A National and International Analysis of Changing Forest Density

Like cities, forests grow by spreading out or by growing denser. Both inventories taken steadily by a single nation and other inventories gathered recently from many nations by the United Nations confirm the asynchronous effects of changing area and of density or volume per hectare. United States forests spread little after 1953, while growing density per hectare increased national volume and thus sequestered carbon. The 2010 United Nations appraisal of global forests during the briefer span of two decades after 1990 reveals a similar pattern: A slowing decline of area with growing volume means growing density in 68 nations encompassing 72% of reported global forest land and 68% of reported global carbon mass. To summarize, the nations were placed in 5 regions named for continents. During 1990–2010 national density grew unevenly, but nevertheless grew in all regions. Growing density was responsible for substantially increasing sequestered carbon in the European and North American regions, despite smaller changes in area. Density nudged upward in the African and South American regions as area loss outstripped the loss of carbon. For the Asian region, density grew in the first decade and fell slightly in the second as forest area expanded. The different courses of area and density disqualify area as a proxy for volume and carbon. Applying forestry methods traditionally used to measure timber volumes still offers a necessary route to measuring carbon stocks. With little expansion of forest area, managing for timber growth and density offered a way to increase carbon stocks.

[1]  Discrepancies and Uncertainties , 2009 .

[2]  Jesse H. Ausubel,et al.  How much will feeding more and wealthier people encroach on forests , 2001 .

[3]  P. Waggoner,et al.  Forest inventories: discrepancies and uncertainties. , 2009 .

[4]  Markku Kallio,et al.  The global forest sector: an analytical perspective. , 1987 .

[5]  Jingyun Fang,et al.  Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  B. Shapiro,et al.  Restoring the Forests , 2005, Science.

[7]  C. Perry,et al.  Forest Resources of the United States, 2007 , 2009 .

[8]  E. Næsset,et al.  Estimation of above- and below-ground biomass across regions of the boreal forest zone using airborne laser , 2008 .

[9]  W. Kurz,et al.  Monitoring carbon stocks in the tropics and the remote sensing operational limitations: from local to regional projects. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  Pekka E Kauppi,et al.  Quantifying forest change , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  P. Waggoner,et al.  Dematerialization: Variety, caution, and persistence , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  M. Kalacska,et al.  Baseline assessment for environmental services payments from satellite imagery: a case study from Costa Rica and Mexico. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[13]  R. Sedjo An economic assessment of industrial forest plantations , 1984 .

[14]  THE FOREST RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES. , 1896, Science.

[15]  A. Kirilenko,et al.  Climate change impacts on forestry , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  A. Grainger Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.