Carbon stocks, turnover and nutrient budgets in soil along land-use and climatic gradients [Brazil]

Estoque de Carbono

approaches_2529 - Brazil

Completeness: 81%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Strey Simone

Institute of Soil Science, University of Hannover

Herrenhäuser Str. 2, 30419 Hannover


SLM specialist:

Strey Robert

Institute of Soil Science, University of Hannover


SLM specialist:

Boy Jens

Institute of Soil Science, University of Hannover


SLM specialist:

Guggenberger Georg

Institute of Soil Science, University of Hannover


Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Institute of Soil Science, University of Hannover - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:


2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Find carbon optimized land management practices.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: (1) determine the native background stocks of N, P, K, Mg, Ca, and S in soil to a depth of 10 m in the native systems (rain forest and Cerrado).

(2) determine the temporal change in C and nutrient stocks using space-for-time substitution along the pioneer front gradient from central Mato Grosso to south Pará to assess the influence of land use on C and nutrient budgets.

(3) analyze the stocks of bulk C and of C in soil fractions differing in function and turnover to determine the influence of land use and soil management on distribution of SOM into different pools (i.e., analysis of the quantity and quality of C storage in soil).

(4) quantify the C turnover in these fractions by a combination of the stable C isotope and the 14C approaches (i.e., analysis of the sustainability vs. vulnerability of C storage in soil as affected by land use and soil management).

(5) assess the influence of climatic change on these parameters along the climatic gradient from central Mato Grosso to south Pará (i.e., analyze the sustainability vs. vulnerability of C storage in soil as affected by climate change).

(6) parameterize a C and N turnover model (e.g. CANDY, Rühlmann et al. 2006) at plot level and calculate different land-use and climate-change scenarios.

Methods: Analysing carbon stocks – sampling laboratory work (Elementar analyses).
Soil properties of the two most common soil types (texture, bulk density, pH, plant available nutrients, etc.).
Modelling– model the process of carbon storage after land-use change.

Stages of implementation: Transport into meanings – translate scientific results into recommendations for farmes which land-use type is most carbon friendly.

Role of stakeholders: Implementation of land use decision– depending on the soil properties.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied



Region/ State/ Province:

Mato Grosso, Pará

Further specification of location:

Novo Progresso, Sinop, Cuiabá

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):


2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (soil organic carbon pools)

Analyze the impact of different land use types on soil organic carbon storage after deforestation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: the meaning of scientific results to farmers – there is no real importancy for them how much carbon is in their soil

The problem is that the whole climate change debate is based on Carbon, however by land use shift from rainforest to pasture or crop fields, soil organic carbon is not the parameter which is the most important, nevertheless is always in the focus if land-use change is discussed.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

They only do what they know – new ideas are hard to implement.

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Small farmers have no money to manage their land carbon friendly.

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • hindering

Land titles are not clarified.

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly hindered the approach implementation If farmers do not own the land by law they will not invest in protecting their land or invest in programs with duration over more than 5 years.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Small Farmers with limited income; indigenous– Kayapó.

Women are not really active in the Brazilian agriculture.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • teachers/ school children/ students
  • NGO
  • private sector
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
  • international organization
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation passive The land users and communities were contacted by the research project.
planning interactive Active in giving us allowance for our research.
implementation external support Giving us a platform to present our results- communities.
monitoring/ evaluation none Until now not happening.
Research passive

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • SLM specialists alone

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Conferences; Key elements: presenting results, transport into meanings, podium discussion

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Results are a basis for further discussions of ‘good practice’ management on community level.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, a little
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

Workshop 'What is carbon?' to indigenous people (Indian tribe Kayapó)

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation


There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Specify topics:
  • ecology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (German Government, BMBF): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?


5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery partly financed
tools partly financed

equipment: machinery not financed.
equipment: tools fully financed.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

They have results about their soil properties which may help their agriculture advisers.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. If the government pushes the land title process forward.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Until now not clear because it is a long term process.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

This is not the aim of the approach.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • aesthetic improvement
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • uncertain
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The political program concerning land use change needs to be changed or must support the farmers.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The possibility to work with indigenous people on the same topic (soil organic carbon) as with farmers.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Too much scientific research from top-down on a topic which farmers are not really interested in.
Plan the project with locals.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all