Next Article in Journal
Assessment of River-Sea Interaction in the Danube Nearshore Area (Ukraine) by Bioindicators and Statistical Mapping
Next Article in Special Issue
Impacts of Agricultural Land Reclamation on Soil Nutrient Contents, Pools, Stoichiometry, and Their Relationship to Oat Growth on the East China Coast
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Attitudes towards Roadside Vegetation Management across an Exurban Landscape
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/land10030309
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA

by
Elena A. Mikhailova
1,*,
Hamdi A. Zurqani
1,2,
Christopher J. Post
1,
Mark A. Schlautman
3,
Gregory C. Post
4,
Lili Lin
5 and
Zhenbang Hao
5
1
Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
2
Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli 13538, Libya
3
Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA
4
Economics Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, USA
5
University Key Lab for Geomatics Technology and Optimized Resources Utilization in Fujian Province, No. 15 Shangxiadian Road, Fuzhou 350002, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2021, 10(3), 309; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10030309
Submission received: 1 March 2021 / Revised: 13 March 2021 / Accepted: 15 March 2021 / Published: 17 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Management for Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable management of soil carbon (C) at the state level requires valuation of soil C regulating ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (ED). 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 (CO2) emissions for the state of South Carolina (SC) in the United States of America (U.S.A.) by soil order, soil depth (0–200 cm), region and county using information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in the state of South Carolina was $124.36B (i.e., $124.36 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 109), $107.14B for SOC, and $17.22B for SIC. Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SOC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Histosols ($11.22B), and Inceptisols ($10.31B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SIC were: Inceptisols ($5.91B), Entisols ($5.53B), and Alfisols ($5.0B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for TSC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Inceptisols ($16.22B), and Entisols ($14.65B). The regions with the highest midpoint SOC values were: Pee Dee ($34.24B), Low Country ($32.17B), and Midlands ($29.24B). The regions with the highest midpoint SIC values were: Low Country ($5.69B), Midlands ($5.55B), and Pee Dee ($4.67B). The regions with the highest midpoint TSC values were: Low Country ($37.86B), Pee Dee ($36.91B), and Midlands ($34.79B). The counties with the highest midpoint SOC values were Colleton ($5.44B), Horry ($5.37B), and Berkeley ($4.12B). The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Charleston ($1.46B), Georgetown ($852.81M, where M = million = 106), and Horry ($843.18M). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Horry ($6.22B), Colleton ($6.02B), and Georgetown ($4.87B). Administrative areas (e.g., counties, regions) combined with pedodiversity concepts can provide useful information to design cost-efficient policies to manage soil carbon regulating ES at the state level.

1. Introduction

Economic valuation of soil carbon is vital for achieving the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts on future climate” [1]. The ecosystem services (ES) framework is often used in connection with UN SDGs because it is focused on the economic valuation of benefits (ES) and/or disservices (ED) people obtain from nature [2]. The ES framework includes three general categories of services: provisioning, regulating/maintenance, and cultural supporting services [2]. Although TSC is composed of SOC and SIC, only SOC is currently included in the list of soil properties important for ES [3]. Soil organic carbon is derived from living matter and tends to be concentrated in the topsoil (Table 1). In a well-aerated soil, all of the organic compounds found in plant residue are subject to enzymatic oxidation. This reaction is accompanied by oxygen consumption and CO2 release [4], which is often associated with ED in the form of realized social costs of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [5]. Soil organic carbon is a fraction of soil organic matter (SOM) of <2 mm particle size fraction (Table 1). Soil databases provide SOM (%) and/or SOC (%) in their reports listed in the tables of soil physical properties. Soil organic matter contributes to numerous soil functions (e.g., nutrient and energy reserve, etc.), which are linked to ecosystem goods and services (e.g., nutrient storage and availability, gas regulation, etc.) [6,7]. The role of SOM in delivering these ecosystem goods and services varies with scales from local (e.g., fertility maintenance) to global (e.g., mitigation of carbon emissions) [6,7]. Soil inorganic carbon, which is found in different types of carbonates (e.g., calcium, magnesium), is also essential in various ES/ED (e.g., provisioning services as a liming material for food production). It is reported as calcium carbonate (CaCO3, %) of <2 mm particle size fraction in the tables of soil chemical properties (Table 1).
Previous research on social costs of SOC and SIC in the U.S.A. was conducted at various scales using both biophysical (e.g., soil orders) and administrative accounts (e.g., states, regions, farm, etc.) [8,9,10]. These analyses allowed estimation of potential social costs of soil carbon, which is useful for decision-making at the national level using detailed tables and maps of social costs of C showing areas with high soil C content, which can become “soil carbon hotspots” upon disturbance [10]. At the national level, the analysis showed that states have different types of soils with various soil C types (e.g., Maryland is dominated by SOC, state of New Mexico is dominated by SIC) [11], which requires soil- and carbon-specific management strategies. Some states demonstrated more soil variability compared to others.
Table
Table 1. Total soil carbon: soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and carbon sequestration pathway (adapted from Mikhailova et al., 2019 [8]).
Table 1. Total soil carbon: soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and carbon sequestration pathway (adapted from Mikhailova et al., 2019 [8]).
Total soil carbon, TSC (Biotic + Abiotic) = Soil organic carbon, SOC (Biotic) + Soil inorganic carbon, SIC (Abiotic)
BioticAbiotic
Soil organic matter (SOM) of <2 mm particle size fractionSoil organic carbon (SOC)Soil inorganic carbon (SIC)
- Fresh residue, decomposing organic matter, stable organic matter (humus), and living organisms.
or
- “Continuum of organic material in all stages of transformation and decomposition or stabilization [12].”		- Carbon fraction of soil organic matter of <2 mm particle size fraction.- Carbon fraction of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) of <2 mm particle size fraction.
Conversion (using Van Bemmelen factor of 0.58 or 1.724): SOM (%) = SOC (%) × 1.724 or
SOC (%) = SOM (%) × 0.58 [13]		Conversion: CaCO3 (%) = SIC (%) × 100/12 or SIC (%) = CaCO3 (%) × 0.12
Pathways to increased C sequestration: Additions of organic matter (e.g., compost additions, etc.); land/agricultural management (e.g., no-till operations, land conservation, etc.); afforestation, etc. [6,7].Pathways to increased C sequestration: Additions of Ca2+ and Mg2+ cations outside the soil (e.g., atmospheric deposition, etc.) [14].
Land 10 00309 g001 550
Figure 1. General soil map of South Carolina (U.S.A.) (33.8361° N, 81.1637° W) (adapted from [15]).
Figure 1. General soil map of South Carolina (U.S.A.) (33.8361° N, 81.1637° W) (adapted from [15]).
Land 10 00309 g001
The ES framework is increasingly being used to address environmental concerns (e.g., global warming, climate change, etc.), but because of “the difficulty in relating soil properties to ES, soil ES are still not fully considered in the territorial planning decision process” [16]. According to Fossey et al., 2020 [16], soil databases play an essential role in assessing ES/ED in territorial planning. For sustainable soil C management decisions at the state level and its counties, it is critical to determine soil C and the distribution of its social costs within the state overall and by individual counties linked to biophysical units (e.g., soil orders). This type of analysis will allow prioritization of soil C management within the state based on this distribution. The hypothesis of this study is that pedodiversity concepts overlayed with administrative units (Figure 1 and Figure 2) can be used to identify spatial patterns of soil carbon hotspots for sustainable management.
The specific objective of this study was to assess the value of SOC, SIC, and TSC in the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.) based on the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2) and avoided emissions provided by carbon sequestration, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined to be $46 per metric ton of CO2, which is applicable for the year 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars and an average discount rate of 3% [17]. This study provides the monetary values of SOC, SIC, and TSC for soil depth (0–200 cm) across the state and by considering different spatial aggregation levels (i.e., region, county) using State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database, and information previously reported by Guo et al. (2006) [18].

