Carbon benefits from protected areas in the conterminous United States

Carbon Balance and Management

Mark J Ducey¹  Linda S Heath²  Daolan Zheng¹ 

[1] Department of Natural Resources & the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, 03824, USA;USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Durham, New Hampshire, 03824, USA

关键词: Forest carbon sequestration;    Forest carbon emissions;    Protected and unprotected forestlands;    Net deforestation rate;    Afforestation and deforestation;   

Others  :  790885
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-0680-8-4

 received in 2012-11-01, accepted in 2013-03-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Conversion of forests to other land cover or land use releases the carbon stored in the forests and reduces carbon sequestration potential of the land. The rate of forest conversion could be reduced by establishing protected areas for biological diversity and other conservation goals. The purpose of this study is to quantify the efficiency and potential of forest land protection for mitigating GHG emissions.

Results

The analysis of related national-level datasets shows that during the period of 1992–2001 net forest losses in protected areas were small as compared to those in unprotected areas: -0.74% and −4.07%, respectively. If forest loss rates in protected and unprotected area had been similar, then forest losses in the protected forestlands would be larger by 870 km²/yr forests, that corresponds to release of 7 Tg C/yr (1 Tg=10¹² g). Conversely, and continuing to assume no leakage effects or interactions of prices and harvest levels, about 1,200 km²/yr forests could have remained forest during the period of 1992–2001 if net area loss rate in the forestland outside protected areas was reduced by 20%. Not counting carbon in harvested wood products, this is equivalent to reducing fossil-fuel based carbon emissions by 10 Tg C/yr during this period. The South and West had much higher potentials to mitigate GHG emission from reducing loss rates in unprotected forests than that of North region. Spatially, rates of forest loss were higher across the coastal states in the southeastern US than would be expected from their population change, while interior states in the northern US experienced less forest area loss than would have been expected given their demographic characteristics.

Conclusions

The estimated carbon benefit from the reduced forest loss based on current protected areas is 7 Tg C/yr, equivalent to the average carbon benefit per year for a previously proposed ten-year $110 million per year tree planting program scenario in the US. If there had been a program that could have reduced forest area loss by 20% in unprotected forestlands during 1992–2001, collectively the benefits from reduced forest loss would be equal to 9.4% of current net forest ecosystem carbon sequestration in the conterminous US.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Zheng et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC: Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forest over the past twenty years. Ecol Appl 2005, 15:19-26.
• [2]Burner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, Da Fonseca GAB: Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 2001, 291:125-128.
• [3]Devictor V, Godet L, Julliard R, Couvet D, Jiguet F: Can common species benefit from protected areas? Biol Conserv 2007, 139:29-36.
• [4]Soares-Filho B, Moutinho P, Nepstad D, Anderson A, Rodrigues H, Garcia R, Dietzsch L, Merry F, Bowman M, Hissa L, Silvestrini R, Maretti C: Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. PNAS 2010, 107:10821-10826.
• [5]Ryan MG, Harmon ME, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, McKinley DC, Morrison JF, Murray BC, Pataki DE, Skog KE: A synthesis of the science of forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Ecol Appl 2010, 13:1-16. Issues in Ecology
• [6]Schulze E-D, Mollicone D, Achard F, Matteucci G, Federici S, Eva HD, Valentini R: Making deforestation pay under the Kyoto protocol? Science 2003, 299:1669.
• [7]Gullison RE, Frumhoff PC, Canadell JG, Field CB, Nepstad DC, Hayhoe K, Avissar R, Curran LM, Friedlingstein P, Jones CD, Nobre C: Tropical forests and climate policy. Science 2007, 316:985-986.
• [8]Righelato R, Spracklen DV: Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and restoring forests? Science 2007, 317:902.
• [9]Richards M, Panfil SN: Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1 - Core Guidance for Project Proponents. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2981.pdf webcite
• [10]Skole D, Tucker C: Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 1993, 260:1905-1910.
• [11]Turner DP, Koerper GJ, Gucinski H, Peterson CJ, Dixon RK: Monitoring global change: comparison of forest cover estimates using remote sensing and inventory approaches. Environ Monit Assess 1993, 26:295-305.
• [12]Zheng D, Wallin DO, Hao Z: Rates and patterns of landscape change between 1972 and 1988 in the Changbai Mountain area of China and North Korea. Landscape Ecol 1997, 12:241-254.
• [13]Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig H-J, Mayaux P, Gallego J, Richards T, Malingreau J-P: Determination of deforestation rates of the world's humid tropical forests. Science 2002, 297:999-1002.
• [14]Fry JA, Coan MJ, Homer CG, Meyer DK, Wickham JD: Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit product. Virginia: USGS, Open-File Report 2008–1379; 2009.
• [15]DeFries R, Achard F, Brown S, Herold M, Murdiyarso D, Schlamadinger B, Souza C Jr: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: considerations for monitoring and measuring. Environ Sci Policy 2007, 10:385-394.
• [16]Masek JG, Cohen WB, Leckie D, Wulder MA, Vargas R, de Jong B, Healey S, Law B, Birdsey R, Houghton RA, Mildrexler D, Goward S, Smith WB: Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America. J Geophys Res 2011, 116:G00K03.
• [17]Zheng D, Heath LS, Ducey MJ, Smith JE: Carbon changes in conterminous US forests associated with growth and major disturbances: 1992–2001. Environ Res Lett 2011, 6:014012.
• [18]Ellis E, Pontius R: Land-use and land-cover change. In Encyclopedia of Earth. Edited by Cleveland CJ. Washington, DC; 2012. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Land-use_and_land-cover_change webcite
• [19]Drigo R, Marcoux A: Population dynamics and the assessment of land use changes and deforestation, Part 1. 1999. http://www.fao.org/sd/WPdirect/WPan0030.htm webcite
• [20]Marcoux A: Population and deforestation. 2000. http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpan0050.htm webcite
• [21]Meyerson FAB: Population growth and deforestation: A critical and complex relationship. 2004. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2004/PopulationGrowthandDeforestationACriticalandComplexRelationship.aspx webcite
• [22]US Census Bureau: Population change and distribution: 1990–2000. 2001. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf webcite
• [23]Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA: Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. PNAS 2008, 105:16089-16094.
• [24]Joppa L, Pfaff A: Reassessing the forest impacts of protection. Ann NY Acad Sci 2010, 1185:135-149.
• [25]Heath LS, Birdsey RA: Impacts of alternative forest management policies on carbon sequestration on U.S. timberlands. World Resource Rev 1993, 5:171-179.
• [26]Jones SB, Luloff AE, Finley JC: Another look at NIPFs: Facing our 'myths'. J Forest 1995, 93:41-44.
• [27]Butler BJ: Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Pennsylvania: USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report NRS-27; 2008.
• [28]Zheng D, Heath LS, Ducey MJ, Butler BJ: Relationships between major ownerships, forest aboveground biomass distributions, and landscape dynamics in the New England region of USA. Environ Manage 2010, 45:377-386.
• [29]Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA: Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Pennsylvania: USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report NE-343; 2006.
• [30]Blackard JA, Finco MV, Helmer EH, Holden GR, Hoppus ML, Jacobs DM, Lister AJ, Moisen GG, Nelson MD, Riemann R, Ruefenacht B, Salajanu D, Weyermann DL, Winterberger KC, Brandeis TJ, Czaplewski RL, McRoberts RE, Pattterson PL, Tymcio RP: Mapping U.S. forest biomass using nationwide forest inventory data and moderate resolution information. Remote Sens Environ 2008, 112:1658-1677.
• [31]Widmann RH: Forests of the garden state. Pennsylvania: USDA Forest Service, Resour Bull NE-163; 2005.
• [32]Zheng D, Heath LS, Ducey MJ, Smith JE: Effects of land-use/cover change and harvests on forest carbon dynamics in northern states of the United States from remote sensing and inventory data: 1992–2001. For Sci 2011, 57:525-534.
• [33]Alig RJ, Plantinga A, Ahn S, Kline J: Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952–1997, with projections to 2050. Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Gen Tech Report PNW-587; 2003.
• [34]US Environmental Protection Agency: Inventory of U.S: Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990 –2007: executive summary. 2008. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/archive.html webcite
• [35]Heath LS, Birdsey RA: Carbon trends of productive temperate forests of the conterminous United States. Water Air Soil Poll 1993, 70:279-293.
• [36]USGS: Gap Analysis Program (GAP): Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS), version 1.1. 2010. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/portal/DataDownload.html webcite
• [37]Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RE: A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensing data. Virginia: USGS Professional Paper 964; 1976.
• [38]Homer CH, Fry JA, Barnes CA: The National Land Cover Database. USGS Fact Sheet 2012–3020. 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3020/ webcite
• [39]Masek JG, Huang C, Wolfe R, Cohen W, Hall F, Kutler J, Nelson P: North American forest disturbance mapped from a decadal Landsat record. Remote Sens Environ 2008, 112:2914-2926.
• [40]Kurz WA: An ecosystem context for global gross forest cover loss estimates. PNAS 2010, 107:9025-9026.
• [41]Friedman M: The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 1937, 32:675-701.
• [42]Hollander M, Wolfe DA: Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley; 1999.
• [43]R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2009. http://www.R-project.org webcite
• [44]Galili T: Post-hoc analysis for Friedman's test. 2010. http://www.r-statistics.com/2010/02/post-hoc-analysis-for-friedmans-test-r-code webcite
• [45]Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer; 2002.
• [46]Vincent GK, Velkoff VA: Current population reports. 2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf webcite