Reducing beef consumption might not reduce emissions: response to Phalan et al. (2016).
Reducing beef consumption might not reduce emissions: response to Phalan et al. (2016).
复制标题
减少牛肉消费可能不会减少排放：对 Phalan 等人的回应。
DOI：
10.1111/gcb.13458
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
11.6
通讯作者：
Barioni LG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barioni LG
Phalan 等人（2016）对我们关于牲畜消费与排放之间关系的研究结果（De Oliveira Silva 等人，2016）（以下称为 RdOS）提出质疑。首先，他们怀疑在增加产量的同时避免牧场扩张的可能性，并认为由于种植面积扩大，森林砍伐仍然可能发生，即“净变化（森林砍伐）与总变化不同”。作为回应，我们注意到其他人也探讨了巴西牧场面积稳定或减少的情况（de Gouvello 等人，2011 年；Cohn 等人，2014 年；Strassburg 等人，2014 年）。 Phalan 等人（2016）指出，利用卫星数据区分牧场和塞拉多本土植被存在困难。我们注意到，RdOS 通过农业普查（IBGE，2015）和粮农组织（2015）的历史数据支持了脱钩（牲畜 - 森林砍伐）情景的可能性，尽管在考虑其他土地利用扩张（LUE）时卫星数据（Beuchle 等人，2015）也将证实 RdOS。非草地 LUE 可能会导致原生植被损失，但根据粮农组织的方法（Opio 等，2013）意味着原生植被转化产生的排放量将根据每种土地利用类型的 LUE 进行分配。其他归因标准也同样存在争议。请注意，我们的分析范围仅是与牛肉相关的排放（直接和间接）。Phalan 等人（2016）认为，RdOS 没有提供证据支持牛肉产量增加将导致土壤碳储量（SCS）增加的观察结果，并提出了相反的证据，参考放牧强度（GI）研究。 RdOS 的主张得到了 Maia 等人 (2009) 和 Braz 等人 (2013) 的支持。其他作者（Neely 等人，2009 年；Gerber 等人，2013 年）也同意，热带草原可以成为强大的二氧化碳汇，其排放量超过较高饲养率的边际排放量。我们强调，以 RdOS 为模型的牧场生产力恢复（PPR）涉及改善土壤肥力、土壤保持和牧场林分的具体措施，并且意味着净初级生产（NPP）的变化比单独的 GI 更大。 RdOS 也没有使用 NPP 作为网络生物群落的替代品
Phalan et al.(2016) contest our findings (De Oliveira Silva et al., 2016)(henceforth RdOS) on the relationship between livestock consumption and emissions. First, they doubt the likelihood of avoiding expansion of pastureland while increasing production and suggest that deforestation may still happen due to cropping area expansion, that is,‘net change (in deforestation) is not the same as gross change’. In response, we note that stable or reduced pasture area scenarios for Brazil have also been explored by others (de Gouvello et al., 2011; Cohn et al., 2014; Strassburg et al., 2014). Phalan et al.(2016) suggest a difficulty in distinguishing pasture from native Cerrado vegetation using satellite data. We note that RdOS supported the likelihood of a decoupled (livestock–deforestation) scenario with historical data from agricultural census (IBGE, 2015) and FAO (2015), although satellite data (Beuchle et al., 2015) would also corroborate RdOS when other land use expansion (LUE) is considered. Nongrassland LUE could cause native vegetation loss, but following FAO methodology (Opio et al., 2013) means that emissions from conversion of native vegetation are allocated based on the LUE of each land use type. Alternative attributional criteria would be equally contestable. Note that the scope of our analysis is solely beef-related emissions (direct and indirect).Phalan et al.(2016) suggest RdOS present no evidence supporting the observation that higher beef production would result higher soil carbon stocks (SCS), and propose evidence to the contrary referencing grazing intensity (GI) studies. The RdOS claim was supported by Maia et al.(2009) and Braz et al.(2013). Other authors (Neely et al., 2009; Gerber et al., 2013) also agree that tropical grasslands can be a strong CO2 sink with magnitudes exceeding marginal emissions of higher stocking rates. We stress that pasture productivity recovery (PPR), as modeled by RdOS, involves specific measures to improve soil fertility, soil conservation, and pasture stand and imply greater change in net primary production (NPP) than GI alone. RdOS also did not use NPP as a surrogate of net biome