Abstract
Substantial discussion exists concerning the best land use options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on marginal land. Emissions-mitigating land use options include displacement of fossil fuels via biofuel production and afforestation. Comparing C recovery dynamics under these different options is crucial to assessing the efficacy of offset programs. In this paper, we focus on forest recovery on marginal land, and show that there is substantial inaccuracy and discrepancy in the literature concerning carbon accumulation. We find that uncertainty in carbon accumulation occurs in estimations of carbon stocks and models of carbon dynamics over time. We suggest that analyses to date have been largely unsuccessful at determining reliable trends in site recovery due to broad land use categories, a failure to consider the effect of current and post-restoration management, and problems with meta-analysis. Understanding of C recovery could be greatly improved with increased data collection on pre-restoration site quality, prior land use history, and management practices as well as increased methodological standardization. Finally, given the current and likely future uncertainty in C dynamics, we recommend carbon mitigation potential should not be the only environmental service driving land use decisions on marginal lands.
Highlights
There is a growing interest in using marginal land for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation
The relative efficacy of these different options is likely to be highly context-dependent, and determining the optimal GHG mitigation strategy for any given location requires a thorough understanding of carbon dynamics
There are several key gaps and limitations in the existing literature on carbon dynamics that prevents the precise evaluation of these mitigation strategies, with regards to marginal land
Summary
There is a growing interest in using marginal land for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. There are several key gaps and limitations in the existing literature on carbon dynamics that prevents the precise evaluation of these mitigation strategies, with regards to marginal land These include inadequacies in C pool quantification, broad categorization of land use types and conversion histories, inadequate measurement and/or reporting of critical site-specific factors, and the inevitable uncertainty associated with future predictions [4,5]. These inaccuracies limit the efficacy of global and national policies aimed at reducing atmospheric carbon levels through terrestrial mitigation strategies [6]. We conclude with recommendations for future research and suggestions for policies to mitigate the potential pitfalls of carbon-based management schemes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
