1 / 13

Potential for soil carbon sink enhancement in 3 northern Great Plains states.

Potential for soil carbon sink enhancement in 3 northern Great Plains states. Karen Updegraff Patrick R. Zimmerman Donna Kliche Rick Clawges William J. Capehart Patrick Kozak Maribeth Price. Big Sky Regional Partnership: MT, SD, ID. Phase I assessment of terrestrial potential

taylor
Télécharger la présentation

Potential for soil carbon sink enhancement in 3 northern Great Plains states.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Potential for soil carbon sink enhancement in 3 northern Great Plains states. Karen Updegraff Patrick R. Zimmerman Donna Kliche Rick Clawges William J. Capehart Patrick Kozak Maribeth Price

  2. Big Sky Regional Partnership: MT, SD, ID • Phase I assessment of terrestrial potential • Modeled using CENTURY, GIS • Agriculture is currently a net C sink • MT has greatest land base but SD has most cropland • No-till in SD offers most potential Current:

  3. Climate data • National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) monthly average precip, min/max temperature since 1895 by station and climate division.

  4. Generation of soil texture grids • SSURGO/STATSGO map unit data extracted into sand/silt/clay % grids. Bulk density from texture • ENVI processing to generate soil classes • Distributed soil classes within counties

  5. Historical and current agricultural management: I • Historical data from extension survey (SD), NASS crop databases, Census of Agriculture, anecdotal sources (types of crops, fertilizer use, irrigation) • Conservation tillage and CRP data for 2002 from CTIC. No-till = ZERO tillage • For point simulations, represent spatial proportions of crops as temporal series • 6 timeblocks: 1900-35, 1936-45, 1946-65, 1966-82, 1983-89, 1990- • Assume grassland for baseline period

  6. Historical and current agricultural management: II • Assume no fertilizer before 1965 • Assume no irrigation unless >50% of crop was irrigated • Scenarios • ct2ct: continuous conventional tillage since 1900 • ct2nt: conventional, change to no-till in 1990 • ct2crp: conventional, change to CRP in 1990 • grz2grz: continuous grazing since 1990 • grz2crp: removal of grazing in 1990

  7. Historical and current agricultural management III • No public lands in simulation • Runs to 2030 (stochastic weather after 2003) • For each state: • 8-10 climate divisions • 17-19 soil classes • 5 scenarios = up to 900 separate simulations • Distribute results over county/soil class cells, sum for county-level output m2 applicable per county

  8. Results: Land use distribution km2 in each land use: Grazing/Pasture Grazing/Pasture Cropland - CT

  9. C, Mg ha-1 yr-1 Carbon stock changes since 1990 Variability in annual C, Montana

  10. State-level C stock trends +25% NT Default

  11. Role of Ag Soil C in State GHG Budgets

  12. Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation Pilot Trade ≥ 62,000 MTCE/5yrs

  13. Support provided by: DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

More Related