| Literature DB >> 33156847 |
Emily Ane Dionizio1, Fernando Martins Pimenta1, Lucas Barbosa Lima1, Marcos Heil Costa1.
Abstract
The largest and most dynamic agricultural frontier in Brazil is known as MATOPIBA, an area that covers part of the Cerrado biome. Within this region, Western Bahia stands out as a large producer of soy and cotton. There are no studies that quantify carbon stocks for different land uses and land cover types in Western Bahia, which hinders comprehension of the role of agricultural expansion in carbon dynamics and the development of sustainable agriculture policies. Here, we evaluate how the land use changes in this region have affected the carbon balance in the aboveground biomass (AGB), belowground biomass (BGB), and soil reservoirs. We collected soil samples for areas with different land uses and land cover types to estimate soil carbon stocks (SCS) and combined remote sensing results and modeling techniques to develop a historical reconstruction of spatial patterns of SCS, AGB, and BGB during the period 1990-2018. The replacement of areas from the forest formations class with pasture and rainfed agriculture reduced the 100 cm depth SCS (SCS100) by 37.3% (p = 0.031) and 30.3% (p = 0.053), respectively. By contrast, the conversion of pasture and rainfed agriculture to irrigated agriculture increased SCS100 by 34% (p = 0.034) and 26.5% (p = 0.022), respectively. Spatial changes in historical carbon stocks are strongly associated with land use changes that occurred between 1990 and 2018. We estimated a non-significant loss of 61.9 Tg-C (p = 0.726) from the total carbon stocks (calculated as the sum of AGB, BGB, and SCS) of which 80% of the losses came from soil stocks, 11% from BGB, and 8% from AGB. These findings reveal the need to monitor carbon stocks in sandy soils to reduce the uncertainties of estimates and support the development of effective sustainable agriculture policies. The best alternatives for reducing carbon losses in the Cerrado are to maintain natural forest cover and to recover soils through sustainable soil management, especially in pasturelands where soil carbon stocks are lowest.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33156847 PMCID: PMC7647089 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area and locations of the soil sample collection sites and main towns in the region.
Symbol colors represent different land use and land cover classes. This figure was made using open source geographic information system (QGIS) and open data source: watersheds vector lines and the land use and land cover classification map were obtained from OBahia (http://obahia.dea.ufv.br), and geopolitical borders were obtained from IBGE (https://mapas.ibge.gov.br).
Distribution of land use and land cover areas in Western Bahia in 1990, 1997, 2004, 2011, and 2018.
| Land use and land cover classes | Area (Mha) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 1997 | 2004 | 2011 | 2018 | |
| Forest formations – FOR | 3.34 | 3.29 | 3.06 | 2.81 | 2.07 |
| Savanna formations – SF | 4.27 | 4.24 | 4.07 | 3.77 | 4.49 |
| Grassland formations – GF | 3.77 | 3.36 | 3.43 | 3.14 | 1.69 |
| Mosaic of RAG and PAST – RAG/PAST | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.36 |
| Rainfed agriculture – RAG | 0.84 | 1.15 | 1.43 | 2.14 | 3.08 |
| Irrigated cropland – IRR | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
| Pasture – PAST | 1.08 | 1.24 | 1.30 | 1.39 | 1.51 |
| Natural vegetation | 11.39 | 10.89 | 10.56 | 9.72 | 8.25 |
| Agricultural lands | 2.02 | 2.51 | 2.84 | 3.67 | 5.14 |
| Total area | 13.40 | 13.40 | 13.40 | 13.40 | 13.40 |
Parameters for Land Use and Land Cover Classes (LULCCs) used in spatial reconstruction of historical carbon stocks: Forest formations (FOR), savanna formations (SF), Grassland Formations (GF), cropland or pastureland (RAG/PAST), rainfed cropland (RAG), irrigated cropland (IRR), and pastureland (PAST).
| Aboveground Biomass in Mg-C ha−1 | |||||
| Avg | Std | Min | Max | Reference for Avg and Std values | |
| FOR | 12.06 | 0.12 | 11.83 | 12.29 | Santana et al. (2013) |
| SF | 6.771 | 1.135 | 5.693 | 7.849 | Oliveira et al. (2019) |
| GF | 3.468 | 2.018 | 1.551 | 5.385 | Miranda et al. (2014) |
| RAG | 6.010 | 1.194 | 4.876 | 7.144 | Cruz et al. (2010) |
| IRR | 7.428 | 2.348 | 5.197 | 9.659 | Silva et al. (2018) |
| PAST | 1.315 | 0.929 | 5.198 | 6.118 | Santos et al. (2007) |
| RAG/PAST | 3.663 | 1.062 | 5.197 | 8.679 | Average of RAG and PAST |
| Belowground Biomass in Mg-C ha-1 | |||||
| FOR | 8.638 | 1.633 | 7.087 | 10.19 | Miranda et al. (2014) |
| SF | 16.27 | 6.474 | 10.12 | 22.42 | Miranda et al. (2014) |
| GF | 8.109 | 4.849 | 3.502 | 12.72 | Miranda et al. (2014) |
| RAG | 4.207 | 0.836 | 3.413 | 5.001 | Zilio (2014) |
| IRR | 3.343 | 1.057 | 2.329 | 4.357 | Zilio (2014) |
| PAST | 2.622 | 1.285 | 1.401 | 3.843 | Santos et al. (2007) |
| RAG/PAST | 3.414 | 1.060 | 2.407 | 4.421 | Average of RAG and PAST |
| Soil Carbon Stock (0–100 cm) in Mg-C ha-1 | |||||
| FOR | 82.50 | 43.60 | 41.08 | 123.9 | Estimated from fieldwork data ( |
| SF and GF (CDO) | 70.30 | 41.60 | 30.78 | 109.8 | |
| RAG | 57.40 | 33.30 | 25.77 | 89.03 | |
| IRR | 78.10 | 25.50 | 53.88 | 102.3 | |
| PAST | 51.70 | 25.50 | 27.48 | 75.92 | |
| RAG/PAST | 62.40 | 28.10 | 35.71 | 89.09 | |
1 Studies that measured aboveground biomass in Western Bahia.
2 Studies that measured aboveground biomass or belowground biomass in the Cerrado domain.
*Maximum and minimum values estimated using Monte Carlo simulation, assuming a normal distribution with n = 105, and the top and bottom 2.5% percentiles.
Fig 2Flowchart for the computation of historical carbon stocks reconstruction using the WBCM.
Average soil carbon stocks in Mg-C ha−1 for depths of 0–30 cm, 0–60 cm, and 0–100 cm for different land use and land cover classes in Western Bahia.
| 0–30 cm | 0–60 cm | 0–100 cm | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LULCCs | ||||||||||
| FOR | 19 | 51.0 | 25.9 | 12.5 | 63.4 | 33.2 | 16.0 | 82.5 | 43.6 | 21.0 |
| IRR | 20 | 45.5 | 11.4 | 5.18 | 61.2 | 15.1 | 6.91 | 78.1 | 25.5 | 11.8 |
| CDO | 23 | 40.1 | 23.3 | 10.1 | 51.4 | 29.2 | 12.6 | 70.3 | 41.6 | 18.0 |
| RAG | 20 | 32.3 | 20.4 | 9.6 | 42.6 | 26.6 | 12.5 | 57.4 | 33.3 | 15.6 |
| PAST | 21 | 28.0 | 11.4 | 11.4 | 36.8 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 51.7 | 25.5 | 19.7 |
Averages (avg) followed by standard deviations (std) and confidence intervals (ci) at α = 0.05.
Percentage differences in soil carbon stocks between agricultural LUs and native vegetation LCs in Western Bahia for 0–30 cm and 0–100 cm depths.
| 0–30 cm | 0–100 cm | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LULCC | FOR | CDO | FOR | CDO |
| IRR | −12.2% | 11.8% | −5.34% | 11.1% |
| RAG | −57.7% | −23.9% | −30.3% | −18.2% |
| PAST | −82.1% | −43.1% | −37.3% | −26.4% |
p-values obtained by Student’s t-test with α = 0.05 for differences in the means between soil carbon values of agricultural LUs and native vegetation LCs in Western Bahia for 0–30 cm and 0–100 cm depths.
| FOR | IRR | CDO | RAG | PAST | |
| FOR | - | 0.399 | 0.164 | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| IRR | 0.399 | - | 0.332 | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| CDO | 0.164 | 0.332 | - | 0.254 | 0.107 |
| RAG | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.254 | - | 0.547 |
| PAST | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.107 | 0.547 | - |
| FOR | IRR | CDO | RAG | PAST | |
| FOR | - | 0.704 | 0.363 | 0.053 | 0.031 |
| IRR | 0.704 | - | 0.455 | 0.034 | 0.022 |
| CDO | 0.363 | 0.455 | - | 0.269 | 0.155 |
| RAG | 0.053 | 0.034 | 0.269 | - | 0.635 |
| PAST | 0.031 | 0.022 | 0.155 | 0.635 | - |
Aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, soil C stocks and total C stocks for natural land covers (FOR, SF, GF) and agricultural land uses (RAG, IRR, PAST, RAG/PAST) in Western Bahia.
| LULCC | Aboveground Biomass - AGB | |||||||||
| 1990 | 1997 | 2004 | 2011 | 2018 | ||||||
| Tg-C | Tg-C | Tg-C | Tg-C | Tg-C | ||||||
| Avg | Std | Avg | Std | Avg | Std | Avg | Std | Avg | Std | |
| FOR | 40.3 | 0.059 | 36.9 | 0.06 | 33.8 | 0.061 | 27.5 | 0.061 | 24.9 | 0.063 |
| SF | 28.9 | 0.586 | 27.6 | 0.586 | 25.5 | 0.585 | 29.3 | 0.585 | 30.4 | 0.585 |
| GF | 13.1 | 1.04 | 11.9 | 1.04 | 10.9 | 1.04 | 8.09 | 1.04 | 5.88 | 1.04 |
| RAG/PAST | 0.445 | 0.416 | 0.302 | 0.420 | 0.311 | 0.424 | 0.564 | 0.427 | 2.04 | 0.429 |
| RAG | 5.07 | 0.617 | 8.61 | 0.616 | 12.9 | 0.616 | 16.9 | 0.616 | 18.5 | 0.616 |
| IRR | 0.132 | 1.21 | 0.437 | 1.21 | 0.616 | 1.21 | 0.80 | 1.21 | 1.45 | 1.21 |
| PAST | 5.84 | 0.178 | 7.04 | 0.158 | 7.59 | 0.146 | 7.79 | 0.141 | 8.27 | 0.130 |
| Natural | 82.3 | 1.69 | 76.3 | 1.69 | 70.3 | 1.69 | 64.9 | 1.69 | 61.2 | 1.69 |
| Agricultural | 11.5 | 2.42 | 16.4 | 2.41 | 21.4 | 2.40 | 26.1 | 2.40 | 30.2 | 2.39 |
| Total AGB | 93.7 | 4.11 | 92.7 | 4.09 | 91.7 | 4.09 | 91.0 | 4.08 | 91.4 | 4.08 |
| Belowground Biomass - BGB | ||||||||||
| FOR | 28.9 | 0.843 | 26.4 | 0.843 | 24.2 | 0.843 | 19.7 | 0.843 | 17.9 | 0.843 |
| SF | 69.5 | 3.34 | 66.3 | 3.34 | 61.3 | 3.34 | 70.3 | 3.34 | 73.0 | 3.34 |
| GF | 30.6 | 2.50 | 27.8 | 2.50 | 25.5 | 2.50 | 18.9 | 2.50 | 13.7 | 2.50 |
| RAG/PAST | 0.270 | 0.548 | 0.182 | 0.549 | 0.187 | 0.549 | 0.339 | 0.549 | 1.23 | 0.549 |
| RAG | 3.55 | 0.432 | 6.03 | 0.432 | 9.02 | 0.432 | 11.8 | 0.432 | 12.9 | 0.432 |
| IRR | 0.06 | 0.549 | 0.197 | 0.550 | 0.277 | 0.550 | 0.360 | 0.551 | 0.653 | 0.551 |
| PAST | 2.83 | 0.663 | 3.40 | 0.663 | 3.65 | 0.663 | 3.75 | 0.662 | 3.97 | 0.662 |
| Natural | 129 | 6.68 | 120 | 6.68 | 111.1 | 6.68 | 109.0 | 6.68 | 104.6 | 6.68 |
| Agricultural | 6.71 | 2.19 | 9.81 | 2.19 | 13.1 | 2.19 | 16.3 | 2.19 | 18.8 | 2.19 |
| Total BGB | 136 | 8.88 | 130 | 8.88 | 124 | 8.88 | 125 | 8.88 | 123 | 8.88 |
| Soil Carbon Stock - SCS100 | ||||||||||
| FOR | 276 | 22.5 | 252 | 22.5 | 231 | 22.5 | 188 | 22.5 | 171 | 22.5 |
| SF | 300 | 21.5 | 286 | 21.5 | 265 | 21.5 | 304 | 21.5 | 315 | 21.5 |
| GF | 265 | 21.5 | 241 | 21.5 | 221 | 21.5 | 164 | 21.5 | 119 | 21.5 |
| RAG/PAST | 4.89 | 14.5 | 3.32 | 14.5 | 3.42 | 14.5 | 6.19 | 14.5 | 22.4 | 14.5 |
| RAG | 48.4 | 17.2 | 82.3 | 17.2 | 123 | 17.2 | 162 | 17.2 | 177 | 17.2 |
| IRR | 1.39 | 13.2 | 4.60 | 13.2 | 6.48 | 13.2 | 8.41 | 13.2 | 15.3 | 13.2 |
| PAST | 55.9 | 13.2 | 67.0 | 13.2 | 72.1 | 13.2 | 73.9 | 13.2 | 78.3 | 13.2 |
| Natural | 841 | 65.4 | 779 | 65.4 | 717. | 65.4 | 656 | 65.4 | 605 | 65.4 |
| Agricultural | 111 | 58.0 | 157 | 58.0 | 205 | 58.0 | 250 | 58.0 | 292 | 58.0 |
| Total SCS100 | 951 | 123 | 936 | 123 | 922 | 123 | 906 | 123 | 897 | 123 |
| TCS | 1,18 | 136 | 1,16 | 136 | 1,14 | 136 | 1,12 | 136 | 1,11 | 136 |
Averages and standard deviations of annual values for aboveground biomass (AGB), belowground biomass (BGB), and soil carbon stocks (SCS100) in Mg-C ha−1, and their relative percent contributions to total carbon stocks (TCS) for the periods 1990–1996 (n = 7), 1997–2003 (n = 7), 2004–2010 (n = 7), and 2011–2018 (n = 8) in Western Bahia.
| 1990–1996 (P1) | 1997–2003 (P2) | 2004–2010 (P3) | 2011–2018 (P4) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | avg | std | n | % | avg | std | n | % | avg | std | n | % | avg | std | n | |
| AGB | 8.01 | 7.01 | 3.21 | 7 | 8.00 | 6.86 | 3.09 | 7 | 8.10 | 6.85 | 2.95 | 7 | 8.12 | 6.73 | 2.54 | 8 |
| BGB | 11.4 | 9.97 | 5.21 | 7 | 11.1 | 9.51 | 5.28 | 7 | 10.9 | 9.22 | 5.38 | 7 | 11.2 | 9.27 | 5.80 | 8 |
| SCS | 80.6 | 70.5 | 22.7 | 7 | 80.9 | 69.4 | 22.6 | 7 | 81.0 | 68.5 | 22.4 | 7 | 80.7 | 66.9 | 21.9 | 8 |
| TCS | 100 | 87.5 | 24.9 | 7 | 100 | 85.7 | 25.0 | 7 | 100 | 84.5 | 25.0 | 7 | 100 | 82.9 | 24.8 | 8 |
Percentage changes in carbon reservoir means for the periods 1997–2003 (P2), 2004–2010 (P3), and 2011–2018 (P4) compared with the period 1990–1996 (P1) in Western Bahia.
| P2 − P1 | P3 − P1 | P4 − P1 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | df | % | df | % | df | ||||
| AGB | −2.08 | 12 | 0.933 | −2.31 | 12 | 0.923 | −3.94 | 13 | 0.858 |
| BGB | −4.57 | 12 | 0.874 | −7.52 | 12 | 0.796 | −7.02 | 13 | 0.809 |
| SCS | −1.63 | 12 | 0.926 | −2.95 | 12 | 0.866 | −5.17 | 13 | 0.758 |
| TCS | −2.00 | 12 | 0.898 | −3.42 | 12 | 0.827 | −5.28 | 13 | 0.726 |
Percentages (%) followed by degrees of freedom (df) and their significance according to Student’s t-test (p-value) at α = 0.05.
Fig 3Differences in total carbon stocks for Western Bahia.
Carbon stocks in Mg-C ha−1 for (a) 1997 − 1990, (b) 2004 − 1997, (c) 2011 − 2004, (d) 2018 − 2011, and (e) 2018 − 1990. This figure was made using open source geographic information system (QGIS) and open data source: watersheds vector lines were obtained from OBahia (http://obahia.dea.ufv.br) and geopolitical borders were obtained from IBGE (https://mapas.ibge.gov.br).
Fig 4Total carbon stock temporal variability for different LULCCs for Western Bahia, 1990–2018.