Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Forest Ecology and Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Forest Ecology and Management, 508, 120053, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120053
Accepted author manuscript, 896 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing contemporary and lifetime rates of carbon accumulation from secondary forests in the eastern Amazon
AU - Elias, Fernando
AU - Ferreira, Joice
AU - Resende, Angelica
AU - De Berenguer Cesar, Erika
AU - Franca, Filipe
AU - Smith, Charlotte Caroline
AU - Schwartz, Gustavo
AU - Nascimento, Rodrigo
AU - Guedes, Matheus
AU - Rossi, Liana
AU - Seixas, Marina
AU - da Silva, Carolina
AU - Barlow, Jos
N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Forest Ecology and Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Forest Ecology and Management, 508, 120053, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120053
PY - 2022/3/15
Y1 - 2022/3/15
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Aboveground biomass
KW - Natural regeneration
KW - Nature based-solutions
KW - UN restoration decade
U2 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Forest Ecology and Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Forest Ecology and Management, 508, 120053, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120053
DO - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Forest Ecology and Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Forest Ecology and Management, 508, 120053, 2022 DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120053
M3 - Journal article
VL - 508
JO - Forest Ecology and Management
JF - Forest Ecology and Management
SN - 0378-1127
M1 - 120053
ER -