scholarly journals Addressing uncertainty and bias in land use, land use change, and forestry greenhouse gas inventories

2022 ◽  
Vol 170 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily McGlynn ◽  
Serena Li ◽  
Michael F. Berger ◽  
Meredith Amend ◽  
Kandice L. Harper

AbstractNational greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) will play an increasingly important role in tracking country progress against United Nations (UN) Paris Agreement commitments. Yet uncertainty in land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) NGHGHI estimates may undermine international confidence in emission reduction claims, particularly for countries that expect forests and agriculture to contribute large near-term GHG reductions. In this paper, we propose an analytical framework for implementing the uncertainty provisions of the UN Paris Agreement Enhanced Transparency Framework, with a view to identifying the largest sources of LULUCF NGHGI uncertainty and prioritizing methodological improvements. Using the USA as a case study, we identify and attribute uncertainty across all US NGHGI LULUCF “uncertainty elements” (inputs, parameters, models, and instances of plot-based sampling) and provide GHG flux estimates for omitted inventory categories. The largest sources of uncertainty are distributed across LULUCF inventory categories, underlining the importance of sector-wide analysis: forestry (tree biomass sampling error; tree volume and specific gravity allometric parameters; soil carbon model), cropland and grassland (DayCent model structure and inputs), and settlement (urban tree gross to net carbon sequestration ratio) elements contribute over 90% of uncertainty. Net emissions of 123 MMT CO2e could be omitted from the US NGHGI, including Alaskan grassland and wetland soil carbon stock change (90.4 MMT CO2), urban mineral soil carbon stock change (34.7 MMT CO2), and federal cropland and grassland N2O (21.8 MMT CO2e). We explain how these findings and other ongoing research can support improved LULUCF monitoring and transparency.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigehiro Ishizuka ◽  
Shoji Hashimoto ◽  
Shinji Kaneko ◽  
Kenji Tsuruta ◽  
Kimihiro Kida ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 2393-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. G. Bárcena ◽  
L. P. Kiær ◽  
L. Vesterdal ◽  
H. M. Stefánsdóttir ◽  
P. Gundersen ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksi Lehtonen ◽  
Juha Heikkinen

Changes in the soil carbon stock of Finnish upland soils were quantified using forest inventory data, forest statistics, biomass models, litter turnover rates, and the Yasso07 soil model. Uncertainty in the estimated stock changes was assessed by combining model and sampling errors associated with the various data sources into variance–covariance matrices that allowed computationally efficient error propagation in the context of Yasso07 simulations. In sensitivity analysis, we found that the uncertainty increased drastically as a result of adding random year-to-year variation to the litter input. Such variation is smoothed out when using periodic inventory data with constant biomass models and turnover rates. Model errors (biomass, litter, understorey vegetation) and the systematic error of total drain had a marginal effect on the uncertainty regarding soil carbon stock change. Most of the uncertainty appears to be related to uncaptured annual variation in litter amounts. This is due to fact that variation in the slopes of litter input trends dictates the uncertainty of soil carbon stock change. If we assume that there is annual variation only in foliage and fine root litter rates and that this variation is less than 10% from year to year, then we can claim that Finnish upland forest soils have accumulated carbon during the first Kyoto period (2008–2012).


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Garima Sharma ◽  
L. K. Sharma ◽  
K. C. Sharma

Abstract Background Land use change plays a vital role in global carbon dynamics. Understanding land use change impact on soil carbon stock is crucial for implementing land use management to increase carbon stock and reducing carbon emission. Therefore, the objective of our study was to determine land use change and to assess its effect on soil carbon stock in semi-arid part of Rajasthan, India. Landsat temporal satellite data of Pushkar valley region of Rajasthan acquired on 1993, 2003, and 2014 were analyzed to assess land use change. Internal trading of land use was depicted through matrices. Soil organic carbon (SOC) stock was calculated for soil to a depth of 30 cm in each land use type in 2014 using field data collection. The SOC stock for previous years was estimated using stock change factor. The effect of land use change on SOC stock was determined by calculating change in SOC stock (t/ha) by deducting the base-year SOC stock from the final year stock of a particular land use conversion. Results The total area under agricultural lands was increased by 32.14% while that under forest was decreased by 23.14% during the time period of 1993–2014. Overall land use change shows that in both the periods (1993–2003 and 2003–2014), 7% of forest area was converted to agricultural land and about 15% changes occurred among agricultural land. In 1993–2003, changes among agricultural land led to maximum loss of soil carbon, i.e., 4.88 Mt C and during 2003–2014, conversion of forest to agricultural land led to loss in 3.16 Mt C. Conclusion There was a continuous decrease in forest area and increase in cultivated area in each time period. Land use change led to alteration in carbon equity in soil due to change or loss in vegetation. Overall, we can conclude that the internal trading of land use area during the 10-year period (1993–2003) led to net loss of SOC stock by 8.29 Mt C. Similarly, land use change during 11-year period (2003–2014) caused net loss of SOC by 2.76 Mt C. Efforts should be made to implement proper land use management practices to enhance the SOC content.


2016 ◽  
Vol 182 ◽  
pp. 542-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Sheng Goh ◽  
Birka Wicke ◽  
André Faaij ◽  
David Neil Bird ◽  
Hannes Schwaiger ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 169-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingeborg Callesen ◽  
Inge Stupak ◽  
Petros Georgiadis ◽  
Vivian Kvist Johannsen ◽  
Hans S. Østergaard ◽  
...  

GCB Bioenergy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Don ◽  
Bruce Osborne ◽  
Astley Hastings ◽  
Ute Skiba ◽  
Mette S. Carter ◽  
...  

Ecopersia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1699-1709
Author(s):  
Yahya Parvizi ◽  
◽  
Mosayeb Heshmati ◽  
Mohammad Gheituri ◽  
◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document