Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 371–376 | Cite as

Soil carbon dynamics in a Mediterranean forest during the Kyoto Protocol commitment periods

  • Tommaso ChitiEmail author
  • Giacomo Certini
  • Lucia Perugini
  • Giovanni Mastrolonardo
  • Dario Papale
  • Riccardo Valentini
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present work is to asses the possibility of detecting changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) at the end of the 5-years of the first Commitment Period (CP) of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (1 January, 2008–31 December, 2012), by both direct measurement and the use of an opportunely evaluated SOC model, CENTURY. The investigated soil is young, developed since 28 years on virtually C-free spoil banks and under the influence of two managed forest stands, one a mix of English oak (Quercus robur L.) and Italian alder (Alnus cordata Loisel.) and the other pure English oak. The SOC stock of either stand was monitored since the time the stands were planted in 1981, and it was used together with other parameters for the model evaluation, while the future projections for the end of the first (2012) and second (2017) CP were made according to two extreme IPCC climatic scenarios: A1F1, the most dramatic, and B2, among the less impacting. Direct SOC measurements performed at the beginning and at the end of a time frame equivalent to a commitment period (2004–2008) had not shown significant variations in either stands. Compared to the 2008 SOC stock, in both stands the model shows variations at the end of the first CP from 0.7 to 1.8 Mg C ha−1 for the A1F1 scenario and from 0.3 to 1.7 Mg C ha−1 for the B2. These variations are within the standard deviations of the C stocks measured in 2008. On the contrary, at the end of the second CP, the modelled SOC increments range from 2.5 to 3.6 Mg C ha−1 (A1F1) or from 1.9 to 3.4 Mg C ha−1 (B2), indicating the possibility to detect the SOC changes by direct measurement, since the values well agree with the minimum detectable variation estimated for both sites in 3.3–4.5 Mg C ha−1. This work shows that SOC stock changes measured directly in the field can be minimal at the end of both CPs, and that CENTURY well simulates the SOC dynamics of the stands. The use of such a model, validated at long-term experimental sites, hence represents an effective tool for estimating future changes in SOC amounts in support of direct measurements when a short period of time, such as the CP, is considered.

Keywords

Kyoto Protocol Forest management Net primary production (NPP) Soil organic carbon (SOC) CENTURY model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work benefited from the financial contribution of the “FISR Carboitaly project” funded by the Italian Ministry for University and Research. The first author gratefully acknowledges C Keough from Colorado State University for her support in setting up and running the CENTURY model. Thanks are due to P Arfaioli for her collaboration and for performing C measurements on soil samples, and to F Pelleri for providing the annual increments data use to calculate the NPP. A special acknowledgement to FC Ugolini for critically reviewing the manuscript and to W Cramer, for his comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Chiti T, Certini G, Puglisi A, Sanesi G, Capperucci A, Forte C (2007) Effects of associating a N-fixer species to monotypic oak plantations on the quantity and quality of organic matter in minesoils. Geoderma 138:162–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conen F, Yakutin MV, Sambuu AD (2003) Potential for detecting changes in soil organic carbon concentrations resulting from climate change. Global Change Biol 9:1515–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conen F, Zerva A, Arrouays D, Jolivet C, Jarvis PG, Grace J, Mencuccini M (2004) The carbon balance of forest soils: detectability of changes in soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests. In: Griffith H, Jarvis PG (eds) The carbon balance of forest biomes. Bios Scientific Press, London, pp 252–268Google Scholar
  4. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2003) Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, et al. (eds) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  5. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T and Tanabe K (eds) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Published: IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  6. ISPRA (Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) (2008) Italian Greenhouse Gases Inventory 1990–2006—National Inventory Report 2008. ISPRA, Rapporti 84/2008Google Scholar
  7. Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L et al (2007) How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelly RH, Parton WJ, Crocker GJ, Grace PR, Klir J, Korschens M, Poulton PR, Richter DD (1997) Simulating trends in soil organic carbon in long-term experiments using the CENTURY model. Geoderma 81:75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirschbaum MUF, Paul KI (2002) Modelling C and N dynamics in forest soils with a modified version of the CENTURY model. Soil Biol Biochem 34:341–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitchell TD, Carter TR, Jones PD, Hulme M, New M (2004) A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901–2000) and 16 scenarios (2001–2100). Working Paper 55, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  11. Moffat AM, Papale D, Reichstein M, Hollinger DY et al (2007) Comprehensive comparison of gap-filling techniques for eddy covariance net carbon fluxes. Agric For Meteorol 147:209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nakićenović N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Nocentini C (2004) Respirazione del suolo e diversità della comunità microbica in due impianti forestali di farnia (Quercus robur L.) e ontano napoletano (Alnus cordata Loisel.) su suoli di discarica mineraria. M.S. Thesis, Università degli Studi di Firenze, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. Parton WJ, Rasmussen PE (1994) Long-term effects of crop management in wheat–fallow: II. CENTURY model simulations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:530–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parton WJ, Schimel DS, Cole CV, Ojima DS (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1173–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parton WJ, Scurlock MO, Ojima DS et al (1993) Observation and modelling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide. Global Biogeochem Cycles 7:785–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith P (2004a) How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected? Global Change Biol 10:1878–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith P (2004b) Monitoring and verification of soil carbon changes under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Soil Use Manag 20:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith JU, Smith P (2007) Environmental modelling. An introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1980) Statistical methods, 7th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames 507 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Soil Survey Staff (2010) Keys to soil taxonomy, 11th edn. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. US Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Subke JA, Inglima I, Cotrufo F (2006) Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: a meta-analytical review. Global Change Biol 12:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UNFCCC (1998) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Third Session, Held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997. Addendum. Document FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add1. Available on the Internet: http://www.unfccc.de
  24. UNFCCC (2005) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 16/CMP.1. Land use, land use change and forestry. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3, paragraph 21Google Scholar
  25. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood-CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommaso Chiti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giacomo Certini
    • 2
  • Lucia Perugini
    • 1
  • Giovanni Mastrolonardo
    • 2
  • Dario Papale
    • 1
  • Riccardo Valentini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienza dell’Ambiente Forestale e delle sue Risorse (DISAFRI)Università della TusciaViterboItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienza delle Produzioni Vegetali, del Suolo e dell’Ambiente Agroforestale (DIPSA)Università di FirenzeFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations