You are viewing /report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/grasslands/finding/key-message-10-1 in Turtle
Alternatives : HTML JSON YAML text N-Triples JSON Triples RDF+XML RDF+JSON Graphviz SVG
Raw
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix gcis: <http://data.globalchange.gov/gcis.owl#> .
@prefix cito: <http://purl.org/spar/cito/> .
@prefix biro: <http://purl.org/spar/biro/> .

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/grasslands/finding/key-message-10-1>
   dcterms:identifier "key-message-10-1";
   gcis:findingNumber "10.1"^^xsd:string;
   gcis:findingStatement "Total grassland carbon stocks in the conterminous United States, estimated to be about 7.4 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) in 2005, are projected to increase to about 8.2 Pg C by 2050. Although U.S. grasslands are expected to remain carbon sinks over this period, the uptake rate is projected to decline by about half. In the U.S. Great Plains, land-use and land-cover changes are expected to cause much of the change in carbon cycling as grasslands are converted to agricultural lands or to woody biomes (<em>medium confidence</em>)."^^xsd:string;
   gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/grasslands>;
   gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report>;

## Properties of the finding:
   
   gcis:descriptionOfEvidenceBase "Total carbon stocks are from Table 10.2 based on LandCarbon project estimates (landcarbon.org/categories). Various efforts confirm that the U.S. and North American grasslands in recent years have been a weak carbon sink (i.e., mostly within the range of 10 to 40 g per m per year; Hayes et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012b; Raczka et al., 2013; Wylie et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2011). Recent results generated from the assessment of carbon sequestration potentials in the United States conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (Zhu and Reed 2012, 2014; Zhu et al., 2011) provided more integrated grassland carbon assessment. Land-use change scenarios and spatial dynamics were developed empirically by ecoregions across the United States under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios A1B, A2, and B1 (Sleeter et al., 2012; Sohl et al., 2007), which are considered to be similar to representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios (Knutti and Sedláček 2013). Carbon dynamics in grassland ecosystems were simulated with the General Ensemble Biogeochemical Modeling System (GEMS) using three climate projections: the Second Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM2), Australia’s national Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organization (CSIRO), and Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC) for each of the three IPCC scenarios (Liu et al., 2012b, 2014). The data included in this report include simulations from two process-based models: CENTURY (Parton et al., 1987) and the Erosion-Deposition–Carbon-Model (EDCM; Liu et al., 2003), and both were encapsulated in GEMS. The findings are supported by a recent synthesis of eddy covariance data with remote sensing, which shows that grasslands take up somewhat more carbon than crops in the Great Plains, although both were weak carbon sinks from 2000 to 2008 (Wylie et al., 2016)."^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:assessmentOfConfidenceBasedOnEvidence "The magnitudes of the estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes vary depending on the method used, indicating a medium to low level of confidence in the results."^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:newInformationAndRemainingUncertainties "There are significant differences in evaluation of grassland carbon stocks and fluxes (Hayes et al., 2012; Raczka et al., 2013; Zhu and Reed 2014). The primary source of model difference comprises modeling method (i.e., inventory, flux towers, inversion, and process-based modeling) and land-cover characterization and spatial resolution. For example, the LandCarbon study (Zhu and Reed 2012, 2014; Zhu et al., 2011) combined grass and shrub into grassland and considered fire disturbance, while Zhang et al. (2011) used data from 15 flux towers at natural grassland and pastures or hay sites but without considering fires."^^xsd:string;

   a gcis:Finding .

## This finding cites the following entities:



<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/grasslands/finding/key-message-10-1>
   prov:wasDerivedFrom <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/preface/figure/figurep-4>.