activity 1.6. grasslands & wetlands site representativity
TRANSCRIPT
Activity 1.6. Grasslands & Wetlands
Site representativity
Outline
• Biome and site distribution in Europe
• Grassland types and management
• Carbon balance vs. type and management
• Site management
• Conclusions
• Biome and site distribution in Europe
• Grassland types and management
• Carbon balance vs. type and management
• Site management
• Conclusions
Biogeographical zones and grassland cover (PELCOM)
a) Biogeographical regions of Europe, based on European Environment Agency data. (b) Grassland area (ha) within each 0.5 degree pixel, obtained from the PELCOM database.
Permanent grasslands are found in very different biogeographical zones (not a climax vegetation) e.g. Alpine, Atlantic, Continental, Mediterranean
28sites
Main Grass.
Main Wet.
Anc. Grass.
Anc. Wet.
3 Main Wet.
5 Anc. Wet.
12 Main Grass.
7 Anc. Grass.
Main Grass.
Anc. Grass.
Relevant coverage ofWestern Europe
Lack of Nordic and Eastern European sites
Location of sites in European climate space
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
5 10 15 20 25 30
R ange m ean m on th lytem pera ture (ºC )
Av
era
ge
te
mp
era
ture
(ºC
)
E u ropean c lim ate
G R E E N G R A S Ssites
-
-
-
-
Continentality is an important factor for the
duration of the growing season in grasslands
• Biome and site distribution in Europe
• Grassland types and management• Carbon balance vs. type and
management• Site management• Conclusions
Grasslands and forage crops types in France
Roots (eg sugar beet)Annual grass LucerneSown grass or grass-legumePermanent grassland (>5 yrs)
Sown vs. permanent grasslands
Grassland management(N fertilisation)
Data needs• Geo-referenced
data on current land use and agricultural management
• Geo-referenced data of soil C stocks for grasslands
Grassland management(Cuts per year)
Data needs• Geo-referenced data
on current land use and agricultural management
• Geo-referenced data of soil C stocks for grasslands
Definition of the ELPEN livestock systems (3)< 150 grazing days outside UAA / LU_GL
< 5 LU grazing livestock per ha UAA>= 55% grass in UAA < 55% grass
in UAA
>= 150grazing
daysoutsideUAA /LU_GL
>= 5 LUgrazing
livestock perha UAA < 40% temporary grass
in total grass>= 40% temporary grass
in total grassOff-farmgrazingsystems
Off-farmproduced
foddersystems
Permanent grasssystems
Grasslandsystems
Arablesystems
Share of farms4,2 3,6 46,8 12,5 33,0
Share of GL LU2,5 3,5 50,5 12,5 31,0
Share of UAA1,7 0,4 54,3 11,3 32,4
Source: FADN-CCE-DG Agriculture/A-3; adaptation LEI.
Borris farm (64.5 ha)
Fallow6%
Crops (w heat, barley,
maize…)57%
Rotational Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
26%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
11%
Odum farm (93.7 ha)
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
9%
Rotational Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
15% Crops (w heat, barley,
maize…)69%
Fallow7%
Mirecourt farm (100 ha)
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Grazed only
14%
Fallow3%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Grazed & Cut
26%
Crops (w heat and maize for
silage)21%
Semi-improved
grasslands - Grazed only
9%
Semi-improved
grasslands - Cut & Grazed
27%
Morbihan farm (56.5 ha)
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
20%
Rotational Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
11%
Crop (tricical)11%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Grazed only
39%
Semi-improved
grassland - Grazed only
16%
Semi-improved
grassland - Cut & Grazed
3%
Kiskunsag farm (1144 ha)
Unimproved & rough
grasslands - Grazed only
100%
Flevoland farm (1144 ha)
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
77%
Crop (maize grain)23%
Malga Arpaco farm (122 ha)
Unimproved & rough
grasslands - Grazed only
100%
Longhill farm (203 ha)
Crops (w inter w heat)
10%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut and Grazed
57%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Grazed only
33%
Überstorf farm (22.3 ha)
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Grazed only
25%
Semi-improved
grassland - Cut & Grazed
5%
Unimproved grassland -
Cut & Grazed3%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut & Grazed
2%
Crop (tricical)28%
Rotational Intensive
grassland - Cut only
23%
Permanent Intensive
grassland - Cut only
15%
Cropland
Unimproved& rough
grasslands
Intensivegrasslands
Fallow
Semi-intensive
grasslands
• Biome and site distribution in Europe
• Grassland types and management
• Carbon balance vs. type and management
• Site management
• Conclusions
Components of the grassland carbon budget
GPP
NPP
NEP
NBP
Photosynthesis Autotrophicrespiration
Heterotrophicrespiration
Cuts Manure
GPP
NPP
NEP
NBP
Photosynthesis Autotrophicrespiration
Heterotrophicrespiration
Cuts Manure
NEE: Net Ecosystem Exchange, Atmospheric C balanceNBP: Net Biome Productivity, Soil C balance
1560
1405
Intake295
188
2
11
94
1217
CH4RaniRplant
+Rsol
GPP
Reco
LWincrease
Faeces
Carbon fluxes in a continuously grazed site (g C m-2 yr-1)Intensive management – FR Laqueuille
1408
1345
Intake126
92
1.3
5
27
1119
CH4RaniRplant
+Rsol
GPP
Reco
LWincrease
Faeces
Carbon fluxes in a continuously grazed site (g C m-2 yr-1)Extensive management FR-Laqueuille
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
net CO2 gasexchange harvest
slurryapplication C budget
equi
vale
nt G
HG
exc
hang
e [t
CO
2-C
/ha/
y]
INT EXT
INT EXT
INT
INT EXT
Carbon fluxes in a cut grassland (CH-Oensingen)Carbon fluxes in a cut grassland (CH-Oensingen)
C/t
CO2
harvestmanure
NBP is less than NEE in cut but not in grazed only sites
Grazed only siteswith no C input
Net Ecosystem Exchange of different grassland types in
Europe
low
land
inte
nsiv
e
low
land
ext
ensi
ve
high
land
inte
nsiv
e
high
land
ext
ensi
ve
high
land
nat
ural
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1N
et e
cosy
stem
CO
2 ex
chan
ge (
t CO
2-C
ha-1
y-1
)
Carbon loss
Carbon gain
(Synthesis based on GreenGrass and CarboMont results)
Int. Ext.Lowland
Int. Ext. Natural Highland
Mean annual greenhouse gas (GHG) balance in CO2-C equivalents of grassland sites (±
s.d.)
Management effects(GreenGrass sites)
• Biome and site distribution in Europe
• Grassland types and management• Carbon balance vs. type and
management• Site management• Conclusions
Laqueuille
Tojal
Alinya
Dripsey
Easter Bush
Amplero
Oensingen
Monte Bondone
Bugac
Chyrzyno
Grillenburg
Rimi
Kaamanen
Cabauw
Horstemeer
15main sites
Grassland
Wetland
Land tenure, management and soil
Site Land tenure Type Utilization SoilN
supplyRimi Private Sown Cut Sandy-loam Yes
Kaamanen ? Mire No ? NoLaqueuille Experiment Semi-natural Grazed Andosol NoLaqueuille Experiment Semi-natural Grazed Andosol HighGrillenburg Private Semi-natural Mixed Pseudo-gley
Bugac Protected Semi-natural Grazed/Not Chernozem NoDripsey Private Mixed Mixed YesAmplero Private Semi-natural Mixed Clay No
Monte Bondone Protected Semi-natural Mixed Loamy NoCabaw Private Intensive Grazed Gley/peat Yes
Horstemeer Protected Wetland No Gley/Peat NoChyrzyno Wetland No
Monte do Tojal Private Semi-natural Grazed Quartz diorite NoVall d'Alinya Private Semi-natural Grazed Limestone NoOensingen Experiment Sown Cut Cambisol NoOensingen Experiment Sown Cut Cambisol Yes
Easter Bush Contract Intensive Mixed Loamy Yes
Grassland types: 8 semi-natural, 2 intensive permanent, 2 sown.
Sites vs. scientific questions
Management Paired plots Grazing only Mixed Soil data Vegetation dataValidation of models Known + + +Interannual fluctuations Constant + +Water vs. CO2 fluxes Known + +Net C storage (NBP) Known + + +Disturbance effects Constant + - + +Process understanding Known + + +
Private land? Non flux data are essentialContracts with farmers?Obligation to recordthe management
Representativeness: C storage potential (tC ha-1)No N fertilizationOptimal N fertilization
Higher C storage potential in areas of more intensive agricultural use
On average, equilibrium C stocks are increased by 20 % with N fertilization
Conclusions (1/2)• Wetlands: experts needed
• Grasslands:
– climate space plot adapted for grassland biome
– soil space plot (texture)
– improved map vs. grassland cover (include grass
ley systems)
– grassland type map (?)
– no short term possibility to generate
management maps
– Check with P. Smith for soil C map of grasslands
in EU
Conclusions (2/2)• The site network lacks Nordic and Eastern Europe sites. In Western Europe it
may be biased towards the more extensive semi-natural grasslands.
• Not all sites seem to be able to record accurately the grassland management.
• Two main grassland sites only can fully control the management (a few more
in the ancillary sites). However, the impact of management is far less in the
very extensive sites.
• Grasslands in the more favourable climate conditions have greater C storage
potential. They are also more intensively managed which maximizes the sink
activity. At high altitude/latitude both the climate and management
conditions are likely to reduce the atmospheric sink activity.
• In the cut grasslands, at least half of the sink measured by the masts
disappears in the farm buildings and does not contribute to the regional
atmospheric sink. NBP calculation is needed.