1 Introduction
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Carbon dioxide LULUC emissions from mangrove deforestation
Parameter | Alternative names | Description |
---|---|---|
AG | Above-ground carbon | The above-ground carbon includes all carbon found in the live biomass located above the ground, which includes the stems of the trees, their branches, and their leaves. |
BG | Below-ground carbon | Below-ground carbon includes all carbon found in live biomass located below the ground, which not only includes the carbon in actual below-ground root biomass but also the prop roots which are in fact located above the ground. It does not include the carbon found in soil. |
S | Soil/sediments | Soil carbon is the carbon stored in the soil. Soil contains dead organic material derived from decomposed plants and animals, and inorganic matter that have built up over time. Per IPCC, a soil depth of 1 m should be considered, but for the shrimp case study, 1.5 m was adopted based upon the average depth reported by farmers. |
L | Litter | Litter is all dead biomass including material that was previously part of the bulk of biomass in the net primary production. Litter C stocks include both above- and below-ground litter stocks. Litter can include just leaves, but also slash, stumps, dead trees, stipulates, reproductive parts, branches, and debris. |
CS | (Missed potential for) carbon sequestration | Carbon burial to soil refers to the process of the carbon being buried in the sediments. This is caused by the production of carbon-containing litter in the ecosystem and the import of carbon from adjacent ecosystems. Part of this carbon gets trapped into the sediments, where it can remain in the soil for centuries. In the literature, carbon sequestration is often used interchangeably with carbon burial rates (Mcleod et al. 2011). Both refer to the long-term storage of CO2 from the atmosphere and its deposition in reservoirs, where long-term refers to centuries to millennia (Mcleod et al. 2011). Missed potential carbon sequestration refers to the amount of carbon sequestration not realized due to mangrove forest being converted to, i.e., shrimp ponds. |
2.2 Methane and dinitrogen monoxide emissions from aquaculture farming
2.3 Case study: shrimp farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
System | Crops year−1
| t shrimp crop−1 ha−1 water surface area | t shrimp ha−1 water surface area year−1
|
---|---|---|---|
Intensive | 1 | 7.6 ± 7.0 | 7.6 (10–17.5) |
Semi-intensive | 1.15 | 4.4 ± 4.5 | 6.6 (2–4) |
Improved extensive | 1.25 | 0.25 ± 0.29 | 0.3 (1–1.2) |
Mixed mangrove concurrent | 1 | 0.13 ± 0.12 | 0.13 (0.25–0.30) |
3 Results
3.1 Carbon dioxide emissions per hectare of deforested mangrove
Reference | Parameter | Median | CV (distribution) | Range |
n
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AG | Above-ground C stock (t C ha−1)a
| 131 | 0.462 (ln) | 49.5–261 | 9 |
BG | Below-ground C stock (t C ha−1)b
| 80 | 1.525 (ln) | 9.61–410 | 8 |
S | Soil C stock per 1.5 m of depth (t C ha−1)c
| 724 | 0.595 (ln) | 186.15–1575 | 8 |
L | Litter loss C stocks (t C ha−1)d
| 4.03 | 0.477 (n) | 0.15–7 | 12 |
CS | C Missed potential (t C ha−1 year−1)e
| 1.25 | 0.936 (ln) | 0.012–3.53 | 8 |
3.2 Methane and dinitrogen monoxide emissions per hectare of mangrove converted to aquaculture pond
System | Emission | Mean | Uncertainty estimate | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intact mangrove forest | kg CH4 ha−2 year−1
| 342 | CV = 1.448 (ln) | Allen et al. 2007
|
kg N2O ha−2 year−1
| 1.67 | CV = 0.575 (ln) | Allen et al. 2007
| |
Open aquaculture ponds | kg CH4 ha−1 year−1
| 533 | CV = 0.40 (ln) | Astrudillo et al. 2015
|
N2O-N | 1.8% of N input | – | Hu et al. 2012
| |
Rewetted land, previously vegetated by mangrove, salinity <18 ppm | kg CH4 ha−1 year−1
| 194 | CV = 2.290 (ln) | IPCC 2014
|
Rewetted land, previously vegetated by mangrove, salinity >18 ppm | kg CH4 ha−1 year−1
| 0 | Range = 0–40 (uniform) | IPCC 2014
|
3.3 Greenhouse gas emissions from shrimp farming LULUC case study
Intensive monoculture | Semi-intensive monoculture | Improved extensive | Improved extensive alternate | Mixed mangrove concurrent | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n of farms | 17 | 51 | 20 | 6 | 11 | |
Total number of hectares | 250 | 105 | 26.8 | 10.9 | 35.5 | |
Mangrove | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | |
Aquaculture pond | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
Rice paddies | 18.4% | 41.4% | 100% | 76.1% | 0% | |
Forest land | 21.5% | 16.9% | 0% | 23.8% | 0% | |
Grassland | 48.1% | 24.8% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
Cropland | 12.0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
Settlement | 0% | 17.0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Reference | ∆βAG | ∆βBG | ∆βL | ∆βδS | ∆θMP | Total CO2 | CH4 emissions | N2O emissions | Total CO2-eq ha−1 year−1
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | 9.6 | 5.9 | 0.3 | 26.5 | 4.6 | 46.9 | 14.9 | 0.4 | 62.2 |
CV | 0.467 | 1.503 | 0.268 | 0.601 | 0.903 | 0.409 | 0.400 | 0.575 |
System | Allocation factor | Prior land use | t shrimp ha−1 water surface area year−1
| LULUC t CO2 t−1 shrimp | LU CH4 emissions, t CO2-eq t−1 shrimp | LU N2O emissions, kg CO2-eq t−1 shrimp | Lifecycle emissions, t CO2-eq t−1 shrimpa
| Total, CO2-eq t−1 shrimp |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mixed mangrove | Mass (38.5%) | Mangrove | 0.13 | 139 | 44.2 | 1.31 | 184 | |
Semi-intensive | Mass (100%) | Aquaculture pond | 6.6 | 2.3 | Including in LCA | 13.2 | 15.5 | |
Semi-intensive | Mass (100%) | Rice paddy | 6.6 | 2.4 | 2.3 | Including in LCA | 13.2 | 21.5 |
Intensive | Mass (100%) | Aquaculture pond | 7.6 | 2.0 | Including in LCA | 13.2 | 15.2 | |
Intensive | Mass (100%) | Rice paddy | 7.6 | 2.1 | 2.0 | Including in LCA | 13.2 | 20.4 |
Mixed mangrove | Eco (58.8%) | Mangrove | 0.13 | 212 | 67.5 | 2 | 282 | |
Semi-intensive | Eco (100%) | Aquaculture pond | 6.6 | 2.3 | Including in LCA | 4.7 | 7.0 | |
Semi-intensive | Eco (100%) | Rice paddy | 6.6 | 2.4 | 2.3 | Including in LCA | 4.7 | 13.0 |
Intensive | Eco (100%) | Aquaculture pond | 7.6 | 2.0 | Including in LCA | 5.1 | 7.1 | |
Intensive | Eco (100%) | Rice paddy | 7.6 | 2.1 | 2.0 | Including in LCA | 5.1 | 12.3 |
4 Discussion and conclusions
4.1 Methods and data for quantifying carbon dioxide emissions per hectare of mangrove deforested
4.2 Case study results
t CO2-eq t−1 shrimp | Years | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 200 | ||
Mass allocation | ||||||
LU | CO2 | 13.6 (2.0%) | 13.6 (3.6%) | 13.6 (7.4%) | 13.6 (11.1%) | 13.6 (15.0%) |
CH4 | 44.2 (6.4%) | 44.2 (11.9%) | 44.2 (24.0%) | 44.2 (36.3%) | 44.2 (48.9%) | |
N2O | 1.3 (0.2%) | 1.3 (0.4%) | 1.3 (0.7%) | 1.3 (1.1%) | 1.3 (1.4%) | |
LUC | CO2 | 626.3 (91.4%) | 313.2 (84.1%) | 125.3 (68.0%) | 62.6 (51.5%) | 31.3 (34.6%) |
LULUC | CO2-eq | 685.4 | 372.2 | 184.3 | 121.7 | 90.4 |
Economic allocation | ||||||
LU | CO2 | 20.7 (2.0%) | 20.7 (3.6%) | 20.7 (7.4%) | 20.7 (11.1%) | 20.7 (15.0%) |
CH4 | 67.5 (6.4%) | 67.5 (11.9%) | 67.5 (24.0%) | 67.5 (36.3%) | 67.5 (48.9%) | |
N2O | 2.0 (0.2%) | 2.0 (0.4%) | 2.0 (0.7%) | 2.0 (1.1%) | 2.0 (1.4%) | |
LUC | CO2 | 956.6 (91.4%) | 478.3 (84.1%) | 191.3 (68.0%) | 95.7 (51.5%) | 47.8 (34.6%) |
LULUC | CO2-eq | 1046.8 | 568.5 | 281.5 | 185.9 | 138.1 |