Comparison of uncertainties in carbon sequestration estimates for a tropical and a temperate forest

We compare uncertainty through sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of the modelling framework CO2FIX V.2. We apply the analyses to a Central European managed Norway spruce stand and a secondary tropical forest in Central America. Based on literature and experience we use three standard groups to express uncertainty in the input parameters: 5%, 10% and 20%. Sensitivity analyses show that parameters exhibiting highest influence on carbon sequestration are carbon content, wood density and current annual increment of stems. Three main conclusions arise from this investigation: (1) parameters that largely determine model output are stem parameters, (2) depending on initial state of the model, perturbation can lead to multiple equilibrium, and (3) the standard deviation of total carbon stock is double in the tropical secondary forest for the wood density, and current annual increment. The standard deviation caused by uncertainty in mortality rate is more than 10-fold in the tropical forest case than in the temperate managed forest. Even in a case with good access to data, the uncertainty remains very high, much higher than what can reasonably be achieved in carbon sequestration through changes in forest management.

[1]  J. Sutherland,et al.  Multiple Stable Points in Natural Communities , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[2]  Omar Masera,et al.  Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V.2 approach , 2003 .

[3]  A. Lugo,et al.  Wood Densities of Tropical Tree Species , 1992 .

[4]  Michael G. Ryan,et al.  Production, Respiration, and Overall Carbon Balance in an Old-growth Pseudotsuga-Tsuga Forest Ecosystem , 2004, Ecosystems.

[5]  M. Schelhaas,et al.  Carbon Accounting and Cost Estimation in Forestry Projects Using CO2Fix V.3 , 2006 .

[6]  T. Palosuo,et al.  Factors affecting the uncertainty of sinks and stocks of carbon in Finnish forests soils and vegetation , 2006 .

[7]  P. J. Edwards,et al.  World Forest Biomass and Primary Production Data. , 1983 .

[8]  G. Mohren,et al.  Modelling analysis of potential carbon sequestration in selected forest types , 1995 .

[9]  J. Connell,et al.  On the Evidence Needed to Judge Ecological Stability or Persistence , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[10]  Linda S. Heath,et al.  An assessment of uncertainty in forest carbon budget projections , 2000 .

[11]  Richard Condit,et al.  Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[12]  D. Haydon,et al.  Alternative stable states in ecology , 2003 .

[13]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in spatial modelling based on GIS , 2000 .

[14]  Pete Smith,et al.  Europe's Terrestrial Biosphere Absorbs 7 to 12% of European Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions , 2003, Science.

[15]  P. Ciais,et al.  Consistent Land- and Atmosphere-Based U.S. Carbon Sink Estimates , 2001, Science.

[16]  P. Dietz,et al.  Dichte und Rindengehalt von Industrieholz , 1975, Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff.

[17]  Gloor,et al.  A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models , 2022 .

[18]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  FOREST CARBON SINKS IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE , 2002 .

[19]  Jari Liski,et al.  Scenario analysis of the impacts of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget , 2003 .

[20]  E. Tomppo.  Multi-source national forest inventory of Finland. , 1994 .

[21]  S. Kellomäki,et al.  Carbon balance in the forest sector in Finland during 1990–2039 , 1995 .

[22]  Annika Kangas,et al.  On the prediction bias and variance in long-term growth projections , 1997 .

[23]  Lewontin Rc,et al.  The Meaning of Stability , 2020, The Early Mubarak Years 1982–1988.

[24]  Rattan Lal,et al.  Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry , 2015 .

[25]  T. Palosuo,et al.  Uncertainty of forest carbon stock changes – implications to the total uncertainty of GHG inventory of Finland , 2007 .

[26]  J. Liski,et al.  Carbon and decomposition model Yasso for forest soils , 2005 .

[27]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models , 2004 .

[28]  M. Schelhaas,et al.  Carbon profiles of typical forest types across Europe assessed with CO2FIX , 2002 .

[29]  G. Matthews,et al.  The carbon content of trees , 1993 .