Modeling Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Global Carbon Cycle With Shifts in Carbon Storage Capacity by Land-Use Change

Ecology ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 970-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Emanuel ◽  
George G. Killough
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Carbon Storage ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Terrestrial Ecosystems ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon

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 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 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 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 Dynamical prediction of terrestrial ecosystems and the global carbon cycle: A 25-year hindcast experiment

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Ning Zeng ◽  
Jin-Ho Yoon ◽  
Augustin Vintzileos ◽  
G. James Collatz ◽  
Eugenia Kalnay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Terrestrial Ecosystems ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Global Carbon

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).

scholarly journals EUROSPEC: at the interface between remote sensing and ecosystem CO<sub>2</sub> flux measurements in Europe

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (15) ◽  
pp. 13069-13121 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Porcar-Castell ◽  
A. Mac Arthur ◽  
M. Rossini ◽  
L. Eklundh ◽  
J. Pacheco-Labrador ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Remote Sensing Data ◽  
Terrestrial Ecosystems ◽  
Global Carbon Cycle ◽  
Spectral Measurements ◽  
Cost Action ◽  
Global Carbon

Abstract. Resolving the spatial and temporal dynamics of gross primary productivity (GPP) of terrestrial ecosystems across different scales remains a challenge. Remote sensing is regarded as the solution to upscale point observations conducted at the ecosystem level, using the eddy covariance (EC) technique, to the landscape and global levels. In addition to traditional vegetation indices, the photochemical reflectance index (PRI) and the emission of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF), now measurable from space, provide a new range of opportunities to monitor the global carbon cycle using remote sensing. However, the scale mismatch between EC observations and the much coarser satellite-derived data complicates the integration of the two sources of data. The solution is to establish a network of in situ spectral measurements that can act as bridge between EC measurements and remote sensing data. In situ spectral measurements have been already conducted for many years at EC sites, but using variable instrumentation, setups, and measurement standards. In Europe in particular, in situ spectral measurements remain highly heterogeneous. The goal of EUROSPEC Cost Action ES0930 was to promote the development of common measuring protocols and new instruments towards establishing best practices and standardization of in situ spectral measurements. In this review we describe the background and main tradeoffs of in situ spectral measurements, review the main results of EUROSPEC Cost Action, and discuss the future challenges and opportunities of in situ spectral measurements for improved estimation of local and global carbon cycle.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document