Land-use change and terrestrial carbon: the temporal record

1996 ◽  
pp. 117-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon

scholarly journals The impact of nitrogen and phosphorous limitation on the estimated terrestrial carbon balance and warming of land use change over the last 156 yr

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 507-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Q. Zhang ◽  
A. J. Pitman ◽  
Y. P. Wang ◽  
Y. Dai ◽  
P. J. Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Nutrient Limitation ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Carbon Sink ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon Sink ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. We examine the impact of land use and land cover change (LULCC) over the period from 1850 to 2005 using an Earth System Model that incorporates nitrogen and phosphorous limitation on the terrestrial carbon cycle. We compare the estimated CO2 emissions and warming from land use change in a carbon only version of the model with those from simulations including nitrogen and phosphorous limitation. If we omit nutrients, our results suggest LULCC cools on the global average by about 0.1 °C. Including nutrients reduces this cooling to ~ 0.05 °C. Our results also suggest LULCC has a major impact on total land carbon over the period 1850–2005. In carbon only simulations, the inclusion of LULCC decreases the total additional land carbon stored in 2005 from around 210 Pg C to 85 Pg C. Including nitrogen and phosphorous limitation also decreases the scale of the terrestrial carbon sink to 80 Pg C. In particular, adding LULCC on top of the nutrient limited simulations changes the sign of the terrestrial carbon flux from a sink to a source (12 Pg C). The CO2 emission from LULCC from 1850 to 2005 is estimated to be 130 Pg C for carbon only simulation, or 97 Pg C if nutrient limitation is accounted for in our model. The difference between these two estimates of CO2 emissions from LULCC largely results from the weaker response of photosynthesis to increased CO2 and smaller carbon pool sizes, and therefore lower carbon loss from plant and wood product carbon pools under nutrient limitation. We suggest that nutrient limitation should be accounted in simulating the effects of LULCC on the past climate and on the past and future carbon budget.

scholarly journals Ignoring detailed fast-changing dynamics of land use overestimates regional terrestrial carbon sequestration

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 3215-3235 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Zhao ◽  
S. Liu ◽  
Z. Li ◽  
T. L. Sohl
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Forest Harvesting ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration ◽  
Data Frequency ◽  
Global Carbon

Abstract. Land use change is critical in determining the distribution, magnitude and mechanisms of terrestrial carbon budgets at the local to global scales. To date, almost all regional to global carbon cycle studies are driven by a static land use map or land use change statistics with decadal time intervals. The biases in quantifying carbon exchange between the terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere caused by using such land use change information have not been investigated. Here, we used the General Ensemble biogeochemical Modeling System (GEMS), along with consistent and spatially explicit land use change scenarios with different intervals (1 yr, 5 yrs, 10 yrs and static, respectively), to evaluate the impacts of land use change data frequency on estimating regional carbon sequestration in the southeastern United States. Our results indicate that ignoring the detailed fast-changing dynamics of land use can lead to a significant overestimation of carbon uptake by the terrestrial ecosystem. Regional carbon sequestration increased from 0.27 to 0.69, 0.80 and 0.97 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 when land use change data frequency shifting from 1 year to 5 years, 10 years interval and static land use information, respectively. Carbon removal by forest harvesting and prolonged cumulative impacts of historical land use change on carbon cycle accounted for the differences in carbon sequestration between static and dynamic land use change scenarios. The results suggest that it is critical to incorporate the detailed dynamics of land use change into local to global carbon cycle studies. Otherwise, it is impossible to accurately quantify the geographic distributions, magnitudes, and mechanisms of terrestrial carbon sequestration at local to global scales.

scholarly journals Global soil organic carbon removal by water erosion under climate change and land use change during 1850–2005 AD

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Naipal ◽  
Philippe Ciais ◽  
Yilong Wang ◽  
Ronny Lauerwald ◽  
Bertrand Guenet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Soil Erosion ◽  
Organic Carbon ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Soil Organic Carbon ◽  
Climate Variability ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Atmospheric Co2 ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon

Abstract. The onset and expansion of agriculture has accelerated soil erosion by rainfall and runoff substantially, mobilizing vast quantities of soil organic carbon (SOC) globally. Studies show that at timescales of decennia to millennia this mobilized SOC can significantly alter previously estimated carbon emissions from land use change (LUC). However, a full understanding of the impact of erosion on land-atmosphere carbon exchange is still missing. The aim of our study is to better constrain the terrestrial carbon fluxes by developing methods compatible with Earth System Models (ESMs) in order to explicitly represent the links between soil erosion by rainfall and runoff and carbon dynamics. For this we use an emulator that represents the carbon cycle of a land surface model, in combination with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation model. We applied this modeling framework at the global scale to evaluate the effects of potential soil erosion (soil removal only) in the presence of other perturbations of the carbon cycle: elevated atmospheric CO2, climate variability, and LUC. We found that over the period 1850–2005 AD acceleration of soil erosion leads to a total potential SOC removal flux of 100 Pg C of which 80 % occurs on agricultural, pasture and natural grass lands. Including soil erosion in the SOC-dynamics scheme results in a doubling of the cumulative loss of SOC over 1850–2005 due to the combined effects of climate variability, increasing atmospheric CO2 and LUC. This additional erosional loss decreases the cumulative global carbon sink on land by 5 Pg for this specific period, with the largest effects found for the tropics, where deforestation and agricultural expansion increased soil erosion rates significantly. We also show that the potential effects of soil erosion on the global SOC stocks cannot be ignored when compared to the effects of climate change or land use change on the carbon cycle. We conclude that it is necessary to include soil erosion in assessments of LUC and evaluations of the terrestrial carbon cycle.

scholarly journals The impact of nitrogen and phosphorous limitation on the estimated terrestrial carbon balance and warming of land use change over the last 156 yr

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Q. Zhang ◽  
A. J. Pitman ◽  
Y. P. Wang ◽  
Y. J. Dai ◽  
P. J. Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Nutrient Limitation ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Carbon Sink ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon Sink ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. We examine the impact of land use and land cover change (LULCC) over the period from 1850 to 2005 using an Earth system model that incorporates nitrogen and phosphorous limitation on the terrestrial carbon cycle. We compare the estimated CO2 emissions and warming from land use change in a carbon-only version of the model with those from simulations, including nitrogen and phosphorous limitation. If we omit nutrients, our results suggest LULCC cools on the global average by about 0.1 °C. Including nutrients reduces this cooling to ~ 0.05 °C. Our results also suggest LULCC has a major impact on total land carbon over the period 1850–2005. In carbon-only simulations, the inclusion of LULCC decreases the total additional land carbon stored in 2005 from around 210 Pg C to 85 Pg C. Including nitrogen and phosphorous limitation also decreases the scale of the terrestrial carbon sink to 80 Pg C. Shown as corresponding fluxes, adding LULCC on top of the nutrient-limited simulations changes the sign of the terrestrial carbon flux from a sink to a source (12 Pg C). The CO2 emission from LULCC from 1850 to 2005 is estimated to be 130 Pg C for carbon only simulation, or 97 Pg C if nutrient limitation is accounted for in our model. The difference between these two estimates of CO2 emissions from LULCC largely results from the weaker response of photosynthesis to increased CO2 and smaller carbon pool sizes, and therefore lower carbon loss from plant and wood product carbon pools under nutrient limitation. We suggest that nutrient limitation should be accounted for in simulating the effects of LULCC on the past climate and on the past and future carbon budget.

Land use change and terrestrial carbon stocks in Senegal

2004 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.L Woomer ◽  
L.L Tieszen ◽  
G Tappan ◽  
A Touré ◽  
M Sall
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Stocks ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon

scholarly journals Erosion, deposition and replacement of soil organic carbon in Mediterranean catchments: a geomorphological, isotopic and land use change approach

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1099-1111 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Nadeu ◽  
A. A. Berhe ◽  
J. de Vente ◽  
C. Boix-Fayos
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Organic Carbon ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Soil Organic Carbon ◽  
Carbon Sink ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon ◽  
Change Analysis ◽  
Deep Soil ◽  
Erosion Processes ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Co2

Abstract. Determination of whether soil erosion can constitute a net terrestrial carbon dioxide (CO2) sink continues to suffer from lack of sufficient focused studies and field data. Two of the major gaps in our understanding of the erosion induced terrestrial carbon sink issue include rate of eroded soil organic carbon replacement by production of new photosynthate and stability of eroded organic carbon (OC) post deposition. Here we examined the effect of erosion processes and land use change on the stock, type, and stability of OC in two medium-sized subcatchments (18 and 50 ha in size) in SE Spain. We analysed soil samples from drainage areas and depositional settings for stock and isotopic composition of OC (14C and 13C), and particle size distribution. In addition, we conducted land use change analysis for the period 1956–2008 and a geomorphological survey of the current erosion processes taking place in the slope-streambed connections. Our findings demonstrate that land use change influenced the dominating erosion processes and, thus, the source of eroding sediments. Carbon isotopes used as tracers revealed that in one of the subcatchments the deposited sediments were derived from deep soil (average Δ14C of −271.5 ‰) through non-selective erosion processes and channel incision. In the other subcatchment, topsoil material was predominantly eroded and the average Δ14C in sediments was −64.2 ‰. Replacement of eroded soil OC was taking place in the analysed soil profiles in the slopes suggesting that erosion processes do not necessarily provoke a decrease in soil OC stock over time.

scholarly journals Implications of land use change on the national terrestrial carbon budget of Georgia

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pontus Olofsson ◽  
Paata Torchinava ◽  
Curtis E Woodcock ◽  
Alessandro Baccini ◽  
Richard A Houghton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Budget ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon

The importance of three centuries of land-use change for the global and regional terrestrial carbon cycle

2009 ◽  
Vol 97 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 123-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelle G. Van Minnen ◽  
Kees Klein Goldewijk ◽  
Elke Stehfest ◽  
Bas Eickhout ◽  
Gerard van Drecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon Cycle
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document