Transcript ALLIE SCHWARTZ Carbon Sequestration and

Edge Effects and Carbon
Sequestration in the
Mata Atlântica
Allie Schwartz
SEE-U Brazil
Summer 2011
Session 1
Introduction: Atmospheric Carbon
 “Business as usual” projection  Edge Effects?
 Carbon Sequestration
(Zhiliang 2009)
 Statistics (Kerkam 2004)
Image: (Romm, 2007)
Image from U.S. Climate
Change Science Program
Introduction: Edge Effects
 What is an “edge effect”
(Murcia 1995)
 Sustainability
 Fragmentation
(Tabarelli 1999)
Image: National Agroforestry Center
Question
Do Edge Effects significantly
affect the ability of trees to
sequester Carbon aboveground in the Mata Atlântica of
Brazil?
Hypothesis
 H0: There is not a statistically significant
difference in the above ground carbon levels
between the edge, the midway range, and the
middle of the forest.
 Ha: There is a statistically significant
difference in the above ground carbon levels
between the edge of the forest, the midway
range, and the middle of the forest.
Methods
 3 transects, 3 separate roads
 Stratification method
 3 plots per transect (10m X 10m)
 Circumference
 Random number chart
 Diameter
Road 1
Road 2
Road 3
Methods
 Diameter Formula
 y= 34.4703-8.0671 D+0.6589 D2
(MacDicken 1997)
 C= Biomass / 2, (Malikian 2008)
 Formula limitations
 Sum of Circumference
 Per each plot
 Per distance
 Data Analysis
Data
1400.0
Average Carbon Sequestered Above-Ground (kg/m2) with
Respect to Distance from Road
1198.4
p-value for location:
0.10
p-value for distance
from edge: 0.25
1200.0
Carbon (kg/100 m2)
ANOVA test:
1000.0
550.0
800.0
600.0
506.7
alpha (0-10m)
400.0
Beta (30-40m)
200.0
gamma (55-65m)
0.0
Distance from Edge (m)
Average Carbon Sequestered in Transects 1 and 3 at Edge
(alpha) and middle (gamma)
Average Carbon (kg/100m2)
3000.000
p-value: 0.34
2500.000
2000.000
Alpha
1500.000
Gamma
1000.000
500.000
0.000
Distance from Road (m)
Data Continued
Data is not overall statistically significant
ANOVA test
p (location)= 0.10
p (distance from edge) = 0.25
Paired T-test for means (alpha and gamma)
p=0.32
T-test for means (total)
p(α and γ)=0.38
p(β and γ)=0.41
p(α and β)=0.90
T-test for means (by transect)  significance?
Summary Data
Total Above-Ground Carbon (kg/100m2)
Transect 1
Transect 2 Transect 3
Average
α
360.5
478.8
680.8
506.7
β
377.0
157.5*
1115.7
550.0
γ
495.6
676.1
2423.6
1198.4
*Outlier in data
P-values from T-test for Significance within each Transect:
Transect 1
Transect 2
Transect 3
α and γ
0.55
0.80
0.03
β and γ
0.79
0.14
0.19
α and β
0.67
0.02*
0.45
Discussion
 No significant difference in the ability of trees to
sequester carbon above-ground between the
edge, the midpoint, and the middle of the forest
 Present day efforts
(MacDicken 1997)
 Limitations (Murcia 1995)
 Repetition of Experiment Significant Results?
 Sources of Error
Sources of Error
 Tree Size
 Storm
 Outliers
 Lack of a Team
 Hindsight
Future Studies
 Test average Carbon Per Tree
 Different Forest Types
 Differently affected areas of forest
Anthropogenic effects
Summary
 Edge effects on carbon sequestration
 No statistical evidence that there is any effect of
edges on ability of trees to sequester carbon in
the Mata Atlântica
 Experimentation methods
 Sources of error
References
Keith H., Barrett D. and Keenan R. 2000. Review of allometric relationships
for estimating woody biomass for New South Wales, the Australian Capital
Territory, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia. The Australian Greenhouse
Office, Canberra.
Kerkam, C. 2004. The Disappearing Forests of Brazil and Paraguay.
http://www.parksinperil.org/files/atlantic_forest_overview.pdf. Accessed
15 June 2011.
MacDicken, K.G. 1997. A Guide to Monitoring Carbon Storage in Forestry
and Agroforestry Projects. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural
Development. Forest Carbon Monitoring Program.
http://202.99.63.183/tanhui/thjl/Winrock%20International%20碳监测指南
.pdf Accessed 20 June 2011.
Malikian, Claudia. “A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration of Eucalyptus
versus Mata Atlantica in Nazare Paulista”See-U Program, 2008.
Murcia, Carolina. 1995. Edge Effects in Fragmented Forests: Implications
for Conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10.2: 58-62. Science Direct.
Web. 28 May 2011.
 National Agroforestry Center. Conservation Buffers.
www.unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines/guidelines/2_biodiversity/10.html.
Accessed 22 June 2011.
 Tabarelli, M. and Waldir M., and Peres, C. 1999. Effects of Habitat
Fragmentation on Plant Guild Structure in the Montane Atlantic Forest of
Southeastern Brazil. Biological Conservation 91.2-3 119-27. Science Direct.
18 Oct. 1999. Web. 28 May 2011.
 U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2003. Carbon Cycle.
www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003chap7.htm. Accessed 22 June 2011.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Future Climate Change.
www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futuretc.html. Accessed 20 June
2011.
 Zhu, and Zhiliang and Stackpoole 2009. USGS Fact Sheet 2009-3102.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3102/. Accessed 28 May 2011.
Obrigada!
Thank you to Tim, Christiane and Tiago for your help,
and to Kate and John for helping me take samples!