Carbon Polygons and Carbon Offsets: History
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The most important area of study concerning carbon polygons is the problem of assessing the reserves and trends in the stability of organic matter in the soil of natural ecosystems. An adequate assessment of these stocks should be based on verified methods for determining the content of organic matter (direct and indirect methods and the problem of the correlation of results) and on unified ideas about the depth and regularity of sampling within soil profiles and monitoring sites. This problem is particularly relevant to the development of a spatial network of carbon polygons in the Russian Federation.

  • carbon polygons
  • carbon sequestration
  • climate change
  • carbon balance
  • soil organic matter

1. Introduction

Soil organic carbon (SOC) is the main component of soil organic matter (SOM) [1][2]. SOC can be assumed as an indicator of soil health and plays a critical role in food production, climate change and sustainable human development [3][4]. In the face of climate change, SOC can be mineralized faster and become a significant source of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [5][6]. However, the overall impact of climate change on SOC content differs depending on region and soil type [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Climate change can have catastrophic consequences for SOC and soils [2][4][9]. As a result, we can observe land degradation in various areas of the planet (the Arctic, desert and mountainous zones) [3][13][14][15]. Today, the world’s soil contains up to 1500 Pg (1 × 10 15 g) of soil organic carbon in the upper meter horizon [3][4][16]. The soil with the richest SOC levels (Histosol and Chernozem), as well as drylands with low carbon content, have the potential to make the greatest contribution to climate change [9]. The areas occupied by permafrost-affected soils make up more than 8.6 million km 2, roughly 27% of all land north of 50° N, meaning that up to 1024 Pg of soil organic carbon is stored within the upper 3 m of soil [1][17]. Thus, the management of these territories can enhance the sequestration of carbon in soils, contributing to the mitigation of climate change on our planet [2][3][4][9].

The soil cover of Russia holds the largest store of carbon in the whole world and is the most important area for carbon deposition in the northern hemisphere. Carbon stock in soils and biosediments have been evaluated by numerous investigators [4][7][9][12][14]. During the Postsoviet era, the sequestration rate of carbon in soil increased sharply due to abandoning of millions of hectares of arable lands and afforestation of former agricultural lands [18][19]. Thus, the abandoned agricultural lands were formed in various bioclimatic environments, and have recently been used for retrospective analyses of soil parameters by numerous researchers [20][21][22][23][24]. In this context, the forthcoming plans regarding the creation of special monitoring plots state that carbon polygons should be considered and discussed in terms of pedological methodology with the aim of mutualizing carbon poll assessments with carbon offset risks in our national environmental economy and carbon market.

Carbon polygons are places where carbon dioxide emissions and accumulation are monitored under conditions of various types of relief and soil cover [4] ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Responsibility tasks of carbon polygons.

Today, Russia has the only “Ugra” carbon polygon it located in the Kaluga region, which is a place for studying the global carbon balance and sequestration potential of the territory ( Figure 2 ). It is planned to create polygons in Kaliningrad, Krasnodar, Sverdlovsk, Tyumen, Novosibirsk and Sakhalin regions as well as Chechen and Tatarstan republic up to 2022. Thus, the formation of carbon polygons in Russia will allow for the creation of a monitoring network that will study the processes of formation, accumulation, emission and deposit of priority greenhouse gases in various ecosystems of our country [25][26]. When forming carbon polygenes in natural zonal environments, industrial areas, large cities and anthropogenic ecosystems, it will create a reliable and productive monitoring network that will contribute to the study of the planetary carbon cycle and sequestration potential of the territory of the Russian Federation. This will allow to Russia to comply with the goals set out in the Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework of the UN and the Paris Climate Agreement [27][28].

Figure 2. First carbon polygon in Russia. National park “Ugra” (Source: ESRI: Geographic information system company (West Redlands, California, United States of America)).

