↓ Skip to main content

The Chinese Grain for Green Programme: Assessing the carbon sequestered via land reform

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Management, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Chinese Grain for Green Programme: Assessing the carbon sequestered via land reform
Published in
Journal of Environmental Management, September 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Persson, Jesper Moberg, Madelene Ostwald, Jintao Xu

Abstract

The Grain for Green Programme (GGP) was launched in China in 1999 to control erosion and increase vegetation cover. Budgeted at USD 40 billion, GGP has converted over 20 million hectares of cropland and barren land into primarily tree-based plantations. Although GGP includes energy forests, only a negligible part (0.6%) is planted as such, most of the land (78%) being converted for protection. Future use of these plantations is unclear and an energy substitution hypothesis is valid. We estimate the overall carbon sequestration via GGP using official statistics and three approaches, based on i) net primary production, ii) IPCC's greenhouse gas inventory guidelines, and iii) mean annual increment. We highlight uncertainties associated with GGP and the estimates. Results indicate that crop- and barren-land conversion sequestered 222-468 Mt of carbon over GGP's first ten years, the IPCC approach yielding the highest estimate and the other two approaches yielding similar but lower estimates (approximately 250 Mt of carbon). The carbon stock in these plantation systems yields a mean of 12.3 t of carbon per hectare. Assessment uncertainties concern the use of growth curves not designed for particular species and locations, actual plantation survival rates, and discrepancies in GGP figures (e.g., area, type, and survival rate) at different authority levels (from national to local). The carbon sequestered in above- and below-ground biomass from GGP represents 14% (based on the median of the three approaches) of China's yearly (2009) carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 5 17%
Unspecified 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 31%
Environmental Science 7 24%
Unspecified 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 17%

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 12 June 2013.
All research outputs
#7,548,677
of 12,079,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Management
#1,216
of 1,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,572
of 135,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Management
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,079,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 135,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.