Abstract
The effectiveness of land-based climate mitigation strategies is generally estimated on a case-by-case basis without considering interactions with other strategies or influencing factors. Here we evaluate a new, comprehensive approach that incorporates interactions among multiple management strategies, land use/cover change, wildfire, and climate, although the potential effects of climate change are not evaluated in this study. The California natural and working lands carbon and greenhouse gas model (CALAND) indicates that summing individual practice estimates of greenhouse gas impacts may underestimate emission reduction benefits in comparison with an integrated estimate. Annual per-area estimates of the potential impact of specific management practices on landscape emissions can vary based on the estimation period, which can be problematic for extrapolating such estimates over space and time. Furthermore, the actual area of implementation is a primary factor in determining potential impacts of management on landscape emissions. Nonetheless, less intensive forest management, avoided conversion to urban land, and urban forest expansion generally create the largest annual per-area reductions, while meadow restoration and forest fuel reduction and harvest practices generally create the largest increases with respect to no management. CALAND also shows that data uncertainty is too high to determine whether California land is a source or a sink of carbon emissions, but that estimating effects of management with respect to a baseline provides valid results. Important sources of this uncertainty are initial carbon density, net ecosystem carbon accumulation rates, and land use/cover change data. The appropriate choice of baseline is critical for generating valid results.