2. Materials and Methods

The Accounting Framework

This study used both biophysical (science-based, Figure 1) and administrative (boundary-based, Figure 3) accounts to calculate monetary values for SOC, SIC, and TSC (Table 2 and Table 3).
Table
Table 2. A conceptual overview of the accounting framework used in this study (adapted from Groshans et al., 2018 [19]).
Table 2. A conceptual overview of the accounting framework used in this study (adapted from Groshans et al., 2018 [19]).
Biophysical Accounts
(Science-Based)		Administrative Accounts
(Boundary-Based)		Monetary Account(s)Benefit(s)Total Value
Soil extent:Administrative extent:Ecosystem good(s) and service(s):Sector:Types of value:
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-CO2) and avoided emissions:
- Soil order- State
- Region
- County		- Regulating (e.g., carbon sequestration)- Carbon sequestration- $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [16])
Land 10 00309 g002 550
Figure 2. Administrative map of South Carolina (U.S.A.) (33.8361° N, 81.1637° W) with 46 counties and four regions [20].
Figure 2. Administrative map of South Carolina (U.S.A.) (33.8361° N, 81.1637° W) with 46 counties and four regions [20].
Land 10 00309 g002
The present study is based on the SOC [21], SIC [21], TSC estimated values for the SOC, SIC, and TSC storage (in Mg or metric tons) and content (in kg m−2) in the contiguous U.S. from Guo et al. (2006) [18]. A monetary valuation for TSC was calculated using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2, which is applicable for 2025 based on 2007 U.S. dollars and an average discount rate of 3% [17]. According to the EPA, the SC-CO2 is intended to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages. Still, it can underestimate the true damages and cost of CO2 emissions due to the exclusion of various important climate change impacts recognized in the literature [17]. Soil carbon (SC) storage and content numbers were then converted to U.S. dollars and dollars per square meter in Microsoft Excel using the following equations, with a social cost of carbon of $46/Mg CO2:
$   =   SC   Storage ,   Mg   ×   44   Mg   CO 2   12   Mg   TSC   ×   $ 46 Mg   CO 2
$   m 2   =   SC   Content , kg m 2   ×   1   Mg 10 3   kg   ×   44   Mg   CO 2 12   Mg   TSC ×   $ 46 Mg   CO 2
Table 4 presents area-normalized content (kg m−2) and monetary values ($ m−2) of soil carbon, which were used to estimate total soil carbon storage and total soil carbon value by multiplying corresponding content (values) numbers by an area of a particular soil order within a county (region) (Table 3). For example, for the soil order of Entisols, Guo et al. (2006) [18] reported an area-normalized midpoint SOC content number of 8.0 kg∙m−2 in the upper 2 m (Table 4), which was used to calculate the total SOC storage in soil order by multiplying its area in particular county or region. Then, the reported area-normalized midpoint SOC content number of 8.0 kg∙m−2 in the upper 2 m (Table 4) was converted to monetary values ($ m−2) of soil organic carbon using a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]), which is $1.35 m−2 to calculate the total monetary value of SOC storage.

3. Results

The total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in the state of South Carolina was $124.36B (i.e., $124.36 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 109), $107.14B for SOC, and $17.22B for SIC. The state of South Carolina ranked 31st for TSC, 25th for SOC, and 32nd for SIC. Figure 3 shows the distribution of soil carbon by South Carolina regions.

3.1. Storage and Value of SOC by County, Region, and Soil Order for the State of South Carolina (U.S.A.)

Soil orders with the highest midpoint storage and value for SOC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Histosols ($11.22B), and Inceptisols ($10.31B) (Table 5 and Table 6). The regions with the highest midpoint storage and SOC values were: Pee Dee ($34.24B), Low Country ($32.17B), and Midlands ($29.24B) (Table 5 and Table 6). The counties with the highest midpoint SOC storage and values were Colleton ($5.44B), Horry ($5.37B), and Berkeley ($4.12B) (Table 5 and Table 6).

3.2. Storage and Value of SIC by County, Region, and Soil Order for the State of South Carolina (U.S.A.)

Soil orders with the highest midpoint storage and value for SIC were: Inceptisols ($5.91B), Entisols ($5.53B), and Alfisols ($5.0B) (Table 7 and Table 8). The regions with the highest midpoint SIC storage and values were: Low Country ($5.69B), Midlands ($5.55B), and Pee Dee ($4.67B) (Table 7 and Table 8). The counties with the highest midpoint SIC storage and values were Charleston ($1.46B), Georgetown ($852.81M), and Horry ($843.18M) (Table 7 and Table 8).

3.3. Storage and Value of TSC (SOC + SIC) by County, Region, and Soil Order for the State of South Carolina (U.S.A.)

Soil orders with the highest midpoint storage and value for TSC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Inceptisols ($16.22B), and Entisols ($14.65B) (Table 9 and Table 10). The regions with the highest midpoint TSC storage and values were: Low Country ($37.86B), Pee Dee ($36.91B), and Midlands ($34.79B) (Table 9 and Table 10). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC storage and values were Horry ($6.22B), Colleton ($6.02B), and Georgetown ($4.87B) (Table 9 and Table 10).

4. Discussion

Pedodiversity (soil diversity) in South Carolina is a source of various ES goods, services, and disservices (ED). This study demonstrates the value of regulating ES/ED in the state and its regions and counties. According to Mikhailova et al. (2021) [22], taxonomic pedodiversity (e.g., soil order) “provides a general description of the stock, its type, and spatial distribution,” which is often rereferred to as a “portfolio” to describe the link between pedodiversity and its stocks. South Carolina soil “portfolio” is composed of seven soil orders: Entisols (9% of the total state area), Inceptisols (9%), Histosols (1%), Alfisols (9%), Mollisols (0%), Spodosols (2%), and Ultisols (70%) (Figure 4, Table 11). Highly weathered Ultisols have the highest proportion of the total area of the state (Figure 4a), which contributes to the highest SOC and TSC storage and their associated social costs of carbon. The contribution of SIC to associated social costs of carbon is small at the state level and primarily associated with Inceptisols, Entisols, and Alfisols.
Soil “portfolio” differs within each county, and Figure 5 illustrates this concept using three counties from different regions: Anderson (Upstate), Newberry (Midlands), and Colleton (Low Country).
In all three cases, Ultisols occupy the largest proportion of the area in each county. The type of soil order influences the value of SOC storage. In Colleton County, the soil order of Histosols contributes to the social costs of C as much as the Ultisols even though its area is much smaller (Figure 5) because of high SOC content of 142.5 kg m−2. Figure 4 and Figure 5 represent social costs of soil C from different point of views: “avoided” versus “realized” social costs. Soil carbon stored in the soil represents the “avoided social cost” of soil C if not converted to CO2 and released into the atmosphere. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, it becomes the “realized social cost” because of the damages from global warming. In South Carolina, Histosols and Alfisols are particularly sensitive to climate change because of relatively high soil C content, which is most likely to experience higher decomposition rates due to increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the state of South Carolina have low recarbonization potential.
Table
Table 11. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.) by soil order (photos courtesy of USDA/NRCS [23]) in the upper 2-m depth based on avoided or realized the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [17].
Table 11. Distribution of soil carbon regulating ecosystem services in the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.) by soil order (photos courtesy of USDA/NRCS [23]) in the upper 2-m depth based on avoided or realized the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [17].
Soil Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina
Slight <------------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development ----------------------> Strong
Slightly Weathered
18%		Moderately Weathered
9%		Strongly Weathered
72%
Entisols
9%		Inceptisols
9%		Histosols
1%		Alfisols
9%		Mollisols
0%		Spodosols
2%		Ultisols
70%
Land 10 00309 i001 Land 10 00309 i002 Land 10 00309 i003 Land 10 00309 i004 Land 10 00309 i005 Land 10 00309 i006 Land 10 00309 i007
The social cost of soil organic carbon (SOC) in USD: $107.14B
$9.11B$10.30B$11.20B$8.82B$524.00M$2.82B$64.30B
9%10%10%8%0%3%60%
The social cost of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) in USD: $17.22B
$5.53B$5.91B$195.00M$5.00B$444.00M$136.00M$0
32%34%1%29%3%1%0%
The social cost of total soil carbon (TSC) in USD: $124.36B
$14.60B$16.20B$11.40B$13.80B$968.00M$2.95B$64.30B
12%13%9%11%1%2%52%
Sensitivity to climate change
LowLowHighHighHighLowLow
Soil organic and inorganic carbon sequestration (recarbonization) potential
LowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Alfisols, Mollisols, Spodosols, Ultisols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. M = million = 106; B = billion = 109.
Amelung et al. (2020) [24] proposed linking soil C sequestration to food security using soil- and site-specific potentials and opportunities for soil C sequestration. In this respect, the state of South Carolina faces serious limitations in both soil- (dominated by highly-weathered soil order, Ultisols) and site-specific (high demand for soil C due to rapid urbanization and population growth; rapid changes in coastal areas, etc.) potentials. Soil order Histosols (which often contains organic soils) is located in the coastal areas of the state and can be drained for agriculture and urbanization, leading to high losses of soil C into the atmosphere [24]. Recarbonization of soils in the state of South Carolina may not be economically feasible due to past excessive levels of soil degradation [25], high fertilization and liming costs (including transportation) associated with increasing soil C in mostly highly-weathered and acid soils in the state. It should be noted that the reported soil survey-based C values may be an overestimate of actual soil C measured in the field, but the overall trends for the soil orders should be similar [10]. Soil C should be regularly monitored to quantify soil contributions to ES and its flows [26,27].

