3368 174.2 (−6.9%) 1204.3 (−4.6%) 194.2 (−5.4%) 0.5 (−6.6%) 1794.7 (−3.7%) Emergent herbaceous wetlands 122 8.4 (−3.1%) 33.3 (−3.2%) 65.4 (−6.2%) 0.0 (8.5%) 14.9 (−4.4%) Hay/Pasture 628 56.2 (−7.6%) 327.2 (−5.1%) 15.8 (−10.7%) 0.6 (−8. %6) 228.5 (−5.6%) Cultivated crops 61 20.3 (2.3%) 32.9 (3.1%) 0.6 (−14.0%) 0.3 (17.4%) 6.8 (6.6%) Developed, open space 884 83.9 (4.1%) 356.1 (5.5%) 66.0 (14.3%) 0.2 (−6.1%) 377.4 (1.0%) Developed, medium intensity 275 95.9 (9.3%) 102.4 (14.6%) 22.4 (16.3%) 0.1 (14.9%) 53.9 (10.6%) Developed, low intensity 542 110.0 (4.4%) 225.5 (8.5%) 52.8 (14.0%) 0.2 (−0.2%) 153.8 (2.9%) Earth 2021, 2 218 Developed, high intensity 68 37.6 (13.2%) 18.1 (32.5%) 2.3 (36.8%) 0.1 (164.9%) 10.4 (17.3%) Earth 2021, 2 217 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 11 (a) (b) Figure 3. Land cover maps of New Hampshire (U.S.A.): (a) 2001, (b) 2016 (Latitude: 42° 42′ ◦ N0 to Figure 3. Land cover maps of New Hampshire (U.S.A.): (a) 2001, (b) 2016 (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45 Figure 3. Land cover maps of New Hampshire (U.S.A.): (a) 2001, (b) 2016 (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45° ◦0 18′ N 0 ; longitude: 70°  ◦ 36′ 0 0 W to 72°  ◦ 33′ 00 W) [21]. 18 N; Longitude: 70 36 W to 72 33 W) [21]. 45 18 N; longitude: 70 36 W to 72 33 W) [21]. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion Pedodiversity (soil diversity) in New Hampshire impacts the level of various soil ES Pedodiversity (soil diversity) in New Hampshire impacts the level of various soil ES goods and services and will play a role in potential soil ecosystem disservices (ED) under goods and services and will play a role in potential soil ecosystem disservices (ED) as well under certain conditions. This study demonstrates the value of regulating ES/ED at the state and county levels. The New Hampshire soil “portfolio” [3] is composed of five soil orders: Entisols (5% of the total soil area), Inceptisols (36%), Histosols (7%), Mollisols (< 0.02%), and Spodosols (52%) (Figure 1, Table 3, Figure 4a). Highly weathered Spodosols account for the largest fraction of area in the state, but they are not the largest contributor to soil C regulating ES. Rather, because of their high SOC content, Histosols are a carbon “hotspot” that contributes over 50% of the total monetary value for SOC in the state while covering only 7% of the state’s area. The relative contribution of SIC to soil C regulating ES is small at the state and county levels, and is primarily associated with Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Entisols. Soil “portfolios” differ within each county in New Hampshire, as illustrated by three example counties: Coös, Strafford, and Rockingham (Figure 5). In all three examples, pe- dodiversity influences the monetary value of regulating ES or potential ED. Earth 2021, 2 218 certain conditions. This study demonstrates the value of regulating ES/ED at the state and county levels. The New Hampshire soil “portfolio” [3] is composed of five soil orders: Entisols (5% of the total soil area), Inceptisols (36%), Histosols (7%), Mollisols (< 0.02%), and Spodosols (52%) (Figure 1, Table 3, Figure 4a). Highly weathered Spodosols account for the largest fraction of area in the state, but they are not the largest contributor to soil C regulating ES. Rather, because of their high SOC content, Histosols are a carbon “hotspot” that contributes over 50% of the total monetary value for SOC in the state while covering only 7% of the state’s area. The relative contribution of SIC to soil C regulating ES is small at the state and county levels and is primarily associated with Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Entisols. Soil “portfolios” differ within each county in New Hampshire, as illustrated by three Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW example counties: Coös, Strafford, and Rockingham (Figure 5). In all three examples, 12 pedodiversity influences the monetary value of regulating ES or potential ED. $80B (a) (b) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B SOC $40B $20B $20B $40B $60B 0 $80B $80B $80B (c) (d) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B $60B SIC TSC $40B $40B $20B $20B 0 0 $20B $20B $40B $40B $60B $60B $80B $80B Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state by soil order: (a) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or potential by soil order: (a) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or potential cost if all SOC is released as CO2 emissions, (c) similar value or potential cost associated with soil inorganic carbon (SIC), cost if all SOC is released as CO emissions, (c) similar value or potential cost associated with soil inorganic carbon (SIC), (d) (d) similar value or potential cost associated with total soil carbon (TSC). Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the similar value or potential cost associated with total soil carbon (TSC). Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the upper upper 2-m depth and a social cost of CO2 emission of USD 46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . 2-m depth and a social cost of CO emission of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . 2 2 100 $24B (a) (b) Co鰏 Co鰏 SOC $16B $8B $8B $16B 0 $24B Avoided social cost Realized social cost Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 12 $80B (a) (b) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B SOC $40B $20B $20B $40B $60B 0 $80B $80B $80B (c) (d) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B $60B SIC TSC $40B $40B $20B $20B 0 0 $20B $20B $40B $40B $60B $60B $80B $80B Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state by soil order: (a) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or potential Earth 2021, 2 221 Earth 2021,co 2 st if all SOC is released as CO2 emissions, (c) similar value or potential cost associated with soil inorganic carbon (SIC), 219 (d) similar value or potential cost associated with total soil carbon (TSC). Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the upper 2-m depth and a social cost of CO2 emission of USD 46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . $24B (a) (b) Coös Coös SOC $16B $8B $8B $16B 0 $24B Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 13 $24B (c) (d) Strafford Strafford $16B SOC $8B $8B $16B $24B $24B (e) (f) Rockingham Rockingham $16B SOC $8B $8B $16B $24B Figure Figu 5.re Diagram 5. Diagrashowing m showinhow g how the the “por “po tfolio-ef rtfolio-e fff ect” ect” and and “distribution-ef “distribution-effe fect” ct” of of pedodiversity pedodiversity v varies aries w within ithin co counties unties Figure 5. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity varies within counties Commented [M64]: Please add this figure, not the by soil order: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b,d,f) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or by soil order: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b,d,f) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or by soil order: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b,d,f) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or one with chinese characters potential cost if all SOC is released as CO2 emissions. Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the upper 2-m depth and a potential potential cost cost if if all all SOC SOC is is r released eleased as as CO CO emissions. emissions. Monetary Monetary valuat valuation ion is is based based on on soil soil C C in in the the upper upper 2-m 2-m depth depth and and a a 2 2 social cost of CO2 emission of USD 46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . social social cost cost of of CO CO emission emission of of $46 USD (USD) 46 (USD) per metric per metric ton of ton CO of CO [19].[19 Note: ]. Note: B = billion B = billion = 10=. 10 . 2 2 2 2 The concepts of “avoided” and “realized” social costs demonstrate different inter- The concepts of “avoided” and “realized” social costs demonstrate different interpre- pretations of the regulating ES/ED associated with soil carbon. For example, “avoided” tations of the regulating ES/ED associated with soil carbon. For example, “avoided” social social cost refers to the benefits of sequestered soil C, because it is not emitted to the at- cost refers to the benefits of sequestered soil C, because it is not emitted to the atmosphere mosphere as CO2. Conversely, “realized” soil cost refers to damages resulting from CO 2 as CO . Conversely, “realized” soil cost refers to damages resulting from CO emissions. In 2 2 emissions. In Figures 4 and 5, “realized” is taken to be the maximum potential cost that Figures 4 and 5, “realized” is taken to be the maximum potential cost that would occur if all would occur if all stocks of sequestered soil carbon were released to the atmosphere as stocks of sequestered soil carbon were released to the atmosphere as CO . For example, in CO2. For example, in Coös county, the soil order Spodosols make the largest contribution to the SC–CO2 because of their dominant area (Figure 5a,b). In Strafford county, the largest area is occupied by Inceptisols, but their relatively small area overall and low soil carbon stocks translate into relatively small monetary values for the SC–CO2 (Figure 5c,d). In Rockingham county, Histosols occupy a relatively small area compared to Entisols and Inceptisols but make the largest contribution to the SC–CO2 (Figure 5e,f). In New Hamp- shire, Histosols are particularly sensitive to climate change and LULC changes because of their relatively high soil C content. Therefore, Histosols may experience higher decompo- sition rates due to increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the State of New Hampshire have low recarbonization potential because of various reasons (e.g., high eco- nomic cost of soil C sequestration, climate change, etc.) (Table 12). Avoided social cost Realized social cost Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Earth 2021, 2 220 Coös County, the soil order Spodosols make the largest contribution to the SC–CO because of their dominant area (Figure 5a,b). In Strafford County, the largest area is occupied by Inceptisols, but their relatively small area overall and low soil carbon stocks translate into relatively small monetary values for the SC–CO (Figure 5c,d). In Rockingham County, Histosols occupy a relatively small area compared to Entisols and Inceptisols but make the largest contribution to the SC–CO (Figure 5e,f). In New Hampshire, Histosols are particularly sensitive to climate change and LULC changes because of their relatively high soil C content. Therefore, Histosols may experience higher decomposition rates due to Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 Earth Earth Earth 2021 2021 2021, , , 2 2 2, , , FO FO FOR P R P R PE E EER R ER R ER REVIE EVIE EVIEW W W 14 14 14 increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the State of New Hampshire have low recarbonization potential because of various reasons (e.g., high economic cost of soil C sequestration, climate change, etc.) (Table 12). Table 12. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the State of New Hampshire Table 12. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the State of New Hampshire Table Table Table 12. 12. 12. Di Di Dist st stribution o ribution o ribution of soi f soi f soil c l c l carbon regu arbon regu arbon regulati lati lating ng ng ec ec ecos os osystem ystem ystem s s servi ervi ervice ce ces s s in in in the State the State the State of New Ha of New Ha of New Ham m mpshire pshire pshire (USA) by soil order (photos courtesy of USDA/NRCS [24]). Values are taken/derived from Tables (US (US (US (USA) A) A) A) by s by s by s by so o o oil il il il o o o order rder rder rder (photos co (photos co (photos co (photos cour ur ur urtes tes tes tesy of y of y of y of US US US USD D D DA/N A/N A/N A/NRC RC RC RCS S S S [24]) [24]) [24]) [24]).... Values Values Values Values are t are t are t are take ake ake aken/deriv n/deriv n/deriv n/derived ed ed ed from from from from Tabl Tabl Tabl Table e e es s s s Table 12. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the state of New Hampshire 3, 6, 8, and 10. 3, 6, 8, and 10. 3, 3, 3, 6 6 6,,, 8 8 8,,, and and and 10. 10. 10. (USA) by soil order (photos courtesy of USDA/NRCS [24]). Values are taken/derived from Table 3, Table 6, Table 8, and Table 10. Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of New Hampshire Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of New Hampshire Soil R Soil R Soil Reg eg egu u ulating Ecos lating Ecos lating Ecosyst yst ystem em em Se Se Ser r rvi vi vic c ces in es in es in t t th h he e e S S Stat tat tate e e of of of New H New H New Hamps amps ampshir hir hire e e Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degre Degre Degree of e of e of W W Weath eath eather er eri i ing ng ng an an and So d So d Soil il il D D Developm evelopm evelopmen en ent t t Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of New Hampshire Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong Slight Slight Slight Mod Mod Moder er erat at ate e e Stro Stro Stron n ng g g Degree of Weathering and Soil Development 48% <0.02% 52% 48% 48% 48% 48% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 52% 52% 52% 52% Slight Moderate Strong Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols 48% <0.02% 52% Enti Enti Enti Entis s s sol ol ol ols s s s Incep Incep Incep Incepti ti ti tis s s sol ol ol ols s s s Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Molliso Molliso Molliso Mollisols ls ls ls Spodos Spodos Spodos Spodosol ol ol ols s s s Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols 5% 36% 7% <0.02% 52% 5% 36% 7% <0.02% 52% 5% 5% 5% 36% 36% 36% 7% 7% 7% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 52% 52% 52% 5% 36% 7% <0.02% 52% Social cost of soil organic carbon (SOC): $64.8B Social cost of soil organic carbon (SOC): USD 64.8 B Soci Soci Soci Social cost al cost al cost al cost of of of of soil or soil or soil or soil org g g gani ani ani anic c c c carbon carbon carbon carbon (SO (SO (SO (SOC C C C): ): ): ): USD USD USD USD 64.8 B 64.8 B 64.8 B 64.8 B $1.3B $10.1B $33.2B $6.6M $20.2B USD 1.3 B USD 10.1 B USD 33.2 B USD 6.6 M USD 20.2 B USD USD USD USD 1.3 B 1.3 B 1.3 B 1.3 B USD USD USD USD 10. 10. 10. 10.1 1 1 1 B B B B USD USD USD USD 33. 33. 33. 33.2 2 2 2 B B B B USD USD USD USD 6.6 M 6.6 M 6.6 M 6.6 M USD USD USD USD 20. 20. 20. 20.2 2 2 2 B B B B 2% 16% 51% <0.02% 31% 2% 16% 51% <0.02% 31% Social cost of soil inorganic carbon (SIC): $8.1B 2% 2% 2% 2% 16% 16% 16% 16% 51% 51% 51% 51% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 31% 31% 31% 31% $767.6M $5.8B $576.3M $5.6M $978.1M Social cost of soil inorganic carbon (SIC): USD 8.1 B Soci Soci Soci Social cost al cost al cost al cost of of of of soil soil soil soil inorgan inorgan inorgan inorgani i i ic carb c carb c carb c carbon on on on (SI (SI (SI (SIC C C C): ): ): ): USD USD USD USD 8.1 B 8.1 B 8.1 B 8.1 B 9% 71% 7% <0.1% 12% USD 767.6 M USD 5.8 B USD 576.3 M USD 5.6 M USD 978.1 M USD USD USD USD 767.6 767.6 767.6 767.6 M M M M USD USD USD USD 5.8 B 5.8 B 5.8 B 5.8 B USD USD USD USD 576.3 576.3 576.3 576.3 M M M M USD USD USD USD 5.6 M 5.6 M 5.6 M 5.6 M USD USD USD USD 978.1 978.1 978.1 978.1 M M M M Social cost of total soil carbon (TSC): $73.0B 9% 71% 7% <0.1% 12% $2.0B 9% 9% 9% 9% $15.9B 71% 71% 71% 71% $33.8B 7% 7% 7% 7% $12.2M <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1% % % % $21.2B 12% 12% 12% 12% 3% Social cost 22% of total soil c 46% arbon (TSC): U <0.02% SD 73.0 B 29% Soci Soci Soci Social cost al cost al cost al cost of of of of t t t to o o otal tal tal tal so so so soil c il c il c il carbon arbon arbon arbon (TSC (TSC (TSC (TSC): ): ): ): U U U USD SD SD SD 73.0 B 73.0 B 73.0 B 73.0 B Sensitivity to climate change USD 2.0 B USD 15.9 B USD 33.8 B USD 12.2 M USD 21.2 B USD USD USD USD 2.0 B 2.0 B 2.0 B 2.0 B USD USD USD USD 15. 15. 15. 15.9 9 9 9 B B B B USD USD USD USD 33. 33. 33. 33.8 8 8 8 B B B B USD USD USD USD 12. 12. 12. 12.2 2 2 2 M M M M USD USD USD USD 21. 21. 21. 21.2 2 2 2 B B B B Low Low High High Low 3% 22% 46% <0.02% 29% 3% 3% 3% 3% 22% 22% 22% 22% 46% 46% 46% 46% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 29% 29% 29% 29% SOC and SIC sequestration (recarbonization) potential Sensitivity to climate change Low Low Low Low Low Sens Sens Sens Sensitivity itivity itivity itivity t t t to o o o cli cli cli clim m m mate ate ate ate c c c chan han han hange ge ge ge Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Low Low High High Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Hig Hig Hig High h h h Hig Hig Hig High h h h Low Low Low Low 6 9 M = million = 10 ; B = billion = 10 . SOC and SIC sequestration (recarbonization) potential SOC SOC SOC SOC and and and and SI SI SI SIC C C C se se se sequ qu qu ques es es estratio tratio tratio tration ( n ( n ( n (r r r rec ec ec ecar ar ar arbon bon bon boni i i izat zat zat zatio io io ion n n n) ) ) ) p p p potent otent otent otential ial ial ial Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low According to Bétard and Peulvast [25], soils can become carbon “hotspots” when they Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic No No No Note: te: te: te: Enti Enti Enti Entiso so so sol l l ls, s, s, s, Inc Inc Inc Inceptisols, eptisols, eptisols, eptisols, Mo Mo Mo Moll ll ll llisols, isols, isols, isols, and and and and Spo Spo Spo Spodo do do doso so so sol l l ls s s s are are are are m m m min in in ineral eral eral eral s s s soi oi oi oil l l ls. s. s. s. Hi Hi Hi Hist st st stos os os osol ol ol ols s s s are are are are m m m mos os os ostl tl tl tly y y y org org org organic anic anic anic are disturbed (e.g., tillage, erosion, etc.) and release CO to the atmosphere, resulting in 6 9 soils. M = million = 106 6 6 6; B = billion = 109 9 9 9. so soils. M ils. M = = m mil ill li ion = on = 10 10 ;; B B = = b billio illion = n = 10 10 .. so soils. M ils. M = = m mil ill li ion = on = 10 10 ;; B B = = b billio illion = n = 10 10 .. maximum (i.e., complete loss of sequestered C) or fractional (i.e., partial loss of sequestered C) “realized” costs because of damages associated with global warming, extreme weather According to Bétard and Peulvast [25], soils can become carbon “hotspots” when Accordin Accordin Accordin According g g g to to to to Bé Bé Bé Bétard tard tard tard an an an and d d d Peu Peu Peu Peulva lva lva lvast st st st [ [ [ [25] 25] 25] 25],,,, soils soils soils soils can can can can bec bec bec becom om om ome e e e carbon carbon carbon carbon “hotspo “hotspo “hotspo “hotspots” ts” ts” ts” w w w when hen hen hen events, flooding, etc. Changes in LULC can also be types of disturbance with potential they are disturbed (e.g., tillage, erosion, etc.) and release CO2 to the atmosphere, resulting th th th they ey ey ey ar ar ar are e e e di di di distu stu stu sturbed rbed rbed rbed (e (e (e (e.g., .g., .g., .g., til til til till l l lag ag ag age, e, e, e, eros eros eros erosion, ion, ion, ion, etc etc etc etc.) .) .) .) and and and and re re re rele le le lease ase ase ase CO CO CO CO2 2 2 2 to to to to th th th the e e e atmo atmo atmo atmosphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, r r r resu esu esu esultin ltin ltin lting g g g for “realized” social costs. Tables 13 and 14 provide maximum potential estimates of in maximum (i.e., complete loss of sequestered C) or fractional (i.e., partial loss of seques- in maximum (i.e., complete loss of sequestered C) or fractional (i.e., partial loss of seques- in in in m m maxi axi aximum mum mum (i (i (i...e., e., e., com com complete plete plete los los loss s s o o of f f seque seque sequestered stered stered C C C) ) ) or or or fr fr fraction action actional al al (i.e. (i.e. (i.e., , , partial partial partial los los loss s s o o of f f se se sequ qu que e es- s- s- “realized” costs by soil order for land in New Hampshire that was developed from low- to tered C) “realized” costs because of damages associated with global warming, extreme tered tered C) C) “r “re eali alize zed d” ” c costs osts b because ecause of of d dam amag ages es associ associated ated with with gl glo obal bal wa warming rming,, ext extreme reme tered tered C) C) “r “re eali alize zed d” ” c costs osts b because ecause of of d dam amag ages es associ associated ated with with gl glo obal bal wa warming rming,, ext extreme reme high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. weather events, flooding, etc. Changes in LULC can also be types of disturbance with po- weather weather weather weather even even even events, ts, ts, ts, fl fl fl floo oo oo ooding ding ding ding, , , , e e e etc tc tc tc. . . . Ch Ch Ch Changes anges anges anges i i i in n n n LULC LULC LULC LULC can can can can also also also also be be be be typ typ typ types es es es o o o of f f f dis dis dis dist t t turbance urbance urbance urbance with with with with po po po po- - - - tential for “realized” social costs. Table 13 provides maximum potential estimates of “re- ten ten ten tential tial tial tial for for for for “r “r “r “re e e ealized” alized” alized” alized” soc soc soc soci i i ial al al al cost cost cost costs. s. s. s. Tab Tab Tab Table le le le 13 13 13 13 pro pro pro provid vid vid vides es es es maximum maximum maximum maximum po po po poten ten ten tential tial tial tial estim estim estim estimat at at ates es es es of of of of “r “r “r “re- e- e- e- alized” costs by soil order for land in New Hampshire that was developed from low- to alized” alized” alized” alized” co co co costs sts sts sts by by by by soil soil soil soil or or or order der der der for for for for l l l land and and and in in in in N N N New ew ew ew Ha Ha Ha Hamp mp mp mpsh sh sh shir ir ir ire e e e th th th that at at at was was was was de de de developed veloped veloped veloped from from from from low low low low- - - - to to to to high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. high high high- - -dis dis dist t turba urba urbance LULC c nce LULC c nce LULC cl l lasses asses asses f f from rom rom 20 20 2001 to 01 to 01 to 2016. 2016. 2016. Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon Table Table Table 13. 13. 13. Inc Inc Incre re rease ase ases s s in in in d d deve eve evelo lo lop p ped ed ed land land land and and and m m maxim axim aximum um um potent potent potential ial ial for for for reali reali realize ze zed soc d soc d socia ia ial cos l cos l cost t ts s s of of of c c carbon arbon arbon due to complete loss of total soil carbon of developed land by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) due due due due to complet to complet to complet to complete e e e lo lo lo loss ss ss ss of of of of tota tota tota total s l s l s l soi oi oi oil carbon l carbon l carbon l carbon of of of of d d d deve eve eve evelo lo lo loped ped ped ped land land land land by s by s by s by soi oi oi oil l l l order in order in order in order in Ne Ne Ne New w w w Hampshi Hampshi Hampshi Hampshire ( re ( re ( re (US US US USA) A) A) A) from 2001 to 2016. Values are derived from Tables 4 and 11. from from from from 2001 2001 2001 2001 to to to to 20 20 20 2016. 16. 16. 16. Values Values Values Values are are are are de de de derive rive rive rived d d d from from from from T T T Table able able ables s s s 4 4 4 4 and and and and 11. 11. 11. 11. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degre Degre Degree of e of e of W W Weath eath eather er eri i ing ng ng an an and So d So d Soil il il D D Developm evelopm evelopmen en ent t t Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong Slight Slight Slight Mod Mod Moder er erat at ate e e Stro Stro Stron n ng g g NLCD Land Cover Classes NLCD Land Cover Classes NLCD NLCD NLCD Land Land Land Co Co Cov v ver er er C C Cla la lass ss sses es es Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- Enti Enti Enti- - - Incep Incep Incepti ti ti- - - Histo Histo Histo- - - Molli Molli Molli- - - Spodo Spodo Spodo- - - (LULC) (LUL (LUL (LUL (LULC) C) C) C) sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols Area Change, km2 (Social Cost of CO2, $=USD) 2 2 2 Area Area Area Area Ch Ch Ch Change ange ange ange, km , km , km , km (Soc (Soc (Soc (Social Cost ial Cost ial Cost ial Cost of of of of C C C CO O O O2 2 2 2, $=USD , $=USD , $=USD , $=USD) ) ) ) Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 estimates of “realized” costs by soil order for land in New Hampshire that was developed from low- to high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. Earth 2021, 2 221 Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon due to complete loss of total soil carbon of developed land by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Values are derived from Tables 4 and 11. Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon due to complete loss of Degree of Weathering and Soil Development total soil carbon of developed land by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Values are derived from Slight Moderate Strong Tables NLCD 4 and La 11 nd Cov . er Classes Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- (LULC) Degree of Weathering and Soil Development sols sols sols sols sols Slight 2 Moderate Strong Area Change, km (SC-CO2, $=USD) NLCD Land Cover Classes Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Developed, open space 3.3 ($7.2M) 18.7 ($44.2M) 8.3 ($198.4M) - 3.7 ($7.9M) (LULC) Area Change, km (SC-CO , $=USD) Developed, medium intensity 8.2 ($17.8M) 13.0 ($30.7M) 3.1 ($75.3M) 0.02 ($80,000) 5.2 ($11.2M) Developed, open space 3.3 ($7.2M) 18.7 ($44.2M) 8.3 ($198.4M) - 3.7 ($7.9M) Developed, low intensity 4.6 ($10.0M) 17.7 ($41.7M) 6.5 ($155.9M) - 4.3 ($9.3M) Developed, medium intensity 8.2 ($17.8M) 13.0 ($30.7M) 3.1 ($75.3M) 0.02 ($80,000) 5.2 ($11.2M) Developed, high intensity 4.4 ($9.5M) 4.4 ($10.5M) 0.6 ($14.9M) 0.06 ($242,000) 1.5 ($3.3M) Developed, low intensity 4.6 ($10.0M) 17.7 ($41.7M) 6.5 ($155.9M) - 4.3 ($9.3M) Totals 20.5 ($44.5M) 53.8 ($127.0M) 18.5 ($444.5M) 0.08 ($322,000) 14.6 ($31.8M) Developed, high intensity 4.4 ($9.5M) 4.4 ($10.5M) 0.6 ($14.9M) 0.06 ($242,000) 1.5 ($3.3M) Totals 20.5 Note: Entiso ($44.5M) ls, Inceptis 53.8 ($127.0M) ols, Mollisols, and Spo 18.5 ($444.5M) dosols are mineral soi 0.08 ($322,000) ls.Histosols are m 14.6 ostly ($31.8M) organic soils. M = million = 10 . 6 Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils.Histosols are mostly organic soils. M = million = 10 . Table 14. Impacts of land development on the maximum potential realized social costs of carbon Table 14. Impacts of land development on the maximum potential realized social costs of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) from total soil carbon (TSC) in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016 by dioxide (SC-CO ) from total soil carbon (TSC) in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016 by county. county. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) SC-CO2 ($) 7 6 6 6 6 Belknap 1.5 × 10 1.0 × 10 4.0 × 10 5.3 × 10 0 4.7 × 10 6 5 6 5 6 Carroll 7.9 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.5 × 10 3.9 × 10 0 5.8 × 10 6 6 6 6 6 Cheshire 6.4 × 10 2.5 × 10 1.1 × 10 1.0 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 6 4 6 5 6 Coös 4.8 × 10 4.9 × 10 1.3 × 10 6.8 × 10 0 2.8 × 10 6 6 6 5 6 Grafton 8.3 × 10 1.4 × 10 3.2 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 3.6 × 10 8 7 7 8 6 Hillsborough 2.4 × 10 1.8 × 10 5.2 × 10 1.7 × 10 0 4.5 × 10 7 6 7 6 6 Merrimack 2.5 × 10 7.4 × 10 1.0 × 10 4.0 × 10 0 3.5 × 10 8 7 7 8 6 Rockingham 3.2 × 10 1.1 × 10 4.3 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 3.9 × 10 7 6 6 6 Strafford 1.5 × 10 4.1 × 10 9.5 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 0 6 5 5 5 5 6 Sullivan 2.4 × 10 4.5 × 10 7.7 × 10 1.2 × 10 3.2 × 10 1.1 × 10 8 7 8 8 5 7 Totals 6.5 × 10 4.5 × 10 1.3 × 10 4.4 × 10 3.2 × 10 3.2 × 10 In Table 13, the conservative assumption was made that land developed over the In Table 13, the conservative assumption was made that land developed over the time time period of interest had no soil carbon stocks remaining in 2016, consistent with IPCC period of interest had no soil carbon stocks remaining in 2016, consistent with IPCC guidelines guidelines for Tier 1 evaluations of changes in LULC [26,27]. Monetary values of for Tier 1 evaluations of changes in LULC [26,27]. Monetary values of maximum potential maximum potential “realized” social cost depend on the area of disturbance and the soil “realized” social cost depend on the area of disturbance and the soil type with its correspond- type with its corresponding TSC content. For example, Histosols are a “hotspot” of carbon ing TSC content. For example, Histosols are a “hotspot” of carbon sequestration, but are sequestration, but are vulnerable to development. From 2001 to 2016, development on vulnerable to development. From 2001 to 2016, development on Histosols in New Hampshire Histosols in New Hampshire has resulted in a maximum potential realized social cost of has resulted in a maximum potential realized social cost of over $440M (Table 13). over $440M (Table 13). Integration of pedodiversity concepts with LULC classes and administrative units Integration of pedodiversity concepts with LULC classes and administrative units (e.g., counties) enable researchers and policy makers to identify locations and magnitudes (e.g., counties) enable researchers and policy makers to identify locations and magnitudes of maximum potential “realized” social costs of soil carbon so that cost-effective policies of maximum potential “realized” social costs of soil carbon so that cost-effective policies for sustainable soil carbon management can be developed (Table 14). For example, land for sustainable soil carbon management can be developed (Table 14). For example, land development in Rockingham County from 2001 to 2016 resulted in the highest SC-CO development in Rockingham County from 2001 to 2016 resulted in the highest SC-CO2 ($323M), followed by Hillsborough ($241M) and Merrimack ($25M) counties (Table 14). ($323M), followed by Hillsborough ($241M) and Merrimack ($25M) counties (Table 14). Changes in LULC are available through this analysis in a spatially explicit manner, so the location and extent of these potential “hotspots” can be identified on the landscape. Furthermore, areas adjacent to locations that have been subject to development may be more vulnerable to future “contagious” development [28], which is especially dangerous for high-risk Histosols because of their high C content. In the future, identifying areas of possible hotspots, over time, using land cover change analysis will become an important tool for carbon accounting. Earth 2021, 2 222 5. Conclusions This study applied soil diversity (pedodiversity) concepts (taxonomic) and their measures to value soil C regulating ES/ED in the state of New Hampshire (USA), its administrative units (counties), and the systems of soil classification (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database) for sustainable soil C management. Taxonomic pedodiversity in New Hampshire exhibits high soil diversity (five soil orders: Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols, Mollisols, and Spodosols), which is not evenly distributed within the state and counties. Spodosols occupy the highest proportion of the state area (52%) but ranked only second (after Histosols) in terms of their SOC storage and related social costs of carbon ($20.2B). Despite a relatively small area (7% of the total soil area), Histosols contribute $33.2B (51%) to the social cost of SOC, and $33.8B (46%) to the social cost of TSC. The contribution of SIC to associated social costs of carbon is small ($8.1B) at the state level and primarily associated with Inceptisols ($5.8B), Spodosols ($978.1M), and Entisols ($767.6M). In the state of New Hampshire, Histosols are particularly sensitive to climate change because of their relatively high soil C content, which is most likely to experience higher rates of decomposition due to global warming with increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the state of New Hampshire have low recarbonization potential [18,29]. New Hampshire experienced land cover changes between 2001 and 2016, which varied by soil order and land cover, with most soil orders experiencing losses in “low disturbance” land covers (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) and gains in “high disturbance” land covers (open, low, medium, and high intensity developed land) with most maximum potential “realized” social costs of C associated with all soil orders ($648M), but Histosols ($445M) in particular. Rockingham County generated the highest SC-CO ($323M), followed by Hillsborough ($241M) and Merrimack ($25M) counties. Administrative areas (e.g., counties) combined with pedodiversity concepts can provide useful information to design soil- and land-cover specific, cost-efficient policies to manage soil carbon regulating ES in the state of New Hampshire at various administrative levels. Author Contributions: conceptualization, E.A.M.; methodology, E.A.M., M.A.S. and H.A.Z.; formal analysis, E.