ecosystem component activity 1.6 grasslands and wetlands jean-françois soussana katja klumpp,...
TRANSCRIPT
Ecosystem componentActivity 1.6
Grasslands and wetlands
Jean-François SoussanaKatja Klumpp, Nicolas Vuichard
INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, France
CarboEurope, Poznan meeting, October 9, 2007.
Climate drivers of grassland and wetland annual GPP at CarboEurope
IP sites
(n=50, r2=0.705, P<0.0001)
Log(GPP) = 2.27 + 0.377. Log (Temp) + 0.614. Log (Precip)
Interannual variability of GPP in grasslands
(preliminary analysis based on FluxNet)
(n=37, r2 =0.235, P<0.01)
Grassland primary productivity is highly sensitive to rainfall variabilityNo significant relationship for other ecosystem types (except EB forests)
Water Use Efficiency control by LAI
In a sparse vegetation, evaporation from the soil is the major avenue of water lossLow precipitation reduces LAI and, hence, WUE...
Low WUE further reduces primary productivity.
(C Beer et al., unpub.)
Mean C fluxes (gC m-2 yr-1) at CarboEurope grassland and wetland
sites
NBP = K2 (K1 GPP – Cut – Digest . Intake + Manure)– K3 e LN(Q10).Tsoil/10 –FCH4-C
(n=43, R2=0.52, P<0.001)
(Soussana et al., unpub.)
GPP1228
NBP128
Rauto.
615Rhetero.Litter 294
Rhetero.Herbivore 46
Rhetero.SOM 89
Cut75
Intake70
Manure16
K1=0.50 K2=0.43
K3 = 83Q10 =1.21Digest.=0.65
Enteric fermentation3.4
Fate of NPP and manure (at C sink sites)
CutCut & GrazedGrazedAbandoned & Wet
Role of grazing and cutting management for NBP
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
400600
8001000
12001400
16001800
20002200
0100
200300
400500
NB
P (
g C
m y
r-1)
GPP
(g C
m-2 y
r-1 )
Cuts (gC m -2 yr -1
)
Cutting only, no manure
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
GPP vs Max_cutting vs NBP_max_cutting
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
400600
8001000
12001400
16001800
20002200
0100
200300
400500
NB
P (
g C
m y
r-1)
GPP
(g C
m-2 y
r-1 )
Intake (gC m -2 yr -1
)
Grazing only, no manure
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
400
600800
10001200
14001600
18002000
2200
0100
200300
400500
NB
P (
g C
m y
r-1)
GPP
(g C
m-2 y
r-1 )
Intake (gC m -2 yr -1
)
Grazing only, no manure
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
GPP vs Max_grazing vs NBP0
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
400
600800
10001200
14001600
18002000
2200
0100
200300
400500
NB
P (
g C
m y
r-1)
GPP
(g C
m-2 y
r-1 )
Cuts (gC m -2 yr -1
)
Cutting only, no manure
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
GPP vs Max_cutting vs NBP_max_cutting
Maximalgrazing
Maximalcutting
Current herbage utilisation is lower than maximum
Maximal grazingMaximal cuttingGrazing and cutting at managed grassland sites
Herbivore
Vegetation
Soil
Atmosphere
CH4
CO2
CO2
CH4
CO2
N2O
Greenhouse gas and organic matter fluxes in a grassland
Manure / Slurry
OM fluxes
Dissolved organic C
Hay / Silage
On site GHG balance in CO2-C equivalents (g CO2-C m-2 yr-1)
GPP1228
GHG90
Rauto.
615Rhetero.Litter 294
Rhetero.Herbivore 46
Rhetero.SOM 89
Cut75
Intake70
Manure16
K1=0.50 K2=0.43
K3 = 83Q10 =1.21Digest.=0.65
CH4 (Enteric Fermentation)27
N2O emission14
On site GHG balance in CO2-C equivalents is on average 70 % of NBP
Total GHG balance in CO2-C equivalents (g CO2-C m-2 yr-1)
GPP1228
GHG 70
Rauto.
615Rhetero.Litter 294
Rhetero.Herbivore 46+45
Rhetero.SOM 89
Cut
Intake
Manure
K1=0.50 K2=0.43
K3 = 83Q10 =1.21Digest.=0.65
CH4 (Enteric Fermentation)27+24
N2O emission14+26
Total GHG balance in COTotal GHG balance in CO22-C equivalents is on average 55 % of NBP.-C equivalents is on average 55 % of NBP.
Upscaling method based on annual means
PrecipitationAir temperatureSoil temperature
GPP
ManureCutIntake
NBP N fertiliser supply
N2OCH4CO2
GHG balance
Spatial distribution of NBP of grasslands in Europe (data
upscaling)
Assuming a management similar to mean site management
C sequestration efficiency in grasslands (data upscaling)
Assuming a management similar to mean site management
How large is the grassland C sink?