5. Conclusions

This study examined the application of soil diversity (pedodiversity) concepts (taxonomic) and its measures to value soil C regulating ES/ED in the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), its administrative units (regions, counties), and the systems of soil classification (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database) to be considered in territorial planning. Pedodiversity provides a critical context (e.g., “portfolio-effect,” “distribution-effect,” “evenness-effect,” etc.) for analyzing, interpreting, and reporting ES/ED within the ES framework for sustainable management of soil carbon within the state. Taxonomic pedodiversity in South Carolina exhibits high soil diversity (7 soil orders: Entisols, Inceptisols, Histosols, Alfisols, Mollisols, Spodosols, and Ultisols), which is not evenly distributed within the state, regions, and counties. In general, pedodiversity tends to increase from the Upstate to Low Country, where three counties (Beaufort, Colleton, and Jasper) have all seven orders. Similarly, soil carbon storage and its associated social costs tend to increase in a similar geographic direction. Ultisols occupy the highest proportion of the state area (70%) and have the highest SOC storage and related social costs of carbon ($64.30B). The contribution of SIC to associated social costs of carbon is small ($17.22B) at the state level and primarily associated with Inceptisols ($5.91B), Entisols ($5.53B), and Alfisols ($5.00B). In the state of South Carolina, Histosols and Alfisols are particularly sensitive to climate change because of relatively high soil C content, which is most likely experience higher rates of decomposition due to increases in temperature and precipitation. All soils in the state of South Carolina have low recarbonization potential. Administrative areas (e.g., counties, regions) combined with pedodiversity concepts can provide useful information to design cost-efficient policies to manage soil carbon regulating ES at the state level.

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.

Data Availability 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

EDEcosystem disservices
ESEcosystem services
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
SC-CO2Social cost of carbon emissions
SDGsSustainable Development Goals
SOCSoil organic carbon
SICSoil inorganic carbon
SOMSoil organic matter
SSURGOSoil Survey Geographic Database
TSCTotal soil carbon
USDAUnited States Department of Agriculture
U.S.A.United States of America

