Ecosystem Carbon Storage Across the Grassland–Forest Transition in the High Andes of Manu National Park, Peru
Improved management of carbon storage by terrestrial biomes has significant value for mitigating climate change. The carbon value of such management has the potential to provide additional income to rural communities and provide biodiversity and climate adaptation co-benefits. Here, we quantify the carbon stores in a 49,300-ha landscape centered on the cloud forest–grassland transition of the high Andes in Manu National Park, Peru. Aboveground carbon densities were measured across the landscape by field sampling of 70 sites above and below the treeline. The forest near the treeline contained 63.4 ± 5.2 Mg C ha−1 aboveground, with an additional 13.9 ± 2.8 Mg C ha−1 estimated to be stored in the coarse roots, using a root to shoot ratio of 0.26. Puna grasslands near the treeline were found to store 7.5 ± 0.7 Mg C ha−1 in aboveground biomass. Comparing our result to soil data gathered by Zimmermann and others (Ecosystems 13:62–74, 2010), we found the ratio of belowground:aboveground carbon decreased from 15.8 on the puna to 8.6 in the transition zone and 2.1 in the forest. No significant relationships were found between carbon densities and slope, altitude or fire disturbance history, though grazing (for puna) was found to reduce aboveground carbon densities significantly. We scaled our study sites to the study region with remote sensing observations from Landsat. The carbon sequestration potential of improved grazing management and assisted upslope treeline migration was also estimated. Afforestation of puna at the treeline could generate revenues of US $1,374 per ha over the project lifetime via commercialization of the carbon credits from gains in aboveground carbon stocks. Uncertainties in the fate of the large soil carbon stocks under an afforestation scenario exist.
Key wordsPeru Manu National Park treeline puna upper tropical montane cloud forest carbon stocks
We thank the Blue Moon Fund for support. We especially thank Manu National Park and the Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Recusos National (INRENA) and the Amazon Conservation Association (ACCA) for permission to work in Manu National Park and at the Wayquecha field station, respectively. The guards at Manu National Park and Luis Imunda provided essential logistical support and advice. Five hard-working undergraduate students from Wake Forest University and Flor Zamora, Percy Chambi and Nelson Cahuana from Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, were essential for the completion of this project.
- Braun G, Mutke J, Reder A, Bartbloft W. 2002. Biotope patterns, phytodiversity and forestline in the Andes, based on GIS and remote sensing data. In: Korner C, Spehn E, Eds. Mountain biodiversity—a global assessment. London: Parthenon Publishing Group. p 75–89.Google Scholar
- Brown S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry Paper No. 134, 55 ppGoogle Scholar
- Bruijnzeel LA, Proctor J. 1995. Hydrology and biogeochemistry of tropical montane cloud forests: what do we really know? In: Hamilton LS, Juvik JO, Scatena FN, Eds. Tropical montane cloud forests. Ecological Studies, vol 110. New York: Springer. pp. 38–78.Google Scholar
- Bubb P, May I, Miles L, Sayer J. 2004. Cloud forest agenda. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC. p 34.Google Scholar
- Campbell JB. 1996. Introduction to remote sensing. 2nd edn. New York (NY): Guilford.Google Scholar
- Cavelier J. 1995. Reforestation with the native tree Alnus acuminata: effects on phytodiversity and species richness in an upper montane rain forest area of Colombia. In: Hamilton LS, Juvik JO, Scatena FN, Eds. Tropical montane cloud forests. New York (NY): Springer. p 125–37.Google Scholar
- Del Castillo RF, Blanco-Macías A. 2007. Secondary succession under a slash-and-burn regime in a tropical montane cloud forest: soil and vegetation characteristics. In: Newton AC, Ed. Biodiversity loss and conservation in fragmented forest landscapes: the forests of montane Mexico and temperate South America. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. p 158–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Denman KL, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, Ciais P, Cox PM, Dickinson RE, Hauglustaine D, Heinze C, Holland E, Jacob D, Lohmann U, Ramachandran S, da Silva Dias PL, Wofsy SC, Zhang X. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignorand M, Miller HL, Eds. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
- Eastman J. 2006. IDRISI Andes—guide to GIS and image processing. Clark Labs [online]. http://planetuwcacza/nisl/Gwen’s%20Files/GeoCourse/Resource%20Mapping/Andes%20Manualpdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2008.
- Golicher D, Newton AC. 2007. Applying succession models to the conservation of tropical montane forest in biodiversity loss and conservation. In: Newton AC, Ed. Fragmented forest landscapes: the forests of montane Mexico and temperate South America. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. p 200–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- González-Espinosa M, Ramírez-Marcial N, Newton A, Rey-Benayas JM, Camacho-Cruz A, Armesto JJ, Lara A, Premoli AC, Williams-Linera G, Altamirano A, Alvarez-Aquino C, Cortés M, Galindo-Jaimes L, Muñiz MA, Núñez M, Pedraza RA, Rovere AE, Smith-Ramírez C, Thiers O, Zamorano C. 2007. Restoration of forest ecosystems in fragmented landscapes of temperate and montane tropical Latin America. In: Newton AC, Ed. Biodiversity loss and conservation in fragmented forest landscapes: the forests of montane Mexico and temperate South America. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. p 355–69.Google Scholar
- Hamilton K, Sjardin M, Shapiro A, Marcello T. 2009. Fortifying the foundation: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2009. Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance.Google Scholar
- INRENA. 2002. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Plan Maestro—Proyecto Aprovechamiento y Manejo Sostenible de la Reserva de Biosfera y Parque Nacional del Manu (Pro-Manu) Peru: INRENA.Google Scholar
- IUCN. 2008. Protected areas and world heritage Peru—Manu National Park. UNESCO IUCN WHC [online] UNEP. http://wwwunep-wcmcorg/sites/wh/pdf/Manupdf. Accessed 08 Jan 2009.
- Jarvis A, Reuter H, Nelson A, Guevara E. 2006. Hole-filled seamless SRTM data v3. Cali: International Center for Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
- Malhi Y, Aragão LEO, Metcalfe DB, Paiva R, Quesada CA, Almeida S, Anderson L, Brando P, Chambers JQ, da Costa ACL, Hutyra LR, Oliveira P, Patiño S, Pyle EH, Robertson AL, Teixeira LM. 2008. Comprehensive assessment of carbon productivity allocation and storage in three Amazonian forests. Glob Change Biol 15:1255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raich JW, Russell AE, Vitousek PM. 1997. Primary productivity and ecosystem development along an elevational gradient on Mauna Loa Hawaii. Ecology 78:707–21.Google Scholar
- Stadtmuller T. 1987. Cloud forests in the humid tropics—a bibliographic review. Turrialba: CATIE.Google Scholar
- Zimmermann M, Meir P, Silman MR, Fedders A, Gibbon A, Malhi Y, Urrego DH, Bush MB, Feeley KJ, Garcia KC, Dargie GC, Farfan WR, Goetz BP, Johnson WT, Kline KM, Modi AT, Rurau NMQ, Staudt BT, Zamora F. 2010. No differences in soil carbon stocks across the tree line in the Peruvian Andes. Ecosystems 13:62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar