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.;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. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Neumann, M., Moreno, A., Mues, V., Härkönen, S., Mura, M., Bouriaud, O., Lang, M., Achten, W. M. J., Thivolle-Cazat, A., Bronisz, K., Merganič, J., Decuyper, M., Alberdi, I., Astrup, R., Mohren, F., Hasenauer, H.
Format: journal article biblioteca
Language:eng
Published: 2016
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12792/3122
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id dig-inia-es-20.500.12792-3122
record_format koha
spelling dig-inia-es-20.500.12792-31222020-12-15T09:52:38Z Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests Neumann, M. Moreno, A. Mues, V. Härkönen, S. Mura, M. Bouriaud, O. Lang, M. Achten, W. M. J. Thivolle-Cazat, A. Bronisz, K. Merganič, J. Decuyper, M. Alberdi, I. Astrup, R. Mohren, F. Hasenauer, H. 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.;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. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. 2020-10-22T14:04:24Z 2020-10-22T14:04:24Z 2016 journal article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12792/3122 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.016 eng Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ open access
institution INIA ES
collection DSpace
country España
countrycode ES
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-inia-es
tag biblioteca
region Europa del Sur
libraryname Biblioteca del INIA España
language eng
description 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.;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. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.
format journal article
author Neumann, M.
Moreno, A.
Mues, V.
Härkönen, S.
Mura, M.
Bouriaud, O.
Lang, M.
Achten, W. M. J.
Thivolle-Cazat, A.
Bronisz, K.
Merganič, J.
Decuyper, M.
Alberdi, I.
Astrup, R.
Mohren, F.
Hasenauer, H.
spellingShingle Neumann, M.
Moreno, A.
Mues, V.
Härkönen, S.
Mura, M.
Bouriaud, O.
Lang, M.
Achten, W. M. J.
Thivolle-Cazat, A.
Bronisz, K.
Merganič, J.
Decuyper, M.
Alberdi, I.
Astrup, R.
Mohren, F.
Hasenauer, H.
Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests
author_facet Neumann, M.
Moreno, A.
Mues, V.
Härkönen, S.
Mura, M.
Bouriaud, O.
Lang, M.
Achten, W. M. J.
Thivolle-Cazat, A.
Bronisz, K.
Merganič, J.
Decuyper, M.
Alberdi, I.
Astrup, R.
Mohren, F.
Hasenauer, H.
author_sort Neumann, M.
title Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests
title_short Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests
title_full Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests
title_fullStr Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of carbon estimation methods for European forests
title_sort comparison of carbon estimation methods for european forests
publishDate 2016
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12792/3122
work_keys_str_mv AT neumannm comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT morenoa comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT muesv comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT harkonens comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT muram comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT bouriaudo comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT langm comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT achtenwmj comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT thivollecazata comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT broniszk comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT merganicj comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT decuyperm comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT alberdii comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT astrupr comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT mohrenf comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
AT hasenauerh comparisonofcarbonestimationmethodsforeuropeanforests
_version_ 1758004799699156992