↓ Skip to main content

A carbon balance model for the great dismal swamp ecosystem

Overview of attention for article published in US Geological Survey, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
A carbon balance model for the great dismal swamp ecosystem
Published in
US Geological Survey, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13021-017-0070-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Sleeter, Benjamin M. Sleeter, Brianna Williams, Dianna Hogan, Todd Hawbaker, Zhiliang Zhu

Abstract

Carbon storage potential has become an important consideration for land management and planning in the United States. The ability to assess ecosystem carbon balance can help land managers understand the benefits and tradeoffs between different management strategies. This paper demonstrates an application of the Land Use and Carbon Scenario Simulator (LUCAS) model developed for local-scale land management at the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. We estimate the net ecosystem carbon balance by considering past ecosystem disturbances resulting from storm damage, fire, and land management actions including hydrologic inundation, vegetation clearing, and replanting. We modeled the annual ecosystem carbon stock and flow rates for the 30-year historic time period of 1985-2015, using age-structured forest growth curves and known data for disturbance events and management activities. The 30-year total net ecosystem production was estimated to be a net sink of 0.97 Tg C. When a hurricane and six historic fire events were considered in the simulation, the Great Dismal Swamp became a net source of 0.89 Tg C. The cumulative above and below-ground carbon loss estimated from the South One and Lateral West fire events totaled 1.70 Tg C, while management activities removed an additional 0.01 Tg C. The carbon loss in below-ground biomass alone totaled 1.38 Tg C, with the balance (0.31 Tg C) coming from above-ground biomass and detritus. Natural disturbances substantially impact net ecosystem carbon balance in the Great Dismal Swamp. Through alternative management actions such as re-wetting, below-ground biomass loss may have been avoided, resulting in the added carbon storage capacity of 1.38 Tg. Based on two model assumptions used to simulate the peat system, (a burn scar totaling 70 cm in depth, and the soil carbon accumulation rate of 0.36 t C/ha(-1)/year(-1) for Atlantic white cedar), the total soil carbon loss from the South One and Lateral West fires would take approximately 1740 years to re-amass. Due to the impractical time horizon this presents for land managers, this particular loss is considered permanent. Going forward, the baseline carbon stock and flow parameters presented here will be used as reference conditions to model future scenarios of land management and disturbance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 20 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 27%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,615,131
of 15,461,337 outputs
Outputs from US Geological Survey
#339
of 1,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,468
of 356,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from US Geological Survey
#26
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,461,337 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 356,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.