Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring - Rainer Baritz, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 31 Publicité

Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring - Rainer Baritz, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

http://www.fao.org/globalsoilpartnership
This presentation was made during the GSP/E-SOTER Global Soil Information workshop that took place at the FAO HQ, Rome , Italy from 20-23 March 2012. This presentation was made on the first day by Rainer Bartiz, and it presents Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring.

©FAO: http://www.fao.org

http://www.fao.org/globalsoilpartnership
This presentation was made during the GSP/E-SOTER Global Soil Information workshop that took place at the FAO HQ, Rome , Italy from 20-23 March 2012. This presentation was made on the first day by Rainer Bartiz, and it presents Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring.

©FAO: http://www.fao.org

Publicité
Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Similaire à Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring - Rainer Baritz, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (20)

Publicité

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring - Rainer Baritz, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources

  1. 1. 1 Soil information for forest soils and carbon monitoring Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover, Germany Rainer BARITZ
  2. 2. 2  Integral component of soil functioning; SOC is key indicator for ecosystem services: habitat, biological archive, water retention/supply, flood protection, reduction of wind and water erosion, reactive surface to store nutrients and filter pollutants  Reservoir for soil C: the largest terrestrial reservoir of carbon ( 2 x the atmosphere, 3 x that in global vegetation)  Dynamic pool: large proportion is exchanged annually (respiration, uptake): high C storage (positive feedback) accompanied with high CO2 production, but also consumption in biomass growth (especially forest soils!)  Thus: Soil C plays key role in climate forcing (indicator for the capacity of the terrestrial environment to act as a climate regulator) Soil organic carbon (SOC)
  3. 3. 3  hold about one-third of the carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems  Predominant role in Kyoto Protocol reporting (besides managed organic soils)  Understanding of hot spots seems crucial: e.g. forest soils in urban areas (unconcentional example: forest area reduced to half of the surrounding 26 % Frankfurt; 41 % avg in Hesse); Groundwater exploitation, etc. Forest soils:
  4. 4. 4  Forested soils: higher infiltration of rain water, movement of surface water into slower channels, increase water storage in soils (higher middle pores in forest soils)  Soil structure sensitive to machinery!! (up to 20 % to intensively managed forests (machine harvesting) covered with trail network (skidding trails; 4 m width, every 20 m); „site-adapted“ machinery  Sensitivity to climate change – effect of tree species: soil water storage is refilled during winter: conifers use up this storage in milder winters (high evaporation during winter Spruce > Pine, no loss under deciduous forest) Forest soils: Hydraulic properties Flood protection Water storage/buffer for draught periods
  5. 5. 5  Increasingly reduced to extreme sites (Plains: azonal/extrazonal, mountains, if not overgrazed and devastated): shallow soils, wet soils (periodically flooded, ground-/stagnic water, climate-dry or „parent material-dry“ soils)  These soils fulfil specific functions: biological reservoir, ecosystem-connectivity (corridors); sites are extremely sensitive to degradation Forest soils: Abundance
  6. 6. 6 Forest soils: abundance General soil map Map legend under forest vegetation Cambisol Stagnosol
  7. 7. 7 Forest soils: abundance Spatially-explicit modelling with the dominating soil type (and properties derived from it) from general soil maps leads to wrong results for forest-related conclusions (soil biophysical models, spatial property prediction) 
  8. 8. 8 Forest management
  9. 9. 9 L C B F H A-B Ah1 Ah2 Ahh forest floor humus layer top mineral soil subsoil compartmentssoil horizon L F H A B Ah1 Ah2 Ahh bioturbation humus stabilization decomposition litter (leaves, needles, roots, woddy debris) micro-climate canopy density throughfall (soil, meso-/macro climate, topography, ground water, etc.) (below canopy, topsoil) rotation length site preparation/ planting system thinning intensity fertilization/liming fire control drainage natural site factors management history regeneration system tree species selection Forest management
  10. 10. 10 natural humus condition loss of humus in the forest floor and mineral soil virgin forest agriculture/crop land afforestation stable humus reservoir natural broad- leaved forest mixed broad- leaved/coni- ferous forest coniferous forest managed forest transitional cases accumulation of forest floor humus, depleted mineral soil natural regenerationplantation partial/selective felling forest clearing reforestation reforestation deforestation loss of forest floor humus secondary forest utilization (mostly historical) Artificial input of nutrients and pollutants Climate Change Mineral soil humus Forest floor humus layer Legend natural broad- leaved forest mixed broad-leaved/ coniferous forest coniferous forest natural regeneration selective felling reforestation loss of forest floor humus/accumulation of mineral soil humus modern ecological silviculture Forest Soils: C dynamics - Climate change (drought, weather extremes, milder winters, etc.) - Pollutant input (N) - CO2 fertilization - Tree species competition - Susceptability to pests, nutrient deficiencies Policy questions  Available data and models to address these questions
  11. 11. 11 Examples: effects of forest management on SOC  Optional reporting under the Kyoto Protocol (Art. 3.4; GHG reporting means SOC change, not just single inventory/baseline): but many questions about the sink/source directions of the effects of forest management  Soil C is expected not to change over a forest generation, but C storage shifts between compartments (becomes more labile, at least on insufficiently buffered sandy dry soils)  Management effects need several years to kick in
  12. 12. 12 Examples: effects of forest management on SOC  Riek (2010), Level I and BioSoil Inventory (O-layer + 0-90 cm) 3250000 3300000 3350000 3400000 3450000 5700000 5750000 5800000 5850000 5900000 50 km0  Best stratification: groups of soil types  Mean annual change rate: 1.5 [t/ha] (1991/1992 to 2006/2008)
  13. 13. 13 UNFCCC category: drained and cultivated peat  Peat is not necessarily forested; chronic data gap in inventories  carbon source: 4 t C/ha/year for Finnish managed organic soils (11(+/-4) t CO2/year under drained grassland; 20 and 70 for drained cereals and drained row crops, respectively (Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al. 1997)  GHG balance: - CO2 release increases, emissions of CH4 decrease; - if mineral fertilizer is used; N2O increases
  14. 14. 14 Deforestation (mandatory under Kyoto Protocol) between 40 and 60 % loss (first, the forest floor humus layer is lost, which can represent up to 36 % of the total SOM in German forest soils Historic and future losses can be reliably quantified?  Baseline vs. change assessment
  15. 15. 15 Forest soils: C dynamics – feedback mechanisms SOM content Bio- diversity Farm economy N2O emission Land use change arable – forest incl. bioenergy crops + + – – forest – arable – – + + set aside (natural revegetation) + + subsidized – Forestry forest preservation + + + – 0 natural regeneration + + + 0 plantation forestry (–) (+) + + (–)
  16. 16. 16 Forest soils, SOC, and soil classification
  17. 17. 17 Forest soil morphology, SOC and classification C storage O-Layer Decompositional activity/soil biodiversity Forest productivity L-Mull F-Mull Moder Mormoder Mor Fine humus-rich/fine humus-poor variants Biomacrostructured A
  18. 18. 18 Soil carbon Horizons L F H A 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 [%] organic matter V IV III II I Mor, Mormoder, Grassmoder Moder (fhr), Hydromoder, Hydromor Moder (fhp), Mormoder (imm.) Mullmoder Mull
