Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 23 December 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5756, pp. 1944 - 1947
DOI: 10.1126/science.1119282
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Trading Water for Carbon with Biological Carbon Sequestration

Robert B. Jackson,1* Esteban G. Jobbágy,1,2 Roni Avissar,3 Somnath Baidya Roy,3 Damian J. Barrett,4 Charles W. Cook,1 Kathleen A. Farley,1 David C. le Maitre,5 Bruce A. McCarl,6 Brian C. Murray7

Carbon sequestration strategies highlight tree plantations without considering their full environmental consequences. We combined field research, synthesis of more than 600 observations, and climate and economic modeling to document substantial losses in stream flow, and increased soil salinization and acidification, with afforestation. Plantations decreased stream flow by 227 millimeters per year globally (52%), with 13% of streams drying completely for at least 1 year. Regional modeling of U.S. plantation scenarios suggests that climate feedbacks are unlikely to offset such water losses and could exacerbate them. Plantations can help control groundwater recharge and upwelling but reduce stream flow and salinize and acidify some soils.

1 Department of Biology, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708–1000, USA.
2 Grupo de Estudios Ambientales–Instituto de Matematica Aplicada de San Luis (IMASL), Universidad Nacional de San Luis and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET), San Luis 5700, Argentina.
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
4 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia 2601.
5 Natural Resources and Environment CSIR, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.
6 Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
7 Center for Regulatory Economics and Policy Research, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jackson{at}duke.edu

Read the Full Text


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Movement Ecology Special Feature: Movement ecology of migration in turkey vultures.
J. T. Mandel, K. L. Bildstein, G. Bohrer, and D. W. Winkler (2008)
PNAS 105, 19102-19107
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
From Pulp to Fiction?: Fray Bentos Pulp Investment Conflict through the Finnish Media.
J. Pakkasvirta (2008)
Cooperation and Conflict 43, 421-446
   Abstract »    PDF »
Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests.
G. B. Bonan (2008)
Science 320, 1444-1449
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation.
J. G. Canadell and M. R. Raupach (2008)
Science 320, 1456-1457
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
Carbon sequestration.
R. Lal (2008)
Phil Trans R Soc B 363, 815-830
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »
Changes in climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on global river runoff trends.
S. Piao, P. Friedlingstein, P. Ciais, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, D. Labat, and S. Zaehle (2007)
PNAS 104, 15242-15247
   Abstract »    Full Text »    PDF »


To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)