HR: 14:10h
AN: B33G-03    [Abstracts]
TI: Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration
AU: * Jackson, R B
EM: jackson@duke.edu
AF: Duke University, Biology Department, Nicholas School, and Center on Global Change, Durham, NC 27708 United States
AU: Jobbagy, E G
EM: jobbagy@unsl.edu.ar
AF: Duke University, Biology Department, Nicholas School, and Center on Global Change, Durham, NC 27708 United States
AU: Jobbagy, E G
EM: jobbagy@unsl.edu.ar
AF: Universidad Nacional de San Luis & CONICET, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales - IMASL, San Luis, 5700 Argentina
AU: Avissar, R
EM: avissar@duke.edu
AF: Duke University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Durham, NC 27708 United States
AU: Baidya Roy, S
EM: sbroy@duke.edu
AF: Duke University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Durham, NC 27708 United States
AU: Barrett, D
EM: Damian.Barrett@csiro.au
AF: CSIRO, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia
AU: Cook, C W
EM: cwcook@duke.edu
AF: Duke University, Biology Department, Nicholas School, and Center on Global Change, Durham, NC 27708 United States
AU: Farley, K A
EM: farley@duke.edu
AF: Duke University, Biology Department, Nicholas School, and Center on Global Change, Durham, NC 27708 United States
AU: le Maitre, D
EM: dlmaitre@csir.co.za
AF: Environmentek CSIR, Stellenbosch 7599, Stellenbosch, 7599 South Africa
AU: McCarl, B A
EM: mccarl@tamu.edu
AF: Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics, College Station, TX 77843 United States
AU: Murray, B C
EM: bcm@rti.org
AF: Research Triangle Institute, Regulatory Economics and Policy Research, Research Triangle Pk, NC 27709 United States
AB: Carbon sequestration strategies highlight tree plantations without considering their full hydrologic and biogeochemical consequences. We combined field research, synthesis of more than 600 observations, and climate modeling of carbon-priced plantation scenarios for the U.S. to document substantial losses in stream flow and water availability with afforestation. At the catchment scale, plantations decreased stream flow by ~225 mm per year on average (52%), with 13% of streams drying up completely for at least one year. To assess potential climate feedbacks, we first used the Forest and Agricultural Sector Model - Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) to estimate the U.S. lands projected to convert to plantations for C sequestration payments of 50 and 100 U.S.$ per Mg C. We then used the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) to examine potential hydroclimate feedbacks using these economically based scenarios of land use change. Climate simulations showed that plantations typically increased summer evapotranspiration (ET) by >0.3mm per day, decreased summer surface air temperature by as much as 0.3 deg C, and decreased convective and total precipitation by as much as 30 mm per month in the most densely afforested areas compared to the crop and pasture lands they replaced. Regional climate modeling of U.S. plantation scenarios suggests that feedbacks through rainfall or temperature are unlikely to offset water losses from plantations and could even exacerbate them.
UR: http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson
DE: 0315 Biosphere/atmosphere interactions (0426, 1610)
DE: 0414 Biogeochemical cycles, processes, and modeling (0412, 0793, 1615, 4805, 4912)
DE: 0429 Climate dynamics (1620)
DE: 0495 Water/energy interactions (1878)
DE: 1813 Eco-hydrology
SC: Biogeosciences [B]
MN: Fall Meeting 2005