English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems at country-scale – a European case study

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons62375

Freibauer,  A.
Department Biogeochemical Processes, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons62402

Heimann,  M.
Department Biogeochemical Systems, Prof. M. Heimann, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons62549

Schulze,  E.-D.
Department Biogeochemical Processes, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
Fulltext (public)

BGC0712.pdf
(Publisher version), 2MB

BGC0712D.pdf
(Preprint), 866KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Janssens, I. A., Freibauer, A., Schlamadinger, B., Ceulemans, R., Ciais, P., Dolman, A. J., et al. (2005). The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems at country-scale – a European case study. Biogeosciences, 2(1), 15-26. doi:10.5194/bg-2-15-2005.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000E-D2DF-7
Abstract
We summed estimates of the carbon balance of forests, grasslands, arable lands and peatlands to obtain country-specific estimates of the terrestrial carbon balance during the 1990s. Forests and grasslands were a net sink for carbon, whereas croplands were carbon sources in all European countries. Hence, countries dominated by arable lands tended to be losing carbon from their terrestrial ecosystems, whereas forest-dominated countries tended to be sequestering carbon. In some countries, draining and extraction of peatlands caused substantial reductions in the net carbon balance. Net terrestrial carbon balances were typically an order of magnitude smaller than the fossil fuel-related carbon emissions. Exceptions to this overall picture were countries where population density and industrialization are small. It is, however, of utmost importance to acknowledge that the typically small net carbon balance represents the small difference between two large but opposing fluxes: uptake by forests and grasslands and losses from arable lands and peatlands. This suggests that relatively small changes in either or both of these large component fluxes could induce large effects on the net total, indicating that mitigation schemes should not be discarded a priori. In the absence of carbon-oriented land management, the current net carbon uptake is bound to decline soon. Protecting it will require actions at three levels; a) maintaining the current sink activity of forests, b) altered agricultural management practices to reduce the emissions from arable soils or turn into carbon sinks and c) protecting current large reservoirs (wetlands and old forests), since carbon is lost more rapidly than sequestered. [References: 35]