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.M.; writing—review and editing, E.A.M., C.J.P., G.C.P. and M.A.S.; visualization, H.A.Z., L.L. and Z.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Glossary ED Ecosystem disservices ES Ecosystem services EPA Environmental Protection Agency SC-CO Social cost of carbon emissions SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SOC Soil organic carbon SIC Soil inorganic carbon SOM Soil organic matter SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database TSC Total soil carbon USDA United States Department of Agriculture U.S.A. United States of America Earth 2021, 2 223 References 1. Keestra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerda, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; Van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2016, 2, 111–128. [CrossRef] 2. Wood, S.L.; Jones, S.K.; Johnson, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, A.; Girvetz, E.; Gordon, L.J.; Kappel, C.V.; Mandle, L.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyt. Serv. 2017, 29, 701–782. [CrossRef] 3. Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, C.J. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) and ecosystem services. Land 2021, 10, 288. [CrossRef] 4. Zamanian, K.; Zhou, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. Soil carbonates: The unaccounted, irrecoverable carbon source. Geoderma 2021, 384, 114817. [CrossRef] 5. Adhikari, K.; Hartemink, A.E. Linking soils to ecosystem services—A global review. Geoderma 2016, 262, 101–111. [CrossRef] 6. Baveye, P.; Baveye, J.; Gowdy, J. Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 41. [CrossRef] 7. Amundson, R.; Biardeau, L. Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11652–11656. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Plaster, E.J. Soil Science and Management, 4th ed.; Delmar Learning Inc.: Clifton Park, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 0766839362. 9. USDA/NRCS. State Soils. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=stelprdb123 6841 (accessed on 1 April 2021). 10. Jevon, F.V.; D’Amato, A.W.; Woodall, C.W.; Evans, K.; Ayres, M.P.; Matthes, J.H. Tree basal area and conifer abundance predict soil carbon stocks and concentrations in an actively managed forest of northern New Hampshire, USA. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2019, 451, 117534. [CrossRef] 11. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online: https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/soils (accessed on 10 September 2020). 12. Bailey, G.D.; Pilgrim, S.A.L. Soils of the White Mountains of New Hampshire and their suitability for recreational development. Mt. Res. Dev. 1983, 3, 53–60. [CrossRef] 13. Wright, A.L.; Inglett, P.W. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen and distribution of carbon-13 and nitrogen-15 in aggregates of Everglades Histosols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 427–433. [CrossRef] 14. Fossey, M.; Angers, D.; Bustany, C.; Cudennec, C.; Durand, P.; Gascuel-Odoux, C.; Jaffrezic, A.; Pérès, G.; Besse, C.; Walter, C. A framework to consider soil ecosystem services in territorial planning. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 28. [CrossRef] 15. Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Valuation of soil organic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 153. [CrossRef] 16. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Zhang, L. Determining the value of soil inorganic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 119. [CrossRef] 17. Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, C.J.; Zurqani, H.A. Determining farm-scale site-specific monetary values of “soil carbon hotspots” based on avoided social costs of CO emissions. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2020, 6, 1–1817289. [CrossRef] 18. Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, C.J. Valuation of total soil carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 157. [CrossRef] 19. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). The Social Cost of Carbon. EPA Fact Sheet. 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html (accessed on 15 March 2021). 20. Guo, Y.; Amundson, R.; Gong, P.; Yu, Q. Quantity and spatial variability of soil carbon in the conterminous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 590–600. [CrossRef] 21. The United States Census Bureau, 2018 TIGER/Line Boundary Shapefiles. Available online: https://www.census.gov/ geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.2018.html (accessed on 10 March 2021). 22. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). Available online: https://www.mrlc.gov/ (accessed on 1 March 2021). 23. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). ArcMap 10.7. Available online: https://support.esri.com/en/products/ desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcmap/10-7-1 (accessed on 1 March 2021). 24. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Photos of Soil Orders. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=nrcs142p2_053588 (accessed on 20 February 2021). 25. Bétard, F.; Peulvast, J. Geodiversity hotspots: Concept, method and cartographic application for geoconservation purposes at a regional scale. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 822–834. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use). 2006. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html (accessed on 10 March 2021). 27. Sallustio, L.; Quatrini, V.; Geneletti, D.; Corona, P.; Marchetti, M. Assessing land take by urban development and its impact on carbon storage: Findings from two case studies in Italy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 54, 80–90. [CrossRef] Earth 2021, 2 224 28. Robalino, J.A.; Pfaff, A. Contagious development: Neighbor interactions in deforestation. J. Dev. Econ. 2012, 97, 427–436. [CrossRef] 29. Schlesinger, W.H.; Amundson, R. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 386–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Earth Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Vulnerability of Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services due to Land Cover Change in the State of New Hampshire, USA

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/vulnerability-of-soil-carbon-regulating-ecosystem-services-due-to-land-OqKJu2NJ1F
Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2673-4834
DOI
10.3390/earth2020013
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Article Vulnerability of Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services due to Land Cover Change in the State of New Hampshire, USA 1 , 2 2 1 , 3 1 Elena A. Mikhailova *, Lili Lin , Zhenbang Hao , Hamdi A. Zurqani , Christopher J. Post , 4 5 Mark A. Schlautman and Gregory C. Post Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; hzurqan@clemson.edu (H.A.Z.); cpost@clemson.edu (C.J.P.) University Key Lab for Geomatics Technology and Optimized Resources Utilization in Fujian Province, No. 15 Shangxiadian Road, Fuzhou 350002, China; lililin@fafu.edu.cn (L.L.); zhenbanghao@fafu.edu.cn (Z.H.) Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli 13538, Libya Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA; mschlau@clemson.edu Economics Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, USA; grpost@reed.edu * Correspondence: eleanam@clemson.edu Abstract: Valuation of soil carbon (C) regulating ecosystem services (ES) at the state level is important for sustainable C management. The objective of this study was to assess the value of regulating ES from soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) stocks, based on the concept of the avoided social cost of carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions for the state of New Hampshire (NH) in the United States of America (USA) by soil order and county using Citation: Mikhailova, E.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The total estimated monetary Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. mid-point value for TSC stocks in the state of New Hampshire was $73.0B (i.e., 73.0 billion U.S. Vulnerability of Soil Carbon dollars (USD), where B = billion = 10 ), $64.8B for SOC stocks, and $8.1B for SIC stocks. Soil orders Regulating Ecosystem Services due to with the highest midpoint value for SOC were Histosols ($33.2B), Spodosols ($20.2B), and Inceptisols Land Cover Change in the State of ($10.1B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SIC were Inceptisols ($5.8B), Spodosols New Hampshire, USA. Earth 2021, 2, ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value 208–224. https://doi.org/10.3390/ for TSC were Histosols ($33.8B), Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B). The counties with the earth2020013 highest midpoint SOC values were Rockingham ($15.4B), Hillsborough ($9.8B), and Coös ($9.2B). The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), and Rockingham Academic Editor: Krishna ($1.0B). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough Prasad Vadrevu ($10.8B), and Coös ($10.3B). New Hampshire has experienced land use/land cover (LULC) changes between 2001 and 2016. The changes in LULC across the state have not been uniform, but rather Received: 17 April 2021 have varied by county, soil order, and pre-existing land cover. The counties that have exhibited the Accepted: 14 May 2021 Published: 19 May 2021 most development (e.g., Rockingham, Hillsborough, Merrimack) are those nearest the urban center of Boston, MA. Most soil orders have experienced losses in “low disturbance” land covers (e.g., Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral evergreen forest, hay/pasture) and gains in “high disturbance” land covers (e.g., low-, medium-, with regard to jurisdictional claims in and high-intensity developed land). In particular, Histosols are a high-risk carbon “hotspot” that published maps and institutional affil- contributes over 50% of the total estimated sequestration of SOC in New Hampshire while covering iations. only 7% of the total land area. Integration of pedodiversity concepts with administrative units can be useful to design soil- and land-cover specific, cost-efficient policies to manage soil C regulating ES in New Hampshire at various administrative levels. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Keywords: accounting; carbon emissions; CO ; climate change; inorganic; organic; pedodiversity Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 1. Introduction Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Determining the value of soil carbon is critical for achieving the United Nations creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 13: “Take urgent action to 4.0/). Earth 2021, 2, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth2020013 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/earth Earth 2021, 2 209 combat climate change and its impacts on future climate” [1]. The ecosystem services (ES) framework is frequently utilized with UN SDGs because it is aimed at the valuation of benefits (ES) and/or ecosystem disservices (ED) people obtain from nature based on three general categories of services: provisioning, regulating/maintenance, and cultural services [2]. Soil carbon regulating ES/ED are associated with the sequestration/stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC) (derived from living matter), soil inorganic carbon (SIC) (different types of carbonates), and total soil carbon (TSC = SOC + SIC), which vary with geographic location and soil type. Soil carbon sequestration in the forms of SOC and SIC is an ES, which results in “avoided” social costs associated with the emission of carbon dioxide (CO ) to the atmosphere [3]. Release of CO to the atmosphere from losses of SOC 2 2 and SIC is an ED, which results in “realized” social costs [3,4]. Traditionally, soil resources are primarily valued for their provisioning ES (e.g., food production) with limited consideration of regulating ES (e.g., carbon sequestration), but increased concerns over global warming require assessment of soil ED associated with greenhouse gas emissions from soils [5,6]. Soil C regulating ES/ED are dependent on soil pedodiversity, which defines a soil “portfolio” and its SOC, SIC, and TSC stocks in a geographic area under various land covers [3]. For example, the state of New Hampshire has five soil orders (Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols, Mollisols, and Spodosols) with soil- specific characteristics and constraints related to soil ES/ED, which are all part of the intricate mosaic of land use/land covers (LULC) within the landscape [7] (Table 1, Figure 1). Soils of New Hampshire have undergone three varying degrees of weathering: slightly weathered (Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols), moderately weathered (Mollisols), and strongly weathered (Spodosols) (Table 1). Entisols (5% of the total area) and Inceptisols (36%) contain low soil C contents with limited capacity to sequester C because of their slight degree of weathering and soil development [8]. Spodosols are common soils in New Hampshire (52% of the total area) and contain low soil C contents in their mineral horizons because of their strong degree of weathering and soil development [8]. New Hampshire selected Spodosols to be the State Soil (soil series name: Marlow) for its importance in timber production [9]. Jevon et al. [10] conducted research on soil C stocks and concentrations in an actively managed forest of northern New Hampshire and reported lower soil C in this managed forest compared to less disturbed forests in the state. In addition, Jevon et al. [10] reported “legacy” effects of previous management decisions in the vertical distribution of SOC. Table 1. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) is expressed as taxonomic diversity at the level of soil order and ecosystem service types in New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (adapted from Mikhailova et al., 2021 [3]). Stocks Ecosystem Services Regulation/ Soil Order General Characteristics and Constraints Provisioning Cultural Maintenance Slightly Weathered Entisols Embryonic soils with ochric epipedon x x x Inceptisols Young soils with ochric or umbric epipedon x x x Histosols Organic soils with 20% of organic carbon x x x Moderately Weathered Mollisols Carbon-enriched soils with B.S.  50% x x x Strongly Weathered Spodosols Coarse-textured soils with albic and spodic horizons x x x Note: B.S. = base saturation. Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 3 Moderately Weath- ered Carbon-enriched soils Mollisols x x x with B.S. ≥ 50% Strongly Weathered Coarse-textured soils Spodosols with albic and spodic x x x Earth 2021, 2 210 horizons Note: B.S. = base saturation. 0  0 Figure 1. General soil map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45 18 N; Longitude: Figure 1. General soil map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42° 42′ N to 45° 18′ N; longitude: 0  0 70° 70 36′ 36 W W to to72 72 ° 33′ 33 W) W) (adapt (adapted ed from from [12]) [11]). . Although limited in their soil C regulating ES, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Spodosols serve Mollisols are nutrient-rich soils high in C, but they are almost negligible in New important cultural ES (e.g., recreation) as documented by research on soils of the White Hampshire. Histosols (7% of the total area) are organic carbon-rich soils commonly found Mountains of New Hampshire and their suitability for recreational development [12]. in different types of wetlands and can be a large source of greenhouse gases emissions Mollisols are nutrient-rich soils high in C, but they are almost negligible in New from changes in LULC (e.g., drainage, development, etc.) [13]. Hampshire. Histosols (7% of the total area) are organic carbon-rich soils commonly found The ES framework increasingly is being used as “an operational framework” [14], in different types of wetlands and can be a large source of greenhouse gas emissions from but because of “the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully changes in LULC (e.g., drainage, development, etc.) [13]. considered in the territorial planning decision process” [14]. Past research on avoided so- The ES framework is increasingly being used as “an operational framework” [14], cial costs of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the USA has been conducted at various scales using but because of “the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully both biophysical (e.g., soil orders) and administrative accounts (e.g., states, regions, coun- considered in the territorial planning decision process” [14]. Past research on avoided social ties, farm, etc.) [15–18], and has showed the need for soil- and carbon-specific manage- costs of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the USA has been conducted at various scales using both ment strategies at the state level. The hypothesis of this study is that pedodiversity (e.g., biophysical (e.g., soil orders) and administrative accounts (e.g., states, regions, counties, taxonomic categories) overlaid with administrative units (Figures 1 and 2) can be used to farm, etc.) [15–18], and has shown the need for soil- and carbon-specific management strate- gies at the state level. The hypothesis of this study is that pedodiversity (e.g., taxonomic categories) overlaid with administrative units (Figures 1 and 2) can be used to locate spatial patterns of soil carbon hotspots for sustainable carbon management in the state of New Hampshire. The specific objective of this study was to assess the value of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the state of New Hampshire (USA) based on the social cost of carbon (SC–CO ) and avoided emissions provided by carbon sequestration, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined to be $46 per metric ton of CO , applicable for the year 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars and an average discount rate of 3% [19]. Our calculations provide estimates for the monetary values of SOC, SIC, and TSC across the state and by Earth 2021, 2 211 different spatial aggregation levels (i.e., county) using the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database and information previously reported by Guo et al. [20]. 2. Materials and Methods This study used both biophysical (science-based, Figure 1) and administrative (bound ary-based, Figure 2) accounts to calculate monetary values for SOC, SIC, and TSC (Tables 2 and 3). Table 2. A conceptual overview of the accounting framework used in this study (adapted from Groshans et al., 2018 [16]). STOCKS FLOWS VALUE Administrative Biophysical Accounts Accounts Monetary Account(s) Benefit(s) Total Value (Science-Based) (Boundary-Based) Ecosystem good(s) and Soil extent: Administrative extent: Sector: Types of value: service(s): Separate constitute stock 1: Soil organic carbon (SOC) Separate constitute stock 2: Soil inorganic carbon (SIC) Composite (total) stock: Total soil carbon (TSC) = Soil organic carbon (SOC) + Soil inorganic carbon (SIC) Environment: The social cost of carbon (SC-CO ) and avoided emissions: Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW - $46 per metric ton of CO (20075 - State - Regulating (e.g., - Carbon - Soil order U.S. dollars with an average - County carbon sequestration) sequestration discount rate of 3% [19]) 0  0 Figure 2. Administrative map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45 18 N; Longi- Figure 2. Administrative map of New Hampshire (U.S.A.) (Latitude: 42° 42′ N to 45° 18′ N; Longi- 0  0 tude: 70 36 W to 72 33 W) with 10 counties [21]. tude: 70° 36′ W to 72° 33′ W) with 10 counties [21]. Table 3. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) by soil order (taxonomic pedodiversity) and county in New Hampshire (U.S.A.) based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (2020) [12]. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development County Total Slight Moderate Strong Area Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols 2 2 (km ) Area (km ) Belknap 993.1 29.9 397.4 87.8 0 478.0 Carroll 1625.2 57.0 644.7 23.3 0 900.2 Cheshire 1785.5 77.7 799.7 82.8 0 825.4 Coös 3690.3 30.0 840.9 97.4 0 2722.0 Grafton 2857.0 72.9 802.6 14.8 0 1966.7 Hillsboroug 2169.6 192.4 693.4 272.1 0 1011.8 Merrimack 2276.5 166.4 1051.5 189.6 0 869.1 Rockingha 1631.6 136.6 793.3 584.5 0 117.2 Strafford 564.6 128.2 403.2 33.0 0 0.2 Sullivan 1276.0 45.1 317.3 20.2 2.9 890.5 Totals 18869.5 936.1 6744.0 1405.6 2.9 9780.9 Earth 2021, 2 212 Table 3. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) by soil order (taxonomic pedodiversity) and county in New Hampshire (U.S.A.) based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (2020) [11]. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County Area Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (km ) Area (km ) Belknap 993.1 29.9 397.4 87.8 0 478.0 Carroll 1625.2 57.0 644.7 23.3 0 900.2 Cheshire 1785.5 77.7 799.7 82.8 0 825.4 Coös 3690.3 30.0 840.9 97.4 0 2722.0 Grafton 2857.0 72.9 802.6 14.8 0 1966.7 Hillsborouh 2169.6 192.4 693.4 272.1 0 1011.8 Merrimack 2276.5 166.4 1051.5 189.6 0 869.1 Rockinghm 1631.6 136.6 793.3 584.5 0 117.2 Strafford 564.6 128.2 403.2 33.0 0 0.2 Sullivan 1276.0 45.1 317.3 20.2 2.9 890.5 Totals 18869.5 936.1 6744.0 1405.6 2.9 9780.9 The present study estimates monetary values associated with stocks of SOC, SIC, and TSC in New Hampshire based on reported contents (in kg m ) from Guo et al. [20]. Values were calculated using the avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO ) of $46 per metric ton of CO , applicable for 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars and an average discount rate of 3% [19]. According to the EPA, the SC-CO is intended to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages. Still, it can underestimate the true damages and cost of CO emissions due to the exclusion of various important climate change impacts recognized in the literature [19]. Area-normalized monetary values ($ m ) were calculated using Equation (1), and total monetary values were summed over the appropriate area(s) (noting that a metric ton is equivalent to 1 megagram (Mg) or 100 kilograms (kg)): $ kg 1 Mg 44 Mg CO $46 = SOC/SIC/TSC Content,    (1) 2 2 3 m m 10 kg 12 Mg TSC Mg CO 2 2 Table 4 presents area-normalized contents (kg m ) and monetary values ($ m ) of soil carbon, which were used to estimate stocks of SOC, SIC, and TSC and their correspond- ing values by multiplying the contents/values by the area of a particular soil order within a county (Table 3). For example, for the soil order Inceptisols, Guo et al. [20] reported a midpoint SOC content of 8.9 kgm for the upper 2-m soil depth (Table 4). Using this SOC content in Equation (1) results in an area-normalized SOC value of $1.50 m . Multiplying the SOC content and its corresponding area-normalized value each by the total area of Inceptisols present in New Hampshire (6744 km , Table 3) results in an SOC stock of 6.0 10 kg (Table 5) with an estimated monetary value of $10.1B (Table 6). Land use/land cover change in New Hampshire between 2001 and 2016 was analyzed using classified land cover data from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) [22]. Changes in land cover, with their associated soil types, were calculated in ArcMap 10.7 [23] by comparing the 2001 and 2016 data, converting the land cover to vector format, and unioning the data with the soils layer in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database [11]. Earth 2021, 2 213 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 2 2 Table 4. Area-normalized content (kg m ) and monetary values ($ m ) of soi−l 2 organic carbon (SOC), soil inor−g 2 anic carbon Table 4. Area-normalized content (kg m ) and monetary values ($ m ) of soil organic (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order based on data reported by Guo et al. [20] for the upper 2 m of soil and an avoided carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order based social cost of carbon (SC-CO ) of $46 per metric ton of CO (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [19]). 2 2 on data reported by Guo et al. [20] for the upper 2 m of soil and an avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount SOC Content SIC Content TSC Content SOC Value SIC Value TSC Value rate of 3% [19]). Soil Order Minimum—Midpoint—Maximum Values Midpoint Values SOC Content SIC Content TSC Content SOC Value SIC Value TSC Value 2 2 2 2 2 (kg m ) (kg m ) (kg m ) ($ m ) ($ m ) Soil Order Minimum—Midpoint—Maximum Values Midpoint Values ($ m ) −2 −2 −2 −2 −2 −2 (kg m) (kg m) (kg m) ($ m) ($ m ) ($ m ) Slightly Weathered Slightly Weathered Entisols 1.8–8.0–15.8 1.9–4.8–8.4 3.7–12.8–24.2 1.35 0.82 2.17 Entisols 1.8–8.0–15.8 1.9–4.8–8.4 3.7–12.8–24.2 1.35 0.82 2.17 Inceptisols 2.8–8.9–17.4 2.5–5.1–8.4 5.3–14.0–25.8 1.50 0.86 2.36 Inceptisols 2.8–8.9–17.4 2.5–5.1–8.4 5.3–14.0–25.8 1.50 0.86 2.36 Histosols 63.9–140.1–243.9 0.6–2.4–5.0 64.5–142.5–248.9 23.62 0.41 24.03 Histosols 63.9–140.1–243.9 0.6–2.4–5.0 64.5–142.5–248.9 23.62 0.41 24.03 Moderately Weathered Moderately Weathered Mollisols 5.9–13.5–22.8 4.9–11.5–19.7 10.8–25.0–42.5 2.28 1.93 4.21 Mollisols 5.9–13.5–22.8 4.9–11.5–19.7 10.8–25.0–42.5 2.28 1.93 4.21 Strongly Strongly Weathered Weathered Spodosols 2.9–12.3–25.5 0.2–0.6–1.1 3.1–12.9–26.6 2.07 0.10 2.17 Spodosols 2.9–12.3–25.5 0.2–0.6–1.1 3.1–12.9–26.6 2.07 0.10 2.17 Note: TSC = SOC + SIC. Note: TSC = SOC + SIC. Table 5. Midpoint soil organic carbon (SOC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 5. Midpoint soil organic carbon (SOC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SOC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SOC contents shown in Table 4. Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County Storage Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (kg) Total SOC Storage (kg) 10 8 9 10 9 Belknap 2.2 × 10 2.4 × 10 3.5 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 5.9 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Carroll 2.1 × 10 4.6 × 10 5.7 × 10 3.3 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 8 9 10 10 Cheshire 2.9 × 10 6.2 × 10 7.1 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 10 8 9 10 10 Coös 5.5 × 10 2.4 × 10 7.5 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 3.3 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Grafton 3.4 × 10 5.8 × 10 7.1 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Hillsborough 5.8 × 10 1.5 × 10 6.2 × 10 3.8 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Merrimack 4.8 × 10 1.3 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 9 9 10 9 Rockingham 9.1 × 10 1.1 × 10 7.1 × 10 8.2 × 10 0 1.4 × 10 9 9 9 9 6 Strafford 9.2 × 10 1.0 × 10 3.6 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 2.3 × 10 10 8 9 9 7 10 Sullivan 1.7 × 10 3.6 × 10 2.8 × 10 2.8 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 11 9 10 11 7 11 Totals 3.8 × 10 7.5 × 10 6.0 × 10 2.0 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.2 × 10 3. Results 3. Results Based on avoided SC–CO2, the total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in Based on avoided SC–CO , the total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC the state of New Hampshire was $73.0B (i.e., 73.0 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = in the state of New Hampshire was $73.0B (i.e., 73.0 billion U.S. dollars, where B = bil- 10 ), $64.8B for SOC (89% of the total value), and $8.1B for SIC (11% of the total value). lion = 10 ), $64.8B for SOC (89% of the total value), and $8.1B for SIC (11% of the total Previously, we have reported that among the 48 conterminous states of the U.S., New value). Previously, we have reported that among the 48 conterminous states of the U.S., th Hampshire ranked 40th for TSC [18], 40 for SOC [15], and 45th for SIC [16]. th New Hampshire ranked 40th for TSC [18], 40 for SOC [15], and 45th for SIC [16]. 3.1. Storage and Value of SOC by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire 3.1. Storage and Value of SOC by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SOC were Histosols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SOC were Histosols ($33.2B), ($33.2B), Spodosols ($20.2B), and Inceptisols ($10.1B) (Tables 5 and 6). The counties with Spodosols ($20.2B), and Inceptisols ($10.1B) (Tables 5 and 6). The counties with the highest the highest midpoint SOC values were Rockingham ($15.4B), Hillsborough ($9.8B), and midpoint SOC values were Rockingham ($15.4B), Hillsborough ($9.8B), and Coös ($9.2B) Coös ($9.2B) (Tables 5 and 6). Rockingham has the largest area occupied by Histosols (Tables 5 and 6). Rockingham has the largest area occupied by Histosols (Table 3), which −2 (Table 3), which has a high SOC midpoint content (140.1 kg m ; Table 4) and therefore a has a high SOC midpoint content (140.1 kg m ; Table 4) and therefore a corresponding corresponding high monetary value of $13.8B (Table 6). Note that soil survey data can high monetary value of $13.8B (Table 6). Note that soil survey data can overestimate SOC overestimate SOC contents, because SOC is extrapolated with soil depth [17]. Despite this Earth 2021, 2 214 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 7 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 7 contents, because SOC is extrapolated with soil depth [17]. Despite this limitation, the overall trends for soil orders and counties should be informative in sustainable soil C limitation, the overall trends for soil orders and counties should be informative in limitation, the overall trends for soil orders and counties should be informative in management. sustainable soil C management. sustainable soil C management. Table 6. Monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by soil order and county for the state of New Table 6. Monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by soil order and county for the state of Table 6. Monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by soil order and county for the state of Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint monetary New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint values monetary values shown in T shown in Table 4. able 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) ($) SC-CO2 ($) SC-CO2 ($) 9 7 8 9 8 Belknap 3.7 × 10 4.0 × 10 6.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 9.9 × 10 9 7 8 9 8 Belknap 3.7 × 10 4.0 × 10 6.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 9.9 × 10 9 7 8 8 9 Carroll 3.5 × 10 7.7 × 10 9.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 9 7 8 8 9 Carroll 3.5 × 10 7.7 × 10 9.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Cheshire 5.0 × 10 1.0 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 1.7 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Cheshire 5.0 × 10 1.0 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 1.7 × 10 9 7 9 9 9 Coös 9.2 × 10 4.1 × 10 1.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 5.6 × 10 9 7 9 9 9 Coös 9.2 × 10 4.1 × 10 1.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 5.6 × 10 9 7 9 8 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 9.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 0 4.1 × 10 9 7 9 8 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 9.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 0 4.1 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Hillsborough 9.8 × 10 2.6 × 10 1.0 × 10 6.4 × 10 0 2.1 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Hillsborough 9.8 × 10 2.6 × 10 1.0 × 10 6.4 × 10 0 2.1 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Merrimack 8.1 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.5 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Merrimack 8.1 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.5 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 10 8 9 10 8 Rockingham 1.5 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 8 9 10 8 Rockingham 1.5 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 9 8 8 8 5 Strafford 1.6 × 10 1.7 × 10 6.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 3.8 × 10 9 8 8 8 5 Strafford 1.6 × 10 1.7 × 10 6.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 3.8 × 10 9 7 8 8 6 9 Sullivan 2.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 4.8 × 10 4.8 × 10 6.6 × 10 1.8 × 10 9 7 8 8 6 9 Sullivan 2.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 4.8 × 10 4.8 × 10 6.6 × 10 1.8 × 10 10 9 10 10 6 10 Totals 6.5 × 10 1.3 × 10 1.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 6.6 × 10 2.0 × 10 10 9 10 10 6 10 Totals 6.5 × 10 1.3 × 10 1.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 6.6 × 10 2.0 × 10 3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by Soil Order and County for the State of New Hampshire 3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by Soil Order and County for the State of New Hampshire 3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by Soil Order and County for the State of New Hampshire Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SIC were: Inceptisols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SIC were: Inceptisols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for SIC were: Inceptisols ($5.8B), ($5.8B), Spodosols ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ) (Tables 7 and 8). ($5.8B), Spodosols ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ) (Tables 7 and 8). Spodosols ($1.0B), and Entisols ($770M, where M = million = 10 ) (Tables 7 and 8). The The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Merrimack ($1.2B), Coös ($1.1B), and and Rockingham ($1.0B) (Tables 7 and 8). Similar to SOC data, SIC is typically and Rockingham ($1.0B) (Tables 7 and 8). Similar to SOC data, SIC is typically Rockingham ($1.0B) (Tables 7 and 8). Similar to SOC data, SIC is typically extrapolated with extrapolated with soil depth and can be overestimated by soil survey data [17]. Again, extrapolated with soil depth and can be overestimated by soil survey data [17]. Again, soil depth and can be overestimated by soil survey data [17]. Again, however, the overall however, the overall trends for soil orders and counties are informative for sustainable however, the overall trends for soil orders and counties are informative for sustainable trends for soil orders and counties are informative for sustainable soil C management. soil C management. soil C management. Table 7. Midpoint soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 7. Midpoint soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 7. Midpoint soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SIC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SIC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint SIC contents shown in Table 4. Table 4. Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County Storage County Storage Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (kg) (kg) Total SIC Storage (kg) Total SIC Storage (kg) 9 8 9 8 8 Belknap 2.7 × 10 1.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.9 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Belknap 2.7 × 10 1.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.9 × 10 9 8 9 7 8 Carroll 4.2 × 10 2.7 × 10 3.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 0 5.4 × 10 9 8 9 7 8 Carroll 4.2 × 10 2.7 × 10 3.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 0 5.4 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Cheshire 5.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 4.1 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 5.0 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Cheshire 5.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 4.1 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 5.0 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Coös 6.3 × 10 1.4 × 10 4.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 1.6 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Coös 6.3 × 10 1.4 × 10 4.3 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 1.6 × 10 9 8 9 7 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 3.5 × 10 4.1 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 9 8 9 7 9 Grafton 5.7 × 10 3.5 × 10 4.1 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Hillsborough 5.7 × 10 9.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 6.5 × 10 0 6.1 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Hillsborough 5.7 × 10 9.2 × 10 3.5 × 10 6.5 × 10 0 6.1 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Merrimack 7.1 × 10 8.0 × 10 5.4 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 5.2 × 10 9 8 9 8 8 Merrimack 7.1 × 10 8.0 × 10 5.4 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 5.2 × 10 9 8 9 9 7 Rockingham 6.2 × 10 6.6 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 7.0 × 10 9 8 9 9 7 Rockingham 6.2 × 10 6.6 × 10 4.0 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 7.0 × 10 9 8 9 7 5 Strafford 2.8 × 10 6.2 × 10 2.1 × 10 7.9 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 9 8 9 7 5 Strafford 2.8 × 10 6.2 × 10 2.1 × 10 7.9 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 9 8 9 7 7 8 Sullivan 2.5 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.8 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.3 × 10 9 8 9 7 7 8 Sullivan 2.5 × 10 2.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 4.8 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.3 × 10 10 9 10 9 7 9 Totals 4.8 × 10 4.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.9 × 10 10 9 10 9 7 9 Totals 4.8 × 10 4.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.0 × 10 5.9 × 10 Earth 2021, 2 215 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 Table 8. Monetary value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by soil order and county for the state of New Table 8. Monetary value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by soil order and county for the state of Table 8. Monetary value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by soil order and county for the state of Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint monetary New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint values shown in Table 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) ($) SC-CO2 ($) SC-CO2 ($) 8 7 8 7 7 Belknap 4.5 × 10 2.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 4.8 × 10 8 7 8 7 7 Belknap 4.5 × 10 2.5 × 10 3.4 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 4.8 × 10 8 7 8 6 7 Carroll 7.0 × 10 4.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 9.6 × 10 0 9.0 × 10 8 7 8 6 7 Carroll 7.0 × 10 4.7 × 10 5.5 × 10 9.6 × 10 0 9.0 × 10 8 7 8 7 7 Cheshire 8.7 × 10 6.4 × 10 6.9 × 10 3.4 × 10 0 8.3 × 10 8 7 8 7 7 Cheshire 8.7 × 10 6.4 × 10 6.9 × 10 3.4 × 10 0 8.3 × 10 9 7 8 7 8 Coös 1.1 × 10 2.5 × 10 7.2 × 10 4.0 × 10 0 2.7 × 10 9 7 8 7 8 Coös 1.1 × 10 2.5 × 10 7.2 × 10 4.0 × 10 0 2.7 × 10 8 7 8 6 8 Grafton 9.5 × 10 6.0 × 10 6.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 0 2.0 × 10 8 7 8 6 8 Grafton 9.5 × 10 6.0 × 10 6.9 × 10 6.1 × 10 0 2.0 × 10 8 8 8 8 8 Hillsborough 9.7 × 10 1.6 × 10 6.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 8 8 8 8 8 Hillsborough 9.7 × 10 1.6 × 10 6.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 9 8 8 7 7 Merrimack 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 9.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 8.7 × 10 9 8 8 7 7 Merrimack 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 9.0 × 10 7.8 × 10 0 8.7 × 10 9 8 8 8 7 Rockingham 1.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 6.8 × 10 2.4 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 9 8 8 8 7 Rockingham 1.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 6.8 × 10 2.4 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 8 8 8 7 4 Strafford 4.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 3.5 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 8 8 8 7 4 Strafford 4.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 3.5 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 8 7 8 6 6 7 Sullivan 4.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 2.7 × 10 8.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 8.9 × 10 8 7 8 6 6 7 Sullivan 4.1 × 10 3.7 × 10 2.7 × 10 8.3 × 10 5.6 × 10 8.9 × 10 9 8 9 8 6 8 Totals 8.1 × 10 7.7 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 9.8 × 10 9 8 9 8 6 8 Totals 8.1 × 10 7.7 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 9.8 × 10 3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire 3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire 3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by Soil Order and County for New Hampshire Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for TSC were Histosols Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for TSC were Histosols ($33.8B), Soil orders with the highest midpoint monetary value for TSC were Histosols ($33.8B), Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B) (Tables 9 and 10). The counties with Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B) (Tables 9 and 10). The counties with the ($33.8B), Spodosols ($21.2B), and Inceptisols ($15.9B) (Tables 9 and 10). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough ($10.8B), and highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough ($10.8B), and Coös the highest midpoint TSC values were Rockingham ($16.5B), Hillsborough ($10.8B), and Coös ($10.3B) (Tables 9 and 10). These rankings are the same as for SOC and reflect the ($10.3B) (Tables 9 and 10). These rankings are the same as for SOC and reflect the dominant Coös ($10.3B) (Tables 9 and 10). These rankings are the same as for SOC and reflect the dominant contribution of SOC to TSC in the State. contribution of SOC to TSC in the State. dominant contribution of SOC to TSC in the State. Table 9. Midpoint total soil carbon (TSC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 9. Midpoint total soil carbon (TSC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Table 9. Midpoint total soil carbon (TSC) storage by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint TSC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint TSC contents shown in Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the midpoint TSC contents shown in Table 4. Table 4. Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong County Storage County Storage Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (kg) (kg) Total TSC Storage (kg) Total TSC Storage (kg) 10 8 9 10 9 Belknap 2.5 × 10 3.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 1.3 × 10 0 6.2 × 10 10 8 9 10 9 Belknap 2.5 × 10 3.8 × 10 5.6 × 10 1.3 × 10 0 6.2 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Carroll 2.5 × 10 7.3 × 10 9.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 10 8 9 9 10 Carroll 2.5 × 10 7.3 × 10 9.0 × 10 3.3 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Cheshire 3.5 × 10 9.9 × 10 1.1 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Cheshire 3.5 × 10 9.9 × 10 1.1 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Coös 6.1 × 10 3.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 3.5 × 10 10 8 10 10 10 Coös 6.1 × 10 3.8 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 3.5 × 10 10 8 10 9 10 Grafton 4.0 × 10 9.3 × 10 1.1 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.5 × 10 10 8 10 9 10 Grafton 4.0 × 10 9.3 × 10 1.1 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 2.5 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Hillsborough 6.4 × 10 2.5 × 10 9.7 × 10 3.9 × 10 0 1.3 × 10 10 9 9 10 10 Hillsborough 6.4 × 10 2.5 × 10 9.7 × 10 3.9 × 10 0 1.3 × 10 10 9 10 10 10 Merrimack 5.5 × 10 2.1 × 10 1.5 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 9 10 10 10 Merrimack 5.5 × 10 2.1 × 10 1.5 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 1.1 × 10 10 9 10 10 9 Rockingham 9.8 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 8.3 × 10 0 1.5 × 10 10 9 10 10 9 Rockingham 9.8 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.1 × 10 8.3 × 10 0 1.5 × 10 10 9 9 9 6 Strafford 1.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 5.6 × 10 4.7 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 9 9 9 6 Strafford 1.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 5.6 × 10 4.7 × 10 0 2.4 × 10 10 8 9 9 7 10 Sullivan 1.9 × 10 5.8 × 10 4.4 × 10 2.9 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 10 8 9 9 7 10 Sullivan 1.9 × 10 5.8 × 10 4.4 × 10 2.9 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.1 × 10 11 10 10 11 7 11 Totals 4.3 × 10 1.2 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.3 × 10 11 10 10 11 7 11 Totals 4.3 × 10 1.2 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.0 × 10 7.0 × 10 1.3 × 10 Earth 2021, 2 216 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 9 Table 10. Monetary value of total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order and county for the state of New Table 10. Monetary value of total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order and county for the state of New Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint monetary Hampshire (USA), based on the areas shown in Table 3 and the area-normalized midpoint values shown in Table 4. monetary values shown in Table 4. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) SC-CO2 ($) 9 7 8 9 9 Belknap 4.2 × 10 6.5 × 10 9.4 × 10 2.1 × 10 0 1.0 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Carroll 4.2 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.5 × 10 5.6 × 10 0 2.0 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Cheshire 5.8 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.9 × 10 2.0 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 10 7 9 9 9 Coös 1.0 × 10 6.5 × 10 2.0 × 10 2.3 × 10 0 5.9 × 10 9 8 9 8 9 Grafton 6.7 × 10 1.6 × 10 1.9 × 10 3.6 × 10 0 4.3 × 10 10 8 9 9 9 Hillsborough 1.1 × 10 4.2 × 10 1.6 × 10 6.5 × 10 0 2.2 × 10 9 8 9 9 9 Merrimack 9.3 × 10 3.6 × 10 2.5 × 10 4.6 × 10 0 1.9 × 10 10 8 9 10 8 Rockingham 1.6 × 10 3.0 × 10 1.9 × 10 1.4 × 10 0 2.5 × 10 9 8 8 8 5 Strafford 2.0 × 10 2.8 × 10 9.5 × 10 7.9 × 10 0 4.0 × 10 9 7 8 8 7 9 Sullivan 3.3 × 10 9.8 × 10 7.5 × 10 4.9 × 10 1.2 × 10 1.9 × 10 10 9 10 10 7 10 Totals 7.3 × 10 2.0 × 10 1.6 × 10 3.4 × 10 1.2 × 10 2.1 × 10 3.4. Land Use/Land Cover Change by Soil Order in New Hampshire from 2001 to 2016 3.4. Land Use/Land Cover Change by Soil Order in New Hampshire from 2001 to 2016 New Hampshire experienced changes in land use/land cover (LULC) over the 15- New Hampshire experienced changes in land use/land cover (LULC) over the 15-year year period from 2001 to 2016 (Table 11, Figure 3). Changes varied by soil order and period from 2001 to 2016 (Table 11, Figure 3). Changes varied by soil order and original original LULC classification, with most soil orders experiencing area losses in “low LULC classification, with most soil orders experiencing area losses in “low disturbance” disturbance” LULC classes (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) while gaining in the areas LULC classes (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) while gaining in the areas of “developed” of “developed” LULC classes. The most dramatic increases in developed land areas LULC classes. The most dramatic increases in developed land areas occurred in Rocking- occurred in Rockingham, Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Belknap counties, which are all ham, Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Belknap counties, which are all in the southern part of in the southern part of the state and geographically closest to the urban centers of Boston, the state and geographically closest to the urban centers of Boston, MA, and Concord, the MA, and Concord, the state capital of New Hampshire. More detailed spatial and state capital of New Hampshire. More detailed spatial and temporal analyses of land cover temporal analyses of land cover can identify critical locations of soil carbon regulating can identify critical locations of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services at risk. ecosystem services at risk. Table 11. Land use/land cover (LULC) change by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Table 11. Land use/land cover (LULC) change by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Slight Moderate Strong 2016 Total 2016 Total NLCD Land Cover Classes Area by LULC Slight Moderate Strong Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols (LULC) NLCD Land Cover Classes Area by (km ) E2016 nti- Area by Soil Incep Order ti- , km Histo (Change - in Area, Moll 2001–2016, i- %) Spodo- (LULC) LULC sols sols sols sols sols Barren land 80 25.3 (6.8%) 21.3 (4.5%) 4.2 (5.6%) 0.0 (5.1%) 29.2 (0.1%) (km ) Woody wetlands 1354 83.9 (0.2%) 494.8 (0.4%) 452.7 (2.3%) 0.2 (1.1%) 322.0 (0.4%) 2016 Area by Soil Order, km (Change in Area, 2001–2016, %) Shrub/Scrub 710 12.6 (89.9%) 198.7 (218.1%) 22.5 (219.0%) 0.0 (25.6%) 476.1 (322.0%) Barren land 80 25.3 (−6.8%) 21.3 (−4.5%) 4.2 (−5.6%) 0.0 (5.1%) 29.2 (−0.1%) Mixed forest 6506 146.4 (3.2%) 2362.8 (2.0%) 343.3 (2.0%) 0.2 (6.0%) 3653.7 (1.5%) Woody wetlands 1354 83.9 (−0.2%) 494.8 (0.4%) 452.7 (2.3%) 0.2 (−1.1%) 322.0 (0.4%) Deciduous forest 4022 67.6 (5.8%) 1277.0 (6.0%) 150.4 (9.5%) 0.3 (10.2%) 2526.9 (8.4%) Shrub/Scrub 710 12.6 (89.9%) 198.7 (218.1%) 22.5 (219.0%) 0.0 (−25.6%) 476.1 (322.0%) Herbaceous 249 13.9 (20.4%) 89.7 (25.1%) 12.9 (45.3%) 0.1 (1030.4%) 132.6 (0.9%) Mixed forest 6506 146.4 (−3.2%) 2362.8 (−2.0%) 343.3 (−2.0%) 0.2 (−6.0%) 3653.7 (−1.5%) Evergreen forest 3368 174.2 (6.9%) 1204.3 (4.6%) 194.2 (5.4%) 0.5 (6.6%) 1794.7 (3.7%) Deciduous forest 4022 67.6 (−5.8%) 1277.0 (−6.0%) 150.4 (−9.5%) 0.3 (−10.2%) 2526.9 (−8.4%) Emergent herbaceous wetlands 122 8.4 (3.1%) 33.3 (3.2%) 65.4 (6.2%) 0.0 (8.5%) 14.9 (4.4%) Herbaceous 249 13.9 (20.4%) 89.7 (25.1%) 12.9 (45.3%) 0.1 (1030.4%) 132.6 (−0.9%) Hay/Pasture 628 56.2 (7.6%) 327.2 (5.1%) 15.8 (10.7%) 0.6 (8.6%) 228.5 (5.6%) Cultivated crops Evergreen forest 61 336820.3 (2.3%) 174.2 (−6.9%) 32.9 1204. (3.1%)3 (−4.6%)0.6 194. (14.0%) 2 (−5.4%) 0. 0.35 (17.4%) (−6.6%) 1794. 6.87 ((6.6%) −3.7%) Emergent herbaceous wetlands 122 8.4 (−3.1%) 33.3 (−3.2%) 65.4 (−6.2%) 0.0 (8.5%) 14.9 (−4.4%) Developed, open space 884 83.9 (4.1%) 356.1 (5.5%) 66.0 (14.3%) 0.2 (6.1%) 377.4 (1.0%) Developed, medium intensityHay/Pasture 628 275 95.9 (9.3%)56.2 (−7.6%) 102.4 327. (14.6%)2 (−5.1%) 15. 22.4 (16.3%) 8 (−10.7%) 0. 0.16 (14.9%) (−8.6%) 228. 53.95 (− (10.6%) 5.6%) Developed, low intensity 542 110.0 (4.4%) 225.5 (8.5%) 52.8 (14.0%) 0.2 (0.2%) 153.8 (2.9%) Cultivated crops 61 20.3 (2.3%) 32.9 (3.1%) 0.6 (−14.0%) 0.3 (17.4%) 6.8 (6.6%) Developed, high intensity 68 37.6 (13.2%) 18.1 (32.5%) 2.3 (36.8%) 0.1 (164.9%) 10.4 (17.3%) Developed, open space 884 83.9 (4.1%) 356.1 (5.5%) 66.0 (14.3%) 0.2 (−6.1%) 377.4 (1.0%) Developed, medium intensity 275 95.9 (9.3%) 102.4 (14.6%) 22.4 (16.3%) 0.1 (14.9%) 53.9 (10.6%) Developed, low intensity 542 110.0 (4.4%) 225.5 (8.5%) 52.8 (14.0%) 0.2 (−0.2%) 153.8 (2.9%) Developed, high intensity 68 37.6 (13.2%) 18.1 (32.5%) 2.3 (36.8%) 0.1 (164.9%) 10.4 (17.3%) Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 10 Table 11. Land use/land cover (LULC) change by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development 2016 Total Slight Moderate Strong NLCD Land Cover Classes Area by Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- (LULC) LULC sols sols sols sols sols (km ) 2016 Area by Soil Order, km (Change in Area, 2001–2016) Barren land 80 25.3 (−6.8%) 21.3 (−4.5%) 4.2 (−5.6%) 0.0 (5.1%) 29.2 (−0.1%) Woody wetlands 1354 83.9 (−0.2%) 494.8 (0.4%) 452.7 (2.3%) 0.2 (−1.1%) 322.0 (0.4%) Shrub/Scrub 710 12.6 (89.9%) 198.7 (218.1%) 22.5 (219.0%) 0.0 (−25.6%) 476.1 (322.0%) Mixed forest 6506 146.4 (−3.2%) 2362.8 (−2.0%) 343.3 (−2.0%) 0.2 (−6.0%) 3653.7 (−1.5%) Deciduous forest 4022 67.6 (−5.8%) 1277.0 (−6.0%) 150.4 (−9.5%) 0.3 (−10.2%) 2526.9 (−8.4%) Herbaceous 249 13.9 (20.4%) 89.7 (25.1%) 12.9 (45.3%) 0.1 (1030.4%) 132.6 (−0.9%) Evergreen forest 3368 174.2 (−6.9%) 1204.3 (−4.6%) 194.2 (−5.4%) 0.5 (−6.6%) 1794.7 (−3.7%) Emergent herbaceous wetlands 122 8.4 (−3.1%) 33.3 (−3.2%) 65.4 (−6.2%) 0.0 (8.5%) 14.9 (−4.4%) Hay/Pasture 628 56.2 (−7.6%) 327.2 (−5.1%) 15.8 (−10.7%) 0.6 (−8. %6) 228.5 (−5.6%) Cultivated crops 61 20.3 (2.3%) 32.9 (3.1%) 0.6 (−14.0%) 0.3 (17.4%) 6.8 (6.6%) Developed, open space 884 83.9 (4.1%) 356.1 (5.5%) 66.0 (14.3%) 0.2 (−6.1%) 377.4 (1.0%) Developed, medium intensity 275 95.9 (9.3%) 102.4 (14.6%) 22.4 (16.3%) 0.1 (14.9%) 53.9 (10.6%) Developed, low intensity 542 110.0 (4.4%) 225.5 (8.5%) 52.8 (14.0%) 0.2 (−0.2%) 153.8 (2.9%) Earth 2021, 2 218 Developed, high intensity 68 37.6 (13.2%) 18.1 (32.5%) 2.3 (36.8%) 0.1 (164.9%) 10.4 (17.3%) Earth 2021, 2 217 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 11 (a) (b) Figure 3. Land cover maps of New Hampshire (U.S.A.): (a) 2001, (b) 2016 (Latitude: 42° 42′ ◦ N0 to Figure 3. Land cover maps of New Hampshire (U.S.A.): (a) 2001, (b) 2016 (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45 Figure 3. Land cover maps of New Hampshire (U.S.A.): (a) 2001, (b) 2016 (Latitude: 42 42 N to 45° ◦0 18′ N 0 ; longitude: 70°  ◦ 36′ 0 0 W to 72°  ◦ 33′ 00 W) [21]. 18 N; Longitude: 70 36 W to 72 33 W) [21]. 45 18 N; longitude: 70 36 W to 72 33 W) [21]. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion Pedodiversity (soil diversity) in New Hampshire impacts the level of various soil ES Pedodiversity (soil diversity) in New Hampshire impacts the level of various soil ES goods and services and will play a role in potential soil ecosystem disservices (ED) under goods and services and will play a role in potential soil ecosystem disservices (ED) as well under certain conditions. This study demonstrates the value of regulating ES/ED at the state and county levels. The New Hampshire soil “portfolio” [3] is composed of five soil orders: Entisols (5% of the total soil area), Inceptisols (36%), Histosols (7%), Mollisols (< 0.02%), and Spodosols (52%) (Figure 1, Table 3, Figure 4a). Highly weathered Spodosols account for the largest fraction of area in the state, but they are not the largest contributor to soil C regulating ES. Rather, because of their high SOC content, Histosols are a carbon “hotspot” that contributes over 50% of the total monetary value for SOC in the state while covering only 7% of the state’s area. The relative contribution of SIC to soil C regulating ES is small at the state and county levels, and is primarily associated with Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Entisols. Soil “portfolios” differ within each county in New Hampshire, as illustrated by three example counties: Coös, Strafford, and Rockingham (Figure 5). In all three examples, pe- dodiversity influences the monetary value of regulating ES or potential ED. Earth 2021, 2 218 certain conditions. This study demonstrates the value of regulating ES/ED at the state and county levels. The New Hampshire soil “portfolio” [3] is composed of five soil orders: Entisols (5% of the total soil area), Inceptisols (36%), Histosols (7%), Mollisols (< 0.02%), and Spodosols (52%) (Figure 1, Table 3, Figure 4a). Highly weathered Spodosols account for the largest fraction of area in the state, but they are not the largest contributor to soil C regulating ES. Rather, because of their high SOC content, Histosols are a carbon “hotspot” that contributes over 50% of the total monetary value for SOC in the state while covering only 7% of the state’s area. The relative contribution of SIC to soil C regulating ES is small at the state and county levels and is primarily associated with Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Entisols. Soil “portfolios” differ within each county in New Hampshire, as illustrated by three Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW example counties: Coös, Strafford, and Rockingham (Figure 5). In all three examples, 12 pedodiversity influences the monetary value of regulating ES or potential ED. $80B (a) (b) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B SOC $40B $20B $20B $40B $60B 0 $80B $80B $80B (c) (d) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B $60B SIC TSC $40B $40B $20B $20B 0 0 $20B $20B $40B $40B $60B $60B $80B $80B Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state by soil order: (a) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or potential by soil order: (a) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or potential cost if all SOC is released as CO2 emissions, (c) similar value or potential cost associated with soil inorganic carbon (SIC), cost if all SOC is released as CO emissions, (c) similar value or potential cost associated with soil inorganic carbon (SIC), (d) (d) similar value or potential cost associated with total soil carbon (TSC). Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the similar value or potential cost associated with total soil carbon (TSC). Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the upper upper 2-m depth and a social cost of CO2 emission of USD 46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . 2-m depth and a social cost of CO emission of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . 2 2 100 $24B (a) (b) Co鰏 Co鰏 SOC $16B $8B $8B $16B 0 $24B Avoided social cost Realized social cost Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 12 $80B (a) (b) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B SOC $40B $20B $20B $40B $60B 0 $80B $80B $80B (c) (d) New Hampshire New Hampshire $60B $60B SIC TSC $40B $40B $20B $20B 0 0 $20B $20B $40B $40B $60B $60B $80B $80B Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state by soil order: (a) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or potential Earth 2021, 2 221 Earth 2021,co 2 st if all SOC is released as CO2 emissions, (c) similar value or potential cost associated with soil inorganic carbon (SIC), 219 (d) similar value or potential cost associated with total soil carbon (TSC). Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the upper 2-m depth and a social cost of CO2 emission of USD 46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . $24B (a) (b) Coös Coös SOC $16B $8B $8B $16B 0 $24B Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 13 $24B (c) (d) Strafford Strafford $16B SOC $8B $8B $16B $24B $24B (e) (f) Rockingham Rockingham $16B SOC $8B $8B $16B $24B Figure Figu 5.re Diagram 5. Diagrashowing m showinhow g how the the “por “po tfolio-ef rtfolio-e fff ect” ect” and and “distribution-ef “distribution-effe fect” ct” of of pedodiversity pedodiversity v varies aries w within ithin co counties unties Figure 5. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity varies within counties Commented [M64]: Please add this figure, not the by soil order: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b,d,f) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or by soil order: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b,d,f) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or by soil order: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by area of soil order; (b,d,f) monetary value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage or one with chinese characters potential cost if all SOC is released as CO2 emissions. Monetary valuation is based on soil C in the upper 2-m depth and a potential potential cost cost if if all all SOC SOC is is r released eleased as as CO CO emissions. emissions. Monetary Monetary valuat valuation ion is is based based on on soil soil C C in in the the upper upper 2-m 2-m depth depth and and a a 2 2 social cost of CO2 emission of USD 46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [19]. Note: B = billion = 10 . social social cost cost of of CO CO emission emission of of $46 USD (USD) 46 (USD) per metric per metric ton of ton CO of CO [19].[19 Note: ]. Note: B = billion B = billion = 10=. 10 . 2 2 2 2 The concepts of “avoided” and “realized” social costs demonstrate different inter- The concepts of “avoided” and “realized” social costs demonstrate different interpre- pretations of the regulating ES/ED associated with soil carbon. For example, “avoided” tations of the regulating ES/ED associated with soil carbon. For example, “avoided” social social cost refers to the benefits of sequestered soil C, because it is not emitted to the at- cost refers to the benefits of sequestered soil C, because it is not emitted to the atmosphere mosphere as CO2. Conversely, “realized” soil cost refers to damages resulting from CO 2 as CO . Conversely, “realized” soil cost refers to damages resulting from CO emissions. In 2 2 emissions. In Figures 4 and 5, “realized” is taken to be the maximum potential cost that Figures 4 and 5, “realized” is taken to be the maximum potential cost that would occur if all would occur if all stocks of sequestered soil carbon were released to the atmosphere as stocks of sequestered soil carbon were released to the atmosphere as CO . For example, in CO2. For example, in Coös county, the soil order Spodosols make the largest contribution to the SC–CO2 because of their dominant area (Figure 5a,b). In Strafford county, the largest area is occupied by Inceptisols, but their relatively small area overall and low soil carbon stocks translate into relatively small monetary values for the SC–CO2 (Figure 5c,d). In Rockingham county, Histosols occupy a relatively small area compared to Entisols and Inceptisols but make the largest contribution to the SC–CO2 (Figure 5e,f). In New Hamp- shire, Histosols are particularly sensitive to climate change and LULC changes because of their relatively high soil C content. Therefore, Histosols may experience higher decompo- sition rates due to increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the State of New Hampshire have low recarbonization potential because of various reasons (e.g., high eco- nomic cost of soil C sequestration, climate change, etc.) (Table 12). Avoided social cost Realized social cost Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Proportion of total area (%) Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Avoided social cost Realized social cost Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Entisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Inceptisols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Mollisols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Spodosols Earth 2021, 2 220 Coös County, the soil order Spodosols make the largest contribution to the SC–CO because of their dominant area (Figure 5a,b). In Strafford County, the largest area is occupied by Inceptisols, but their relatively small area overall and low soil carbon stocks translate into relatively small monetary values for the SC–CO (Figure 5c,d). In Rockingham County, Histosols occupy a relatively small area compared to Entisols and Inceptisols but make the largest contribution to the SC–CO (Figure 5e,f). In New Hampshire, Histosols are particularly sensitive to climate change and LULC changes because of their relatively high soil C content. Therefore, Histosols may experience higher decomposition rates due to Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 Earth Earth Earth 2021 2021 2021, , , 2 2 2, , , FO FO FOR P R P R PE E EER R ER R ER REVIE EVIE EVIEW W W 14 14 14 increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the State of New Hampshire have low recarbonization potential because of various reasons (e.g., high economic cost of soil C sequestration, climate change, etc.) (Table 12). Table 12. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the State of New Hampshire Table 12. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the State of New Hampshire Table Table Table 12. 12. 12. Di Di Dist st stribution o ribution o ribution of soi f soi f soil c l c l carbon regu arbon regu arbon regulati lati lating ng ng ec ec ecos os osystem ystem ystem s s servi ervi ervice ce ces s s in in in the State the State the State of New Ha of New Ha of New Ham m mpshire pshire pshire (USA) by soil order (photos courtesy of USDA/NRCS [24]). Values are taken/derived from Tables (US (US (US (USA) A) A) A) by s by s by s by so o o oil il il il o o o order rder rder rder (photos co (photos co (photos co (photos cour ur ur urtes tes tes tesy of y of y of y of US US US USD D D DA/N A/N A/N A/NRC RC RC RCS S S S [24]) [24]) [24]) [24]).... Values Values Values Values are t are t are t are take ake ake aken/deriv n/deriv n/deriv n/derived ed ed ed from from from from Tabl Tabl Tabl Table e e es s s s Table 12. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the state of New Hampshire 3, 6, 8, and 10. 3, 6, 8, and 10. 3, 3, 3, 6 6 6,,, 8 8 8,,, and and and 10. 10. 10. (USA) by soil order (photos courtesy of USDA/NRCS [24]). Values are taken/derived from Table 3, Table 6, Table 8, and Table 10. Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of New Hampshire Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of New Hampshire Soil R Soil R Soil Reg eg egu u ulating Ecos lating Ecos lating Ecosyst yst ystem em em Se Se Ser r rvi vi vic c ces in es in es in t t th h he e e S S Stat tat tate e e of of of New H New H New Hamps amps ampshir hir hire e e Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degre Degre Degree of e of e of W W Weath eath eather er eri i ing ng ng an an and So d So d Soil il il D D Developm evelopm evelopmen en ent t t Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of New Hampshire Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong Slight Slight Slight Mod Mod Moder er erat at ate e e Stro Stro Stron n ng g g Degree of Weathering and Soil Development 48% <0.02% 52% 48% 48% 48% 48% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 52% 52% 52% 52% Slight Moderate Strong Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols 48% <0.02% 52% Enti Enti Enti Entis s s sol ol ol ols s s s Incep Incep Incep Incepti ti ti tis s s sol ol ol ols s s s Histosols Histosols Histosols Histosols Molliso Molliso Molliso Mollisols ls ls ls Spodos Spodos Spodos Spodosol ol ol ols s s s Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols 5% 36% 7% <0.02% 52% 5% 36% 7% <0.02% 52% 5% 5% 5% 36% 36% 36% 7% 7% 7% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 52% 52% 52% 5% 36% 7% <0.02% 52% Social cost of soil organic carbon (SOC): $64.8B Social cost of soil organic carbon (SOC): USD 64.8 B Soci Soci Soci Social cost al cost al cost al cost of of of of soil or soil or soil or soil org g g gani ani ani anic c c c carbon carbon carbon carbon (SO (SO (SO (SOC C C C): ): ): ): USD USD USD USD 64.8 B 64.8 B 64.8 B 64.8 B $1.3B $10.1B $33.2B $6.6M $20.2B USD 1.3 B USD 10.1 B USD 33.2 B USD 6.6 M USD 20.2 B USD USD USD USD 1.3 B 1.3 B 1.3 B 1.3 B USD USD USD USD 10. 10. 10. 10.1 1 1 1 B B B B USD USD USD USD 33. 33. 33. 33.2 2 2 2 B B B B USD USD USD USD 6.6 M 6.6 M 6.6 M 6.6 M USD USD USD USD 20. 20. 20. 20.2 2 2 2 B B B B 2% 16% 51% <0.02% 31% 2% 16% 51% <0.02% 31% Social cost of soil inorganic carbon (SIC): $8.1B 2% 2% 2% 2% 16% 16% 16% 16% 51% 51% 51% 51% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 31% 31% 31% 31% $767.6M $5.8B $576.3M $5.6M $978.1M Social cost of soil inorganic carbon (SIC): USD 8.1 B Soci Soci Soci Social cost al cost al cost al cost of of of of soil soil soil soil inorgan inorgan inorgan inorgani i i ic carb c carb c carb c carbon on on on (SI (SI (SI (SIC C C C): ): ): ): USD USD USD USD 8.1 B 8.1 B 8.1 B 8.1 B 9% 71% 7% <0.1% 12% USD 767.6 M USD 5.8 B USD 576.3 M USD 5.6 M USD 978.1 M USD USD USD USD 767.6 767.6 767.6 767.6 M M M M USD USD USD USD 5.8 B 5.8 B 5.8 B 5.8 B USD USD USD USD 576.3 576.3 576.3 576.3 M M M M USD USD USD USD 5.6 M 5.6 M 5.6 M 5.6 M USD USD USD USD 978.1 978.1 978.1 978.1 M M M M Social cost of total soil carbon (TSC): $73.0B 9% 71% 7% <0.1% 12% $2.0B 9% 9% 9% 9% $15.9B 71% 71% 71% 71% $33.8B 7% 7% 7% 7% $12.2M <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1% % % % $21.2B 12% 12% 12% 12% 3% Social cost 22% of total soil c 46% arbon (TSC): U <0.02% SD 73.0 B 29% Soci Soci Soci Social cost al cost al cost al cost of of of of t t t to o o otal tal tal tal so so so soil c il c il c il carbon arbon arbon arbon (TSC (TSC (TSC (TSC): ): ): ): U U U USD SD SD SD 73.0 B 73.0 B 73.0 B 73.0 B Sensitivity to climate change USD 2.0 B USD 15.9 B USD 33.8 B USD 12.2 M USD 21.2 B USD USD USD USD 2.0 B 2.0 B 2.0 B 2.0 B USD USD USD USD 15. 15. 15. 15.9 9 9 9 B B B B USD USD USD USD 33. 33. 33. 33.8 8 8 8 B B B B USD USD USD USD 12. 12. 12. 12.2 2 2 2 M M M M USD USD USD USD 21. 21. 21. 21.2 2 2 2 B B B B Low Low High High Low 3% 22% 46% <0.02% 29% 3% 3% 3% 3% 22% 22% 22% 22% 46% 46% 46% 46% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% <0.02% 29% 29% 29% 29% SOC and SIC sequestration (recarbonization) potential Sensitivity to climate change Low Low Low Low Low Sens Sens Sens Sensitivity itivity itivity itivity t t t to o o o cli cli cli clim m m mate ate ate ate c c c chan han han hange ge ge ge Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Low Low High High Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Hig Hig Hig High h h h Hig Hig Hig High h h h Low Low Low Low 6 9 M = million = 10 ; B = billion = 10 . SOC and SIC sequestration (recarbonization) potential SOC SOC SOC SOC and and and and SI SI SI SIC C C C se se se sequ qu qu ques es es estratio tratio tratio tration ( n ( n ( n (r r r rec ec ec ecar ar ar arbon bon bon boni i i izat zat zat zatio io io ion n n n) ) ) ) p p p potent otent otent otential ial ial ial Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low According to Bétard and Peulvast [25], soils can become carbon “hotspots” when they Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic No No No Note: te: te: te: Enti Enti Enti Entiso so so sol l l ls, s, s, s, Inc Inc Inc Inceptisols, eptisols, eptisols, eptisols, Mo Mo Mo Moll ll ll llisols, isols, isols, isols, and and and and Spo Spo Spo Spodo do do doso so so sol l l ls s s s are are are are m m m min in in ineral eral eral eral s s s soi oi oi oil l l ls. s. s. s. Hi Hi Hi Hist st st stos os os osol ol ol ols s s s are are are are m m m mos os os ostl tl tl tly y y y org org org organic anic anic anic are disturbed (e.g., tillage, erosion, etc.) and release CO to the atmosphere, resulting in 6 9 soils. M = million = 106 6 6 6; B = billion = 109 9 9 9. so soils. M ils. M = = m mil ill li ion = on = 10 10 ;; B B = = b billio illion = n = 10 10 .. so soils. M ils. M = = m mil ill li ion = on = 10 10 ;; B B = = b billio illion = n = 10 10 .. maximum (i.e., complete loss of sequestered C) or fractional (i.e., partial loss of sequestered C) “realized” costs because of damages associated with global warming, extreme weather According to Bétard and Peulvast [25], soils can become carbon “hotspots” when Accordin Accordin Accordin According g g g to to to to Bé Bé Bé Bétard tard tard tard an an an and d d d Peu Peu Peu Peulva lva lva lvast st st st [ [ [ [25] 25] 25] 25],,,, soils soils soils soils can can can can bec bec bec becom om om ome e e e carbon carbon carbon carbon “hotspo “hotspo “hotspo “hotspots” ts” ts” ts” w w w when hen hen hen events, flooding, etc. Changes in LULC can also be types of disturbance with potential they are disturbed (e.g., tillage, erosion, etc.) and release CO2 to the atmosphere, resulting th th th they ey ey ey ar ar ar are e e e di di di distu stu stu sturbed rbed rbed rbed (e (e (e (e.g., .g., .g., .g., til til til till l l lag ag ag age, e, e, e, eros eros eros erosion, ion, ion, ion, etc etc etc etc.) .) .) .) and and and and re re re rele le le lease ase ase ase CO CO CO CO2 2 2 2 to to to to th th th the e e e atmo atmo atmo atmosphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, r r r resu esu esu esultin ltin ltin lting g g g for “realized” social costs. Tables 13 and 14 provide maximum potential estimates of in maximum (i.e., complete loss of sequestered C) or fractional (i.e., partial loss of seques- in maximum (i.e., complete loss of sequestered C) or fractional (i.e., partial loss of seques- in in in m m maxi axi aximum mum mum (i (i (i...e., e., e., com com complete plete plete los los loss s s o o of f f seque seque sequestered stered stered C C C) ) ) or or or fr fr fraction action actional al al (i.e. (i.e. (i.e., , , partial partial partial los los loss s s o o of f f se se sequ qu que e es- s- s- “realized” costs by soil order for land in New Hampshire that was developed from low- to tered C) “realized” costs because of damages associated with global warming, extreme tered tered C) C) “r “re eali alize zed d” ” c costs osts b because ecause of of d dam amag ages es associ associated ated with with gl glo obal bal wa warming rming,, ext extreme reme tered tered C) C) “r “re eali alize zed d” ” c costs osts b because ecause of of d dam amag ages es associ associated ated with with gl glo obal bal wa warming rming,, ext extreme reme high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. weather events, flooding, etc. Changes in LULC can also be types of disturbance with po- weather weather weather weather even even even events, ts, ts, ts, fl fl fl floo oo oo ooding ding ding ding, , , , e e e etc tc tc tc. . . . Ch Ch Ch Changes anges anges anges i i i in n n n LULC LULC LULC LULC can can can can also also also also be be be be typ typ typ types es es es o o o of f f f dis dis dis dist t t turbance urbance urbance urbance with with with with po po po po- - - - tential for “realized” social costs. Table 13 provides maximum potential estimates of “re- ten ten ten tential tial tial tial for for for for “r “r “r “re e e ealized” alized” alized” alized” soc soc soc soci i i ial al al al cost cost cost costs. s. s. s. Tab Tab Tab Table le le le 13 13 13 13 pro pro pro provid vid vid vides es es es maximum maximum maximum maximum po po po poten ten ten tential tial tial tial estim estim estim estimat at at ates es es es of of of of “r “r “r “re- e- e- e- alized” costs by soil order for land in New Hampshire that was developed from low- to alized” alized” alized” alized” co co co costs sts sts sts by by by by soil soil soil soil or or or order der der der for for for for l l l land and and and in in in in N N N New ew ew ew Ha Ha Ha Hamp mp mp mpsh sh sh shir ir ir ire e e e th th th that at at at was was was was de de de developed veloped veloped veloped from from from from low low low low- - - - to to to to high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. high high high- - -dis dis dist t turba urba urbance LULC c nce LULC c nce LULC cl l lasses asses asses f f from rom rom 20 20 2001 to 01 to 01 to 2016. 2016. 2016. Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon Table Table Table 13. 13. 13. Inc Inc Incre re rease ase ases s s in in in d d deve eve evelo lo lop p ped ed ed land land land and and and m m maxim axim aximum um um potent potent potential ial ial for for for reali reali realize ze zed soc d soc d socia ia ial cos l cos l cost t ts s s of of of c c carbon arbon arbon due to complete loss of total soil carbon of developed land by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) due due due due to complet to complet to complet to complete e e e lo lo lo loss ss ss ss of of of of tota tota tota total s l s l s l soi oi oi oil carbon l carbon l carbon l carbon of of of of d d d deve eve eve evelo lo lo loped ped ped ped land land land land by s by s by s by soi oi oi oil l l l order in order in order in order in Ne Ne Ne New w w w Hampshi Hampshi Hampshi Hampshire ( re ( re ( re (US US US USA) A) A) A) from 2001 to 2016. Values are derived from Tables 4 and 11. from from from from 2001 2001 2001 2001 to to to to 20 20 20 2016. 16. 16. 16. Values Values Values Values are are are are de de de derive rive rive rived d d d from from from from T T T Table able able ables s s s 4 4 4 4 and and and and 11. 11. 11. 11. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Degre Degre Degree of e of e of W W Weath eath eather er eri i ing ng ng an an and So d So d Soil il il D D Developm evelopm evelopmen en ent t t Slight Moderate Strong Slight Moderate Strong Slight Slight Slight Mod Mod Moder er erat at ate e e Stro Stro Stron n ng g g NLCD Land Cover Classes NLCD Land Cover Classes NLCD NLCD NLCD Land Land Land Co Co Cov v ver er er C C Cla la lass ss sses es es Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- Enti Enti Enti- - - Incep Incep Incepti ti ti- - - Histo Histo Histo- - - Molli Molli Molli- - - Spodo Spodo Spodo- - - (LULC) (LUL (LUL (LUL (LULC) C) C) C) sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols sols Area Change, km2 (Social Cost of CO2, $=USD) 2 2 2 Area Area Area Area Ch Ch Ch Change ange ange ange, km , km , km , km (Soc (Soc (Soc (Social Cost ial Cost ial Cost ial Cost of of of of C C C CO O O O2 2 2 2, $=USD , $=USD , $=USD , $=USD) ) ) ) Earth 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 estimates of “realized” costs by soil order for land in New Hampshire that was developed from low- to high-disturbance LULC classes from 2001 to 2016. Earth 2021, 2 221 Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon due to complete loss of total soil carbon of developed land by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Values are derived from Tables 4 and 11. Table 13. Increases in developed land and maximum potential for realized social costs of carbon due to complete loss of Degree of Weathering and Soil Development total soil carbon of developed land by soil order in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016. Values are derived from Slight Moderate Strong Tables NLCD 4 and La 11 nd Cov . er Classes Enti- Incepti- Histo- Molli- Spodo- (LULC) Degree of Weathering and Soil Development sols sols sols sols sols Slight 2 Moderate Strong Area Change, km (SC-CO2, $=USD) NLCD Land Cover Classes Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols Developed, open space 3.3 ($7.2M) 18.7 ($44.2M) 8.3 ($198.4M) - 3.7 ($7.9M) (LULC) Area Change, km (SC-CO , $=USD) Developed, medium intensity 8.2 ($17.8M) 13.0 ($30.7M) 3.1 ($75.3M) 0.02 ($80,000) 5.2 ($11.2M) Developed, open space 3.3 ($7.2M) 18.7 ($44.2M) 8.3 ($198.4M) - 3.7 ($7.9M) Developed, low intensity 4.6 ($10.0M) 17.7 ($41.7M) 6.5 ($155.9M) - 4.3 ($9.3M) Developed, medium intensity 8.2 ($17.8M) 13.0 ($30.7M) 3.1 ($75.3M) 0.02 ($80,000) 5.2 ($11.2M) Developed, high intensity 4.4 ($9.5M) 4.4 ($10.5M) 0.6 ($14.9M) 0.06 ($242,000) 1.5 ($3.3M) Developed, low intensity 4.6 ($10.0M) 17.7 ($41.7M) 6.5 ($155.9M) - 4.3 ($9.3M) Totals 20.5 ($44.5M) 53.8 ($127.0M) 18.5 ($444.5M) 0.08 ($322,000) 14.6 ($31.8M) Developed, high intensity 4.4 ($9.5M) 4.4 ($10.5M) 0.6 ($14.9M) 0.06 ($242,000) 1.5 ($3.3M) Totals 20.5 Note: Entiso ($44.5M) ls, Inceptis 53.8 ($127.0M) ols, Mollisols, and Spo 18.5 ($444.5M) dosols are mineral soi 0.08 ($322,000) ls.Histosols are m 14.6 ostly ($31.8M) organic soils. M = million = 10 . 6 Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils.Histosols are mostly organic soils. M = million = 10 . Table 14. Impacts of land development on the maximum potential realized social costs of carbon Table 14. Impacts of land development on the maximum potential realized social costs of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) from total soil carbon (TSC) in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016 by dioxide (SC-CO ) from total soil carbon (TSC) in New Hampshire (USA) from 2001 to 2016 by county. county. Degree of Weathering and Soil Development Total Slight Moderate Strong County SC-CO2 Entisols Inceptisols Histosols Mollisols Spodosols ($) SC-CO2 ($) 7 6 6 6 6 Belknap 1.5 × 10 1.0 × 10 4.0 × 10 5.3 × 10 0 4.7 × 10 6 5 6 5 6 Carroll 7.9 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.5 × 10 3.9 × 10 0 5.8 × 10 6 6 6 6 6 Cheshire 6.4 × 10 2.5 × 10 1.1 × 10 1.0 × 10 0 1.8 × 10 6 4 6 5 6 Coös 4.8 × 10 4.9 × 10 1.3 × 10 6.8 × 10 0 2.8 × 10 6 6 6 5 6 Grafton 8.3 × 10 1.4 × 10 3.2 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 3.6 × 10 8 7 7 8 6 Hillsborough 2.4 × 10 1.8 × 10 5.2 × 10 1.7 × 10 0 4.5 × 10 7 6 7 6 6 Merrimack 2.5 × 10 7.4 × 10 1.0 × 10 4.0 × 10 0 3.5 × 10 8 7 7 8 6 Rockingham 3.2 × 10 1.1 × 10 4.3 × 10 2.7 × 10 0 3.9 × 10 7 6 6 6 Strafford 1.5 × 10 4.1 × 10 9.5 × 10 1.2 × 10 0 0 6 5 5 5 5 6 Sullivan 2.4 × 10 4.5 × 10 7.7 × 10 1.2 × 10 3.2 × 10 1.1 × 10 8 7 8 8 5 7 Totals 6.5 × 10 4.5 × 10 1.3 × 10 4.4 × 10 3.2 × 10 3.2 × 10 In Table 13, the conservative assumption was made that land developed over the In Table 13, the conservative assumption was made that land developed over the time time period of interest had no soil carbon stocks remaining in 2016, consistent with IPCC period of interest had no soil carbon stocks remaining in 2016, consistent with IPCC guidelines guidelines for Tier 1 evaluations of changes in LULC [26,27]. Monetary values of for Tier 1 evaluations of changes in LULC [26,27]. Monetary values of maximum potential maximum potential “realized” social cost depend on the area of disturbance and the soil “realized” social cost depend on the area of disturbance and the soil type with its correspond- type with its corresponding TSC content. For example, Histosols are a “hotspot” of carbon ing TSC content. For example, Histosols are a “hotspot” of carbon sequestration, but are sequestration, but are vulnerable to development. From 2001 to 2016, development on vulnerable to development. From 2001 to 2016, development on Histosols in New Hampshire Histosols in New Hampshire has resulted in a maximum potential realized social cost of has resulted in a maximum potential realized social cost of over $440M (Table 13). over $440M (Table 13). Integration of pedodiversity concepts with LULC classes and administrative units Integration of pedodiversity concepts with LULC classes and administrative units (e.g., counties) enable researchers and policy makers to identify locations and magnitudes (e.g., counties) enable researchers and policy makers to identify locations and magnitudes of maximum potential “realized” social costs of soil carbon so that cost-effective policies of maximum potential “realized” social costs of soil carbon so that cost-effective policies for sustainable soil carbon management can be developed (Table 14). For example, land for sustainable soil carbon management can be developed (Table 14). For example, land development in Rockingham County from 2001 to 2016 resulted in the highest SC-CO development in Rockingham County from 2001 to 2016 resulted in the highest SC-CO2 ($323M), followed by Hillsborough ($241M) and Merrimack ($25M) counties (Table 14). ($323M), followed by Hillsborough ($241M) and Merrimack ($25M) counties (Table 14). Changes in LULC are available through this analysis in a spatially explicit manner, so the location and extent of these potential “hotspots” can be identified on the landscape. Furthermore, areas adjacent to locations that have been subject to development may be more vulnerable to future “contagious” development [28], which is especially dangerous for high-risk Histosols because of their high C content. In the future, identifying areas of possible hotspots, over time, using land cover change analysis will become an important tool for carbon accounting. Earth 2021, 2 222 5. Conclusions This study applied soil diversity (pedodiversity) concepts (taxonomic) and their measures to value soil C regulating ES/ED in the state of New Hampshire (USA), its administrative units (counties), and the systems of soil classification (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database) for sustainable soil C management. Taxonomic pedodiversity in New Hampshire exhibits high soil diversity (five soil orders: Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols, Mollisols, and Spodosols), which is not evenly distributed within the state and counties. Spodosols occupy the highest proportion of the state area (52%) but ranked only second (after Histosols) in terms of their SOC storage and related social costs of carbon ($20.2B). Despite a relatively small area (7% of the total soil area), Histosols contribute $33.2B (51%) to the social cost of SOC, and $33.8B (46%) to the social cost of TSC. The contribution of SIC to associated social costs of carbon is small ($8.1B) at the state level and primarily associated with Inceptisols ($5.8B), Spodosols ($978.1M), and Entisols ($767.6M). In the state of New Hampshire, Histosols are particularly sensitive to climate change because of their relatively high soil C content, which is most likely to experience higher rates of decomposition due to global warming with increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the state of New Hampshire have low recarbonization potential [18,29]. New Hampshire experienced land cover changes between 2001 and 2016, which varied by soil order and land cover, with most soil orders experiencing losses in “low disturbance” land covers (e.g., evergreen forest, hay/pasture) and gains in “high disturbance” land covers (open, low, medium, and high intensity developed land) with most maximum potential “realized” social costs of C associated with all soil orders ($648M), but Histosols ($445M) in particular. Rockingham County generated the highest SC-CO ($323M), followed by Hillsborough ($241M) and Merrimack ($25M) counties. Administrative areas (e.g., counties) combined with pedodiversity concepts can provide useful information to design soil- and land-cover specific, cost-efficient policies to manage soil carbon regulating ES in the state of New Hampshire at various administrative levels. Author Contributions: conceptualization, E.A.M.; methodology, E.A.M., M.A.S. and H.A.Z.; formal analysis, E.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.M.; writing—review and editing, E.A.M., C.J.P., G.C.P. and M.A.S.; visualization, H.A.Z., L.L. and Z.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Glossary ED Ecosystem disservices ES Ecosystem services EPA Environmental Protection Agency SC-CO Social cost of carbon emissions SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SOC Soil organic carbon SIC Soil inorganic carbon SOM Soil organic matter SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database TSC Total soil carbon USDA United States Department of Agriculture U.S.A. United States of America Earth 2021, 2 223 References 1. Keestra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerda, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; Van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2016, 2, 111–128. [CrossRef] 2. Wood, S.L.; Jones, S.K.; Johnson, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, A.; Girvetz, E.; Gordon, L.J.; Kappel, C.V.; Mandle, L.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyt. Serv. 2017, 29, 701–782. [CrossRef] 3. Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, C.J. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) and ecosystem services. Land 2021, 10, 288. [CrossRef] 4. Zamanian, K.; Zhou, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. Soil carbonates: The unaccounted, irrecoverable carbon source. Geoderma 2021, 384, 114817. [CrossRef] 5. Adhikari, K.; Hartemink, A.E. Linking soils to ecosystem services—A global review. Geoderma 2016, 262, 101–111. [CrossRef] 6. Baveye, P.; Baveye, J.; Gowdy, J. Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 41. [CrossRef] 7. Amundson, R.; Biardeau, L. Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11652–11656. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Plaster, E.J. Soil Science and Management, 4th ed.; Delmar Learning Inc.: Clifton Park, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 0766839362. 9. USDA/NRCS. State Soils. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=stelprdb123 6841 (accessed on 1 April 2021). 10. Jevon, F.V.; D’Amato, A.W.; Woodall, C.W.; Evans, K.; Ayres, M.P.; Matthes, J.H. Tree basal area and conifer abundance predict soil carbon stocks and concentrations in an actively managed forest of northern New Hampshire, USA. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2019, 451, 117534. [CrossRef] 11. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online: https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/soils (accessed on 10 September 2020). 12. Bailey, G.D.; Pilgrim, S.A.L. Soils of the White Mountains of New Hampshire and their suitability for recreational development. Mt. Res. Dev. 1983, 3, 53–60. [CrossRef] 13. Wright, A.L.; Inglett, P.W. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen and distribution of carbon-13 and nitrogen-15 in aggregates of Everglades Histosols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 427–433. [CrossRef] 14. Fossey, M.; Angers, D.; Bustany, C.; Cudennec, C.; Durand, P.; Gascuel-Odoux, C.; Jaffrezic, A.; Pérès, G.; Besse, C.; Walter, C. A framework to consider soil ecosystem services in territorial planning. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 28. [CrossRef] 15. Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Valuation of soil organic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 153. [CrossRef] 16. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Zhang, L. Determining the value of soil inorganic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 119. [CrossRef] 17. Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, C.J.; Zurqani, H.A. Determining farm-scale site-specific monetary values of “soil carbon hotspots” based on avoided social costs of CO emissions. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2020, 6, 1–1817289. [CrossRef] 18. Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, C.J. Valuation of total soil carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 157. [CrossRef] 19. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). The Social Cost of Carbon. EPA Fact Sheet. 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html (accessed on 15 March 2021). 20. Guo, Y.; Amundson, R.; Gong, P.; Yu, Q. Quantity and spatial variability of soil carbon in the conterminous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 590–600. [CrossRef] 21. The United States Census Bureau, 2018 TIGER/Line Boundary Shapefiles. Available online: https://www.census.gov/ geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.2018.html (accessed on 10 March 2021). 22. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). Available online: https://www.mrlc.gov/ (accessed on 1 March 2021). 23. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). ArcMap 10.7. Available online: https://support.esri.com/en/products/ desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcmap/10-7-1 (accessed on 1 March 2021). 24. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Photos of Soil Orders. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=nrcs142p2_053588 (accessed on 20 February 2021). 25. Bétard, F.; Peulvast, J. Geodiversity hotspots: Concept, method and cartographic application for geoconservation purposes at a regional scale. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 822–834. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use). 2006. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html (accessed on 10 March 2021). 27. Sallustio, L.; Quatrini, V.; Geneletti, D.; Corona, P.; Marchetti, M. Assessing land take by urban development and its impact on carbon storage: Findings from two case studies in Italy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 54, 80–90. [CrossRef] Earth 2021, 2 224 28. Robalino, J.A.; Pfaff, A. Contagious development: Neighbor interactions in deforestation. J. Dev. Econ. 2012, 97, 427–436. [CrossRef] 29. Schlesinger, W.H.; Amundson, R. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 386–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Journal

EarthMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: May 19, 2021

Keywords: accounting; carbon emissions; CO2; climate change; inorganic; organic; pedodiversity

There are no references for this article.