Carbon dynamics at the hillslope and catchment scale. Greg Hancock 1 , Jetse Kalma 1 , Jeff McDonnell 2 , Cristina Martinez 1 , Barry Jacobs 1 , Tony Wells 1 1. The University of Newcastle 2. Oregon State University. Background.
Greg Hancock1, Jetse Kalma1, Jeff McDonnell2, Cristina Martinez1, Barry Jacobs1, Tony Wells1
1. The University of Newcastle
2. Oregon State University
At what scale do we need to examine the hillslope and catchmentto quantify and model soil carbon?
Case study – Tin Camp Creek point to paddock scale
Extensive catchment analysis
-hydrology and erosion model calibration
-DEM scale analysis
-soil erosion assessment by 137Cs
-soil carbon assessment
No relationship with soil carbon and hillslope position!
No relationship between soil carbon and soil erosion!
Results - hillslope profile point to paddock scale
and soil texture
No relationship with hillslope position and soil texture!
Results - soil carbon with point to paddock scale
soil textural properties
Weak relationship with soil carbon and texture!
The Goulburn catchment scale
Digital elevation models provide a framework for catchment examination
What grid scale do we use?
-3-arc second (90m) NASA (free)
Remote sensing used to extrapolate both soil moisture and biomass levels observed at the subcatchment and catchment scales to the larger region
- Thermal infrared imager (1m resolution at 500ft)
- Tri-spectral scanner (NDVI) (1m resolution at 500ft)
- PLMR soil moisture
Soil carbon, biomass, temperature, moisture, textural data
- 26 SASMAS sites (7000 km2 Goulburn)
- 2 small catchments (750 ha Stanley + one other)
- hillslope (Stanley + one other)
Soil erosion/sediment transport data for 2 small catchments (hillslope and stream)
Water quality data for 2 small catchments
High resolution data (Eco-Dimona aircraft)
-Thermal infrared imager
-Tri-spectral scanner (NDVI)
-PLMR (soil moisture)
for the Stanley (basalt) catchment and for a second (yet to determined) sandstone catchment within the study region