4.6 Article

Estimation of CO2 sequestration potential by afforestation in the arid rangelands of Western Australia based on long-term empirical data

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 133, Issue -, Pages 109-120

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.015

Keywords

Arid land afforestation; Carbon mitigation; Eco-hydrology; Eucalyptus camaldulensis; Hardpan blasting; Rain-dependent growth rate

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [25304004]
  2. Endeavour Research Fellowship 2015 program (Department of Education, Australian Government)
  3. Mitsui & Co., Ltd. Environment Fund
  4. Global Environment Research Fund of The Ministry of Environment of Japan (GHG-SSCP-S2-1a project)
  5. Core Research for Evolution Science and Technology (CREST) fund of Science and Technology Agency of Japan
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25304004] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large-scale afforestation is a key measure to mitigate global warming, however, implementation may result in land-use competition with agriculture. To avoid such competition, carbon mitigation methods using arid and semi-arid areas have been proposed, but to our knowledge there is no report of rates of sequestration based on long-term observations from actual experimentation. In this study (1999-2015), in an arid area near Leonora, Western Australia (annual rainfall: 220 mm year(-1); pan evaporation: 3400 mm year (-1)), carbon sequestration was assessed in above and below ground biomass in Eucalyptus camaldulensis under ambient conditions and with active site amelioration (combination of water harvesting with large mounds and hardpan blasting). The carbon sequestration rate was estimated at 7.92 Mg-CO2-e ha(-1) year(-1) for a total carbon sink of 230 Mg-CO2-e ha(-1). Carbon mitigation may thus be a viable option in arid regions, not only in Western Australia but globally, and can be enhanced with active site engineering.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available