Premium
Comparison of approaches for estimating carbon sequestration at the regional scale
Author(s) -
Falloon P.,
Smith P.,
Szabó J.,
Pásztor L.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
soil use and management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.709
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1475-2743
pISSN - 0266-0032
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00236.x
Subject(s) - arable land , environmental science , carbon sequestration , land use , land management , soil carbon , hydrology (agriculture) , geographic information system , afforestation , soil science , land use, land use change and forestry , biomass (ecology) , soil water , agroforestry , geography , remote sensing , ecology , geology , agriculture , geotechnical engineering , archaeology , carbon dioxide , biology
. Many former estimates of regional scale C sequestration potential have made use of linear regressions based on long‐term experimental data, whilst some have used dynamic soil organic matter (SOM) models linked to spatial databases. Few studies have compared the two methods. We present a case study in which the potential of different land management practices to sequester carbon in soil in arable land is estimated by different methods. Two dynamic SOM models were chosen for this study, RothC (a soil process model) and CENTURY (a whole ecosystem model with a SOM module). RothC and CENTURY are the two most widely used and validated SOM models worldwide. A Geographic Information System (GIS) containing soil, land use and climate layers, was assembled for a case study in central Hungary. GIS interfaces were developed for the RothC and CENTURY models, thus linking them to the spatial datasets at the regional level. This allowed a comparison of estimates of the C sequestration potential of different land management practices obtained using the two models and using regression based approaches. Although estimates obtained by the different approaches were of the same order of magnitude, differences were observed. Some of the land management scenarios studied here showed sufficient C mitigation potential to meet Hungarian CO 2 reduction commitments. For example, afforestation of 12% current arable land could sequester 0.042–0.092 Tg yr –1 in the soil alone, or 0.285–0.588 Tg C yr –1 in both soil and biomass; 1990 level CO 2 emissions for the study area were 4.7 Tg C with a corresponding reduction commitment of 0.282 Tg C. It is not, however, suggested that this is the only, or the most favourable way, in which to meet the commitments.