Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 4;14(6):e0217756.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217756. eCollection 2019.

Giving credit to reforestation for water quality benefits

Affiliations

Giving credit to reforestation for water quality benefits

Arturo A Keller et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

While there is a general belief that reforesting marginal, often unprofitable, croplands can result in water quality benefits, to date there have been very few studies that have attempted to quantify the magnitude of the reductions in nutrient (N and P) and sediment export. In order to determine the magnitude of a credit for water quality trading, there is a need to develop quantitative approaches to estimate the benefits from forest planting in terms of load reductions. Here we first evaluate the availability of marginal croplands (i.e. those with low infiltration capacity and high slopes) within a large section of the Ohio River Basin (ORB) to assess the magnitude of the land that could be reforested. Next, we employ the Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) to study the reduction in N, P and sediment losses from converting corn or corn/soy rotations to forested lands, first in a case study and then for a large region within the ORB. We find that after reforestation, N losses can decrease by 40 to 80 kg/ha-yr (95-97% reduction), while P losses decrease by 1 to 4 kg/ha-yr (96-99% reduction). There is a significant influence of local conditions (soils, previous crop management practices, meteorology), which can be considered with NTT and must be taken into consideration for specific projects. There is also considerable interannual and monthly variability, which highlights the need to take the longer view into account in nutrient credit considerations for water quality trading, as well as in monitoring programs. Overall, there is the potential for avoiding 60 million kg N and 2 million kg P from reaching the streams and rivers of the northern ORB as a result of conversion of marginal farmland to tree planting, which is on the order of 12% decrease for TN and 5% for TP, for the entire basin. Accounting for attenuation, this represents a significant fraction of the goal of the USEPA Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force to reduce TN and TP reaching the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the second largest dead zone in the world. More broadly, the potential for targeted forest planting to reduce nutrient loading demonstrated in this study suggests further consideration of this approach for managing water quality in waterways throughout the world. The study was conducted using computational models and there is a need to evaluate the results with empirical observations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Priority analysis of cropland fields in a region of the Scioto River watershed.
Color code is: highest = purple, high = red, medium = orange/brown, and low priority = yellow green.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Priority analysis of buffer strips for croplands in a region of the Scioto River watershed.
Color code is: highest = purple, high = red, medium = orange/brown, and low priority = yellow.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Annual trends in (A) water, (B) sediment and (C-F) nutrient fluxes at a farm in the Upper Ohio River HUC4, with soil in hydrologic group C and 7% average slope, for three different land uses (corn/soybean rotation, corn only, and forested).
Fig 4
Fig 4
Monthly trends in (A) water, (B) sediment and (C-F) nutrient fluxes at a farm in the Upper Ohio River HUC4, with soil in hydrologic Group C and 7% average slope, for three different land uses (corn/soybean rotation, corn only, and forested).
Fig 5
Fig 5
Export of (A) TN, (B) TP, (C) sediments from corn fields (crop) compared to the same field used for forest, for n = 1,653 fields in the northern Ohio River Basin. Differences are statistically significant (p < 0.01).

References

    1. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Bossio DA. Climate change mitigation: A spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Elsevier; 2008;126: 67–80. 10.1016/J.AGEE.2008.01.014 - DOI
    1. Torres AB, Marchant R, Lovett JC, Smart JCR, Tipper R. Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to evaluate their potential for implementation of climate change mitigation. Ecol Econ. Elsevier; 2010;69: 469–477. 10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2009.09.007 - DOI
    1. Paul KI, Cunningham SC, England JR, Roxburgh SH, Preece ND, Lewis T, et al. Managing reforestation to sequester carbon, increase biodiversity potential and minimize loss of agricultural land. Land use policy. Pergamon; 2016;51: 135–149. 10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.10.027 - DOI
    1. Cunningham SC, Mac Nally R, Baker PJ, Cavagnaro TR, Beringer J, Thomson JR, et al. Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. Urban & Fischer; 2015;17: 301–317. 10.1016/J.PPEES.2015.06.001 - DOI
    1. Silver WL, Ostertag R, Lugo AE. The Potential for Carbon Sequestration Through Reforestation of Abandoned Tropical Agricultural and Pasture Lands. Restor Ecol. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111); 2000;8: 394–407. 10.1046/J.1526-100X.2000.80054.X@10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X.2525THANNIVERSARYVI - DOI

Publication types