Assessing the probability of carbon and greenhouse gas benefit from the management of peat soils

Worrall, F.; Bell, M.J.; Bhogal, A.

Abstract

This study proposes a method for assessing the probability that land management interventions will lead to an improvement in the carbon sink represented by peat soils. The method is able to: combine studies of different carbon uptake and release pathways in order to assess changes on the overall carbon or greenhouse gas budget; calculate the probability of the management or restoration leading to an improvement in the budget; calculate the uncertainty in that probability estimate; estimate the equivalent number of complete budgets available from the combination of the literature; test the difference in the outcome of different land management interventions; and provide a method for updating the predicted probabilities as new studies become available. Using this methodology, this study considered the impact of: afforestation, managed burning, drainage, drain-blocking, grazing removal; and revegetation, on the carbon budget of peat soils in the UK. The study showed that afforestation, drain-blocking, revegetation, grazing removal and cessation of managed burning would bring a carbon benefit, whereas deforestation, managed burning and drainage would bring a disbenefit. The predicted probabilities of a benefit are often equivocal as each management type or restoration often leads to increase in uptake in one pathway while increasing losses in another.

Citation

Worrall, F., Bell, M., & Bhogal, A. (2010). Assessing the probability of carbon and greenhouse gas benefit from the management of peat soils. Science of the Total Environment, 408(13), 2657-2666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.033

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: 2010-06
• Deposit Date: Mar 18, 2011
• Journal: Science of the Total Environment
• Print ISSN: 0048-9697
• Electronic ISSN: 1879-1026
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 408
• Issue: 13
• Pages: 2657-2666
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.033
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1510268