Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Soil and tree biomass carbon sequestration potential of silvopastoral and woodland-pasture systems in North East Scotland

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Managing agricultural land for carbon sequestration becomes more important with rising needs for greenhouse gas mitigation measures. Woodland establishment in upland grasslands can be a carbon sink, but soil carbon losses have also been observed. Dedicated woodland plots and silvopasture are two contrasting strategies to achieve increased carbon stocks. We compared the carbon sequestration potential of the two approaches with three tree species (Hybrid Larch, Scots Pine and Sycamore) planted on permanent pasture on an upland farm in North East Scotland, 24 years after planting. Soil organic carbon was measured in the A (~0–30 cm) and B (~30–50) horizons. The soil carbon was also fractionated into labile, protected and resistant pools. Litter layers were measured and tree biomass carbon was estimated using allometric equations. We found that total soil carbon stocks (A plus B horizon) were similar and did not differ significantly between treatments, but for both coniferous species silvopasture tended to have the greater soil carbon stock followed by woodland, whereas Sycamore had the greater stock in the woodland treatment; pasture had the least carbon stock. Woodland stored more carbon in the labile fractions and litter layer than both pasture and silvopasture of all treatments, which had similar levels of stabilized carbon. Biomass per tree was significantly greater in the silvopasture treatments for all species, but on a per hectare basis woodland stored significantly more carbon. Land management comparison shows that large proportions of grassland would need to be converted to woodland to provide similar carbon benefits as the integrative silvopastoral system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfredsson H, Condron LM, Clarholm M, Davis MR (1998) Changes in soil acidity and organic matter following the establishment of conifers on former grassland in New Zealand. For Ecol Manage 112:245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blouin M, Hodson ME, Delgado EA et al (2013) A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Sci 64:161–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce RGH (1968) Biomass and production of trees in mixed deciduous woodland. I. Girth and height as parameters for the estimation of tree dry weight. J Ecol 56:759–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns MA, Brown S, Helmer EH, Baumgardner GA (1997) Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell CD, Lilly A, Towers W, Chapman SJ, Werritty A, Hanley N (2013) Land use and a low-carbon society. Earth Env Sci Trans Royal Soc Edinb 103:165–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castanha C, Trumbore S, Amundson R (2008) Methods of separating soil carbon pools affect the chemistry and turnover time of isolated fractions. Radiocarbon 50:83–97

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MR, Condron LM (2002) Impact of grassland afforestation on soil carbon in New Zealand: a review of paired-site studies. Aust J Soil Res 40:675–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dube F, Espinosa M, Stolpe NB, Zagal E, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM (2012) Productivity and carbon storage in silvopastoral systems with Pinus ponderosa and Trifolium spp., plantations and pasture on an Andisol in Patagonia, Chile. Agrofor Syst 86:113–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duesberg S, Dhubháin TN, O’Connor D (2014) Assessing policy tools for encouraging farm afforestation in Ireland. Land Use Policy 38:194–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feliciano D, Hunter C, Slee B, Smith P (2013) Selecting land-based mitigation practices to reduce GHG emissions from the rural land use sector: a case study of North East Scotland. J Environ Manage 120:93–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finér L, Helmisaari H-, Lõhmus K et al (2007) Variation in fine root biomass of three European tree species: beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.), and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Plant Biosyst 141:394–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Abson DJ, Butsic V et al (2014) Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv Lett 7:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grau R, Kuemmerle T, Macchi L (2013) Beyond ‘land sparing versus land sharing’: environmental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conservation. Curr Opin Env Sustain 5:477–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob Chang Biol 8:345–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogmoed M, Cunningham SC, Thomson JR, Baker PJ, Beringer J, Cavagnaro TR (2012) Does afforestation of pastures increase sequestration of soil carbon in Mediterranean climates? Agric Ecosyst Environ 159:176–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuyah S, Dietz J, Muthuri C, Jamnadass R, Mwangi P, Coe R, Neufeldt H (2012) Allometric equations for estimating biomass in agricultural landscapes: I. Aboveground biomass. Agric Ecosyst Environ 158:216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li D, Niu S, Luo Y (2012) Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 195:172–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lilly A (1988) Preliminary report on the soils of Glensaugh agroforestry systems experimental site. MLURI, Aberdeen

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim MT, Cousens JE (1986) The internal transfer of nutrients in a Scots pine stand: biomass components, current growth and their nutrient content. Forestry 59:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz K, Lal R (2005) The depth distribution of soil organic carbon in relation to land use and management and the potential of carbon sequestration in subsoil horizons. Adv Agron 88:35–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lusiana B, van Noordwijk M, Cadisch G (2012) Land sparing or sharing? Exploring livestock fodder options in combination with land use zoning and consequences for livelihoods and net carbon stocks using the FALLOW model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 159:145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkinen H, Hein S (2006) Effect of wide spacing on increment and branch properties of young Norway spruce. Eur J For Res 125:239–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHale MR, Burke IC, Lefsky MA, Peper PJ, McPherson EG (2009) Urban forest biomass estimates: is it important to use allometric relationships developed specifically for urban trees? Urban Ecosyst 12:95–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosquera-Losada M, Moreno G, Pardini A et al (2012) Past, present and future of agroforestry systems in Europe. In: Nair PKR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry—the future of global land use, advances in agroforestry 9. Springer, Netherlands, pp 285–312