2. Carbon Polygons: Current State and Key Challenges

In Russia, different concepts are used regarding soil organic matter and humus compared to the EU and the USA. In the EU and USA, the SOM includes the following fractions: plant residues, particle decomposed plant materials, soil microbial biomass and humus [4]. In Russian pedology, humus is often understood as a colloidal organic substance that consists of humic acids and the precursors of humification (proteins, carbohydrates, lignin and aldehydes). Organic residues presented in the form of peat, sapropel, plant litter and organic fertilizers are not considered humus in the Russian School of Soil Science [29][30]. This is why, when determining carbon in fine earth, roots and detritus forms of organic matter are extracted, a process that is not always practiced in the EU and USA. Therefore, the concepts of humus, soil organic matter and total organic carbon, are not equivalent [31][32]. The concept of “carbon of organic compounds” also differs from them. Thus, we have to decide what we will use for monitoring and from which horizons we will gather regular samples, e.g., are we going to include a forest floor or all superficial undecomposed organic matter, which is an important part of stock [31][33][34][35][36] but not stabilized? The sequestration of organic carbon occurs at various levels of organization of organic matter, in forest litter, in peat and in the organo–mineral and mineral horizons. Due to various stabilization mechanisms (mechanical, chemical and molecular), SOM is transformed into a more stable form and can be stored in a soil for a long time [14][37]. Another important question is related to sampling depth: 0–20 (arable layers), 0–100 (the average depth of soil in Eurasia) or the horizontal approach (sampling form each soil genetic horizon). Thus, we have numerous key questions on sampling strategy that we must discuss and define at the very beginning of polygon creation.

Currently, carbon polygons proposed by the Ministries of Education and Science in the Russian Federation [38] do not cover all natural zones. The proposed approach is based on the location of polygons in different areas of the Russian Federation. However, not all of the natural conditions, even at the biome level, will be covered by the proposed network of polygons, which will lead to distortions and inaccuracies even in approximate assessments. The planned network of carbon polygons does not yet include cryogenic soils found in of the circumpolar environments, in which huge reserves of organic matter are concen trated. It is necessary to pay special attention to the need to expand the network of carbon polygons to all natural zones of Russia. Russian boreal soil, polar soil and subsurface sediments possess the highest stock of carbon in the northern hemisphere; nevertheless, the stocks of organic matter in these environments are underestimated due to the complex heterogeneity of the territory and the presence of permafrost tables on soil [1]. Thus, the question of covering the country with the polygons is a keynote for the accurate assessment of carbon stocks, taking into account the unique phenomena of soils and environment zonality, which has been elaborated by V.V. Dokuchaev [29]. If Russia follows a zonal approach in the spatial distribution of polygons, it will become a standard for the whole world—all types of biomes will be covered, except for tropical ones. In this context, the previous experience of the International Biological Program should also be obtained [39][40]. The soils of Russia, taking into account the greatest pedodiversity, should be a standard in terms of humus state and carbon content metrology ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3. Schematic structure of carbon polygons functions and methods of carbon traps.

Modeling is a critical tool for predicting and analyzing large amounts of data, including carbon data. Modern mathematical simulation models (Romul, Efimod) allow one to process large amounts of soil–climatic and soil–chemical data to predict the dynamics of the content of various fractions of organic matter, from easily decomposable to highly stabilized [31][33][34][36]. Soil–climatic data are currently in deficit; therefore, a long-term temperature and water content logger should be inserted into the soil, at different depths to provide an automatic meteostation on the soil’s surface. High-accuracy simulation modeling is not only important from the point of view of basic science; it is also important for the forecasting markets of carbon units and carbon offsets. Every type of carbon market should be targeted by a prediction system, such as a mathematical simulation model. This model should be verified using the input data derived from carbon polygons. The use of GIS systems is also crucial for the generalization of big raw data and the visualization of boundless information [39][40].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy11102013


