Scenario-based estimation of catchment carbon storage: linking multi-objective land allocation with InVEST model in a mixed agriculture-forest landscape

doi:10.1007/s11707-020-0825-1

Front. Earth Sci.

2020, Vol. 14

Issue (3) : 637-646 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-020-0825-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Scenario-based estimation of catchment carbon storage: linking multi-objective land allocation with InVEST model in a mixed agriculture-forest landscape

Rahmatollah Niakan LAHIJI¹, Naghmeh Mobarghaee DINAN²(

), Houman LIAGHATI², Hamidreza GHAFFARZADEH¹, Alireza VAFAEINEJAD³

¹. Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 1477893855, Iran
². Environmental Science Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1983963113, Iran
³. Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1719-17765, Iran

Download: PDF(4901 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

This study performed a scenario-based land allocation in a mixed agriculture-forest landscape in northern Iran to investigate how different land use policies contribute to changes in carbon storage. In pursuit of this goal, a temporal profile of the trade-off between the region’s land use land cover (LULC) classes was produced using Landsat image of the year 2016. The weighted linear combination procedure was also used to map the suitability of land for agriculture, forest, urban, and rangeland based on ecological and socio-economic criteria. The suitability maps were analyzed through the Multi-Objective Land Allocation procedure under five scenarios with differing areas devoted to each LULC to generate different patterns of LULC distribution in the region. In addition, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model was used to estimate the potential of LULC classes in carbon storage. The amount of carbon storage differed significantly between the scenarios, ranging from 1.29 tons/ha/year when the majority of the land was devoted to agriculture (76% of the area) to 5.40 tons/ha/year when the landscape was dominated by forest (77% of the area). The extreme conditions presented in this research may not be as likely to occur, but opens a dialog between different stakeholders and informs of a probable trend of ecosystem service loss due to agricultural land expansion.

Keywords multi-objective land allocation carbon storage InVEST model Iran

Corresponding Author(s): Naghmeh Mobarghaee DINAN

Online First Date: 28 September 2020 Issue Date: 04 December 2020

Cite this article:

Rahmatollah Niakan LAHIJI,Naghmeh Mobarghaee DINAN,Houman LIAGHATI, et al. Scenario-based estimation of catchment carbon storage: linking multi-objective land allocation with InVEST model in a mixed agriculture-forest landscape[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(3): 637-646.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-020-0825-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2020/V14/I3/637

Fig.1 Geographical location of Lahijan Catchment, northern Iran.

Tab.1 Fuzzy membership functions and AHP relative weights assigned to the factors incorporated in land suitability evaluation for urban, forest, agriculture, and rangeland

Fig.2 Landsat-derived LULC maps in 1984, 2000 and 2016.

Tab.2 Area and percentage of land occupied by forest, urban, agriculture, and water classes derived from Landsat image processing for 1984, 2000 and 2016

Fig.3 Land suitability maps produced for forest, agriculture, urban and rangeland classes using the WLC procedure

Fig.4 Spatial distribution of area assigned to urban, forest, rangeland, and agriculture using MOLA procedure under five scenarios.

Tab.3 Area assigned to urban, forest, rangeland and agriculture using MOLA procedure under five scenarios

Fig.5 Distribution of mean carbon storage across the sub-basins of Lahijan.

