4.4.7. Restoration of Severely Degraded Lands
Restoration of degraded land generally involves revegetation that increases
carbon stocks in biomass and soil. It can occur on croplands, grazing lands,
forests, or "other" lands (mine spoils, deserts, etc.) As such, many of the
practices relating to restoration of partially degraded land are discussed elsewhere
in this Special Report under the appropriate land use. This section deals with
soils that are so badly degraded that normal practices no longer have an effect,
soils that are no longer capable of supporting crops, and soils that must be
taken out of agricultural practice before progress can be made (Fact Sheet 4.19).
For example, where land is polluted with heavy metals, these pollutants may
have to be removed before revegetation can proceed. Other important categories
of degraded land are salinized, sodic, desertified, and eroded soils; Section
2.2.5.7 discusses the nature of degradation and lists definitions. Areas
of most categories of severely degraded land are increasing. Restoration brings
multiple benefits: Not only can carbon be sequestered, the loss of carbon can
be arrested and nonproductive land brought back into use. Restored lands may
be put in to crops (Section 4.4.2, Fact
Sheets 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4),
pasture (Section 4.4.3, Fact Sheets
4-6, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9),
or forest (Chapter 3, Section 4.4.4,
Fact Sheets 4-12, 4-13, 4-14,
4-15, 4-16 and 4-17)
to sequester still more carbon.
Degraded land has a large potential for sequestration in relation to undisturbed
land because it often contains little carbon, but there are almost always factors
that limit this potential. Nabuurs et al. (1999) cite rates of 0.2-2
t C ha-1 yr-1. Rates as large as 7-9 t C ha-1 yr-1 appear in the literature
(Table 4-11), but these rates often involve other measures
such as the application of animal manures or deal with special problems. With
severely degraded land, it is probably unreasonable to expect the largest rates
to apply everywhere. Lal and Bruce (1999) use a conservative rate of 0.25 t
C ha-1 yr-1, which is used in Table 4-4. The
very low carbon levels in most of these soils means that a 1 percent increase
in the carbon content of soil mass is feasible. Such an increase would take
about 60 years at a rate of 0.25 t C ha-1 yr-1; in practice, however, the land
is likely to be used for some other purpose, such as agriculture, before that
rate and other rates of carbon sequestration will apply (Table
4-4).
Table 4-11: Rates of potential carbon gain under
selected practices for degraded lands in various regions of the world.
|
|
Practice |
Country/Region
|
Rate of Carbon Gain
(t C ha-1 yr-1)
|
Time1
(yr)
|
Other GHGs and Impacts |
Notes2
|
|
Saline/alkali soils |
|
|
|
If grazed, livestock may generate CH4 |
|
- Saline soil reclamation |
India
|
2
|
|
a
|
- Alkali soil reclamation |
India
|
4
|
5
|
b
|
- Irrigate halophytes with seawater |
Australia
|
1-2
|
20
|
c
|
|
Polluted soils |
|
|
|
|
|
- Reclamation of mineland |
USA
|
1.5-2.0
|
25
|
|
d
|
|
|
1-7
|
4
|
|
|
|
Eroded soils |
|
|
|
Improved grazing with lower variability of production |
|
- Rehabilitation practices |
Australia
|
0.1-0.4
|
|
e
|
|
Desertified soils |
|
|
|
|
|
- Restorative practices |
China
|
<1
|
>6
|
|
f
|
|
India
|
0.4-0.3
|
25
|
|
g
|
|
1 Time interval to which estimated rate applies. This interval may or may
not be time required for ecosystem to reach new equilibrium.
2 a. Singh et al. (1994); Lal and Bruce (1999).
b. Garg (1998); Sumner and Naidu (1998); Lal and Bruce (1999).
c. Glenn et al. (1993).
d. Paustian et al. (1997b); Akala and Lal (1999). Where sites are polluted
with heavy metals, these pollutants may first need to be removed [e.g., hyperaccumulators
(McGrath, 1998)].
e. Tothill and Gillies (1992); Ash et al. (1996).
f. Fullen and Mitchell (1994); see also Li and Zhao (1998).
g. Lal and Bruce (1999); see also Gupta and Rao (1994).
|
|
Because severely degraded soils require intervention above and beyond revegetation,
extra costs inevitably are involved. Remote sites may impose additional costs
for transporting the means of intervention to the site. Although remediation
is expensive, additional income from carbon credits may make restoring some
land that would otherwise remain abandoned worthwhile.
Estimates of the net global carbon sequestration potential of polluted land
are difficult to make. On one hand, these lands might be the last to be restored
because of the expense and difficulty. On the other hand, their polluted or
damaged nature means that in many cases-especially in developed countries-legislation
may compel owners to restore the land. Where land remediation is a legal requirement,
a decision might be needed on whether to allow the claiming of carbon credits.
|