4.7 Article

Carbon emissions induced by land-use and land-cover change from 1970 to 2010 in Zhejiang, China

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 646, 期 -, 页码 930-939

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.317

关键词

Global climate change; Carbon emission; LUCC; Vegetation carbon; SOC

资金

  1. National Science-Technology Support Projects [2015BAC02B06]
  2. Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection Project [STSN-05-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land-use and land-cover change (LUCC) is a crucial factor affecting carbon emissions. Zhejiang Province has witnessed unprecedented LUCC concomitant with rapid urbanization from 1970 to 2010. In this study, remote sensing, geographic information system (GIS) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method were combined to quantify changes in both vegetation carbon storage and soil organic carbon (SOC) storage resulting from LUCC during 1970-1990 and 1990-2010. For both 1970-1990 and 1990-2010, the results showed successive decrease in farmlands (2.8 x 10(5) ha or -9.15% and 5.9 x 10(5) ha or -20.49%, respectively) and grasslands (3.4 x 10(4) ha or -10.73% and 1.5 x 10(5) ha or -54.1%, respectively), and continuous increase in forests (2.0 x 10(4) ha or 0.33% and 1.7 x 10(5) ha or 2.81%, respectively) and built-up lands (2.07 x 10(5) ha or 78.41% and 6.49 x 10(5) ha or 137.8%, respectively). From 1970 to 1990, approximately 8.3 Tg of the total carbon sink declined, including a 0.4 Tg reduction in vegetation carbon and a 7.9 Tg reduction in SOC. While from1990 to 2010, approximately 17.5 Tg of carbon storage declined, comprising a 2.8 Tg of carbon accumulated by vegetation, and a 20.3 Tg reduction in SOC. Overall, LUCC has resulted in huge amount of carbon emissions in Zhejiang from 1970 to 2010. Efficient planning for LUCC and gradual mitigation of carbon emissions are indispensable for future urban development in China under increasing pressure from global warming. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据