Activity 1.6. Grasslands & Wetlands

Site representativity

Outline

• Biome and site distribution in Europe

• Grassland types and management

• Carbon balance vs. type and management

• Site management

• Conclusions

• Biome and site distribution in Europe

• Grassland types and management

• Carbon balance vs. type and management

• Site management

• Conclusions

Biogeographical zones and grassland cover (PELCOM)

a) Biogeographical regions of Europe, based on European Environment Agency data. (b) Grassland area (ha) within each 0.5 degree pixel, obtained from the PELCOM database.

Permanent grasslands are found in very different biogeographical zones (not a climax vegetation) e.g. Alpine, Atlantic, Continental, Mediterranean

28sites

Main Grass.

Main Wet.

Anc. Grass.

Anc. Wet.

3 Main Wet.

5 Anc. Wet.

12 Main Grass.

7 Anc. Grass.

Main Grass.

Anc. Grass.

Relevant coverage ofWestern Europe

Lack of Nordic and Eastern European sites

Location of sites in European climate space

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

5 10 15 20 25 30

R ange m ean m on th lytem pera ture (ºC )

Av

era

ge

te

mp

era

ture

(ºC

)

E u ropean c lim ate

G R E E N G R A S Ssites

-

-

-

-

Continentality is an important factor for the

duration of the growing season in grasslands

• Biome and site distribution in Europe

• Grassland types and management• Carbon balance vs. type and

management• Site management• Conclusions

Grasslands and forage crops types in France

Roots (eg sugar beet)Annual grass LucerneSown grass or grass-legumePermanent grassland (>5 yrs)

Sown vs. permanent grasslands

Grassland management(N fertilisation)

Data needs• Geo-referenced

data on current land use and agricultural management

• Geo-referenced data of soil C stocks for grasslands

Grassland management(Cuts per year)

Data needs• Geo-referenced data

on current land use and agricultural management

• Geo-referenced data of soil C stocks for grasslands

Definition of the ELPEN livestock systems (3)< 150 grazing days outside UAA / LU_GL

< 5 LU grazing livestock per ha UAA>= 55% grass in UAA < 55% grass

in UAA

>= 150grazing

daysoutsideUAA /LU_GL

>= 5 LUgrazing

livestock perha UAA < 40% temporary grass

in total grass>= 40% temporary grass

in total grassOff-farmgrazingsystems

Off-farmproduced

foddersystems

Permanent grasssystems

Grasslandsystems

Arablesystems

Share of farms4,2 3,6 46,8 12,5 33,0

Share of GL LU2,5 3,5 50,5 12,5 31,0

Share of UAA1,7 0,4 54,3 11,3 32,4

Source: FADN-CCE-DG Agriculture/A-3; adaptation LEI.

Borris farm (64.5 ha)

Fallow6%

Crops (w heat, barley,

maize…)57%

Rotational Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

26%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

11%

Odum farm (93.7 ha)

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

9%

Rotational Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

15% Crops (w heat, barley,

maize…)69%

Fallow7%

Mirecourt farm (100 ha)

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Grazed only

14%

Fallow3%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Grazed & Cut

26%

Crops (w heat and maize for

silage)21%

Semi-improved

grasslands - Grazed only

9%

Semi-improved

grasslands - Cut & Grazed

27%

Morbihan farm (56.5 ha)

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

20%

Rotational Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

11%

Crop (tricical)11%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Grazed only

39%

Semi-improved

grassland - Grazed only

16%

Semi-improved

grassland - Cut & Grazed

3%

Kiskunsag farm (1144 ha)

Unimproved & rough

grasslands - Grazed only

100%

Flevoland farm (1144 ha)

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

77%

Crop (maize grain)23%

Malga Arpaco farm (122 ha)

Unimproved & rough

grasslands - Grazed only

100%

Longhill farm (203 ha)

Crops (w inter w heat)

10%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut and Grazed

57%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Grazed only

33%

Überstorf farm (22.3 ha)

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Grazed only

25%

Semi-improved

grassland - Cut & Grazed

5%

Unimproved grassland -

Cut & Grazed3%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut & Grazed

2%

Crop (tricical)28%

Rotational Intensive

grassland - Cut only

23%

Permanent Intensive

grassland - Cut only

15%

Cropland

Unimproved& rough

grasslands

Intensivegrasslands

Fallow

Semi-intensive

grasslands

• Biome and site distribution in Europe

• Grassland types and management

• Carbon balance vs. type and management

• Site management

• Conclusions

Components of the grassland carbon budget

GPP

NPP

NEP

NBP

Photosynthesis Autotrophicrespiration

Heterotrophicrespiration

Cuts Manure

GPP

NPP

NEP

NBP

Photosynthesis Autotrophicrespiration

Heterotrophicrespiration

Cuts Manure

NEE: Net Ecosystem Exchange, Atmospheric C balanceNBP: Net Biome Productivity, Soil C balance

1560

1405

Intake295

188

2

11

94

1217

CH4RaniRplant

+Rsol

GPP

Reco

LWincrease

Faeces

Carbon fluxes in a continuously grazed site (g C m-2 yr-1)Intensive management – FR Laqueuille

1408

1345

Intake126

92

1.3

5

27

1119

CH4RaniRplant

+Rsol

GPP

Reco

LWincrease

Faeces

Carbon fluxes in a continuously grazed site (g C m-2 yr-1)Extensive management FR-Laqueuille

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

net CO2 gasexchange harvest

slurryapplication C budget

equi

vale

nt G

HG

exc

hang

e [t

CO

2-C

/ha/

y]

INT EXT

INT EXT

INT

INT EXT

Carbon fluxes in a cut grassland (CH-Oensingen)Carbon fluxes in a cut grassland (CH-Oensingen)

C/t

CO2

harvestmanure

NBP is less than NEE in cut but not in grazed only sites

Grazed only siteswith no C input

Net Ecosystem Exchange of different grassland types in

Europe

low

land

inte

nsiv

e

low

land

ext

ensi

ve

high

land

inte

nsiv

e

high

land

ext

ensi

ve

high

land

nat

ural

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1N

et e

cosy

stem

CO

2 ex

chan

ge (

t CO

2-C

ha-1

y-1

)

Carbon loss

Carbon gain

(Synthesis based on GreenGrass and CarboMont results)

Int. Ext.Lowland

Int. Ext. Natural Highland

Mean annual greenhouse gas (GHG) balance in CO2-C equivalents of grassland sites (±

s.d.)

Management effects(GreenGrass sites)

• Biome and site distribution in Europe

• Grassland types and management• Carbon balance vs. type and

management• Site management• Conclusions

Laqueuille

Tojal

Alinya

Dripsey

Easter Bush

Amplero

Oensingen

Monte Bondone

Bugac

Chyrzyno

Grillenburg

Rimi

Kaamanen

Cabauw

Horstemeer

15main sites

Grassland

Wetland

Land tenure, management and soil

Site Land tenure Type Utilization SoilN

supplyRimi Private Sown Cut Sandy-loam Yes

Kaamanen ? Mire No ? NoLaqueuille Experiment Semi-natural Grazed Andosol NoLaqueuille Experiment Semi-natural Grazed Andosol HighGrillenburg Private Semi-natural Mixed Pseudo-gley

Bugac Protected Semi-natural Grazed/Not Chernozem NoDripsey Private Mixed Mixed YesAmplero Private Semi-natural Mixed Clay No

Monte Bondone Protected Semi-natural Mixed Loamy NoCabaw Private Intensive Grazed Gley/peat Yes

Horstemeer Protected Wetland No Gley/Peat NoChyrzyno Wetland No

Monte do Tojal Private Semi-natural Grazed Quartz diorite NoVall d'Alinya Private Semi-natural Grazed Limestone NoOensingen Experiment Sown Cut Cambisol NoOensingen Experiment Sown Cut Cambisol Yes

Easter Bush Contract Intensive Mixed Loamy Yes

Grassland types: 8 semi-natural, 2 intensive permanent, 2 sown.

Sites vs. scientific questions

Management Paired plots Grazing only Mixed Soil data Vegetation dataValidation of models Known + + +Interannual fluctuations Constant + +Water vs. CO2 fluxes Known + +Net C storage (NBP) Known + + +Disturbance effects Constant + - + +Process understanding Known + + +

Private land? Non flux data are essentialContracts with farmers?Obligation to recordthe management

Representativeness: C storage potential (tC ha-1)No N fertilizationOptimal N fertilization

Higher C storage potential in areas of more intensive agricultural use

On average, equilibrium C stocks are increased by 20 % with N fertilization

Conclusions (1/2)• Wetlands: experts needed

• Grasslands:

– climate space plot adapted for grassland biome

– soil space plot (texture)

– improved map vs. grassland cover (include grass

ley systems)

– grassland type map (?)

– no short term possibility to generate

management maps

– Check with P. Smith for soil C map of grasslands

in EU

Conclusions (2/2)• The site network lacks Nordic and Eastern Europe sites. In Western Europe it

may be biased towards the more extensive semi-natural grasslands.

• Not all sites seem to be able to record accurately the grassland management.

• Two main grassland sites only can fully control the management (a few more

in the ancillary sites). However, the impact of management is far less in the

very extensive sites.

• Grasslands in the more favourable climate conditions have greater C storage

potential. They are also more intensively managed which maximizes the sink

activity. At high altitude/latitude both the climate and management

conditions are likely to reduce the atmospheric sink activity.

• In the cut grasslands, at least half of the sink measured by the masts

disappears in the farm buildings and does not contribute to the regional

atmospheric sink. NBP calculation is needed.