Climatic Change

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 191–202 | Cite as

Terrestrial carbon pools in southeast and south-central United States

  • Fengxiang X. Han
  • M. John Plodinec
  • Yi Su
  • David L. Monts
  • Zhongpei Li
Article

Abstract

Analyses of regional carbon sources and sinks are essential to assess the economical feasibility of various carbon sequestration technologies for mitigating atmospheric CO2 accumulation and for preventing global warming. Such an inventory is a prerequisite for regional trading of CO2 emissions. As a U.S. Department of Energy Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partner, we have estimated the state-level terrestrial carbon pools in the southeast and south-central US. This region includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. We have also projected the potential for terrestrial carbon sequestration in the region. Texas is the largest contributor (34%) to greenhouse gas emission in the region. The total terrestrial carbon storage (forest biomass and soils) in the southeast and south-central US is estimated to be 130 Tg C/year. An annual forest carbon sink (estimated as 76 Tg C/year) could compensate for 13% of the regional total annual greenhouse gas emission (505 Tg C, 1990 estimate). Through proper policies and the best land management practices, 54 Tg C/year could be sequestered in soils. Thus, terrestrial sinks can capture 23% of the regional total greenhouse emission and hence are one of the most cost-effective options for mitigating greenhouse emission in the region.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold JG, Weltz MA, Albertsm EE, Flanagan DC (1995) Plant growth component. In: Flanagan DC, Nearing MA (eds) USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project Hillslope Profile and Watershed Model Document, NSERL Report 10, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Lab, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907Google Scholar
  2. Batjes NH (1996) Total carbon and nitrogen in soils of the world. Eur J Soil Sci 47:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birdsey RA (1996) Carbon storage in United States forests. In: Sampson RN, Hair D (eds) Forest and global change, V. II: opportunity for improving forest management. American Forests, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bliss NB, Waltman SW, Petersen GW (1995) Preparing a soil carbon inventory for the United States using geographic information systems. In: Lal R, Kimble J, Levine E, Stewart BA (eds) Soils and global change. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 275–295Google Scholar
  5. Bruce JP, Frome M, Haites E, Janzen HH, Lal R, Paustian K (1998) Carbon Sequestration in Soil, Soil Water Conservations Society White PaperGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce JP, Frome M, Haites E, Janzen H, Lal R, Paustian K (1999) Carbon sequestration in soils. J. Soil Water Conserv 54:2382–2389Google Scholar
  7. Cole CVK (1996) Agricultural options for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds) Climate change 1995. Impacts, adaptations, and mitigation of climate change: intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  8. Delcourt HR, Harris WF (1980) Carbon budget of the southeastern U.S. biota: analysis of historical change in trend from source to sink. Science 210:321–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eswaran H, Reich PF, Kimble JM, Beinroth FH, Padmanabhan E, Moncharoen P (2000) Global carbon stocks In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Eswaran H, Stewart BA (eds) Global climate changes and pedogenic carbonates. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 15–25Google Scholar
  10. Fan S, Gloor M, Mahlman J, Pacala S, Sarmiento J, Takahashi T, Tans P (1998) A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data and models. Science 282:442–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holland EA, Brown S, Potter CS, et al. (1999) North American carbon sink. Science 283:1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houghton RA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT (1999) The U.S. carbon budget: contributions from land-use change. Science 285:574–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (2003) Carbon Sequestration on Idaho Agriculture and Forest Lands, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, Boise, IdahoGoogle Scholar
  14. Katul GG, Oren R, Kasibhatla P, Ellsworth D, Lai CT, Shafer KVS, Ewers BE, Naumberg E (1999) Reassesment of Carbon Sequestration in Forests of the Conterminous United States, American Geophysical Union Meeting-San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  15. Klepper B (1991) Root-shoot Relationships. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U (eds) Plant roots: the hidden half. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Kucharik CJ, Brye KR (2003) Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS) yield and nitrate loss predictions for Wisconsin maize receiving varied amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. J Environ Qual 32:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lal R, Kimble JM (2000) Pedogenic carbonates and the global carbon cycle. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Eswaran H, Stewart BA (eds) Global climate changes and pedogenic carbonates. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  18. Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Cole CV (1998) The potentials of us cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, p 128Google Scholar
  19. Lal R, Follett RF, Kimble JM, Cole CV (1999) Managing U.S. cropland to sequester carbon in soil. J Soil Water Conserv 54:374–381Google Scholar
  20. North East State Foresters Association (2002) Carbon sequestration and its impacts on forest management in the Northeast, North East State Foresters Association. (Available at http://www.nefainfo.org/publications/carbonsequestration.pdf)
  21. Pacala SW, Hurtt GC, Baker D. et al. (2001) Consistent land-and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science 292:2316–2320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pettigrew WT (2003) Relationships between insufficient potassium and crop maturity in cotton. Agron J 95:1323–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schimel D, Melillo J, Tian H et al. (2000) Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science 287:2004–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlesinger WH (1990) Evidence from chronosequence studies for a low carbon-storage potential of soils. Nature 348:232–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schlesinger WH (1995) An overview of the carbon cycle. In: Lal R, Kimble J, Levine E, Stewart BA (eds) Soils and global change. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 9–25Google Scholar
  26. Smith WB, Vissage JS, Darr DR, Sheffield RM (2001) Forest Resources of the United States 1997, USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  27. Stoskopf NL (1981) Understanding crop production. Reston, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  28. US Department of Energy (1999) Carbon sequestration, State of the Science. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Washington, D.C., 1999Google Scholar
  29. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2003) Agricultural statistics. US. Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  30. USEPA: 2003a, Global warming – emission: state GHG Inventories, USEPA. (Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/EmissionsStateGHGInventories.html#MS)
  31. USEPA (2003b) US Emissions Inventory 2003-Inventory of US Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2001. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Waltman SW, Bliss NB (1997) Estimates of soil organic carbon content. NSSC, Lincoln, NEGoogle Scholar
  33. Washington Advisory Group LLC: 2002, Sequestering carbon emissions in the terrestrial biosphere. The Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, US. Department of Energy, Washington, DC (Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiof/1605/vrrpt/pdf/0608(00).pdf)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fengxiang X. Han
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. John Plodinec
    • 1
  • Yi Su
    • 1
    • 3
  • David L. Monts
    • 1
    • 3
  • Zhongpei Li
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Clean Energy Technology (ICET)Mississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Soil SciencesMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physics and AstronomyMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Soil Science, the Chinese Academy of SciencesNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations