Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-xq6d9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T15:13:05.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbon Storage and Land-use in Extractive Reserves, Acre, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

I. Foster Brown ,
Daniel C. Nepstad ,
Ivan de O. Pires ,
Leda M. Luz  and
Andréa S. Alechandre
I. Foster Brown
Affiliation:
Associate Scientist, The Woods Hole Research Center, PO Box 296, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA, and Professor, Department of Geochemistry, Federal Fluminense University, 24.210 Niterói, RJ, Brazil
Daniel C. Nepstad
Affiliation:
Assistant Scientist, The Woods Hole Research Center, PO Box 296, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA
Ivan de O. Pires
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Geography, Federal Fluminense University, 24.210 Niteról, RJ, Brazil
Leda M. Luz
Affiliation:
Graduate Forester, National Council of Rubber Tappers, CP 424, 69.900 Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil
Andréa S. Alechandre
Affiliation:
Graduate Agronomist, National Council of Rubber Tappers, CP 424, 69.900 Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Large-scale forest conversion in Brazil, primarily to cattle pasture, contributes significantly to the global anthropogenic emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. An alternative land-use, namely extractive reserves for forest residents, may serve as one means of using Amazonian forests sustainably and of maintaining carbon in living matter rather than adding it to that in the atmosphere.

In the Seringal (former rubber estate) Porongaba (6,800 ha) of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Acre, Brazil, primary forest still covers more than 90% of the area. Total biomass in primary forest is estimated at 426 tons per ha, equivalent to 213 t C per ha. Rubber tappers effectively maintain about 60,000 tons of carbon per household (family unit) in forest biomass and thus out of the atmosphere. Deforestation of primary forest was less than 0.6% per yr — much less than rates of natural disturbances for other neotropical forests.

Slash-and-burn agriculture in the Seringal Porongaba releases carbon at a gross rate of some 200 t C per yr per household. Net releases are much less, as regrowth forests absorb carbon at rates of about 9 t C per ha per yr. The net areal flux of carbon to the atmosphere from land-use in Seringal is much less than one ton of carbon per ha per yr, which is equivalent to less than 0.3% per yr of the carbon stock in forest biomass. If Seringal Porongaba is typical of the three million hectares in extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia, then these reserves are calculated to retain 0.6 Gigatons of carbon in the terrestrial biota.

Adverse changes in income patterns for rubber tappers could lead to abandonment of extractive reserves or increased deforestation within them. Diversification and improvement of income from non-timber forest products are needed to maintain rubber tappers in extractive reserves. Most beneficiaries of carbon storage in these and other reserves live outside Brazil; devising means of recompensation for these benefits is a challenge for the global society.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Winter 1992 , pp. 307 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allegretti, M.H. (1990). Extractive reserves: an alternative for reconciling development and environmental conservation in Amazonia. Pp. 252–64 in Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest (Ed. Anderson, A.B.). Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA: xiv + 281 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Balée, W. (1989). The culture of Amazonian forests. Advances in Economic Botany, 7, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (1989). Cooperation from the perspective of human ecology. Pp. 70–91 in Common Property Resources (Ed. Berkes, F.). Belhaven Press, London, England, UK: x + 302 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Brazil, Ministerio das Minas e Energia: Departamento Nacional da Produçao Mineral (1976). Projeto Radam Brasil. Folha SC. 19, Rio Branco; Geologia, geomorfologia, pedologia, vegetaçao e uso potencial da terra Dento Nac. da Produçao Mineral. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 464 pp., maps & tables.Google Scholar
Browder, J.O. (1990). Extractive reserves will not save tropics. BioScience, 40(9), p. 626.Google Scholar
Browder, J.O. (1992). The limits of extractivism. BioScience, 42(3), pp. 174–81.Google Scholar
Brown, I.F., Martinelli, L., Thomas, W.W., Moreira, M.Z., Ferreira, C.A.C. & Victoria, R.L. (unpubl.). Studies of a Southwestern Amazonian Forest: Uncertainty of Biomass Estimates. (Available from the) Woods Hole Research Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA: 20 pp.Google Scholar
Brown, S. & Lugo, A. (1984). Biomass of tropical forests: a new estimate based on forest volumes. Science, 223, pp. 1288–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, S., Gillespie, A.J.R. & Lugo, A. (1989). Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory data. Forest Science, 35(4), pp. 881–902.Google Scholar
Cerri, C.C. & Volkoff, B. (1987). Carbon content in a yellow latosol of central Amazon rain forest. Acta Œcologica, 8, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
Fearnside, P.M. (1987). Summary of progress in quantifying the potential contribution of Amazonian deforestation to the global carbon problem. Pp. 75–82 in Proceedings of the Workshop on Biogeochemistry of Tropical Rain Forests: Problems for Research (Eds Athié, D., Lovejoy, T.E. & Oyens, P. de M.), WWF-US/CENA/USP, Piarcicaba, SP, Brazil: 85 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Fearnside, P.M. (1989). Extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia. BioScience, 39(6), pp. 387–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearnside, P.M. (1990). The rate and extent of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia. Environmental Conservation, 17(3), pp. 213–26.Google Scholar
Fearnside, P.M., Keller, M.M., Filho, N. Leal & Fernandes, P.M. (unpubl.). Rainforest Burning and the Global Carbon Budget: Biomass, Combustion Efficiency and Charcoal Formation in the Brazilian Amazon, INPA, Manaus, Brazil: 17 pp.Google Scholar
Fundaçao de Technologia do Estado do Acre (1990). Monitoramento da Cobertura Florestal do Estado do Acre. Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil: 214 pp.Google Scholar
Gentry, A.M. & Terborgh, J. (1990). Composition and dynamics of the Cocha Cashu ‘Mature’ floodplain forest. Pp. 542–64 in Four Neotropical Rainforests (Ed. Gentry, A.H.). Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA: xiii + 627 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, G.S. (1990). An overview of neotropical forest dynamics. Pp. 585–99 in Four Neotropical Rainforests (Ed. Gentry, A.H.). Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA: xiii + 627 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hecht, S. & Cockburn, A. (1989). The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers, and Defenders of the Amazon. Verso, London, England, UK: 266 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Houghton, R.A. (1990). The future role of tropical forests in affecting the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere. Ambio, 19(4), pp. 204–9.Google Scholar
Houghton, R.A., Boone, R.D., Fruci, J.R., Hobbie, J.E., Melillo, J.M., Palm, C.A., Peterson, B.J., Shaver, G.R. & Woodwell, G.M. (1987). The flux of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in 1980 due to changes in land use: geographic distribution of the global flux. Tellus, 39B, pp. 122–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, R.A., Skole, D.L. & Lefkowitz, D.S. (1991). Changes in the landscape of Latin America between 1850 and 1985, II: Net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Forest Ecology and Management, 38, pp. 173–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1990). Climate Change: the IPCC Scientific Assessment (Eds Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. & Ephraums, J.J.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK: 365 pp.Google Scholar
Klinge, H. & Rodrigues, W.A. (1973). Biomass estimation in a central Amazonian rain forest. Acta dent, Venezolana, 24, pp. 225–37.Google Scholar
McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. & Werner, T.B. (1990). Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; WRI, WWF-US, and the World Bank, Washington, DC, USA: 193 pp.Google Scholar
Mezei, L.M. (1990). Practical Spreadsheet Statistics and Curve Fitting for Scientists and Engineers. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: xvi + 311 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Myers, N. (1988). Tropical deforestation and climate change. Environmental Conservation, 15(4), pp. 293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nepstad, D.C. (1989). Forest Regrowth on Abandoned Pastures in Eastern Amazonia: Limitations to Tree Seedling Survival and Growth. PhD dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA: 234 pp.Google Scholar
Nepstad, D.C., Uhl, C. & Serrao, E.A.S. (1991). Restoration of degraded ecosystems in an Amazonian landscape. Ambio, 20(6), pp. 248–55.Google Scholar
Nepstad, D.C., Brown, I.F., Luz, L., Alechandre, A. & Viana, V., (1992). Biotic impoverishment of Amazonian forests by rubber tappers, loggers and cattle ranchers. In Non-timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy (Eds D.C. Nepstad & S. Schwartzman). Advances in Economic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, 9, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Nepstad & Cerri (unpubl.). [Paper in preparation.]Google Scholar
Saldarriaga, J.G., West, D.C., Tharp, M.L. & Uhl, C. (1988). Long-term chronosequence of forest succession in the upper Rio Negro of Colombia and Venezuela. Journal of Ecology, 76, pp. 938–58.Google Scholar
Smith, N.J.H. & Schultes, R.E. (1990). Deforestation and shrinking crop gene-pools in Amazonia. Environmental Conservation, 17(3), pp. 227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhl, C., Buschbacher, R. & Serrao, E.A.S. (1988). Abandoned pastures in eastern Amazonia, I: Patterns of plant succession. Journal of Ecology, 76, pp. 663–81.Google Scholar
Woodwell, G.M., Whittaker, R.H., Reiners, W.A., Likens, G.E., Delwiche, C.C. & Botkin, D.B. (1978). The biota and the world carbon budget. Science, 199, pp. 141–5.Google Scholar