Evaluating revised biomass equations: are some forest types more equivalent than others?

Article English OPEN
Hoover, Coeli M. ; Smith, James E. (2016)
  • Publisher: Springer International Publishing
  • Journal: Carbon Balance and Management, volume 11 (issn: 1750-0680, eissn: 1750-0680)
  • Related identifiers: pmc: PMC4709368, doi: 10.1186/s13021-015-0042-5
  • Subject: Allometry | Global and Planetary Change | Earth and Planetary Sciences(all) | Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law | Forest carbon stocks | Tests of equivalence | GE1-350 | Environmental sciences | Biomass estimation | Individual-tree estimates by species group | Research

Abstract Background In 2014, Chojnacky et al. published a revised set of biomass equations for trees of temperate US forests, expanding on an existing equation set (published in 2003 by Jenkins et al.), both of which were developed from published equations using a meta-analytical approach. Given the similarities in the approach to developing the equations, an examination of similarities or differences in carbon stock estimates generated with both sets of equations benefits investigators using the Jenkins et al. (For Sci 49:12–34, 2003) equations or the software tools into which they are incorporated. We provide a roadmap for applying the newer set to the tree species of the US, present results of equivalence testing for carbon stock estimates, and provide some general guidance on circumstances when equation choice is likely to have an effect on the carbon stock estimate. Results Total carbon stocks in live trees, as predicted by the two sets, differed by less than one percent at a national level. Greater differences, sometimes exceeding 10–15 %, were found for individual regions or forest type groups. Differences varied in magnitude and direction; one equation set did not consistently produce a higher or lower estimate than the other. Conclusions Biomass estimates for a few forest type groups are clearly not equivalent between the two equation sets—southern pines, northern spruce-fir, and lower productivity arid western forests—while estimates for the majority of forest type groups are generally equivalent at the scales presented. Overall, the possibility of very different results between the Chojnacky and Jenkins sets decreases with aggregate summaries of those ‘equivalent’ type groups.
  • References (29)
    29 references, page 1 of 3

    1. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci. 2003;49:12-34.

    2. Hoover CM, Rebain SA. Forest carbon estimation using the forest vegetation simulator: seven things you need to know. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-77. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station; 2011.

    3. Twery MJ, Knopp, PD, Thomasma, SA, Nute, DE. NED-2 reference guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-86. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station; 2012.

    4. US EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990- 2009. EPA 430-R-11-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC; 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/archive.html.

    5. Liénard JF, Gravel D, Strigul NS. Data-intensive modeling of forest dynamics. Environ Model Softw. 2015;67:138-48.

    6. Ziter C, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A. Temperate forest fragments maintain aboveground carbon stocks out to the forest edge despite changes in community composition. Oecologia. 2014;176:893-902.

    7. Carter DR, Tahey RT, Dreisilker K, Bialecki MB, Bowles ML. Assessing patterns of oak regeneration and C storage in relation to restoration-focused management, historical land use, and potential trade-osf. For Ecol Manage. 2015;343:53-62.

    8. Reinikainen M, D'Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S. Influence of stocking, site quality, stand age, low-severity canopy disturbance, and forest composition on sub-boreal aspen mixedwood carbon stocks. Can J For Res. 2014;44:230-42.

    9. DeSiervo MH, Jules ES, Saofrd HD. Disturbance response across a pro - ductivity gradient: postfire vegetation in serpentine and nonserpentine forests. Ecosphere. 2015;6(4):60. doi:10.1890/ES14-00431.1.

    10. Dore S, Kolb TE, Montes-Helu M, et al. Carbon and water fluxes from ponderosa pine forests disturbed by wildfire and thinning. Ecol Appl. 2010;20:663-83.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Similar Research Results (3)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark