Date post: | 11-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | externalevents |
View: | 9 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan PertanianKementerian Pertanian
Science . Innovation . Networkswww.litbang.pertanian.go.id
Global Symposium on soil organic carbonRome, Italy, 21-23 March 2017
Fahmuddin Agus, Maswar, Wahyunto, Anny Mulyani, Neneng L. Nurida, Ratri Ariani, Fitri Widiastuti
Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development
Peat soil carbon monitoring and management in
Indonesia
Indonesian peatland distributionRitung et al. (2011)
Island Area (ha)
Sumatra 6.436.649Kalimantan 4.778.004Papua 3.690.921Total 14.905.594
Carbon in peat• Relatively conserved under saturated
condition• Decomposition escalates under drained
condition
However, most of the current economically competitive crops are suitable under drained conditions
Objectives Assess:• Assess peat carbon stock • Plot scale C loss • National figure of C loss
1. Peat Carbon Stock Assessment
C-stock = Volume * C density = Depth * area * C-density
Area (ha) by depth distribution
IslandDepth (cm) Area
D1 D2 D3 D4Ha
50-100 100-200 200-400 >400
Sumatera 1,037,034 2,451,669 1,273,692 1,755,823 6,518,218
Kalimantan 1,177,260 1,253,990 1,017,331 1,301,684 4,750,265
Papua 2,400,223 813,446 446,817 - 3,660,486
Total 4,614,517 4,519,105 2,737,840 3,057,507 14,928,969
Overall Mean depth 246±232 cm
6 m 8 m
Peat Carbon density; Sumatra and Kalimantan (Agus et al., 2011)
Mean C stock = 617±184 t (ha.m)-1
Total C-stock = Area * Depth * C density = 22.7±6.8 Pg
2. Plot Scale Monitoring: Subsidence poles
Site and land use Time since drained N Peat depth
(year) (cm)W. Kalimantan; Annual crop
rotation6 5 379±18
Riau; Oil palm 9 5 576±46Riau; Shrub,
Rubber 9 6 608±49
Jambi; Oil Palm 11 7 224±29C. Kalimantan,
Rubber 10 10 642±140
Mean 9 33 497±186
Subsidence rate and C lossSite and land use Subsidence
rate
Assumed C loss
40% 60%
cm yr-1Mg C (ha.yr)-1 Mg C (ha.yr)
W. Kalimantan; Annual crop rotation 4.71±1.26 11.62±3.10 17.42±4.65
Riau; Oil palm 2.78±0.37 6.85±0.91 10.27±1.36Riau; Shrub, Rubber 5.15±2.48 12.72±7.11 19.07±9.16Jambi; Oil Palm 2.49±0.19 6.13±0.48 9.20±0.72C. Kalimantan, Rubber 4.89±1.45 12.07±3.57 18.10±5.35Mean 4.08±1.75 10.07±4.32 15.10±6.49Overall mean1) 11.17±1.42
Lower subsidence for the compacted peat under oil palm plantation
Subsidence rate: 2.49±0.19 to 5.15±2.48 cm/yr
8 m
Undrainable peat
3. C loss monitoring in the national GHG Inventory
Activity data 22 x 22 Land use change matrices 2000-2003; 2003-2006; 2006-2009; 2009-2011; 2011-2013;2013-2015; 2015-2024; 2024-2034
LUC 2013-2015Land use
Primary forest
Forest plantation Plantation Settlement Bareland
Secondary peat forest Peat shrub Annual crop
Multistrata farming Paddy
Primary forest 2,110,820
10 3,092
13,662
13,297
2,173
Forest plantation
6 593,396 4,339 282,979
10,482
6,345
75
191
Plantation 4,112 1,647,039
425
40,684
19,587
1,579
14,268
5,898
Settlement
436
51,418
150
30 9,455
419
434
Bareland
44,866 149,628
450 332,321
224
38,487 5,514
2,839
2,284
Secondary peat forest
16,486
42,142 235,005 3,294,357
48,584
539
100
Peat shrub
32 9,951 215,992
459 224,640
1,921 2,228,089
41,907
25,331
820
Annual crop
468
97,535 1,421
9,332
2,402 187,255
23,094
17,186
Multistrata farming
696
42,060 1,733
4,602
134
8,700
4,592 511,556
3,714
Paddy
34,745 4,327
2,068
191
21,020
9,429 287,945
LUMENS (http://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/lumens)
Land use change trend
Forests Plantation forest
Plantations Degraded lands
Other agriculture
Others -
1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000
Series1
Series2
2006
2015
Emission FactorDrössler et al. 2014 (IPCC 2006 refinement: Wetlands)
Land use Emisi (Mg CO2 ha-1 yr-1)
Remarks
Primary forest 0 IPCC (2006)Forest plantation (Acacia) 73 IPCC (2014)Oil palm plantation 40 IPCC (2014)Settlement 35 Assumed the same grassland Bareland 51 IPCC (2014)Secondary peat forest 19 IPCC (2014)Peat shrub 19 IPCC (2014)Annual crops 51 IPCC (2014)Multistrata farming 51 IPCC (2014)Paddy 34 IPCC (2014)…
Based on research in Indonesia and Malaysia Tier 2
Mitigation ScenariosBy modifying the projected land use change matrices
• BAU• Scenario 1: No plantation expansion on peat
forests • Scenario 2: S1 + no plantation even on peat
shrub (natural regrowth)• Scenario 3: S2 + rewetting of 40% of current
degraded peat (shrub, bareland, grassland)
Annual peat carbon loss through emissions
2000-2003
2003-2006
2006-2009
2009-2011
2011-2013
2013-2015
2015-2024
2024-2033
-
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000 BAU Scenario 1 Scenario 2Scenario 3
BAU, Scenario 1 (no plantation expansion on peat forests), Scenario 2 (Scenario 1 and no plantation expansion on degraded forests, Scenario 3 (Scenario 2 and rewetting of 40% of remaining degraded forests
Land cover in 2015 and annual peat C loss from LULUC into several land cover in 2006-2015
18.5768863643941; 20%
9.76276901279428; 10%
22.5244293818831; 24%
27.399835224
965; 29%
13.856513208
597; 15%
0.893670767125358; 1%
ForestsPlantation forestPlantationsDegraded landsOther agricultureOthers
6.42833358239697; 43%
0.675796256781003; 5%
2.26276648061024; 15%
3.90925673359383; 26%
1.19833755694929
; 8%0.44139399038
3456; 3%
Area (Mha) Peat C loss (Tg/yr)
Degraded lands: Unproductive, losing high amount of C, fire prone
Degraded lands
Agriculture?Rewetting?
Natural regrowth
Paludiculture Annual crops Perennial cops
Mitigation Options
Usahatani sayuran dan padi hidup subur di lahan gambut
20
Paludiculture
Conclusions The unstable peat carbon needs to be conserved by conserving the remaining forests and raising water table in existing agricultural lands. Rewetting of degraded peatlands reduces peat carbon loss significantly. However, the success of voluntary rewetting depends on research ability to develop economically attractive and high market demand crops suitable for paludiculture system.