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

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 1647-1654 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Q. 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 the local to global scales.

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.

TROPICAL MEXICO'S RECENT LAND-USE CHANGE: A REGION'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1426-1441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Cairns ◽  
Patricia K. Haggerty ◽  
Roman Alvarez ◽  
Ben H. J. De Jong ◽  
Ingrid Olmsted
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon

scholarly journals Global Carbon Budget 2018

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 2141-2194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinne Le Quéré ◽  
Robbie M. Andrew ◽  
Pierre Friedlingstein ◽  
Stephen Sitch ◽  
Judith Hauck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Carbon Budget ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Global Carbon Budget ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Global Carbon

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018.

scholarly journals Reviews and syntheses: Systematic Earth observations for use in terrestrial carbon cycle data assimilation systems

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Scholze ◽  
Michael Buchwitz ◽  
Wouter Dorigo ◽  
Luis Guanter ◽  
Shaun Quegan
Keyword(s):  
Data Assimilation ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Full Description ◽  
Model Data ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon ◽  
Carbon Cycle Model ◽  
Terrestrial Carbon Cycle ◽  
Uncertainty Estimates ◽  
Global Carbon

Abstract. The global carbon cycle is an important component of the Earth system and it interacts with the hydrological, energy and nutrient cycles as well as ecosystem dynamics. A better understanding of the global carbon cycle is required for improved projections of climate change including corresponding changes in water and food resources and for the verification 5 of measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. An improved understanding of the carbon cycle can be achieved by model-data fusion or data assimilation systems, which integrate observations relevant to the carbon cycle into coupled carbon, water, energy and nutrient models. Hence, the ingredients for such systems are a carbon cycle model, an algorithm for the assimilation, and systematic and 10 well error-characterized observations relevant to the carbon cycle. Relevant observations for assimilation include various in-situ measurements in the atmosphere (e.g. concentrations of CO2 and other gases) and on land (e.g. fluxes of carbon water and energy, carbon stocks) as well as remote sensing observations (e.g. atmospheric composition, vegetation and surface properties).We briefly review the different existing data assimilation techniques and contrast them to model 15 benchmarking and evaluation efforts (which also rely on observations). A common requirement for all assimilation techniques is a full description of the observational data properties. Uncertainty estimates of the observations are as important as the observations themselves because they similarly determine the outcome of such assimilation systems. Hence, this article reviews the requirements of data assimilation systems on observations and provides a non-exhaustive overview of current 20 observations and their uncertainties for use in terrestrial carbon cycle data assimilation. We report on progress since the review of model-data synthesis in terrestrial carbon observations by Raupach et al. (2005) emphasising the rapid advance in relevant space-based observations.

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 Global Carbon Budget 2019

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1783-1838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Friedlingstein ◽  
Matthew W. Jones ◽  
Michael O'Sullivan ◽  
Robbie M. Andrew ◽  
Judith Hauck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Carbon Budget ◽  
Co2 Concentration ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Global Carbon Budget ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Global Carbon

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document