Intensification effects on the energy, water and carbon balance of managed forests Denis Loustau, Sébastien Lafont, Jean-Pierre Lagouarde, Christophe Moisy, Delphine Picart, Alexandre Bosc (1) Virginie Moreaux (1,2) Fabienne Benest (3) (1)Inra, ISPA, Villenave d’Ornon, France (2)Global Change Research Group, San Diego State University, San Diego, Ca. 92182, USA, (3)Institut Géographique National, Bordeaux 33000, France EGU Annual Assembly 2014.
17
Embed
Intensification effects on the energy, water and carbon balance of managed forests Denis Loustau, Sébastien Lafont, Jean-Pierre Lagouarde, Christophe Moisy,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Intensification effects on the energy, water and carbon balance of managed forests
(1)Inra, ISPA, Villenave d’Ornon, France (2)Global Change Research Group, San Diego State University, San Diego, Ca. 92182, USA, (3)Institut Géographique National, Bordeaux 33000, France
EGU Annual Assembly 2014.
Climatic Impacts of Forest intensification(Lee et al., Nature 2011; Bright et al., GCB 2014; Luyssaert et al. Nature Climate Change, 2014 )
Approach: Comparison of homogenous forest landscapes converted from low (P60) to high (30) management intensity
1. Biogeochemical effect (carbon)
RF, GHG
2. Biophysical effect (albedo)RF, albedo
3. Overall effect at 30 years (GWP)𝐺𝑊𝑃= න ሺ𝑅𝐹𝐺𝐻𝐺 + 𝑅𝐹𝑎ሻ 𝑑𝑡𝑡2𝑡1
1985
P30
P45
P60
1. Biogeochemical effects, RF GHG (CO2)
In situ Carbon cycle modelled across x 90 ecoregions (GO+ INRA model)
Ex situ emissions & fossil C displacement• Bioenergy: emissions same year, displace 0.7 fossil CO2• Timber: emissions delayed 60 yrs, displace 2.5 fossil CO2
Asymptotic decline of airborne fraction of CO2
Overall radiative forcing according to Myhre et al. 98, Moreaux et al. 2008
Soil
Atmosphere
Fossil C
HarvestVegetation
Net CO2 balance
Trees
Soil
Understorey
Water cycle
Energy balance
Carbon cycle
Plant developmentMicro
climate
Climate forcing
Management forcing
RF GHG (CO2) : Forest model GO+ (INRA)
Groundwater
Soil (root depth)
40cm
80cm
120 cm
- increases 2-3 fold the biomass production- more efficient in fertile site / favourable climates:intensification efficiency reduced in 2075 by drought
Managt
1985 2015 2045 2075
Results - Intensification impact on yield (90 ecoregions boxplots)
Soil (root depth)
40cm
80cm
120 cm
Intensification may enhance soil carbon storage (litterfall ↗)In 2075, soil carbon is reduced at 70% of 2015 level.
Managt
1975 2015 2045 2075
Results- intensification impact on soil carbon stock
Soil (root depth)
40cm
80cm
120 cm
Effect is stronger in fertile sites and humid climate
1975 2015 2045 2075
Biomass carbon stock depleted by 30 % in intensified landscapes
Managt
Results- intensification impact on standing biomass
-1.00000E-04
-5.00000E-05
0.00000E+00
5.00000E-05
RF GHG (CO2) : Results synthesis in terms of radiative forcing
RF (W.m-2) P60 P30
1971 1980 1990 2000
RFNEERFHP
Net RFCO2
Cooling
Warming
• In situ sequestration effect (NEE) is offset by mineralisation of harvested products (HP);
• The resulting net CO2 effect is due to storage in soil, biomass and products;
1 30
1 30
1 30
1 30
1 30
1 30
1 30 1 30
RF (W.m-2) P45 P30
1970 - 1999
2000 - 2029
2030 - 2059
2060 - 2099
P60 P30
Vertical axis range is 5 to - 10 E-5 W.m-2
• Cooling impact from P60 to P30
• Intensification effectsdecreases in the future
• Opposite trends evidenced for the P45 P30 conversion
RF GHG (CO2) : Results synthesis in terms of radiative forcing
Pine Forest, Bordeaux, SW France. 5km:
RFalbedo Calibration from GEOLAND and MODIS products
Reference Site:
continuous cover including multiple ages
ManagedSite:
~even distribution of age classes [0 to 30]
Comparison of monthly albedo time series at landscape level