  1. Zubrzycki, S.; Kutzbach, L.; Pfeiffer, E.-M. Permafrost-affected soils and their carbon pools with a focus on the Russian Arctic. Solid Earth 2014, 5, 595–609.
  2. Schuur, E.A.G.; McGuire, A.D.; Schadel, C.; Grosse, G.; Harden, J.W.; Hayes, D.J.; Hugelius, G.; Koven, C.D.; Kuhry, P.; Lawrence, D.M.; et al. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 2015, 520, 171–179.
  3. Lefèvre, C.; Rekik, F.; Alcantara, V.; Wiese, L. Soil Organic Carbon: The hidden potential; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017.
  4. Leap, F. Measuring and Modelling Soil Carbon Stocks and Stock Changes in Livestock Production Systems: Guidelines for Assessment (Version 1). Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; p. 170.
  5. Knoblauch, C.; Beer, C.; Sosnin, A.; Wagner, D.; Pfeiffer, E.-M. Predicting long-term carbon mineralization and trace gas production from thawing permafrost of Northeast Siberia. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 1160–1172.
  6. Abakumov, E.V.; Polyakov, V.; Orlova, K.S. Podzol development on different aged coastal bars of Lake Ladoga. Vestnik Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Biol. 2019, 48, 6–31.
  7. Beyer, L.; Sorge, C.; Blume, H.-P.; Schulten, H.-R. Soil organic matter composition and transformation in gelic histosols of coastal continental Antarctica. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1995, 27, 1279–1288.
  8. Dobrovolsky, G. Soils of the Floodplains of the Center of the Russian Plain; Moscow University Press: Moscow, Russia, 2005.
  9. Davidson, E.A.; Janssens, I.A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 2006, 440, 165–173.
  10. Okoneshnikova, M. Current state and prediction of changes in soils of the middle Lena valley (Central Yakutia). Tomsk. State Univ. J. Biol. 2013, 3, 7–18.
  11. Lodygin, E.D.; Beznosikov, V.A.; Vasilevich, R.S. Molecular composition of humic substances in tundra soils (13C-NMR spectroscopic study). Eurasian Soil Sci. 2014, 47, 400–406.
  12. Alekseev, I.; Abakumov, E. Permafrost-affected former agricultural soils of the Salekhard city (Central part of Yamal region). Czech Polar Rep. 2018, 8, 119–131.
  13. Becker, T.; Kutzbach, L.; Forbrich, I.; Schneider, J.; Jager, D.; Thees, B.; Wilmking, M. Do we miss the hot spots?—The use of very high resolution aerial photographs to quantify carbon fluxes in peatlands. Biogeosciences 2008, 5, 1387–1393.
  14. Ejarque, E.; Abakumov, E. Stability and biodegradability of organic matter from Arctic soils of Western Siberia: Insights from 13C-NMR spectroscopy and elemental analysis. Solid Earth 2016, 7, 153–165.
  15. Abakumov, E.; Maksimova, E.; Tsibart, A. Assessment of postfire soils degradation dynamics: Stability and molecular composition of humic acids with use of spectroscopy methods. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 29, 2092–2101.
  16. Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Jordán, A.; Zavala, L.M.; De la Rosa, D.; Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Anaya-Romero, M. Organic carbon stocks in Mediterranean soil types under different land uses (Southern Spain). Solid Earth 2012, 3, 375–386.
  17. Gao, Y.; Couwenberg, J. Carbon accumulation in a permafrost polygon peatland: Steady long-term rates in spite of shifts between dry and wet conditions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 803–815.
  18. Chestnykh, O.; Zamolodchikov, D.; Utkin, A.; Korovin, G. Distribution of organic carbon pools in soils of Russian Forests. Lesovedenie 1999, 2, 13–21.
  19. Ivanov, A.; Stolbovoy, V. The initiative “4 per mille”—A new global challenge for the soils of Russia. Bull. VV Dokuchaev. Soil Sci. Inst. 2019, 98, 185–202.
  20. Khitrov, N.B. An approach for a retrospective assessment of soil changes. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2008, 41, 793–804.
  21. Karelin, D.V.; Goryachkin, S.V.; Kudikov, A.V.; De Gerenu, V.O.L.; Lunin, V.N.; Dolgikh, A.V.; Lyuri, D.I. Changes in carbon pool and CO2 emission in the course of postagrogenic succession on gray soils (Luvic Phaeozems) in European Russia. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2017, 50, 559–572.