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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Adhikari, K.; Hartemink, A.E. Linking soils to ecosystem services—A global review. Geoderma 2016, 262, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Plaster, E.J. Soil Science and Management, 4th ed.; Delmar Learning, a Division of Thomson Learning, Inc.: Clifton Park, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 0766839362. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C.; Zurqani, H.A. The business side of ecosystem services of soil systems. Earth 2020, 1, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Feller, C.; Manlay, R.J.; Swift, M.J.; Bernoux, M. Functions, services and value of soil organic matter for human societies and the environment: A historical perspective. In Functions of Soils for Human Societies and the Environment, 2nd ed.; Frossard, E., Blum, W.E.H., Warkentin, B.P., Eds.; Geological Society of London: London, UK, 2006; Volume 206, pp. 9–22. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sheikh, M.A.; Kumar, M.; Todaria, N.P.; Pandey, R. Biomass and soil carbon along altitudinal gradients in temperate Cedrus deodara forests in Central Himalaya, India: Implications for climate change mitigation. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 111, 106025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. 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 CO2 emissions. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2020, 6, 1–1817289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Lehmann, J.; Kleber, M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 2015, 528, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Heaton, L.; Fullen, M.A.; Bhattacharyya, R. Critical analysis of the van Bemmelen conversion factor used to convert soil organic matter data to soil organic carbon data: Comparative analyses in a UK loamy sand soil. Espaço Aberto 2016, 6, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mikhailova, E.A.; Goddard, M.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Galbraith, J.M. Potential contribution of combined atmospheric Ca2+ and Mg2+ wet deposition within the continental U.S. to soil inorganic carbon sequestration. Pedosphere 2013, 23, 808–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. 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).
  16. 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. Article 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. EPA. The Social Cost of Carbon. EPA Fact Sheet. 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html (accessed on 15 March 2019).
  18. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A. Accounting for soil inorganic carbon in the ecosystem services framework for the United Nations sustainable development goals. Geoderma 2018, 324, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. 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 October 2020).
  21. Burt, R. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42 Version 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1026806.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2020).
  22. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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).
  24. Amelung, W.; Bossio, D.; de Vries, W.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Lehmann, J.; Amundson, R.; Bol, R.; Collins, C.; Lal, R.; Leifeld, J.; et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Galang, M.A.; Markewitz, D.; Morris, L.A.; Bussell, P. Land use change and gully erosion in the Piedmont region of South Carolina. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2007, 62, 122–129. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kroeger, T.; Casey, F. An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Greainer, L.; Keller, A.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Papritz, A. Soil function assessment: Review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 10 00309 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution of soil carbon by region in the state of South Carolina: (a) Upstate, (b) Midlands, (c) Pee Dee, and (d) Low Country.
Figure 3. Distribution of soil carbon by region in the state of South Carolina: (a) Upstate, (b) Midlands, (c) Pee Dee, and (d) Low Country.
Land 10 00309 g003
Land 10 00309 g004 550
Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state: (a) pedodiversity by soil order area; (b) value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage, (c) value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage, (d) value of total soil carbon (TSC) storage in the upper 2-m depth based on avoided or realized the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [17] by soil order. Note: B = billion = 109.
Figure 4. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary within the state: (a) pedodiversity by soil order area; (b) value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage, (c) value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage, (d) value of total soil carbon (TSC) storage in the upper 2-m depth based on avoided or realized the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [17] by soil order. Note: B = billion = 109.
Land 10 00309 g004
Land 10 00309 g005 550
Figure 5. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary by county: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by soil order area; (b,d,f) value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage in the upper 2-m depth based on avoided or realized the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [17] by soil order. Note: B = billion = 109.
Figure 5. Diagram showing how the “portfolio-effect” and “distribution-effect” of pedodiversity can vary by county: (a,c,e) pedodiversity by soil order area; (b,d,f) value of soil organic carbon (SOC) storage in the upper 2-m depth based on avoided or realized the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) of $46 (USD) per metric ton of CO2 [17] by soil order. Note: B = billion = 109.
Land 10 00309 g005
Table
Table 3. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) by soil order (taxonomic pedodiversity), region, and county in South Carolina (U.S.A.) based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (2020) [15].
Table 3. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) by soil order (taxonomic pedodiversity), region, and county in South Carolina (U.S.A.) based on Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (2020) [15].
County (Region)Total Area
(km2)
(Rank)		Slight <------------------ Degree of Weathering and Soil Development -------------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Area (km2)
Anderson1841 (14)102000001739
Cherokee1012 (44)11894010000700
Greenville1916 (11)10816600001642
Oconee1620 (23)375600001527
Pickens1257 (35)395500001163
Spartanburg1881 (12)8161077001635
Union1322 (32)7461036400823
(Upstate)10,849 (4)4865930541009229
Abbeville1269 (34)5238040100778
Aiken2758 (4)445213115002084
Chester1493 (25)6082057060775
Edgefield1289 (33)10156061001071
Fairfield1683 (20)1175058500922
Greenwood1171 (38)0116033500720
