technical aspects of the forest carbon inventory of the united states: recent past and near future...
TRANSCRIPT
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE FOREST CARBON INVENTORY OF THE UNITED STATES: RECENT PAST AND NEAR FUTURE
Christopher W. Woodall, Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, MN
GRANT DOMKESEAN HEALEYJOHN COULSTONJAMES SMITHANDREW GRAY
Co-Authors
Outline
Where we’ve been… Where we are at… Where we want to go…
FIA Carbon/Biomass Goal
“Improve forest biomass/carbon estimates using the sound science in concert with our external partners/scientists. Just as we try to provide the best volume estimates across the country, we should produce the best biomass/carbon estimates”
State of Accounting in 2010
Live Tree = Field Measurement Standing Dead Tree = Model Litter = Model Downed Dead Wood = Model Soil Organic Carbon = Model Belowground = Model
Data Delivery = FIA vs NGHGI Tools
Vs.
* Used in 2009 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Forests (LULUCF)
Problem with Models
Do trees really grow/die in such a stable manner?
How about invasive earthworms and warming temperature impact on litter depth?
How about western tree mortality and fires?
Problem with Models
e.g., 1,000 year ice storm
Improvements in 2011
Jenkins to Component Ratio Method
Phase 2 standing dead
Released to Public in April 2012
Improvements in 2012
Phase 3 Down Woody Materials
Released to Public in April 2013
CRM vs. Jenkins
Jenkins
Nationally consistent method
Tree component estimates
Single field-based parameter: dbh
Useful at large scales Not linked to tree
volume Relies on external stump
equation
Component Ratio Method (CRM)
Nationally consistent method
Standardized use of regional volume equations
Utilizes dbh and height measurements
Requires Jenkins to estimate component biomass
Incorporates rotten and missing cull deductions
Relies on external stump equation
CRM vs. Jenkins
MethodJenkins:CRM:
79.5 kg C70.0 kg C
25.0 kg C21.7 kg C
4.9 kg C4.3 kg C
109.4 kg C96.0 kg C
Bole Top and limbs
Stump Total AG carbon
CRM vs. Jenkins
9 inch tree biomass by tree height across United States
Douglas-fir Quaking Aspen
CRM vs. Jenkins
Woodall, C.W., Heath, L.S., Domke, G.M., Nichols, M.C. 2011. Methods and equations for estimating aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for trees in the U.S. forest inventory, 2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-88. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 30 p.
Domke, G.M., Woodall, C.W., Smith, J.E., Westfall, J.A., McRoberts, R.E. 2012. Consequences of alternative tree-level biomass estimation procedures on U.S. forest carbon stock estimates. Forest Ecology and Management. 270: 108-116.
National Volume/Biomass Effort
Consortium Collect Data Progressively Through
Species
Standing Dead Trees Inventory Plots
Standing Dead Wood
Wood density
Structural loss
Density Reduction Factors
Density Reduction Factors
Structural Loss Adjustment
Models vs. Measurements
Models may not account for recent disturbance mortality such as fire or insects
Western State Standing Dead Trees
C
Wilson et al. In Review
Standing Dead Research
Woodall, C.W., Domke, G.M., MacFarlane, D.W., Oswalt, C.M. 2012. Comparing field- and model-based standing dead tree carbon stock estimates across forests of the United States. Forestry. 85: 125-133.
Domke, G.M., Woodall, C.W., Smith, J.E. 2011. Accounting for density reduction and structural loss in standing dead trees: Implications for forest biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United States. Carbon Balance and Management 6: 14.
Implications of Changes to 2012 US LULUCF Not all changes are due to the revised
estimation procedures for live and standing dead trees (e.g., new inventories).
Reduction in US C stocks by 6.7% (3,232 Tg C) Increase in US C annual sequestration (2009
inventory year) by 3.5% (8.3 Tg C/yr) CRM adoption was partially responsible for
reducing AG live tree stocks (2010) by 15.2% (2,606 Tg C). However, annual stock change (2009) increased by 0.9% (1.2 Tg C/yr)
Using FIA Phase 2 standing dead trees reduced standing dead tree US stocks (2010) by 14.8% (458 Tg C). However, annual stock change (2009) increased by 122.2% (11.0 Tg C/yr).
Phase 2 vs Phase 3 Plots
Phase 21 per 6,000 acres
Phase 31 per 96,000 acres
Soils Downed
Woody Materials (DWM)
Forest Floor
Understory Vegetation
DWM Plots
27,000+ plots
Sampled 2002-2010
Unique DWM Considerations (i.e., Decay)
Height collapse (volume)
Case hardening Density
reductions Harmon et al.
2008 (NRS-GTR-29)
Prior NGHGI Model
Live Tree Biomass
Dow
ned D
ead B
iom
ass
Smith et al. 2006
DWM P3 vs. NGHGI Model
Field-based
Model: Carbon calculation tool
Estimated CWD C density (Tg)
Domke et al. In review
DWM P3 vs. NGHGI Model
Domke et al. In review
Live versus Dead versus Area
Woodall et al. In Review.
Bringing it All Together: A Cohesive View of C Across Pools and US
Wilson et al. In Review
Future Work
Interior Alaska and Managed Land Definition
Missing Data and 1990 Baseline
CCT for National Forest System Soil Organic Carbon and Forest
Floor Belowground Unity among on-line reporting
tools Volume/Biomass research And so on…
Summary
Improving estimation of each pool…step by step
CRM adoption and standing dead refinements in 2011
Downed dead wood in 2012 (right now)
Soil organic carbon and forest floor in 2013
Small group that tries to leverage the community of carbon scientists
