skip to main content
Idioma:
Primo Search
Clear Search Box
Search in: Busca Geral
Busca Avançada
Busca por Índices

Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes

Hansis, Eberhard ; Davis, Steven J. ; Pongratz, Julia

Global biogeochemical cycles, 2015-08, Vol.29 (8), p.1230-1246 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes
  • Autor: Hansis, Eberhard ; Davis, Steven J. ; Pongratz, Julia
  • Assuntos: Accounting ; Attribution ; Bookkeeping model of land use emissions ; Carbon ; Carbon flux accounting ; Global carbon cycle ; Land use ; Land use and land cover change ; Net land use flux ; Vegetation
  • É parte de: Global biogeochemical cycles, 2015-08, Vol.29 (8), p.1230-1246
  • Notas: German Research Foundation's Emmy Noether Program - No. PO 1751/1-1
    ark:/67375/WNG-60JJGC0H-S
    ArticleID:GBC20309
    istex:00FFF224408CA9EA8F2D53B5368553B80058EC72
    Table S1Text S1, Figures S1 and S2, and Table S1 caption
    ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
  • Descrição: Accounting for carbon fluxes from land use and land cover change (LULCC) generally requires choosing from multiple options of how to attribute the fluxes to regions and to LULCC activities. Applying a newly developed and spatially explicit bookkeeping model BLUE (bookkeeping of land use emissions), we quantify LULCC fluxes and attribute them to land use activities and countries by a range of different accounting methods. We present results with respect to a Kyoto Protocol‐like “commitment” accounting period, using land use emissions of 2008–2012 as an example scenario. We assess the effect of accounting methods that vary (1) the temporal evolution of carbon stocks, (2) the state of the carbon stocks at the beginning of the period, (3) the temporal attribution of carbon fluxes during the period, and (4) treatment of LULCC fluxes that occurred prior to the beginning of the period. We show that the methodological choices result in grossly different estimates of carbon fluxes for the different attribution definitions. Key Points We use a spatially explicit model to attribute C fluxes to land use activities We compare several accounting options for a post‐Kyoto climate agreement The different choices result in grossly different estimates of carbon fluxes
  • Editor: Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.