Tab.4 Mean carbon storage in the sub-basins of Lahijan

1	D Armenteras, U Murcia, T M González, O J Barón, J E Arias (2019). Scenarios of land use and land cover change for NW Amazonia: impact on forest intactness. Glob Ecol Conserv, 17: e00567 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00567
2	Z Asadolahi, A Salmanmahiny, Y Sakieh (2017). Hyrcanian forests conservation based on ecosystem services approach. Environ Earth Sci, 76(10): 365 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6702-x
3	Z Asadolahi, A Salmanmahiny, Y Sakieh, S H Mirkarimi, H Baral, M Azimi (2018). Dynamic trade-off analysis of multiple ecosystem services under land use change scenarios: towards putting ecosystem services into planning in Iran. Ecol Complex, 36: 250–260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.09.003
4	C Berg, S Rogers, M Mineau (2016). Building scenarios for ecosystem services tools: developing a methodology for efficient engagement with expert stakeholders. Futures, 81: 68–80 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.10.014
5	R B Boone, R T Conant, J Sircely, P K Thornton, M Herrero (2018). Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland ecosystem services. Glob Change Biol, 24(3): 1382–1393 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13995 pmid: 29160927
6	P Cabral, C Feger, H Levrel, M Chambolle, D Basque (2016). Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: a first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France. Ecosyst Serv, 22: 318–327 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.005
7	N B Chang, G Parvathinathan, J B Breeden (2008). Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. J Environ Manage, 87(1): 139–153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.011 pmid: 17363133
8	F De Felice, A Petrillo, T Saaty (2016). Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making for Strategic Decisions—Application of the Ahp Method in Environmental Engineering: Three Case Studies. Paris: BoD–Books on Demand
9	A de Souza Medeiros, S Malta Ferreira Maia, T C dos Santos, T C de Araújo Gomes (2020). Soil carbon losses in conventional farming systems due to land-use change in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 287: 106690 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106690
10	T J Fahey, P B Woodbury, J J Battles, C L Goodale, S P Hamburg, S V Ollinger, C W Woodall (2010). Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Front Ecol Environ, 8(5): 245–252 https://doi.org/10.1890/080169
11	A Grêt-Regamey, E Celio, T M Klein, U Wissen Hayek (2013). Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan, 109(1): 107–116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011
12	Z Gao, X Cao, W Gao (2013). The spatio-temporal responses of the carbon cycle to climate and land use/land cover changes between 1981–2000 in China. Front Earth Sci, 7(1): 92–102 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-012-0335-x
13	M C Hansen, P V Potapov, R Moore, M Hancher, S A Turubanova, A Tyukavina, D Thau, S V Stehman, S J Goetz, T R, Loveland A Kommareddy (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160): 850–853
14	C He, D Zhang, Q Huang, Y Zhao (2016). Assessing the potential impacts of urban expansion on regional carbon storage by linking the LUSD-urban and InVEST models. Environ Model Softw, 75: 44–58 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.09.015
15	L T Irina, B P Javier, C B M Teresa, L A Eurídice, C I Luz María del Carmen (2019). Integrating ecological and socioeconomic criteria in a GIS-based multicriteria-multiobjective analysis to develop sustainable harvesting strategies for Mexican oregano Lippia graveolens Kunth, a non-timber forest product. Land Use Policy, 81: 668–679 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.038
16	W Jiang, Y Deng, Z Tang, X Lei, Z Chen (2017). Modelling the potential impacts of urban ecosystem changes on carbon storage under different scenarios by linking the CLUE-S and the InVEST models. Ecol Modell, 345: 30–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.12.002
17	F Khormali, S Ayoubi, F Kananro Foomani, A Fatemi (2012). Tea yield and soil properties as affected by slope position and aspect in Lahijan area, Iran. Int J Plant Prod, 1(1): 99–111
18	I Kubiszewski, R Costanza, S Anderson, P Sutton (2017). The future value of ecosystem services: global scenarios and national implications. Ecosyst Serv, 26: 289–301 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.004
19	G Kucsicsa, E A Popovici, D Bălteanu, M Dumitraşcu, I Grigorescu, B Mitrică (2019). Assessing the potential future forest-cover change in Romania, predicted using a scenario-based modelling. Environ Model Assess, 25:471–491.
20	S Kuznichenko, I Buchynska, L Kovalenko, Y Gunchenko (2019). Suitable site selection using two-dtage GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis. In: International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology. Berlin: Springer, Cham: 214–230
21	R Lal, K Lorenz, R F Hüttl, B U Schneider, J Von Braun (2013). Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere. Dordrecht: Springer
