Post on 11-Feb-2017
transcript
Australian Greenhouse Office232
national carbon accounting system
tech
nica
l rep
ort n
o. 3
7 Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon (and Nitrogen) Estimation Queensland
The National Carbon Accounting System provides a complete
accounting and forecasting capability for human-induced sources and
sinks of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian land based
systems. It will provide a basis for assessing Australias progress
towards meeting its international emissions commitments.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au
Ben Harms and Ram Dalal
technical report no. 37 Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon
(and Nitrogen) Estim
ation Queensland
national carbon accounting system
NCAS Part A
The National Carbon Accounting System:
Supports Australias position in the international development of policy and guidelines on sinks activity and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation from land based systems.
Reduces the scientific uncertainties that surround estimates of land based greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the Australian context.
Provides monitoring capabilities for existing land based emissions and sinks, and scenario development and modelling capabilities that support greenhouse gas mitigation and the sinks development agenda through to 2012 and beyond.
Provides the scientific and technical basis for international negotiations and promotes Australias national interests in international fora.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas
For additional copies of this report phone 1300 130 606
Series 1 Publications Set the framework for development of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) and document initial NCAS-related technical activities (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/ publications).
Series 2 Publications Provide targeted technical information aimed at improving carbon accounting for Australian land based systems (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/publications).
Series 3 PublicationsDetail protocols for biomass estimation and the development of integrated carbon accounting models for Australia (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas /publications).Of particular note is Technical Report No.
28. The FullCAM Carbon Accounting Model: Development, Calibration and Implementation for the National Carbon Accounting System.
Series 4 Publications include: 34. Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon Estimation - New South Wales.
35. Emission Sources of Nitrous Oxide from Australian Agriculture and Mitigation Options.
36. Integrated Soils Modelling for the National Carbon Accounting System.
37. Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon Estimation - Queensland.
38. Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon Estimation - Western Australia.
PAIRED SITE SAMPLING FOR SOIL CARBON (AND NITROGEN)
ESTIMATION QUEENSLAND
Ben Harms and Ram Dalal
Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane
National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 37
December 2003
Australian Greenhouse Officeii
Printed in Australia for the Australian Greenhouse Office
Australian Government 2003
This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or part for study or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source and no commercial usage or sale results. Reproduction for purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission of the Communications Team, Australian Greenhouse Office. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Communications Team, Australian Greenhouse Office, GPO Box 621, CANBERRA ACT 2601.
For additional copies of this document please contact the Australian Greenhouse Office Publications Hotline on 1300 130 606.
For further information please contact the National Carbon Accounting System at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/
Neither the Australian Government nor the Consultants responsible for undertaking this project accepts liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any persons or groups interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this material.
December 2003
Environment Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication
Harms, Ben.
Paired site sampling for soil carbon estimation - Qld / Ben Harms, Ram Dalal.
p. cm.
(National Carbon Accounting System technical report; no. 37)
ISSN: 1442 6838
1. Soils-Carbon content-Queensland-Analysis. 2. Clearing of land-Queensland-Environmental aspects. I. Dalal, Ram. II. Australian Greenhouse Office. III. Series.
631.4109943-dc21
National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report iii
SUMMARYThe amount of organic carbon in soil at a given time is a function of carbon input and carbon decomposition rates, as influenced by soil temperature and soil moisture (rainfall and evaporation), and soil type. Land clearing disrupts this balance by removing vegetation, thereby reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) sink and transfer of carbon to soil as well as by increasing CO2 emissions from dead biomass and soil carbon. Therefore, land clearing invariably leads to changes in soil carbon, which need to be accounted for in modelling total greenhouse gas emissions. As soil organic matter is the main supplier of soil nitrogen, changes in soil carbon are likely to be associated with similar changes in soil nitrogen.
This report completes a consultancy agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland) and the Australian Government (represented by the Australian Greenhouse Office) to investigate soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and fluxes following land clearing in Queensland since 1970. Following the recommendation of Webbnet Land Resource Services (1999), it was agreed to select and investigate approximately 50 paired sites from the main areas of recent tree clearing in Queensland.
This study reports on sampling conducted at 33 locations across central and southern Queensland, representing a total of 49 paired sites. Soil type characterisation (profile description and laboratory analysis) for each plot was used to establish the validity of selected cleared and uncleared pairs. However, due to the shortrange spatial variation that is often present in soil landscapes, paired site studies are inferior to longterm experiments where soil changes are measured at exactly the same location before and after land use change. Laboratory analysis indicates that eight of the 49 paired plots may be less than adequately matched in terms of clay percentage and/or cation exchange capacity.
Coarse woody debris and plant litter on the soil surface are important sources of soil carbon and nitrogen, they have been included in this study. However, due to considerable variability associated with estimating carbon stocks in coarse woody debris, comparisons between treatments and between sites are more meaningful if coarse woody debris is excluded. Soil carbon stocks (soil carbon concentration x bulk density x soil depth) have been adjusted to account for any differences in soil bulk density between the cleared and uncleared sites - all comparisons are made on the basis of equivalent soil mass.
Despite an overall pattern of decline, trends in soil organic carbon change following land clearing were variable, especially in land developed for grazing. Soils cleared for grazing lost much smaller amounts of organic carbon than those used for cropping.
While average carbon loss from cropping soils was 11.9 tonnes/hectare to a depth of 0.30 metres, carbon loss from grazed soils was only 4.2 t/ha, including litter, plant roots and coarse charcoal. The corresponding carbon losses in percentage terms were 27.0% for cropping and 9.7% for grazed soils. Almost all soil carbon loss occurred in the 0 to 0.30 m depth range.
The magnitude of soil carbon decline in cropping soils is comparable to other studies reported in the literature. The large variability between sites cleared for grazing is also consistent with other reported studies. However, the average decline in soil carbon across sites cleared for grazing (9.7%) is significantly larger than the average of 0% reported by Murty et al. (2002) who reviewed a large number of similar studies.
At most sites, changes in soil carbon are associated with similar changes in soil nitrogen. For grazing sites, the average decline in soil nitrogen is of a similar magnitude to the average decline in soil carbon, while at cropping sites, average carbon losses are significantly greater than average nitrogen losses.
Australian Greenhouse Officeiv National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors wish to thank the many landholders who permitted access to their properties for soil sampling, and provided land management history. Many staff members at Queensland Government regional offices (NRM and DPI) assisted with site identification and information.
Shane Pointon, Jeromy Claridge, Andrew Stahl, Alex Hajkowicz, Wade McLaughlin and Greig Cumming assisted in sampling and processing almost 7,000 individual soil samples. Dave Lyons organised laboratory staff, Barry Monczko, Leith McCallum and Tony King analysed the samples for C & N. David Mayer provided statistical advice. John Carter gave professional advice and provided the climate information forthe sampling sites.
CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide (Jan Skjemstad, Les Janik, Roger Davison) provided professional advice on the conduct of the project, conductedMIR analyses on composite soil samples and verified TOC analyses for selected samples.
Plant litter fractionalisation was carried out at the Chemistry Centre (WA), under the supervision of Surender Mann (WA Department of Industry and Resources). The Wood Quality Laboratory, Queensland Forest Research Institute, Indooroopilly, Queensland carried out timber density analysis of coarse woody debris samples, under the supervision of Kevin Harding.
Australian Greenhouse Officeiv National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Summary iii Acknowledgements iv1. Introduction 12. Methods 1 2.1 Site Selection 1 2.2 Site Sampling 10 2.2.1 Soil 10 2.2.2 Surface Litter 10 2.2.3 Coarse Woody Debris 10 2.3 Site Description 11 2.3.1 Climate 11 2.3.2 Soil 11 2.3.3 Vegetation 11 2.3.4 Coarse Woody Debris 11 2.4 Laboratory Processing and Analysis 113. Results 12 3.1 Surface Litter 12 3.2 Coarse Woody Debris 12 3.3 Soil Organic Carbon and Soil Nitrogen 13 3.4 Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Density 144. Discussion 145. Recommendations Regarding Continued Monitoring 186. References 19
Appendices Appendix A: Vegetation Characteristics, Surface Litter, Coarse Woody Debris 21 Appendix B: Soil Carbon Summaries 29 Appendix C: Soil Nitrogen Summaries 57 Appendix D: Soil Carbon Results 85 Appendix E: Soil Nitrogen Results 153 Appendix F: Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios 219 Appendix G: Queensland Paired Sites: Detailed Site Information 233
Australian Greenhouse Officevi National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report vii
LIST OF TABLES Page No.Table 1. List of the Queensland soil carbon paired sites. 2
Table 2. Sampled sites by vegetation type. 5
Table 3. Properties of the sampled soil types (range and mean for 00.30 m). 6
Table 4. Summary: Average sitesoil carbon density for all paired sites, and average change in soil carbon following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). 16
Table 5. Summary: Average total nitrogen for all paired sites, and average change in soil nitrogen following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). 17
LIST OF FIGURES Page No.Figure 1. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 19911995. 7
Figure 2. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 19951997. 8
Figure 3. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 19971999. 9
Australian Greenhouse Officevi National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report vii
Australian Greenhouse Officeviii
Australian Greenhouse Officeviii National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report completes a consultancy agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland) and the Australian Government (represented by the Australian Greenhouse Office) to investigate soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and fluxes following land clearing in Queensland since 1970. Following the recommendation of Webbnet Land Resource Services (1999), it was agreed to select and investigate approximately 50 paired sites from the main areas of recent tree clearing in Queensland. The data obtained from these field measurements (and similar work being done in other States) will be incorporated into the soil carbon model being developed as part of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS). The soil carbon model will be used to estimate carbon fluxes resulting from land use change across the continent.
This study reports on sampling conducted at 33 locations across central and southern Queensland, representing a total of 49 paired sites.
2. METHODS
2.1 SITE SELECTIONProspective paired sites were stratified on the basis of vegetation type, soil type, and time since land clearing (with more than 50% of sites cleared in the previous 10 years). Soils from the following five IBRA regions (Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia, Thackway and Cresswell, 1995) were targeted: Brigalow Belt North (BBN), Brigalow Belt South (BBS), Desert Uplands (DEU), Mulga Lands (ML), Darling Riverine Plains (DRP).
The two individual plots that make up a paired site (uncleared and cleared), were carefully matched in terms of site factors (i.e. proximity, landscape position, slope, aspect, soil properties). Soil type characterisation (profile description and laboratory analysis) for each plot was used to establish the validity of selected cleared and uncleared pairs.
Uncleared sites were not necessarily undisturbed or in virgin condition, given that most of the woodlands and forests of inland Queensland have a history of grazing by sheep and/or beef cattle. In some instances, two different land use treatments (e.g. different ages of clearing) were matched to the same uncleared plot: these sites are referred to as triplicates. The corners and central positions of each plot were referenced using a differential globalpositioning system.
Table 1 lists the sampled sites and relevant information for each. Of the 49 sites reported in this study, 11 have been used for crop production (mainly winter grain crops), while the remainder have been used for the grazing of native pastures, usually with the addition of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Figures 1 to 3 illustrate the distribution of the paired sites in relation to IBRA regions and the treeclearing rates for the periods 19911995, 19951997 and 19971999, respectively. Appendix G of this report contains detailed information on each paired site (with photographs) and a summary of salient soil properties across each study site.
Site
Co
deSi
te ID
Vege
tatio
nSo
il1Ye
ar o
f Cle
arin
g La
nd U
se
afte
r Cl
eari
ngLa
titud
eLo
ngtit
ude
11
DEU
Alic
e R
iver
Popl
ar B
ox E
ucal
yptu
s po
puln
eaSo
doso
l19
93Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-23.
1382
145.
876
22
DEU
Texa
s Ir
onba
rk E
ucal
yptu
s m
elan
ophl
oia
Chro
mos
ol19
92Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-23.
0495
145.
9145
3*3
DEU
Flee
twoo
dG
idge
e Ac
acia
cam
bage
iCh
rom
osol
1969
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
2.39
5014
5.68
48
44
DEU
Lenn
ox S
LIB
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
ol19
93Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-22.
9615
146.
1042
55
DEU
Lenn
ox Y
JYe
llow
-jack
et E
ucal
yptu
s si
mili
sKa
ndos
ol19
95Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-22.
7567
146.
2623
66
DEU
Gle
ncoe
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
ol19
85Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-23.
7550
146.
2191
77
DEU
Mirt
na IB
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
a, E
.whi
tei
Sodo
sol
1989
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
1.33
9314
6.14
76
88
DEU
Mirt
na D
GD
awso
n G
um E
ucal
yptu
s ca
mba
gean
aSo
doso
l19
88Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-21.
2709
146.
2636
99
DEU
Nat
alBl
ackw
ood
Acac
ia a
rgyr
oden
dron
Der
mos
ol19
86Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-21.
2334
146.
2178
1010
DEU
Rel
lim A
Gid
gee
Acac
ia c
amba
gei
Der
mos
ol19
79Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-24.
0408
145.
6025
1111
DEU
Rel
lim B
Popl
ar B
ox E
ucal
yptu
s po
puln
eaSo
doso
l19
81Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-23.
9718
145.
5258
1212
DEU
Eure
kaIr
onba
rk E
ucal
yptu
s m
elan
ophl
oia
Kand
osol
1999
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
3.55
3114
6.42
90
1313
DEU
Corn
Top
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
ol19
99Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-23.
5916
146.
3239
141
BBN
Vice
nza
AG
idge
e/ B
rigal
ow A
caci
a ca
mba
gei,
A. h
arpo
phyl
laVe
rtos
ol19
93Cr
oppi
ng-2
2.11
9714
7.59
3
152
BBN
Vice
nza
BG
idge
e / B
rigal
ow A
caci
a ca
mba
gei,
A. h
arpo
phyl
laVe
rtos
ol19
93Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-22.
1210
147.
5945
163
BBN
Coob
yang
a A
Gid
gee/
Brig
alow
Aca
cia
cam
bage
i, A.
har
poph
ylla
Vert
osol
1975
Crop
ping
-22.
1065
147.
4691
174
BBN
Coob
yang
a B
Gid
gee/
Brig
alow
Aca
cia
cam
bage
i, A.
har
poph
ylla
Vert
osol
1975
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
2.10
8114
7.47
05
185
BBN
Pa
sha
Rei
d R
iver
Box
Euc
alyp
tus
brow
nii
Sodo
sol
1974
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
1.72
5614
7.57
97
196
BBN
Dou
ble-
D A
Gid
gee
Acac
ia c
amba
gei
Vert
osol
1977
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
1.77
6114
7.54
12
207
BBN
Dou
ble-
D B
Gid
gee
Acac
ia c
amba
gei
Vert
osol
1996
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
1.77
6414
7.54
26
218
BBN
Cool
ibah
ABr
igal
ow A
caci
a ha
rpop
hylla
Vert
osol
1978
Crop
ping
-22.
5573
148.
4872
Australian Greenhouse Office2
Tabl
e 1:
Lis
t of t
he Q
ueen
slan
d so
il ca
rbon
pai
red
site
s.
National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 3
Site
Co
deSi
te ID
Vege
tatio
nSo
il1Ye
ar o
f Cle
arin
g La
nd U
se
afte
r Cl
eari
ngLa
titud
eLo
ngtit
ude
229
BBN
Cool
ibah
BBr
igal
ow A
caci
a ha
rpop
hylla
Vert
osol
1986
Crop
ping
-22.
5617
148.
4873
2310
BBN
Cool
ibah
CBr
igal
ow A
caci
a ha
rpop
hylla
Vert
osol
1972
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
2.56
0814
8.47
55
2411
BBN
Boor
oond
arra
Popl
ar B
ox E
ucal
yptu
s po
puln
eaSo
doso
l19
96Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-22.
8249
148.
6356
2512
BBN
Tral
ee A
Popl
ar B
ox E
ucal
yptu
s po
puln
eaSo
doso
l19
92Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-22.
8635
148.
6793
2613
BBN
Tral
ee B
Popl
ar B
ox E
ucal
yptu
s po
puln
eaSo
doso
l19
86Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-22.
