Next Article in Journal
Computation of Strip Road Networks Based on Harvester Location Data
Previous Article in Journal
U.S. and Global Wood Energy Outlook under Alternative Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Potential of Ecological Restoration Programs to Increase Erosion-Induced Carbon Sinks in Response to Future Climate Change

1
College of Agricultural, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
2
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
3
College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
4
International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation, Beijing 100044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 17 April 2022 / Revised: 14 May 2022 / Accepted: 17 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Soil)

Abstract

:
Erosion-induced carbon sinks are a wild card in the global carbon budget. Soil erosion results in aggregate carbon sequestration by reforming organic–inorganic complexes at depositional areas and plant reserves. The carbon sinks at the depositional sites are rarely considered in the prediction of erosion-induced carbon sink dynamics. The effects of large-scale ecological restoration programs (ERPs) in subtropical regions on soil carbon sinks are still unclear. This study analyzed the potential effects of ERPs on erosion-induced carbon sinks in a red soil hilly region (RSHR) from 2030 to 2060. Based on a land use dataset and two climate scenarios of moderate (RCP4.5) and high emission paths (RCP8.5), three land use change (LUC) patterns were designed: an Ecological Restoration (ER) pattern; a Business-As-Usual (BAU) pattern; and a No LUC pattern. The results of the ER pattern and BAU pattern were compared with those of the No LUC pattern to reflect the role of ERPs in reducing erosion and increasing erosion-induced carbon sinks. The results indicated that the erosion-induced carbon sinks of forestland increased (58 kg km2) in the BAU pattern under the RCP8.5 scenario and erosion-induced carbon sinks of cropland increased (39 kg km2) in the ER pattern under the RCP8.5 scenario. In RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, the erosion-induced carbon sinks of the RSHR increased by 210 Tg and 85 Tg from 2030 to 2060, respectively (1 Tg = 1012 g). The average annual erosion-induced carbon sink accounted for 3.84% and 1.41% of the annual average carbon sequestration of terrestrial ecosystems, respectively. Neither the BAU pattern nor the ER pattern achieved the purpose of increasing grassland carbon sinks induced by soil erosion. Therefore, the focus of future ERP optimization should be to increase grassland carbon sinks. Our study provides new evidence for research into erosion-induced carbon sinks to mitigate global climate change and a scientific basis for increasing erosion-induced carbon sinks in croplands, forestlands and grasslands in the RSHR of southern China.

1. Introduction

The CO2 sequestration caused by soil erosion contributes to 5–20% of the global terrestrial carbon sink [1]. However, the carbon cycle disturbance related to atmospheric vertical carbon flux caused by erosion is often ignored in the estimation of a global carbon budget [2,3]. Soil erosion results in aggregate carbon sequestration by reforming organic–inorganic complexes at depositional areas and plant reserves. Deep carbon sequestration in sediment areas can lead to soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation [4]. Global warming and soil erosion are mutually reinforcing. Soil carbon sequestration plays a key role in mitigating the positive feedback between the climate and terrestrial carbon [5]. Carbon changes in soil erosion are ignored because they are rarely included in the current generation of climate models [6]. The empirical models for measuring soil erosion carbon change vary with the time period and land cover. Such differences can lead to biased predictions of future terrestrial ecosystem carbon sinks. This creates uncertainty in the quest of China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 to 2060 through ecosystem sinks as a complementary measure to energy reduction.
Large-scale ecological restoration programs (ERPs) (e.g., the Green for Grain Project and Natural Forest Protection Project) on the land surface affect the carbon change of soil erosion. One of the processes of ERPs that can significantly alter the soil–atmosphere carbon exchange is a large-scale landscape change in terrestrial ecosystems, which in turn affects the deposition process of soil erosion [7,8]. Land use decisions are the key drivers of landscape and land use changes (LUCs) [9,10]. The conversion of marginal croplands to ecological land use (e.g., forestland and grassland) and the adoption of appropriate management practices on agricultural lands can reverse degradative trends and enhance SOC sequestration [11]. Therefore, land use plays a key role in increasing soil carbon sinks, changing the vertical carbon flux between the erosive soil deposition area and the atmospheric carbon pool, mitigating global warming [12]. The ERPs balance the ecosystem services through LUCs, including enhancing soil carbon sinks [13]. Changes in SOC are of particular concern because they can indicate the extent of the restoration of degraded soil systems [14]. It affects climate conditions by regulating greenhouse gas emissions [15]. However, there are few studies on optimizing ERPs of landscape vegetation in erosive soil deposition areas [6,14].
The main application of incorporating the carbon change of soil erosion into current climate models is a scenario analysis. A scenario analysis is an important method used to obtain socioecological driving forces and thus to better understand their potential future effects [16,17]. Future LUC patterns can be achieved by LUC modeling based on different scenarios (e.g., business-as-usual and environmental protection scenarios) [18]. As LUCs are one of the major driving force factors for soil conservation and SOC imports [19,20,21], the increase in soil carbon sequestration can be achieved by applying specific management plans, practices and measures. The understanding of, or insight into, the increase in soil carbon sequestration can be achieved by comparing the impact of LUCs on erosion-induced carbon sinks under different LUC scenarios [22,23]. Global climate change will increase the intensity of soil erosion caused by both rising temperatures and excessive rainfall [24,25]. Precipitation plays an important role in soil carbon sinks [26]. There are a few studies that have predicted erosion rates and the carbon stock by modeling changes in global water erosion using the three alternative (RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) Shared Socioeconomic Pathway and Representative Concentration Pathway (SSP-RCP) scenarios [27]. Climate change or LUCs are often considered to be single factors, which is difficult for decision-makers to obtain land use planning to deal with climate change [28,29,30]. There is a lack of knowledge to understand the link between increased soil carbon sequestration and climate change based on a reduction in soil erosion and an increase in erosion-induced carbon sinks under different LUCs in ERPs [31]. Understanding the magnitude and rate of change of carbon exchange processes between erosive soil deposits and the atmosphere is very important for improving model-based predictions of carbon sinks.
As mentioned above, the underlying assumption is that ecological restoration programs have the potential to increase erosion-induced carbon sinks in response to future climate change. To fill this knowledge gap, we chose the red soil hilly region (RSHR) of southern China as the study area. The three LUC patterns were designed and simulated using a Future Land Use Simulation Model (FLUS) and the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios were scaled down. These scenario outputs were used as the input parameters to simulate soil erosion and erosion-induced carbon sinks at the depositional sites. The future optimization of soil erosion and erosion-induced carbon sinks in croplands, forestlands and grasslands under two climate scenarios based on three LUC patterns under ERPs was discussed. The results substantially expand the understanding of the role of climate change and land use as drivers of erosion-induced carbon sinks at the depositional sites in the RSHR.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The RSHR is located in southern China (107°49′25″–123° E, 21°22′–31°19′ N) and has a total land area of 796,000 km2 (Figure 1). This region has a subtropical humid monsoon climate with an average annual precipitation of about 1500 mm. The landform is dominated by mountains [32]. Anthropogenic pressure combined with heavy precipitation events and mountain landscapes have resulted in severe soil erosion and related ecological problems [33,34]. Therefore, a larger number of ERPs (e.g., the Green for Grain and Natural Forest Protection projects) have been implemented in this area [35]. Due to the implementation of ERPs, land use and land cover have changed dramatically in the last 30 years, affecting the ecological system services (e.g., carbon sequestration) of the RSHR.

2.2. Model LUC Patterns

The land use pattern has been interpreted in our previous research [35,36]. The land use classification, including forestland, grassland, cropland, construction land, unused land and water area, has an accuracy of over 85%. In order to simulate different LUC patterns in the RSHR from 2030 to 2060, three scenarios (Ecological Restoration (ER), Business−As−Usual (BAU) and No LUC) were proposed in this study based on the rate of land use change from 1985–2015. For the ER pattern, the forestland and grassland were set to increase insignificantly and the cropland was set to decrease insignificantly based on the pattern from 1985 to 2000. For the BAU pattern, the forestland and grassland were set to increase significantly and the cropland was set to decrease significantly based on the pattern from 2000 to 2015. The land use types of 2015 were used in the No LUC pattern. The LUC patterns from 1985 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2015 were analyzed using a Future Land Use Simulation Model (FLUS) in our previous research [36]. See the “Material and Methods” part of [35,36] for further details. The data source of this study can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

2.3. Shared Socioeconomic Pathway and Representative Concentration Pathway Scenarios

The Fifth IPCC Assessment Report in 2014 assesses projections for the 21st century from the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway and Representative Concentration Pathway (SSP−RCP) scenarios of a new climate model [37]. The SSP−RCP scheme is a spatial–temporal dependent trajectory of greenhouse gases and pollutant concentrations caused by human activities, including LUCs. The SSP−RCP scheme considers different levels of emissions, including SSP2−RCP4.5 and SSP5−RCP8.5.
The SSP2−RCP4.5 scenario can be thought of as a “middle way” scenario where the historical pattern of development remains unchanged throughout the 21st century. It assumes that the radiative forcing is stable at 4.5 W m−2 and does not exceed this value until 2100. An important feature is the initial loss of forests of about 43 million hectares from 2000 to 2050 followed by an increase of about 331 million hectares between 2050 and 2100.
The SSP5−RCP8.5 scenario is referred to as “fossil fuel development”. According to the SSP5−RCP8.5 scenario, the global cropland area will significantly expand between 2010 and 2100 (300 million ha, equivalent to about 20%, mainly for grazing and forests, in response to a strong growth in demand for food and feed).

2.4. Statistical Downscaling of the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 Scenarios

Predictions of climate change are usually based on global scales, usually operating at a 150–300 km resolution [38], which means that predictions on a global scale do not reliably fit the predictions of local regions. The Statistical Downscaling Method (SDSM) was used to generate precipitation outputs at regional spatial scales, incorporating a weather generator and multiple linear regressions [39]. Based on the ArcGIS platform, this paper established the correlation between the historical rainfall data from 1990 to 2009 and the historical rainfall data simulated by CanESM 5.0 in the RSHR combined with the future rainfall data simulated by CanESM 5.0 in 2030 and 2060. The rainfall data for 2030 and 2060 were obtained by statistical downscaling.

2.5. Scenario Simulation of Soil Erosion

The rainfall data, soil attribute data, slope length data, biological measurement data, engineering measurement data and tillage measurement data were used to simulate soil erosion in the RSHR [33]. The rainfall data included historical rainfall data and future rainfall data. Historical daily rainfall was observed in 1990–2009 from 50 selected meteorological sites in the RSHR as well as the daily rainfall data from CanESM 5.0. All were converted into monthly rainfall data. The future rainfall data included the monthly mean rainfall data for 2030 and 2060 in CanESM 5.0.
The Chinese Soil Loss Equation (CSLE) was used to quantify the soil erosion. Containing five parameters, the equation can be expressed as follows [40]:
M = R × K × LS × B × E × T
where M is the annual soil loss per unit area, R is the rainfall erosivity, K is the soil erodibility, LS is the slope length steepness, B is the biological measurement factor, E is the engineering measurement factor and T is the tillage practice factor.
In the simulation of soil erosion under future climate scenarios, the R value was calculated based on downscaling the rainfall data. The soil erosion modulus in 2030 and 2060 was obtained according to the CSLE. The other five factors all chose the calculation results of 2015.

2.6. Erosion−Induced CO2 Flux Equation

As shown in Figure 2, the simplified slope of the red soil hilly region was characterized by tree planting at the top, grass planting at the waist and cropland at the bottom. The bottom of the slope was the deposition region of erosion, which was the area of agglomeration and carbon fixation in the reformation of the organic–inorganic complex and the deep burial of the carbon deposition in the sediment deposition areas such as the alluvial plain, reservoir and seabed, leading to the accumulation of SOC [4]. Estimates of the dynamic replacement of the SOC input from the erosional area to the deposition area (D1) were determined based on the erosion rate, NPP (net primary production), soil carbon content and carbon pool turnover rate. The three fluxes were calculated and their values were added up for each grid; the total flux at the regional scale was obtained by a summation over all grids. The erosion−induced CO2 flux at the depositional area (D2) was estimated as the CO2 emission from the newly buried carbon−rich topsoil. The erosion−induced CO2 flux during sediment transport (D3) was determined to be the difference between the CO2 emissions before and after erosion [7].
Instead of choosing the first year since erosion as the beginning of the simulation period, the N−th year after erosion was selected as the start point. We assumed that the erosion did not exert any impact on the original CO2 exchange process. The soil carbon composition/decomposition and lateral movement of the organic carbon were simulated as two independent processes with the modeled carbon storage being C unc (gC m−2). The coupled carbon storage ( C coup , gC m−2) was then modeled, including the impact of erosion on the CO2 sequestration. The difference in carbon storage under the two circumstances was regarded as the erosion−induced CO2 flux in the erosional area, D1 (gC y−1). The parameters C unc , C coup and D1 were obtained, respectively, from:
D 1 = C coup     C unc T A ero
dC unc dt = I B     K 0 C unc
dC coup dt = I B     ( K 0 + K E ) C coup + C bel V ero
where C unc and C coup are the carbon contents within the corresponding layers in the original soil profile, I B (gC m−2 y−1) is the carbon input into the soil and K 0 (y) is the turnover rate of the soil carbon with respect to decomposition in the absence of erosion. K E (y) is the erosion rate of the soil carbon, obtained by calculating the ratio of the soil erosion rate (m y−1) to the depth of the carbon in the top soil layer, which dominates erosion. Both C unc and C coup are effectively carbon storage in the top layers, considering that there is no difference in the coupled and uncoupled carbon storage in the deeper layers. These levels are seldom affected by soil erosion and provide no contribution to the erosion−induced CO2 sink from the deeper layers.
C bel / C 0 = C min / C 0 + ( 1     C min / C 0 ) e kV ero
k = ln ( ( 0.01 C 0     C min ) / 0.99 C 0 )
where C 0 (g m−3), C min (g m−3) and k (1 m−1) can be determined from the measurements of the carbon concentration in the different layers of the vertical soil profiles. C 0 is averaged over the whole top layer (and is, therefore, uniform within the top layer and equal to C bel when t = 0). C min / C 0 is set to 0.01. The k (1 m−1) is attenuation coefficient of the SOC profile.
As the eroded soil is deposited, newly buried carbon−rich soil releases CO2 into the atmosphere [4]. The CO2 flux caused by newly buried SOC mineralization in the sedimentary area is expressed as D2 (gC y−1).
D 2 = C SOC - surf V ¯ ero K 0 - subsurf ( 1 SDR )
where V ¯ ero is the mean erosion rate of the grid, K O - subsurf is the turnover rate of the subsoil layer and SDR is a conceptual parameter defined as the ratio of the total sediment exported out of the grid to the total eroded soil within the grid. The turnover rate exponentially decreases with the depth:
K 0 - Z = K 0 exp ( u r , z )
where u r is set to 2.6 and the decomposition rate of the newly buried SOC is 40–60% of the top layer, noting that z is usually within the range of 0.2–0.3 m.
We evaluated the erosion−induced CO2 flux during sediment transport (D3) by assuming that 63% more SOC was degraded into CO2 in water than in the soil layers [1]. Table 1 shows the values of each parameter in the erosive soil deposition area of the red soil hilly region.
The carbon density of cropland, forestland and grassland was obtained from previous studies and the SOC stock was previously verified [42,43]. In this study, the carbon sinks of the ERPs were estimated using the carbon density data. See Supplementary Materials for the data details.

3. Results

3.1. Scenario Analysis of LUC Patterns

The area and area proportion of different land use are shown in Table 2 for the three LUC patterns. In the RSHR, the proportion of forestland was greater than 50% and the least land use types were the water area and unused land. From 2030 to 2060, the area of cropland in the ER pattern decreased from 16.39% to 10.82%. The area proportion of forestland increased from 65.75% to 66.36% and the area proportion of grassland increased from 7.98% to 9.59%. During the 30 years, the area of cropland decreased by 44,309 km2 and the areas of forestland and grassland increased by 4815 km2 and 12,814 km2, respectively. The area proportion of forestland, cropland and grassland in the BAU pattern in 2030 was 60.58%, 14.53% and 8.18%, respectively. The area of forestland and cropland decreased by 1.48% and 5.43%, respectively, whereas the area of grassland increased by 0.38% from 2030 to 2060.

3.2. Scenario Analysis of Soil Erosion

The performances of the scenario simulations under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios were R2 = 0.745 and R2 = 0.798, respectively (Figure 3). According to the relationship between the simulated precipitation and the observed precipitation under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios combined with the simulated precipitation in 2030 and 2060 by the SDSM, the precipitation in 2030 and 2060 was obtained.
In 2030, the soil erosion of the cropland, forestland and grassland in the No LUC pattern was 240 t km−2, 193 t km2 and 370 t km2 under the RCP4.5 climate scenario and 261 t km2, 229 t km2 and 434 t km2 under the RCP8.5 climate scenario, respectively. In 2060, the soil erosion of the cropland, forestland and grassland in the No LUC pattern under the RCP4.5 climate scenario was 274 t km2, 221 t km2 and 421 t km2, respectively; that of the RCP8.5 climate scenario was 211 t km2, 184 t km2 and 347 t km2 (Figure 4a,c). From 2030 to 2060, in the No LUC pattern, the soil erosion of the cropland, forestland and grassland in the RCP4.5 scenario showed an increasing trend. In the RCP8.5 scenario, the intensity of erosion showed a decreasing trend. The effect of LUCs on soil erosion in the BAU/ER patterns could be obtained by differentiating the soil erosion in the BAU/ER patterns from the No LUC pattern (Figure 4b,d). The LUCs of the BAU pattern reduced the soil erosion of the cropland and grassland, but increased the soil erosion of the forestland. Under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, the soil loss of the cropland and grassland decreased whereas the forestland increased. The LUCs of the ER pattern reduced the soil erosion of the forestland and grassland, but increased the soil erosion of the cropland. The soil loss of the forestland decreased under the RCP4.5 scenario. Under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, the soil loss of the grassland decreased whereas the soil loss of the cropland increased.

3.3. Climate Change Scenario Analysis of Carbon Sinks Induced by Soil Erosion

In 2030, the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the cropland, forestland and grassland in the No LUC pattern under the RCP8.5 scenario were 48 kg km2, 106 kg km2 and 213 kg km2 higher than that under the RCP4.5 scenario, respectively. In 2060, the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the cropland, forestland and grassland under the RCP4.5 scenario were higher at 242 kg km2, 155 kg km2 and 498 kg km2, respectively. From 2030 to 2060, the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the cropland, forestland and grassland showed an increasing trend under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, but the rate of increase under RCP8.5 was smaller than that under the RCP4.5 scenario (Figure 5a,c).
From 2030 to 2060, the land types in the BAU pattern, ER pattern and No LUC pattern all showed a trend of increase in erosion−induced carbon sinks under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 climate scenarios. In the No LUC pattern, the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the cropland, forestland and grassland in the RCP4.5 scenario increased by 402 kg km2, 121 kg km2 and 1435 kg km2, respectively. Under RCP8.5, the erosion−induced carbon sinks increased by 111 kg km2, 121 kg km2 and 724 kg km2, respectively (Figure 5b,d). In the BAU pattern, the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the cropland and grassland decreased under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios whereas the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the forestland increased. Under the RCP4.5 scenario, the cropland and grassland in the BAU pattern reduced the erosion−induced carbon sinks by 78 kg km2 and 138 kg km2 and 77 kg km2 and 157 kg km2 under the RCP8.5 scenario, respectively. Under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, the increased erosion−induced soil erosion carbon sink of the forestland in the BAU pattern was 39 kg km2 and 58 kg km2, respectively. In the ER pattern, the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the forestland and grassland decreased under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios whereas the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the cropland increased. The forestland in the ER pattern reduced the erosion−induced carbon sinks by 20 kg km2 and 78 kg km2 under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, respectively, and the grassland reduced the erosion−induced carbon sinks by 78 kg km2 under the RCP8.5 scenario. In the ER pattern, the erosion−induced carbon sinks increased by 39 kg km2 under both the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of ERPs on Carbon Sinks Caused by Soil Erosion

Since the 1980s, 14 ERPs have been implemented in the RSHR to prevent and control soil erosion by land cover. These were selected for the present study; detailed information can be found in Supplementary Materials Data. The characteristics of the implementation of the ERPs included a large−scale financial investment by the government and the large−scale mobilization of the public to participate in labor as well as the maintenance and supervision of ecological protection as social norms. It mainly relies on long−term government funding and planning for programs to address soil degradation and poverty [44]. The ERPs are based on local realities such as soil loss caused by slope croplands and Karst landforms. In addition, the selection of measures in the ERPs is based on rigorous scientific experiments. For example, on the slope croplands, a slope larger than 25° should be reclaimed into terraced fields for cultivation [45] The implementation of ERPs emphasizes the diversity of the vegetation cover, which can increase the SOC storage by increasing the carbon input (especially the underground carbon input), increasing the diversity of the soil microbial community and inhibiting carbon loss during decomposition [5]. Moreover, the implementation cycle of ERPs adopts a pilot and a phased implementation to reduce the abortion of the program. With the coordinated support of local, provincial and central governments, the ongoing program monitoring and evaluation provides the basis for the next stage of program planning and implementation.
In terms of implementation measures, ERPs are mostly based on specific land types (mainly croplands and forestlands) to solve the ecological problems encountered in agricultural production. They have the characteristics of a single restoration target, an emphasis on resource utilization, greater human intervention in the projects and a high restoration cost. In future planning, ERPs can emphasize a systematic ecological restoration based on nature to minimize human interference in the natural ecosystem [46]. In the future, key factors affecting soil erosion and erosion−induced carbon sinks need to be identified and interventions that enhance positive effects should be identified. It is necessary to emphasize the protection and cultivation of forestland in situ and support the development of a fast−growing forest industry. Improvements should be made to cropland infrastructures and a focus placed on improving the quality of arable land (e.g., reducing soil loss, repairing acidified soil and increasing the SOC input).

4.2. Future of the Implementation of ERPs to Meet Global Climate Change

In the No LUC pattern, the soil erosion of different land use types under the RCP4.5 scenario showed an increasing trend whereas that under the RCP8.5 scenario showed a decreasing trend. The erosion intensity of the forestland increased in the BAU and ER patterns, indicating that the change of forestland cover caused by a mild or high ecological restoration had a negative effect on the erosion control for the forestland. The forestland in the ER pattern had the smallest increase in soil erosion under the RCP8.5 climate scenario, which was 0 (Figure 6). The soil erosion of the cropland in the BAU pattern decreased whereas that of the cropland in the ER pattern increased, indicating that a mild ecological restoration could reduce the soil erosion in the cropland. The cropland in the BAU pattern had the largest reduction in soil erosion under the RCP8.5 climate scenario, reaching 28 t km−2. The decrease in soil erosion of the grassland in the BAU and ER patterns indicated that the change of grassland cover caused by a mild or high ecological restoration had a positive effect on controlling the soil erosion. The grassland in the ER pattern had the largest reduction in soil erosion under the RCP8.5 climate scenario, reaching 14 t km2. It appeared that increasing the vegetation cover did not always help to reduce soil erosion.
In the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, the erosion−induced carbon sinks increased by 210 Tg and 85 Tg between 2030 and 2060, respectively. The annual average carbon sink accounted for 3.84% and 1.41% of the annual average carbon sequestration of terrestrial ecosystems, respectively [43]. In the No LUC pattern, the erosion−induced carbon sinks under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 climate scenarios presented an increasing trend and the carbon sink under the RCP4.5 scenario additionally increased. The increased degree of the BAU and ER patterns in the RCP8.5 scenario was greater than that in the RCP4.5 scenario, indicating that LUCs driven by ecological restoration had a positive effect on the increase in erosion−induced carbon sinks. Specifically, the forestland in the BAU pattern increased the erosion−induced carbon sinks by 58 kg in the RCP8.5 scenario; the cropland in the ER pattern increased the carbon sink by 39 kg under both the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. In the BAU and ER patterns, the erosion−induced carbon sinks reduced. In the ER pattern, the grassland under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios had a minimum reduction of 78 kg. According to our analysis, neither the BAU nor the ER pattern achieved the goal of increasing the erosion−induced carbon sinks of the grassland. The SOC of the grassland was higher than that of the cropland and forestland, which should be considered as a priority in optimizing ERPs in the future.
In order to achieve a maximum control of soil loss and increase erosion−induced carbon sinks, it is necessary to select appropriate ecological restoration strategies based on iterative and adaptive management. The first step is to reduce man−made disturbances to the existing forestland landscape. Many previous studies have demonstrated that reducing human activity in cropland and forestland has restored soil productivity and nutrients, in particular enhancing SOC storage [47,48]. In addition to carbon sequestration, plantation and shrub forests can also provide other ecosystem services, which are feasible choices in the RSHR where water resources are less limited [49]. Tree species richness has an impact on ecosystem services and the erosion rate decreases with an increase in tree species richness [50]. The second step is that cropland protection measures are effective in the prevention and control of soil erosion, but ignore the protection of the ecological function of the cropland. Engineering measures such as building terraces and warping dams in croplands can improve soil carbon storage [51]. In view of the characteristics of continuous and heavy rainfall as well as soil cohesiveness in the RSHR, new ecological restoration measures should be developed in the cropland to control soil erosion based on soil carbon sequestration. In the third step, grassland had the highest carbon sequestration potential in the soil erosion deposition sites, but the proportion of the grassland cover area on the surface was the lowest. Similar studies on the vegetation cover of ecological restoration sites also found that the SOC storage of grasslands was higher than that of forestlands and croplands [51]. Compared with forestlands, the shrub vegetation biomass density is relatively small and soil carbon accounts for a larger proportion of vegetation biomass carbon [52]. Biological crusts are generated in the ecological restoration process of grasslands, which can protect loose particles of the soil epidermis and water erosion and improve soil quality and productivity [53]. Grass species can be cultivated to make them more suitable for the climate of the region. Ecological restoration measures that give priority to grassland cover can also be implemented when forestland cover is close to the ecological threshold.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, three LUC patterns were designed in two climate scenarios to analyze the potential impact of ERPs on erosion and erosion−induced carbon sinks in the RSHR from 2030 to 2060. It provides a blueprint for a long−term ecological restoration strategy that integrates future LUCs with climate change. Under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, the annual mean erosion−induced carbon sinks accounted for 3.84% and 1.41% of the annual mean carbon sink of terrestrial ecosystems during 2030–2060, respectively. The specific strategies were as follows: the forestland in the BAU pattern increased the carbon sink by 58 kg km−2 in the RCP8.5 scenario. The cropland in the ER pattern increased the carbon sink by 39 kg km−2. The minimum reduction in grassland in the ER pattern was 78 kg km−2. The potential of grassland to increase erosion−induced carbon sinks should be emphasized in future ERPs. We have provided new evidence for reducing soil erosion potentially related to the enactment of ERPs in the RSHR and have offered a theoretical and practical basis for maintaining the soil carbon sinks of cropland, forestland and grassland sustainability for a subtropical region.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/f13050785/s1. Supplementary data to this article can be found online ((1) Data source; (2) soil organic carbon density; (3) the main measures of ERPs for soil erosion prevention in the RSHR).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, software, investigation, writing—original draft, J.C.; validation, formal analysis, visualization, software, K.N.; validation, writing—review and editing, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, L.W.; resources, supervision, funding acquisition, Z.L.; validation, writing—review and editing, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U19A2047), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFC0505401) and the Doctoral Fund of Guizhou University (No. 2021042).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all who helped in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ERPs: ecological restoration programs; LUCs: land use changes; FLUS: Future Land Use Simulation Model; SSP−RCP: Shared Socioeconomic Pathway and Representative Concentration Pathway; ER: ecological restoration; BAU: business−as−usual; CSLE: Chinese Soil Loss Equation; SOC: soil organic carbon; RSHR: red soil hilly region.

References

  1. Yue, Y.; Ni, J.R.; Ciais, P.; Piao, S.L.; Wang, T.; Huang, M.; Borthwick, A.; Li, T.; Wang, Y.; Chappell, A.; et al. Lateral transport of soil carbon and land−atmosphere CO2 flux induced by water erosion in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 6617–6622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Lal, R. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ. Int. 2003, 29, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lugato, E.; Paustian, K.; Panagos, P.; Jones, A.; Borrelli, P. Quantifying the erosion effect on current carbon budget of European agricultural soils at high spatial resolution. Global Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 1976–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Xiao, H.B.; Li, Z.W.; Chang, X.F.; Huang, B.; Nie, X.D.; Liu, C.; Liu, L.; Wang, D.Y.; Jiang, J.Y. The mineralization and sequestration of organic carbon in relation to agricultural soil erosion. Geoderma 2018, 329, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, S.; Wang, W.; Xu, W.; Wang, Y.; Wan, H.; Chen, D.; Tang, Z.; Tang, X.; Zhou, G.; Xie, Z.; et al. Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4027–4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Tan, Z.; Leung, L.R.; Li, H.Y.; Tesfa, T.; Zhu, Q.; Huang, M. A substantial role of soil erosion in the land carbon sink and its future changes. Global Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 2642–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oost, K.V.; Quine, T.A.; Govers, G.; Gryze, S.D.; Six, J.; Harden, J.W. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on the global carbon cycle. Science 2007, 318, 626–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hassler, E.; Corre, M.D.; Tjoa, A.; Damris, M.; Utami, S.R.; Veldkamp, E. Soil fertility controls soil–atmosphere carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in a tropical landscape converted from lowland forest to rubber and oil palm plantations. Biogeosciences 2015, 12, 5831–5852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lawler, J.J.; Lewis, D.J.; Nelson, E.; Plantinga, A.J.; Polasky, S.; Withey, J.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Martinuzzi, S.; Pennington, D.; Radeloff, V.C. Projected land−use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 7492–7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Rimal, B.; Sharma, R.; Kunwar, R.; Keshtkar, H.; Stork, N.E.; Rijal, S.; Rahman, S.A.; Baral, H. Effects of land use and land cover change on ecosystem services in the Koshi River Basin, Eastern Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lal, R. Global potential of soil carbon sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse effect. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2003, 22, 151–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dawson, J.J.; Smith, P. Carbon losses from soil and its consequences for land−use management. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 382, 165–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Song, X.; Peng, C.; Zhou, G.; Jiang, H.; Wang, W. Chinese Grain for Green Program led to highly increased soil organic carbon levels: A meta−analysis. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Shi, J.; Cui, L. Soil carbon change and its affecting factors following afforestation in China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 98, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhao, Y.; Wang, M.; Hu, S.; Zhang, X.; Ouyang, Z.; Zhang, G.; Huang, B.; Zhao, S.; Wu, J.; Xie, D.; et al. Economics−and policy−driven organic carbon input enhancement dominates soil organic carbon accumulation in Chinese croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4045–4050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Asadolahi, Z.; Salmanmahiny, A.; Sakieh Mirkarimi, S.H.; Baral, H.; Azimi, M. Dynamic trade−off analysis of multiple ecosystem services under land use change scenarios: Towards putting ecosystem services into planning in Iran. Ecol. Complex. 2018, 36, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pan, H.; Page, J.; Zhang, L.; Cong, C.; Ferreira, C.; Jonsson, E.; Näsström, H.; Destouni, G.; Deal, B.; Kalantari, Z. Understanding interactions between urban development policies and GHG emissions: A case study in Stockholm Region. Ambio 2020, 49, 1313–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hasan, S.S.; Sarmin, N.S.; Miah, M.G. Assessment of scenario−based land use changes in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. 2020, 34, 100463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Debolini, M.; Schoorl, J.M.; Temme, A.; Galli, M.; Bonari, E. Changes in agricultural land use affecting future soil redistribution patterns: A case study in southern Tuscany (Italy). Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peng, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yang, Y. Mapping spatial non−stationarity of human−natural factors associated with agricultural landscape multifunctionality in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 246, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Albers, A.; Avadi, A.; Benoist, A.; Collet, P.; Hélias, A. Modelling dynamic soil organic carbon flows of annual and perennial energy crops to inform energy−transport policy scenarios in France. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 135278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Naipal, V.; Ciais, P.; Wang, Y.; Lauerwald, R.; Guenet, B.; Oost, K.V. Global soil organic carbon removal by water erosion under climate change and land use change during AD 1850–2005. Biogeosciences 2018, 15, 4459–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lal, R. Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Global Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 3285–3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Simonneaux, V.; Cheggour, A.; Deschamps, C.; Mouillot, F.; Cerdan, O.; Le Bissonnais, Y. Land use and climate change effects on soil erosion in a semi−arid mountainous watershed (High Atlas, Morocco). J. Arid Environ. 2015, 122, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Li, Z.; Fang, H. Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth−Sci. Rev. 2016, 163, 94–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Albaladejo, J.; Ortiz, R.; Garcia−Franco, N.; Navarro, A.R.; Almagro, M.; Pintado, J.G.; Martínez−Mena, M. Land use and climate change impacts on soil organic carbon stocks in semi−arid Spain. J. Soil. Sediment. 2013, 13, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Varney, R.M.; Chadburn, S.E.; Friedlingstein, P.; Burke, E.J.; Koven, C.D.; Hugelius, G.; Cox, P.M. A spatial emergent constraint on the sensitivity of soil carbon turnover to global warming. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wiebe, K.; Lotze−Campen, H.; Sands, R.; Tabeau, A.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Biewald, A.; Bodirsky, B.; Islam, S.; Kavallari, A.; Willenbockel, D. Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 085010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liao, W.; Liu, X.; Xu, X.; Chen, G.; Liang, X.; Zhang, H.; Li, X. Projections of land use changes under the plant functional type classification in different SSP−RCP scenarios in China. Sci. Bull. 2020, 65, 1935–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Su, B.; Huang, J.; Mondal, S.K.; Zhai, J.; Wang, Y.; Wen, S.; Gao, M.; Lv, Y.; Jiang, S.; Jiang, T.; et al. Insight from CMIP6 SSP−RCP scenarios for future drought characteristics in China. Atmos. Res. 2021, 250, 105375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qin, Z.; Deng, X.; Griscom, B.; Huang, Y.; Li, T.; Smith, P.; Yuam, W.; Zhang, W. Natural Climate Solutions for China: The Last Mile to Carbon Neutrality. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2021, 38, 889–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, J.; Xiao, H.B.; Li, Z.W.; Liu, C.; Ning, K.; Tang, C.J. How effective are soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) in reducing soil and water losses in the red soil hilly region of China? A meta−analysis of field plot data. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 735, 139517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Li, Z.W.; Ning, K.; Chen, J.; Liu, C.; Wang, D.Y.; Nie, X.D.; Hu, X.Q.; Wang, L.X.; Wang, T.W. Soil and water conservation effects driven by the implementation of ecological restoration projects: Evidence from the red soil hilly region of China in the last three decades. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fang, N.F.; Wang, L.; Shi, Z.H. Runoff and soil erosion of field plots in a subtropical mountainous region of China. J. Hydrol. 2017, 552, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hu, X.Q.; Li, Z.W.; Chen, J.; Nie, X.D.; Liu, J.Y.; Wang, L.W.; Ning, K. Carbon sequestration benefits of the grain for Green Program in the hilly red soil region of southern China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2021, 9, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ning, K.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.W.; Liu, C.; Nie, X.D.; Liu, Y.J.; Wang, L.X.; Hu, X.Q. Land use change induced by the implementation of ecological restoration Programs increases future terrestrial ecosystem carbon sequestration in red soil hilly region of China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van Vuuren, D.P.; Edmonds, J.; Kainuma, M.; Riahi, K.; Thomson, A.; Hibbard, K.; Rose, S.K. The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 5–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change; Synthesis Report; Working Papers id: 1325; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chen, H.; Xu, C.Y.; Guo, S. Comparison and evaluation of multiple GCMs, statistical downscaling and hydrological models in the study of climate change impacts on run−off. J. Hydrol. 2012, 434–435, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, B.Y.; Zhang, K.L.; Xie, Y. An Empirical Soil Loss Equation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Beijing, China, 26 May 2002; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China; Volume III, pp. 21–25. [Google Scholar]
  41. Liang, A.Z.; Zhang, X.P.; Yang, X.M.; Mclaughlin, N.B.; Shen, Y.; Li, W.F. Estimation of total erosion in cultivated Black soils in northeast China from vertical profiles of soil organic carbon. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2009, 60, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lu, F.; Hu, H.; Sun, W.; Zhu, J.; Liu, G.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, P.; Liu, X.; Wu, X.; et al. Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4039–4044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Lai, L.; Huang, X.; Yang, H.; Chuai, X.; Zhang, M.; Zhong, T.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Thompson, J.R. Carbon emissions from land−use change and management in China between 1990 and 2010. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1601063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Bryan, B.A.; Gao, L.; Ye, Y.; Sun, X.; Connor, J.D.; Crossman, N.D.; Stafford−Smith, M.; Wu, J.; He, C.; Yu, D.; et al. China’s response to a national land−system sustainability emergency. Nature 2018, 559, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Long, H.L.; Heilig, G.K.; Wang, J.; Li, X.B.; Luo, M.; Wu, X.Q.; Zhang, M. Land use and soil erosion in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: Some socio-economic considerations on China’s Grain−for−Green Program. Land Degrad. Dev. 2006, 17, 589–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cohen−Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnisd, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renaud, F.G.; et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature−based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 98, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zeng, Y.; Fang, N.; Shi, Z. Effects of human activities on soil organic carbon redistribution at an agricultural watershed scale on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 303, 107112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chaopricha, N.T.; Marín−Spiotta, E. Soil burial contributes to deep soil organic carbon storage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 69, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, H.; Yue, C.; Mao, Q.; Zhao, J.; Ciais, P.; Li, W.; Yu, Q.; Mu, X. Vegetation and species impacts on soil organic carbon sequestration following ecological restoration over the Loess Plateau, China. Geoderma 2020, 371, 114389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Song, Z.; Seitz, S.; Li, J.; Goebes, P.; Schmidt, K.; Kühn, P.; Schmidt, K.; Kühn, P.; Shi, X.; Scholten, T. Tree diversity reduced soil erosion by affecting tree canopy and biological soil crust development in a subtropical forest experiment. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2019, 444, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Huang, Y.; Xin, Z.; Hou, J.; Li, Z.; Yang, L.; Yuan, H.; Majid, A. Soil organic carbon stocks in an investigated watershed transect linked to ecological restoration practices on the Loess Plateau. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 1148–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tang, X.; Zhao, X.; Bai, Y.; Tang, Z.; Wang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Wan, H.; Xie, Z.; Shi, X.; Wu, B.; et al. Carbon pools in China’s terrestrial ecosystems: New estimates based on an intensive field survey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4021–4026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Castillo−Monroy, A.P.; Maestre, F.T.; Delgado−Baquerizo, M.; Gallardo, A. Biological soil crusts modulate nitrogen availability in semi−arid ecosystems: Insights from a Mediterranean grassland. Plant Soil 2010, 333, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location map of the RSHR in China (spatial distribution of the CO2 emissions (Mt) of China by province in 2015; data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/, accessed on 4 December 2015). The yellow circle represents the East Asian monsoon region. The blue arrows represent the Western Pacific subtropical high, Siberian high and Indian Ocean high. The red points represent the SOC density and its spatial location in the implementation area of the ERPs in the RSHR.
Figure 1. Location map of the RSHR in China (spatial distribution of the CO2 emissions (Mt) of China by province in 2015; data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/, accessed on 4 December 2015). The yellow circle represents the East Asian monsoon region. The blue arrows represent the Western Pacific subtropical high, Siberian high and Indian Ocean high. The red points represent the SOC density and its spatial location in the implementation area of the ERPs in the RSHR.
Forests 13 00785 g001
Figure 2. Carbon fluxes between erosive soil deposits of cropland, forestland, grassland and atmosphere in a red soil hilly region.
Figure 2. Carbon fluxes between erosive soil deposits of cropland, forestland, grassland and atmosphere in a red soil hilly region.
Forests 13 00785 g002
Figure 3. Comparison between the observed and simulated National Center for Atmospheric Prediction (NCEP) monthly mean precipitation for the validation period (1985–2000) at 50 weather stations.
Figure 3. Comparison between the observed and simulated National Center for Atmospheric Prediction (NCEP) monthly mean precipitation for the validation period (1985–2000) at 50 weather stations.
Forests 13 00785 g003
Figure 4. Soil erosion modulus in three LUC patterns. (CL represents cropland, FL represents forestland and GL represents grassland.) ((a) Soil erosion modulus of BAU model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; (b) soil erosion modulus change of BAU model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; (c) soil erosion modulus of ERP model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; (d) soil erosion modulus change of ERP model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios).
Figure 4. Soil erosion modulus in three LUC patterns. (CL represents cropland, FL represents forestland and GL represents grassland.) ((a) Soil erosion modulus of BAU model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; (b) soil erosion modulus change of BAU model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; (c) soil erosion modulus of ERP model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios; (d) soil erosion modulus change of ERP model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios).
Forests 13 00785 g004
Figure 5. Erosion−induced carbon sinks in two climate change scenarios. ((a) Soil carbon sequestration under the SSP2-RCP4.5 scenario by BAU and ERP models; (b) carbon sinks in the eroded sedimentary area by BAU and ERP models under the SSP2-RCP4.5 scenario; (c) Soil carbon sequestration under the SSP5-RCP8.5 scenario by BAU and ERP models; (d) carbon sinks in the eroded sedimentary area by BAU and ERP models under the SSP5-RCP8.5 scenario).
Figure 5. Erosion−induced carbon sinks in two climate change scenarios. ((a) Soil carbon sequestration under the SSP2-RCP4.5 scenario by BAU and ERP models; (b) carbon sinks in the eroded sedimentary area by BAU and ERP models under the SSP2-RCP4.5 scenario; (c) Soil carbon sequestration under the SSP5-RCP8.5 scenario by BAU and ERP models; (d) carbon sinks in the eroded sedimentary area by BAU and ERP models under the SSP5-RCP8.5 scenario).
Forests 13 00785 g005
Figure 6. Comparative results of multiple approaches to reducing soil erosion and increasing erosion−induced carbon sinks.
Figure 6. Comparative results of multiple approaches to reducing soil erosion and increasing erosion−induced carbon sinks.
Forests 13 00785 g006
Table 1. Summary of parameters used in equations for calculating the carbon flux.
Table 1. Summary of parameters used in equations for calculating the carbon flux.
ParameterCarbon FluxUnitDescriptionEquationData Source
AeroD1m2Erosion area(2)The area of slight, light, moderate, intense, very intense and severe soil erosion in cultivated land, forestland and grassland under two land use patterns (BAU and ERP) in 2030 and 2060.
TD1yTime period(2)The value was set to 1.
IBD1gC m−2 y−1Carbon input to the soil(3), (4)The value was set to 357 [1].
K0D1y−1Turnover rate of soil carbon with respect to decomposition in the absence of erosion(3), (4)The value was set to 0.027 [1].
KED1y−1Erosion rate of soil carbon obtained by calculating the ratio of the soil erosion rate to the depth of carbon in the top soil layer, which dominates erosion(4)The value was set to Vero/0.2 [1].
VeroD1, D2m y−1Erosion rate(4), (5), (7)Vero of soil erosion in red soil was 0.16, 1.21, 2.64, 4.91, 8.50 and 13.85, respectively, according to the ratio between the median soil erosion modulus and soil bulk density (1.35) under different water erosion intensities measured by Liang [41]. Vero of cultivated land, forestland and grassland was calculated by weighing the area of soil erosion of different degrees in the three types of land.
Cmin/CSOC-surfD1/Ratio of organic carbon content in the top layer to that in the bottom layer(5)The value was set to 0.01 [1].
CSOC-surfD2kg m−3Soil organic carbon content in the top 4.5 cm soil layer(7)The SOC of the surface soil layer of cultivated land, forestland and grassland were 9.88, 10.67 and 13.03, respectively [42].
SDRD2 Ratio of the total sediment exported out to the total eroded soil within the grid(7)The SDR of slight, light, moderate, intense, very intense and severe soil erosion in red soil were 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 0.95, respectively. The SDR of cultivated land, forestland and grassland was calculated by weighing the areas of soil erosion of different degrees in the three land types.
K0-subsoilD2 y−1K0 value in the subsoil layer(7)Taking 0.2 m as the subsoil depth, the value was 0.016.
Table 2. Comparison of land use type areas under three LUC patterns.
Table 2. Comparison of land use type areas under three LUC patterns.
PatternTimeCroplandForestlandGrasslandWater AreaConstruction LandUnused Land
km2%km2%km2%km2%km2%km2%
BAU2030115,59714.53 482,06560.58 65,0788.18 39,5084.9691,79711.5416910.21
2060103,79913.04 438,89255.16 68,0858.56 50,8996.40132,14616.6119150.24
ER2030130,38416.39 523,20365.75 63,4707.98 19,6762.4757,4747.2215370.19
206086,07510.82 528,01866.36 76,2849.59 19,6762.4783,95710.5517340.22
No LUC2015185,53823.32 514,65664.68 50,9486.40 19,7002.4824,9733.149110.11
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, J.; Ning, K.; Li, Z.; Liu, C.; Wang, L.; Luo, Y. The Potential of Ecological Restoration Programs to Increase Erosion-Induced Carbon Sinks in Response to Future Climate Change. Forests 2022, 13, 785. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13050785

AMA Style

Chen J, Ning K, Li Z, Liu C, Wang L, Luo Y. The Potential of Ecological Restoration Programs to Increase Erosion-Induced Carbon Sinks in Response to Future Climate Change. Forests. 2022; 13(5):785. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13050785

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Jia, Ke Ning, Zhongwu Li, Cheng Liu, Lingxia Wang, and Yaxue Luo. 2022. "The Potential of Ecological Restoration Programs to Increase Erosion-Induced Carbon Sinks in Response to Future Climate Change" Forests 13, no. 5: 785. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f13050785

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop