Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579

Erosion-related soil carbon fluxes in a pastoral steepland catchment, New Zealand
Mike Page a,∗ , Noel Trustrum b , Hannah Brackley a , Troy Baisden a
a b

Landcare Research New Zealand, Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North, New Zealand Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, P.O. Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

Received 29 October 2002; received in revised form 28 October 2003; accepted 6 November 2003

Abstract New Zealand is currently identifying and quantifying its carbon sources and sinks to develop a national carbon budget. This will enable it to set policy and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol. While soil is a major carbon sink, New Zealand also has high sediment yields to the ocean, suggesting that erosion has a significant effect on soil carbon fluxes, through CO2 emission during transport of carbon in sediment, carbon burial and recovery of carbon on eroded areas. As a contribution to the national carbon budget, a mass balance approach was used to calculate soil carbon fluxes from landslide and sheetwash erosion in the Tutira catchment in the North Island of New Zealand. This soft rock hill country catchment represents the upper limit for landslide-related soil carbon losses. It contains a lake that acts as a highly efficient trap for sediment and nutrients, and has preserved a high-resolution record of storm-induced erosion. Information from previous studies of erosion and lake sedimentation was used to construct a carbon budget for the 114-year period of European pastoral farming. The budget assumes the gross transfer of carbon by geomorphological processes and does not include biogeochemical exchanges with the atmosphere. Results indicate that 0.94 ± 0.23 Mg C ha−1 per year enter the lake (0.50 ± 0.15 Mg C ha−1 per year from landslide erosion and 0.44 ± 0.17 Mg C ha−1 per year from sheetwash erosion). On a national scale this equates to an anthropogenically induced loss of 2 112 000 Mg C per year from the 10% of similar terrain under pastoral land use. However, the net loss from the landscape is significantly less due to carbon recovery on eroded sites. Landslide scars have a carbon recovery rate (after oxidation) of ∼0.61 Mg C ha−1 per year. Carbon recovery on areas affected solely by sheetwash erosion was not measured, but is significantly lower. This information is being used to constrain models of erosion-related carbon fluxes developed for landslide-prone terrains, as part of the national carbon budget. © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Erosion; Steeplands; Soil carbon; Carbon translocation; Mass balance

1. Introduction The contribution of erosion to the New Zealand carbon budget is currently being investigated. This
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64-6-356-7154; fax: +64-6-355-9230. E-mail address: (M. Page).

involves quantifying the amount of soil carbon transferred to the ocean and to lakes, the amount stored in terrestrial deposits, the amount released to the atmosphere as CO2 by biogeochemical processes during transport and after deposition, the potential for carbon sequestration by fluvial sediments and by revegetated eroded land, and the human-induced proportion of these fluxes (Trustrum et al., 2002). By necessity,

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.11.010

However. In this paper. Glade. 1999.. the sources. 1994b.. Harden et al. processes and pathways that lead to these yields. 1).b. The mean annual rainfall at Tutira is 1438 mm (1951–1980). In New Zealand. soil carbon losses from landslide and sheetwash erosion were calculated for the Tutira catchment in the North Island. 1992).. and has been mantled by a number of Holocene tephras. 2. represents the upper limit for landslide-related soil carbon losses. The catchment is underlain by late Pliocene and early Pleistocene sandstones and siltstones interbedded with limestones and conglomerates. This is similar to current energy-derived CO2 emissions (−8. Vegetation and soils are major carbon sinks where CO2 is stored and exchanged with the atmosphere. of the global sediment yield to the ocean. It is well suited to a study linking erosion and carbon transfers and identifying soil carbon losses associated with landsliding and other erosion processes. 1999). and that changes in land-use practices could potentially achieve 25% of the reductions in CO2 projected to be required by 2050 to avoid large increases in temperature (The Royal Society. 2000. This soft rock hill country catchment. are an important component of the rainfall regime. have been lacking.. and has short steep rivers. some of cyclonic origin. which is not source. The catchment has been the focus of erosion research for over a decade (Page et al. Page and Trustrum.3 Tg C per year in 2000) and C-sequestration in plantation forests (+6 Tg C per year) (Scott et al. with a combination of terrain highly susceptible to landsliding and high frequency of landslide-triggering storms (Page et al.or process-specific. which quantify the sources. IPCC. . It is also clear that the benefit of forest planting and scrub reversion to NZ’s carbon budget will be increased if it is targeted at erodible terrain.. Lyons et al. 2001. as a contribution to New Zealand’s carbon budget. 2001). It is estimated that vegetation and soils are absorbing ∼40% of global CO2 emissions from human activities. so that suspended sediment is rapidly transferred to floodplains and the ocean.. rapid runoff from steep terrain. This short residence time in streams and rivers limits the opportunity for CO2 evolution.. / Agriculture. While New Zealand vegetation contains ∼2400 Tg C (above and below the ground) (Tate et al. 2002). The erosion impact on New Zealand’s carbon budget is therefore likely to be significant and needs quantification. much of which has been eroded from steep hillslopes. 2000). High-intensity rainstorms. Initial estimates are that the potential loss of carbon by erosion could be between 3 and 11 Tg C per year (Tate et al. New Zealand is subject to high-intensity storms. They are also estimated to have the greatest carbon yields (∼100–300 g C m−2 per year) (Stallard. in northern Hawke’s Bay (Fig. 2001. a national carbon budget is being developed in New Zealand in anticipation of the need for full carbon accounting. sinks and transfers of carbon need to be better understood. 1998). the focus for most studies of erosion-related carbon loss has been water erosion (sheetwash) of cropland (Lal. 1994a. affecting about 12 million ha (46% of the country). 2001). 2002). Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 much of the work involves short-term monitoring of carbon in streams and rivers. soil is New Zealand’s major store of carbon with 4190 ± 280 Tg C (to 1 m depth) (Davis et al. 1998. mass balances. 1997. 1995.. Starr et al. Little attention has been given to mass movement erosion of pastoral steeplands. 1998. However. As in many countries. it is estimated that 209 ± 21 Tg of suspended sediment are delivered to the ocean annually from the New Zealand landscape (Hicks et al. 1997).562 M. Lal.. Preston. and perhaps as much as 33% (Lyons et al.. The intended target of a 15% reduction in New Zealand emissions by 2012 will be met largely through uptake and storage in exotic plantation forests. Page et al. Jacinthe and Lal. 1999). Study area The Tutira catchment. To date. sinks. 2002). to substantiate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol.. landsliding is a major erosion process. is representative of the landslide-prone soft rock hill country that occupies ∼19% of New Zealand (authors’ personal communication). collectively accounting for more than 20% (Milliman and Syvitski. 2001). To identify the amount of forestry required. yielding a wealth of empirical data and understanding of geomorphic processes. New Zealand and other steep islands of Oceania and Asia have among the highest sediment yields. Merz and Mosley.

/ Agriculture. Location map. 1. Page et al. . Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 563 Fig.M.

The lakes are highly efficient sediment traps. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 The catchment has an area of 2963 ha.. 1988. who through 58 years of meticulous observations provided valuable information used in this study. and the Fig. where source and depositional sites. Conversion of the catchment from bracken fern/scrub to pasture began in earnest in 1882 with the arrival of Guthrie-Smith. 2). 1994b). and a long-time frame (∼100 years).564 M. Two-thirds of the erosion-prone area comprises siltstone and sandstone steeplands. provides a ‘real-world’ example. Trustrum.) by blockage of a fourth-order stream by a large landslide (Page and Trustrum. for ‘a more geomorphically rigorous approach’ to the linking of erosion. Approach The Tutira catchment is an ideal site to use a mass balance approach to address the issue of whether erosion is a net source or sink of carbon in such landscapes. with landslides and deposition of sediment on hillslopes and valley floors. Sedimentation rates are rapid and the lake sediments contain a high-resolution record of storm-induced erosion (Page et al. proposed by Stallard (1998). / Agriculture. Photograph: N. and has a maximum depth of 42 m and an average depth of 21 m. 1997). and has a catchment area of 75 ha. Page et al. Since 1992 ∼370 ha of the steep hills around the lake has been planted in exotic forest (mainly Pinus radiata and mixed deciduous hardwoods). . multiple erosion processes.A. 2. by the 1930s most of the catchment was in pasture. Despite problems of reversion. sedimentation. a pioneer farmer. 6500 years before present (B. The selection of a whole catchment as the unit of study. being closely coupled with the surrounding steep. landslide-prone hills that are the major sediment source (Fig. 3. and one-third comprises less-steep tephra-mantled hills. with Lake Tutira (179 ha) near its southern boundary. Lake Tutira and surrounding steepland terrain following Cyclone Bola. The lake was formed ca. Lake Waikopiro (11 ha) is separated from Lake Tutira by a narrow natural causeway. and carbon. This approach recognises the need.P.

Transport time of water and Fig. and 1963–2001. 3. The variety of existing empirical data—obtained during studies of geomorphic processes. This conveniently enabled sediment and carbon losses to be calculated for three 38-year periods. Framework for calculating soil carbon fluxes. and lag effects and feedback mechanisms operate. / Agriculture. The framework for calculating soil carbon transfers is summarised in Fig. and sustainable land use—was used to calculate erosion-related carbon losses and gains. . 3. The approach links estimates of terrestrial erosion rates and carbon content of soils and sediment with knowledge of lake sedimentation. 1887–1925.M. The bases for this 114-year period are bathymetric surveys in 1925 and 1963. which provided a measure of sediment volume accumulated in the lake over a 38-year period. Page et al. to construct sediment and carbon budgets for the period of European farming. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 565 magnitude and frequency of events all interact. For the purpose of this study the period of European settlement is defined as 1887–2001. 1925–1963. erosion history.

Each calculated density was then multiplied by the area of the corresponding slope class in the catchment. Tsd the tunnel gully sediment delivered to the lake. Cs2 the carbon content of soil forming on previous landslide scars. The volume of sediment eroded by landslides by slope class for each 38-year period is shown in Table 1.2. Descriptions of these terrains are given in Trustrum et al. and SDR the sediment delivery ratio.1 Ae2 the area of landslides on previous landslide scars. (1999). Page et al. On this basis there were 64 storms. which equates to 13 782 000 Mg based on a bulk density of 1. where LCd is the carbon delivered to the lake.1. 1). . 4). In order to calculate Ae1 . An evaluation of the uncertainty associated with the results is given in Appendix A. Soil carbon losses from sheetwash erosion can be expressed by the following equations: SCd = Ssd × Cs where Ssd = Sd − Lsd − Csd − Tsd (3) (2) where SCd is carbon delivered to the lake. Lsd the landslide sediment delivered to the lake. respectively. and 753 mm at Tutira (Fig. Ae1 the area of landslides on previously uneroded ground. Average scar volumes were calculated using data in Page et al. The total sediment eroded between 1887 and 2001 is 11 881 000 m3 . providing limited opportunity for CO2 evolution.16 Mg m−3 (Page et al. and does not include biogeochemical exchanges with the atmosphere during transport. Volume of sediment eroded by landslides (LSe) The volume of sediment eroded was calculated using: 1. volume of landslide sediment delivered to the lake (LSd). A landsliding event was defined as >200 mm rainfall in 4 days or less. 16 of which exceeded 300 mm. The volume of landslide sediment eroded during each 38-year period was calculated by applying the storm rainfall–landslide density relationships for each slope category (Fig. or >250 mm in 5–7 days. (1999). 1994a). 2 Previous landslide scars were formed after European settlement. average scar volume. The budget therefore assumes the gross transfer of carbon by geomorphological processes. Page et al. 2. / Agriculture. 90 km northeast of Tutira (Fig. and Cs the carbon content of top soil to ∼10 cm depth. the largest being 753 mm. and Reid and Page (2002). Sd the total sediment delivered to the lake. (1994a). Relationships between storm rainfall and landslide density were applied to slopes 18–25◦ and slopes >25◦ . Ae2 .1. Soil carbon losses from landslide erosion 4. Results 4. The graph of the relationship for slopes >25◦ includes landslide counts for four storms of 230. a record of (landslide-triggering) storms derived from the 1894–2001 daily rainfall record at the lake. Csd the channel sediment 1 Uneroded ground has had no landslide erosion since European settlement. Soil carbon losses from landslide erosion Soil carbon losses from landsliding can be expressed by the following equation: LCd = [(Ae1 × Cs1 ) + (Ae2 × Cs2 )] × SDR (1) delivered to the lake. 320. Soil carbon losses from sheetwash erosion The amount of sediment and carbon derived by sheetwash erosion was estimated using the following assumptions. 3.1. and by average scar volumes of 216 and 195 m3 for slopes >25◦ and 18–25◦ .2 Cs1 the carbon content of uneroded soil to 1 m depth. relationships between storm rainfall and landslide density. 4. These relationships were defined for similar terrains (land systems) in the Waipaoa catchment. estimates are needed of: volume of landslide sediment eroded (LSe). and SDR.. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 sediment to the lake during storms is in the order of hours to days.1. 3. 692. Ssd the sheetwash sediment delivered to the lake. 4) to each landsliding event (storm) in the rainfall record.566 M. 3.

8 494 000 Mg was deposited in the lake between 1887 and 2001. a total of 8 919 000 Mg of sediment was delivered to the lake (Table 2).2. The cores were taken from deep (36–38 m of water). and relative sedimentation rates of lake cores. 1966) showed that the mean lake depth had decreased by 1.3.34× increase in sedimentation rate. relative sedimentation rates from four lake cores (LT15. for slopes 18–25◦ (Wharekopae land system) and >25◦ (Te Arai land system) (after Reid and Page. Fig. Page et al. relative sedimentation rates of lake cores. From the high-resolution record of storm events. Based on the capacity to annual inflow ratio method of Brune (1953). -17. trap efficiency. For the period 1887–1925. 1994a). Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 567 1. 3. Page et al. bathymetric surveys. 2. drowned when Lake Tutira was formed.1. Curved lines indicate the 95% confidence interval for the unconstrained regressions (solid lines). This provided a sedimentation rate of 2125 Mg km−2 per year (Adams. 4. 1994b) were used to estimate the volumes of sediment accumulated in the preceding 38-year period (1887–1925) and the following 38-year period (1963–2001). the trap efficiency was 89% (Page et al. the trap efficiency of the lake is estimated to be ∼97% (Page and Trustrum. percentage of core sediment derived from landslide-generating storms. and -7. 4. For Cyclone Bola.M. there was a 1. central basins that are part of the meandering floor of the valley. Relationship between storm rainfall and landslide density under pasture. -16. / Agriculture.1 m. while for 1963–2001 there was a 1. A comparison of bathymetric surveys carried out in 1925 (Guthrie-Smith. For the purpose of this study an overall trap efficiency of 95% was adopted. 1997). 4. 1953) and 1963 (Grant. Based on 2 393 000 Mg of sediment deposited between 1925 and 1963. Sediment delivered to lake (Sd) The sediment delivered to the lake was calculated using: . Any effect that sedimentation pattern changes may have had on sedimentation rates will have been minimised by the location of cores sites well away from stream entry points. Landslide sediment delivered to lake (LSd) The amount of landslide sediment delivered was calculated from the total sediment delivered to the lake using: 1.. With a 95% trap efficiency. when compared with 1925–1963. the largest storm since European settlement. The relative sedimentation rates necessarily assume constant patterns of sedimentation. 2002). 1979) or a catchment yield of 2 393 000 Mg in 38 years..1.21× increase.

