1. Activity 1.6. Grasslands & Wetlands Site representativity

2. Outline Biome and site distribution in Europe Grassland types and management Carbon balance vs. type and management Site management Conclusions

3. Biome and site distribution in Europe Grassland types and management Carbon balance vs. type and management Site management Conclusions

4. Biogeographical zones and grassland cover (PELCOM) a)Biogeographical regions of Europe, based on European Environment Agency data. (b) Grassland area (ha) within each 0.5 degree pixel, obtained from the PELCOM database. Permanent grasslands are found in very different biogeographical zones (not a climax vegetation) e.g. Alpine, Atlantic, Continental, Mediterranean

5. 28 sites Main Grass. Main Wet. Anc. Grass. Anc. Wet.

6. 3 Main Wet. 5 Anc. Wet.

7. 12 Main Grass. 7 Anc. Grass.

8. Main Grass. Anc. Grass. Relevant coverage of Western Europe Lack of Nordic and Eastern European sites

9. Location of sites in European climate space Continentality is an important factor for the duration of the growing season in grasslands

10. Biome and site distribution in Europe Grassland types and management Carbon balance vs. type and management Site management Conclusions

11. Grasslands and forage crops types in France Roots (eg sugar beet) Annual grass Lucerne Sown grass or grass-legume Permanent grassland (>5 yrs)

12. Sown vs. permanent grasslands

13. Grassland management (N fertilisation) Data needs Geo-referenced data on current land use and agricultural management Geo-referenced data of soil C stocks for grasslands

14. Grassland management (Cuts per year) Data needs Geo-referenced data on current land use and agricultural management Geo-referenced data of soil C stocks for grasslands

15. Definition of the ELPEN livestock systems (3)

16. Cropland Unimproved & rough grasslands Intensive grasslands Fallow Semi- intensive grasslands

17. Biome and site distribution in Europe Grassland types and management Carbon balance vs. type and management Site management Conclusions

18. Components of the grassland carbon budget NEE: Net Ecosystem Exchange, Atmospheric C balance NBP: Net Biome Productivity, Soil C balance

19. 1560 1405 Intake 295 188 2 11 94 1217 CH 4 Rani Rplant + Rsol GPP Reco LW increase Faeces Carbon fluxes in a continuously grazed site (g C m -2 yr -1 ) Intensive management – FR Laqueuille

20. 1408 1345 Intake 126 92 1.3 5 27 1119 CH 4 Rani Rplant + Rsol GPP Reco LW increase Faeces Carbon fluxes in a continuously grazed site (g C m -2 yr -1 ) Extensive management FR-Laqueuille

21. Carbon fluxes in a cut grassland (CH-Oensingen)  C/  t CO 2 harvest manure

22. NBP is less than NEE in cut but not in grazed only sites Grazed only sites with no C input

23. Net Ecosystem Exchange of different grassland types in Europe (Synthesis based on GreenGrass and CarboMont results) Int. Ext. Lowland Int. Ext. Natural Highland

24. Mean annual greenhouse gas (GHG) balance in CO 2 -C equivalents of grassland sites (± s.d.)

25. Management effects (GreenGrass sites)

26. Biome and site distribution in Europe Grassland types and management Carbon balance vs. type and management Site management Conclusions

27. Laqueuille Tojal Alinya Dripsey Easter Bush Amplero Oensingen Monte Bondone Bugac Chyrzyno Grillenburg Rimi Kaamanen Cabauw Horstemeer 15 main sites Grassland Wetland

28. Land tenure, management and soil Grassland types: 8 semi-natural, 2 intensive permanent, 2 sown.

29. Sites vs. scientific questions

30. Grassland Wetland 13 ancillary sites Lusignan Killorgin Auchencorth Moss Pang Lamb. Lelystad Billy Kriz Czechwet Malga Arpaco Schönau Stordalen Degerö Carlow Wexford

31. Representativeness: C storage potential (tC ha -1 ) No N fertilization Optimal N fertilization Higher C storage potential in areas of more intensive agricultural use On average, equilibrium C stocks are increased by 20 % with N fertilization

32. CO 2 vs non CO 2 fluxes (PaSim, N Vuichard) N 2 O + CH 4 émissions (t Ceq ha -1 ) Non CO 2 emissions are compared with the C storage potential  seq (t C ha-1) Optimal N supply No N supply

33. Conclusions (1/2) Wetlands: experts needed Grasslands: –climate space plot adapted for grassland biome –soil space plot (texture) –improved map vs. grassland cover (include grass ley systems) –grassland type map (?) –no short term possibility to generate management maps –Check with P. Smith for soil C map of grasslands in EU

34. Conclusions (2/2) The site network lacks Nordic and Eastern Europe sites. In Western Europe it may be biased towards the more extensive semi-natural grasslands. Not all sites seem to be able to record accurately the grassland management. Two main grassland sites only can fully control the management (a few more in the ancillary sites). However, the impact of management is far less in the very extensive sites. Grasslands in the more favourable climate conditions have greater C storage potential. They are also more intensively managed which maximizes the sink activity. At high altitude/latitude both the climate and management conditions are likely to reduce the atmospheric sink activity. In the cut grasslands, at least half of the sink measured by the masts disappears in the farm buildings and does not contribute to the regional atmospheric sink. NBP calculation is needed.