  22. Kudeyarov, V.N. Soil-biogeochemical aspects of arable farming in the russian federation. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2019, 52, 94–104.
  23. Abakumov, E.; Morgun, E.; Pechkin, A.; Polyakov, V. Abandoned agricultural soils from the central part of the Yamal region of Russia: Morphology, diversity, and chemical properties. Open Agric. 2020, 5, 94–106.
  24. Ryzhova, I.M.; Telesnina, V.M.; Sitnikova, A.A. Dynamics of soil properties and carbon stocks structure in postagrogenic ecosystems of southern taiga during natural reforestation. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2020, 53, 240–252.
  25. Schepaschenko, D.G.; Mukhortova, L.V.; Shvidenko, A.Z.; Vedrova, E.F. The pool of organic carbon in the soils of Russia. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2013, 46, 107–116.
  26. Morkovina, S.; Panyavina, E.; Shanin, I.; Avdeeva, I. Economic aspects of the organization of carbon farms on forest site. Actual Dir. Sci. Res. Xxi Century: Theory Pract. 2021, 9, 17–26.
  27. Babenko, M.; Bobulev, A.; Bokarev, V. Sustainable Development of the UN and Russia Federation; Analytical center of Russia: Moscow, Russia, 2016; p. 44.
  28. United Nations. Paris Agreement; United Nations: Paris, France, 2015.
  29. Orlov, D. Soil Humic Acids and General Theory of Humification; Moskowskowo Uniwersiteta: Moskwa, Russia, 1990; p. 325.
  30. Orlov, D.S. Soil Chemistry; AA Balkema Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1992.
  31. Chertov, O.; Nadporozhskaya, M. Development and application of humus form concept for soil classification, mapping and dynamic modelling in Russia. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 420–423.
  32. Zanella, A.; Ponge, J.-F.; Gobat, J.-M.; Juilleret, J.; Blouin, M.; Aubert, M.; Chertov, O.; Rubio, J.L. Humusica 1, article 1: Essential bases—Vocabulary. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 122, 10–21.
  33. Chertov, O.; Komarov, A.; Nadporozhskaya, M.; Bykhovets, S.; Zudin, S. Romul—A model of forest soil organic matter dynamics as a substantial tool for forest ecosystem modeling. Ecol. Model. 2001, 138, 289–308.
  34. Nadporozhskaya, M.A.; Chertov, O.G.; Bykhovets, S.S.; Shaw, C.H.; Maksimova, E.Y.; Abakumov, E.V. Recurring surface fires cause soil degradation of forest land: A simulation experiment with the EFIMOD model. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2222–2232.
  35. Shanin, V.N.; Bykhovets, S.S.; Chertov, O.G.; Komarov, A.S. The effect of various external factors on dynamics of organic carbon in different types of forest: A simulation-based assessment. Russ. J. For. Sci. 2018, 2018, 335–346.
  36. Priputina, I.V.; Bykhovets, S.S.; Frolov, P.V.; Chertov, O.G.; Kurganova, I.N.; De Gerenyu, V.O.L.; Sapronov, D.V.; Mjakshina, T.N. Application of mathematical models romul and romul_hum for estimating CO2 emission and dynamics of organic matter in albic luvisol under deciduous forest in the south of moscow oblast. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2020, 53, 1480–1491.
  37. Vasilevich, R.; Lodygin, E.; Beznosikov, V.; Abakumov, E. Molecular composition of raw peat and humic substances from permafrost peat soils of European Northeast Russia as climate change markers. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 615, 1229–1238.
  38. Decree of Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation. In On Landfills for the Development and Testing of Technologies for Monitoring Carbon Balance; Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation: Moscow, Russia, 2021; 17 p.
  39. Kudryashova, S.Y.; Baikov, K.S.; Titlyanova, A.A.; Dits, L.Y.; Kosykh, N.P.; Makhatkov, I.D.; Shibareva, S.V. Distributed GIS for estimation of soil carbon stock of West Siberia boreal zone. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 2011, 4, 475–486.
  40. Dvornikov, Y.; Vasenev, V.; Romzaykina, O.; Grigorieva, V.; Litvinov, Y.; Gorbov, S.; Dolgikh, A.; Korneykova, M.; Gosse, D. Projecting the urbanization effect on soil organic carbon stocks in polar and steppe areas of European Russia by remote sensing. Geoderma 2021, 399, 115039.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service