Estimates of European grassland C flux during the 1990s
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Janssens et al.(2003)
Janssens et al.(2005)
Smith et al.(2005)
CarboEurope(data upscaling)
Study and year
Sin
k o
f C
fro
m g
ras
sla
nd
s
(Mt
C y
r-1)
Impacts of climate variability and extremes on the C cycle in
grasslandsInterannual variability
Agricultural management
Biogeochemicalcycles
Separating spatial and interannual variability of fluxes
Climate driver
Flu
xLong-term mean
Individual year
Spatial variability
Interannual variability
Interannual variability of GPP at CarboEurope IP sites grasslands
Grasslands and wetlands worldwide:
GPP, site years(preliminary analysis of Fluxnet data)
n=44, r2=0.59, P<0.001
n=44, r2=0.49, P<0.001
Grasslands and wetlands worldwide
NEE, site years(preliminary analysis of Fluxnet data)
Spatial and interannual variability of evapotranspiration
(preliminary analysis based on FluxNet)
Spatial variability Interannual variability
Slopes between sites and between years are not significantly different
Interannual variability of GPP in grasslands
(preliminary analysis based on FluxNet)
(n=37, r2 =0.235, P<0.01)
Grassland primary productivity is highly sensitive to rainfall variabilityNo significant relationship for other ecosystem types (except EB forests)
Spatial variability of GPP in grasslands (preliminary analysis based on FluxNet)
(n=20, Adj. r2= 0.14; P<0.10)
Precipitation (mm)
500 1000 1500 2000
GP
P (
gC m
-2 y
r-1)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Slopes of variability between sites and between years are similarNo significant role of ecosystem acclimation to mean climate?
Water Use Efficiency control by LAI
In a sparse vegetation, evaporation from the soil is the major avenue of water lossLow precipitation reduces LAI and, hence, WUE...
Low WUE further reduces primary productivity.
(C Beer et al., unpub.)
Water Use Efficiency control by LAI
In a sparse vegetation, evaporation from the soil is the major avenue of water lossLow precipitation reduces LAI and, hence, WUE...
Low WUE further reduces primary productivity.
(C Beer et al., unpub.)
Climateradiation
precipitationtemperature
pressurewind speed
Soiltexture
porosityconductivitybulk density
depth of lower boundary
Managementcutting dates
N-application datesN-amount
stocking rateclover fraction
PaSimEcosystem processes
CO2 flux
N2O flux
CH4 flux
GWP
Energy fluxes
Biomass
C & N stocks
etc
PASIM model
Cut/Graz site 2002 2003 2004 2005
C CH-Oens x x x
C DE-Grillenburg x x x
C ES-VAD x x
C F-Laq-ext x x x
C F-Laq-int x x x
C IE-Carlow x x
C/G IT-MtBondone x x
G IE-Dripsey x x
G IT-Amperlo x x
G PT -Mitra x x
G UK-Easterbush x x
10 european sites were simulated
PASIM model assesment with GPP and Reco (kg C m-2 yr-1)
Spin-up runs with site field management
Reco is overestimated at grazed sites: - Soils are apart from equilibrium (soil C sink),- Need to add a transient correction of slow C pools? (see Wuzler & Reichstein, 2007)
Grazedsites
Simulation of europeen grassland sites with PaSim
The impact of ecological factors - site history - temperature- precipitation- management (stocking rate, cutting frequence, N-supply)
on green house-gas-emissions and C storage
Actual management
CutGrazed
Automated management without N-supply
Automated CutAutomated Grazed
Simulations with automated management
Automated management withN-supply
Automated Cut+NAutomated Grazed+N
Intensification
Management change
Current site
management
Automated
management
NBP
-N
NBP
+N
C C 0.04 0.12
C G -0.01 0.28
G C -0.03 0.06
G G -0.38 -0.44
Change in management: role of grazing
Cut =C
Grazing = G
(in kg C m-2 yr-1)
Shifting to grazing, according to model, would increase net C storage
Shifting from cuttingto grazing increases C storage
+
+ +
Synthesis paper
• First draft will be discussed during grassland & wetland session
• Conclusions: grasslands are a strong C sink (ca. same as forests)
• Trade-off by N2O and CH4 is relatively low (30 % reduction in NBP)
• Indirect emissions (e.g. indirect N2O, off site forage digestion) further reduce NBP by 15 %
• The C sink can be managed, but it is highly vulnerable to drought events and, hence, to climate change.
Next steps
• Upscaling using agricultural statistics (livestock density, grazing type, N fertiliser amounts)
• Show that increased herbage utilisation (the livestock footprint) reduces the sink size.
• Run PASIM since 1900 and test the role of global change (CO2, warming, N deposition..) and management change drivers for the grassland and wetland C balance
• Discuss where does the C go ? – Deep soil C (not surveyed but close to 2/3 of total in deep soils) – Is deep soil C stable without energy supply (see C-N session,
Fontaine et al.) Does its accumulation saturate?
Advertisement for grassland & wetland parallel session
- Summary of wetland workshop- Synthesis of results on grasslands and
wetlands(Discussion based on a first draft )
- Modelling- Plant functional traits: first results and
discussion - Other papers to be prepared