  19. 19. 19 Soil carbon Hydromull Hydromoder Hydromor
  20. 20. 20 A few conclusions…  Top soil properties not sufficiently reflected in international soil classification (thus are often not described and available in data bases, e.g. thickness of layers with amounts of plant residues, etc.)  Variability is extremely high (especially subsoils: stones, topsoil: O-layer thickness and density; organic soils and intensively managed soils: microtopopgraphy)  Managed forest ecosystems: O-layer and mineral soil processes decoupled (different drivers/predictors in spatial models)
  21. 21. 21 What can we say with existing continental level data sets? (Europe)
  22. 22. 22 Digital plot-level soil data in Europe: 300,000 digital plots (questionnaire FP6 ENVASSO) Situation changes for C stock assessment Situation drastically changes for SOC change assessment (less dramatic for forest soils) Data available, very difficult to access Arrouays et al. (2008)
  23. 23. 23 Continent-wide forest soil condition inventories O-layer mineral soil (0-20 cm) Plots where data about the weight of the organic layer and the carbon concentration are available (in order to calculate C stocks for the O layer); Histosols excluded. Plots where depth classes are complete (0-20 cm) incl. Regosols; Histosols are excluded; the Swedish plots are excluded due to methodical deviations in the mineral soil sampling. A large proportion of these plots was now re-visited: measurements of BD, particle size classes, improved estimation of coarse fragments, systematic link to WRB ( BioSoil Inventory 2006-2008) ( EU/ICP Forests Level I 1990-1995)
  24. 24. 24 Mineral soil 0-20 cm O-layer
  25. 25. 25 Data Stratification Soil regions/climate areas Biogeographic regions + partly national borders (systematic errors)
  26. 26. 26 8 strata: climatic areas/ eco-geographic regions, some country elements Forest SOC Stratification Europe: Agricultural land SOC pH 2300 plots4300 plots Variability? Data density?
  27. 27. 27 Europe (0-20 cm depth) Step Variable Partial R2 Model R2 1 p_Histosol 0.4027 0.4027 2 BIOCLIM_3 0.0974 0.5001 3 DEM 0.0211 0.5212 4 TMIN8 0.0321 0.5533 5 p_Cambisol 0.0115 0.5648 6 WR3 0.0106 0.5754 7 p_Regosol 0.0088 0.5842 8 p_Podzol 0.0181 0.6023 9 BIOCLIM_15 0.0079 0.6102 10 PICEA 0.0060 0.6162 11 PREC8 0.0036 0.6198 Boreal Step Variable Partial R2 Model R2 1 p_Histosol 0.3617 0.3617 2 TMAX2 0.0729 0.4346 3 p_pinus 0.0538 0.4884 4 p_Regosol 0.0282 0.5166 5 SlopeDegr_kl5 0.0185 0.5351 6 Ecocode_46 0.0204 0.5555 7 Ecocode_86 0.0048 0.5603 8 PREC7 0.0056 0.5659 9 p_Luvisol 0.0046 0.5705 10 p_Cambisol 0.0044 0.5749 11 DICONVG 0.0038 0.5787 12 TPI1000 0.0070 0.5856 Subboreal/Baltic r2: 0.34 to 0.62
  28. 28. 28 Conclusions
  29. 29. 29  Drivers for SOC known, but for spatial assessment: dependent on the quality of the data base/resolution  SOC stocks: BD increasingly covered on the basis of regionally calibrated PTF; coarse fragments (stones) is probably main uncertainty (especially forest soils!)  C stock change assessment (GHG effects): Management effects, climate change, projections, sensitivity etc. only on the basis of soil biophysical models (issue: hydrological homogenous response units: do not require soil type, but spatially explicit texture and SOC baseline, if possible hydraulic data (soil moisture module), and chemical data (CEC, pH) related to soil fertility (productivity module) – depending on the model)
  30. 30. 30  Resolution of digitally available (transboundary) soil maps is poor, any area-related estimate inaccurate; specific soils under forest often not known, data about the O-layer is often missing, ability of models to reflect decompositional activities in forest soils (O-layers – mineral soil) becomes increasingly solved  Density of plot measurements is actually not poor (for Europe), but access and quality restrictions  Quality of spatially explicit data on land use and climate is still poor (despite 1 km World Clim)
  31. 31. 31 Thank you for your attention! rainer.baritz@bgr.de

×