00 3 652 812 1963–2001 4 122 477 0.. 5 953 000 Mg (67%) was derived from landslides. most landslides would have occurred on “uneroded ground”.00 m was chosen. For the period 1925–1963.1. Bola and a similar sized storm together accounted for more than 50% of the European sediment volume (Page et al. 1994a).. ∼75% of the sediment volume deposited during the European period consisted of storm-generated erosion pulses (Page and Trustrum. Sediment delivery ratio (SDR) The landslide sediment delivery ratio for the 114-year period was calculated from the difference between landslide sediment eroded (LSe) and landslide sediment delivered to the lake (LSd).11 m. Ae2 ) The area eroded by landslides was calculated from landslide volume eroded divided by average scar depth. 4. The area eroded by landslides for each 38-year period is shown in Table 3. 1994b). 1997).89 4 631 997 1887–2001 11 881 363 ± 15% 11 983 975 ± 16% .1. the area of “uneroded ground” decreased. With successive landsliding events. 4. landslides accounted for 89% of the sediment volume generated (Page et al.43 for 114 years. In a sediment budget for Cyclone Bola. Area eroded by landslides (Ae1 . For the period 1963–2001.89 m. the number of landslides occurring on previously eroded sites increased. In cores taken from the lake. which is the depth of undisturbed regolith (Merz and Mosley. 1994a). an intermediate value of 1. Landslide scar depth has decreased during the last 114 years.568 M. of the 8 919 000 Mg of sediment delivered to the lake..1. for each 38-year period. The total area for 1887–2001 is 11 984 000 m2 .11 3 699 166 1925–1963 3 652 812 1. These were storms large enough to initiate landsliding. percentage of landslide sediment in storm layers. Scar depth for the 1887–1925 period was therefore assumed to be 1.5. Carbon delivered to lake (LCd) The amount of landslide-derived carbon delivered to the lake was calculated from: Table 3 Area eroded by landslides 1887–1925 Landslide volume (m3 ) Scar depth (m) Landslide area (m2 ) 4 106 074 1. scar depth was assumed to be 0.6. The difference between 13 782 000 Mg of sediment eroded and 5 953 000 Mg of sediment delivered to the lake gave an average landslide sediment delivery ratio of 0.4. and as scars weathered and soils began to reform. Although this figure may differ for smaller storms. 1998). Page et al. Following conversion from fern/scrub to pasture. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 Table 1 Volume of sediment (m3 ) eroded by landslides 1887–1925 slopes >25◦ slopes All slopes <25◦ 433 508 3 672 566 4 106 074 1925–1963 390 780 3 262 032 3 652 812 1963–2001 466 245 3 656 232 4 122 477 1887–2001 1 290 533 ± 15% 10 590 830 ± 15% 11 881 363 ± 15% Table 2 Sediment (Mg) delivered to and accumulated in lake 1887–1925 Sediment in lake Sediment delivered to lake 3 206 115 3 366 421 1925–1963 2 392 623 2 512 254 1963–2001 2 895 074 3 039 828 1887–2001 8 493 812 ± 5% 8 918 503 ± 5% 2. / Agriculture. based on the average depth of 1988 Cyclone Bola landslides (Page et al. On this basis. 4.

with little occurring as calcium carbonate and charcoal (Tate et al... Calculations indicate that if all landslides occurred on uneroded ground. 1984. and had a soil carbon content equivalent to 162 Mg C ha−1 . on similar terrain and with a similar frequency of landslide-inducing storms (Glade. organic carbon occurs mainly in soil organic matter. as previously mentioned. respectively.5% of the landslide-prone terrain (1369 ha). 1980. sediment delivery ratio (SDR). is devoid of indigenous forest. (The average slope for landslide scars is 31◦ . a proportion of landslides occurs on sites of previous landslides. Merz and Mosley. 1974). 2001).% of the sediment delivered to the lake in 114 years. In New Zealand soils. Farm tracks. Landslide-prone soils in the Tutira catchment are Orthic Acrisols and Vitric Andosols (FAO–UNESCO. 1968). the remaining 30. measured during the sediment budget described in Page et al. A value of 110 Mg C ha−1 from 1938 scars was used as the average carbon content of previously eroded landslide scars. contributing 67 wt. / Agriculture. 6). Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 569 1. so a value for the carbon content of uneroded forest soil is difficult to obtain. This is 33% of the soil carbon in the landslide-prone terrain at the commencement of European settlement. 1997). area eroded by landslides (Ae1 . the contribution of sheetwash erosion is not so well quantified. derived from a random sample of 118 landslide scars.M. Thomas and Trustrum. Page et al. are reported for these soil groups under pasture (Tate et al. while debris tails revegetate within 2–3 years. Ae2 ).2. and composite yellow-brown pumice soils on yellow-brown loams according to the NZ Genetic Soil Classification (Taylor and Pohlen. 4.) The Tutira catchment. and this value is consistent with carbon recovery rates (Fig.17 ± 0..5% of scars occurred on the site of previous landslides. gives a total of 182 500 Mg C eroded in 114 years at a rate of 1.43. and 110 Mg C ha−1 applied to 418 ha. These soils are classified as intergrades between yellow-grey earths and yellow-brown earths. On this basis.15 Mg C ha−1 per year from the area of landslide-prone land (1369 ha). as 1938 is about half way in the 114-year period of European settlement. especially from steep areas where the pasture is heavily grazed or affected by drought. This value is consistent with understandings of the relationship between soil C levels in pasture and indigenous forest at a national scale (Giltrap et al. Soil carbon losses from sheetwash erosion Sheetwash sediment is derived from diffuse areas of bare ground within the pasture sward.. like the majority of the “soft rock” sedimentary hill country of New Zealand. Assuming a similar rate of landsliding to Tutira.22 Mg C ha−1 per year. 1997). carbon content of soil forming on landslide scars (Cs2 ). 57% of the landslide-prone terrain was occupied by scars in 1984 (Trustrum and Douglas. landslide scars and debris tails are also sources of sheetwash sediment. 4. 2. While landsliding is the main erosion process in the Tutira catchment. Estimates of the contribution that sheetwash has made to the sediment and carbon budgets since European settlement have been constrained by the above figure. Mean soil carbon values of 112 and 197 Mg C ha−1 . Most landslide scars revegetate within 10–20 years. then 78 500 Mg C has entered the lake at a rate of 0. Assuming an SDR of 0. However. carbon content of uneroded soil/regolith to 1 m (Cs1 ). 3. At Wairoa. together with a sediment budget for Cyclone Bola . Uneroded soil (without landslides) on a 32◦ slope under pasture in the Tutira catchment was sampled. of the 1198 ha eroded by landslides. For the purpose of this paper a value of 175 Mg C ha−1 for uneroded forest soil/regolith (to 1 m depth) has been adopted for landslide-prone terrain.50 ± 0. 1). At the beginning of European settlement this would have equated to a total of 240 000 Mg C for the landslide-prone area of the catchment (1369 ha). 780 ha was on uneroded ground and 418 ha was on previously eroded sites. 60 km northeast of Tutira (Fig. 1998). 1998). Several studies on the East Coast report that between 40 and 60% of regolith has been removed by landslides since the onset of pastoral farming (Crozier et al. then by 2001 the area of landslide scars (1198 ha) would occupy 87. (1994a). unpublished data). A carbon content of 175 Mg C ha−1 applied to 780 ha. although values of 164 and 144 Mg C ha−1 were measured for soils under a 105-year old second growth forest in the catchment.

in this case to the lake or.% for the 1963–2001 period were used. This is 29% of the soil carbon in the sheetwash erosion-prone terrain at the commencement of European settlement. based on the carbon content of uneroded ground.2.44 ± 0. 2. for the 75% of the European sediment that was derived from landslide-generating storms (Page and Trustrum. Carbon content of top soils of 5.44 Mg C ha−1 per year).% for the 1925–1963 period and 3. / Agriculture.34 36 197 4. Sheetwash sediment delivered to lake (Ssd) The amount of sheetwash sediment delivered to the lake was calculated from the total sediment delivered to the lake using: 1. An estimated 84 500 Mg C has entered the lake at a rate of 0.17 Mg C ha−1 per year is available in deposits on hillslopes and floodplains (Fig.94 ± 0. as it assumes that the percentage of soil carbon in the sediment delivered to the lake is the same as the carbon content of the uneroded topsoil (∼0–10 cm). A further 0. 4. 1981).06 wt. In the sediment budget for Cyclone Bola. Table 4 Sheetwash erosion-derived carbon delivered to lake 1887–1925 Sediment delivered to lake (Mg) C in top soil (wt. in other catchments to the ocean. The carbon content of translocated sediment can be at least twice that of the average topsoil (Van Noordwijk et al.570 M. of the 8 919 000 Mg of sediment delivered to the lake. 1994a).94 ± 0.2.1. 1997).% for the 1887–1925 period. 4. The majority of the remaining 25% of European sediment was derived from rainfalls below the threshold for landsliding.89 wt. 0. Based on the ratio of sheetwash erosion to channel erosion to tunnel gully erosion for Cyclone Bola. Carbon measurements were 1925–1963 533 854 4. 7% was assumed to have been derived from sheetwash erosion. at a rate of 0. The following calculation of soil carbon losses from sheetwash erosion can be regarded as a minimum.%) Relative sedimentation rates Carbon (Mg) 715 365 5. 1 895 000 Mg (21%) was derived from sheetwash erosion. percentage of core sediment derived from nonlandslide-generating storms.50 + 0..23 Mg C ha−1 per year (0.17 Mg C ha−1 per year from 1679 ha of sheetwash erosion-prone land (slopes >10◦ ). channel erosion 2%.. sheetwash erosion was estimated to account for 7% of the sediment volume mobilised. tunnel gully 2%. Comparison of erosion-derived estimate of carbon loss with carbon content of lake sediment The amount of carbon estimated to have been deposited in the lake was compared with the carbon content of lake sediment. based on the relative sedimentation rates in the cores and carbon content of six top soils (0–10 cm) (Table 4). where landslides accounted for 89% of the sediment volume mobilised. There is. 4. percentage of sheetwash sediment in storm layers. Total soil carbon losses from erosion Combined landslide and sheetwash erosion delivered 163 000 Mg C to the lake in 114 years (55% of C in landslide and sheetwash erosion-prone terrain at European arrival).3. ∼64% of this sediment was derived from sheetwash erosion..33 1. and for a similar percentage of the sediment delivered to the lake. Therefore. Therefore. Carbon delivered to lake (SCd) The amount of sheetwash erosion-derived carbon was estimated for each 38-year period. 5).00 23 116 1963–2001 645 963 3.06 1.21 25 128 1887–2001 1 895 182 ± 20% 84 441 ± 38% .2. and sheetwash erosion 7%.67 ± 0.4. to be ultimately buried in marine sediments.89 1. and the proportion of each surface in each period. new scars and old scars.33 wt. 1997). as it is transported downstream. therefore. as the lighter particles that contain the most carbon are transported more readily and furthest (Voroney et al. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 (Page et al. 4. Page et al.23 Mg C ha−1 per year potentially available for oxidation to CO2 .

After 1960. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 571 Fig. Results are given in Table 5. gives a total of 158 000 Mg C delivered to the lake. made on 27 samples taken at 5 cm intervals from core LT15 (Page et al. This figure is only 3% less than 163 000 Mg C calculated to have entered the lake. 1994b). to account for trap efficiency.%) Carbon (Mg) 3 206 115 1. Authigenic contribution would have been low before 1960 when the lake was oligotrophic. Page et al. Erosion-related carbon budget for the Tutira catchment. Two of the post-1963 samples included both narrow clay layers and organic-rich gyttja-like layers.58 37 803 1963–2001 2 895 074 2.M.37 68 613 1887–2001 8 493 812 ± 5% 150 340 ± 24% . No attempt has been made to separate allogenic and authigenic carbon. / Agriculture.37% C for the 1963–2001 period. However. Carbon from this source is therefore included in the figure of 2.37 43 924 from catchment sources (allogenic) and a proportion derived from lake sources (authigenic). The %carbon in the lake sediments will include a proportion derived Table 5 Carbon in lake sediment 1887–1925 Sediment in lake (Mg) C in sediment (wt. nutrient levels were increased by aerial topdressing during the 1950s and by the consequent increase in stock numbers. Increasing 150 000 Mg C by 5%. and weed infestations were common.. the lake became eutrophic with algal blooms. 5. Samples were taken from both storm sediment pulses and more slowly accumulating sediment. 1925–1963 2 392 623 1.

18% less than 163 000 Mg C calculated to have entered the lake.and 37-year-old scars from Wairarapa sites near Masterton. and 23. . After ∼100 years recovery has reached ∼70% of the uneroded value. During this time. Carbon content was measured to bedrock (or the slip plane).572 M. 6. However. Recovery of carbon is due to a combination of natural processes and human-induced recovery (oversowing and topdressing). In the case of a landslide scar. no attempt was made to quantify carbon recovery on areas affected solely by sheetwash erosion. 6). it is also likely to be indicative of the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere during and after transport and deposition (Lal. 78 500 Mg C was delivered to the lake. and it is these lighter particles that stay in suspension longest and are preferentially lost through the lake outlet. (1990). / Agriculture. Carbon recovery by landslide scars Of 182 500 Mg C eroded by landslides. Carbon recovery 4. carbon recovery by landslide scars must be included. and Sparling et al. 4. It will take decades before another landslide occurs on that site. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 However. the amount of carbon recovered in the new profile can be measured. Unlike the gross estimates of carbon losses by geomorphological processes. to calculate the net loss of carbon from the landscape.5. Page et al. This is similar to levels of recovery reported by Lambert et al. Trustrum et al.1.and 62-year-old scars at Tutira.5.61 Mg C ha−1 per year. because of their greater surface area (Leithold and Blair. The majority of the carbon is transported by clay-sized particles. carbon recovery is occurring on 899 ha affected solely by sheetwash erosion. Consequently. the soil/regolith has been removed to a depth of ∼1 m.2.58% C to the 1963–2001 period gave a total of 134 000 Mg C. at a rate of ∼0. As a more chronic form of erosion. these figures represent net carbon recovery after emission of carbon to the atmosphere by oxidation. recalculating the carbon in the lake sediment by applying the 1925–1963 figure of 1. However. Carbon recovery by sheetwash eroded pasture As with landslide scars. 2001). Recovery was calculated using a carbon recovery curve. (2002). carbon is being removed and recovered at the same time and on a more regular basis. (2003). A total of 95 000 Mg C has been recovered by landslide scars since 1887. However. when compared with other components of Fig. derived from carbon measurements on landslide scars of different ages (Fig.5. Baisden et al. and a new soil forms from weathering of the regolith and accumulated material. 2001). Recovery curve of soil carbon on landslide scars. quantifying carbon recovery on areas prone to sheetwash erosion is more difficult. 4. However. and area of landslide scars for each storm in the record. The carbon recovery curve is derived from measurements of 12. (1984). This may be partially explained by a lower (<95%) trap efficiency for carbon.

70 Mg ha−1 per year without organic carbon.. from the sheetwash erosion-prone terrain in the Tutira catchment (1679 ha) for the 1963–2001 period. and 7. 1999). both with and without carbon. and 9. Results from Tutira indicate a mobilisation rate for landsliding of 117 g C m−2 per year. Stallard.25 Mg ha−1 per year (includes animal excreta). together with recovery of carbon on landslide scars. 5. 1) where sheetwash was the only erosion process (Appendix B). The rates of sheetwash erosion from the East Coast (Tutira and Waipaoa) are 4–5 times greater than those reported by Lambert et al. mountainous watersheds with rapid erosion.5 Pg C in terrestrial sediments and for much of the ‘missing carbon’ in global carbon budgets. Van Noordwijk et al. recovery rate is likely to be less than half that on landslide scars. and are subject to a higher frequency . the sediment yield.2. with the majority of studies being carried out on water erosion of cropland. (1985) for Ballantrae and DeRose (unpublished data) for the Waikato. Lambert et al. Stallard (1998) estimated that human-induced erosion might be responsible for the burial of 0.M. this would increase the pond yield to 90% of the Tutira yield. Annual losses of soil C in sediment in runoff water were ∼0. landslide-prone soft rock hill country is nevertheless a net source of carbon due to losses associated with sheetwash erosion.74 Mg ha−1 per year (depending on grazing management). Sediment accumulation was measured by the authors of this paper in 1998 in seven stock ponds in the Waipaoa catchment (Fig. including organic carbon. This is similar to the maximum carbon yields of 100–300 g C m−2 per year quoted by Stallard (1998) for small.1. Harden et al. more erodible terrain. The storage and ultimate burial of this carbon on hillslopes and valley floors (assuming no flux to the atmosphere).6–1. At Tutira ∼57% of carbon mobilised by landslides is deposited on the landscape. wet. Carbon mobilisation and yields There is debate about the role of erosion in the carbon cycle and its importance as a mechanism for soil carbon loss. and quoted mobilisation rates of between 30 and 260 g C m−2 per year from studies of water erosion of cropland in nine ecological regions around the world..08 Mg ha−1 (Lambert et al. / Agriculture. 5. rates of accumulation represent only minimum sediment losses. 5.. Page et al. Comparison of sheetwash erosion estimates with other studies There have been few other empirical studies of sheetwash erosion in New Zealand soft rock hill country. was 8. Jacinthe and Lal (2001) stated that such erosion makes a significant contribution both to soil carbon losses and to CO2 emissions. (1985) reported sediment losses of 1. 1997. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 573 the budget. may be in balance with initial losses from erosion. The stock pond accumulation rate is 82% of the Tutira yield. and a combined delivery rate to the lake from landsliding and sheetwash erosion of 94 g C m−2 per year (50 g C m−2 per year from landsliding and 44 g C m−2 per year from sheetwash erosion). The average accumulation rate from the seven catchments. 1990. While Schlesinger (1986) and Rasmussen and Albrecht (1998) discounted water erosion of cropland as an important mechanism for soil carbon loss. 2000). While these findings support contentions that landslide erosion constitutes a mechanism for significant carbon storage and may play an important role in the carbon cycle. together with recovery of carbon on eroded sites. Discussion 5.22–2.0 Mg ha−1 per year from sheetwash erosion in the Mangaotama catchment near Hamilton. By comparison.40–2. 1998. from hill country catchments at the AgResearch Ballantrae Hill Country Research Station in Hawke’s Bay. Because trap efficiency is unknown. was 10. pastoral. However. Carbon burial and carbon sequestration Opinions also differ about whether erosion constitutes a carbon source or a carbon sink (Schlesinger.95 Mg ha−1 per year without organic carbon. DeRose (unpublished data) calculated a sediment yield of 0. result in a net carbon gain of 9%.09 Mg ha−1 per year including organic carbon. If a 90% trap efficiency is presumed. A ‘dynamic equilibrium’ hypothesis proposes that this sink of buried carbon.3. rates are expected to be significantly greater. given that the East Coast sites have a steeper.

The gullies are ca. The average SDR of 0. The problems of the influence of storm rainfall and terrain factors on sediment delivery have been overcome in this study by calculating an average sediment delivery ratio for all storms. 5. Event resistance Perhaps the greatest potential source of error in the approach outlined in this paper is the assumption of stationarity in the relationship between storm rainfall and landsliding.% for alluvial soils to 1 m depth (average of four East Coast soils).. 2003).56 (accounting for more than 50% of the sediment volume accumulated in the lake). Carbon losses from tunnel gully erosion are negligible. which is the approximate threshold for a significant landslide event.31. and drainage density... 5.43 is heavily influenced by Cyclone Bola and the 1938 storm. The same comparison could not be made for the 1963–2001 period because of the absence of post-1988 sediment in the cores. provide a temporal and spatial basis to scale up results to the national scale. 160 500 Mg (30%) of which would overbank onto valley floors.2–0. and by increasing transmission of debris tail sediment by overland flow (Trustrum et al. In the Waipaoa catchment.52 wt.. such as Tutira and the nearby Waipaoa catchment (Gomez et al.b). landslide position and size. or may be due either to a change in SDR resulting from a different mix of storm sizes for the two periods or to errors in the data. On this basis.5 was estimated by Reid and Page (2002) for Cyclone Bola (ca. 1980. Terrain factors that influence sediment delivery ratios include slope angle. a delivery ratio of 0.94 Mg C ha−1 per year to the national scale depends on the representativeness of the Tutira . whereas the rainfall–landslide relationship predicts only a 10% reduction. A sediment delivery ratio of 0. Glade.56 was calculated for Cyclone Bola (753 mm) in the Tutira catchment (Page et al. Assuming that these two storms (753 and 692 mm) had an SDR of 0. by extending the stream channel network further upslope to increase connectivity with landslides. 600 mm).7. This difference may be evidence of a rising landslide threshold. Scaling up Catchment-based studies of erosion-related carbon transfers. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 and magnitude of storms (Tomlinson. 1994a. 64 rainstorms >200 mm.. Progressive regolith removal by landslides at a rate greater than weathering rates results in a rise in the threshold for landsliding and a change in the relationship. measured sediment delivery ratios for smaller storms are lacking. The 1925–1963 period has a 16% reduction in the amount of landslide sediment delivered to the lake compared with the 1887–1925 period. slope length. as the average depth of channel incision is 1.4. Variables such as rainfall intensity and antecedent conditions also influence event resistance. most of the carbon-rich topsoil is retained on the slope.54 for Cyclone Bola for a number of terrains using a computer simulation model. Evidence for this phenomenon occurs at Lake Tutira where Cyclone Bola in 1988.5. on similar terrain.6. Reid and Page. Sediment delivery increases with increasing storm rainfall. with a rainfall of 753 mm. However. 5. channel erosion would mobilise 695 500 Mg sediment in 114 years. and the majority of the material eroded is poorly consolidated tephra that lies beneath the topsoil. 1 m in depth. and deliver 535 000 Mg of sediment to the lake. 1998). During Cyclone Bola they were responsible for only 2% each of the sediment volume generated. 2002). This is regarded as a minimum value. Dymond et al. Although the turf mat may collapse on removal of this material. With a mean carbon value of 1. 1999). In 114 years there have been ca. but little work has been done on sediment delivery from landsliding in New Zealand hill country. / Agriculture. The validity of applying the gross rate of carbon loss of 0. this would equate to ∼8150 Mg C delivered to the lake. 1994a).84 m. then the other 62 storms >200 mm had an average SDR of ∼0. 5. Sediment delivery ratio The soil carbon losses calculated in this study are strongly influenced by the sediment delivery ratio.574 M. Page et al. Contribution of other erosion processes Channel erosion and tunnel gully erosion are minor processes (Page et al. 1994a. (1999) calculated delivery ratios of 0. deposited only 70% of the sediment volume deposited by the 1938 storm with a rainfall of 692 mm (Page et al.