8646
148.
6773
271
BBS
Kind
on A
Cypr
ess
Pine
/Bul
loak
Cal
litris
gla
ucop
hylla
/ Al
loca
suar
ina
lueh
man
nii
Sodo
sol
1986
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
8.06
8815
0.75
60
282
BBS
Kind
on B
Cypr
ess
Pine
/ Bul
loak
Cal
litris
gla
ucop
hylla
/ Al
loca
suar
ina
lueh
man
nii
Sodo
sol
2000
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
8.06
9015
0.75
63
293
BBS
Brok
en D
ray
A Ac
acia
har
poph
ylla
/Euc
alyp
tus
cam
bage
ana
woo
dlan
dD
erm
osol
1981
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
4.10
5914
7.69
48
304
BBS
Brok
en D
ray
B Ac
acia
har
poph
ylla
/Euc
alyp
tus
cam
bage
ana
woo
dlan
dD
erm
osol
1995
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
4.10
6014
7.69
65
315
BBS
Rid
gele
a A
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
ol19
90Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-25.
3706
149.
6932
326
BBS
Rid
gele
a B
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
ol19
97Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-25.
3698
149.
6913
337
BBS
Rid
gele
a C
Popl
ar B
ox E
ucal
yptu
s po
puln
eaSo
doso
l19
96Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-25.
3293
149.
7011
348
BBS
Potte
rs F
lat A
Bela
h/ B
rigal
ow C
asua
rina
cris
tata
/Aca
cia
harp
ophy
llaVe
rtos
ol19
65Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-26.
1643
149.
5847
359
BBS
Potte
rs F
lat B
Bela
h /B
rigal
ow C
asua
rina
cris
tata
/Aca
cia
harp
ophy
llaVe
rtos
ol19
84Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-26.
1633
149.
5847
3610
BBS
Eum
ara
ACo
olib
ah E
ucal
yptu
s co
olab
ahD
erm
osol
1972
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
4.15
0114
7.80
25
371
DR
PN
arin
eCo
olib
ah E
ucal
yptu
s co
olab
ahVe
rtos
ol19
98Cr
oppi
ng-2
8.80
8914
8.36
36
382
DR
PD
unke
rry
Sth
ACo
olib
ah E
ucal
yptu
s co
olab
ahVe
rtos
ol19
96Cr
oppi
ng-2
8.46
3114
8.71
73
393
DR
PD
unke
rry
Sth
BCo
olib
ah E
ucal
yptu
s co
olab
ahVe
rtos
ol19
67Cr
oppi
ng-2
8.47
5914
8.71
67
404
DR
PD
unke
rry
ABe
lah
Casu
arin
a cr
ista
taVe
rtos
ol19
85Cr
oppi
ng-2
8.44
2214
8.71
46
415
DR
PD
unke
rry
BBe
lah
Casu
arin
a cr
ista
taVe
rtos
ol19
93/4
Crop
ping
-28.
4405
148.
7135
421
ML
Kiam
a A
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
ol19
90Cr
oppi
ng-2
7.80
6514
8.30
77
432
ML
Kiam
a B
Iron
bark
Euc
alyp
tus
mel
anop
hloi
aKa
ndos
olea
rly 1
990s
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
7.81
1514
8.30
39
Site
Co
deSi
te ID
Vege
tatio
nSo
il1Ye
ar o
f Cle
arin
g La
nd U
se
afte
r cl
eari
ngLa
titud
eLo
ngtit
ude
443
ML
Kulli
njar
ACy
pres
s Pi
ne/M
ulga
Cal
litris
gla
ucop
hylla
/Aca
cia
aneu
ra
Kand
osol
1988
Crop
ping
-27.
8634
148.
1911
454
ML
Kulli
njar
BCy
pres
s Pi
ne/M
ulga
Cal
litris
gla
ucop
hylla
/Aca
cia
aneu
ra
Kand
osol
1988
Cattl
e gr
azin
g -2
7.86
3514
8.18
51
465
ML
Char
levi
lle C
omm
onM
ulga
Aca
cia
aneu
raKa
ndos
ol
1991
Cattl
e/sh
eep
graz
ing
-26.
4510
146.
2898
47*
6 M
LR
eyne
llaM
ulga
Aca
cia
aneu
raKa
ndos
ol19
95Ca
ttle/
shee
p gr
azin
g-2
6.00
1714
6.45
80
487
ML
Khyb
erM
ulga
/Gum
-top
ped
Box
Acac
ia a
neur
a/Eu
caly
ptus
mol
ucan
aKa
ndos
ol19
83Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-25.
3842
146.
8146
498
ML
Khyb
erM
ulga
/Gum
-top
ped
Box
Acac
ia a
neur
a/Eu
caly
ptus
mol
ucan
aKa
ndos
ol19
92Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-25.
3842
146.
8146
509
ML
Khyb
erM
ulga
/Gum
-top
ped
Box
Acac
ia a
neur
a /E
ucal
yptu
s m
oluc
ana
Kand
osol
19
99Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-25.
3842
146.
8146
5110
ML
Woo
dsid
eM
ulga
Aca
cia
aneu
raCh
rom
osol
19
96Ca
ttle
graz
ing
-26.
5628
146.
4533
52*
11 M
LW
ardi
llaM
ulga
Aca
cia
aneu
raKa
ndos
ol19
99Ca
ttle/
shee
p gr
azin
g-2
6.40
4014
6.16
85
Australian Greenhouse Office4
Resu
lts fo
r the
thre
e si
tes
with
an
aste
risk
(*) a
re in
com
plet
e an
d no
t rep
orte
d he
re.
National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 5
Table 2: Sampled sites by vegetation type.
Vegetation Type Representative species Other tree species Associated soil type(s)1 Sites Total that may be present Numbers in parentheses sites indicate number of sites for each soil type
A
Box type Eucalyptus populnea E. melanophloia Sodosols (6), Kandosols (1) 7
eucalypts Eucalyptus brownii Sodosols 1 8
B
Ironbark type Eucalyptus melanophloia E. whitei
eucalypts E. populnea
Corymbia papuana Sodosols (2), Kandosols (6) 7
Eucalyptus crebra Kandosols 2 9
C
Mixed Eucalyptus coolabah Vertosols, Dermosols 4
Eucalypts Eucalyptus cambageana Sodosols 1
Eucalyptus similis Kandosols 1
Callitris glaucophylla
Allocasuarina luehmannii
Eucalyptus populnea Sodosols 2 8
D
Brigalow/ Acacia harpophylla Casuarina cristata
Belah Eucalyptus cambageana Vertosols (5), Dermosols (2) 7
Acacia cambagei Acacia harpophylla Vertosols (6), Dermosols (1) 7
Acacia argyrodendron Dermosols 1
Casuarina cristata Vertosols 2 17
E
Mulga Acacia aneura Eucalyptus populnea,
E. crebra, E. intertexta,
E. moluccana,
Callitris glaucophylla Kandosols (7) 7
TOTAL 49
1 Australian Soil Classification (Isbell, 1999)
Table 2 summarises the paired sites according to vegetation type and associated soils. Table 3 indicates the range of soil texture and pH for each of the sampled soil groups.
National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 7Australian Greenhouse Office6
Table 3: Properties of the sampled soil types (range and mean for 0-0.30 m).
Soil Group 0-30 cm Total sites
pH % sand % silt % clay
A
Sodosols range 5.4-7.0 75-92 3-10 9-23 12
mean 6.2 87 6 17
B
Kandosols range 5.4-7.6 70-90 3-11 5-27 16
mean 6.2 84 7 19
C
Vertosols/
Dermosols range 6.6-8.8 25-45 8-15 32-63 21
mean 8.1 40 13 47
TOTAL 49
National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 7
Figure 1. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 1991-1995.
Australian Greenhouse Office8 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 9
Figure 2. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 1995-1997.
Australian Greenhouse Office8 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 9
Figure 3. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 1997-1999.
Australian Greenhouse Office10 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 11
2.2 SITE SAMPLINGThe sampling of soil, plant litter and coarse woody debris was based on the procedures outlined by McKenzie et al. (2000). The dimensions of sample plots varied, but they were always at least 0.1 ha in area.
2.2.1 Soil
The sampling design, based on Dalal and Mayer (1986a, 1986b), allowed for five replicate soil samples for each plot as shown in the above diagram. Distance measurements quoted are typical. Actual spacing between the rows varied depending on site characteristics such as the distance between trees and the size of melonhole gilgai (if present).
Soil was sampled to 1 m depth using a hydraulic auger of approximately 50 mm diameter. Soil cores were sectioned into 00.05 m, 0.050.10 m, and then each 0.10 m depth interval. For the 00.30 m depth range, five samples from each depth increment were mixed to obtain one composite sample. Below 0.30 m, three samples were collected to obtain the composite sample. Bulk density was calculated
line 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
soil samples for each line were bulked into composite samples1 2 3 4 5
40 m
32 m
from the composite cores (50 mm tubes). For shrink/swell soils, a 100 mm tube was also used to obtain samples for bulk density determination. From each plot, an additional soil core (generally to a depth of 1.5 m) was taken for the purposes of soil type characterisation (description and laboratory analysis).
2.2.2 Surface Litter
Two 0.25 m2 quadrats were randomly placed along each soil sampling line. All the surface litter in the quadrat was collected and the percentage litter cover for each quadrat noted. In accordance with the protocols of McKenzie et al. (2000), woody debris with a diameter of
Australian Greenhouse Office10 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 11
2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.3.1 Climate
Climate summary information for each site was obtained by spatial interpolation using the method of Jeffrey et al. (2001). This information is included in Appendix G of this report.
2.3.2 Soil
One representative soil profile (usually in the centre of the plot) was described in detail using the guidelines of McDonald et al. (1990). Profile descriptions for each plot are included in Appendix G of this report.
2.3.3 Vegetation
The vegetation in each plot was described using the guidelines of McDonald et al. (1990). Transects were placed along each soil sampling line, along which overstorey and understorey foliage projection was estimated. Tree basal area for each plot was estimated using a dendrometer. These results are presented in Appendix A, Table 1.
2.3.4 Coarse Woody Debris
The diameter of each piece of coarse woody debris encountered along each transect line was recorded. For each coarse woody debris sample measured, an estimate of its degradation (decay and percentage intact) was also recorded. The volume of coarse woody debris per unit area was later calculated using Van Wagners equation as detailed in McKenzie et al. (2000).
2.4 LABORATORY PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
Soil moisture content was determined by drying a subsample at 105oC for 48 hrs. Bulk density was calculated from the ovendried soil mass and the recorded field volume of soil. The remainder of the soil sample was airdried (40oC), and ground to pass through a 0.25 mm sieve, and stored in sealed plastic containers. The mass and/or volume of separated coarse fragments (i.e. those that could not be ground), fine roots (7.0 were tested for the presence of inorganic carbonate by adding concentrated hydrochloric acid. Samples that fizzed were treated with sulphuric acid and redried prior to elemental analysis for organic carbon. All carbon results quoted in this report therefore refer to total organic carbon and specifically exclude nonbiological carbonate sources.
From the characterisation soil profile (where the soil profile had been described), each 0.10 m increment was analysed for EC, Chloride, and pH. Standard chemical and physical analyses (including exchangeable cations and particle size analysis) were carried out for each of the following depth increments : 00.05 m, 0.050.10 m, 0.200.30 m, 0.500.60 m, 0.800.90 m, 1.101.20 m.
Surface litter samples were dried at 65oC for 48 hours. Representative samples were separated into leaf material and woody material, ground and analysed in a LECO CR12 analyser for carbon and nitrogen.
Australian Greenhouse Office12 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 13
The organic carbon in representative plant litter samples was analysed for the following components:
Acid detergent fibre (ADF). ADF is largely a measure of the combined cellulose and lignin fraction in plant material. The plant material is simmered in acidic detergent solution for 1 hr and then filtered on a coarse sintered glass crucible. The weight of the dry residue gives a measure of the ADF, after allowing for ash content.
Lignin. Klasson lignin is determined by reacting the fibre residue from the ADF determination with 72% sulphuric acid. The acid dissolves the cellulose leaving the lignin and acid insoluble material.
Polyphenols. Total tannins are determined by extraction with boiling water followed by filtration and colouring with FolinDenis reagent. The amount of total tannin is determined spectrophotometrically.
Moisture. This is determined gravimetrically after drying overnight in a fan forced oven at 105oC.
Ash. This is a gravimetric determination of residue left after ashing at 600oC overnight.
3. RESULTS
3.1 SURFACE LITTERThe percentage litter cover, dry weights of leaf and woody material, and the derived total carbon (C) and total nitrogen (N) for the surface litter in each plot are shown in Appendix A, Table 2.
Results obtained for the fractionalisation of representative litter samples are shown in Appendix A, Table 3. These data are important for understanding litter decomposition and modelling carbon turnover from plant litter.
3.2 COARSE WOODY DEBRIS The results for each transect are shown in Appendix A, Table 4. In this table, the average volume adjusted for decay and intactness may be compared to the average unadjusted volume (which is obtained using the recorded diameters without any correction for degradation).
The contribution of coarse woody debris to carbon and nitrogen measures for each site is summarised in Appendix A, Table 5. Also shown is the basic density of sound timber samples, and the derived coarse woody debris mass (kg/ha).
The results in Table 4 (Appendix A) highlight important issues relating to the collection of coarse woody debris data for carbon estimation:
For uncleared sites, the average adjusted volume of coarse woody debris is about 50% of the unadjusted volume. This ultimately equates to significant quantities of carbon.
The standard deviation of the course woody debris data (for five replicate transects of 2040 m each) is often equal to or greater than the replicate mean.
Australian Greenhouse Office12 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 13
3.3 SOIL ORGANIC CARBON AND SOIL NITROGEN
The results for each soil sample are documented in Appendix D (Soil Carbon) and Appendix E (Soil Nitrogen). Table 1 in these appendices provides a complete set of results i.e. for all sites, all lines, all depth increments, averages and cumulative totals. This table also shows the bulk density calculated for each soil sample, and how the percent carbon values are converted to kilograms per hectare using bulk density and incremental soil depth.
Table 2 (in Appendix D and Appendix E) shows estimations of carbon and nitrogen, respectively, for the components extracted from the sieved soil (i.e. fine roots (
Australian Greenhouse Office14 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 15
3.4 SOIL CARBON AND NITROGEN DENSITYAn overall objective of the paired site sampling is to present a summary of mean site-soil carbon density, CDtot (t/ha or kg/ha) for each site. CDtot is obtained by summing all its components:
CDtot = CDCWD + CDSL + CDS + CDSR + CDSC.
Where CDCWD, CDSL, CDS, CDSR, and CDSC are the carbon densities for coarse woody debris (CWD), surface litter (SL), soil (S), separated roots (SR) and separated charcoal (SC). Note that CDS (carbon density of the sieved soil) has been adjusted for any changes in bulk density.
A similar site summary was derived for soil nitrogen (with NDtot = total nitrogen density for each site).
For interpretation and analysis, sites have been grouped according to major land use type (uncleared, grazing or cropping). Summarised information for each paired site is shown in Appendix B (soil carbon) and Appendix C (soil nitrogen).
Results are shown for cumulative soil depths of 0.10, 0.30, 0.60 and 1.00 m. For each cumulative depth, results are tabulated as indicated below:
1. all components (i.e. CDCWD + CDSL + CDS + CDSR + CDSC)
2. all components except for coarse woody debris (i.e. CDSL + CDS + CDSR + CDSC)
3. soil components only (i.e. CDS + CDSR + CDSC)
4. sieved soil (fine earth fraction) only (i.e. CDS)
Averaged site-soil carbon densities for all sites are summarised in Table 4 (page 16). Averaged totals for nitrogen for all sites are summarised in Table 5 (page 17).
4. DISCUSSION
Despite an overall pattern of decline, trends in soil organic carbon change as a result of land clearing were variable, especially in land developed for grazing. Soils cleared for grazing lost much smaller amounts of organic carbon than the cropping soils.
