Quantifying climate change mitigation potential in the United States Great Plains wetlands for three greenhouse gas emission scenarios

Abstract

We examined opportunities for avoided loss of wetland carbon stocks in the Great Plains of the United States in the context of future agricultural expansion through analysis of land-use land-cover (LULC) change scenarios, baseline carbon datasets and biogeochemical model outputs. A wetland map that classifies wetlands according to carbon pools was created to describe future patterns of carbon loss and potential carbon savings. Wetland avoided loss scenarios, superimposed upon LULC change scenarios, quantified carbon stocks preserved under criteria of carbon densities or land value plus cropland suitability. Up to 3420 km 2 of wetlands may be lost in the region by 2050, mainly due to conversion of herbaceous wetlands in the Temperate Prairies where soil organic carbon (SOC) is highest. SOC loss would be approximately 0.20±0.15 megagrams of carbon per hectare per year (MgC ha −1 yr −1 ), depending upon tillage practices on converted wetlands, and total ecosystem carbon loss in woody wetlands would be approximately 0.81±0.41 MgC ha −1 yr −1 , based on biogeochemical model results. Among wetlands vulnerable to conversion, wetlands in the Northern Glaciated Plains and Lake Agassiz Plains ecoregions exhibit very high mean SOC and on average, relatively low land values, potentially creating economically competitive opportunities for avoided carbon loss. This mitigation scenarios approach may be adapted by managers using their own preferred criteria to select sites that best meet their objectives. Results can help prioritize field-based assessments, where site-level investigations of carbon stocks, land value, and consideration of local priorities for climate change mitigation programs are needed.

Effects of land use on greenhouse gas fluxes and soil properties of wetland catchments in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

“…Research associated with quantifying and modeling carbon pools (Tans et al, 1990;Fan et al, 1998;Pacala et al, 2001) has resulted in more refined efforts to segregate the terrestrial portion into major constituents such as soils, forests, agricultural lands, and inland aquatic ecosystems (Ciais et al, 1995;Houghton et al, 1999;Pacala et al, 2001;Bridgham et al, 2006Bridgham et al, , 2013Euliss et al, 2006;CCSP, 2007;Sundquist et al, 2009;Zhu et al, 2010Zhu et al, , 2011Zhu and Reed, 2012;Byrd et al, 2013). As data have become available and coarse-scale models refined, a variety of studies have recognized the contribution of inland aquatic ecosystems (e.g., wetlands, peatlands, reservoirs) to the terrestrial carbon budget (Armentano and Menges, 1986;Gorham, 1991;Algesten et al, 2003;Bridgham et al, 2006Bridgham et al, , 2013Cole et al, 2007;Downing et al, 2008;Battin et al, 2009).…”

Scenarios of climate adaptation potential on protected working lands from management of soils

“…Land use change scenarios were modified from two growth scenarios developed for the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment and modeled spatially (270 m) using the LUCAS state and transition simulation model (LUCAS model) (Sleeter et al 2017a). Given state population growth scenarios, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of hydrologic benefits associated with incremental areal and spatial allocation of land for conservation and management (Byrd et al 2015a).…”