CO2 emissions in the Amazon: are bottom-up estimates from land use and cover datasets consistent with top-down estimates based on atmospheric measurements?

被引:2
|
作者
Tejada, Graciela [1 ]
Gatti, Luciana V. [1 ,2 ]
Basso, Luana S. [1 ]
Cassol, Henrique L. G. [1 ]
Silva-Junior, Celso H. L. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Mataveli, Guilherme [1 ]
Marani, Luciano [1 ]
Arai, Egidio [1 ]
Gloor, Manuel [6 ]
Miller, John B. [7 ]
Cunha, Camilla L. [1 ]
Domingues, Lucas G. [1 ,2 ]
Ipia, Alber [1 ]
Correia, Caio S. C. [1 ,2 ]
Crispim, Stephane P. [1 ]
Neves, Raiane A. L. [1 ]
Von Randow, Celso [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Inst Space Res INPE, Gen Coordinat Earth Sci CGCT, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil
[2] Nucl & Energy Res Inst IPEN, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[3] Amazon Environm Res Inst, Brasilia, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Maranhao, Grad Program Biodivers Conservat, Sao Luis, Brazil
[5] Univ Manchester, Sch Environm Educ & Dev SEED, Dept Geog, Manchester, England
[6] Univ Leeds, Sch Geog, Leeds, England
[7] NOAA, Global Monitoring Lab, Boulder, CO USA
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会; 欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Amazon; land use and cover change; CO2 atmospheric measurements; CO2; emissions; emission factors; bottom-up top-down approaches; CARBON EMISSIONS; FOREST BIOMASS; DEFORESTATION; WORLDS; MAPS;
D O I
10.3389/ffgc.2023.1107580
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Amazon forests are the largest forests in the tropics and play a fundamental role for regional and global ecosystem service provision. However, they are under threat primarily from deforestation. Amazonia's carbon balance trend reflects the condition of its forests. There are different approaches to estimate large-scale carbon balances, including top-down (e.g., CO2 atmospheric measurements combined with atmospheric transport information) and bottom-up (e.g., land use and cover change (LUCC) data based on remote sensing methods). It is important to understand their similarities and differences. Here we provide bottom-up LUCC estimates and determine to what extent they are consistent with recent top-down flux estimates during 2010 to 2018 for the Brazilian Amazon. We combine LUCC datasets resulting in annual LUCC maps from 2010 to 2018 with emissions and removals for each LUCC, and compare the resulting CO2 estimates with top-down estimates based on atmospheric measurements. We take into account forest carbon stock maps for estimating loss processes, and carbon uptake of regenerating and mature forests. In the bottom-up approach total CO2 emissions (2010 to 2018), deforestation and degradation are the largest contributing processes accounting for 58% (4.3 PgCO(2)) and 37% (2.7 PgCO(2)) respectively. Looking at the total carbon uptake, primary forests play a dominant role accounting for 79% (-5.9 PgCO(2)) and secondary forest growth for 17% (-1.2 PgCO(2)). Overall, according to our bottom-up estimates the Brazilian Amazon is a carbon sink until 2014 and a source from 2015 to 2018. In contrast according to the top-down approach the Brazilian Amazon is a source during the entire period. Both approaches estimate largest emissions in 2016. During the period where flux signs are the same (2015-2018) top-down estimates are approximately 3 times larger in 2015-2016 than bottom-up estimates while in 2017-2018 there is closer agreement. There is some agreement between the approaches-notably that the Brazilian Amazon has been a source during 2015-2018 however there are also disagreements. Generally, emissions estimated by the bottom-up approach tend to be lower. Understanding the differences will help improve both approaches and our understanding of the Amazon carbon cycle under human pressure and climate change.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Global geological methane emissions: An update of top-down and bottom-up estimates
    Etiope, Giuseppe
    Schwietzke, Stefan
    ELEMENTA-SCIENCE OF THE ANTHROPOCENE, 2019, 7
  • [2] Agricultural ammonia emissions in China: reconciling bottom-up and top-down estimates
    Zhang, Lin
    Chen, Youfan
    Zhao, Yuanhong
    Henze, Daven K.
    Zhu, Liye
    Song, Yu
    Paulot, Fabien
    Liu, Xuejun
    Pan, Yuepeng
    Lin, Yi
    Huang, Binxiang
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2018, 18 (01) : 339 - 355
  • [3] Top-down and bottom-up estimates of anthropogenic methyl bromide emissions from eastern China
    Choi, Haklim
    Park, Mi-Kyung
    Fraser, Paul J.
    Park, Hyeri
    Geum, Sohyeon
    Muhle, Jens
    Kim, Jooil
    Porter, Ian
    Salameh, Peter K.
    Harth, Christina M.
    Dunse, Bronwyn L.
    Krummel, Paul B.
    Weiss, Ray F.
    O'Doherty, Simon
    Young, Dickon
    Park, Sunyoung
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2022, 22 (08) : 5157 - 5173
  • [4] Toward consistency between trends in bottom-up CO2 emissions and top-down atmospheric measurements in the Los Angeles megacity
    Newman, Sally
    Xu, Xiaomei
    Gurney, Kevin R.
    Hsu, Ying Kuang
    Li, King Fai
    Jiang, Xun
    Keeling, Ralph
    Feng, Sha
    O'Keefe, Darragh
    Patarasuk, Risa
    Wong, Kam Weng
    Rao, Preeti
    Fischer, Marc L.
    Yung, Yuk L.
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2016, 16 (06) : 3843 - 3863
  • [5] A constrained least-squares approach to combine bottom-up and top-down CO2 flux estimates
    Daniel Cooley
    F. Jay Breidt
    Stephen M. Ogle
    Andrew E. Schuh
    Thomas Lauvaux
    Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 2013, 20 : 129 - 146
  • [6] A constrained least-squares approach to combine bottom-up and top-down CO2 flux estimates
    Cooley, Daniel
    Breidt, F. Jay
    Ogle, Stephen M.
    Schuh, Andrew E.
    Lauvaux, Thomas
    ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL STATISTICS, 2013, 20 (01) : 129 - 146
  • [7] Methane emissions from natural gas production and use: reconciling bottom-up and top-down measurements
    Allen, David T.
    CURRENT OPINION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2014, 5 : 78 - 83
  • [8] Intercomparison of Magnitudes and Trends in Anthropogenic Surface Emissions From Bottom-Up Inventories, Top-Down Estimates, and Emission Scenarios
    Elguindi, N.
    Granier, C.
    Stavrakou, T.
    Darras, S.
    Bauwens, M.
    Cao, H.
    Chen, C.
    van der Gon, H. A. C. Denier
    Dubovik, O.
    Fu, T. M.
    Henze, D. K.
    Jiang, Z.
    Keita, S.
    Kuenen, J. J. P.
    Kurokawa, J.
    Liousse, C.
    Miyazaki, K.
    Mueller, J-F
    Qu, Z.
    Solmon, F.
    Zheng, B.
    EARTHS FUTURE, 2020, 8 (08)
  • [9] Direct top-down estimates of biomass burning CO emissions using TES and MOPITT versus bottom-up GFED inventory
    Pechony, Olga
    Shindell, Drew T.
    Faluvegi, Greg
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2013, 118 (14) : 8054 - 8066
  • [10] Reconciling the differences between top-down and bottom-up estimates of nitrous oxide emissions for the US Corn Belt
    Griffis, T. J.
    Lee, X.
    Baker, J. M.
    Russelle, M. P.
    Zhang, X.
    Venterea, R.
    Millet, D. B.
    GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, 2013, 27 (03) : 746 - 754