tr 37 paired site sampling for carbon estimation in queensland

Australian Greenhouse Office232

national carbon accounting system

tech

nica

l rep

ort n

o. 3

7 Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon (and Nitrogen) Estimation Queensland

The National Carbon Accounting System provides a complete

accounting and forecasting capability for human-induced sources and

sinks of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian land based

systems. It will provide a basis for assessing Australias progress

towards meeting its international emissions commitments.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au

Ben Harms and Ram Dalal

technical report no. 37 Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon

(and Nitrogen) Estim

ation Queensland

national carbon accounting system

NCAS Part A

The National Carbon Accounting System:

Supports Australias position in the international development of policy and guidelines on sinks activity and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation from land based systems.

Reduces the scientific uncertainties that surround estimates of land based greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the Australian context.

Provides monitoring capabilities for existing land based emissions and sinks, and scenario development and modelling capabilities that support greenhouse gas mitigation and the sinks development agenda through to 2012 and beyond.

Provides the scientific and technical basis for international negotiations and promotes Australias national interests in international fora.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas

For additional copies of this report phone 1300 130 606

Series 1 Publications Set the framework for development of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) and document initial NCAS-related technical activities (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/ publications).

Series 2 Publications Provide targeted technical information aimed at improving carbon accounting for Australian land based systems (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/publications).

Series 3 PublicationsDetail protocols for biomass estimation and the development of integrated carbon accounting models for Australia (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas /publications).Of particular note is Technical Report No.

28. The FullCAM Carbon Accounting Model: Development, Calibration and Implementation for the National Carbon Accounting System.

Series 4 Publications include: 34. Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon Estimation - New South Wales.

35. Emission Sources of Nitrous Oxide from Australian Agriculture and Mitigation Options.

36. Integrated Soils Modelling for the National Carbon Accounting System.

37. Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon Estimation - Queensland.

38. Paired Site Sampling for Soil Carbon Estimation - Western Australia.

PAIRED SITE SAMPLING FOR SOIL CARBON (AND NITROGEN)

ESTIMATION QUEENSLAND

Ben Harms and Ram Dalal

Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 37

December 2003

Australian Greenhouse Officeii

Printed in Australia for the Australian Greenhouse Office

Australian Government 2003

This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or part for study or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source and no commercial usage or sale results. Reproduction for purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission of the Communications Team, Australian Greenhouse Office. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Communications Team, Australian Greenhouse Office, GPO Box 621, CANBERRA ACT 2601.

For additional copies of this document please contact the Australian Greenhouse Office Publications Hotline on 1300 130 606.

For further information please contact the National Carbon Accounting System at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/

Neither the Australian Government nor the Consultants responsible for undertaking this project accepts liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any persons or groups interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this material.

December 2003

Environment Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication

Harms, Ben.

Paired site sampling for soil carbon estimation - Qld / Ben Harms, Ram Dalal.

p. cm.

(National Carbon Accounting System technical report; no. 37)

ISSN: 1442 6838

1. Soils-Carbon content-Queensland-Analysis. 2. Clearing of land-Queensland-Environmental aspects. I. Dalal, Ram. II. Australian Greenhouse Office. III. Series.

631.4109943-dc21

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report iii

SUMMARYThe amount of organic carbon in soil at a given time is a function of carbon input and carbon decomposition rates, as influenced by soil temperature and soil moisture (rainfall and evaporation), and soil type. Land clearing disrupts this balance by removing vegetation, thereby reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) sink and transfer of carbon to soil as well as by increasing CO2 emissions from dead biomass and soil carbon. Therefore, land clearing invariably leads to changes in soil carbon, which need to be accounted for in modelling total greenhouse gas emissions. As soil organic matter is the main supplier of soil nitrogen, changes in soil carbon are likely to be associated with similar changes in soil nitrogen.

This report completes a consultancy agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland) and the Australian Government (represented by the Australian Greenhouse Office) to investigate soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and fluxes following land clearing in Queensland since 1970. Following the recommendation of Webbnet Land Resource Services (1999), it was agreed to select and investigate approximately 50 paired sites from the main areas of recent tree clearing in Queensland.

This study reports on sampling conducted at 33 locations across central and southern Queensland, representing a total of 49 paired sites. Soil type characterisation (profile description and laboratory analysis) for each plot was used to establish the validity of selected cleared and uncleared pairs. However, due to the shortrange spatial variation that is often present in soil landscapes, paired site studies are inferior to longterm experiments where soil changes are measured at exactly the same location before and after land use change. Laboratory analysis indicates that eight of the 49 paired plots may be less than adequately matched in terms of clay percentage and/or cation exchange capacity.

Coarse woody debris and plant litter on the soil surface are important sources of soil carbon and nitrogen, they have been included in this study. However, due to considerable variability associated with estimating carbon stocks in coarse woody debris, comparisons between treatments and between sites are more meaningful if coarse woody debris is excluded. Soil carbon stocks (soil carbon concentration x bulk density x soil depth) have been adjusted to account for any differences in soil bulk density between the cleared and uncleared sites - all comparisons are made on the basis of equivalent soil mass.

Despite an overall pattern of decline, trends in soil organic carbon change following land clearing were variable, especially in land developed for grazing. Soils cleared for grazing lost much smaller amounts of organic carbon than those used for cropping.

While average carbon loss from cropping soils was 11.9 tonnes/hectare to a depth of 0.30 metres, carbon loss from grazed soils was only 4.2 t/ha, including litter, plant roots and coarse charcoal. The corresponding carbon losses in percentage terms were 27.0% for cropping and 9.7% for grazed soils. Almost all soil carbon loss occurred in the 0 to 0.30 m depth range.

The magnitude of soil carbon decline in cropping soils is comparable to other studies reported in the literature. The large variability between sites cleared for grazing is also consistent with other reported studies. However, the average decline in soil carbon across sites cleared for grazing (9.7%) is significantly larger than the average of 0% reported by Murty et al. (2002) who reviewed a large number of similar studies.

At most sites, changes in soil carbon are associated with similar changes in soil nitrogen. For grazing sites, the average decline in soil nitrogen is of a similar magnitude to the average decline in soil carbon, while at cropping sites, average carbon losses are significantly greater than average nitrogen losses.

Australian Greenhouse Officeiv National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors wish to thank the many landholders who permitted access to their properties for soil sampling, and provided land management history. Many staff members at Queensland Government regional offices (NRM and DPI) assisted with site identification and information.

Shane Pointon, Jeromy Claridge, Andrew Stahl, Alex Hajkowicz, Wade McLaughlin and Greig Cumming assisted in sampling and processing almost 7,000 individual soil samples. Dave Lyons organised laboratory staff, Barry Monczko, Leith McCallum and Tony King analysed the samples for C & N. David Mayer provided statistical advice. John Carter gave professional advice and provided the climate information forthe sampling sites.

CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide (Jan Skjemstad, Les Janik, Roger Davison) provided professional advice on the conduct of the project, conductedMIR analyses on composite soil samples and verified TOC analyses for selected samples.

Plant litter fractionalisation was carried out at the Chemistry Centre (WA), under the supervision of Surender Mann (WA Department of Industry and Resources). The Wood Quality Laboratory, Queensland Forest Research Institute, Indooroopilly, Queensland carried out timber density analysis of coarse woody debris samples, under the supervision of Kevin Harding.