When considering carbon stocks and fluxes, it is important to be explicit about the soil depth considered and the components that are included in the analysis. For example, average decline is much greater if litter and coarse woody debris are included. However, due to considerable variability associated with estimating carbon stocks in coarse woody debris (Appendix A, Table 4), comparisons between treatments and between sites may be more meaningful if coarse woody debris is excluded.
The average difference between soil carbon densities of uncleared and cleared sites was an imputed loss of 11.9 t/ha for cropped soils and 4.2 t/ha for grazing soils (to a depth of of 0.30 m and including litter, plant roots and coarse charcoal). The corresponding losses in percentage terms were 27.0% for cropping and 9.7% for grazing soils. For sites that lost soil carbon, almost all the loss occurred in the 00.30 m depth range.
The magnitude of soil carbon decline in cropping soils is comparable to other studies reported in the literature. Russell and Williams (1982) found that decreases in organic carbon from cropping soils ranged from 10% to 60% over 1080 years of cultivation. Haas et al. (1957) observed a similar range in organic carbon decline due to cultivation over similar periods in North American soils.
Australian Greenhouse Office14 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 15
The large variability between sites cleared for grazing is also consistent with other reported studies. Howden et al. (1995) found that surface organic carbon concentration increased on some grazing sites while on others it remained the same or decreased slightly. Similarly, Neill and Davidson (2000) found that conversion of forest soils to pastures in Brazil resulted in a decrease in organic carbon stocks in some soils while in other soils there was an increase or no effect on soil carbon levels.
The average decline in soil carbon across sites cleared for grazing is 9.7% to 0.30 m soil depth, litter included, or 7.9% excluding litter. This is significantly larger than the average of 0% reported by Murty et al. (2002) who reviewed a large number of similar studies.
Discussion of laboratory analyses in Appendix G raises questions about the adequacy of paired site matching at nine of the sites cleared for grazing. However, with these sites totally removed from the analysis, the average loss of soil carbon across the 29 remaining sites changes only slightly: 8.7% to 0.30 m soil depth (3.6 t/ha) or 6.9% (2.8 t/ha) - excluding litter.
For both cropping and grazing soils, changes in soil carbon are associated with similar changes in soil nitrogen. For grazing sites, the average decline in soil nitrogen is of a similar magnitude to the average decline in soil carbon. For cropping sites, average carbon losses are significantly greater than average nitrogen losses. Consequently, the majority of cropping sites show a decrease in C:N ratios following land clearing.
Australian Greenhouse Office16 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 17
Table 4: Summary: Average site-soil carbon density for all paired sites, and average change in soil carbon following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). Data are means and standard errors.
GRAZING SITES (38 sites) Organic Carbon Density (t/ha) Change in Carbon Density
Depth Category Uncleared Grazed t/ha %
0-0.10 m all components 25.43 2.18 20.93 1.51 -4.50 1.95 -17.71 7.68
minus coarse woody debris 20.06 1.38 18.47 1.32 -1.59 0.78 -7.92 3.87minus coarse woody debris and litter 18.84 1.32 18.13 1.31 -0.71 0.77 -3.76 4.10
sieved soil only 17.43 1.22 16.24 1.19 -1.19 0.64 -6.84 3.65
0-0.30 m all components 48.49 3.89 41.39 2.68 -7.10 2.39 -14.65 4.94
minus coarse woody debris 43.12 3.17 38.93 2.70 -4.19 1.38 -9.72 3.21minus coarse woody debris and litter 41.90 3.10 38.59 2.68 -3.31 1.37 -7.90 3.27
sieved soil only 37.34 2.85 34.74 2.59 -2.60 1.11 -6.97 2.98
0-0.60 m all components 68.35 5.29 60.15 3.85 -8.20 2.55 -11.99 3.72
minus coarse woody debris 62.98 4.54 57.70 3.94 -5.28 1.57 -8.39 2.49minus coarse woody debris and litter 61.76 4.47 57.36 3.92 -4.40 1.55 -7.13 2.52
sieved soil only 56.76 4.18 53.20 3.86 -3.57 1.32 -6.28 2.32
0-1.00 m all components 86.07 6.95 78.07 5.14 -8.00 2.99 -9.29 3.47
minus coarse woody debris 80.61 6.14 75.55 5.27 -5.06 2.01 -6.28 2.50minus coarse woody debris and litter 79.41 6.05 75.21 5.26 -4.21 1.97 -5.30 2.48
sieved soil only 74.14 5.73 71.16 5.22 -2.98 1.71 -4.01 2.31
CROPPING SITES (11 sites) Organic Carbon Density (t/ha) Change in Carbon Density
Depth Category Uncleared Grazed t/ha %
0-0.10 m all components 29.86 5.71 13.35 1.89 -16.51 4.40 -55.29 14.75
minus coarse woody debris 21.15 3.12 13.35 1.89 -7.80 1.84 -36.88 8.70minus coarse woody debris and litter 18.56 2.96 13.33 1.88 -5.23 1.49 -28.19 8.03
sieved soil only 17.00 2.91 12.91 1.85 -4.09 1.30 -24.04 7.630-0.30 m
all components 52.93 9.27 32.29 4.68 -20.64 5.26 -38.99 9.93minus coarse woody debris 44.22 6.68 32.29 4.68 -11.93 2.71 -26.97 6.12
minus coarse woody debris and litter 41.63 6.60 32.27 4.67 -9.36 2.45 -22.48 5.89sieved soil only 37.97 6.37 31.57 4.65 -6.39 2.10 -16.83 5.53
0-0.60 m all components 75.72 13.40 54.89 8.70 -20.83 5.53 -27.51 7.31
minus coarse woody debris 66.63 10.68 54.89 8.70 -11.74 2.92 -17.62 4.38minus coarse woody debris and litter 64.40 10.66 54.87 8.69 -9.53 2.62 -14.79 4.07
sieved soil only 60.65 10.40 54.17 8.71 -6.48 2.26 -10.69 3.73
0-1.00 m all components 100.33 18.67 80.00 13.92 -20.33 6.25 -20.26 6.23
minus coarse woody debris 91.62 15.89 80.00 13.92 -11.62 3.59 -12.69 3.92minus coarse woody debris and litter 89.04 15.83 79.98 13.91 -9.06 3.30 -10.17 3.70
sieved soil only 85.16 15.51 79.28 13.95 -5.88 2.94 -6.90 3.45
Australian Greenhouse Office16 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 17
Table 5: Summary: Average total nitrogen for all paired sites, and average change in soil nitrogen following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). Data are means and standard errors.
