Assessment of carbon in woody plants and soil across a vineyard-woodland landscape

Carbon Balance and Management

Louise E Jackson¹  Glenn McGourty²  Kerri Steenwerth³  Robert Hanifin³  L Ann Thrupp⁴  A Toby O'Geen¹  Allan D Hollander¹  John N Williams¹ 

[1] University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA;University of California Cooperative Extension, 890 North Bush Street, Ukiah, CA 95482-3919, USA;USDA Agricultural Research Service, 595 Hilgard Lane, Davis, CA 95616, USA;Fetzer Vineyards, 13601 Old River Road Hopland, CA 95449, USA

关键词: soil carbon;    sequestration;    organic farming;    habitat;    GIS;    ecosystem services;    biodiversity;    allometric equation;    agriculture;    aboveground carbon;   

Others  :  792543
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-0680-6-11

 received in 2011-04-16, accepted in 2011-11-09,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

Quantification of ecosystem services, such as carbon (C) storage, can demonstrate the benefits of managing for both production and habitat conservation in agricultural landscapes. In this study, we evaluated C stocks and woody plant diversity across vineyard blocks and adjoining woodland ecosystems (wildlands) for an organic vineyard in northern California. Carbon was measured in soil from 44 one m deep pits, and in aboveground woody biomass from 93 vegetation plots. These data were combined with physical landscape variables to model C stocks using a geographic information system and multivariate linear regression.

Results

Field data showed wildlands to be heterogeneous in both C stocks and woody tree diversity, reflecting the mosaic of several different vegetation types, and storing on average 36.8 Mg C/ha in aboveground woody biomass and 89.3 Mg C/ha in soil. Not surprisingly, vineyard blocks showed less variation in above- and belowground C, with an average of 3.0 and 84.1 Mg C/ha, respectively.

Conclusions

This research demonstrates that vineyards managed with practices that conserve some fraction of adjoining wildlands yield benefits for increasing overall C stocks and species and habitat diversity in integrated agricultural landscapes. For such complex landscapes, high resolution spatial modeling is challenging and requires accurate characterization of the landscape by vegetation type, physical structure, sufficient sampling, and allometric equations that relate tree species to each landscape. Geographic information systems and remote sensing techniques are useful for integrating the above variables into an analysis platform to estimate C stocks in these working landscapes, thereby helping land managers qualify for greenhouse gas mitigation credits. Carbon policy in California, however, shows a lack of focus on C stocks compared to emissions, and on agriculture compared to other sectors. Correcting these policy shortcomings could create incentives for ecosystem service provision, including C storage, as well as encourage better farm stewardship and habitat conservation.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Williams et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Albrecht A, Kandji ST: Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2003, 99(1-3):15-27.
• [2]Hergoualc'h KHhK, Verchot LV: Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land use change in Southeast Asian tropical peatlands: A review. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2011., 25
• [3]Murdiyarso D, et al.: Environmental benefits and sustainable land-use options in the Jambi transect, Sumatra. Journal of Vegetation Science 2002, 13(3):429-438.
• [4]Gordon LJ, Finlayson CM, Falkenmark M: Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management 2010, 97(4):512-519.
• [5]Price K: Effects of watershed topography, soils, land use, and climate on baseflow hydrology in humid regions: A review. Progress in Physical Geography 2011, 35(4):465-492.
• [6]Steffan-Dewenter I, et al.: Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104(12):4973-4978.
• [7]Tscharntke T, et al.: Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 2005, 8(8):857-874.
• [8]Perfecto I, Vandermeer J: The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010, 107(13):5786-5791.
• [9]Rudel TK, et al.: Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 2005, 15(1):23-31.
• [10]Dixon RK, et al.: Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 1994, 263(5144):185-190.
• [11]Gibbs HK, et al.: Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters 2007., 2(4)
• [12]Fahey TJ, et al.: Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2010, 8(5):245-252.
• [13]Dirzo R, Raven PH: Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2003, 28:137-167.
• [14]West TO, Post WM: Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 2002, 66(6):1930-1946.
• [15]Paustian K, et al.: Management options for reducing CO2 emissions from agricultural soils. Biogeochemistry 2000, 48(1):147-163.
• [16]Ramankutty N, Foley JA: Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 1999, 13(4):997-1027.
• [17]Soares BS, et al.: Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 2006, 440(7083):520-523.
• [18]Schoeneberger MM: Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems 2009, 75(1):27-37.
• [19]Clergue B, et al.: Biodiversity: Function and Assessment in Agricultural Areas: A Review. In Sustainable Agriculture Edited by Springer-Verlag Berlin E Lichtfouse, et al. 2009, 309-327.
• [20]Lovell ST, et al.: Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems 2010, 103(5):327-341.
• [21]Jackson LE, et al.: Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: Investing without losing interest. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2007, 121(3):193-195.
• [22]Pascual U, Perrings C: Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2007, 121(3):256-268.
• [23]Morgan JA, et al.: Carbon sequestration in agricultural lands of the United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2010, 65(1):6A-13A.
• [24]Tilman D: Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1999, 96(11):5995-6000.
• [25]O'Farrell PJ, Anderson PML: Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2:59-65.
• [26]Jackson LE, Pascual U, Hodgkin T: Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2007, 121(3):196-210.
• [27]Underwood EC, et al.: Threats and biodiversity in the mediterranean biome. Diversity and Distributions 2009, 15(2):188-197.
• [28]Fairbanks DHK, Hughes CJ, Turpie JK: Potential impact of viticulture expansion on habitat types in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 2004, 13(6):1075-1100.
• [29]Carlisle EA, Steenwerth KL, Smart DR: Effects of land use on soil respiration: Conversion of oak woodlands to vineyards. Journal of Environmental Quality 2006, 35(4):1396-1404.
• [30]Guo LB, Gifford RM: Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 2002, 8(4):345-360.
• [31]Keating BA, et al.: Eco-efficient Agriculture: Concepts, Challenges, and Opportunities. Crop Science 2010, 50(2):S109-S119.
• [32]Badalucco L, et al.: Reversing agriculture from intensive to sustainable improves soil quality in a semiarid South Italian soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2010, 46(5):481-489.
• [33]Myers N, et al.: Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403(6772):853-858.
• [34]Sawyer JO, Keeler-Wolf T, Evens J: A manual of California vegetation. Second edition. Sacramento CA: California Native Plant Society; 2009:1312.
• [35]van Groenigen KJ, et al.: Soil C storage as affected by tillage and straw management: An assessment using field measurements and model predictions. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2011, 140(1-2):218-225.
• [36]VandenBygaart AJ, et al.: Soil organic carbon stocks on long-term agroecosystem experiments in Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 2010, 90(4):543-550.
• [37]Akaike H: A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1974, AC19(6):716-723.
• [38]Naiman RJ, Decamps H: The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1997, 28:621-658.
• [39]Houghton RA, Hackler JL: Changes in terrestrial carbon storage in the United States. 1: The roles of agriculture and forestry. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2000, 9(2):125-144.
• [40]Jackson LE, et al.: Responses of soil microbial processes and community structure to tillage events and implications for soil quality. Geoderma 2003, 114(3-4):305-317.
• [41]Smith R, et al.: Vineyard floor management affects soil, plant nutrition, and grape yield and quality. California Agriculture 2008, 62(4):184-190.
• [42]Young-Mathews A, et al.: Plant-soil biodiversity relationships and nutrient retention in agricultural riparian zones of the Sacramento Valley, California. Agroforestry Systems 2010, 80(1):41-60.
• [43]Smukler SM, et al.: Biodiversity and multiple ecosystem functions in an organic farmscape. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2010, 139(1-2):80-97.
• [44]Niu XZ, Duiker SW: Carbon sequestration potential by afforestation of marginal agricultural land in the Midwestern US. Forest Ecology and Management 2006, 223(1-3):415-427.
• [45]Pulleman MM, et al.: Soil organic matter content as a function of different land use history. Soil Science Society of America Journal 2000, 64(2):689-693.
• [46]Burger M, et al.: Microbial responses and nitrous oxide emissions during wetting and drying of organically and conventionally managed soil under tomatoes. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2005, 42(2):109-118.
• [47]Marriott EE, Wander MM: Total and labile soil organic matter in organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 2006, 70(3):950-959.
• [48]Follett RF: Soil management concepts and carbon sequestration zin cropland soils. Soil & Tillage Research 2001, 61(1-2):77-92.
• [49]Smukler SM, et al.: Transition to large-scale organic vegetable production in the Salinas Valley, California. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2008, 126(3-4):168-188.
• [50]Jackson LE, et al.: On-farm assessment of organic matter and tillage management on vegetable yield, soil, weeds, pests, and economics in California. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 2004, 103(3):443-463.
• [51]Gotelli NJ, et al.: Patterns and causes of species richness: a general simulation model for macroecology. Ecology Letters 2009, 12(9):873-886.
• [52]Brown SL, Schroeder P, Kern JS: Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. Forest Ecology and Management 1999, 123(1):81-90.
• [53]Chan KMA, et al.: Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Plos Biology 2006, 4(11):2138-2152.
• [54]Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV: Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010, 107(46):19655-19660.
• [55]Brown S, et al.: Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Forestry Carbon Projects in California. Winrock International, for the California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research 2004, 500-04-072F.
• [56]CCAR: Forest Sector Protocol, Version 2.1. California Climate Action Registry: Sacramento 2007.
• [57]CAR: Forest Project Protocol, Version 3.0. Climate Action Reserve: Sacramento 2009.
• [58]CAR: Forest Project Protocol, Version 3.1. Climate Action Reserve: Sacramento 2009.
• [59]Jenkins JC, et al.: Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions for North American tree species. Edited by N.R. Station. USDA Forest Service; 2004.
• [60]Case BS, Hall RJ: Assessing prediction errors of generalized tree biomass and volume equations for the boreal forest region of west-central Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 2008, 38(4):878-889.
• [61]Parresol BR: Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and critical comparisons. Forest Science 1999, 45(4):573-593.
• [62]McHale MR, et al.: Urban forest biomass estimates: is it important to use allometric relationships developed specifically for urban trees? Urban Ecosystems 2009, 12(1):95-113.
• [63]Nelson BW, et al.: Allometric regressions for improved estimate of secondary forest biomass in the central Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 1999, 117(1-3):149-167.
• [64]Patenaude G, et al.: Quantifying forest above ground carbon content using LiDAR remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 2004, 93(3):368-380.
• [65]Asner GP: Tropical forest carbon assessment: integrating satellite and airborne mapping approaches. Environmental Research Letters 2009, 4(3):11.
• [66]O'Geen AT, et al.: Soil-landscape model helps predict potassium supply in vineyards. California Agriculture 2008, 62(4):195-201.
• [67]ARB: Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 2006-2009. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board 2009.
• [68]USDA: California State Fact Sheet, Farm Characteristics. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 2010.
• [69]Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P: Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(3):643-653.
• [70]Kemkes RJ, Farley J, Koliba CJ: Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(11):2069-2074.
• [71]Kremen C: Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 2005, 8(5):468-479.
• [72]Beaudette DE, O'Geen AT: Quantifying the Aspect Effect: An Application of Solar Radiation Modeling for Soil Survey. Soil Science Society of America Journal 2009, 73(4):1345-1352.
• [73]Gower JC: General coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 1971, 27(4):857.
• [74]Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ: Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990.
• [75]Smith JE, Heath LS, Jenkins JC: Forest volume-to-biomass models and estimates of mass for live and standing dead trees of U.S. forests. USDA Forest Service: Newtown Square, PA; 2003.
• [76]Birdsey RA: Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC; 1992:51.
• [77]Pillsbury NH, Kirkley ML: Equations for total, wood and saw-log volume for thirteen California hardwoods. USDA Forest Service; 1984.
• [78]McGinnis TM, Keeley J: Woody plant biomass calculator. [http://www.werc.usgs.gov/fire/seki/finefuels/regressions.html] webcite 2009.
• [79]Brasher BR, et al.: Use of saran resin to coat natural soil clods for bulk-density and water-retention measurements. Soil Science 1966, 101(2):108.
• [80]Howard RF, Singer MJ: Measuring forest soil bulk-density using irregular hole, paraffin clod, and air permeability. Forest Science 1981, 27(2):316-322.
• [81]USDA-NRCS: Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 10th Ed. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC; 2006.
• [82]Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd Edition. New York.: Springer; 2002.