Natural Carbon Sinks Linked to Pastoral Activity in S Spain: A Territorial Evaluation Methodology for Mediterranean Goat Grazing Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Methodological Approach
2.2. Development of C Sink Databases
2.3. In Situ Farm Assessment and Tool Testing
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Methodological Advances in Estimating the C Sink Capacity of Pastoral Livestock and Its Incorporation into the Calculation of the CF
4.2. Recognition and Valorization of the C Sink Capacity as Ecosystem Service of Pastoral Livestock
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Revision of World Population Prospects Twenty-Sixth Round; Department of Economic and Social Affair: New York, NY, USA, 2019. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 10 April 2021).
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050; The 2012 Revision; Global Perspective Studies Team; ESA Working Paper No. 12-03; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bruinsma, J. World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030—An FAO perspective. Earthscan, London and FAO, Rome. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/esag/docs/y4252e.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2021).
- Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition: What Roles for Livestock? A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Committee on World Food Security: Rome, Italy, 2016. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/mq860e/mq860e.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2021).
- Garnett, T.; Godde, C.; Muller, A.; Röös, E.; Smith, P.; de Boer, I.J.M.; zu Ermgassen, E.; Herrero, M.; van Middelaar, C.; Schader, C.; et al. Grazed and Confused? Ruminating on Cattle, Grazing Systems, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, the Soil Carbon Sequestration Question—and What It All Means for Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Zervas, G.; Tsiplakou, E. An assessment of GHG emissions from small ruminants in comparison with GHG emissions from large ruminants and monogastric livestock. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 49, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batalla, I.; Knudsen, M.T.; Mogensen, L.; Hierro, Ó.; Del Pinto, M.; Hermansen, J.E. Carbon footprint of milk from sheep farming systems in Northern Spain including soil carbon sequestration in grasslands. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pirlo, G.; Terzano, G.; Pacelli, C.; Abeni, F.; Carè, S. Carbon footprint of milk produced at Italian buffalo farms. Livest. Sci. 2014, 161, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzano, P.; White, S.R. Intensifying pastoralism may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Wildlife-dominated landscape scenarios as a baseline in life-cycle analysis. Clim. Res. 2019, 77, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez-Peña, R.; Mena, Y.; Batalla, I.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M. Carbon footprint of dairy goat production systems: A comparison of three contrasting grazing levels in the Sierra de Grazalema Natural Park (Southern Spain). J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Mena, Y. The contribution of traditional meat goat farming systems to human wellbeing and its importance for the sustainability of this livestock subsector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horrillo, A.; Gaspar, P.; Escribano, M. Organic Farming as a Strategy to Reduce Carbon Footprint in Dehesa Agroecosystems: A Case Study Comparing Different Livestock Products. Animals 2020, 10, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carbon, A.; Console, G. Carbon Footprint. Carbon Footprint Ltd. Available online: https://www.carbonfootprint.com/offsetstandards.html (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Buratti, C.; Fantozzi, F.; Barbanera, M.; Lascaro, E.; Chiorri, M.; Cecchini, L. Carbon footprint of conventional and organic beef production systems: An Italian case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ibidhi, R.; Calsamiglia, S. Carbon Footprint Assessment of Spanish Dairy Cattle Farms: Effectiveness of Dietary and Farm Management Practices as a Mitigation Strategy. Animals 2020, 10, 2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirlo, G.; Carè, S. A Simplified Tool for Estimating Carbon Footprint of Dairy Cattle Milk. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 12, e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loyarte-López, E.; Barral, M.; Morla, J.C. Methodology for carbon footprint calculation towards sustainable innovation in intangible assets. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The Kyoto Mechanism. Available online: https://canviclimatic.gencat.cat/en/oficina/actuacio_internacional/protocol_kioto/mecanismes_del_protocol/ (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Muñoz-Vallés, S.; Cambrollé, J.; Figueroa-Luque, E.; Luque, T.; Niell, F.X.; Figueroa, M.E. An approach to the evaluation and management of natural carbon sinks: From plant species to urban green systems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 450–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatichi, S.; Pappas, C.; Zscheischler, J.; Leuzinger, S. Modelling carbon sources and sinks in terrestrial vegetation. New Phyt. 2019, 221, 652–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Salvador, S.; Corazzin, M.; Romanzin, A.; Bovolenta, S. Greenhouse gas balance of mountain dairy farms as affected by grassland carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Man. 2017, 196, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Olaizola, A.M.; Bernués, A. A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebane, S.; Jõgiste, K.; Põldveer, E.; Stanturf, J.A.; Metslaid, M. Direct measurements of carbon exchange at forest disturbance sites: A review of results with the eddy covariance method. Scand. J. For. Res. 2019, 34, 585–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J. Atmospheric carbon reduction by urban trees. J. Environ. Man. 1993, 37, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Stevens, J.C.; Sisinni, S.M.; Luley, C.J. Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. J. Arboric. 2002, 28, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
- Kuittinen, M.; Moinel, C.; Adalgeirsdottir, K. Carbon sequestration through urban ecosystem services. A case study from Finland. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 563, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, M.; Concepción, E.D.; Oviedo, J.L.; Caparrós, A.; Farizo, B.Á.; Campos, P. A comprehensive index for threatened biodiversity valuation. Ecol. Ind. 2020, 108, 105696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanish National Forest Inventory (NFI). Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. Available online: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/politica-forestal/ (accessed on 10 December 2020).
- Montero, G.; Ruiz-Peinado, R.; Muñoz, M. Producción de Biomasa y Fijación de CO2 por los Bosques Españoles; Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Agudo Romero, R.; Muñoz Martínez, M.; del Pino del Castillo, O. 1er Inventario de Sumideros de CO2 en Andalucía; Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ex Ante CO2 Absorption Calculator of Spanish Tree Forest Species, Provided by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment 2018. Available online: http://cambioclimaticomurcia.carm.es/calculadora/preguntas.htm (accessed on 10 December 2020).
- Modernising and Simplifying the CAP; Second Background Document; Climate and Environmental Challenges Facing Agricultural and Rural Areas. European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/env_background_final_en.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Ho, R. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis with IBM SPSS; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Petersen, B.M.; Knudsen, M.T.; Hermansen, J.E.; Halberg, N. An approach to include soil carbon changes in life cycle assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilbe, J.M. STATISTICA 7: An overview. Am. Stat. 2007, 61, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 62, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dass, P.; Houlton, B.Z.; Wang, Y.; Warlind, D. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 074027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoffberg, G.H.; van Rooyen, M.W.; van der Linde, M.J.; Groeneveld, H.T. Carbon sequestration estimates of indigenous street trees in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 19667–19672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Liu, C.; Li, X. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests in Shenyang, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purre, A.H.; Pajula, R.; Ilomets, M. Carbon dioxide sink function in restored milled peatlands—The significance of weather and vegetation. Geoderma 2019, 346, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shua, S.; Zhua, W.; Wanga, W.; Jiaa, M.; Zhanga, Y.; Sheng, Z. Effects of tree size heterogeneity on carbon sink in old forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 432, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakotovao, N.H.; Razafimbelo, T.M.; Rakotosamimanana, S.; Randrianasolo, Z.; Randriamalala, J.R.; Albrecht, A. Carbon footprint of smallholder farms in Central Madagascar: The integration of agroecological practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1165–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulina, G.; Milán, M.J.; Lavín, M.P.; Theodoridis, A.; Morin, E.; Capote, J.; Caja, G. Invited review: Current production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat sectors. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 6715–6729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ruiz Morales, F.A.; Castel, J.M.; Mena, Y. Current status, challenges and the way forward for dairy goat production in Europe. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1256–1265. [Google Scholar]
- Mena, Y.; Castel, J.M.; Caravaca, F.P.; Guzmán, J.L.; González-Redondo, P. Situación Actual, Evolución y Diagnóstico de los Sistemas Semiextensivos de Producción Caprina en Andalucía Centro-Occidental; Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Castel, J.M.; Ruiz, F.A.; Mena, Y.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M. Present situation and future perspectives for goat production systems in Spain. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 89, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ARCA. Sistema Nacional de Información de Razas. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/zootecnia/razasganaderas/razas/catalogo/default.aspx (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- D’Ottavio, P.; Francioni, M.; Trozzo, L.; Sedić, E.; Budimir, K.; Avanzolini, P.; Trombetta, M.F.; Porqueddu, C.; Santilocchi, R.; Toderi, M. Trends and approaches in the analysis of ecosystem services provided by grazing systems: A review. Grass Forage Sci. 2018, 73, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mena, Y.; Ruiz-Mirazo, J.; Ruiz Morales, F.A.; Castel, J.M. Characterization and typification of small ruminant farms providing fuelbreak grazing services for wildfire prevention in Andalusia (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 544, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingty, T. Pastoralism in the highest peaks: Role of the traditional grazing systems in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function in the alpine Himalaya. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beaufoy, G.; Ruiz-Mirazo, J. Ingredients for a new Common Agricultural Policy in support or sustainable livestock systems linked to the landscape. Pastos 2013, 43, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
- Eco-Esquemas. Documento PE GTAN FEAGA 03.2020. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Secretaría General de Agricultura y Alimentación. Grupo de Trabajo de Alto Nivel de Intervenciones del Primer Pilar (PEPAC 23–27). Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/pac/post-2020/documentogeneraldeecoesquemas_tcm30-556248.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2021).
