Literature Review · Soil Carbon RS + ML Project
Recent & Relevant Foundational Papers
15 papers across 6 thematic layers · from theory → methods → field system → impact
01
Theoretical Foundation
Establish why fractions matter before everything else
1
Lavallee et al. (2020)
The POM/MAOM framework — The theoretical anchor. All fraction work traces back here.
10.1111/gcb.14859
2
Shi et al. (2024)
Current SOC models fail at fraction level — justifies why our empirical data is needed.
10.5194/gmd-17-5961-2024
02
RS + ML Landscape
Bird's-eye view before diving into methods
3
Wang et al. (2024)
Bibliometric review of 1,761 papers. Confirms the gap: dynamic temporal predictions are missing.
10.1007/s11368-024-03913-8
4
Khaled et al. (2024)
Comprehensive review of RS, ML, DL, and hybrid approaches. Use as a technique menu.
10.3390/rs16010001
03
Comparable Methods
Papers closest to the actual pipeline
5
Ge et al. (2025)
US ag land + multi-temporal Sentinel-2. Closest geographic match — study their feature engineering.
10.1016/j.geodrs.2025.e00920
6
Gholizadeh et al. (2023)
Sentinel-1 + Sentinel-2 + Vis-NIR fusion. Key for combining SAR and optical in our pipeline.
10.3390/rs15174264
7
Azizi et al. (2025)
XGBoost + Sentinel-1/2, R²=0.91. The benchmark model — replicate then improve with fractions.
10.1016/j.atech.2025.101036
04
Fraction-Level Prediction
Novel angle — read these back to back
8
Angst et al. (2022)
ML mapping of POM + MAOM separately across 352 topsoils. Closest precedent for our projection approach.
10.1038/s41561-021-00744-x
9
Ruiz et al. (2024)
RF on POM/MAOM at subfield scale, US cropland. Read right after Angst — same logic, new scale.
10.5194/soil-10-307-2024
10
Viscarra Rossel et al. (2024)
Spectral prediction of POM, MAOM, and microbial biomass jointly — all three datasets we have.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174812
05
The Field System
Ground RS/ML theory in the experiment
11
Joshi et al. (2023)
Cover crops + SOC meta-analysis. Use for expected effect sizes to sanity-check model outputs.
10.1002/agj2.21309
12
Poeplau & Don (2024)
Full GHG budget of cover cropping. Frames the N₂O and CH₄ data in a climate mitigation context.
10.1371/journal.pone.0302139
13
Zhao et al. (2025)
GHG under conservation tillage + cover crops. Compare their flux magnitudes to our measurements.
10.1080/09064710.2025.2515024
14
Tian et al. (2024)
GHG methods review. Grounds our chamber measurement approach in the broader literature.
10.3390/su16114789
06
Carbon Market Impact
Connect the work to real-world MRV protocols
15
Nocita et al. (2023)
RS + ML + MIR for carbon credit assessment. Closes the loop between the methods and protocol design — key for our Discussion.
10.3390/rs15235571
After Layer 4
Draft Methods Section
— write it before reading Layers 5 and 6.
After Layer 5
Start Introduction
— the gap is clear and system is grounded.
After Layer 6
Write Discussion and Conclusion
— speak to real-world carbon market impact.