| Title |
A method for the assessment of long-term changes in carbon stock by construction of a hydropower reservoir
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-016-0874-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julio Werner Yoshioka Bernardo, Michael Mannich, Stephan Hilgert, Cristovão Vicente Scapulatempo Fernandes, Tobias Bleninger |
| Abstract |
Sustainability of hydropower reservoirs has been questioned since the detection of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which are mainly composed of carbon dioxide and methane. A method to assess the impact on the carbon cycle caused by the transition from a natural river system into a reservoir is presented and discussed. The method evaluates the long term changes in carbon stock instead of the current approach of monitoring and integrating continuous short term fluxes. A case study was conducted in a subtropical reservoir in Brazil, showing that the carbon content within the reservoir exceeds that of the previous landuse. The average carbon sequestration over 43 years since damming was 895 mg C m[Formula: see text] and found to be mainly due to storage of carbon in sediments. These results demonstrate that reservoirs have two opposite effects on the balance of GHGs. By storing organic C in sediments, reservoirs are an important carbon sink. On the other hand, reservoirs increase the flux of methane into the atmosphere. If the sediments of reservoirs could be used for long term C storage, reservoirs might have a positive effect on the balance of GHGs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 13 | 28% |
| Engineering | 7 | 15% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,518,987
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,526
of 1,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,589
of 421,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#36
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.