22	Y Liang, L Liu, J Huang (2017). Integrating the SD-CLUE-S and InVEST models into assessment of oasis carbon storage in northwestern China. PLoS One, 12(2): e0172494 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172494 pmid: 28231328
23	J Liu, G Zhang, Z Zhuang, Q Cheng, Y Gao, T Chen, Q Huang, L Xu, D Chen (2017). A new perspective for urban development boundary delineation based on SLEUTH-InVEST model. Habitat Int, 70: 13–23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.09.009
24	R Lyu, L Mi, J Zhang, M Xu, J Li (2019). Modeling the effects of urban expansion on regional carbon storage by coupling SLEUTH-3r model and InVEST model. Ecol Res, 34(3): 380–393 https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.1278
25	J Malczewski (2000). On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Transactions in GIS, 4(1): 5–22
26	A Mekonnen, M Tolera (2019), Carbon stock estimation along altitudinal gradient in Sekele-Mariam dry evergreen montane forest, north-western Ethiopia agriculture. Forestry and Fisheries, 8: 48
27	E Nelson, H Sander, P Hawthorne, M Conte, D Ennaanay, S Wolny, S Manson, S Polasky (2010). Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS One, 5(12): e14327 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014327 pmid: 21179509
28	J R Otukei, T Blaschke (2010). Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf, 12: S27–S31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2009.11.002
29	K Pareta, U Pareta (2011). Forest carbon management using satellite remote sensing techniques: a case study of Sagar district (MP). International Scientific Research Journal, 3(4): 335–348
30	M Sahle, O Saito, C Fürst, S Demissew, K Yeshitela (2019). Future land use management effects on ecosystem services under different scenarios in the Wabe River catchment of Gurage Mountain chain landscape, Ethiopia. Sustain Sci, 14(1): 175–190 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0585-y
31	L Sallustio, V Quatrini, D Geneletti, P Corona, M Marchetti (2015). Assessing land take by urban development and its impact on carbon storage: findings from two case studies in Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54: 80–90
32	RA Senior, JK Hill, DP Edwards (2019). Global loss of climate connectivity in tropical forests. Nat Clim Chang, 9: 623–626
33	R Sharp, R Chaplin-Kramer, S Wood, A Guerry, H Tallis, T H Ricketts (2014). InVEST user’s guide: integrated valuation of environmental services and tradeoffs. In: Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, The Nature Conservancy & WW Foundation Stanford
34	H T Tallis, T Ricketts, A D Guerry, S A Wood, R Sharp, E Nelson, D Ennaanay, S Wolny, N Olwero, K Vigerstol, D Pennington (2013). InVEST 2.5. 3 User’s Guide. The natural capital project. Stanford, (Available at Stanford website, last accessed February, 2020)
35	J R Thompson, K F Lambert, D R Foster, E N Broadbent, M Blumstein, A M Almeyda Zambrano, Y Fan (2016). The consequences of four land-use scenarios for forest ecosystems and the services they provide. Ecosphere, 7(10): e01469 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1469
36	K G Turner, S Anderson, M Gonzales-Chang, R Costanza, S Courville, T Dalgaard, E Dominati, I Kubiszewski, S Ogilvy, L Porfirio, N Ratna, H Sandhu, P C Sutton, J C Svenning, G M Turner, Y D Varennes, A Voinov, S Wratten (2016). A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol Modell, 319: 190–207 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.017
37	M H Vahidnia, A Alesheikh, A Alimohammadi, A Bassiri (2008). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process in GIS application. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci, 37(B2): 593–596
38	A Zarandian, H Baral, N E Stork, M A Ling, A R Yavari, H R Jafari, H Amirnejad (2017). Modeling of ecosystem services informs spatial planning in lands adjacent to the Sarvelat and Javaherdasht protected area in northern Iran. Land Use Policy, 61: 487–500 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.003
39	J Zhang, Y Ge, J Chang, B Jiang, H Jiang, C Peng, J Zhu, W Yuan, L Qi, S Yu (2007). Carbon storage by ecological service forests in Zhejiang Province, subtropical China. For Ecol Manage, 245(1–3): 64–75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.042

[1]	Soheila SAFARYAN, Mohsen TAVAKOLI, Noredin ROSTAMI, Haidar EBRAHIMI. Evaluation of climate change effects on extreme flows in a catchment of western Iran[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2019, 13(3): 523-534.
[2]	Jahanbakhsh DANESHIAN, Leila RAMEZANI DANA. Foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the Miocene Qom Formation, northwest of the Qom, Central Iran[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(1): 237-251.
[3]	Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, Ali Bagherzadeh. Evaluation of sediment yield in PSIAC and MPSIAC models by using GIS at Toroq Watershed, Northeast of Iran[J]. Front Earth Sci, 2012, 6(1): 83-94.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed