• Energy Research
• biological sciences close

Across the tropics, there is a growing financial investment in activities that aim to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, such as REDD+. However, most tropical countries lack on-the-ground capacity to conduct reliable and replicable assessments of forest carbon stocks, undermining their ability to secure long-term carbon finance for forest conservation programs. Clear guidance on how to reduce the monetary and time costs of field assessments of forest carbon can help tropical countries to overcome this capacity gap. Here we provide such guidance for cost-effective one-off field assessments of forest carbon stocks. We sampled a total of eight components from four different carbon pools (i.e. aboveground, dead wood, litter and soil) in 224 study plots distributed across two regions of eastern Amazon. For each component we estimated survey costs, contribution to total forest carbon stocks and sensitivity to disturbance. Sampling costs varied thirty-one-fold between the most expensive component, soil, and the least, leaf litter. Large live stems (≥10 cm DBH), which represented only 15% of the overall sampling costs, was by far the most important component to be assessed, as it stores the largest amount of carbon and is highly sensitive to disturbance. If large stems are not taxonomically identified, costs can be reduced by a further 51%, while incurring an error in aboveground carbon estimates of only 5% in primary forests, but 31% in secondary forests. For rapid assessments, necessary to help prioritize locations for carbon- conservation activities, sampling of stems ≥20cm DBH without taxonomic identification can predict with confidence (R2 = 0.85) whether an area is relatively carbon-rich or carbon-poor-an approach that is 74% cheaper than sampling and identifying all the stems ≥10cm DBH. We use these results to evaluate the reliability of forest carbon stock estimates provided by the IPCC and FAO when applied to human-modified forests, and to highlight areas where cost savings in carbon stock assessments could be most easily made.

Across the tropics, there is a growing financial investment in activities that aim to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, such as REDD+. However, most tropical countries lack on-the-ground capacity to conduct reliable and replicable assessments of forest carbon stocks, undermining their ability to secure long-term carbon finance for forest conservation programs. Clear guidance on how to reduce the monetary and time costs of field assessments of forest carbon can help tropical countries to overcome this capacity gap. Here we provide such guidance for cost-effective one-off field assessments of forest carbon stocks. We sampled a total of eight components from four different carbon pools (i.e. aboveground, dead wood, litter and soil) in 224 study plots distributed across two regions of eastern Amazon. For each component we estimated survey costs, contribution to total forest carbon stocks and sensitivity to disturbance. Sampling costs varied thirty-one-fold between the most expensive component, soil, and the least, leaf litter. Large live stems (≥10 cm DBH), which represented only 15% of the overall sampling costs, was by far the most important component to be assessed, as it stores the largest amount of carbon and is highly sensitive to disturbance. If large stems are not taxonomically identified, costs can be reduced by a further 51%, while incurring an error in aboveground carbon estimates of only 5% in primary forests, but 31% in secondary forests. For rapid assessments, necessary to help prioritize locations for carbon- conservation activities, sampling of stems ≥20cm DBH without taxonomic identification can predict with confidence (R2 = 0.85) whether an area is relatively carbon-rich or carbon-poor-an approach that is 74% cheaper than sampling and identifying all the stems ≥10cm DBH. We use these results to evaluate the reliability of forest carbon stock estimates provided by the IPCC and FAO when applied to human-modified forests, and to highlight areas where cost savings in carbon stock assessments could be most easily made.

Foram avaliadas semelhanças florísticas entre duas fisionomias de Floresta Atlântica na região costeira do Brasil, denominadas Floresta de Restinga e Floresta das Terras Baixas. A hipótese era que, devido à diferença nos processos geomorfológicos, essas duas florestas difeririam em variáveis físico-químicas dos solos, composição florística, biomassa aérea e produção de serapilheira. O trabalho foi conduzido em uma área de 1 ha (100 × 100 m) em cada tipo de floresta, no município de Ubatuba, São Paulo. Foram registrados e medidos todos os indivíduos arbóreos com DAP > 4,8 cm e coletadas amostras de solo e serapilheira. As análises de agrupamento e de ordenação indicaram que os solos e principalmente a flora distribuem-se como grupos bem definidos, concordando com a hipótese de distinção entre as duas florestas. A diversidade de espécies foi maior (p < 0.0001) na Floresta de Terras Baixas (H' = 4,00 nats.indivíduo-1) do que na Restinga (H' = 3,38 nats.indivíduo-1). No entanto, a produção de serapilheira e a biomassa não diferiram (p > 0,05) entre as duas florestas. Esse aparente paradoxo poderia ser explicado supondo-se que, uma vez que espécies diferentes consigam se estabelecer na Restinga ou nas Terras Baixas e encontrem um espectro favorável de condições e recursos, elas tenderiam a persistir e se desenvolver naquele local; nesse caso, embora as condições edáficas difiram entre as duas áreas, cada espécie responderia de modo particular a essas variações, de modo que as florestas poderiam atingir valores semelhantes de biomassa e produção de serapilheira. É provável que o filtro ambiental condicionado pelos solos esteja sendo importante para a forte separação florística entre essas duas florestas.

Foram avaliadas semelhanças florísticas entre duas fisionomias de Floresta Atlântica na região costeira do Brasil, denominadas Floresta de Restinga e Floresta das Terras Baixas. A hipótese era que, devido à diferença nos processos geomorfológicos, essas duas florestas difeririam em variáveis físico-químicas dos solos, composição florística, biomassa aérea e produção de serapilheira. O trabalho foi conduzido em uma área de 1 ha (100 × 100 m) em cada tipo de floresta, no município de Ubatuba, São Paulo. Foram registrados e medidos todos os indivíduos arbóreos com DAP > 4,8 cm e coletadas amostras de solo e serapilheira. As análises de agrupamento e de ordenação indicaram que os solos e principalmente a flora distribuem-se como grupos bem definidos, concordando com a hipótese de distinção entre as duas florestas. A diversidade de espécies foi maior (p < 0.0001) na Floresta de Terras Baixas (H' = 4,00 nats.indivíduo-1) do que na Restinga (H' = 3,38 nats.indivíduo-1). No entanto, a produção de serapilheira e a biomassa não diferiram (p > 0,05) entre as duas florestas. Esse aparente paradoxo poderia ser explicado supondo-se que, uma vez que espécies diferentes consigam se estabelecer na Restinga ou nas Terras Baixas e encontrem um espectro favorável de condições e recursos, elas tenderiam a persistir e se desenvolver naquele local; nesse caso, embora as condições edáficas difiram entre as duas áreas, cada espécie responderia de modo particular a essas variações, de modo que as florestas poderiam atingir valores semelhantes de biomassa e produção de serapilheira. É provável que o filtro ambiental condicionado pelos solos esteja sendo importante para a forte separação florística entre essas duas florestas.

Projet C de Talent, Université de Hainan ; Fondation nationale des sciences naturelles de Chine [31660142] ; projet LBA-DMIP de la NASA [NNX09AL52G] ; enquête LBA de la NASA [CD-32] ; Partenariats de la Fondation nationale des sciences pour la recherche et l'éducation internationales (PIRE) C-project of Talent, Hainan University; National Natural Science Foundation of China [31660142]; NASA LBA-DMIP project [NNX09AL52G]; NASA LBA investigation [CD-32]; National Science Foundation's Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) C-project of Talent, Hainan University; National Natural Science Foundation of China [31660142]; NASA LBA-DMIP project [NNX09AL52G]; NASA LBA research [CD-32]; National Science Foundation 's Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) C - مشروع المواهب، جامعة هاينان ؛ المؤسسة الوطنية للعلوم الطبيعية في الصين [31660142 ]؛ مشروع LBA - DMIP التابع لناسا [NNX09AL52G ]؛ تحقيق LBA التابع لناسا [CD -32 ]؛ شراكات المؤسسة الوطنية للعلوم للبحث والتعليم الدوليين (PIRE)

Projet C de Talent, Université de Hainan ; Fondation nationale des sciences naturelles de Chine [31660142] ; projet LBA-DMIP de la NASA [NNX09AL52G] ; enquête LBA de la NASA [CD-32] ; Partenariats de la Fondation nationale des sciences pour la recherche et l'éducation internationales (PIRE) C-project of Talent, Hainan University; National Natural Science Foundation of China [31660142]; NASA LBA-DMIP project [NNX09AL52G]; NASA LBA investigation [CD-32]; National Science Foundation's Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) C-project of Talent, Hainan University; National Natural Science Foundation of China [31660142]; NASA LBA-DMIP project [NNX09AL52G]; NASA LBA research [CD-32]; National Science Foundation 's Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) C - مشروع المواهب، جامعة هاينان ؛ المؤسسة الوطنية للعلوم الطبيعية في الصين [31660142 ]؛ مشروع LBA - DMIP التابع لناسا [NNX09AL52G ]؛ تحقيق LBA التابع لناسا [CD -32 ]؛ شراكات المؤسسة الوطنية للعلوم للبحث والتعليم الدوليين (PIRE)