A comparison of approaches to quantify carbon for ecosystem service assessments through time

被引:0
|
作者
Schwantes, Amanda M. [1 ]
Firkowski, Carina Rauen [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Rodriguez, Peter S. [1 ]
Gonzalez, Andrew [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Fortin, Marie-Josee [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Dept Biol, Montreal, PQ H3A 1B1, Canada
[3] Apex Resource Management Solut, Ottawa, ON K2A 3K2, Canada
[4] McGill Univ, Quebec Ctr Biodivers Sci, Montreal, PQ H3A 1B1, Canada
[5] Grp Earth Observat Biodivers Observat Network, Montreal, PQ, Canada
来源
FACETS | 2024年 / 9卷
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
ecological monitoring; nature's contributions to people; remote sensing; mass balance models; soil organic carbon; carbon sequestration; SOIL ORGANIC-CARBON; BRAZILIAN AMAZON; PEATLAND CARBON; CANADA; BIOMASS; RESPIRATION; DYNAMICS; STOCKS; ROOT; FLUX;
D O I
10.1139/facets-2023-0053
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Monitoring of global climate regulation ecosystem services is needed to inform national accounts, meet emission targets, and evaluate nature-based climate solutions. As carbon monitoring is context-dependent, the most useful methodological approach will depend on the spatial extent and resolution, temporal frequency, baseline, available data, funding, and dominant drivers of change, all of which will impact results and interpretation. Here, focusing on above and belowground carbon storage and sequestration, we review four groups of methods for estimating trends in carbon over time: (1) field-based measurements, (2) land cover maps with reference carbon values by land cover type, (3) statistical and machine learning models linking field measurements to remotely sensed data, and (4) mass balance models representing key carbon pools and flows between them. We discuss strengths, limitations, and best practices for each method to assist researchers in implementing an approach or critically evaluating whether an existing carbon dataset can be used for a different project. The best methods often account for spatial variability of carbon, ecosystem interconnections, and temporal stability of carbon stocks against future environmental changes. Effective carbon monitoring can help determine optimal conservation, restoration, and/or land management interventions with win-win outcomes for both conservation and nature-based climate solutions.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Synthesizing multiple ecosystem service assessments for urban planning: A review of approaches, and recommendations
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Geneletti, Davide
    Hedlund, Katarina
    [J]. LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2021, 213
  • [2] Tropical wetland ecosystem service assessments in East Africa; A review of approaches and challenges
    Langan, Charlie
    Farmer, Jenny
    Rivington, Mike
    Smith, Jo U.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2018, 102 : 260 - 273
  • [3] Assessments in biocides with omics approaches to ecosystem
    Ma, Scohee
    Yoon, Dahye
    Kim, Hyunsu
    Lee, Hyangjin
    Kim, Seonghye
    Lee, Huichan
    Kim, Jieun
    Lee, Soojin
    Lee, Yunsuk
    Lee, Yujin
    Kim, Suhkmann
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN MAGNETIC RESONANCE SOCIETY, 2018, 22 (04): : 91 - 100
  • [4] Spatial data, analysis approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments: a review
    Andrew, Margaret E.
    Wulder, Michael A.
    Nelson, Trisalyn A.
    Coops, Nicholas C.
    [J]. GISCIENCE & REMOTE SENSING, 2015, 52 (03) : 344 - 373
  • [5] Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments
    Ian J. Bateman
    Georgina M. Mace
    Carlo Fezzi
    Giles Atkinson
    Kerry Turner
    [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2011, 48 : 177 - 218
  • [6] Editorial: "Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments"
    Semeraro, Teodoro
    Buccolieri, Riccardo
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, 2022, 10
  • [7] Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments
    Bateman, Ian J.
    Mace, Georgina M.
    Fezzi, Carlo
    Atkinson, Giles
    Turner, Kerry
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2011, 48 (02): : 177 - 218
  • [8] Operationalizing Network Theory for Ecosystem Service Assessments
    Dee, Laura E.
    Allesina, Stefano
    Bonn, Aletta
    Eklof, Anna
    Gaines, Steven D.
    Hines, Jes
    Jacob, Ute
    McDonald-Madden, Eve
    Possingham, Hugh
    Schroeter, Matthias
    Thompson, Ross M.
    [J]. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2017, 32 (02) : 118 - 130
  • [9] Maximizing the Environmental Benefits of Carbon Farming through Ecosystem Service Delivery
    Lin, Brenda B.
    Macfadyen, Sarina
    Renwick, Anna R.
    Cunningham, Saul A.
    Schellhorn, Nancy A.
    [J]. BIOSCIENCE, 2013, 63 (10) : 793 - 803
  • [10] Assumptions in ecosystem service assessments: Increasing transparency for conservation
    Schroeter, Matthias
    Crouzat, Emilie
    Hoelting, Lisanne
    Massenberg, Julian
    Rode, Julian
    Hanisch, Mario
    Kabisch, Nadja
    Palliwoda, Julia
    Priess, Joerg A.
    Seppelt, Ralf
    Beckmann, Michael
    [J]. AMBIO, 2021, 50 (02) : 289 - 300