Soil carbon: InVEST lookup tables or soil C datasets?

Hi folks –

Is anyone aware of sensitivity analyses that have compared soil carbon estimates based on land cover-based lookup tables (InVEST carbon) as opposed to using modeled soil carbon data, e.g., from SoilGrids 250 m and combining those soil carbon data with vegetation carbon modeled using InVEST?

I’m wondering whether there’s any evidence in favor of using lookup tables for vegetation and soil carbon combined (i.e., using InVEST for the whole carbon storage analysis) vs. using InVEST for vegetation carbon storage (aboveground + belowground + woody debris) and combining that sum with raster data from SoilGrids or local soil carbon storage datasets.

I suppose a big part of the answer would depend on how much we’d expect soil carbon storage to change as land use/cover does (i.e., since the soil carbon spatial datasets are essentially static). Thanks to anyone able to shed some light on this issue!


1 Like


I also have the same question… I believe that the soil carbon content is clearly the most important pool when we assess the Carbon stocks in the landscape. Supporting the facility to obtain soil data which, in general, also provides the Soil Organic Carbon content, we could use this data to integrate the LULC maps and evaluate the whole system on the landscape, bein more important when we have a great contrast in the soil types with the same use/cover.
Do you InVEST developers or users had tried to join these two maps to an specific assessment? Is there any study or research which we can take as example or just information?

Thank you guys!!