33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Effect of Carbon Credits on Savanna Land Management and Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Carbon finance offers the potential to change land management and conservation planning priorities. We develop a novel approach to planning for improved land management to conserve biodiversity while utilizing potential revenue from carbon biosequestration. We apply our approach in northern Australia's tropical savanna, a region of global significance for biodiversity and carbon storage, both of which are threatened by current fire and grazing regimes. Our approach aims to identify priority locations for protecting species and vegetation communities by retaining existing vegetation and managing fire and grazing regimes at a minimum cost. We explore the impact of accounting for potential carbon revenue (using a carbon price of US$14 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent) on priority areas for conservation and the impact of explicitly protecting carbon stocks in addition to biodiversity. Our results show that improved management can potentially raise approximately US$5 per hectare per year in carbon revenue and prevent the release of 1–2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over approximately 90 years. This revenue could be used to reduce the costs of improved land management by three quarters or double the number of biodiversity targets achieved and meet carbon storage targets for the same cost. These results are based on generalised cost and carbon data; more comprehensive applications will rely on fine scale, site-specific data and a supportive policy environment. Our research illustrates that the duel objective of conserving biodiversity and reducing the release of greenhouse gases offers important opportunities for cost-effective land management investments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references146

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity.

          Initiatives to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) are providing increasing incentives for forest protection. The collateral benefits for biodiversity depend on the extent to which emissions reductions and biodiversity conservation can be achieved in the same places. Globally, we demonstrate spatial trade-offs in allocating funds to protect forests for carbon and biodiversity and show that cost-effective spending for REDD would protect relatively few species of forest vertebrates. Because trade-offs are nonlinear, we discover that minor adjustments to the allocation of funds could double the biodiversity protected by REDD, while reducing carbon outcomes by only 4 to 8%.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RESPONSE OF EUCALYPTUS-DOMINATED SAVANNA TO FREQUENT FIRES: LESSONS FROM MUNMARLARY, 1973–1996

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Carbon balance of a tropical savanna of northern Australia.

              Through estimations of above- and below-ground standing biomass, annual biomass increment, fine root production and turnover, litterfall, canopy respiration and total soil CO(2) efflux, a carbon balance on seasonal and yearly time-scales is developed for a Eucalypt open-forest savanna in northern Australia. This carbon balance is compared to estimates of carbon fluxes derived from eddy covariance measurements conducted at the same site. The total carbon (C) stock of the savanna was 204+/-53 ton C ha(-1), with approximately 84% below-ground and 16% above-ground. Soil organic carbon content (0-1 m) was 151+/-33 ton C ha(-1), accounting for about 74% of the total carbon content in the ecosystem. Vegetation biomass was 53+/-20 ton C ha(-1), 39% of which was found in the root component and 61% in above-ground components (trees, shrubs, grasses). Annual gross primary production was 20.8 ton C ha(-1), of which 27% occurred in above-ground components and 73% below-ground components. Net primary production was 11 ton C ha(-1) year(-1), of which 8.0 ton C ha(-1) (73%) was contributed by below-ground net primary production and 3.0 ton C ha(-1) (27%) by above-ground net primary production. Annual soil carbon efflux was 14.3 ton C ha(-1) year(-1). Approximately three-quarters of the carbon flux (above-ground, below-ground and total ecosystem) occur during the 5-6 months of the wet season. This savanna site is a carbon sink during the wet season, but becomes a weak source during the dry season. Annual net ecosystem production was 3.8 ton C ha(-1) year(-1).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2011
                14 September 2011
                : 6
                : 9
                : e23843
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Australian Government National Environmental Research Program, The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions and The University of Queensland School of Biological Sciences, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
                [2 ]The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Ecosystem Sciences, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia
                [3 ]The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Sustainable Agriculture Flagship & The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Ecosystem Sciences, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
                [4 ]Research Institute for the Environment & Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Bushfires Northern Territory, Northern Territory Government, Winnellie, Northern Territory, Australia
                University of Western Australia, Zimbabwe
                Author notes

                Conceived and designed the experiments: LLD HPP KAW JC CJK. Performed the experiments: LLD. Analyzed the data: LLD SHR. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CJK JC SHR JRS KAW HPP. Wrote the paper: LLD HPP KAW JC CJK SHR JRS.

                Article
                PONE-D-11-11998
                10.1371/journal.pone.0023843
                3173368
                21935363
                c152e1ca-01a6-45a0-995c-40deae5755ba
                Douglass et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 29 June 2011
                : 28 July 2011
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Biogeography
                Conservation Science
                Environmental Protection
                Spatial and Landscape Ecology
                Chemistry
                Geochemistry
                Carbon Cycle
                Carbon Sink
                Earth Sciences
                Environmental Sciences
                Environmental Economics
                Environmental Geography
                Geochemistry
                Carbon Cycle
                Carbon Sink
                Social and Behavioral Sciences
                Economics
                Environmental Economics

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article