Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests

National 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.

[1]  M. Lexer,et al.  A modified 3D-patch model for spatially explicit simulation of vegetation composition in heterogeneous landscapes , 2001 .

[2]  Göran Ståhl,et al.  Bridging national and reference definitions for harmonizing forest statistics , 2012 .

[3]  J. Repola.  Biomass equations for Scots pine and Norway spruce in Finland , 2009 .

[4]  F. Grundner,et al.  Massentafeln zur Bestimmung des Holzgehaltes stehender Waldbäume und Waldbestände. , 1906 .

[5]  J. Hytönen,et al.  Biomass production and nutrient uptake of short-rotation plantations. , 1995 .

[6]  A. Jalkanen,et al.  Estimation of the biomass stock of trees in Sweden: comparison of biomass equations and age-dependent biomass expansion factors , 2005 .

[7]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests , 2002 .

[8]  M. Ducey,et al.  A comparison of carbon stock estimates and projections for the northeastern United States , 2014 .

[9]  J. Westfall.  A Comparison of Above-Ground Dry-Biomass Estimators for Trees in the Northeastern United States , 2012 .

[10]  E. Cienciala,et al.  Biomass functions applicable to Scots pine , 2006, Trees.

[11]  J. Ottorini,et al.  Root biomass and biomass increment in a beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stand in North-East France , 2001 .

[12]  R. De Lauretis,et al.  An approach to estimate carbon stocks change in forest carbon pools under the UNFCCC: the Italian case , 2008 .

[13]  J. Repola.  Models for vertical wood density of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch stems, and their application to determine average wood density , 2006 .

[14]  E. Tomppo.  National Forest Inventories : pathways for common reporting , 2010 .

[15]  T. Kira,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PLANT FORM-THE PIPE MODEL THEORY : II. FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE THEORY AND ITS APPLICATION IN FOREST ECOLOGY , 1964 .

[16]  Gert-Jan Nabuurs,et al.  Validation of the European Forest Information Scenario Model (EFISCEN) and a projection of Finnish forests , 2000 .

[17]  Richard A. Birdsey,et al.  Relationships between net primary productivity and forest stand age in U.S. forests , 2012 .

[18]  Christian Wirth,et al.  Generic biomass functions for Norway spruce in Central Europe--a meta-analysis approach toward prediction and uncertainty estimation. , 2004, Tree physiology.

[19]  Ronald E. McRoberts,et al.  Comprar National Forest Inventories · Pathways for Common Reporting | Tomppo, Erkki | 9789048132324 | Springer , 2010 .

[20]  Maosheng Zhao,et al.  Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009 , 2010, Science.

[21]  F. Kollmann,et al.  Technologie des Holzes und der Holzwerkstoffe , 1955 .

[22]  H. Bartelink.  Allometric relationships on biomass and needle area of Douglas-fir , 1996 .

[23]  C. Wirth,et al.  Generic biomass functions for Common beech (Fagus sylvatica) in Central Europe: predictions and components of uncertainty , 2008 .

[24]  R. Birdsey,et al.  National-Scale Biomass Estimators for United States Tree Species , 2003, Forest Science.

[25]  C. Eastaugh.  Relationships between the mean trees by basal area and by volume: reconciling form factors in the classic Bavarian yield and volume tables for Norway spruce , 2014, European Journal of Forest Research.

[26]  M. Río,et al.  Biomass models to estimate carbon stocks for hardwood tree species , 2012 .

[27]  A. Bolte,et al.  Relationships between tree dimension and coarse root biomass in mixed stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies[L.] Karst.) , 2004, Plant and Soil.

[28]  J. Liski,et al.  A carbon budget of forest biomass and soils in southeast Norway calculated using a widely applicable method , 2006 .

[29]  Franz Gruber,et al.  Above- and Below-stump Relationships for Picea Abies: Estimating Root System Biomass from Breast-height Diameters , 1999 .

[30]  Niro Higuchi,et al.  Comparison of formulae for biomass content determination in a tropical rain forest site in the state of Pará, Brazil , 1999 .

[31]  S. Hamburg,et al.  Estimating the carbon content of russian forests; a comparison of phytomass/volume and allometric projections , 1997 .

[32]  Vemap Participants.  Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project: Comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling , 1995 .

[33]  T. Skrøppa.  EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for Norway spruce (Picea abies) , 2003 .

[34]  J. Álvarez-González,et al.  Temporal variations and distribution of carbon stocks in aboveground biomass of radiata pine and maritime pine pure stands under different silvicultural alternatives , 2006 .

[35]  H. Hasenauer,et al.  Using mechanistic modeling within forest ecosystem restoration , 2002 .

[36]  Juha Heikkinen,et al.  Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests , 2003 .

[37]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  G. Müller-Starck,et al.  Genetic variation within European tree species , 1992, New Forests.

[39]  P. Miles.  Specific Gravity and Other Properties of Wood and Bark for 156 Tree Species Found in North America , 2015 .

[40]  Andres Kuusk,et al.  The performance of foliage mass and crown radius models in forming the input of a forest reflectance model: A test on forest growth sample plots and Landsat 7 ETM+ images , 2007 .

[41]  F. Veroustraete,et al.  Estimation of carbon mass fluxes over Europe using the C-Fix model and Euroflux data , 2002 .

[42]  P. Muukkonen,et al.  Generalized allometric volume and biomass equations for some tree species in Europe , 2007, European Journal of Forest Research.

[43]  R. Lemeur,et al.  Growing stock-based assessment of the carbon stock in the Belgian forest biomass , 2005 .

[44]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  Contrasting net primary productivity and carbon distribution between neighboring stands of Quercus robur and Pinus sylvestris. , 2005, Tree physiology.

[45]  Z. Srdjevic,et al.  Scaling issues and constraints in modelling of forest ecosystems: a review with special focus on user needs , 2013 .

[46]  E. Cienciala,et al.  Biomass functions applicable to European beech , 2018 .

[47]  M. Harmon,et al.  Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production , 2012 .

[48]  D. Lawrence,et al.  Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model , 2011 .

[49]  Robert A. Monserud,et al.  Applicability of the forest stand growth simulator PROGNAUS for the Austrian part of the Bohemian Massif , 1997 .

[50]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  BGC-model parameters for tree species growing in central European forests , 2005 .

[51]  Göran Ståhl,et al.  Harmonizing national forest inventories. , 2009 .

[52]  J. Chave,et al.  Towards a Worldwide Wood Economics Spectrum 2 . L E a D I N G D I M E N S I O N S I N W O O D F U N C T I O N , 2022 .

[53]  Q. Ketterings,et al.  Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests , 2001 .

[54]  T. Kira,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PLANT FORM-THE PIPE MODEL THEORY : I.BASIC ANALYSES , 1964 .

[55]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  Above- and belowground biomass and net primary production in a 73-year-old Scots pine forest. , 2003, Tree physiology.

[56]  Ricardo Ruiz-Peinado,et al.  New models for estimating the carbon sink capacity of Spanish softwood species , 2011 .

[57]  Raisa Mäkipää,et al.  Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe , 2005, Silva Fennica Monographs.

[58]  G. Ståhl,et al.  Functions for below-ground biomass of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula pendula and Betula pubescens in Sweden , 2006 .

[59]  G. Mohren,et al.  Forest inventories for carbon change assessments , 2012 .

[60]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests , 2011, Science.

[61]  J. Repola.  Biomass equations for birch in Finland , 2008 .

[62]  C. Samuel,et al.  EUFORGEN Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) , 2003 .

[63]  Rupert Seidl,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy and generality of a hybrid patch model. , 2005, Tree physiology.

[64]  Hans Pretzsch,et al.  The single tree-based stand simulator SILVA: construction, application and evaluation , 2002 .

[65]  A. Merino,et al.  Carbon and nutrient stocks in mature Quercus robur L. stands in NW Spain , 2006 .

[66]  S. Lamlom,et al.  Carbon content variation in boles of mature sugar maple and giant sequoia. , 2006, Tree physiology.

[67]  J. Aosaar,et al.  The growth and production of some fast growing deciduous tree species stands on abandoned agricultural land , 2010 .

[68]  Maosheng Zhao,et al.  A Continuous Satellite-Derived Measure of Global Terrestrial Primary Production , 2004 .

[69]  Francis Colin,et al.  Estimating root system biomass from breast-height diameters , 2001 .

[70]  G. Nabuurs,et al.  National system of greenhouse gas reporting for forest and nature areas under UNFCCC in the Netherlands , 2005 .

[71]  H. Bartelink.  Allometric relationships for biomass and leaf area of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). , 1997 .

[72]  A. Mäkelä,et al.  Estimating forest carbon fluxes for large regions based on process-based modelling, NFI data and Landsat satellite images , 2011 .

[73]  T. Johansson.  Biomass equations for determining fractions of pendula and pubescent birches growing on abandoned farmland and some practical implications. , 1999 .

[74]  Richard A. Birdsey,et al.  Inventory-based estimates of forest biomass carbon stocks in China: A comparison of three methods , 2010 .

[75]  Katri Joensuu,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland 1990-2014 : National inventory report under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol , 2016 .

[76]  Rodolphe Palm,et al.  Tables de cubage des arbres et des peuplements forestiers. , 1985 .

[77]  Richard H. Waring,et al.  Application of the pipe model theory to predict canopy leaf area. , 1982 .

[78]  Sean C. Thomas,et al.  Carbon Content of Tree Tissues: A Synthesis , 2012 .

[79]  S. Lamlom,et al.  A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species , 2003 .

[80]  J. Dhôte,et al.  Development of total aboveground volume equations for seven important forest tree species in France , 2006 .

[81]  T. Daufresne,et al.  SCALING OF C:N:P STOICHIOMETRY IN FORESTS WORLDWIDE: IMPLICATIONS OF TERRESTRIAL REDFIELD‐TYPE RATIOS , 2004 .