Noemi Rota, Claudia Canedoli, Chiara Ferré, Roberto Comolli, Davide Abu El Khair, Emilio Padoa-Schioppa
{"title":"评估阿尔卑斯山的碳储量:对三种不同方法的考虑","authors":"Noemi Rota, Claudia Canedoli, Chiara Ferré, Roberto Comolli, Davide Abu El Khair, Emilio Padoa-Schioppa","doi":"10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Alpine protected areas provide a wide range of ecosystem services, with climate regulation being one of the most significant. In line with the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of ecosystem services, there is an urgent need to correctly manage these areas in order to maximize biodiversity conservation and the supply of ecosystem services. To achieve efficient management and decision-making processes, it is crucial to first assess the current supply of ecosystem services and to have a basic reference for monitoring activities. Various approaches can be used to evaluate the carbon storage, a widely used indicator of the climate regulation service. In this study three approaches were compared: fieldwork data collection, the Italian National Inventory and the TESSA toolkit. Discrepancies in the results emerged, in the Aosta Valley, TESSA reported 423 Gg for OC stock in mixed broadleaves, compared to 263 Gg from field data and 210 Gg from the National Inventory. Fieldwork data collection, while the most accurate, was the most time and resource intensive. The national inventory yielded values similar to fieldwork data; for example, in the Adamello spruce forest, the National Inventory reported 1838 Gg, while field data measured 1964 Gg. However, TESSA depicted qualitatively the same organic carbon stock distribution across the habitats compared to the other approaches. Based on the results, we propose different applications for these approaches, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each. Specifically, we suggest using the TESSA toolkit for preliminary and a qualitative screening of a study area to identify potential areas of interest for the carbon stock, while more precise but demanding approaches should be employed for local studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54898,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Nature Conservation","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 126746"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the carbon stock in the Alps: Considerations on three different approaches\",\"authors\":\"Noemi Rota, Claudia Canedoli, Chiara Ferré, Roberto Comolli, Davide Abu El Khair, Emilio Padoa-Schioppa\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126746\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Alpine protected areas provide a wide range of ecosystem services, with climate regulation being one of the most significant. In line with the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of ecosystem services, there is an urgent need to correctly manage these areas in order to maximize biodiversity conservation and the supply of ecosystem services. To achieve efficient management and decision-making processes, it is crucial to first assess the current supply of ecosystem services and to have a basic reference for monitoring activities. Various approaches can be used to evaluate the carbon storage, a widely used indicator of the climate regulation service. In this study three approaches were compared: fieldwork data collection, the Italian National Inventory and the TESSA toolkit. Discrepancies in the results emerged, in the Aosta Valley, TESSA reported 423 Gg for OC stock in mixed broadleaves, compared to 263 Gg from field data and 210 Gg from the National Inventory. Fieldwork data collection, while the most accurate, was the most time and resource intensive. The national inventory yielded values similar to fieldwork data; for example, in the Adamello spruce forest, the National Inventory reported 1838 Gg, while field data measured 1964 Gg. However, TESSA depicted qualitatively the same organic carbon stock distribution across the habitats compared to the other approaches. Based on the results, we propose different applications for these approaches, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each. Specifically, we suggest using the TESSA toolkit for preliminary and a qualitative screening of a study area to identify potential areas of interest for the carbon stock, while more precise but demanding approaches should be employed for local studies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Nature Conservation\",\"volume\":\"82 \",\"pages\":\"Article 126746\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Nature Conservation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S161713812400195X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Nature Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S161713812400195X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the carbon stock in the Alps: Considerations on three different approaches
Alpine protected areas provide a wide range of ecosystem services, with climate regulation being one of the most significant. In line with the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of ecosystem services, there is an urgent need to correctly manage these areas in order to maximize biodiversity conservation and the supply of ecosystem services. To achieve efficient management and decision-making processes, it is crucial to first assess the current supply of ecosystem services and to have a basic reference for monitoring activities. Various approaches can be used to evaluate the carbon storage, a widely used indicator of the climate regulation service. In this study three approaches were compared: fieldwork data collection, the Italian National Inventory and the TESSA toolkit. Discrepancies in the results emerged, in the Aosta Valley, TESSA reported 423 Gg for OC stock in mixed broadleaves, compared to 263 Gg from field data and 210 Gg from the National Inventory. Fieldwork data collection, while the most accurate, was the most time and resource intensive. The national inventory yielded values similar to fieldwork data; for example, in the Adamello spruce forest, the National Inventory reported 1838 Gg, while field data measured 1964 Gg. However, TESSA depicted qualitatively the same organic carbon stock distribution across the habitats compared to the other approaches. Based on the results, we propose different applications for these approaches, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each. Specifically, we suggest using the TESSA toolkit for preliminary and a qualitative screening of a study area to identify potential areas of interest for the carbon stock, while more precise but demanding approaches should be employed for local studies.
期刊介绍:
The Journal for Nature Conservation addresses concepts, methods and techniques for nature conservation. This international and interdisciplinary journal encourages collaboration between scientists and practitioners, including the integration of biodiversity issues with social and economic concepts. Therefore, conceptual, technical and methodological papers, as well as reviews, research papers, and short communications are welcomed from a wide range of disciplines, including theoretical ecology, landscape ecology, restoration ecology, ecological modelling, and others, provided that there is a clear connection and immediate relevance to nature conservation.
Manuscripts without any immediate conservation context, such as inventories, distribution modelling, genetic studies, animal behaviour, plant physiology, will not be considered for this journal; though such data may be useful for conservationists and managers in the future, this is outside of the current scope of the journal.