Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | franklin-bradley |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
February 19February 19Land Use and Cover Change and the Land Use and Cover Change and the Global Carbon CycleGlobal Carbon Cycle
Ecological Disturbance on a Global ScaleEcological Disturbance on a Global Scale
Global Change / Climate Change Global Climate change which results from
human activities is one of the most contentious topics in environmental science and policy
There is growing agreement that: There is a climate change occurring That humans are the cause
The global carbon cycle is a keystone topic
The carbon cycle The carbon cycle is the canonical global change issue, especially when we
want to “go beyond climate change” think: is it the most important, in our time?
I want to use this as a good overview issue for human impacts on the planetary scale strong geographical component strong human component, many leads and connections to human
dimensions strong policy component it’s a big mystery but something important to find answers to if we cant understand something this basic we wont be able to do much
else points to all the classical issues of inquiry: measurement, models,
evidence, inference, uncertainty,etc social science needs to know this stuff
The greenhouse effect Based only on our distance from the sun, the
earth should be colder by 33 degrees C. Our planet should be a chunk of ice But natural greenhouse gases – primarily carbon
dioxide and water vapor provide for heating of the planet to a normal temperature.
But we are now introducing MORE greenhouse gases, and we don’t know what affect this will have
78% Nitrogen78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen21% Oxygen
<<0.04% Carbon Dioxide0.04% Carbon Dioxide
Atmospheric GasesAtmospheric Gases
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere Exists in trace quantities This means doubling or halving can be
important Consider oxygen: if all trees were removed
the oxygen concentration would decline by 300 ppm – from 209,480 to 209,180.
But an increase of 300 ppm for carbon dioxide would double it.
Other Greenhouse Gases And Sources Water vapor Methane Nitrous oxide CFC’s and other
halocarbons
Hydrological cycle Animal husbandry Chemical fertilizers* Refrigerants*
* = Long residence times and contribute toozone depletion
The greenhouse effect
Global Surface Temperatures
NOAA Global Flask Sampling Network
Years before presentYears before present Petit et al. (1999)Petit et al. (1999)
CO
CO
22-co
ncen
trat
ion
(ppm
)-c
once
ntra
tion
(pp
m)
200200
240240
280280
320320
360360
160160
1750
2000
00100,000100,000200,000200,000300,000300,000400,000400,000
Atmospheric [CO2] over the last 400,000 years
HistoricallyTotal emissions of C
[deforestation and fossil-fuel burning]
450 PgC
From 1850 to 1990
Houghton et al. 1999, Houghton 1999, Defries et al. 1999, IPCC-TAR 2001
Global Emissions from Land Use Change
[180-200 PgC from land use change]
+ 90 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere
[40 ppm due to changes in land use]
90% due todeforestation[20% descrease
Forest Area]
124 Pg emitted due to land use change60% in tropical areas
%40 in temperate areas
1 Pg C = 1,000,000,000,000,000 g C(a billion tones)
7.9 Pg C/yr (6.3 Pg Fossil Fuel)(1.6 Pg Land Use)
2.9 PgC/yr - Oceans
1.3 PgC/yr - Terrestrial Ecosystems
3.7 PgC/yr - Atmosphere
Global Carbon Budget - The fate of CO2Period 1990-1996
After IPCC, TAR 2001
Global CO2 Budgets (Pg/yr)
Atmospheric Increase +3.3±0.1 +2.9 ±0.1
1980’s 1990-95
IPCC, TAR 2001
Land-Use Change(80’s) +1.6 (0.5 to 2.4)
Land-Atmosphere Flux -0.2 ±0.7 -1.0 ±0.6Ocean-Atmosphere Flux -2.0 ±0.6 -2.4 ±0.5Emissions (fossil fuel, cement) +5.5 ±0.3 +6.3 ±0.4
Residual Terrestrial Sink - 1.8 (-3.7 to +0.4)
dA = F + B - O - b
1980s3.7 = 6.3 + 1.6 - 2.9 3.7 5.0 (Difference is 1.3 -- The Missing Sink)
1990s2.9 = 6.3 + 1.6 – 2.42.9 Difference is 2.6)
Global Carbon Sinks resulting from land use/cover change
NOAA-CMDL 1999
Location of Global C Sources and Sinks
CO2 Flask Network and Inverse Modeling
- Atmospheric constraints of Global C sources and sinks -
Inverse Model Estimates of CO2 Uptake (7 Models)
IPCC, TAR, 2001
- 0.7 to - 2.4 Pg C/yr
+ 1.6 Pg C/yr
Biological C Sources and Sinks
- 1.6 Pg C/yr0.0 Pg C
- 0.0 Pg C/yr
Fan et al. 1998
Inverse Modeling Calculations of C Sources and Sinks
North America: 1.6 PgC/yr Euroasia: 0.5 PgC/yr
- 0.1
- 0.5 - 0.3 - 1.3
Ciais et al 2000
TM21985-1995GlobalView-CO2
Inverse Modeling Calculations of Terrestrial Carbon Sources and Sinks
Pg C/yr
Current Terrestrial Sinks Potential Driving Mechanisms
CO2 fertilization Nitrogen fertilization Climate change Regrowth of previously harvested forests
Reforestation / Afforestation Regrowth of previously disturbed forests
Fire, wind, insects Fire suppression Decreased deforestation Improved agriculture Sediment burial Future: Terrestrial Carbon Management (e.g., Kyoto)
Land Use/Cover Change
• The Northern Hemisphere Temperate/Boreal
Sink• The Eastern USA sink• China sink
Carbon SinksThree Examples:
1. Northern Hemisphere Carbon Sink Late 80’s-Early 90’s
Goodel et al 2001 (in press)
- Forest Inventories and Land Use Change as constraints of C Sources and Sinks -
Total Sink: 0.7 to 2.4 Pg C/yr[Inverse modeling] 30-100%
70% in Temperate Regions[Larger sink in Euroasia than in North America]
[Forestry Sector]
0.7 to 0.8 Pg C/yr
0.2 Pg C yr-1 in living biomass, 0.4 Pg C yr-1 in dead organic matter0.1 Pg C yr-1 in forest products
Carbon Stocks in Live Forest VegetationOver the Last Half Century
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Live
Veg
etat
ion
(Pg
C)
Canada
Coterminous USEuro Russia
China
Asian Russia
Europe
Goodel et al 2001 (in press)
2. Eastern United States Carbon Sink
Eastern United States (5 states)
96% of the C sink attributed to land use change:• Forest regrowth after crop abandonment• Reduced harvesting• Fire suppression
Caspersen et al. 2000
4% remaining attributed to:• Increasing CO2
• Nitrogen Deposition• Climate Change
3. Changes in Forest Biomass C storage in China1949-1998
Fang et al. 2001
Between 1940’s and 70’s, C storage declined by 0.68 Pg C due to
forest exploitation policies
From late 1970’s to present, C storage has increased by 0.4 Pg C
due to policies of protection and timber production[+ 0.021 Pg C/yr]
0.38 Pg C comes from planted forests
Nepstad et al. 1999
Landsat TM image, Paragom.,1991, classified as forest and non-forest[Brazilian Government reportingmethodology] – 62% Forest
Same image,classified after ranch owners interviews:only 1/10 of the above forest was Classified as undisturbed forest by human practices – 6.2% Forest
Forest Conversion: Carbon Density
Forest Impoverishment:
- Surface fires (could be responsible for doubling C emissions during El Nino years)- Logging (4-7% of that of forest conversion)
Forest Structure: Carbon Sink Strength
time
BiomassSink
Strength
Carbon Source: Emissions from Forest FiresDirect C emissions from Fires in Canada (1950-1999)
Amiro et a l. 2 0 0 0
P hot
o: M
. Fla
nnig
a n, C
a na d
a
Area burned in the North AmericaBoreal Forest Region (1940-1998)
Kasischke and Stocks 2000
Annual global carbon emissions from vegetation fires1.6 Pg C/yr
25% of the amount of fossil fuel emissions
Fire exclusion has increased C storage in forests [last 100 yrs]
Carbon Sink: Fire suppressionP h
otos
: M. F
lan n
igan
[Can
ada]
Total Area Burned (US)
Houghton et al. 2000
Annual Flux of C (TgC yr-1)
Eliminating fire completely,US forest could accumulated
2.6 Pg C by 2140
Woody Biomass
PrecipitationWater Availab.Soil toxicitiesAir temperature
+ +-
Woody Encroachment:Biophysical and land management drivers
After Scholes and Hall 1996
- -
Fire Browsers Harvesting
Overgrazing+ +
+--
-
Nutrients Human population+ +
N depositionIncreasing CO2
Phot
o: S
. Ar c
h er
Woody EncroachmentPh
oto:
Mar
tin 1
975,
Ariz
ona
1903
& 1
941
Woody plant encroachment has promoted C sequestration in grassland and savanna ecosystems of N and S America,Australia, Africa, and Southeast Asia over the past century.
