Luke
 

Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests

dc.contributor.authorNeumann, Mathias
dc.contributor.authorMoreno, Adam
dc.contributor.authorMues, Volker
dc.contributor.authorHärkönen, Sanna
dc.contributor.authorMura, Matteo
dc.contributor.authorBouriaud, Oliver
dc.contributor.authorLang, Mait
dc.contributor.authorAchten, Wouter M. J.
dc.contributor.authorThivolle-Cazat, Alain
dc.contributor.authorBronisz, Karol
dc.contributor.authorMerganic, Jan
dc.contributor.authorDecuyper, Mathieu
dc.contributor.authorAlberdi, Iciar
dc.contributor.authorAstrup, Rasmus
dc.contributor.authorMohren, Frits
dc.contributor.authorHasenauer, Hubert
dc.contributor.departmentLuke / Joensuu-
dc.contributor.departmentidLuke-]
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. Institute of Silviculture, Wien, Austria
dc.contributor.otherUniversity Hamburg, Centre for Wood Science, Germany
dc.contributor.otherFinnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Molise, Department of Bioscience and Territory, Italy
dc.contributor.otherUniversitatea Stefan del Mare, Suceava, Romania
dc.contributor.otherTartu Observatory, Estonia
dc.contributor.otherKU Leuven – University of Leuven, Division Forest, Nature and Landscape, Belgium
dc.contributor.otherTechnological Institute, Furniture, Environment, Economy, Primary processing and supply (FCBA), Champs sur Marne, France
dc.contributor.otherWarsaw University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Dendrometry and Forest Productivity, Warsaw, Poland
dc.contributor.otherCzech University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
dc.contributor.otherWageningen University, Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen, The Netherlands
dc.contributor.otherINIA-CIFOR, Departamento de Selvicultura y Gestión de los Sistemas Forestales, Madrid, Spain
dc.contributor.otherNorwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, Ås, Norway
dc.contributor.otherWageningen University, Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands
dc.contributor.otherUniversité Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Institute for Environmental Management and Land Use Planning (IGEAT), Brussels, Belgium
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-25T11:42:39Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-29T21:44:26Z
dc.date.available2017-01-25T11:42:39Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractNational and international carbon reporting systems require information on carbon stocks of forests. For this purpose, terrestrial assessment systems such as forest inventory data in combination with carbon estimation methods are often used. In this study we analyze and compare terrestrial carbon estimation methods from 12 European countries. The country-specific methods are applied to five European tree species (Fagus sylvatica L., Quercus robur L, Betula pendula Roth, Picea abies (L.) Karst. and Pinus sylvestris L.), using a standardized theoretically-generated tree dataset. We avoid any bias due to data collection and/or sample design by using this approach. We are then able to demonstrate the conceptual differences in the resulting carbon estimates with regard to the applied country-specific method. In our study we analyze (i) allometric biomass functions, (ii) biomass expansion factors in combination with volume functions and (iii) a combination of both. The results of the analysis show discrepancies in the resulting estimates for total tree carbon and for single tree compartments across the countries analyzed of up to 140 t carbon/ha. After grouping the country-specific approaches by European Forest regions, the deviation within the results in each region is smaller but still remains. This indicates that part of the observed differences can be attributed to varying growing conditions and tree properties throughout Europe. However, the large remaining error is caused by differences in the conceptual approach, different tree allometry, the sample material used for developing the biomass estimation models and the definition of the tree compartments. These issues are currently not addressed and require consideration for reliable and consistent carbon estimates throughout Europe. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.-
dc.description.vuosik2016-
dc.formatSekä painettu, että verkkojulkaisu-
dc.format.bitstreamfalse
dc.format.pagerange397-420-
dc.identifier.elss1872-7042-
dc.identifier.olddbid480047
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/538021
dc.identifier.urihttps://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/11111/79966
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.okm.corporatecopublicationei-
dc.okm.discipline4112 Metsätiede-
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationon-
dc.okm.openaccess0 = Ei vastausta-
dc.okm.selfarchivedei-
dc.publisherElsevier Science B.V.-
dc.publisher.countrynl-
dc.publisher.placeAmsterdam-
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.016-
dc.relation.ispartofseriesForest ecology and management-
dc.relation.issn0378-1127-
dc.relation.volume361-
dc.rightsAll rights reserved-
dc.rights.copyrightCopyright: Elsevier B.V.-
dc.source.identifierhttps://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/538021
dc.subject.keywordbiomass-
dc.subject.keywordcarbon-
dc.subject.keywordforest inventory-
dc.subject.keywordallometric biomass functions-
dc.subject.keywordbiomass expansion factors-
dc.subject.keywordEurope-
dc.subject.keywordBeechfagus sylvatica-
dc.subject.keywordNortheastern United States-
dc.subject.keywordbreast-height diameters-
dc.subject.keywordnet primary production-
dc.subject.keywordbelow-ground biomass-
dc.subject.keywordroot-system biomass-
dc.subject.keywordNorway spruce-
dc.subject.keywordscots pine-
dc.subject.keywordPicea abies-
dc.titleComparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests-
dc.type.okmfi=A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä|sv=A1 Originalartikel i en vetenskaplig tidskrift|en=A1 Journal article (refereed), original research|-

Tiedostot

Kokoelmat