GRAZING SITES (38 sites) Total Nitrogen (kg/ha) Change in Total Nitrogen Uncleared Grazed kg/ha %
0-0.10 m all components 1,174 100 1,071 90 -103 44 -8.8 3.7
minus coarse woody debris 1,150 97 1,061 91 -89 42 -7.8 3.7minus coarse woody debris and litter 1,118 95 1,055 90 -64 41 -5.7 3.7
sieved soil only 1,098 93 1,030 89 -67 41 -6.1 3.7
0-0.30 m all components 2,589 230 2,384 203 -205 85 -7.9 3.3
minus coarse woody debris 2,565 227 2,374 204 -191 84 -7.5 3.3minus coarse woody debris and litter 2,534 225 2,368 204 -166 84 -6.5 3.3
sieved soil only 2,464 220 2,318 202 -147 81 -6.0 3.3
0-0.60 m all components 4,064 319 3,727 275 -337 118 -8.3 2.9
minus coarse woody debris 4,040 316 3,717 275 -323 117 -8.0 2.9minus coarse woody debris and litter 4,012 314 3,712 275 -300 116 -7.5 2.9
sieved soil only 3,934 308 3,657 273 -278 113 -7.1 2.9
0-1.00 m all components 5,542 404 5,208 353 -335 183 -6.0 3.3
minus coarse woody debris 5,518 402 5,198 354 -320 183 -5.8 3.3minus coarse woody debris and litter 5,487 400 5,192 354 -296 182 -5.4 3.3
sieved soil only 5,405 393 5,138 342 -267 179 -4.9 3.3
CROPPING SITES (11 sites) Total Nitrogen (kg/ha) Change in Total Nitrogen Uncleared Cropped kg/ha %
0-0.10 m all components 1,254 239 876 150 -378 108 -30.1 8.6
minus coarse woody debris 1,211 228 876 150 -335 98 -27.7 8.1minus coarse woody debris and litter 1,117 227 875 150 -242 88 -21.7 7.9
sieved soil only 1,098 225 870 150 -228 86 -20.7 7.8
0-0.30 m all components 2,616 519 2,121 394 -495 147 -18.9 5.6
minus coarse woody debris 2,573 507 2,121 394 -452 140 -17.6 5.4minus coarse woody debris and litter 2,479 509 2,120 393 -359 137 -14.5 5.5
sieved soil only 2,413 503 2,112 394 -301 133 -12.5 5.5
0-0.60 m all components 3,955 797 3,478 674 -477 158 -12.1 4.0
minus coarse woody debris 3,912 785 3,478 674 -434 154 -11.1 3.9minus coarse woody debris and litter 3,819 788 3,478 674 -341 154 -8.9 4.0
sieved soil only 3,751 782 3,470 675 -281 152 -7.5 4.0
0-1.00 m all components 5,292 1,059 4,941 1,023 -350 133 -6.6 2.5
minus coarse woody debris 5,249 1,048 4,941 1,023 -307 136 -5.9 2.6minus coarse woody debris and litter 5,155 1,051 4,941 1,023 -214 134 -4.2 2.6
sieved soil only 5,085 1,046 4,933 1,024 -152 138 -3.0 2.7
Australian Greenhouse Office18 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 19
5. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CONTINUED MONITORING
Proposed criteria for selecting sampling sites for continued monitoring of soil carbon levels (to at least 2012):
1. Sites must represent the major soil types and IBRA regions.
2. A site must represent the dominant land use of the region.
3. A site must show changes in soil carbon stocks following land use changes, management practices or experimental treatments (NCAS paired-site study).
4. A site preferably represents transition of carbon inputs from C3 (tree) vegetation to C4 (tropical grass) vegetation.
5. Configuration, location and size of a site must be such that repeated but stratified sampling can be done without damaging the integrity of the site.
6. A site must be secure and accessible for the next 12-25 years, and have site history as well as monitored or simulated climate data.
7. A site must have the potential to provide future greenhouse gases emissions and abatement work and data collection for spatial and temporal simulation.
8. A series of sites should be networked to monitor temporal (different ages of clearing and/or management) and spatial (across soil types, IBRA regions, and climate) changes.
Recommended sampling sites for continued monitoring of carbon levels, through to at least 2012:
Total sites: 12
1. Mulga Lands: Kandosols - 2 sites
2. Darling Riverine Plains: Nil
3. Brigalow Belt South: 2 sites (cropped sites)
4. Brigalow Belt North: Ironbark (4 sites- pastures of different ages); Gidgee (2 sites 1 pasture + 1 crop)
5. Desert Uplands: 2 sites (1 pasture Spinifex; 1 pasture + box)
Success factors for the ongoing management of the monitoring sites:
Long term commitment by the agency and the relevant group.
Financial contribution by the Australian Greenhouse Office for the retention of trained staff required for monitoring of carbon stocks before and during the 2008-2012 commitment period. This requires a professional officer and a technical assistant and operating expenses for monitoring, assessment and reporting of soil carbon stocks from the proposed monitoring sites ($165,000 per annum).
Value-adding experimentation by other greenhouse scientists and modellers should be encouraged to enhance the usefulness of the sites for the National Greenhouse Monitoring Program.
Multi-purpose utilisation of the sites for evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation practices and for other agencies research, development and education needs will ensure additional resources for the management of the monitoring sites.
Australian Greenhouse Office18 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 19
6. REFERENCES
Dalal, R.C. and Mayer, R.J. (1986a) Long-term trends in fertility of soils under continuous cultivation and cereal cropping in southern Queensland. 1. Overall changes in soil properties and trends in winter cereal yields. Aust. J. Soil Res. 24: 265-279.
Dalal, R.C. and Mayer, R.J. (1986b) Long-term trends in fertility of soils under continuous cultivation and cereal cropping in southern Queensland. 2. Total soil carbon and its rate of loss from the soil profile. Aust J. Soil Res. 24: 281-292.
Department of Natural Resources. (1999) State Land and Tree Clearing Studies (SLATS). Land Cover Change in Queensland, 1991-1995. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane.
Haas, H.J., Evans, C.E. and Miles, E.F. (1957). Nitrogen and carbon changes in Great Plains soils as influenced by cropping and soil treatments. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 1164.
Howden, S.M., McKeon, G.M., Reyenga, P.J., Scanlan, Carter, J.O. and White, D.H. (1995). Management options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tropical beef grazing systems. Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001) Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data. Environmental Modelling and Software 16/4: 309-330.
McDonald, R.C., Isbell, R.F., Speight, J.G., Walker J. and Hopkins, M.S. (1990). Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, Inkata Press, Melbourne.
McKenzie, N., Ryan, P., Fogarty, P. and Wood, J. (2000). Sampling, Measurement and Analytical Protocols for Carbon Estimation in Soil, Litter and Coarse woody debris. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 14. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.
Murty, D., Kirschbaum, M.U.F, McMurtie, R.E. and McGilvray, H. (2002). Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Global Change Biology 8: 105-123.
Neill, C. and Davidson, E.A. (2000). Soil carbon accumulation or loss following deforestation for pasture in the Brazilian Amazon. In Lal R., Kimble, J.M. and Stewart, B.A. (Eds). Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems. Advances in Soil Science CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Russell, J.S. and Williams, C.H. (1982). Biogeochemical interactions of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus in Australian agroecosystems. In Galbally , L.E. and Freney, J.R. (Eds.) The Cycling of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. Australian Academy of Science: Canberra.
Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (eds) (1995). An interim biogeographic regionalisation for Australia: a framework for setting priorities in the National Reserves System Cooperative Program. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Webbnet Land Resource Services (1999). Estimation of Changes in Soil Carbon due to Changes in Land Use. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 2. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.
Australian Greenhouse Office20 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 21
Australian Greenhouse Office20 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 21
APPENDIX A
Vegetation Characteristics, Surface Litter,
Coarse Woody Debris
Australian Greenhouse Office22 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.Table 1. Site Characteristics: Tree Basal Area and Foliage Projection Cover. 23
Table 2. Surface Litter: Dry Weight, Mass of C, Mass of N. 24
Table 3. Surface Litter: Fractionalisation of Organic Matter. 25
Table 4. All Sites: Coarse Woody Debris Volume (m3/ha). 26
Table 5. Coarse Woody Debris: Mean Adjusted Volume, Mass of C, Mass of N. 27
Australian Greenhouse Office22 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 23
U
NCL
EAR
ED P
LOTS
CL
EAR
ED P
LOTS
Site
Code
Loca
tion
Tree
Bas
al A
rea
(m2 /
ha)
Ove
rsto
rey
Und
erst
orey
cov
er (%
)Cl
eare
d Tr
ee B
asal
Are
a (m
2 /ha
)O
vers
tore
yU
nder
stor
ey c
over
(%)
liv
ede
adFP
C %
folia
gelit
ter
bare
land
use
live
dead
FPC
%fo
liage
litte
rba
re1
1 DE
UAl
ice
Rive
r7.
62.
124
5714
29pa
stur
e0
02
559
362
2 DE
UTe
xas
4.2
3.9
2432
1454
past
ure
00
058
239
44
DEU
Lenn
ox S
LIB
4.4
0.3
658
934
past
ure
00
064
531
55
DEU
Lenn
ox Y
J9.
60.
436
5934
8pa
stur
e0
04
8213
56
6 DE
UGl
enco
e10
.21.
024
5427
19pa
stur
e0
00
2634
397
7 DE
UM
irtna
IB12
.80.
534
5228
21pa
stur
e0
00
714
268
8 DE
UM
irtna
DG
6.7
1.4
2544
3224
past
ure
00
055
1728
99
DEU
Nata
l11
.01.
234
5430
16pa
stur
e0
00
7411
1410
10 D
EURe
llim
Gid
gee
19.4
4.6
3824
5324
past
ure
00
046
3421
1111
DEU
Relli
m B
ox
9.7
0.3
2253
3810
past
ure
00
267
1321
1212
DEU
Eure
ka5.
62.
015
3233
36pa
stur
e0
00
5927
1513
13 D
EUCo
rnto
p4.
40.
514
5824
18pa
stur
e0
00
6511
2414
1 BB
NVi
cenz
a25
.62.
458
4545
9cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
152
BBN
pa
stur
e0
00
4831
2116
3 BB
NCo
obya
nga
21.4
3.6
3923
5125
culti
vatio
n-
--
--
-17
4 BB
N
past
ure
00
073
1513
185
BBN
Pash
a 11
.45.
232
5519
27pa
stur
e0
00
6121
1919
6 BB
NDo
uble
-D13
.62.
356
2852
21pa
stur
e (1
977)
00
073
271
207
BBN
pa
stur
e (1
996)
00
072
281
218
BBN
Cool
ibah
13.7
2.0
5063
325
culti
vatio
n (1
978)
00
049
2230
229
BBN
cu
ltiva
tion
(198
6)0
00
5034
1723
10 B
BN
past
ure
(197
2)0
00
7318
924
11 B
BNBo
oroo
ndar
ra11
.50.
943
2153
27pa
stur
e0
00
4840
1325
12 B
BNTr
alee
15.2
4.8
2550
3516
past
ure
(T)
4.6
9.0
1570
247
2613
BBN
pa
stur
e (P
)0
01
7815
727
1 BB
SKi
ndon
8.9
1.1
2216
5826
past
ure
(198
6)0
00
388
5428
2 BB
S
past
ure
(200
0)0
00
633
3529
3 BB
SBr
oken
Dra
y9.
90.
858
4938
13pa
stur
e (1
981)
00
062
1127
304
BBS
pa
stur
e (1
995)
00
066
331
315
BBS
Ridg
elea
IB7.
81.
743
5731
13pa
stur
e (1
990)
00
060
3011
326
BBS
pa
stur
e (1
997)
00
032
1752
337
BBS
Ridg
elea
Box
8.4
0.7
5938
5111
past
ure
00
0
5938
434
8 BB
SPo
tters
Fla
t7.
20.
869
1468
18pa
stur
e (1
965)
00
037
2142
359
BBS
pa
stur
e (1
984)
00
035
4915
3610
BBS
Eum
ara
14.8
2.5
2962
354
past
ure
00
077
186
371
DRP
Narin
e4.
80.
537
859
34cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
382
DRP
Dunk
erry
Sth
1.3
0.1
1138
4023
culti
vatio
n (1
996)
--
--
--
393
DRP
cu
ltiva
tion
(196
7)-
--
--
-40
4 DR
PDu
nker
ry10
.70.
874
098
3cu
ltiva
tion
(198
5)-
--
--
-41
5 DR
P
culti
vatio
n (1
993)
--
--
--
421
ML
Kiam
a9.
10.
236
3057
14cu
ltiva
tion
00
079
021
432
ML
pa
stur
e0
08
5427
2044
3 M
LKu
llinj
ar6.
61.
354
674
19cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
454
ML
pa
stur
e0
00
659
2646
5 M
LCh
arle
ville
11.2
1.6
5527
5518
clea
red
00
244
1343
487
ML
Khyb
er14
.01.
460
1560
25pa
stur
e (1
983)
00
074
125
498
ML
pa
stur
e (1
992)
00
055
1035
509
ML
pa
stur
e (1
999)
00
059
833
5110
ML
Woo
dsid
e11
.32.
468
1182
8pa
stur
e0
00
6113
26
APPENDIX A Table 1: Site Characteristics: Tree Basal Area and Foliage Projection Cover (FPC).
Australian Greenhouse Office24 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 25
UN
CLEA
RED
PLO
TSCL
EAR
ED P
LOTS
Site
Code
Loca
tion
Litte
rLe
af m
ater
ial
Woo
dy m
ater
ial
tota
l Nto
tal C
Clea
red
Litte
rLe
af m
ater
ial
Woo
dy m
ater
ial
tota
l Nto
tal C
co
ver %
DW
(kg/
ha)
C (k
g/ha
)N
(kg/
ha)
DW
(kg/
ha)
C (k
g/ha
)N
(kg/
ha)
kg/h
akg
/ha
land
use
cove
r %D
W (k
g/ha
)C
(kg/
ha)
N (k
g/ha
)D
W (k
g/ha
)C
(kg/
ha)
N (k
g/ha
)kg
/ha
kg/h
a1
1 DE
UAl
ice
Rive
r-
388
192
4.10
8036
0.28
4.4
228
past
ure
1025
610
02.
3520
100.
122.
511
02
2 DE
UTe
xas
-84
435
66.
2035
215
21.
307.
550
8pa
stur
e10
324
130
2.15
--
-2.
213
04
4 DE
ULe
nnox
SLI
B16
556
256
3.82
248
0.10
3.9
264
past
ure
20
6.
036
05
5 DE
ULe
nnox
YJ
5129
6813
8015
.67
592
280
2.00
17.7
1660
past
ure
10
2.
010
06
6 DE
UGl
enco
e23
908
412
7.53
464
204
1.79
9.3
616
past
ure
10
2.
010
07
7 DE
UM
irtna
IB44
1152
524
7.99
164
760.
628.
660
0pa
stur
e10
480
-2.
63-
2.6
200
88
DEU
Mirt
na D
G31
2396
1132
20.5
026
812
40.
9921
.512
56pa
stur
e5
-40
--
--
4.0
409
9 DE
UNa
tal
3914
7660
818
.89
196
841.
7720
.769
2pa
stur
e20
-35
0
--
-8.
035
010
10 D
EURe
llim
Gid
gee
3317
6075
215
.59
352
152
2.59
18.2
904
past
ure
10
2.
510
011
11 D
EURe
llim
Box
60
2008
884
9.34
116
520.
469.
893
6pa
stur
e30
--
--
--
5.0
400
1212
DEU
Eure
ka28
868
416
7.03
7232
0.26
7.3
448
past
ure
2559
624
03.
2018
080
1.27
4.5
330
1313
DEU
Corn
top
2780
438
44.
9116
80.
055.
039
2pa
stur
e27
128
500.
5514
060
0.42
1.0
1114
1 BB
NVi
cenz
a58
5336
2260
86.4
142
6817
6442
.79
129.
240
24cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
-na
na15
2 BB
N
pa
stur
e40
-
--
12.0
800
163
BBN
Coob
yang
a59
3940
1432
51.0
233
8813
2832
.06
83.1
2760
culti
vatio
n-
--
--
--
nana
174
BBN
past
ure
4025
3080
012
.24
--
-12
.280
018
5 BB
NPa
sha
1651
624
45.
6614
060
0.60
6.3
304
past
ure
2073
630
0
--
-6.
030
019
6 BB
NDo
uble
-D33
3032
1248
50.8
017
0873
216
.93
67.7
1980
past
ure
(197
7)30
--
--
--
12.0
800
207
BBN
past
ure
(199
6)30
2208
--
80-
-12
.082
021
8 BB
NCo
olib
ah55
4580
1948
58.3
875
631
69.
8468
.222
64cu
ltiva
tion
(197
8)50
608
240
7.34
--
-7.
324
022
9 BB
N
cu
ltiva
tion
(198
6)-
--
--
--
nana
2310
BBN
past
ure
(197
2)30
--
--
--
12.0
800
2411
BBN
Boor
oond
arra
4416
2076
817
.59
00
0.00
17.6
768
past
ure
5075
632
04.
56-
--
4.6
320
2512
BBN
Tral
ee22
1028
496
10.1
952
240.
2210
.452
0pa
stur
e (T
)30
760
330
6.42
--
-6.
433
2613
BBN
past
ure
(P)
30-
--
--
-12
.080
027
1 BB
SKi
ndon
-26
8412
9223
.30
324
144
1.71
25.0
1436
past
ure
(198
6)10
2.
510
028
2 BB
S
pa
stur
e (2
000)
10
2.
510
029
3 BB
SBr
oken
Dra
y75
2808
1288
40.1
821
9291
614
.98
55.2
2204
past
ure
(198
1)20
--
--
--
6.0
200
304
BBS
past
ure
(199
5)20
--
--
--
6.0
200
315
BBS
Ridg
elea
IB52
988
468
8.91
8440
0.33
9.2
508
past
ure
(199
0)67
1220
470
7.78
--
-7.
847
032
6 BB
S
pa
stur
e (1
997)
3899
6-
6.35
100
--
6.4
460
337
BBS
Ridg
elea
Box
6825
9612
6026
.35
128
560.
5126
.913
16pa
stur
e86
1304
540
-
--
10.0
540
348
BBS
Potte
rs F
lat
5424
7210
6836
.95
00
0.00
36.9
1068
past
ure
(196
5)55
568
230
4.23
--
-4.
223
035
9 BB
S
pa
stur
e (1
984)
8114
2459
010
.29
--
-10
.359
036
10 B
BSEu
mar
a73
1456
1788
28.7
539
217
61.
6630
.419
64pa
stur
e30
--
--
--
10.0
500
371
DRP
Narin
e52
2508
1160
20.6
724
410
41.
0221
.712
64cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
-na
na38
2 DR
PDu
nker
ry S
th21
996
464
7.89
124
560.
528.
452
0cu
ltiva
tion
(199
6)-
--
--
--
nana
393
DRP
culti
vatio
n (1
967)
--
--
--
-na
na40
4 DR
PDu
nker
ry95
1715
663
3229
7.68
152
641.
4929
9.2
6396
culti
vatio
n (1
985)
--
--
--
-na
na41
5 DR
P
cu
ltiva
tion
(199
3)-
--
--
--
nana
421
ML
Kiam
a55
2188
984
20.9
139
217
61.
7322
.611
60cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
-na
na43
2 M
L
pa
stur
e45
660
290
4.74
--
-4.
729
044
3 M
LKu
llinj
ar60
1936
888
24.4
048
200.
2524
.690
8cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
-na
na45
4 M
L
pa
stur
e65
1208
520
9.33
--
-9.
352
046
5 M
LCh
arle
ville
5219
0486
433
.76
124
0.13
33.9
868
clea
red
10-
--
--
-2.
010
048
7 M
LKh
yber
3528
1212
8439
.23
236
108
10.2
449
.513
92pa
stur
e (1
983)
20-
--
--
-4.
020
049
8 M
L
pa
stur
e (1
992)
20-
--
--
-2.
010
050
9 M
L
pa
stur
e (1
999)
20-
--
--
-2.
010
051
10 M
LW
oods
ide
6640
1618
0463
.68
252
112
2.05
65.7
1916
past
ure
20-
--
--
-4.
020
0
APPENDIX A Table 2: Surface Litter: Dry Weight (DW), Mass of Carbon (C), Mass of Nitrogen (N). Italicised entries indicate cleared sites where litter was estimated or was too sparse to warrant collection.
Australian Greenhouse Office24 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 25
UN
CLEA
RED
PLO
TSCL
EAR
ED P
LOTS
Site
Code
Loca
tion
Litte
rLe
af m
ater
ial
Woo
dy m
ater
ial
tota
l Nto
tal C
Clea
red
Litte
rLe
af m
ater
ial
Woo
dy m
ater
ial
tota
l Nto
tal C
co
ver %
DW
(kg/
ha)
C (k
g/ha
)N
(kg/
ha)
DW
(kg/
ha)
C (k
g/ha
)N
(kg/
ha)
kg/h
akg
/ha
land
use
cove
r %D
W (k
g/ha
)C
(kg/
ha)
N (k
g/ha
)D
W (k
g/ha
)C
(kg/
ha)
N (k
g/ha
)kg
/ha
kg/h
a1
1 DE
UAl
ice
Rive
r-
388
192
4.10
8036
0.28
4.4
228
past
ure
1025
610
02.
3520
100.
122.
511
02
2 DE
UTe
xas
-84
435
66.
2035
215
21.
307.
550
8pa
stur
e10
324
130
2.15
--
-2.
213
04
4 DE
ULe
nnox
SLI
B16
556
256
3.82
248
0.10
3.9
264
past
ure
20
6.
036
05
5 DE
ULe
nnox
YJ
5129
6813
8015
.67
592
280
2.00
17.7
1660
past
ure
10
2.
010
06
6 DE
UGl
enco
e23
908
412
7.53
464
204
1.79
9.3
616
past
ure
10
2.
010
07
7 DE
UM
irtna
IB44
1152
524
7.99
164
760.
628.
660
0pa
stur
e10
480
-2.
63-
2.6
200
88
DEU
Mirt
na D
G31
2396
1132
20.5
026
812
40.
9921
.512
56pa
stur
e5
-40
--
--
4.0
409
9 DE
UNa
tal
3914
7660
818
.89
196
841.
7720
.769
2pa
stur
e20
-35
0
--
-8.
035
010
10 D
EURe
llim
Gid
gee
3317
6075
215
.59
352
152
2.59
18.2
904
past
ure
10
2.
510
011
11 D
EURe
llim
Box
60
2008
884
9.34
116
520.
469.
893
6pa
stur
e30
--
--
--
5.0
400
1212
DEU
Eure
ka28
868
416
7.03
7232
0.26
7.3
448
past
ure
2559
624
03.
2018
080
1.27
4.5
330
1313
DEU
Corn
top
2780
438
44.
9116
80.
055.
039
2pa
stur
e27
128
500.
5514
060
0.42
1.0
1114
1 BB
NVi
cenz
a58
5336
2260
86.4
142
6817
6442
.79
129.
240
24cu
ltiva
tion
--
--
--
-na
na15
2 BB
N
pa
stur
e40
-
--
12.0
800
163
BBN
Coob
yang
a59
3940
1432
51.0
233
8813
2832
.06
83.1
2760
culti
vatio
n-
--
--
--
nana
174
BBN
past
ure
4025
3080
012
.24
--
-12
.280
018
5 BB
NPa
sha
1651
624
45.
6614
060
0.60
6.3
304
past
ure
2073
630
0
--
-6.
030
019
6 BB
NDo
uble
-D33
3032
1248
50.8
017
0873
216
.93
67.7
1980
past
ure
(197
7)30
--
--
--
12.0
800
207
BBN
past
ure
(199
6)30
2208
--
80-
-12
.082
021
8 BB
NCo
olib
ah55
4580
1948
58.3
875
631
69.
8468
.222
64cu
ltiva
tion
(197
8)50
608
240
7.34
--
-7.
324
022
9 BB
N
cu
ltiva
tion
(198
6)-
--
--
--
nana
2310
BBN
past
ure
(197
2)30
--
--
--
12.0
800
2411
BBN
Boor
oond
arra
4416
2076
817
.59
00
0.00
17.6
768
past
ure
5075
632
04.
56-
--
4.6
320
2512
BBN
Tral
ee22
1028
496
10.1
952
240.
2210
.452
0pa
stur
e (T
)30
760
330
6.42
--
-6.
433
2613
BBN
past
ure
(P)
30-
--
--
-12
.080
027
1 BB
SKi
ndon
-26
8412
9223
.30
324
144
1.71
25.0
1436
past
ure
(198
6)10
2.
510
028
2 BB
S
pa
stur
e (2
000)
10
2.
510
029
3 BB
SBr
oken
Dra
y75
2808
1288
40.1
821
9291
614
.98
55.2
2204
past
ure
(198
1)20
--
--
--
6.0
200
304
BBS
past
ure
(199
5)20
--
--
--
6.0
200
315
BBS
Ridg
elea
IB52
988
468
8.91
8440
0.33
9.2
508
past
ure
(199
0)67
1220
470
7.78
--
-7.
847
032
6 BB
S
pa
stur
e (1
997)
3899
6-
6.35
100
--
6