Abstract
Abstract
Background
Assessing cumulative effects of anthropogenic and natural disturbances on forest carbon (C) stocks and fluxes, because of their relevance to climate change, is a requirement of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) in Canada. However, tools have not been developed specifically for these purposes, and in particular for the boreal forest of Canada, so current forest C assessments in EIAs take relatively simple approaches. Here, we demonstrate how an existing tool, the Generic Carbon Budget Model (GCBM), developed for national and international forest C reporting, was used for an assessment of the cumulative effects of anthropogenic and natural disturbances to support EIA requirements. We applied the GCBM to approximately 1.3 million ha of upland forest in a pilot study area of the oil sands region of Alberta that has experienced a large number of anthropogenic (forestry, energy sector) and natural (wildfire, insect) disturbances.
Results
Over the 28 years, 25% of the pilot study area was disturbed. Increasing disturbance emissions, combined with declining net primary productivity and reductions in forest area, changed the study area from a net C sink to a net C source. Forest C stocks changed from 332.2 Mt to 327.5 Mt, declining by 4.7 Mt at an average rate of 0.128 tC ha−1 yr−1. The largest cumulative areas of disturbance were caused by wildfire (139,000 ha), followed by the energy sector (110,000 ha), insects (33,000 ha) and harvesting (31,000 ha) but the largest cumulative disturbance emissions were caused by the energy sector (9.5 Mt C), followed by wildfire (5.5 Mt C), and then harvesting (1.3 Mt C).
Conclusion
An existing forest C model was used successfully to provide a rigorous regional cumulative assessment of anthropogenic and natural disturbances on forest C, which meets requirements of EIAs in Canada. The assessment showed the relative importance of disturbances on C emissions in the pilot study area, but their relative importance is expected to change in other parts of the oil sands region because of its diversity in disturbance types, patterns and intensity. Future assessments should include peatland C stocks and fluxes, which could be addressed by using the Canadian Model for Peatlands.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous),Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Global and Planetary Change
Reference69 articles.
1. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canada-wide Definitions and Principles for Cumulative Effects. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, MB. 2014; https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/enviro_assessment/CE%20Definitions%20and%20Principles%201.0%20EN.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2020.
2. Beanlands GE, Erckmann WJ, Orians GH, O’Riordan J, Policansky D, Sadar MH, Sadler B. (eds.) Cumulative environmental effects: a binational perspective. Minister of Supply and Service Canada. 1986; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.9585&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 24 July 2020.
3. Shifley SR, Thompson FR III, Dijak WD, Fan Z. Forecasting landscape-scale, cumulative effects of forest management on vegetation and wildlife habitat: a case study of issues, limitations, and opportunities. Forest Ecol Manag. 2008;254:474–83.
4. Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett. 2008;11(12):1304–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x.
5. Noble BF, Sheelanere P, Patrick R. Advancing watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: lessons from the south Saskatchewan river watershed. Canada J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 2011;13(4):567–90. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211004012.