The cost of restoring carbon stocks in Brazil's Atlantic Forest
The cost of restoring carbon stocks in Brazil's Atlantic Forest
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ldr.3764
复制
发表时间：
2020-10-02
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Chazdon, Robin L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brancalion, Pedro H. S.;Guillemot, Joannes;Chazdon, Robin L.
了解哪种恢复方法为碳积累提供最佳投资回报对于促进恢复规划，融资和实施至关重要。在这里，我们探讨了巴西大西洋森林农业景观中恢复森林的地上和土壤碳积累的成本效益和驱动因素。在次生林和混种植树以及老林、参考森林残余物的时间序列（10-60年）中评估了地上和土壤碳储存的恢复情况以及实施和土地机会成本。种植园积累了约50%以上的地上碳比第二次生长的森林在整个时序。当控制土壤粘粒含量时，土壤碳储量在参考中高于恢复林，但它们在人工林和次生林之间具有可比性。经过60年的林分发展，两种恢复方法的总碳储量恢复仅达到参考森林平均储量的一半。碳积累的总成本效益，包括执行和土地机会成本，平均为60%，高于人工林的第二次生长的森林（15.1和9.4千克C美元（-1），分别）。虽然植树造林最初表现出比次生林更高的碳储存率，但其更高的实施成本和土地机会成本使其对碳农业的成本效益较低。我们的研究结果进一步表明，在目前的定价水平，碳市场本身有一个有限的潜力，以扩大恢复工作在巴西的大西洋森林。
Knowing which restoration approach provides the best returns on investment for accumulating carbon is essential to foster restoration planning, financing, and implementation. Here, we explored the cost-effectiveness and drivers of aboveground and soil carbon accumulation in restored forests across an agricultural landscape of Brazil's Atlantic Forest. The recovery of aboveground and soil carbon stocks, as well as the implementation and land opportunity costs, was assessed across chronosequences (10-60 years) of second-growth forests and mixed-species tree plantings and old growth, reference forest remnants. Plantations accumulated approximately 50% more aboveground carbon than second-growth forests throughout the chronosequence. When controlling for soil clay content, soil carbon stocks were higher in reference than in restored forests, but they were comparable between plantations and second-growth forests. After 60 years of stand development, recovery of total carbon stocks in both restoration approaches reached only half of the average stocks of reference forests. Total cost-effectiveness for carbon accumulation, including both implementation and land opportunity costs, was on average 60% higher for second-growth forests than for plantations (15.1 and 9.4 kgC US$(-1), respectively). Although tree plantations initially showed higher rates of carbon storage than second-growth forests, their higher implementation and land opportunity costs make them less cost-effective for carbon farming. Our results further suggest that, at current pricing levels, carbon markets alone have a limited potential to up-scale restoration efforts in Brazil's Atlantic Forest.