Kershaw1871 (13)3831612047001260
Lancaster1409 (30)53151062001143
Laurens1837 (15)125190351001342
Lexington1756 (17)454860360101170
Newberry1621 (22)70640278001209
Richland1827 (16)163360819001277
Saluda1170 (39)198307700991
York1753 (18)51340577001037
(Midlands)22,899 (1)1931173831340461015,779
Chesterfield2053 (9)173655023001202
Clarendon1566 (24)3919260001329
Darlington1442 (28)3625890011138
Dillon1040 (42)9112880019794
Florence2046 (10)9722400021723
Georgetown2064 (8)351274574090115858
Horry2888 (1)2524316428703301524
Lee1058 (40)291310100897
Marion1241 (36)107286270049772
Marlboro1230 (37)75269811702786
Sumter1694 (19)935004021329
Williamsburg2400 (6)2520900032163
(Pee Dee)20,722 (3)12843407252741052314,515
Allendale1055 (41)251016000923
Bamberg1018 (44)126104103847
Barnwell1416 (29)7813800001200
Beaufort1402 (31)6983464023210391
Berkeley2809 (3)1452082340901371887
Calhoun748 (46)66260000656
Charleston2317 (7)76533207270273220
Colleton2677 (5)2804988140851091,926
Dorchester1455 (26)274171280030853
Hampton1443 (27)1368731010401076
Jasper1669 (21)318585724611624850
McCormick921 (45)6465024700545
Orangeburg2844 (2)7318025012,727
(Low Country)21,774 (2)30481134184225622482714,101
Totals76,252674968724756942230136053,624
Table
Table 4. Area-normalized content (kg m−2) and monetary values ($ m−2) of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order based on numbers in the upper 2 m of the soil based on data from Guo et al., 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
Table 4. Area-normalized content (kg m−2) and monetary values ($ m−2) of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), total soil carbon (TSC) by soil order based on numbers in the upper 2 m of the soil based on data from Guo et al., 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
Soil OrderSOC ContentSIC ContentTSC ContentSOC ValueSIC ValueTSC Value
Minimum–Midpoint–Maximum ValuesMidpoint Values
(kg m−2)(kg m−2)(kg m−2)($ m−2)($ m−2)($ m−2)
Slightly Weathered
Entisols1.8–8.0–15.81.9–4.8–8.43.7–12.8–24.21.350.822.17
Inceptisols2.8–8.9–17.42.5–5.1–8.45.3–14.0–25.81.500.862.36
Histosols63.9–140.1–243.90.6–2.4–5.064.5–142.5–248.923.620.4124.03
Moderately Weathered
Alfisols2.3–7.5–14.11.3–4.3–8.13.6–11.8–22.21.270.721.99
Mollisols5.9–13.5–22.84.9–11.5–19.710.8–25.0–42.52.281.934.21
Strongly Weathered
Spodosols2.9–12.3–25.50.2–0.6–1.13.1–12.9–26.62.070.102.17
Ultisols1.9–7.1–13.90.0–0.0–0.01.9–7.1–13.91.200.001.20
Note: TSC = SOC + SIC.
Table
Table 5. Mid-point total soil organic carbon (SOC) storage values by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil organic carbon (SOC) content numbers in the upper 2 m of the soil based on data from Guo et al., 2006 [18].
Table 5. Mid-point total soil organic carbon (SOC) storage values by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil organic carbon (SOC) content numbers in the upper 2 m of the soil based on data from Guo et al., 2006 [18].
County
(Region)		Total Storage
(kg)
(Rank)		Slight <------------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development -------------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Total Storage (kg)
Anderson1.32 × 1010 (19)8.16 × 108000001.23 × 1010
Cherokee7.50 × 109 (43)9.44 × 1088.37 × 10807.50 × 108004.97 × 109
Greenville1.40 × 1010 (15)8.64 × 1081.48 × 10900001.17 × 1010
Oconee1.16 × 1010 (28)2.96 × 1084.98 × 10800001.08 × 1010
Pickens9.06 × 109 (37)3.12 × 1084.90 × 10800008.26 × 109
Spartanburg1.37 × 1010 (16)6.40 × 1071.43 × 10905.78 × 108001.16 × 1010
Union9.71 × 109 (34)5.92 × 1085.43 × 10802.73 × 109005.84 × 109
(Upstate)7.87× 1010 (4)3.89× 1095.28× 10904.06× 109006.55× 1010
Abbeville9.29 × 109 (36)4.16 × 1083.38 × 10803.01 × 109005.52 × 109
Aiken2.18 × 1010 (5)3.56 × 1091.90 × 1091.54 × 1093.75 × 107001.48 × 1010
Chester1.11 × 1010 (30)4.80 × 1087.30 × 10804.28 × 1098.10 × 10705.50 × 109
Edgefield9.37 × 109 (35)8.08 × 1084.98 × 10804.58 × 108007.60 × 109
Fairfield1.25 × 1010 (24)8.00 × 1061.56 × 10904.39 × 109006.55 × 109
Greenwood8.66 × 109 (39)01.03 × 10902.51 × 109005.11 × 109
Kershaw1.66 × 1010 (11)3.06 × 1091.43 × 1092.80 × 1093.53 × 108008.95 × 109
Lancaster1.03 × 1010 (33)4.24 × 1081.34 × 10904.65 × 108008.12 × 109
Laurens1.33 × 1010 (17)1.00 × 1091.69 × 10802.63 × 109009.53 × 109
Lexington1.31 × 1010 (20)3.63 × 1097.65 × 10802.70 × 10801.23 × 1088.31 × 109
Newberry1.18 × 1010 (27)5.60 × 1085.70 × 10802.09 × 109008.58 × 109
Richland1.48 × 1010 (14)1.30 × 1093.20 × 1091.12 × 1091.43 × 108009.07 × 109
Saluda8.50 × 109 (40)1.52 × 1087.39 × 10805.78 × 108007.04 × 109
York1.29 × 1010 (21)4.00 × 1071.19 × 10904.33 × 109007.36 × 109
(Midlands)1.73× 1011 (3)1.54× 10101.55× 10104.34× 1092.55× 10108.10× 1071.23× 1081.12× 1011
Chesterfield1.59 × 1010 (12)1.38 × 1095.83 × 10901.73 × 108008.53 × 109
Clarendon1.23 × 1010 (25)3.12 × 1081.71 × 1098.41 × 1080009.44 × 109
Darlington1.19 × 1010 (26)2.88 × 1082.30 × 1091.26 × 109001.23 × 1078.08 × 109
Dillon8.86 × 109 (38)7.28 × 1081.14 × 1091.12 × 109002.34 × 1085.64 × 109
Florence1.50 × 1010 (13)7.76 × 1081.99 × 1090002.46 × 1071.22 × 1010
Georgetown2.38 × 1010 (4)2.81 × 1092.44 × 1097.99 × 1093.07 × 10901.41 × 1096.09 × 109
Horry3.19 × 1010 (2)2.02 × 1093.84 × 1098.97 × 1092.15 × 10904.06 × 1091.08 × 1010
Lee7.77 × 109 (42)2.32 × 1081.17 × 10907.50 × 106006.37 × 109
Marion1.33 × 1010 (18)8.56 × 1082.55 × 1093.78 × 109006.03 × 1085.48 × 109
Marlboro2.01 × 1010 (8)6.00 × 1082.39 × 1091.13 × 10101.28 × 10802.46 × 1075.58 × 109
Sumter1.27 × 1010 (23)7.20 × 1073.12 × 10903.00 × 10702.46 × 1079.44 × 109
Williamsburg1.75 × 1010 (10)2.00 × 1081.86 × 1090003.69 × 1071.54 × 1010
(Pee Dee)1.91× 1011 (1)1.03× 10103.03× 10103.53× 10105.56× 10906.43× 1091.03× 1011
Allendale8.49 × 109 (41)2.00 × 1088.99 × 1088.41 × 1080006.55 × 109
Bamberg7.38 × 109 (44)1.01 × 1098.90 × 10603.08 × 10803.69 × 1076.01 × 109
Barnwell1.04 × 1010 (32)6.24 × 1081.23 × 10900008.52 × 109
Beaufort1.27 × 1010 (22)5.58 × 1093.03 × 1088.41 × 1083.00 × 1083.11 × 1082.58 × 1092.78 × 109
Berkeley2.44 × 1010 (3)1.16 × 1091.85 × 1093.22 × 1093.07 × 10901.69 × 1091.34 × 1010
Calhoun5.42 × 109 (46)5.28 × 1082.31 × 10800004.66 × 109
Charleston1.94 × 1010 (9)6.12 × 1092.95 × 10905.45 × 10903.36 × 1091.56 × 109
Colleton3.22 × 1010 (1)2.24 × 1094.36 × 1081.23 × 10101.05 × 1091.15 × 1091.34 × 1091.37 × 1010
Dorchester1.10 × 1010 (31)2.19 × 1091.51 × 1081.40 × 1082.10 × 10903.69 × 1086.06 × 109
Hampton1.12 × 1010 (29)1.09 × 1097.74 × 1084.20 × 1087.58 × 10804.92 × 1087.64 × 109
Jasper2.08 × 1010 (6)2.54 × 1095.16 × 1087.99 × 1091.85 × 1091.57 × 1092.95 × 1086.04 × 109
McCormick6.81 × 109 (45)5.12 × 1085.79 × 10801.85 × 109003.87 × 109
Orangeburg2.03 × 1010 (7)5.84 × 1081.60 × 10801.88 × 10801.23 × 1071.94 × 1010
(Low Country)1.90× 1011 (2)2.44× 10101.01× 10102.58× 10101.69× 10103.02× 1091.02× 10101.00× 1011
Totals (kg)6.34× 10115.40× 10106.12× 10106.65× 10105.21× 10103.11× 1091.67× 10103.81× 1011
Table
Table 6. The total dollar value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil organic carbon (SOC) numbers for the upper 2 m from Guo et al. 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
Table 6. The total dollar value of soil organic carbon (SOC) by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil organic carbon (SOC) numbers for the upper 2 m from Guo et al. 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
County (Region)Total Value
($)
(Rank)		Slight <-------------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development -----------------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Value ($)
Anderson2.22 × 109 (19)1.38 × 108000002.09 × 109
Cherokee1.27 × 109 (43)1.59 × 1081.41 × 10801.27 × 108008.40 × 108
Greenville2.37 × 109 (15)1.46 × 1082.49 × 10800001.97 × 109
Oconee1.97 × 109 (28)5.00 × 1078.40 × 10700001.83 × 109
Pickens1.53 × 109 (37)5.27 × 1078.25 × 10700001.40 × 109
Spartanburg2.31 × 109 (16)1.08 × 1072.42 × 10809.78 × 107001.96 × 109
Union1.64 × 109 (34)9.99 × 1079.15 × 10704.62 × 108009.88 × 108
(Upstate)1.33 × 1010(4)6.56× 1088.90 × 10806.87× 108001.11 × 1010
Abbeville1.57 × 109 (36)7.02 × 1075.70 × 10705.09 × 108009.34 × 108
Aiken3.69 × 109 (5)6.01 × 1083.20 × 1082.60 × 1086.35 × 106002.50 × 109
Chester1.87 × 109 (30)8.10 × 1071.23 × 10807.24 × 1081.37 × 10709.30 × 108
Edgefield1.58 × 109 (35)1.36 × 1088.40 × 10707.75 × 107001.29 × 109
Fairfield2.11 × 109 (24)1.35 × 1062.63 × 10807.43 × 108001.11 × 109
Greenwood1.46 × 109 (39)01.74 × 10804.25 × 108008.64 × 108
Kershaw2.80 × 109 (11)5.17 × 1082.42 × 1084.72 × 1085.97 × 107001.51 × 109
Lancaster1.75 × 109 (33)7.16 × 1072.27 × 10807.87 × 107001.37 × 109
Laurens2.25 × 109 (17)1.69 × 1082.85 × 10704.46 × 108001.61 × 109
Lexington2.21 × 109 (20)6.13 × 1081.29 × 10804.57 × 10702.07 × 1071.40 × 109
Newberry1.99 × 109 (27)9.45 × 1079.60 × 10703.53 × 108001.45 × 109
Richland2.51 × 109 (14)2.20 × 1085.40 × 1081.89 × 1082.41 × 107001.53 × 109
Saluda1.44 × 109 (40)2.57 × 1071.25 × 10809.78 × 107001.19 × 109
York2.18 × 109 (21)6.75 × 1062.01 × 10807.33 × 108001.24 × 109
(Midlands)2.92 × 1010(3)2.61× 1092.61 × 1097.32 × 1084.32× 1091.37× 1072.07× 1071.89 × 1010
Chesterfield2.69 × 109 (12)2.34 × 1089.83 × 10802.92 × 107001.44 × 109
Clarendon2.08 × 109 (25)5.27 × 1072.88 × 1081.42 × 1080001.59 × 109
Darlington2.02 × 109 (26)4.86 × 1073.87 × 1082.13 × 108002.07 × 1061.37 × 109
Dillon1.50 × 109 (38)1.23 × 1081.92 × 1081.89 × 108003.93 × 1079.53 × 108
Florence2.54 × 109 (13)1.31 × 1083.36 × 1080004.14 × 1062.07 × 109
Georgetown4.02 × 109 (4)4.74 × 1084.11 × 1081.35 × 1095.19 × 10802.38 × 1081.03 × 109
Horry5.37 × 109 (2)3.40 × 1086.47 × 1081.51 × 1093.64 × 10806.83 × 1081.83 × 109
Lee1.31 × 109 (42)3.92 × 1071.97 × 10801.27 × 106001.08 × 109
Marion2.24 × 109 (18)1.44 × 1084.29 × 1086.38 × 108001.01 × 1089.26 × 108
Marlboro3.39 × 109 (8)1.01 × 1084.04 × 1081.91 × 1092.16 × 10704.14 × 1069.43 × 108
Sumter2.14 × 109 (23)1.22 × 1075.25 × 10805.08 × 10604.14 × 1061.59 × 109
Williamsburg2.95 × 109 (10)3.38 × 1073.14 × 1080006.21 × 1062.60 × 109
(Pee Dee)3.22 × 1010(1)1.73× 1095.11 × 1095.95 × 1099.41× 10801.08× 1091.74 × 1010
Allendale1.43 × 109 (41)3.38 × 1071.52 × 1081.42 × 1080001.11 × 109
Bamberg1.25 × 109 (44)1.70 × 1081.50 × 10605.21 × 10706.21 × 1061.02 × 109
Barnwell1.75 × 109 (32)1.05 × 1082.07 × 10800001.44 × 109
Beaufort2.14 × 109 (22)9.42 × 1085.10 × 1071.42 × 1085.08 × 1075.24 × 1074.35 × 1084.69 × 108
Berkeley4.12 × 109 (3)1.96 × 1083.12 × 1085.43 × 1085.19 × 10802.84 × 1082.26 × 109
Calhoun9.15 × 108 (46)8.91 × 1073.90 × 10700007.87 × 108
Charleston3.28 × 109 (9)1.03 × 1094.98 × 10809.23 × 10805.65 × 1082.64 × 108
Colleton5.44 × 109 (1)3.78 × 1087.35 × 1072.08 × 1091.78 × 1081.94 × 1082.26 × 1082.31 × 109
Dorchester1.86 × 109 (31)3.70 × 1082.55 × 1072.36 × 1073.56 × 10806.21 × 1071.02 × 109
Hampton1.89 × 109 (29)1.84 × 1081.31 × 1087.09 × 1071.28 × 10808.28 × 1071.29 × 109
Jasper3.51 × 109 (6)4.29 × 1088.70 × 1071.35 × 1093.12 × 1082.64 × 1084.97 × 1071.02 × 109
McCormick1.15 × 109 (45)8.64 × 1079.75 × 10703.14 × 108006.54 × 108
Orangeburg3.43 × 109 (7)9.86 × 1072.70 × 10703.18 × 10702.07 × 1063.27 × 109
(Low Country)3.22 × 1010(2)4.11× 1091.70 × 1094.35 × 1092.87× 1095.11× 1081.71× 1091.69 × 1010
Totals ($)1.07 × 10119.11× 1091.03 × 10101.12 × 10108.82× 1095.24× 1082.82× 1096.43 × 1010
Table
Table 7. Mid-point total soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil inorganic carbon (SIC) contents in the upper 2 m based on data from Guo et al., 2006 [18].
Table 7. Mid-point total soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil inorganic carbon (SIC) contents in the upper 2 m based on data from Guo et al., 2006 [18].
County
(Region)		Total Storage
(kg)
(Rank)		Slight <------------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development --------------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Total Storage (kg)
Anderson4.90 × 108 (43)4.90 × 108000000
Cherokee1.48 × 109 (29)5.66 × 1084.79 × 10804.30 × 108000
Greenville1.37 × 109 (30)5.18 × 1088.47 × 10800000
Oconee4.63 × 108 (45)1.78 × 1082.86 × 10800000
Pickens4.68 × 108 (44)1.87 × 1082.81 × 10800000
Spartanburg1.19 × 109 (32)3.84 × 1078.21 × 10803.31 × 108000
Union2.23 × 109 (17)3.55 × 1083.11 × 10801.57 × 109000
(Upstate)7.68× 109 (4)2.33× 1093.02× 10902.33× 109000
Abbeville2.17 × 109 (19)2.50 × 1081.94 × 10801.72 × 109000
Aiken3.27 × 109 (10)2.14 × 1091.09 × 1092.64 × 1072.15 × 107000
Chester3.23 × 109 (11)2.88 × 1084.18 × 10802.45 × 1096.90 × 10700
Edgefield1.03 × 109 (37)4.85 × 1082.86 × 10802.62 × 108000
Fairfield3.41 × 109 (9)4.80 × 1068.93 × 10802.52 × 109000
Greenwood2.03 × 109 (21)05.92 × 10801.44 × 109000
Kershaw2.91 × 109 (13)1.84 × 1098.21 × 1084.80 × 1072.02 × 108000
Lancaster1.29 × 109 (31)2.54 × 1087.70 × 10802.67 × 108000
Laurens2.21 × 109 (18)6.00 × 1089.69 × 10701.51 × 109000
Lexington2.78 × 109 (14)2.18 × 1094.39 × 10801.55 × 10806.00 × 1060
Newberry1.86 × 109 (23)3.36 × 1083.26 × 10801.20 × 109000
Richland2.72 × 109 (15)7.82 × 1081.84 × 1091.92 × 1078.17 × 107000
Saluda8.46 × 108 (38)9.12 × 1074.23 × 10803.31 × 108000
York3.19 × 109 (12)2.40 × 1076.83 × 10802.48 × 109000
(Midlands)3.29× 1010 (2)9.27× 1098.86× 1097.44× 1071.46× 10106.90× 1076.00× 1060
Chesterfield4.27 × 109 (5)8.30 × 1083.34 × 10909.89 × 107000
Clarendon1.18 × 109 (34)1.87 × 1089.79 × 1081.44 × 1070000
Darlington1.51 × 109 (28)1.73 × 1081.32 × 1092.16 × 107006.00 × 1050
Dillon1.12 × 109 (35)4.37 × 1086.53 × 1081.92 × 107001.14 × 1070
Florence1.61 × 109 (26)4.66 × 1081.14 × 1090001.20 × 1060
Georgetown5.05 × 109 (2)1.68 × 1091.40 × 1091.37 × 1081.76 × 10906.90 × 1070
Horry4.99 × 109 (3)1.21 × 1092.20 × 1091.54 × 1081.23 × 10901.98 × 1080
Lee8.12 × 108 (39)1.39 × 1086.68 × 10804.30 × 106000
Marion2.07 × 109 (20)5.14 × 1081.46 × 1096.48 × 107002.94 × 1070
Marlboro2.00 × 109 (22)3.60 × 1081.37 × 1091.94 × 1087.31 × 10701.20 × 1060
Sumter1.85 × 109 (24)4.32 × 1071.79 × 10901.72 × 10701.20 × 1060
Williamsburg1.19 × 109 (33)1.20 × 1081.07 × 1090001.80 × 1060
(Pee Dee)2.76× 1010 (3)6.16× 1091.74× 10106.05× 1083.19× 10903.14× 1080
Allendale6.50 × 108 (41)1.20 × 1085.15 × 1081.44 × 1070000
Bamberg7.88 × 108 (40)6.05 × 1085.10 × 10601.76 × 10801.80 × 1060
Barnwell1.08 × 109 (36)3.74 × 1087.04 × 10800000
Beaufort4.10 × 109 (6)3.35 × 1091.73 × 1081.44 × 1071.72 × 1082.65 × 1081.26 × 1080
Berkeley3.65 × 109 (7)6.96 × 1081.06 × 1095.52 × 1071.76 × 10908.22 × 1070
Calhoun4.49 × 108 (46)3.17 × 1081.33 × 10800000
Charleston8.66 × 109 (1)3.67 × 1091.69 × 10903.13 × 10901.64 × 1080
Colleton3.45 × 109 (8)1.34 × 1092.50 × 1082.11 × 1086.02 × 1089.78 × 1086.54 × 1070
Dorchester2.63 × 109 (16)1.32 × 1098.67 × 1072.40 × 1061.20 × 10901.80 × 1070
Hampton1.56 × 109 (27)6.53 × 1084.44 × 1087.20 × 1064.34 × 10802.40 × 1070
Jasper4.37 × 109 (4)1.53 × 1092.96 × 1081.37 × 1081.06 × 1091.33 × 1091.44 × 1070
McCormick1.70 × 109 (25)3.07 × 1083.32 × 10801.06 × 109000
Orangeburg5.50 × 108 (42)3.50 × 1089.18 × 10701.08 × 10806.00 × 1050
(Low Country)3.36× 1010 (1)1.46× 10105.78× 1094.42× 1089.70× 1092.58× 1094.96× 1080
Totals (kg)1.02× 10113.24× 10103.50× 10101.14× 1092.99× 10102.65× 1098.16× 1080
Table
Table 8. The total dollar value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil inorganic carbon (SIC) numbers for the upper 2 m from Guo et al. 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
Table 8. The total dollar value of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point soil inorganic carbon (SIC) numbers for the upper 2 m from Guo et al. 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
County (Region)Total Value
($)
(Rank)		Slight <----------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development -------------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Value ($)
Anderson8.36 × 107 (43)8.36 × 107000000
Cherokee2.50 × 108 (29)9.68 × 1078.08 × 10707.20 × 107000
Greenville2.31 × 108 (30)8.86 × 1071.43 × 10800000
Oconee7.85 × 107 (45)3.03 × 1074.82 × 10700000
Pickens7.93 × 107 (44)3.20 × 1074.73 × 10700000
Spartanburg2.00 × 108 (32)6.56 × 1061.38 × 10805.54 × 107000
Union3.75 × 108 (17)6.07 × 1075.25 × 10702.62 × 108000
(Upstate)1.30× 109(4)3.99× 1085.10× 10803.90× 108000
Abbeville3.64 × 108 (19)4.26 × 1073.27 × 10702.89 × 108000
Aiken5.56 × 108 (10)3.65 × 1081.83 × 1084.51 × 1063.60 × 106000
Chester5.42 × 108 (11)4.92 × 1077.05 × 10704.10 × 1081.16 × 10700
Edgefield1.75 × 108 (37)8.28 × 1074.82 × 10704.39 × 107000
Fairfield5.73 × 108 (9)8.20 × 1051.51 × 10804.21 × 108000
Greenwood3.41 × 108 (21)09.98 × 10702.41 × 108000
Kershaw4.95 × 108 (13)3.14 × 1081.38 × 1088.20 × 1063.38 × 107000
Lancaster2.18 × 108 (31)4.35 × 1071.30 × 10804.46 × 107000
Laurens3.72 × 108 (18)1.03 × 1081.63 × 10702.53 × 108000
Lexington4.73 × 108 (14)3.72 × 1087.40 × 10702.59 × 10701.00 × 1060
Newberry3.13 × 108 (23)5.74 × 1075.50 × 10702.00 × 108000
Richland4.60 × 108 (15)1.34 × 1083.10 × 1083.28 × 1061.37 × 107000
Saluda1.42 × 108 (38)1.56 × 1077.14 × 10705.54 × 107000
York5.35 × 108 (12)4.10 × 1061.15 × 10804.15 × 108000
(Midlands)5.55× 109(2)1.58× 1091.49× 1091.27× 1072.45× 1091.16 × 1071.00 × 1060
Chesterfield7.22 × 108 (5)1.42 × 1085.63 × 10801.66 × 107000
Clarendon2.00 × 108 (34)3.20 × 1071.65 × 1082.46 × 1060000
Darlington2.55 × 108 (28)2.95 × 1072.22 × 1083.69 × 106001.00 × 1050
Dillon1.90 × 108 (35)7.46 × 1071.10 × 1083.28 × 106001.90 × 1060
Florence2.72 × 108 (26)7.95 × 1071.93 × 1080002.00 × 1050
Georgetown8.53 × 108 (2)2.88 × 1082.36 × 1082.34 × 1072.94 × 10801.15 × 1070
Horry8.43 × 108 (3)2.07 × 1083.71 × 1082.62 × 1072.07 × 10803.30 × 1070
Lee1.37 × 108 (39)2.38 × 1071.13 × 10807.20 × 105000
Marion3.50 × 108 (20)8.77 × 1072.46 × 1081.11 × 107004.90 × 1060
Marlboro3.38 × 108 (22)6.15 × 1072.31 × 1083.32 × 1071.22 × 10702.00 × 1050
Sumter3.11 × 108 (24)7.38 × 1063.01 × 10802.88 × 10602.00 × 1050
Williamsburg2.01 × 108 (33)2.05 × 1071.80 × 1080003.00 × 1050
(Pee Dee)4.67 × 109(3)1.05× 1092.93× 1091.03× 1085.34× 10805.23 × 1070
Allendale1.10 × 108 (41)2.05 × 1078.69 × 1072.46 × 1060000
Bamberg1.34 × 108 (40)1.03 × 1088.60 × 10502.95 × 10703.00 × 1050
Barnwell1.83 × 108 (36)6.40 × 1071.19 × 10800000
Beaufort6.98 × 108 (6)5.72 × 1082.92 × 1072.46 × 1062.88 × 1074.44 × 1072.10 × 1070
Berkeley6.15 × 108 (7)1.19 × 1081.79 × 1089.43 × 1062.94 × 10801.37 × 1070
Calhoun7.65 × 107 (46)5.41 × 1072.24 × 10700000
Charleston1.46 × 109 (1)6.27 × 1082.86 × 10805.23 × 10802.73 × 1070
Colleton5.84 × 108 (8)2.30 × 1084.21 × 1073.61 × 1071.01 × 1081.64 × 1081.09 × 1070
Dorchester4.44 × 108 (16)2.25 × 1081.46 × 1074.10 × 1052.02 × 10803.00 × 1060
Hampton2.64 × 108 (27)1.12 × 1087.48 × 1071.23 × 1067.27 × 10704.00 × 1060
Jasper7.37 × 108 (4)2.61 × 1084.99 × 1072.34 × 1071.77 × 1082.24 × 1082.40 × 1060
McCormick2.86 × 108 (25)5.25 × 1075.59 × 10701.78 × 108000
Orangeburg9.34 × 107 (42)5.99 × 1071.55 × 10701.80 × 10701.00 × 1050
(Low Country)5.69 × 109(1)2.50× 1099.75× 1087.54× 1071.62× 1094.32× 1088.27 × 1070
Totals ($)1.72 × 10105.53× 1095.91× 1091.95× 1085.00× 1094.44× 1081.36× 1080
Table
Table 9. Mid-point total soil carbon (TSC) storage by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point (TSC) contents in the upper 2 m based on data from Guo et al. 2006 [18].
Table 9. Mid-point total soil carbon (TSC) storage by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point (TSC) contents in the upper 2 m based on data from Guo et al. 2006 [18].
County
(Region)		Total Storage
(kg)
(Rank)		Slight <------------------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development ----------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Total Storage (kg)
Anderson1.37 × 1010 (26)1.31 × 109000001.23 × 1010
Cherokee8.98 × 109 (42)1.51 × 1091.32 × 10901.18 × 109004.97 × 109
Greenville1.54 × 1010 (20)1.38 × 1092.32 × 10900001.17 × 1010
Oconee1.21 × 1010 (31)4.74 × 1087.84 × 10800001.08 × 1010
Pickens9.53 × 109 (39)4.99 × 1087.70 × 10800008.26 × 109
Spartanburg1.49 × 1010 (22)1.02 × 1082.25 × 10909.09 × 108001.16 × 1010
Union1.19 × 1010 (32)9.47 × 1088.54 × 10804.30 × 109005.84 × 109
(Upstate)8.64× 1010 (4)6.22× 1098.30× 10906.38× 109006.55× 1010
Abbeville1.15 × 1010 (34)6.66 × 1085.32 × 10804.73 × 109005.52 × 109
Aiken2.51 × 1010 (7)5.70 × 1092.98 × 1091.57 × 1095.90 × 107001.48 × 1010
Chester1.43 × 1010 (24)7.68 × 1081.15 × 10906.73 × 1091.50 × 10805.50 × 109
Edgefield1.04 × 1010 (37)1.29 × 1097.84 × 10807.20 × 108007.60 × 109
Fairfield1.59 × 1010 (17)1.28 × 1072.45 × 10906.90 × 109006.55 × 109
Greenwood1.07 × 1010 (36)01.62 × 10903.95 × 109005.11 × 109
Kershaw1.95 × 1010 (11)4.90 × 1092.25 × 1092.85 × 1095.55 × 108008.95 × 109
Lancaster1.16 × 1010 (33)6.78 × 1082.11 × 10907.32 × 108008.12 × 109
Laurens1.55 × 1010 (19)1.60 × 1092.66 × 10804.14 × 109009.53 × 109
Lexington1.59 × 1010 (18)5.81 × 1091.20 × 10904.25 × 10801.29 × 1088.31 × 109
Newberry1.37 × 1010 (25)8.96 × 1088.96 × 10803.28 × 109008.58 × 109
Richland1.76 × 1010 (13)2.09 × 1095.04 × 1091.14 × 1092.24 × 108009.07 × 109
Saluda9.35 × 109 (40)2.43 × 1081.16 × 10909.09 × 108007.04 × 109
York1.61 × 1010 (16)6.40 × 1071.88 × 10906.81 × 109007.36 × 109
(Midlands)2.06× 1011 (3)2.47× 10102.43× 10104.42× 1094.02× 10101.50× 1081.29× 1081.12× 1011
Chesterfield2.02 × 1010 (10)2.21 × 1099.17 × 10902.71 × 108008.53 × 109
Clarendon1.35 × 1010 (28)4.99 × 1082.69 × 1098.55 × 1080009.44 × 109
Darlington1.34 × 1010 (29)4.61 × 1083.61 × 1091.28 × 109001.29 × 1078.08 × 109
Dillon9.98 × 109 (38)1.16 × 1091.79 × 1091.14 × 109002.45 × 1085.64 × 109
Florence1.66 × 1010 (15)1.24 × 1093.14 × 1090002.58 × 1071.22 × 1010
Georgetown2.89 × 1010 (3)4.49 × 1093.84 × 1098.12 × 1094.83 × 10901.48 × 1096.09 × 109
Horry3.68 × 1010 (1)3.23 × 1096.03 × 1099.12 × 1093.39 × 10904.26 × 1091.08 × 1010
Lee8.59 × 109 (43)3.71 × 1081.83 × 10901.18 × 107006.37 × 109
Marion1.53 × 1010 (21)1.37 × 1094.00 × 1093.85 × 109006.32 × 1085.48 × 109
Marlboro2.21 × 1010 (8)9.60 × 1083.77 × 1091.15 × 10102.01 × 10802.58 × 1075.58 × 109
Sumter1.45 × 1010 (23)1.15 × 1084.90 × 10904.72 × 10702.58 × 1079.44 × 109
Williamsburg1.86 × 1010 (12)3.20 × 1082.93 × 1090003.87 × 1071.54 × 1010
(Pee Dee)2.19× 1011 (2)1.64× 10104.77× 10103.59× 10108.74× 10906.75× 1091.03× 1011
Allendale9.14 × 109 (41)3.20 × 1081.41 × 1098.55 × 1080006.55 × 109
Bamberg8.16 × 109 (45)1.61 × 1091.40 × 10704.84 × 10803.87 × 1076.01 × 109
Barnwell1.15 × 1010 (35)9.98 × 1081.93 × 10900008.52 × 109
Beaufort1.68 × 1010 (14)8.93 × 1094.76 × 1088.55 × 1084.72 × 1085.75 × 1082.71 × 1092.78 × 109
Berkeley2.80 × 1010 (5)1.86 × 1092.91 × 1093.28 × 1094.83 × 10901.77 × 1091.34 × 1010
Calhoun5.87 × 109 (46)8.45 × 1083.64 × 10800004.66 × 109
Charleston2.81 × 1010 (4)9.79 × 1094.65 × 10908.58 × 10903.52 × 1091.56 × 109
Colleton3.57 × 1010 (2)3.58 × 1096.86 × 1081.25 × 10101.65 × 1092.13 × 1091.41 × 1091.37 × 1010
Dorchester1.36 × 1010 (27)3.51 × 1092.38 × 1081.43 × 1083.30 × 10903.87 × 1086.06 × 109
Hampton1.27 × 1010 (30)1.74 × 1091.22 × 1094.28 × 1081.19 × 10905.16 × 1087.64 × 109
Jasper2.52 × 1010 (6)4.07 × 1098.12 × 1088.12 × 1092.90 × 1092.90 × 1093.10 × 1086.04 × 109
McCormick8.51 × 109 (44)8.19 × 1089.10 × 10802.91 × 109003.87 × 109
Orangeburg2.09 × 1010 (9)9.34 × 1082.52 × 10802.95 × 10801.29 × 1071.94 × 1010
(Low Country)2.24× 1011 (1)3.90× 10101.59× 10102.62× 10102.66× 10105.60× 1091.07× 10101.00× 1011
Totals (kg)7.36× 10118.64× 10109.62× 10106.77× 10108.19× 10105.75× 1091.75× 10103.81× 1011
Table
Table 10. Total soil carbon (TSC) values by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point total soil carbon (TSC) numbers for the upper 2 m from Guo et al. 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
Table 10. Total soil carbon (TSC) values by county, region, and soil order for the state of South Carolina (U.S.A.), based on mid-point total soil carbon (TSC) numbers for the upper 2 m from Guo et al. 2006 [18] and a social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) of $46 per metric ton of CO2 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [17]).
County (Region)Total Value
($)
(Rank)		Slight <------------------- Degree of Weathering and Soil Development -----------------------> Strong
Slightly WeatheredModerately WeatheredStrongly Weathered
EntisolsInceptisolsHistosolsAlfisolsMollisolsSpodosolsUltisols
Value ($)
Anderson2.31 × 109 (26)2.21 × 108000002.09 × 109
Cherokee1.52 × 109 (42)2.56 × 1082.22 × 10801.99 × 108008.40 × 108
Greenville2.60 × 109 (20)2.34 × 1083.92 × 10800001.97 × 109
Oconee2.04 × 109 (31)8.03 × 1071.32 × 10800001.83 × 109
Pickens1.61 × 109 (39)8.46 × 1071.30 × 10800001.40 × 109
Spartanburg2.51 × 109 (22)1.74 × 1073.80 × 10801.53 × 108001.96 × 109
Union2.02 × 109 (32)1.61 × 1081.44 × 10807.24 × 108009.88 × 108
(Upstate)1.46 × 1010(4)1.05 × 1091.40 × 10901.08 × 109001.11 × 1010
Abbeville1.93 × 109 (34)1.13 × 1088.97 × 10707.98 × 108009.34 × 108
Aiken4.24 × 109 (7)9.66 × 1085.03 × 1082.64 × 1089.95 × 106002.50 × 109
Chester2.41 × 109 (24)1.30 × 1081.94 × 10801.13 × 1092.53 × 10709.30 × 108
Edgefield1.76 × 109 (37)2.19 × 1081.32 × 10801.21 × 108001.29 × 109
Fairfield2.69 × 109 (17)2.17 × 1064.13 × 10801.16 × 109001.11 × 109
Greenwood1.80 × 109 (36)02.74 × 10806.67 × 108008.64 × 108
Kershaw3.30 × 109 (11)8.31 × 1083.80 × 1084.81 × 1089.35 × 107001.51 × 109
Lancaster1.97 × 109 (33)1.15 × 1083.56 × 10801.23 × 108001.37 × 109
Laurens2.62 × 109 (19)2.71 × 1084.48 × 10706.98 × 108001.61 × 109
Lexington2.69 × 109 (18)9.85 × 1082.03 × 10807.16 × 10702.17 × 1071.40 × 109
Newberry2.31 × 109 (25)1.52 × 1081.51 × 10805.53 × 108001.45 × 109
Richland2.97 × 109 (13)3.54 × 1088.50 × 1081.92 × 1083.78 × 107001.53 × 109
Saluda1.58 × 109 (40)4.12 × 1071.96 × 10801.53 × 108001.19 × 109
York2.72 × 109 (16)1.09 × 1073.16 × 10801.15 × 109001.24 × 109
(Midlands)3.48 × 1010(3)4.19 × 1094.10 × 1097.45 × 1086.77 × 1092.53× 1072.17× 1071.89 × 1010
Chesterfield3.41 × 109 (10)3.75 × 1081.55 × 10904.58 × 107001.44 × 109
Clarendon2.28 × 109 (28)8.46 × 1074.53 × 1081.44 × 1080001.59 × 109
Darlington2.27 × 109 (29)7.81 × 1076.09 × 1082.16 × 108002.17 × 1061.37 × 109
Dillon1.69 × 109 (38)1.97 × 1083.02 × 1081.92 × 108004.12 × 1079.53 × 108
Florence2.81 × 109 (15)2.10 × 1085.29 × 1080004.34 × 1062.07 × 109
Georgetown4.87 × 109 (3)7.62 × 1086.47 × 1081.37 × 1098.14 × 10802.50 × 1081.03 × 109
Horry6.22 × 109 (1)5.47 × 1081.02 × 1091.54 × 1095.71 × 10807.16 × 1081.83 × 109
Lee1.45 × 109 (43)6.29 × 1073.09 × 10801.99 × 106001.08 × 109
Marion2.59 × 109 (21)2.32 × 1086.75 × 1086.49 × 108001.06 × 1089.26 × 108
Marlboro3.73 × 109 (8)1.63 × 1086.35 × 1081.95 × 1093.38 × 10704.34 × 1069.43 × 108
Sumter2.45 × 109 (23)1.95 × 1078.26 × 10807.96 × 10604.34 × 1061.59 × 109
Williamsburg3.15 × 109 (12)5.43 × 1074.93 × 1080006.51 × 1062.60 × 109
(Pee Dee)3.69 × 1010(2)2.79 × 1098.04 × 1096.06 × 1091.47 × 10901.13 × 1091.74 × 1010
Allendale1.54 × 109 (41)5.43 × 1072.38 × 1081.44 × 1080001.11 × 109
Bamberg1.38 × 109 (45)2.73 × 1082.36 × 10608.16 × 10706.51 × 1061.02 × 109
Barnwell1.93 × 109 (35)1.69 × 1083.26 × 10800001.44 × 109
Beaufort2.84 × 109 (14)1.51 × 1098.02 × 1071.44 × 1087.96 × 1079.68 × 1074.56 × 1084.69 × 108
Berkeley4.73 × 109 (5)3.15 × 1084.91 × 1085.53 × 1088.14 × 10802.97 × 1082.26 × 109
Calhoun9.92 × 108 (46)1.43 × 1086.14 × 10700007.87 × 108
Charleston4.75 × 109 (4)1.66 × 1097.84 × 10801.45 × 10905.92 × 1082.64 × 108
Colleton6.02 × 109 (2)6.08 × 1081.16 × 1082.11 × 1092.79 × 1083.58 × 1082.37 × 1082.31 × 109
Dorchester2.30 × 109 (27)5.95 × 1084.01 × 1072.40 × 1075.57 × 10806.51 × 1071.02 × 109
Hampton2.15 × 109 (30)2.95 × 1082.05 × 1087.21 × 1072.01 × 10808.68 × 1071.29 × 109
Jasper4.25 × 109 (6)6.90 × 1081.37 × 1081.37 × 1094.90 × 1084.88 × 1085.21 × 1071.02 × 109
McCormick1.44 × 109 (44)1.39 × 1081.53 × 10804.92 × 108006.54 × 108
Orangeburg3.53 × 109 (9)1.58 × 1084.25 × 10704.98 × 10702.17 × 1063.27 × 109
(Low Country)3.79 × 1010(1)6.61 × 1092.68 × 1094.42 × 1094.49 × 1099.43 × 1081.79 × 1091.69 × 1010
Totals ($)1.24 × 10111.46 × 10101.62 × 10101.14 × 10101.38 × 10109.68 × 1082.95 × 1096.43 × 1010
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z. Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA. Land 2021, 10, 309. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10030309

AMA Style

Mikhailova EA, Zurqani HA, Post CJ, Schlautman MA, Post GC, Lin L, Hao Z. Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA. Land. 2021; 10(3):309. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10030309

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mikhailova, Elena A., Hamdi A. Zurqani, Christopher J. Post, Mark A. Schlautman, Gregory C. Post, Lili Lin, and Zhenbang Hao. 2021. "Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA" Land 10, no. 3: 309. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land10030309

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop