Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:33:42.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in carbon storage with land management promoted by payment for ecosystem services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

LEAH L. BREMER*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4493, USA Department of Geography, 1832 Ellison Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106–4060
KATHLEEN A. FARLEY
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4493, USA
OLIVER A. CHADWICK
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, 1832 Ellison Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106–4060
CAROL P. HARDEN
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0925, USA
*
*Correspondence: Leah L. Bremer, present addresses: University of Hawaiʻi, Mānoa, Department of Botany, 3190 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA and The Natural Capital Project, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA, e-mail: lbremer@stanford.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Andean grasslands (páramos) are highly valued for their role in regional water supply as well as for their biodiversity and large soil carbon stocks. Several Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programmes promote either afforestation or alteration of traditional burning regimes under the assumption that these land management strategies will maximize páramo ecosystem services, including carbon storage. However, knowledge of the effects of incentivized land uses is limited. In an evaluation of how afforestation and elimination of burning affect carbon storage at a site in southern Ecuador, we found the highest above-ground biomass carbon levels at afforested sites (99.3–122.0 t C ha−1), while grassland sites reached 23.9 t C ha−1 after 45 years of burn exclusion. Soil carbon storage from 0–20 cm was high across all sites (172.8–201.9 t C ha−1), but was significantly lower with afforestation than with burn exclusion. These findings suggest that, although afforestation is generally favoured when carbon is the primary ecosystem service of interest, grasslands with infrequent burning have important potential as a land management strategy when both above-ground biomass and soil carbon are considered. These results are relevant to the development and adaptation of PES programmes focused on carbon as well as those focused on multiple ecosystem services.

Information

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Study sites in the Mazar Wildlife Reserve. Note that the 3400 m contour line is an imprecise estimate based on a 50 m digital elevation model. Elevations measured in the field are reported in Table S1.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Aerial photo showing land cover in 1977 and 2000 at study sites. Note that the pine and 45 year sites were all grassland in 1977.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Above-ground biomass carbon (tonnes carbon per hectare). Note: pine sites not included.

Figure 3

Table 1 Above-ground biomass carbon and soil carbon (tonnes carbon per hectare). Sites with different letters indicate significant differences in carbon within each pool.

Figure 4

Figure 4 Soil carbon at 0–10 and 10–20 cm depths (tonnes carbon per hectare). Sites with different letters indicate significant differences in soil carbon (upper-case letters used for 0–10 cm and lower-case for 10–20 cm).

Supplementary material: File

Bremer supplementary material S1

Supplementary Table

Download Bremer supplementary material S1(File)
File 34.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bremer supplementary material S2

Supplementary Figure

Download Bremer supplementary material S2(File)
File 2.5 MB
Supplementary material: File

Bremer supplementary material S3

Supplementary Table

Download Bremer supplementary material S3(File)
File 77.7 KB