4.4 continued - effect of agricultural management practices on SOC and consequent agronomic effects. Agronomic consequences Agronomic consequences Soil carbon consequences Soil carbon consequences No Practice d What we know What we don’t know What we know What we don’t know Rangelands management change is quantifiable relationship low capacity of soils to legally complex issues principally manipulation of between grazing store C surrounding native title and C total grazing pressure management and SOC ownership high verification costs concentration baseline SOC high spatial and temporal leakage (displaced grazing) heterogeneity lack of clarity around lessees’ obligations regarding maintaining rangeland condition meeting the CF criteria — how to monitor SOC between baseline and subsequent verification assessments Minimum generally improved No data won’t increase SOC No data tillage and profitability rate of SOC decline less reduced erosion risk than with conventional tillage Revegetation agricultural production leakage/reduced emissions decrease in SOC No data and displaced (altered agricultural intensity following plantation reforestation on non-forest land) establishment retaining harvest residues (slash) will increase soil C higher operational costs best chance of increasing levels associated with slash SOC in high rainfall zone retention retaining slash will help increase in SOC with retain other soil nutrients possible increased fire risk harvest if the from retaining slash (residues) left on site reduced soil erosion little change in SOC deeper than 10cm may be decades before net increase in SOC
4.4 continued - effect of agricultural management practices on SOC and consequent agronomic effects. No Practice d Agronomic consequences What we know Agronomic consequences What we don’t know Soil carbon consequences What we know Soil carbon consequences What we don’t know Rangelands management change is principally manipulation of total grazing pressure quantifiable relationship between grazing management and SOC concentration leakage (displaced grazing) low capacity of soils to store C high verification costs high spatial and temporal heterogeneity legally complex issues surrounding native title and C ownership baseline SOC lack of clarity around lessees’ obligations regarding maintaining rangeland condition — meeting the CF criteria how to monitor SOC between baseline and subsequent verification assessments Minimum tillage generally improved and profitability reduced erosion risk No data won’t increase SOC rate of SOC decline less than with conventional tillage No data Revegetation and reforestation agricultural production displaced retaining harvest residues (slash) will increase soil C levels retaining slash will help retain other soil nutrients reduced soil erosion leakage/reduced emissions (altered agricultural intensity on non-forest land) higher operational costs associated with slash retention possible increased fire risk from retaining slash decrease in SOC following plantation establishment best chance of increasing SOC in high rainfall zone increase in SOC with harvest if the (residues) left on site little change in SOC deeper than 10cm may be decades before net increase in SOC No data
Carbon%20farming%20in%20relation%20to%20Western%20Australian%20agriculture%20-%20Bulletin%204856%20%28Word%201.1MB%29.docx