Australian Greenhouse Officeiv National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Summary iii Acknowledgements iv1. Introduction 12. Methods 1 2.1 Site Selection 1 2.2 Site Sampling 10 2.2.1 Soil 10 2.2.2 Surface Litter 10 2.2.3 Coarse Woody Debris 10 2.3 Site Description 11 2.3.1 Climate 11 2.3.2 Soil 11 2.3.3 Vegetation 11 2.3.4 Coarse Woody Debris 11 2.4 Laboratory Processing and Analysis 113. Results 12 3.1 Surface Litter 12 3.2 Coarse Woody Debris 12 3.3 Soil Organic Carbon and Soil Nitrogen 13 3.4 Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Density 144. Discussion 145. Recommendations Regarding Continued Monitoring 186. References 19

Appendices Appendix A: Vegetation Characteristics, Surface Litter, Coarse Woody Debris 21 Appendix B: Soil Carbon Summaries 29 Appendix C: Soil Nitrogen Summaries 57 Appendix D: Soil Carbon Results 85 Appendix E: Soil Nitrogen Results 153 Appendix F: Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios 219 Appendix G: Queensland Paired Sites: Detailed Site Information 233

Australian Greenhouse Officevi National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report vii

LIST OF TABLES Page No.Table 1. List of the Queensland soil carbon paired sites. 2

Table 2. Sampled sites by vegetation type. 5

Table 3. Properties of the sampled soil types (range and mean for 00.30 m). 6

Table 4. Summary: Average sitesoil carbon density for all paired sites, and average change in soil carbon following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). 16

Table 5. Summary: Average total nitrogen for all paired sites, and average change in soil nitrogen following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). 17

LIST OF FIGURES Page No.Figure 1. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 19911995. 7

Figure 2. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 19951997. 8

Figure 3. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 19971999. 9

Australian Greenhouse Officevi National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report vii

Australian Greenhouse Officeviii

Australian Greenhouse Officeviii National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report completes a consultancy agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland) and the Australian Government (represented by the Australian Greenhouse Office) to investigate soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and fluxes following land clearing in Queensland since 1970. Following the recommendation of Webbnet Land Resource Services (1999), it was agreed to select and investigate approximately 50 paired sites from the main areas of recent tree clearing in Queensland. The data obtained from these field measurements (and similar work being done in other States) will be incorporated into the soil carbon model being developed as part of the National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS). The soil carbon model will be used to estimate carbon fluxes resulting from land use change across the continent.

This study reports on sampling conducted at 33 locations across central and southern Queensland, representing a total of 49 paired sites.

2. METHODS

2.1 SITE SELECTIONProspective paired sites were stratified on the basis of vegetation type, soil type, and time since land clearing (with more than 50% of sites cleared in the previous 10 years). Soils from the following five IBRA regions (Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia, Thackway and Cresswell, 1995) were targeted: Brigalow Belt North (BBN), Brigalow Belt South (BBS), Desert Uplands (DEU), Mulga Lands (ML), Darling Riverine Plains (DRP).

The two individual plots that make up a paired site (uncleared and cleared), were carefully matched in terms of site factors (i.e. proximity, landscape position, slope, aspect, soil properties). Soil type characterisation (profile description and laboratory analysis) for each plot was used to establish the validity of selected cleared and uncleared pairs.

Uncleared sites were not necessarily undisturbed or in virgin condition, given that most of the woodlands and forests of inland Queensland have a history of grazing by sheep and/or beef cattle. In some instances, two different land use treatments (e.g. different ages of clearing) were matched to the same uncleared plot: these sites are referred to as triplicates. The corners and central positions of each plot were referenced using a differential globalpositioning system.

Table 1 lists the sampled sites and relevant information for each. Of the 49 sites reported in this study, 11 have been used for crop production (mainly winter grain crops), while the remainder have been used for the grazing of native pastures, usually with the addition of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Figures 1 to 3 illustrate the distribution of the paired sites in relation to IBRA regions and the treeclearing rates for the periods 19911995, 19951997 and 19971999, respectively. Appendix G of this report contains detailed information on each paired site (with photographs) and a summary of salient soil properties across each study site.

Site

Co

deSi

te ID

Vege

tatio

nSo

il1Ye

ar o

f Cle

arin

g La

nd U

se

afte

r Cl

eari

ngLa

titud

eLo

ngtit

ude

11

DEU

Alic

e R

iver

Popl

ar B

ox E

ucal

yptu

s po

puln

eaSo

doso

l19

93Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-23.

1382

145.

876

22

DEU

Texa

s Ir

onba

rk E

ucal

yptu

s m

elan

ophl

oia

Chro

mos

ol19

92Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-23.

0495

145.

9145

3*3

DEU

Flee

twoo

dG

idge

e Ac

acia

cam

bage

iCh

rom

osol

1969

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

2.39

5014

5.68

48

44

DEU

Lenn

ox S

LIB

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

ol19

93Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-22.

9615

146.

1042

55

DEU

Lenn

ox Y

JYe

llow

-jack

et E

ucal

yptu

s si

mili

sKa

ndos

ol19

95Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-22.

7567

146.

2623

66

DEU

Gle

ncoe

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

ol19

85Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-23.

7550

146.

2191

77

DEU

Mirt

na IB

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

a, E

.whi

tei

Sodo

sol

1989

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

1.33

9314

6.14

76

88

DEU

Mirt

na D

GD

awso

n G

um E

ucal

yptu

s ca

mba

gean

aSo

doso

l19

88Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-21.

2709

146.

2636

99

DEU

Nat

alBl

ackw

ood

Acac

ia a

rgyr

oden

dron

Der

mos

ol19

86Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-21.

2334

146.

2178

1010

DEU

Rel

lim A

Gid

gee

Acac

ia c

amba

gei

Der

mos

ol19

79Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-24.

0408

145.

6025

1111

DEU

Rel

lim B

Popl

ar B

ox E

ucal

yptu

s po

puln

eaSo

doso

l19

81Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-23.

9718

145.

5258

1212

DEU

Eure

kaIr

onba

rk E

ucal

yptu

s m

elan

ophl

oia

Kand

osol

1999

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

3.55

3114

6.42

90

1313

DEU

Corn

Top

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

ol19

99Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-23.

5916

146.

3239

141

BBN

Vice

nza

AG

idge

e/ B

rigal

ow A

caci

a ca

mba

gei,

A. h

arpo

phyl

laVe

rtos

ol19

93Cr

oppi

ng-2

2.11

9714

7.59

3

152

BBN

Vice

nza

BG

idge

e / B

rigal

ow A

caci

a ca

mba

gei,

A. h

arpo

phyl

laVe

rtos

ol19

93Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-22.

1210

147.

5945

163

BBN

Coob

yang

a A

Gid

gee/

Brig

alow

Aca

cia

cam

bage

i, A.

har

poph

ylla

Vert

osol

1975

Crop

ping

-22.

1065

147.

4691

174

BBN

Coob

yang

a B

Gid

gee/

Brig

alow

Aca

cia

cam

bage

i, A.

har

poph

ylla

Vert

osol

1975

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

2.10

8114

7.47

05

185

BBN

Pa

sha

Rei

d R

iver

Box

Euc

alyp

tus

brow

nii

Sodo

sol

1974

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

1.72

5614

7.57

97

196

BBN

Dou

ble-

D A

Gid

gee

Acac

ia c

amba

gei

Vert

osol

1977

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

1.77

6114

7.54

12

207

BBN

Dou

ble-

D B

Gid

gee

Acac

ia c

amba

gei

Vert

osol

1996

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

1.77

6414

7.54

26

218

BBN

Cool

ibah

ABr

igal

ow A

caci

a ha

rpop

hylla

Vert

osol

1978

Crop

ping

-22.

5573

148.

4872


Tabl

e 1:

Lis

t of t

he Q

ueen

slan

d so

il ca

rbon

pai

red

site

s.

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 3

Site

Co

deSi

te ID

Vege

tatio

nSo

il1Ye

ar o

f Cle

arin

g La

nd U

se

afte

r Cl

eari

ngLa

titud

eLo

ngtit

ude

229

BBN

Cool

ibah

BBr

igal

ow A

caci

a ha

rpop

hylla

Vert

osol

1986

Crop

ping

-22.

5617

148.

4873

2310

BBN

Cool

ibah

CBr

igal

ow A

caci

a ha

rpop

hylla

Vert

osol

1972

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

2.56

0814

8.47

55

2411

BBN

Boor

oond

arra

Popl

ar B

ox E

ucal

yptu

s po

puln

eaSo

doso

l19

96Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-22.

8249

148.

6356

2512

BBN

Tral

ee A

Popl

ar B

ox E

ucal

yptu

s po

puln

eaSo

doso

l19

92Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-22.

8635

148.

6793

2613

BBN

Tral

ee B

Popl

ar B

ox E

ucal

yptu

s po

puln

eaSo

doso

l19

86Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-22.

8646

148.

6773

271

BBS

Kind

on A

Cypr

ess

Pine

/Bul

loak

Cal

litris

gla

ucop

hylla

/ Al

loca

suar

ina

lueh

man

nii

Sodo

sol

1986

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

8.06

8815

0.75

60

282

BBS

Kind

on B

Cypr

ess

Pine

/ Bul

loak

Cal

litris

gla

ucop

hylla

/ Al

loca

suar

ina

lueh

man

nii

Sodo

sol

2000

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

8.06

9015

0.75

63

293

BBS

Brok

en D

ray

A Ac

acia

har

poph

ylla

/Euc

alyp

tus

cam

bage

ana

woo

dlan

dD

erm

osol

1981

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

4.10

5914

7.69

48

304

BBS

Brok

en D

ray

B Ac

acia

har

poph

ylla

/Euc

alyp

tus

cam

bage

ana

woo

dlan

dD

erm

osol

1995

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

4.10

6014

7.69

65

315

BBS

Rid

gele

a A

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

ol19

90Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-25.

3706

149.

6932

326

BBS

Rid

gele

a B

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

ol19

97Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-25.

3698

149.

6913

337

BBS

Rid

gele

a C

Popl

ar B

ox E

ucal

yptu

s po

puln

eaSo

doso

l19

96Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-25.

3293

149.

7011

348

BBS

Potte

rs F

lat A

Bela

h/ B

rigal

ow C

asua

rina

cris

tata

/Aca

cia

harp

ophy

llaVe

rtos

ol19

65Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-26.

1643

149.

5847

359

BBS

Potte

rs F

lat B

Bela

h /B

rigal

ow C

asua

rina

cris

tata

/Aca

cia

harp

ophy

llaVe

rtos

ol19

84Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-26.

1633

149.

5847

3610

BBS

Eum

ara

ACo

olib

ah E

ucal

yptu

s co

olab

ahD

erm

osol

1972

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

4.15

0114

7.80

25

371

DR

PN

arin

eCo

olib

ah E

ucal

yptu

s co

olab

ahVe

rtos

ol19

98Cr

oppi

ng-2

8.80

8914

8.36

36

382

DR

PD

unke

rry

Sth

ACo

olib

ah E

ucal

yptu

s co

olab

ahVe

rtos

ol19

96Cr

oppi

ng-2

8.46

3114

8.71

73

393

DR

PD

unke

rry

Sth

BCo

olib

ah E

ucal

yptu

s co

olab

ahVe

rtos

ol19

67Cr

oppi

ng-2

8.47

5914

8.71

67

404

DR

PD

unke

rry

ABe

lah

Casu

arin

a cr

ista

taVe

rtos

ol19

85Cr

oppi

ng-2

8.44

2214

8.71

46

415

DR

PD

unke

rry

BBe

lah

Casu

arin

a cr

ista

taVe

rtos

ol19

93/4

Crop

ping

-28.

4405

148.

7135

421

ML

Kiam

a A

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

ol19

90Cr

oppi

ng-2

7.80

6514

8.30

77

432

ML

Kiam

a B

Iron

bark

Euc

alyp

tus

mel

anop

hloi

aKa

ndos

olea

rly 1

990s

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

7.81

1514

8.30

39

Site

Co

deSi

te ID

Vege

tatio

nSo

il1Ye

ar o

f Cle

arin

g La

nd U

se

afte

r cl

eari

ngLa

titud

eLo

ngtit

ude

443

ML

Kulli

njar

ACy

pres

s Pi

ne/M

ulga

Cal

litris

gla

ucop

hylla

/Aca

cia

aneu

ra

Kand

osol

1988

Crop

ping

-27.

8634

148.

1911

454

ML

Kulli

njar

BCy

pres

s Pi

ne/M

ulga

Cal

litris

gla

ucop

hylla

/Aca

cia

aneu

ra

Kand

osol

1988

Cattl

e gr

azin

g -2

7.86

3514

8.18

51

465

ML

Char

levi

lle C

omm

onM

ulga

Aca

cia

aneu

raKa

ndos

ol

1991

Cattl

e/sh

eep

graz

ing

-26.

4510

146.

2898

47*

6 M

LR

eyne

llaM

ulga

Aca

cia

aneu

raKa

ndos

ol19

95Ca

ttle/

shee

p gr

azin

g-2

6.00

1714

6.45

80

487

ML

Khyb

erM

ulga

/Gum

-top

ped

Box

Acac

ia a

neur

a/Eu

caly

ptus

mol

ucan

aKa

ndos

ol19

83Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-25.

3842

146.

8146

498

ML

Khyb

erM

ulga

/Gum

-top

ped

Box

Acac

ia a

neur

a/Eu

caly

ptus

mol

ucan

aKa

ndos

ol19

92Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-25.

3842

146.

8146

509

ML

Khyb

erM

ulga

/Gum

-top

ped

Box

Acac

ia a

neur

a /E

ucal

yptu

s m

oluc

ana

Kand

osol

19

99Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-25.

3842

146.

8146

5110

ML

Woo

dsid

eM

ulga

Aca

cia

aneu

raCh

rom

osol

19

96Ca

ttle

graz

ing

-26.

5628

146.

4533

52*

11 M

LW

ardi

llaM

ulga

Aca

cia

aneu

raKa

ndos

ol19

99Ca

ttle/

shee

p gr

azin

g-2

6.40

4014

6.16

85


Resu

lts fo

r the

thre

e si

tes

with

an

aste

risk

(*) a

re in

com

plet

e an

d no

t rep

orte

d he

re.


Table 2: Sampled sites by vegetation type.

Vegetation Type Representative species Other tree species Associated soil type(s)1 Sites Total that may be present Numbers in parentheses sites indicate number of sites for each soil type

A

Box type Eucalyptus populnea E. melanophloia Sodosols (6), Kandosols (1) 7

eucalypts Eucalyptus brownii Sodosols 1 8

B

Ironbark type Eucalyptus melanophloia E. whitei

eucalypts E. populnea

Corymbia papuana Sodosols (2), Kandosols (6) 7

Eucalyptus crebra Kandosols 2 9

C

Mixed Eucalyptus coolabah Vertosols, Dermosols 4

Eucalypts Eucalyptus cambageana Sodosols 1

Eucalyptus similis Kandosols 1

Callitris glaucophylla

Allocasuarina luehmannii

Eucalyptus populnea Sodosols 2 8

D

Brigalow/ Acacia harpophylla Casuarina cristata

Belah Eucalyptus cambageana Vertosols (5), Dermosols (2) 7

Acacia cambagei Acacia harpophylla Vertosols (6), Dermosols (1) 7

Acacia argyrodendron Dermosols 1

Casuarina cristata Vertosols 2 17

E

Mulga Acacia aneura Eucalyptus populnea,

E. crebra, E. intertexta,

E. moluccana,

Callitris glaucophylla Kandosols (7) 7

TOTAL 49

1 Australian Soil Classification (Isbell, 1999)

Table 2 summarises the paired sites according to vegetation type and associated soils. Table 3 indicates the range of soil texture and pH for each of the sampled soil groups.

National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 7Australian Greenhouse Office6

Table 3: Properties of the sampled soil types (range and mean for 0-0.30 m).

Soil Group 0-30 cm Total sites

pH % sand % silt % clay

A

Sodosols range 5.4-7.0 75-92 3-10 9-23 12

mean 6.2 87 6 17

B

Kandosols range 5.4-7.6 70-90 3-11 5-27 16

mean 6.2 84 7 19

C

Vertosols/

Dermosols range 6.6-8.8 25-45 8-15 32-63 21

mean 8.1 40 13 47

TOTAL 49


Figure 1. The Queensland soil carbon paired sites with tree clearing rate 1991-1995.

Australian Greenhouse Office8 National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report 9



2.2 SITE SAMPLINGThe sampling of soil, plant litter and coarse woody debris was based on the procedures outlined by McKenzie et al. (2000). The dimensions of sample plots varied, but they were always at least 0.1 ha in area.

2.2.1 Soil

The sampling design, based on Dalal and Mayer (1986a, 1986b), allowed for five replicate soil samples for each plot as shown in the above diagram. Distance measurements quoted are typical. Actual spacing between the rows varied depending on site characteristics such as the distance between trees and the size of melonhole gilgai (if present).

Soil was sampled to 1 m depth using a hydraulic auger of approximately 50 mm diameter. Soil cores were sectioned into 00.05 m, 0.050.10 m, and then each 0.10 m depth interval. For the 00.30 m depth range, five samples from each depth increment were mixed to obtain one composite sample. Below 0.30 m, three samples were collected to obtain the composite sample. Bulk density was calculated

line 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

soil samples for each line were bulked into composite samples1 2 3 4 5

40 m

32 m

from the composite cores (50 mm tubes). For shrink/swell soils, a 100 mm tube was also used to obtain samples for bulk density determination. From each plot, an additional soil core (generally to a depth of 1.5 m) was taken for the purposes of soil type characterisation (description and laboratory analysis).

2.2.2 Surface Litter

Two 0.25 m2 quadrats were randomly placed along each soil sampling line. All the surface litter in the quadrat was collected and the percentage litter cover for each quadrat noted. In accordance with the protocols of McKenzie et al. (2000), woody debris with a diameter of


2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.3.1 Climate

Climate summary information for each site was obtained by spatial interpolation using the method of Jeffrey et al. (2001). This information is included in Appendix G of this report.

2.3.2 Soil

One representative soil profile (usually in the centre of the plot) was described in detail using the guidelines of McDonald et al. (1990). Profile descriptions for each plot are included in Appendix G of this report.

2.3.3 Vegetation

The vegetation in each plot was described using the guidelines of McDonald et al. (1990). Transects were placed along each soil sampling line, along which overstorey and understorey foliage projection was estimated. Tree basal area for each plot was estimated using a dendrometer. These results are presented in Appendix A, Table 1.

2.3.4 Coarse Woody Debris

The diameter of each piece of coarse woody debris encountered along each transect line was recorded. For each coarse woody debris sample measured, an estimate of its degradation (decay and percentage intact) was also recorded. The volume of coarse woody debris per unit area was later calculated using Van Wagners equation as detailed in McKenzie et al. (2000).

2.4 LABORATORY PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

Soil moisture content was determined by drying a subsample at 105oC for 48 hrs. Bulk density was calculated from the ovendried soil mass and the recorded field volume of soil. The remainder of the soil sample was airdried (40oC), and ground to pass through a 0.25 mm sieve, and stored in sealed plastic containers. The mass and/or volume of separated coarse fragments (i.e. those that could not be ground), fine roots (7.0 were tested for the presence of inorganic carbonate by adding concentrated hydrochloric acid. Samples that fizzed were treated with sulphuric acid and redried prior to elemental analysis for organic carbon. All carbon results quoted in this report therefore refer to total organic carbon and specifically exclude nonbiological carbonate sources.

From the characterisation soil profile (where the soil profile had been described), each 0.10 m increment was analysed for EC, Chloride, and pH. Standard chemical and physical analyses (including exchangeable cations and particle size analysis) were carried out for each of the following depth increments : 00.05 m, 0.050.10 m, 0.200.30 m, 0.500.60 m, 0.800.90 m, 1.101.20 m.

Surface litter samples were dried at 65oC for 48 hours. Representative samples were separated into leaf material and woody material, ground and analysed in a LECO CR12 analyser for carbon and nitrogen.


The organic carbon in representative plant litter samples was analysed for the following components:

Acid detergent fibre (ADF). ADF is largely a measure of the combined cellulose and lignin fraction in plant material. The plant material is simmered in acidic detergent solution for 1 hr and then filtered on a coarse sintered glass crucible. The weight of the dry residue gives a measure of the ADF, after allowing for ash content.

Lignin. Klasson lignin is determined by reacting the fibre residue from the ADF determination with 72% sulphuric acid. The acid dissolves the cellulose leaving the lignin and acid insoluble material.

Polyphenols. Total tannins are determined by extraction with boiling water followed by filtration and colouring with FolinDenis reagent. The amount of total tannin is determined spectrophotometrically.

Moisture. This is determined gravimetrically after drying overnight in a fan forced oven at 105oC.

Ash. This is a gravimetric determination of residue left after ashing at 600oC overnight.

3. RESULTS

3.1 SURFACE LITTERThe percentage litter cover, dry weights of leaf and woody material, and the derived total carbon (C) and total nitrogen (N) for the surface litter in each plot are shown in Appendix A, Table 2.

Results obtained for the fractionalisation of representative litter samples are shown in Appendix A, Table 3. These data are important for understanding litter decomposition and modelling carbon turnover from plant litter.

3.2 COARSE WOODY DEBRIS The results for each transect are shown in Appendix A, Table 4. In this table, the average volume adjusted for decay and intactness may be compared to the average unadjusted volume (which is obtained using the recorded diameters without any correction for degradation).

The contribution of coarse woody debris to carbon and nitrogen measures for each site is summarised in Appendix A, Table 5. Also shown is the basic density of sound timber samples, and the derived coarse woody debris mass (kg/ha).

The results in Table 4 (Appendix A) highlight important issues relating to the collection of coarse woody debris data for carbon estimation:

For uncleared sites, the average adjusted volume of coarse woody debris is about 50% of the unadjusted volume. This ultimately equates to significant quantities of carbon.

The standard deviation of the course woody debris data (for five replicate transects of 2040 m each) is often equal to or greater than the replicate mean.


3.3 SOIL ORGANIC CARBON AND SOIL NITROGEN

The results for each soil sample are documented in Appendix D (Soil Carbon) and Appendix E (Soil Nitrogen). Table 1 in these appendices provides a complete set of results i.e. for all sites, all lines, all depth increments, averages and cumulative totals. This table also shows the bulk density calculated for each soil sample, and how the percent carbon values are converted to kilograms per hectare using bulk density and incremental soil depth.

Table 2 (in Appendix D and Appendix E) shows estimations of carbon and nitrogen, respectively, for the components extracted from the sieved soil (i.e. fine roots (


3.4 SOIL CARBON AND NITROGEN DENSITYAn overall objective of the paired site sampling is to present a summary of mean site-soil carbon density, CDtot (t/ha or kg/ha) for each site. CDtot is obtained by summing all its components:

CDtot = CDCWD + CDSL + CDS + CDSR + CDSC.

Where CDCWD, CDSL, CDS, CDSR, and CDSC are the carbon densities for coarse woody debris (CWD), surface litter (SL), soil (S), separated roots (SR) and separated charcoal (SC). Note that CDS (carbon density of the sieved soil) has been adjusted for any changes in bulk density.

A similar site summary was derived for soil nitrogen (with NDtot = total nitrogen density for each site).

For interpretation and analysis, sites have been grouped according to major land use type (uncleared, grazing or cropping). Summarised information for each paired site is shown in Appendix B (soil carbon) and Appendix C (soil nitrogen).

Results are shown for cumulative soil depths of 0.10, 0.30, 0.60 and 1.00 m. For each cumulative depth, results are tabulated as indicated below:

1. all components (i.e. CDCWD + CDSL + CDS + CDSR + CDSC)

2. all components except for coarse woody debris (i.e. CDSL + CDS + CDSR + CDSC)

3. soil components only (i.e. CDS + CDSR + CDSC)

4. sieved soil (fine earth fraction) only (i.e. CDS)

Averaged site-soil carbon densities for all sites are summarised in Table 4 (page 16). Averaged totals for nitrogen for all sites are summarised in Table 5 (page 17).

4. DISCUSSION

Despite an overall pattern of decline, trends in soil organic carbon change as a result of land clearing were variable, especially in land developed for grazing. Soils cleared for grazing lost much smaller amounts of organic carbon than the cropping soils.

When considering carbon stocks and fluxes, it is important to be explicit about the soil depth considered and the components that are included in the analysis. For example, average decline is much greater if litter and coarse woody debris are included. However, due to considerable variability associated with estimating carbon stocks in coarse woody debris (Appendix A, Table 4), comparisons between treatments and between sites may be more meaningful if coarse woody debris is excluded.

The average difference between soil carbon densities of uncleared and cleared sites was an imputed loss of 11.9 t/ha for cropped soils and 4.2 t/ha for grazing soils (to a depth of of 0.30 m and including litter, plant roots and coarse charcoal). The corresponding losses in percentage terms were 27.0% for cropping and 9.7% for grazing soils. For sites that lost soil carbon, almost all the loss occurred in the 00.30 m depth range.

The magnitude of soil carbon decline in cropping soils is comparable to other studies reported in the literature. Russell and Williams (1982) found that decreases in organic carbon from cropping soils ranged from 10% to 60% over 1080 years of cultivation. Haas et al. (1957) observed a similar range in organic carbon decline due to cultivation over similar periods in North American soils.


The large variability between sites cleared for grazing is also consistent with other reported studies. Howden et al. (1995) found that surface organic carbon concentration increased on some grazing sites while on others it remained the same or decreased slightly. Similarly, Neill and Davidson (2000) found that conversion of forest soils to pastures in Brazil resulted in a decrease in organic carbon stocks in some soils while in other soils there was an increase or no effect on soil carbon levels.

The average decline in soil carbon across sites cleared for grazing is 9.7% to 0.30 m soil depth, litter included, or 7.9% excluding litter. This is significantly larger than the average of 0% reported by Murty et al. (2002) who reviewed a large number of similar studies.

Discussion of laboratory analyses in Appendix G raises questions about the adequacy of paired site matching at nine of the sites cleared for grazing. However, with these sites totally removed from the analysis, the average loss of soil carbon across the 29 remaining sites changes only slightly: 8.7% to 0.30 m soil depth (3.6 t/ha) or 6.9% (2.8 t/ha) - excluding litter.

For both cropping and grazing soils, changes in soil carbon are associated with similar changes in soil nitrogen. For grazing sites, the average decline in soil nitrogen is of a similar magnitude to the average decline in soil carbon. For cropping sites, average carbon losses are significantly greater than average nitrogen losses. Consequently, the majority of cropping sites show a decrease in C:N ratios following land clearing.


Table 4: Summary: Average site-soil carbon density for all paired sites, and average change in soil carbon following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). Data are means and standard errors.

GRAZING SITES (38 sites) Organic Carbon Density (t/ha) Change in Carbon Density

Depth Category Uncleared Grazed t/ha %

0-0.10 m all components 25.43 2.18 20.93 1.51 -4.50 1.95 -17.71 7.68

minus coarse woody debris 20.06 1.38 18.47 1.32 -1.59 0.78 -7.92 3.87minus coarse woody debris and litter 18.84 1.32 18.13 1.31 -0.71 0.77 -3.76 4.10

sieved soil only 17.43 1.22 16.24 1.19 -1.19 0.64 -6.84 3.65

0-0.30 m all components 48.49 3.89 41.39 2.68 -7.10 2.39 -14.65 4.94


sieved soil only 37.34 2.85 34.74 2.59 -2.60 1.11 -6.97 2.98

0-0.60 m all components 68.35 5.29 60.15 3.85 -8.20 2.55 -11.99 3.72


sieved soil only 56.76 4.18 53.20 3.86 -3.57 1.32 -6.28 2.32

0-1.00 m all components 86.07 6.95 78.07 5.14 -8.00 2.99 -9.29 3.47


sieved soil only 74.14 5.73 71.16 5.22 -2.98 1.71 -4.01 2.31

CROPPING SITES (11 sites) Organic Carbon Density (t/ha) Change in Carbon Density

Depth Category Uncleared Grazed t/ha %

0-0.10 m all components 29.86 5.71 13.35 1.89 -16.51 4.40 -55.29 14.75


sieved soil only 17.00 2.91 12.91 1.85 -4.09 1.30 -24.04 7.630-0.30 m

all components 52.93 9.27 32.29 4.68 -20.64 5.26 -38.99 9.93minus coarse woody debris 44.22 6.68 32.29 4.68 -11.93 2.71 -26.97 6.12

minus coarse woody debris and litter 41.63 6.60 32.27 4.67 -9.36 2.45 -22.48 5.89sieved soil only 37.97 6.37 31.57 4.65 -6.39 2.10 -16.83 5.53

0-0.60 m all components 75.72 13.40 54.89 8.70 -20.83 5.53 -27.51 7.31


sieved soil only 60.65 10.40 54.17 8.71 -6.48 2.26 -10.69 3.73

0-1.00 m all components 100.33 18.67 80.00 13.92 -20.33 6.25 -20.26 6.23


sieved soil only 85.16 15.51 79.28 13.95 -5.88 2.94 -6.90 3.45


Table 5: Summary: Average total nitrogen for all paired sites, and average change in soil nitrogen following land clearing. Differences in soil bulk density are incorporated (comparisons between treatments are made on the basis of equal soil mass). Data are means and standard errors.

GRAZING SITES (38 sites) Total Nitrogen (kg/ha) Change in Total Nitrogen Uncleared Grazed kg/ha %

0-0.10 m all components 1,174 100 1,071 90 -103 44 -8.8 3.7

minus coarse woody debris 1,150 97 1,061 91 -89 42 -7.8 3.7minus coarse woody debris and litter 1,118 95 1,055 90 -64 41 -5.7 3.7

sieved soil only 1,098 93 1,030 89 -67 41 -6.1 3.7

0-0.30 m all components 2,589 230 2,384 203 -205 85 -7.9 3.3


sieved soil only 2,464 220 2,318 202 -147 81 -6.0 3.3

0-0.60 m all components 4,064 319 3,727 275 -337 118 -8.3 2.9


sieved soil only 3,934 308 3,657 273 -278 113 -7.1 2.9

0-1.00 m all components 5,542 404 5,208 353 -335 183 -6.0 3.3


sieved soil only 5,405 393 5,138 342 -267 179 -4.9 3.3

CROPPING SITES (11 sites) Total Nitrogen (kg/ha) Change in Total Nitrogen Uncleared Cropped kg/ha %

0-0.10 m all components 1,254 239 876 150 -378 108 -30.1 8.6

minus coarse woody debris 1,211 228 876 150 -335 98 -27.7 8.1minus coarse woody debris and litter 1,117 227 875 150 -242 88 -21.7 7.9

sieved soil only 1,098 225 870 150 -228 86 -20.7 7.8

0-0.30 m all components 2,616 519 2,121 394 -495 147 -18.9 5.6


sieved soil only 2,413 503 2,112 394 -301 133 -12.5 5.5

0-0.60 m all components 3,955 797 3,478 674 -477 158 -12.1 4.0


sieved soil only 3,751 782 3,470 675 -281 152 -7.5 4.0

0-1.00 m all components 5,292 1,059 4,941 1,023 -350 133 -6.6 2.5

minus coarse woody debris 5,249 1,048 4,941 1,023 -307 136 -5.9 2.6minus coarse woody debris and litter 5,155 1,051 4,941 1,023 -214 134 -4.2 2.6

sieved soil only 5,085 1,046 4,933 1,024 -152 138 -3.0 2.7


5. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CONTINUED MONITORING

Proposed criteria for selecting sampling sites for continued monitoring of soil carbon levels (to at least 2012):

1. Sites must represent the major soil types and IBRA regions.

2. A site must represent the dominant land use of the region.

3. A site must show changes in soil carbon stocks following land use changes, management practices or experimental treatments (NCAS paired-site study).

4. A site preferably represents transition of carbon inputs from C3 (tree) vegetation to C4 (tropical grass) vegetation.

5. Configuration, location and size of a site must be such that repeated but stratified sampling can be done without damaging the integrity of the site.

6. A site must be secure and accessible for the next 12-25 years, and have site history as well as monitored or simulated climate data.

7. A site must have the potential to provide future greenhouse gases emissions and abatement work and data collection for spatial and temporal simulation.

8. A series of sites should be networked to monitor temporal (different ages of clearing and/or management) and spatial (across soil types, IBRA regions, and climate) changes.

Recommended sampling sites for continued monitoring of carbon levels, through to at least 2012:

Total sites: 12

1. Mulga Lands: Kandosols - 2 sites

2. Darling Riverine Plains: Nil

3. Brigalow Belt South: 2 sites (cropped sites)

4. Brigalow Belt North: Ironbark (4 sites- pastures of different ages); Gidgee (2 sites 1 pasture + 1 crop)

5. Desert Uplands: 2 sites (1 pasture Spinifex; 1 pasture + box)

Success factors for the ongoing management of the monitoring sites:

Long term commitment by the agency and the relevant group.

Financial contribution by the Australian Greenhouse Office for the retention of trained staff required for monitoring of carbon stocks before and during the 2008-2012 commitment period. This requires a professional officer and a technical assistant and operating expenses for monitoring, assessment and reporting of soil carbon stocks from the proposed monitoring sites ($165,000 per annum).

Value-adding experimentation by other greenhouse scientists and modellers should be encouraged to enhance the usefulness of the sites for the National Greenhouse Monitoring Program.

Multi-purpose utilisation of the sites for evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation practices and for other agencies research, development and education needs will ensure additional resources for the management of the monitoring sites.


6. REFERENCES

Dalal, R.C. and Mayer, R.J. (1986a) Long-term trends in fertility of soils under continuous cultivation and cereal cropping in southern Queensland. 1. Overall changes in soil properties and trends in winter cereal yields. Aust. J. Soil Res. 24: 265-279.

Dalal, R.C. and Mayer, R.J. (1986b) Long-term trends in fertility of soils under continuous cultivation and cereal cropping in southern Queensland. 2. Total soil carbon and its rate of loss from the soil profile. Aust J. Soil Res. 24: 281-292.

Department of Natural Resources. (1999) State Land and Tree Clearing Studies (SLATS). Land Cover Change in Queensland, 1991-1995. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane.

Haas, H.J., Evans, C.E. and Miles, E.F. (1957). Nitrogen and carbon changes in Great Plains soils as influenced by cropping and soil treatments. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 1164.

Howden, S.M., McKeon, G.M., Reyenga, P.J., Scanlan, Carter, J.O. and White, D.H. (1995). Management options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tropical beef grazing systems. Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001) Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data. Environmental Modelling and Software 16/4: 309-330.

McDonald, R.C., Isbell, R.F., Speight, J.G., Walker J. and Hopkins, M.S. (1990). Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, Inkata Press, Melbourne.

McKenzie, N., Ryan, P., Fogarty, P. and Wood, J. (2000). Sampling, Measurement and Analytical Protocols for Carbon Estimation in Soil, Litter and Coarse woody debris. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 14. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.

Murty, D., Kirschbaum, M.U.F, McMurtie, R.E. and McGilvray, H. (2002). Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Global Change Biology 8: 105-123.

Neill, C. and Davidson, E.A. (2000). Soil carbon accumulation or loss following deforestation for pasture in the Brazilian Amazon. In Lal R., Kimble, J.M. and Stewart, B.A. (Eds). Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems. Advances in Soil Science CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida.

Russell, J.S. and Williams, C.H. (1982). Biogeochemical interactions of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus in Australian agroecosystems. In Galbally , L.E. and Freney, J.R. (Eds.) The Cycling of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. Australian Academy of Science: Canberra.

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (eds) (1995). An interim biogeographic regionalisation for Australia: a framework for setting priorities in the National Reserves System Cooperative Program. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Webbnet Land Resource Services (1999). Estimation of Changes in Soil Carbon due to Changes in Land Use. National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 2. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.


APPENDIX A

Vegetation Characteristics, Surface Litter,

Coarse Woody Debris


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.Table 1. Site Characteristics: Tree Basal Area and Foliage Projection Cover. 23

Table 2. Surface Litter: Dry Weight, Mass of C, Mass of N. 24

Table 3. Surface Litter: Fractionalisation of Organic Matter. 25

Table 4. All Sites: Coarse Woody Debris Volume (m3/ha). 26

Table 5. Coarse Woody Debris: Mean Adjusted Volume, Mass of C, Mass of N. 27


U

NCL

EAR

ED P

LOTS

CL

EAR

ED P

LOTS

Site

Code

Loca

tion

Tree

Bas

al A

rea

(m2 /

ha)

Ove

rsto

rey

Und

erst

orey

cov

er (%

)Cl

eare

d Tr

ee B

asal

Are

a (m

2 /ha

)O

vers

tore

yU

nder

stor

ey c

over

(%)

liv

ede

adFP

C %

folia

gelit

ter

bare

land

use

live

dead

FPC

%fo

liage

litte

rba

re1

1 DE

UAl

ice

Rive

r7.

62.

124

5714

29pa

stur

e0

02

559

362

2 DE

UTe

xas

4.2

3.9

2432

1454

past

ure

00

058

239

44

DEU

Lenn

ox S

LIB

4.4

0.3

658

934

past

ure

00

064

531

55

DEU

Lenn

ox Y

J9.

60.

436

5934

8pa

stur

e0

04

8213

56

6 DE

UGl

enco

e10

.21.

024

5427

19pa

stur

e0

00

2634

397

7 DE

UM

irtna

IB12

.80.

534

5228

21pa

stur

e0

00

714

268

8 DE

UM

irtna

DG

6.7

1.4

2544

3224

past

ure

00

055

1728

99

DEU

Nata

l11

.01.

234

5430

16pa

stur

e0

00

7411

1410

10 D

EURe

llim

Gid

gee

19.4

4.6

3824

5324

past

ure

00

046

3421

1111

DEU

Relli

m B

ox

9.7

0.3

2253

3810

past

ure

00

267

1321

1212

DEU

Eure

ka5.

62.

015

3233

36pa

stur

e0

00

5927

1513

13 D

EUCo

rnto

p4.

40.

514

5824

18pa

stur

e0

00

6511

2414

1 BB

NVi

cenz

a25

.62.

458

4545

9cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

152

BBN

pa

stur

e0

00

4831

2116

3 BB

NCo

obya

nga

21.4

3.6

3923

5125

culti

vatio

n-

--

--

-17

4 BB

N

past

ure

00

073

1513

185

BBN

Pash

a 11

.45.

232

5519

27pa

stur

e0

00

6121

1919

6 BB

NDo

uble

-D13

.62.

356

2852

21pa

stur

e (1

977)

00

073

271

207

BBN

pa

stur

e (1

996)

00

072

281

218

BBN

Cool

ibah

13.7

2.0

5063

325

culti

vatio

n (1

978)

00

049

2230

229

BBN

cu

ltiva

tion

(198

6)0

00

5034

1723

10 B

BN

past

ure

(197

2)0

00

7318

924

11 B

BNBo

oroo

ndar

ra11

.50.

943

2153

27pa

stur

e0

00

4840

1325

12 B

BNTr

alee

15.2

4.8

2550

3516

past

ure

(T)

4.6

9.0

1570

247

2613

BBN

pa

stur

e (P

)0

01

7815

727

1 BB

SKi

ndon

8.9

1.1

2216

5826

past

ure

(198

6)0

00

388

5428

2 BB

S

past

ure

(200

0)0

00

633

3529

3 BB

SBr

oken

Dra

y9.

90.

858

4938

13pa

stur

e (1

981)

00

062

1127

304

BBS

pa

stur

e (1

995)

00

066

331

315

BBS

Ridg

elea

IB7.

81.

743

5731

13pa

stur

e (1

990)

00

060

3011

326

BBS

pa

stur

e (1

997)

00

032

1752

337

BBS

Ridg

elea

Box

8.4

0.7

5938

5111

past

ure

00

0

5938

434

8 BB

SPo

tters

Fla

t7.

20.

869

1468

18pa

stur

e (1

965)

00

037

2142

359

BBS

pa

stur

e (1

984)

00

035

4915

3610

BBS

Eum

ara

14.8

2.5

2962

354

past

ure

00

077

186

371

DRP

Narin

e4.

80.

537

859

34cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

382

DRP

Dunk

erry

Sth

1.3

0.1

1138

4023

culti

vatio

n (1

996)

--

--

--

393

DRP

cu

ltiva

tion

(196

7)-

--

--

-40

4 DR

PDu

nker

ry10

.70.

874

098

3cu

ltiva

tion

(198

5)-

--

--

-41

5 DR

P

culti

vatio

n (1

993)

--

--

--

421

ML

Kiam

a9.

10.

236

3057

14cu

ltiva

tion

00

079

021

432

ML

pa

stur

e0

08

5427

2044

3 M

LKu

llinj

ar6.

61.

354

674

19cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

454

ML

pa

stur

e0

00

659

2646

5 M

LCh

arle

ville

11.2

1.6

5527

5518

clea

red

00

244

1343

487

ML

Khyb

er14

.01.

460

1560

25pa

stur

e (1

983)

00

074

125

498

ML

pa

stur

e (1

992)

00

055

1035

509

ML

pa

stur

e (1

999)

00

059

833

5110

ML

Woo

dsid

e11

.32.

468

1182

8pa

stur

e0

00

6113

26

APPENDIX A Table 1: Site Characteristics: Tree Basal Area and Foliage Projection Cover (FPC).


UN

CLEA

RED

PLO

TSCL

EAR

ED P

LOTS

Site

Code

Loca

tion

Litte

rLe

af m

ater

ial

Woo

dy m

ater

ial

tota

l Nto

tal C

Clea

red

Litte

rLe

af m

ater

ial

Woo

dy m

ater

ial

tota

l Nto

tal C

co

ver %

DW

(kg/

ha)

C (k

g/ha

)N

(kg/

ha)

DW

(kg/

ha)

C (k

g/ha

)N

(kg/

ha)

kg/h

akg

/ha

land

use

cove

r %D

W (k

g/ha

)C

(kg/

ha)

N (k

g/ha

)D

W (k

g/ha

)C

(kg/

ha)

N (k

g/ha

)kg

/ha

kg/h

a1

1 DE

UAl

ice

Rive

r-

388

192

4.10

8036

0.28

4.4

228

past

ure

1025

610

02.

3520

100.

122.

511

02

2 DE

UTe

xas

-84

435

66.

2035

215

21.

307.

550

8pa

stur

e10

324

130

2.15

--

-2.

213

04

4 DE

ULe

nnox

SLI

B16

556

256

3.82

248

0.10

3.9

264

past

ure

20

6.

036

05

5 DE

ULe

nnox

YJ

5129

6813

8015

.67

592

280

2.00

17.7

1660

past

ure

10

2.

010

06

6 DE

UGl

enco

e23

908

412

7.53

464

204

1.79

9.3

616

past

ure

10

2.

010

07

7 DE

UM

irtna

IB44

1152

524

7.99

164

760.

628.

660

0pa

stur

e10

480

-2.

63-

2.6

200

88

DEU

Mirt

na D

G31

2396

1132

20.5

026

812

40.

9921

.512

56pa

stur

e5

-40

--

--

4.0

409

9 DE

UNa

tal

3914

7660

818

.89

196

841.

7720

.769

2pa

stur

e20

-35

0

--

-8.

035

010

10 D

EURe

llim

Gid

gee

3317

6075

215

.59

352

152

2.59

18.2

904

past

ure

10

2.

510

011

11 D

EURe

llim

Box

60

2008

884

9.34

116

520.

469.

893

6pa

stur

e30

--

--

--

5.0

400

1212

DEU

Eure

ka28

868

416

7.03

7232

0.26

7.3

448

past

ure

2559

624

03.

2018

080

1.27

4.5

330

1313

DEU

Corn

top

2780

438

44.

9116

80.

055.

039

2pa

stur

e27

128

500.

5514

060

0.42

1.0

1114

1 BB

NVi

cenz

a58

5336

2260

86.4

142

6817

6442

.79

129.

240

24cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

-na

na15

2 BB

N

pa

stur

e40

-

--

12.0

800

163

BBN

Coob

yang

a59

3940

1432

51.0

233

8813

2832

.06

83.1

2760

culti

vatio

n-

--

--

--

nana

174

BBN

past

ure

4025

3080

012

.24

--

-12

.280

018

5 BB

NPa

sha

1651

624

45.

6614

060

0.60

6.3

304

past

ure

2073

630

0

--

-6.

030

019

6 BB

NDo

uble

-D33

3032

1248

50.8

017

0873

216

.93

67.7

1980

past

ure

(197

7)30

--

--

--

12.0

800

207

BBN

past

ure

(199

6)30

2208

--

80-

-12

.082

021

8 BB

NCo

olib

ah55

4580

1948

58.3

875

631

69.

8468

.222

64cu

ltiva

tion

(197

8)50

608

240

7.34

--

-7.

324

022

9 BB

N

cu

ltiva

tion

(198

6)-

--

--

--

nana

2310

BBN

past

ure

(197

2)30

--

--

--

12.0

800

2411

BBN

Boor

oond

arra

4416

2076

817

.59

00

0.00

17.6

768

past

ure

5075

632

04.

56-

--

4.6

320

2512

BBN

Tral

ee22

1028

496

10.1

952

240.

2210

.452

0pa

stur

e (T

)30

760

330

6.42

--

-6.

433

2613

BBN

past

ure

(P)

30-

--

--

-12

.080

027

1 BB

SKi

ndon

-26

8412

9223

.30

324

144

1.71

25.0

1436

past

ure

(198

6)10

2.

510

028

2 BB

S

pa

stur

e (2

000)

10

2.

510

029

3 BB

SBr

oken

Dra

y75

2808

1288

40.1

821

9291

614

.98

55.2

2204

past

ure

(198

1)20

--

--

--

6.0

200

304

BBS

past

ure

(199

5)20

--

--

--

6.0

200

315

BBS

Ridg

elea

IB52

988

468

8.91

8440

0.33

9.2

508

past

ure

(199

0)67

1220

470

7.78

--

-7.

847

032

6 BB

S

pa

stur

e (1

997)

3899

6-

6.35

100

--

6.4

460

337

BBS

Ridg

elea

Box

6825

9612

6026

.35

128

560.

5126

.913

16pa

stur

e86

1304

540

-

--

10.0

540

348

BBS

Potte

rs F

lat

5424

7210

6836

.95

00

0.00

36.9

1068

past

ure

(196

5)55

568

230

4.23

--

-4.

223

035

9 BB

S

pa

stur

e (1

984)

8114

2459

010

.29

--

-10

.359

036

10 B

BSEu

mar

a73

1456

1788

28.7

539

217

61.

6630

.419

64pa

stur

e30

--

--

--

10.0

500

371

DRP

Narin

e52

2508

1160

20.6

724

410

41.

0221

.712

64cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

-na

na38

2 DR

PDu

nker

ry S

th21

996

464

7.89

124

560.

528.

452

0cu

ltiva

tion

(199

6)-

--

--

--

nana

393

DRP

culti

vatio

n (1

967)

--

--

--

-na

na40

4 DR

PDu

nker

ry95

1715

663

3229

7.68

152

641.

4929

9.2

6396

culti

vatio

n (1

985)

--

--

--

-na

na41

5 DR

P

cu

ltiva

tion

(199

3)-

--

--

--

nana

421

ML

Kiam

a55

2188

984

20.9

139

217

61.

7322

.611

60cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

-na

na43

2 M

L

pa

stur

e45

660

290

4.74

--

-4.

729

044

3 M

LKu

llinj

ar60

1936

888

24.4

048

200.

2524

.690

8cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

-na

na45

4 M

L

pa

stur

e65

1208

520

9.33

--

-9.

352

046

5 M

LCh

arle

ville

5219

0486

433

.76

124

0.13

33.9

868

clea

red

10-

--

--

-2.

010

048

7 M

LKh

yber

3528

1212

8439

.23

236

108

10.2

449

.513

92pa

stur

e (1

983)

20-

--

--

-4.

020

049

8 M

L

pa

stur

e (1

992)

20-

--

--

-2.

010

050

9 M

L

pa

stur

e (1

999)

20-

--

--

-2.

010

051

10 M

LW

oods

ide

6640

1618

0463

.68

252

112

2.05

65.7

1916

past

ure

20-

--

--

-4.

020

0

APPENDIX A Table 2: Surface Litter: Dry Weight (DW), Mass of Carbon (C), Mass of Nitrogen (N). Italicised entries indicate cleared sites where litter was estimated or was too sparse to warrant collection.


UN

CLEA

RED

PLO

TSCL

EAR

ED P

LOTS

Site

Code

Loca

tion

Litte

rLe

af m

ater

ial

Woo

dy m

ater

ial

tota

l Nto

tal C

Clea

red

Litte

rLe

af m

ater

ial

Woo

dy m

ater

ial

tota

l Nto

tal C

co

ver %

DW

(kg/

ha)

C (k

g/ha

)N

(kg/

ha)

DW

(kg/

ha)

C (k

g/ha

)N

(kg/

ha)

kg/h

akg

/ha

land

use

cove

r %D

W (k

g/ha

)C

(kg/

ha)

N (k

g/ha

)D

W (k

g/ha

)C

(kg/

ha)

N (k

g/ha

)kg

/ha

kg/h

a1

1 DE

UAl

ice

Rive

r-

388

192

4.10

8036

0.28

4.4

228

past

ure

1025

610

02.

3520

100.

122.

511

02

2 DE

UTe

xas

-84

435

66.

2035

215

21.

307.

550

8pa

stur

e10

324

130

2.15

--

-2.

213

04

4 DE

ULe

nnox

SLI

B16

556

256

3.82

248

0.10

3.9

264

past

ure

20

6.

036

05

5 DE

ULe

nnox

YJ

5129

6813

8015

.67

592

280

2.00

17.7

1660

past

ure

10

2.

010

06

6 DE

UGl

enco

e23

908

412

7.53

464

204

1.79

9.3

616

past

ure

10

2.

010

07

7 DE

UM

irtna

IB44

1152

524

7.99

164

760.

628.

660

0pa

stur

e10

480

-2.

63-

2.6

200

88

DEU

Mirt

na D

G31

2396

1132

20.5

026

812

40.

9921

.512

56pa

stur

e5

-40

--

--

4.0

409

9 DE

UNa

tal

3914

7660

818

.89

196

841.

7720

.769

2pa

stur

e20

-35

0

--

-8.

035

010

10 D

EURe

llim

Gid

gee

3317

6075

215

.59

352

152

2.59

18.2

904

past

ure

10

2.

510

011

11 D

EURe

llim

Box

60

2008

884

9.34

116

520.

469.

893

6pa

stur

e30

--

--

--

5.0

400

1212

DEU

Eure

ka28

868

416

7.03

7232

0.26

7.3

448

past

ure

2559

624

03.

2018

080

1.27

4.5

330

1313

DEU

Corn

top

2780

438

44.

9116

80.

055.

039

2pa

stur

e27

128

500.

5514

060

0.42

1.0

1114

1 BB

NVi

cenz

a58

5336

2260

86.4

142

6817

6442

.79

129.

240

24cu

ltiva

tion

--

--

--

-na

na15

2 BB

N

pa

stur

e40

-

--

12.0

800

163

BBN

Coob

yang

a59

3940

1432

51.0

233

8813

2832

.06

83.1

2760

culti

vatio

n-

--

--

--

nana

174

BBN

past

ure

4025

3080

012

.24

--

-12

.280

018

5 BB

NPa

sha

1651

624

45.

6614

060

0.60

6.3

304

past

ure

2073

630

0

--

-6.

030

019

6 BB

NDo

uble

-D33

3032

1248

50.8

017

0873

216

.93

67.7

1980

past

ure

(197

7)30

--

--

--

12.0

800

207

BBN

past

ure

(199

6)30

2208

--

80-

-12

.082

021

8 BB

NCo

olib

ah55

4580

1948

58.3

875

631

69.

8468

.222

64cu

ltiva

tion

(197

8)50

608

240

7.34

--

-7.

324

022

9 BB

N

cu

ltiva

tion

(198

6)-

--

--

--

nana

2310

BBN

past

ure

(197

2)30

--

--

--

12.0

800

2411

BBN

Boor

oond

arra

4416

2076

817

.59

00

0.00

17.6

768

past

ure

5075

632

04.

56-

--

4.6

320

2512

BBN

Tral

ee22

1028

496

10.1

952

240.

2210

.452

0pa

stur

e (T

)30

760

330

6.42

--

-6.

433

2613

BBN

past

ure

(P)

30-

--

--

-12

.080

027

1 BB

SKi

ndon

-26

8412

9223

.30

324

144

1.71

25.0

1436

past

ure

(198

6)10

2.

510

028

2 BB

S

pa

stur

e (2

000)

10

2.

510

029

3 BB

SBr

oken

Dra

y75

2808

1288

40.1

821

9291

614

.98

55.2

2204

past

ure

(198

1)20

--

--

--

6.0

200

304

BBS

past

ure

(199

5)20

--

--

--

6.0

200

315

BBS

Ridg

elea

IB52

988

468

8.91

8440

0.33

9.2

508

past

ure

(199

0)67

1220

470

7.78

--

-7.

847

032

6 BB

S

pa

stur

e (1

997)

3899

6-

6.35

100

--

6

tr 37 paired site sampling for carbon estimation in queensland

Documents