Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 63-75 |
| Seitenumfang | 13 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Regional environmental change |
| Jahrgang | 18 |
| Ausgabenummer | 1 |
| Frühes Online-Datum | 12 Juli 2016 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - Jan. 2018 |
Abstract
Soil carbon stocks of 29 plots along a transect through tropical Brazil showed only minor soil carbon losses after land use shift, although replacement of forest-derived carbon was detectable in subsoil and topsoil, indicating that new equilibria in soil carbon stocks might not have been reached after deforestation. The proportion of carbon lost from soils was negligible as compared to the emissions from biomass reduction by deforestation itself. Industrial agriculture had the best ratio between food production and carbon loss, pointing toward a potential reduction of deforestation pressure by further agricultural intensification, which is not achieved in practice due to institutional obstacles and uneven benefit sharing. In contrast, farmers at the agricultural frontier were identified as change agents if alternative sustainable land uses, taking advantage of biodiversity-related ecosystem services, are fostered by better access to credit lines and extension management. Thus, constraining the climate change debate in agriculture to sole management of carbon stock changes in soil is misleading and draws the attention from the most urgent problems: deforestation caused by wrong incentives.
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Regional environmental change, Jahrgang 18, Nr. 1, 01.2018, S. 63-75.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Seeing the forest not for the carbon
T2 - why concentrating on land-use-induced carbon stock changes of soils in Brazil can be climate-unfriendly
AU - Boy, Jens
AU - Strey, Simone
AU - Schönenberg, Regine
AU - Strey, Robert
AU - Weber-Santos, Oscarlina
AU - Nendel, Claas
AU - Klingler, Michael
AU - Schumann, Charlotte
AU - Hartberger, Korbinian
AU - Guggenberger, Georg
N1 - Funding information: This study was carried out in the framework of the interdisciplinary project CarBioCial funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the FONA-line, under the grant number 01LL0902F. We want to thank the Brazilian counterpart project Carbioma (UFMT, UFPA-NAEA, Embrapa Arroz e Feijão) for collaboration, all involved farmers, stakeholders, and Brazilian scientific colleagues for their creative contributions, support and their patience during the sampling campaign. We express our gratitude to the Kayapó people that allowed us on their territory and accompanied our research activities with interest and understanding. Without the cooperation of their Institute Kabu, important data presented here could not have been collected. Our gratitude also belongs to the anonymous reviewers for their support to improve the manuscript, and Silke Bokeloh and Steffen Söffker for their valuable technical support.
PY - 2018/1
Y1 - 2018/1
N2 - Soil carbon stocks of 29 plots along a transect through tropical Brazil showed only minor soil carbon losses after land use shift, although replacement of forest-derived carbon was detectable in subsoil and topsoil, indicating that new equilibria in soil carbon stocks might not have been reached after deforestation. The proportion of carbon lost from soils was negligible as compared to the emissions from biomass reduction by deforestation itself. Industrial agriculture had the best ratio between food production and carbon loss, pointing toward a potential reduction of deforestation pressure by further agricultural intensification, which is not achieved in practice due to institutional obstacles and uneven benefit sharing. In contrast, farmers at the agricultural frontier were identified as change agents if alternative sustainable land uses, taking advantage of biodiversity-related ecosystem services, are fostered by better access to credit lines and extension management. Thus, constraining the climate change debate in agriculture to sole management of carbon stock changes in soil is misleading and draws the attention from the most urgent problems: deforestation caused by wrong incentives.
AB - Soil carbon stocks of 29 plots along a transect through tropical Brazil showed only minor soil carbon losses after land use shift, although replacement of forest-derived carbon was detectable in subsoil and topsoil, indicating that new equilibria in soil carbon stocks might not have been reached after deforestation. The proportion of carbon lost from soils was negligible as compared to the emissions from biomass reduction by deforestation itself. Industrial agriculture had the best ratio between food production and carbon loss, pointing toward a potential reduction of deforestation pressure by further agricultural intensification, which is not achieved in practice due to institutional obstacles and uneven benefit sharing. In contrast, farmers at the agricultural frontier were identified as change agents if alternative sustainable land uses, taking advantage of biodiversity-related ecosystem services, are fostered by better access to credit lines and extension management. Thus, constraining the climate change debate in agriculture to sole management of carbon stock changes in soil is misleading and draws the attention from the most urgent problems: deforestation caused by wrong incentives.
KW - Alternative land uses
KW - Brazil
KW - Climate change mitigation
KW - Food production
KW - Soil carbon
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978173419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10113-016-1008-1
DO - 10.1007/s10113-016-1008-1
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84978173419
VL - 18
SP - 63
EP - 75
JO - Regional environmental change
JF - Regional environmental change
SN - 1436-3798
IS - 1
ER -