- Eco-Esquema 1: Mejora de la Sostenibilidad de los Pastos, Aumento de la Capacidad de Sumidero de Carbono y Prevención de Incendios Mediante el Impulso del Pastoreo Extensivo. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Secretaría General de Agricultura y Alimentación, PE GTAN FEAGA. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/pac/post-2020/ecoesquema1mejorasostenibilidaddelospastoscapacidaddesumiderodecarbonoyprevenciondeincendios_tcm30-552834.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2021).
Farm ID | Plant Cover | Surface (ha) | C Sink (t CO2 ha−1 year−1) |
---|---|---|---|
F1 | Quercine forest | 4.78 | 0.33 |
Sparse quercines and shrubs | 4.19 | 0.09 | |
Shrublands with Cistus sp. and Ulex sp. | 7.46 | 0.27 | |
Shrublands of Cistus ladanifer | 40.34 | 0.30 | |
Natural grassland | 5.56 | 0.06 | |
TOTAL | 62.34 | 0.59 * | |
F2 | Mixed forest | 657.42 | 0.68 |
Mediterranean shrubland | 64.49 | 0.46 | |
Natural grassland | 159.83 | 0.06 | |
TOTAL | 881.74 | 0.55 * | |
F3 | Quercine forest | 303.17 | 0.29 |
Shrublands with trees | 4.30 | 0.38 | |
Sparse shrubs | 81.27 | 0.30 | |
Natural grassland and sparse trees | 27.55 | <0.01 | |
Natural grassland | 18.88 | 0.03 | |
TOTAL | 435.17 | 0.26 * | |
F4 | Quercine forest | 89.99 | 0.20 |
Thick shrubland and quercines | 45.31 | 0.40 | |
Thick shrubland | 406.40 | 0.31 | |
Sparse shrubs | 10.05 | 0.19 | |
Natural grassland and quercines | 43.87 | 0.16 | |
TOTAL | 595.62 | 0.29 * | |
F5 | Wild olive forest | 1.90 | 0.50 |
Wild olive pastures | 1.87 | 0.45 | |
Shrublands and wild olive | 5.31 | 0.40 | |
Thick shrubland and quercines | 33.51 | 0.53 | |
Sparse shrubs with quercines and wild olive | 5.78 | 0.41 | |
Natural grassland and sparse shrubs | 13.41 | 0.18 | |
TOTAL | 61.78 | 0.73 * | |
F6 | Woody crops | 15.68 | 1.09 |
Quercine pastures | 1.33 | 0.27 | |
Shrublands with Retama sp. | 5.60 | 0.29 | |
TOTAL | 22.61 | 0.97 * | |
F7 | Quercine forest | 55.13 | 0.50 |
Quercine forest with sparse srhubs | 2.26 | 0.45 | |
Arable lands with sparse quercines | 1.33 | 0.03 | |
TOTAL | 58.72 | 0.31 * | |
F8 | Pine forest | 213.43 | 0.34 |
Quercine forest | 332.19 | 0.33 | |
Q. pyrenaica forest | 224.96 | 0.56 | |
Q. pyrenaica pastures | 41.46 | 0.30 | |
Shrublands and pine | 21.74 | 0.36 | |
Shrublands of Ulex sp. and Cytisus sp. | 51.44 | 0.21 | |
Shrublands of Ulex sp. and Castanea sp. | 29.75 | 0.26 | |
Shrublands of Ulex sp. and quercines | 161.39 | 0.68 | |
Shrublands of Ulex sp. and grasslands | 90.64 | 0.12 | |
Thick shrubland and quercines | 18.62 | 0.32 | |
Sparse shrubs and quercines | 20.69 | 0.38 | |
Natural grassland and sparse pines | 21.49 | 0.09 | |
TOTAL | 1227.80 | 0.39 * |
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | Mean ± S.E. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | 0.25 | 0.55 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.43 | 1.37 | 0.31 | 0.39 | 0.48 ± 0.13 a |
SIGPAC | 2.43 | 3.11 | 5.27 | 1.37 | 5.03 | 55.29 | 5.48 | 3.23 | 10.15 ± 6.47 c |
SIOSE | 0.67 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 1.38 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.63 ± 0.11 b |
Petersen | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.16 ± 0.01 d |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Muñoz Vallés, S.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mena, Y. Natural Carbon Sinks Linked to Pastoral Activity in S Spain: A Territorial Evaluation Methodology for Mediterranean Goat Grazing Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6085. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13116085
Muñoz Vallés S, Mancilla-Leytón JM, Morales-Jerrett E, Mena Y. Natural Carbon Sinks Linked to Pastoral Activity in S Spain: A Territorial Evaluation Methodology for Mediterranean Goat Grazing Systems. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):6085. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13116085
Chicago/Turabian StyleMuñoz Vallés, Sara, Juan Manuel Mancilla-Leytón, Eduardo Morales-Jerrett, and Yolanda Mena. 2021. "Natural Carbon Sinks Linked to Pastoral Activity in S Spain: A Territorial Evaluation Methodology for Mediterranean Goat Grazing Systems" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6085. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13116085