Maximum Potential C sequestration in the absence of fire = 2 Pg C yr-1 (upper value) Scholes and Hal 1996 Estimated CO2 sink:
• USA: 0.17 PgC/yr for the 1980s (Houghton et al., 1999)
• Australia: 0.03 PgC/yr (Burrows, 1998)
Improved Agriculture Practices
Donigian et al. 1994 , Lal et al. 1998, Metting et al. 1999, IPCC Land Use and Forestry 2000
• High yielding plant varieties• Fertilisers• Irrigation• Residue management• Reduced tillage for erosion control
has contributed to the stabilisation or enhancement of carbon stocks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Max
imum
Yea
rly C
Mitig
atio
n Po
tent
ial (
Tg C
y-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
% O
ffset
of 1
990
Euro
pean
CO
2 Em
issio
ns
Land Management Change
Animalmanure Sewage
sludge
StrawIncorp.
No-till
Bioenergyproduction
Woodlandregeneration
Extensification
Carbon Mitigation and Offsets due to Land Management in Europe
A combination of best practices could offset 0.113 Pg C/ yr.
Over 100 years this is equivalent to a C offset of 11.3 Pg.
• In the USA:
Full adoption of best management practices would be likely to restore soil organic carbonlevels to about 75-90% of their pre-cultivation level, increasing 7.5-20.8 Pg C over 100 years (0.075 to 0.208 Pg C per year).
Example from the tropics
Main points Land use and management leaves a mosaic of various
cover types and cover states These systems have memory Memory is manifested in long term sources, and sinks in
regrowth and soil OM storage Memory is also manifested in how many cycles or
transitions a landscape patch has undergone alteration Changes in stocks – changes in area, changes in density --
and changes in fluxes, which vary with time
Geography and timing Some important issues include geography and timing
Geography in the broader context to include spatial pattern
Past deforestation may currently be regenerating; in regions where current deforestation is declining and there are larger regenerating areas (reflecting a history of large deforestation rates), such asynchronies may be important.
Considerable evidence for large areas of regeneration, and for considerably variable rates of clearing
Multiple changes in one landscape
The current landscape is a mosaic, or record, of current and past land use and cover changes
Variation exists at fine temporal and spatial scale Variation exists across classes of cover (from conversion)
and within classes of cover (from modification or degradation)
History has created a more complex landscape We know nothing about the processes which form this
landscapes over time, nor do we have good measures (maps) of these landscapes themselves.
Our prognostic ability is severely limited
Observations: extent and density
We focus on making direct observations of changes in forest extent (both increase and decrease) and density
This can be done using annual observations from high spatial resolution remote sensing in conjunction with a coupled land use-carbon models.
This approach complements, but is more direct in determining the land use component, than use of other measures of changes in forest carbon from stand inventory data alone (Casperson et
al. 2000)
Inter-annual variation in rates of Inter-annual variation in rates of deforestation and regrowthdeforestation and regrowth
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Carbon flux over space
3.8
0.91.5
6.2
-0.5
5.3 5.5
4.6
7.2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Year
Net
Flu
x
Carbon flux over time
Example from North America
1938 1955 1996
1938 1955 1996
1938 1955 1996
The urban-agriculture interface has grown trees as it expands(and the urban-forest interface has cut and fragmented trees)
Some other objectives of interest…
…or confusion
Forest edges: biomass collapse Tropical sources from mortality Tropical sinks from regrowth Tropical and Global sinks from space Logging
Formation Rate
Eradication Rate
Total Flux (F1999)
Annual Flux 1999
Constant Compounding Constant Compounding Tg C Tg C yr-1
1 x x 35.308 0.693
2 x x 35.240 0.701
3 x x72.882 1.641
4 x x72.742 1.599