the effects of historical changes in global agricultural land on the terrestrial carbon cycle navin...
TRANSCRIPT
The Effects of Historical Changes in Global Agricultural Land on the
Terrestrial Carbon Cycle
The Effects of Historical Changes in Global Agricultural Land on the
Terrestrial Carbon Cycle
Navin Ramankutty[[email protected]]Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE)Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Navin Ramankutty[[email protected]]Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE)Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
5.5 ± 0.5
Land Use
Atmospheric Pool 750
(stores 3.2 ± 0.2 yr–1)
Ocean 40,000
Units: Stocks - Gt-C Fluxes - Gt-C yr–1
NPP60
60
1.6 ± 1.0
Rh
92 90
Landplants 700
Soils 1550
The Global Carbon Cycle
Net =2.0 ± 0.8
(adapted from Schimel et al., 1995)
(status in the 1980s)
Land Use EmissionsLand Use Emissions
• Current estimates -- Houghton et al.
• Land use data over 9 continental-scale regions
• “Book-keeping” model
• Current estimates -- Houghton et al.
• Land use data over 9 continental-scale regions
• “Book-keeping” model
BackgroundBackground
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
Carb
on E
mis
sions
(Gt-
C/y
r)
Fossil Fuel
Land Use(Houghton et al.)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
Carb
on E
mis
sions
(Gt-
C/y
r)
Fossil Fuel
Land Use(Houghton et al.)
Houghton (1999)Houghton (1999)
Over the 1850-1990 period,
– Cropland change = 68% of total net C flux
– Harvest of wood = 16%
– Pastures = 13%
– Shifting cultivation = 4%
– Plantations = -1%
Over the 1850-1990 period,
– Cropland change = 68% of total net C flux
– Harvest of wood = 16%
– Pastures = 13%
– Shifting cultivation = 4%
– Plantations = -1%
This StudyThis Study
• Geographically-explicit land use data, albeit restricted to croplands
• Using process-based ecosystem models
• Conducted as part of the Carbon Cycle Model Linkage Project (CCMLP), funded by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
• Geographically-explicit land use data, albeit restricted to croplands
• Using process-based ecosystem models
• Conducted as part of the Carbon Cycle Model Linkage Project (CCMLP), funded by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
• Grand Slam Expt. -- concurrent effects of historical CO2, climate and land use on terrestrial carbon cycle
4 Terrestrial Biosphere Models HRBM -- Esser et al., Giessen, Germany IBIS -- Foley et al., Kucharik et al., Univ. of Wisconsin, USA LPJ -- Sitch, Prentice et al., PIK & MPI-Jena, Germany TEM -- McGuire et al., Tian et al., MBL, USA
3 simulations from 1860 to 1992(analysis from 1920)
• Grand Slam Expt. -- concurrent effects of historical CO2, climate and land use on terrestrial carbon cycle
4 Terrestrial Biosphere Models HRBM -- Esser et al., Giessen, Germany IBIS -- Foley et al., Kucharik et al., Univ. of Wisconsin, USA LPJ -- Sitch, Prentice et al., PIK & MPI-Jena, Germany TEM -- McGuire et al., Tian et al., MBL, USA
3 simulations from 1860 to 1992(analysis from 1920)
The CCMLP StudyThe CCMLP Study
S1: CO2 onlyS2: CO2 + ClimateS3: CO2 + Climate + Land use
S1: CO2 onlyS2: CO2 + ClimateS3: CO2 + Climate + Land use
This TalkThis Talk
Effects of land use on the terrestrial carbon cycle
= Simulation S3 - S2
Effects of land use on the terrestrial carbon cycle
= Simulation S3 - S2
Driving DataDriving Data
• CO2: Ice-core record + Avg. of Mauna Loa & South Pole
• Climate: Temperature and Precipitation anomalies from Jones et al. (1994) plus Leemans & Cramer (1991); surrogate for pre-1900
• CO2: Ice-core record + Avg. of Mauna Loa & South Pole
• Climate: Temperature and Precipitation anomalies from Jones et al. (1994) plus Leemans & Cramer (1991); surrogate for pre-1900
Driving Data (continued)Driving Data (continued)
• Land Use: Boolean version of historical croplands data set of Ramankutty and Foley (1999)– Synthesis of the IGBP 1km global land cover
data set with historical cropland census data
• Land Use: Boolean version of historical croplands data set of Ramankutty and Foley (1999)– Synthesis of the IGBP 1km global land cover
data set with historical cropland census data
--> talk in parallel session B2, at 4:25 pm, Room EF --> talk in parallel session B2, at 4:25 pm, Room EF
Global Cropland Distributions Source: Ramankutty & Foley, 1999Global Cropland Distributions Source: Ramankutty & Foley, 1999
Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonCenter for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison
Global Cropland Distributions Source: Ramankutty & Foley, 1999Global Cropland Distributions Source: Ramankutty & Foley, 1999
Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonCenter for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison
Global Cropland Distributions Source: Ramankutty & Foley, 1999Global Cropland Distributions Source: Ramankutty & Foley, 1999
Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonCenter for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison
MicrobialRespiration
Net Primaryproductivity
NaturalVegetation
Biomass
Harvest
Product decayflux
ProductPools
= 1, 10, & 100 yrs
AgriculturalProducts
Net Carbon Exchange, NCE(positive into the atmosphere)
Net PrimaryProductivity
CropBiomass
Harvest
NaturalTurnover
Litter &Soil Organic Matter
Slash CropResidue
Product decayflux
= 1 yr
The Carbon Flow in CCMLP Expts.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
HRBM IBIS LPJ TEM
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
HRBM IBIS LPJ TEM
CCMLP Land Use FluxCCMLP Land Use Flux
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
CCMLPEnvelope
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
CCMLPEnvelope
CCMLP Flux in Comparison with HoughtonCCMLP Flux in Comparison with Houghton
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
Houghton (cropland)
CCMLPEnvelope
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
Houghton (cropland)
CCMLPEnvelope
CCMLP Flux in Comparison with HoughtonCCMLP Flux in Comparison with Houghton
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
Houghton (all landuse)
Houghton (cropland)
CCMLPEnvelope
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
Houghton (all landuse)
Houghton (cropland)
CCMLPEnvelope
CCMLP Flux in Comparison with HoughtonCCMLP Flux in Comparison with Houghton
SummarySummary
CCMLP Houghton
1920-1990(Pg-C)
55-90 57
1980s avg.(Pg-C/ yr)
0.6-1.0 1.3
CCMLP Houghton
1920-1990(Pg-C)
55-90 57
1980s avg.(Pg-C/ yr)
0.6-1.0 1.3
What does this imply?What does this imply?
In the 1980s,• Houghton (all landuse) = 2.0 Gt-C/yr• Houghton (croplands) = 1.3 Gt-C/yr
==> croplands = 65% of total land use flux
• CCMLP cropland flux = 0.6-1.0 Gt-C/yr– Scaled by 65%, ==> all landuse flux = 0.9-1.5 Gt-C/yr
In the 1980s,• Houghton (all landuse) = 2.0 Gt-C/yr• Houghton (croplands) = 1.3 Gt-C/yr
==> croplands = 65% of total land use flux
• CCMLP cropland flux = 0.6-1.0 Gt-C/yr– Scaled by 65%, ==> all landuse flux = 0.9-1.5 Gt-C/yr
Implications for Missing SinkImplications for Missing Sinkbased on
C-budget Houghton(Gt-C/yr)
CCMLP(Gt-C/yr)
Atmospheric Increase -3.3
Fossil-Fuel 5.5
Land Use 2.0
Oceanic Uptake -2.0
Missing Sink -2.2
based onC-budget Houghton
(Gt-C/yr)CCMLP(Gt-C/yr)
Atmospheric Increase -3.3
Fossil-Fuel 5.5
Land Use 2.0
Oceanic Uptake -2.0
Missing Sink -2.2
Implications for Missing SinkImplications for Missing Sinkbased on
C-budget Houghton(Gt-C/yr)
CCMLP(Gt-C/yr)
Atmospheric Increase -3.3 -3.3
Fossil-Fuel 5.5 5.5
Land Use 2.0 0.9-1.5
Oceanic Uptake -2.0 -2.0
Missing Sink -2.2 -1.1-1.7
based onC-budget Houghton
(Gt-C/yr)CCMLP(Gt-C/yr)
Atmospheric Increase -3.3 -3.3
Fossil-Fuel 5.5 5.5
Land Use 2.0 0.9-1.5
Oceanic Uptake -2.0 -2.0
Missing Sink -2.2 -1.1-1.7
Why are the land use emissions different?
Why are the land use emissions different?
• Differences in the land use data?• Differences in the land use data?
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970
Rate of Change (Ramankutty)Rate of Change (Houghton)
Ra
te o
f C
ha
nge
of C
ropla
nd
(M
illio
n k
m2
/yr)
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970
Rate of Change (Ramankutty)Rate of Change (Houghton)
Ra
te o
f C
ha
nge
of C
ropla
nd
(M
illio
n k
m2
/yr)
Cropland Conversion RatesCropland Conversion Rates
Why are the land use emissions different?
Why are the land use emissions different?
• Differences in the land use data?
• Differences in process representation?– regrowth, soil turnover, product fluxes, ...
• Differences in the land use data?
• Differences in process representation?– regrowth, soil turnover, product fluxes, ...
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970
Rate of Change of CroplandCarbon Emissions
Rate
of
Change o
f C
ropla
nd (
Million k
m2/y
r)C
arb
on E
missio
ns (T
gC
)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970
Rate of Change of CroplandCarbon Emissions
Rate
of
Change o
f C
ropla
nd (
Million k
m2/y
r)C
arb
on E
missio
ns (T
gC
)Houghton conversion rates and emissionsHoughton conversion rates and emissions
CCMLP conversion rates and emissionsCCMLP conversion rates and emissions
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Rate of Change of Cropland
Carbon Emissions CCMLP Envelope
Rate
of
Change o
f C
ropla
nd (
Million k
m2/y
r)C
arb
on E
missio
ns (T
gC
)
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Rate of Change of Cropland
Carbon Emissions CCMLP Envelope
Rate
of
Change o
f C
ropla
nd (
Million k
m2/y
r)C
arb
on E
missio
ns (T
gC
)
Why are the land use emissions different?
Why are the land use emissions different?
• Differences in the land use data?
• Differences in process representation– regrowth, soil turnover, ...
• Different vegetation types are cleared?
• Differences in the land use data?
• Differences in process representation– regrowth, soil turnover, ...
• Different vegetation types are cleared?
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
HRBM IBIS LPJ TEM
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Car
bon
Em
issi
ons
(Pg-
C/y
r)
HRBM IBIS LPJ TEM
CCMLP Land Use FluxCCMLP Land Use Flux
ConclusionsConclusions
• There are now two different estimates of carbon emissions due to land use
• The disagreement between the estimates is related to:– Differences in land conversion rates– Differences in process representation
• Inverse estimates of the missing carbon sink are critically dependent on estimates of land use carbon emissions
• There are now two different estimates of carbon emissions due to land use
• The disagreement between the estimates is related to:– Differences in land conversion rates– Differences in process representation
• Inverse estimates of the missing carbon sink are critically dependent on estimates of land use carbon emissions