carbon recovery on eroded sites and carbon storage in depositional sites do significantly offset the gross carbon losses that occur. Nationally. 1998). 6. and several decades of geomorphic research. Landslide-prone soft rock hill country is one of the major sources of erosion-related soil carbon losses in New Zealand. given the paucity of data available for some erosion processes and landscapes. originally obtained for other purposes. the results are well within an order of magnitude. Although erosion results in a net carbon loss from the landscape. Carbon recovery on landslide scars (after oxidation) at a rate of ∼0. historical records. where between 1979 and 1990 sediment deposition on the floodplain (10. this equates to a gross loss of 2 346 500 Mg C per year. but is significantly lower. Results represent the upper limit for landslide-related soil carbon fluxes.61 Mg C ha−1 per year equates to 1 670 000 Mg C per year. . 1994a).23 Mg C ha−1 per year.94 ± 0. and are supported by comparison with the estimates presented from other studies.. At Tutira. and the sequence of calculations has introduced further uncertainty. However. This equates to a national gross loss of 2 573 500 Mg C per year from similar terrain.M. the net loss to the landscape is significantly less due to carbon recovery on eroded sites. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 575 catchment. there are 4 910 000 ha of similar terrain (mudstone/sandstone steeplands and tephra/loess hill country). of which the anthropogenic component is 2 112 000 Mg C per year (2 346 500–234 500 Mg C per year). Conclusions Erosion-related soil carbon losses from a steepland catchment are estimated in this paper by linking existing information on erosion and sediment transfers with soil carbon data. Similar values have been reported for the larger Waipaoa catchment (220 499 ha). Page et al. and was made possible by the unique combination of a high-resolution lake sediment record. 20% of sediment volume entering watercourses during Cyclone Bola was redeposited on valley floors (7% of the catchment) (Page et al. 1997)). This empirically based approach provides data that will be used to help constrain mass balance models of landslide and sheetwash-related carbon losses at the national scale.5% of the catchment) accounted for 16% of the suspended sediment load transported during four large floods (including Cyclone Bola) and 21% of the sediment transported by flows in excess of bankfull discharge (Gomez et al. Errors are associated with each of the values used. for landslide-prone soft rock hill country. of which 2 112 000 Mg C per year is associated with pastoral farming. the proportion of steeplands to easy hill country is the same as at Tutira (ratio 2:1). However. on a process basis. It is the first time an attempt has been made in New Zealand to calculate soil carbon losses for such a long time period (114 years). Carbon recovery on landslide scars (after oxidation) equates to 1 670 000 Mg C per year. The gross loss from Tutira erosion-prone terrain is 0. Total gross loss from New Zealand landslide-prone soft rock hill country is therefore 2 573 500 Mg C per year.75 years. It is clear that reducing this erosion through better management and changing land use will make a significant contribution to meeting New Zealand’s target of reducing CO2 emissions. Carbon recovery on areas affected solely by sheetwash erosion was not measured. On a national scale.. gross loss is 227 000 Mg C per year (based on a ten-fold reduction in erosion under forest (Page and Trustrum. of which the anthropogenic component is 1 370 500 Mg C per year. 1999). For 2 414 000 ha in forest/scrub. / Agriculture. and the assumptions and uncertainties associated with modelling at the national scale. of which the anthropogenic component is 1 370 500 Mg C per year. A major advantage is that the rates of carbon loss reflect variability in storm magnitude and frequency not captured by short-term monitoring. The frequency of landslide-triggering storms at Tutira is one storm every 1. The issue of increased storage potential of larger catchments arises when results are extrapolated to the national scale. For 2 496 000 ha in pasture. The frequency of recorded landslide-triggering storms nationally for this terrain is one storm every 2–3 years (∼80%) and one storm every 3–8 years (∼20%) (Glade. It is emphasised that this is an estimate of erosion-related soil carbon losses from best available data and understandings. The accuracy of these results is regarded as adequate.

(A.. Page et al. / Agriculture. personal communication). The area eroded by landslides (Ae1 . The CoV of the average scar depth is estimated as 5% based on Page et al. Ae2 ) is calculated as the volume of sediment eroded by landslides (LSd) divided by the average scar depth. yielding a calculated CoV (via Eq. The amount of sheetwash sediment delivered to the lake (Ssd) is estimated based on a sediment budget (Page et al. The soil C delivered to the lake (LCd) is the product of this value and the SDR. Given that the SDR for the fine soil particles with which C is associated is likely greater. The overall sediment budget has an uncertainty of 5% (Page et al. so this value is conservatively taken as 7 ± 5%. Nick Preston provided helpful comments on the manuscript.g. This sediment budget is assumed to apply to large landslide-inducing storms. All calculations represent standard errors and assume Gaussian (normal) distributions for the variables in question. Since large and small storms contribute additively to Ssd. propagated uncertainties represent best estimates of uncertainty. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 Acknowledgements Thanks to Hugh Wilde and Murray Jessen for sampling soils and providing soil carbon data. The carbon content of soil (Cs1 . Cs2 ) to 1 m depth can be variable. Using this value. or a CoV of 71%. (1994a) and the quartile ranges in Merz and Mosley (1998). indicating that sheetwash accounts for 7% of the mobilised sediment. but estimates of soil C content to 1 m depth for the soil/climate types predominating for the study area have a CoV of roughly 10% (Scott et al. Given this assumption. and by Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd. and to Nicolette Faville for graphics. and is arranged in the same order of occurrence as the main body of the text.. and must be interpreted with somewhat more caution than measured uncertainties.1) as having a CoV of 19%.44± 0. and is thus estimated from the most recognisable sediment layer—that derived from the 1938 storm. and is assigned a CoV of 5% (T. 1994a). The 1988 storm is of similar magnitude and recognisable in all cores. The landslide sediment delivered to the lake (LSd) derives from sediment pulse thicknesses in cores.1)) of 31% for LCd. uncertainty in the contribution of both large and small storms to Ssd is best calculated as the sum of the absolute uncertainties (e. 1994a). but was not yet capped by other sediments in all cores to a sufficient degree that the top of the sediment pulse was recovered within the core. uncertainties are summed in quadrature: CoVSDR = CoVLSe 2 + CoVLSd 2 (A. the C eroded is the product of the C content of soil (Cs1 .. from the New Business Investment Programme “Reducing uncertainty in the effect of soil erosion on the national carbon budget”. (A. The 1938 storm sediment thicknesses yield a CoV of 16%. The addition of this uncertainty in quadrature yields a CoV of 11% for small storm Ssd. and is calculated using Eq. Uncertainty in the sediment delivered to the lake (Sd) is governed by uncertainty in bathymetry and trap efficiency. these error propagations assume that variables are uncorrelated. Ae2 ). CoV × Ssdsmall ): CoVSsd = 1 Ssd (Ssdsmall × CoVsmall )2 +(Ssdlarge × CoVlarge )2 (A. the sheetwash contribution to total sediment represents the remainder of sediment after assuming that 18 ± 5% derives from channels and 18 ± 10% from tunnel gullies. an additional 10% error is added to the SDR. Additionally.1) Appendix A. Science and Technology under contract number C09X0013. For propagating uncertainties presented as CoV’s through product or ratio calculations. The sediment delivery ratio for landslides is then the ratio of sediment produced to sediment delivered (LSe/LSd).2) This equation yields a CoV of 20% or a value of 0. the This formula yields CoVSDR of 22% of the SDR value. 2001). Pinkney.576 M. For smaller storms. which can be written as 0. Funds for this research were provided by The Foundation for Research. .09 Mg C ha−1 per year for Ssd. Cs2 ) and the area eroded (Ae1 . 2002). Volume of sediment eroded by landslides (LSe) is assigned a coefficient of variation (CoV) of 15% (Reid and Page. Uncertainty propagation The application and propagation of uncertainties to calculations is explained in this Appendix.43 ± 09.

a.. Taking (1−SDR) as 0. Sediment loads of North Island rivers. Hydrol. / Agriculture.61 2. Using nutrient balance to estimate net C balance in landslide-prone pastoral hill country: testing the dynamic equilibrium hypothesis in New Zealand soft rock landscapes. New Zealand—a reconnaissance.07 3. 1999. Eyles.2) yields a CoV of 17% or 1.47 0.93 12.84 4 4 5 9 Accumulation rate without organic matter (m3 ha−1 per year) 2. Nordmeyer.. Marx.34 1..07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mudstone Tephra on mudstone Mudstone Alternating mudstone/ sandstone Loose jointed mudstone Tephra and sandstone Tephra and sandstone 20–22 14–18 22–27 28–32 1081 1081 1437 1830 10–18 1450 28.. K. It is also useful to estimate the uncertainty on total soil C eroded. 1980. the final uncertainty on SCd may be estimated as 38% or be written as 0.47 12. J. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 577 But.34 8.A.A. D. J.94 ± 0.. A.04 3. Baisden. R. 407–418. Davis. 26–31 May 2002.28 Mg C ha−1 per year.91 1. Giltrap.23 Mg C ha−1 per year.84 18.9 or a CoV of 17%— together with the CoV of 19% calculated for product of the area of landslides and carbon content of soil—yields an estimate of 0. .. S.R. The total loss of soil C due to erosion is calculated as the sum of sheetwash and landslide erosion. Using Eq. Owen. China.74 Accumulation rate including organic matter (m3 ha−1 per year) 3. G.2). 2001) but raise uncertainty to 30% because sheetwash may not uniformly transport the upper 10 cm of soil. This final calculation emphasises that with good sediment budgets it may be possible to better constrain the terrestrial sediment C budget scenarios examined by Stallard (1998). Updated 1990 soil carbon baseline. Contribution of soil carbon to New Zealand’s CO2 emissions. Crozier. Oliver.60±0. (A.79 5 9 18. G. N.L.%) density (Mg m−3 ) 3.98 References Adams.62 0.1) to include an additional 30% uncertainty in SCd results in a CoV of 36%. Trustrum.C.H.. McConchie.32 2.. Betts.44 ± 0..25 3. Scott. Contract report to Ministry for the Environment. JNT 9899/146. Assuming that the land area within the catchment subject to sheetwash erosion is uncertain by 10%.61 13. M. 1953.. Geophys. 23.A.17 Mg C ha−1 per year or 25% CoV.M.13 0. the uncertainty in soil C delivered to the lake by sheetwash must be considered.. thus including C eroded by landsliding but not delivered to the lake. H. Beijing.J..60 10.T. Geophys. R..81 8.. NZ 18. 575–586. it is possible to calculate an uncertainty for the C eroded by landsliding but not delivered to the lake.) Years of acC Bulk cumulation (wt. 2002. NZ J. W. Wilde. J. Brune. N.17 Mg C ha−1 per year. Trans. or the total C delivered to the lake can be written as 0. Calculating as in Eq.J. 1979. due to limited data. Similarly. Parfitt. Sediment accumulation rates from stock ponds Pond Lithology Catchment slope (◦ ) Rainfall (mm p. Distribution of landslips in the Wairarapa hill country.. P. as LCe(1−SDR).67 ± 0.. overall uncertainty is estimated as 24%. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference. Union 34 (3).72 10–32 10–35 1113 1113 1. No estimate was made of the uncertainty on carbon recovery by landslides scars. Trap efficiency of reservoirs.73 0. (A. (A.. M..30 40 7.05 12. R. Appendix B. Chinnery.80 0..L. We assume 10% uncertainty in surface (0–10 cm) soil C concentrations (Scott et al. R. Am.57 ± 0..R. Tate.J.93 0. Geol.M. 36–48. Page et al. IX. Calculating as in Eq.

P.. Fries. New Zealand..F. 2002. NZ 37 (2). Kimble.A. J. Effects of soil slip erosion on seasonally dry Wairarapa hill pastures. Geol. J. Lambert. 113–139.J.. A. Blair. D. Devantier. Losses of nitrogen. Reichle.. N. Johnson. 2002..M.A. 2001. N... 43. Waipaoa catchment. New Zealand. R. Schlesinger. D. W. 519–539... Hydrol.F. In: Lal.. K.. S. 2002. UNESCO. W. In: Houghton. N. Event-induced changes in land surface condition—implications for subsequent slope stability. Trustrum. Magnitude and frequency of landsliding in a large New Zealand catchment.M. Dynamic replacement and loss of soil carbon on eroding cropland.J. B. Hicks. B.. M... T. CRC Press. Geological Society of London. Nes. S.. Geomorphol. New Zealand.M. J. 57–64. Boca Raton. P. 885–901. N.. Organic carbon fluxes to the ocean from high-standing islands. 1974. A watershed control on the carbon loading of marine sedimentary particles? Geochim. Oliver.A. Page... (Eds.. 1161.. IPCC.A. Water Resour.... Grant. H. Dymond.. 209–219. Nezat. Jacinthe. Follett. the Story of a New Zealand Sheep Station.A.L. J.. Stewart. Establishing the frequency and magnitude of landslide-triggering rainstorm events in New Zealand.G. Hydrol.. Noguer. Merz. Soil and Water 2 (4). William Blackwood and Sons Ltd. Rogers. 525–544.D. Hume.. 27. In: Trabalka. and reforestation. Ross. Stephens. Walcroft. Agric. Dev. Agric. 1986. 1994a.. 122–131. Global Biogeochem.R. Sendai. storage and output of particulate organic carbon: Waipaoa River basin. Page.. C. Syvitski.H. 1. Hicks. 169–188.J. 11.E.. T.J.I. Arnold. Y. K. New Zealand. N. 369–392. Trustrum. Page.. Trustrum. Wellington. 41 (3). Res. Sediment budget to assess the geomorphic effect of a cyclonic storm.J. vol. Giltrap.. 1999.. Summary for policy makers. J.. 333–348. Albrecht.. J.. Trustrum.. Page.H. Davis. Lal. Kimble. A. 163. 2231–2240. Geomorphology 49 (1–2). M. 1984.M. FAO–UNESCO. 2001. P. Gomez. FL. A. Costall. CRC/Lewis. T.J. Geomorphol. Betts. 71–88. pp.A.B. P. Bd. Management of Carbon Sequestration in Soil. Rasmussen. T. M. Cosmochim.B. (Eds.. D. Reid. C.. J. Shankar. Production.. Sparling. 2001. New Zealand.. Milliman. J.. Cambridge University Press.A.M. NZ J..J. Mackay. Stewart. Contribution of soil carbon to New Zealand’s CO2 emissions. Res. G. M. northern Hawke’s Bay. Trustrum. Lynn..G. Acta 65. E. M. / Agriculture. Page. Reid. M.C. Jessen. N.). 1999. P. 2003. R. 232– 234.. UK. U. Res. pp.E. 39 (6)... Paleolimnol..T. N..A. N. W. 127–138.. 12. 1985. Agric.T. 1998. River suspended sediment yields to the New Zealand coast and estuaries. Nature 348. Computer simulation of shallow landsliding in New Zealand hill country.M. Clark. Boca Raton. Lyons. Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers. E.M.W. pp... J. van der Linden. London. Report XIII..L. Tate. Tutira Lake—1925 and 1963.M.. Lambert. 1995.. 35 (2–3). Japan.R. 1997.. Z. 115.. D. Floodplains: Interdisciplinary Approaches. B. G. Giltrap. In: Lal. NZ J. (Eds. (Eds. Schlesinger.J.R.R. M.. Tutira. 12.. Marriott. C... L.R. Baisden. D. 157–173. N. 1992. D.. 3rd ed.. 160–174.M.T.A. 289–308. Springer. In: Poster Paper Presented at 2002 New Zealand Marine Sciences Symposium. A mass balance approach to assess carbon dioxide evolution during erosional events. S.S.. Geol. Preston.D. 2001. J. J. pp. Carey. 2001. Guthrie-Smith. Land Degrad. 1999.. Z..E. Page. London. Changes in soil carbon storage and associated properties with disturbance and recovery. The Changing Carbon Cycle: A Global Analysis.. M.. Speir. T.. afforestation. Eden. K. West.J.. Integrated General Linear Model and Digital Elevation Model. 1 (2).A. Lal. Geomorphology 9. A.. Soil Map of the World.. L.J. Nelson.. D..A. Basher.D. S... 329–339. Baisden. R. Lal. W. 69–88 (special publication). Page et al. K. DOI: 10. New Zealand. I. Cycles 13 (4). 371–379. N. and sediment in runoff from . B. Page.F. Legend. 100. Crop management effects on organic carbon in semi-arid Pacific Northwest soils. J. D.. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Carbon Dioxide.. P. 1.R. 1953.P.. R.. DeRose. White.L..578 M. (Eds.. P. Wilde. Jessen. 2001. Penny.A. W. M. Dai. Trustrum. Schipper. New Zealand.. Ding. 1994b.). A high resolution record of storm-induced erosion from lake sediments. R. Int. Dabney.E. 1990. Harden. Soils and Global Change. L. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 hill country under different fertiliser and grazing management regimes.M.. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.H.J.. J. In: Alexander..J. 443–446. Paris. Huntington.. W. Webb. vol. 194–220. D. Lovell. I. NZ 38 (2). Levine. A. Trotter.. D. 28. M.F..). Environ. Critical issues in quantifying land-use change effects on New Zealand’s terrestrial carbon budget: deforestation.R. 1:5 000 000. J. Soil degradation by erosion..M. Earth Geoinf. B. 1999.R. P..M. M. Scott. September 2002.. N. Dev.. Tate.R.. Parton. A late Holocene lake sediment record of the erosion response to land use change in a steepland catchment.A.N.M.R. NZ J.R. 2003. G. McKerchar.A.. Suppl. Ojima.. Ministry for the Environment. P. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.R. Sediment production from Cyclone Bola landslides. Effects of fertiliser application on nutrient status and organic matter content of hill soils.. T.. Recovery of topsoil characteristics Dymond..G..J. 2000. Costall. W. Lynn. Hicks. D. Sharpe. M. Leithold. 131–142.E. K.S. J. 1966. 1998.H...G. 1999. Griggs. M. New York. R. vol. D. Trustrum.. D. N. Tate. Newsome.. Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. Res.. FL.H.J. 50.1029/ 2002WR001619.P. phosphorus. L. J. Gomez. 1998.. p. Contribution of floodplain sequestration to the sediment budget of the Waipaoa River.A.. M.. N..). Saggar.). Trustrum. 1–5 October 2001 (Extended Abstracts).H.. Land Degrad.. Peacock. M. D. Hydrological behaviour of pastoral hill country modified by extensive landsliding. 21–22. Cambridge.A. R.H..A. J. Wilmshurst. New Zealand. Maskell. Evidence from chronosequence studies for a low carbon-storage potential of soils.. Lambert. L. R. Appl. X.. J. Geology 30 (5). Hicks. Mosley. J. Glade.... D..

N.. Ross. 231–257... N. 2000. Environment and Policy Institute. Stallard. Brown. 83–89. E. and a test of the space-for-time hypothesis.C. 1999. I. Trustrum. P. 315–335..E. Policy document 10/01.F.. Owens. N. C. I. Trustrum. Beijing. Van Veen. 2002. Taylor. B. 1997. W. Cycles 12 (2).. 2001. Newsome. Z. University of Hawaii. Sediment production. Parshotam.. Honolulu.. R. Woomer.J.. M. In: Transactions of the 14th International Congress of Soil Science. Trustrum. Malone. M. D.H. A. A. G. Pohlen. New Zealand. M. Lal. Water and Soil Technical Publication no. / Agriculture. 182– 186. Sidorchuk.. L. Page. D..T.... 2000.A.A... P.. Trustrum. Towards a national assessment of erosion-related soil carbon losses in New Zealand. Bernoux.. West.D. 15–46.. Trustrum. R.J. Thomas. 26 (1). 211–224.W.H.. R.. Land Degrad. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Effects of Forest Land Use on Erosion and Slope Stability. Hothem.. 26–31 May 2002. Ecosystems and Environment 103 (2004) 561–579 after landslip erosion in dry hill country of New Zealand. Van Noordwijk.F. vol. Soil Sci. storage and output: the relative role of large magnitude events in steepland catchments. Suppl. Geoderma 79. 1981.P. 1984. Bd. Nugroho. 36 pp. The frequency of high intensity rainfalls in New Zealand. J. Tate. R. J. Japan.. R. The role of land carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change. D. Soc. Gomez. Ecosyst. Biochem. N. Geomorphol. 187–225... Page et al. Atkinson. Voroney. East-West Centre. K. Classification of New Zealand soils. DeRose... 2. Wilde. pp. R. Scott. 579 Tomlinson. Tate. Gomez. The Royal Society. 1575–1586. A. N. Technology and Method of Soil and Water Conservation. 71–86..M. Dev.L.J. Lee.J. Environ. A simulation model of soil slip erosion. Tate.M.A. A. 1968.M. 1998... Paul. 125– 130. Regolith changes and pastoral productivity declines following deforestation in steeplands of North Island.J. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. NZ Soil Bureau report. Giltrap. In: Soils of New Zealand. 19.. 35. Baisden... Cerri. A multi-scale analysis of a terrestrial carbon budget: is New Zealand a source or sink of carbon? Agric. K.. Chapter 2. R. 82. K.J. III.. Modeling soil carbon transported by water erosion processes. P.M.. Can. D. M. 1990.A. Part 1. 61. Global Biogeochem. Claydon.. V..R. Organic carbon dynamics in grassland soils. N..F. 229–246. pp. 115.I. N. August 1990. M.A. Kimble.. Reid. Starr. J. Part 1.. 35 pp.. B. . 1997. Kyoto... China. Taylor. Soil Biol.A. Model validation and simulation of long-term effects of cultivation and rainfall erosion. Hicks. 11.. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference on Sustainable Utilization of Global Soil and Water Resources. NZ 27 (3). vol. Giltrap.A.J. R.R. Soil carbon dynamics in the humid tropical forest zone. Organic carbon stocks in New Zealand’s terrestrial ecosystems. J. J.A. L..C. pp. D.R.J. K. 83–91. 1980... Page.. N.A. L. pp. Blaschke..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful