| Literature DB >> 21854587 |
Werner L Kutsch1, Lutz Merbold, Waldemar Ziegler, Mukufute M Mukelabai, Maurice Muchinda, Olaf Kolle, Robert J Scholes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas fluxes to the atmosphere resulting from charcoal production in Zambia. It combines new biomass and flux data from a study, that was conducted in a miombo woodland within the Kataba Forest Reserve in the Western Province of Zambia, with data from other studies.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21854587 PMCID: PMC3189094 DOI: 10.1186/1750-0680-6-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Carbon Balance Manag ISSN: 1750-0680
Figure 1Graphical presentation of plots. a: Aboveground biomass of the four inventory plots. b: Soil carbon stocks in the upper 30 cm of the four inventory plots.
Aboveground biomass in the inventory plots
| Plot | Aboveground biomass (t ha-1) | Variance | Number of trees | Av. height (m) | Av. DBH (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 24.49 | 42.17 | 53.00 | 5.54 | 8.88 |
| 2 | 228.18 | 2158.12 | 121.00 | 7.72 | 14.29 |
| 3 | 115.95 | 54891.41 | 277.00 | 5.75 | 9.34 |
| 4 | 107.55 | 39.17 | 488.00 | 7.61 | 7.45 |
Soil carbon stocks in the inventory plots
| Plot | C stock t ha-1 (0 - 30 cm) | SE | variance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.51 | 2.50 | 50.16 | 9 |
| 2 | 14.33 | 2.23 | 59.73 | 13 |
| 3 | 13.70 | 1.26 | 28.27 | 19 |
| 4 | 14.66 | 1.65 | 27.35 | 11 |
Figure 2Fingerprint of two years of CO.
Total CO2 emissions (A), per capita CO2 emissions (B) and energy gained (C) from charcoal production in Zambia
| | ||||||
| Biomass → | This study | Chidumayo | UN REDD | FAO 2005 | Median | |
| ↓ Deforestation rate | (126 t ha-1) | (70 t ha-1) | (53.3 t ha-1) | (43.2 t ha-1) | (61.7 t ha-1) | |
| FAO 2005 (445 000 ha y-1) | 102.8 | 57.1 | 43.5 | 35.2 | ||
| UN REDD (298 000 ha y-1) | 68.8 | 38.2 | 29.1 | 23.6 | ||
| FAO 2010 (166 600 ha y-1) | 38.5 | 21.4 | 16.3 | 13.2 | ||
| Average (303 200 ha y-1) | ||||||
| | ||||||
| Biomass → | This study | Chidumayo | UN REDD | FAO 2005 | Median | |
| ↓ Deforestation rate | (126 t ha-1) | (70 t ha-1) | (53.3 t ha-1) | (43.2 t ha-1) | (61.7 t ha-1) | |
| FAO 2005 (445 000 ha y-1) | 8.0 | 4.4 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 3.9 | |
| UN REDD (298 000 ha y-1) | 5.3 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 2.6 | |
| FAO 2010 (166 600 ha y-1) | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.5 | |
| Average (303 200 ha y-1) | 5.4 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 1.9 | ||
| | ||||||
| Biomass → | This study | Chidumayo | UN REDD | FAO 2005 | Median | |
| ↓ Deforestation rate | (126 t ha-1) | (70 t ha-1) | (53.3 t ha-1) | (43.2 t ha-1) | (61.7 t ha-1) | |
| FAO 2005 (445 000 ha y-1) | 35 047 | 19 470 | 14 825 | 12 016 | ||
| UN REDD (298 000 ha y-1) | 23 469 | 13 039 | 9 928 | 8 047 | ||
| FAO 2010 (166 600 ha y-1) | 13 121 | 7 289 | 5 550 | 4 499 | ||
| Average (303 200 ha y-1) | ||||||
Figure 3Satellite pictures of the area and experimental design.
Tree species identified in the inventory plots
| Scientific name | Losi name | Plot 1 | Plot 2 | Plot 3 | Plot 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mutuya | x | x | x | x | |
| munjelijeli | x | x | x | x | |
| munyonga | x | x | x | ||
| museshe | x | x | x | ||
| munjongolo | x | x | x | ||
| muhuluhulu | x | ||||
| mukwa | x | x | x | x | |
| muzaule | x | x | x | x | |
| isunde | x | x | x | x | |
| mubula | x | x | x | ||
| mulya | x | x | x | x | |
| mufula | x | x | x | ||
| mushakashula | x | ||||
| mumousomouso | x | ||||
| mubako | x | x | x | ||
| muluundu | x | x | |||
| munyanyo | x | x |