It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Changes in land use and land cover (LULC) can have profound effects on terrestrial carbon dynamics, yet their effects on the global carbon budget remain uncertain. While land change impacts on ecosystem carbon dynamics have been the focus of numerous studies, few efforts have been based on observational data incorporating multiple ecosystem types spanning large geographic areas over long time horizons. In this study we use a variety of synoptic-scale remote sensing data to estimate the effect of LULC changes associated with urbanization, agricultural expansion and contraction, forest harvest, and wildfire on the carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems (forest, grasslands, shrublands, and agriculture) in the conterminous United States (i.e. excluding Alaska and Hawaii) between 1973 and 2010. We estimate large net declines in the area of agriculture and forest, along with relatively small increases in grasslands and shrublands. The largest net change in any class was an estimated gain of 114 865 km2 of developed lands, an average rate of 3282 km2 yr−1. On average, US ecosystems sequestered carbon at an annual rate of 254 Tg C yr−1. In forest lands, the net sink declined by 35% over the study period, largely a result of land-use legacy, increasing disturbances, and reductions in forest area due to land use conversion. Uncertainty in LULC change data contributed to a ~16% margin of error in the annual carbon sink estimate prior to 1985 (approximately ±40 Tg C yr−1). Improvements in LULC and disturbance mapping starting in the mid-1980s reduced this uncertainty by ~50% after 1985. We conclude that changes in LULC are a critical component to understanding ecosystem carbon dynamics, and continued improvements in detection, quantification, and attribution of change have the potential to significantly reduce current uncertainties.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details









1 US Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA, United States of America; Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
2 US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, United States of America
3 Apex Resource Management Solutions Ltd., Ottawa ON, Canada; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada
4 Apex Resource Management Solutions Ltd., Ottawa ON, Canada
5 US Geological Survey, Denver, CO, United States of America
6 US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United States of America
7 US Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD, United States of America