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich K, Graeff-Hönninger S, Claupein W (2013) Agroforestry in Europe: a review of the disappearance of traditional systems and development of modern agroforestry practices, with emphasis on experiences in Germany. Agrofor Syst 87:475–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nocerino JM, Schumacher BA, Dary CC (2005) Role of laboratory sampling devices and laboratory subsampling methods in representative sampling strategies. Env Forensics 6:35–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peichl M, Leava NA, Kiely G (2012) Above- and belowground ecosystem biomass, carbon and nitrogen allocation in recently afforested grassland and adjacent intensively managed grassland. Plant Soil 350:281–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/

  • Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Modrzynski J et al (2005) Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species. Ecol Lett 8:11–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I (2011) Deep soil organic matter-a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338:143–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scott NA, Tate KR, Ford-Robertson J, Giltrap DJ, Smith CT (1999) Soil carbon storage in plantation forests and pastures: land-use change implications. Tellus B 51:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrow SH, Ismail S (2004) Carbon and nitrogen storage in agroforests, tree plantations, and pastures in western Oregon, USA. Agrofor Syst 60:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibbald AR (2006) Silvopastural agroforestry: a land use for the future. Scott For 60(1):4–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibbald AR, Eason WR, Mcadam JH, Hislop AM (2001) The establishment phase of a silvopastoral national network experiment in the UK. Agrofor Syst 53:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Six J, Conant RT, Paul EA, Paustian K (2002) Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241:155–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JE, Heath LS (2002) A model of forest floor carbon mass for United States forest types. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Powlson DS, Glendining MJ, Smith JU (1997) Potential for carbon sequestration in European soils: preliminary estimates for five scenarios using results from long-term experiments. Glob Change Biol 3:67–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans Royal Soc B 363:789–813

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H et al (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 811–922

  • Sohi SP, Mahieu N, Arah JRM, Powlson DS, Madari B, Gaunt JL (2001) A procedure for isolating soil organic matter fractions suitable for modeling. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1121–1128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sun N, Li Y, Li M (2012) The influences of planting density to aboveground biomass distribution of hybrid larch. World Rural Obs 4:39–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Terzaghi M, Montagnoli A, Di Iorio A, Scippa GS, Chiatante D (2013) Fine-root carbon and nitrogen concentration of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Italy Prealps: possible implications of coppice conversion to high forest. Front Plant Sci 4:192

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas HJD, Paterson JS, Metzger MJ, Sing L (2015) Towards a research agenda for woodland expansion in Scotland. For Ecol Manage 349:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufekcioglu A, Raich JW, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (1998) Fine root dynamics, coarse root biomass, root distribution, and soil respiration in a multispecies riparian buffer in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:163–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udawatta RP, Jose S (2012) Agroforestry strategies to sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agrofor Syst 86:225–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterdal L, Elberling B, Christiansen JR, Callesen I, Schmidt IK (2012) Soil respiration and rates of soil carbon turnover differ among six common European tree species. For Ecol Manage 264:185–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins C, Williams D, Lloyd T (1996) Constraints on farm woodland planting in England: a study of Nottinghamshire farmers. Forestry 69:166–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen-Jie W, Ling Q, Yuan-Gang Z et al (2011) Changes in soil organic carbon, nitrogen, pH and bulk density with the development of larch (Larix gmelinii) plantations in China. Glob Change Biol 17:2657–2676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou X, Brandle JR, Awada TN, Schoeneberger MM, Martin DL, Xin Y, Tang Z (2011) The use of forest-derived specific gravity for the conversion of volume to biomass for open-grown trees on agricultural land. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1721–1731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann M, Leifeld J, Schmidt MWI, Smith P, Fuhrer J (2007) Measured soil organic matter fractions can be related to pools in the RothC model. Eur J Soil Sci 58:658–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Eileen Reid, Angela Main and Geraldine Hildbrand for advice and help with laboratory and field work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK

    Marvin R. Beckert & Pete Smith

  2. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK

    Marvin R. Beckert, Pete Smith, Allan Lilly & Stephen J. Chapman

Authors
  1. Marvin R. Beckert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pete Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan Lilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen J. Chapman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marvin R. Beckert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beckert, M.R., Smith, P., Lilly, A. et al. Soil and tree biomass carbon sequestration potential of silvopastoral and woodland-pasture systems in North East Scotland. Agroforest Syst 90, 371–383 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9860-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9860-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation