Abstract
Secondary forests (SFs) growing on previously cleared land could be a low-cost climate change mitigation strategy due to their potential to sequester CO2. However, given widespread changes in climate and land-use in the Amazon in the past 20 years, it is not clear whether current rates of carbon uptake by SFs reflect estimates based on dividing the carbon stock by the estimated age of the forest. This is important, as differences between methodological approaches could lead to important discrepancies in estimates of carbon accumulation. Furthermore, we know little about how carbon uptake rates of secondary forests vary across some of the most deforested regions of the Amazon, where reforestation actions are most needed. Here, we compare the rates of carbon accumulation estimated over the lifetime of a stand (by stand age) with the contemporary rates estimated by recensus data, based on 28 permanent SFs plots distributed across four regions. Then, we compare how carbon uptakes rates vary across regions and how they compare to previous studies. The average rates of contemporary (1.23 ± 0.57 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) and lifetime (1.14 ± 0.63 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) carbon accumulation were strongly correlated (r = 0.78) and similar between regions. Overall, our carbon accumulation rates were much lower than other estimates of Amazonian SFs, which suggests that regions with the greatest opportunities for large-scale implementation of SFs have some of the slowest rates of carbon accumulation. Contrary to predictions from chronosequence analysis, the lack of difference between lifetime and contemporary rates of carbon accumulation suggests forests are maintaining a consistent rate of growth in the first decades after abandonment. These results—combined with the high rates of ongoing environmental change - highlight the importance of continuing to monitor the rate of carbon accumulation in secondary forests. This is necessary to support the implementation and monitoring of large-scale passive restoration in the highly-deforested Amazon.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 120053 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Forest Ecology and Management |
| Volume | 508 |
| Early online date | 1 Feb 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 15 Mar 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We are grateful for the following for financial support: Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia – Biodiversidade e Uso da Terra na Amazônia (CNPq 574008/2008-0), the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa (PELD-RAS CNPq, [441659/2016-0 and 441573/2020-7]; RESFLORA [420254/2018-8]; and Synergize [442354/2019-3]), the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – Embrapa (SEG: 02.08.06.005.00), the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP (2012/51509-8 and 2012/51872-5), the UK government Darwin Initiative (17-023), The Nature Conservancy, and the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; NE/F01614X/1, NE/G000816/1, NE/K016431/1, NE/N01250X/1, and NE/P004512/1). FE was supported by postdoctoral fellowship funded by the BJT-FAPESPA Program (Process No. 2021/658588) at PPGECO-Federal University of Pará. AFR was supported by Synergize and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant #2019/24049-5). EB and JB were also funded by H2020-MSCA-RISE (691053-ODYSSEA). FF and JB acknowledges funding provided by the Climate and Biodiversity Initiative of BNP Paribas Foundation (project Bioclimate). We would like to thank the Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Program (LBA) for logistical and infrastructure support during field measurements in Santarém. We are deeply grateful to all our parabotanists, and field and laboratory assistants. We also thank all collaborating private land owners for their support and access to their land. This is publication #90 of the RAS publication series (rasnetwork.org).
Funding Information:
We are grateful for the following for financial support: Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia – Biodiversidade e Uso da Terra na Amazônia (CNPq 574008/2008-0), the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa (PELD-RAS CNPq, [441659/2016-0 and 441573/2020-7]; RESFLORA [420254/2018-8]; and Synergize [442354/2019-3]), the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – Embrapa (SEG: 02.08.06.005.00), the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP (2012/51509-8 and 2012/51872-5), the UK government Darwin Initiative (17-023), The Nature Conservancy, and the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; NE/F01614X/1, NE/G000816/1, NE/K016431/1, NE/N01250X/1, and NE/P004512/1). FE was supported by postdoctoral fellowship funded by the BJT-FAPESPA Program (Process No. 2021/658588) at PPGECO-Federal University of Pará. AFR was supported by Synergize and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant #2019/24049-5). EB and JB were also funded by H2020-MSCA-RISE (691053-ODYSSEA). FF and JB acknowledges funding provided by the Climate and Biodiversity Initiative of BNP Paribas Foundation (project Bioclimate). We would like to thank the Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Program (LBA) for logistical and infrastructure support during field measurements in Santarém. We are deeply grateful to all our parabotanists, and field and laboratory assistants. We also thank all collaborating private land owners for their support and access to their land. This is publication #90 of the RAS publication series (rasnetwork.org).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
Keywords
- Aboveground biomass
- Natural regeneration
- Nature based-solutions
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120053. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.