Experiments in carbon-biodiversity trade-offs

19 07 2012

Last month I covered a topic that is not only becoming the latest fashion-trend in conservation, it is also where much of the research funding is going. Whether or not this is the best use of limited research resources is largely irrelevant – as I always preach to fledgling grant writers: “Write about what the funding agency wants to fund, not what you want to do”. Cynical, I know, but it is oh-so-true.

The topic in question is how we as conservation biologists ensure that the new carbon economy drives positive change for biodiversity, rather than the converse. Hell knows we really can’t afford for land-use change to get any worse for biodiversity; worldwide we are on trajectory for a mass extinction within our lifetime, so anything that potentially makes it worse should be squashed completely.

But it seems that land- and seascape changes that might arise from trading carbon (including carbon pricing) are on a knife-edge as far as biodiversity is concerned. I described this dilemma in my previous post, and I am happy to say that the manuscript arising is almost complete. Briefly, if we as a society decide to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture as much carbon as possible by altering land-use practices, then it is likely that our forests will become vast monocultures incapable of sustaining much biodiversity at all. In other words, there’s a balance to be struck between what is good for carbon sequestration and what is good for biodiversity. While not always mutually exclusive, neither are they mutually attainable goals.

Enter our latest grant1 from the Australian Research Council (ARC) which was awarded only a few weeks ago. What we propose to do in brief is to examine experimentally the cost-benefit trade-off between biodiversity and carbon using a replicated planting regime in semi-arid Australia. The approach is quite simple, but it will take many years to pay off. What we are asking is: how many different species and in what densities are required to restore a native woodland from an over-grazed paddock that provide the biggest long-term biodiversity and carbon benefits simultaneously for the lowest costs?

Sound familiar? Well, if you are a long-time subscriber to this blog, you’ll have heard of this before. A few years ago, Margie Mayfield at UQ, some colleagues and I were awarded an ARC grant to do just that, only that was for a tropical forest in the Atherton Tablelands in far north Queensland. Well, Margie and I have just been awarded a grant to repeat the project, only this time for the semi-arid Mallee scrubland of South Australia.

Our basic approach in both areas is to apply a few biodiversity (native monoculture, medium diversity, high diversity) and planting density treatments (low and high spacing) to plots within blocks repeated across a landscape. We want to test whether the time-consuming and expensive high-density, high-diversity plots end up sequestering more carbon and housing more species once the forest has matured then the other treatments. However, if we can get away with (i.e., end up with the similar carbon sequestration and biodiversity) lower tree densities when planting, and fewer species planted, then our costs will go down.

The approach will be superficially similar between sites, although some important differences remain. First, we have far fewer tree and shrub species to play with down south. Our ‘high-diversity’ treatments will only have about 8 species or so. Second, we’re dealing with a very dry area – about 300 mm/year rainfall total (compared to the many metres of rain dumped each year on the Thiaki site in Queensland). We’re also dealing with a fairly level experimental planting area at Monarto Zoo in South Australia, whereas the Thiaki site is topographically complex (i.e., bloody steep).

We’re getting started pretty soon on the South Australian experiment, so wish us luck, some good weather (i.e., rain) during and after planting, and no major disasters. Also, if you feel like investing in the longer-term monitoring (the grant only lasts for 3 years – enough to get the plants in the ground), then by all means, please talk to me!

Many thanks to the ARCZoos South Australia (especially Briony Horner), the South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) and the Australian Flora Foundation for co-investment: your contributions made all this possible!

CJA Bradshaw

1Our Dean describes grants as ‘potential science’, whereas papers are ‘realised science’. The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative is certainly changing how our universities are viewing scientific ‘success‘.



6 responses

14 01 2019
We need a Revegetation Council | ConservationBytes.com

[…] to plant, how many different species to plant, what spacing to plant, etc.), while there are some ongoing experiments to determine these ideal approaches for certain habitats in South Australia and elsewhere, there is […]


19 05 2014
A convenient truth: global push for carbon-based conservation | ConservationBytes.com

[…] forest of South Australia, and one in the wheatbelt of south-western Western Australia. Here, experimental manipulation of various planting densities and species assists in determining what the ‘ideal’ mix of planting effort and species composition is […]


16 04 2014
South Australia’s tattered environmental remains | ConservationBytes.com

[…] are some smaller ecological function projects being done around the state (see one example I’m involved with here), but nothing that’s across agricultural and environmental sectors, and nothing of large […]


7 02 2014
Incentivise to keep primary forests intact | ConservationBytes.com

[…] the financial incentives for protecting them. I have also been involved in setting up some of the world’s first biodiversity-carbon restoration experiments, both in the tropics and temperate zones of Australia. I hope to be able to expand these projects […]


3 04 2013
Let the planting begin | ConservationBytes.com

[…] had a great morning today checking out the progress of our carbon-biodiversity planting experiment out at Monarto Zoo. What a fantastic effort! Briony Horner and her team have made some amazing […]


21 07 2012
Robert Lawrence

The momentum for carbon trading compared with that for biodiversity is frightening. Revegetation should be limited to restoring natural functioning ecosystems.


Leave a Reply to Incentivise to keep primary forests intact | ConservationBytes.com Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: