-
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
GRAYCo-Authors
-
OutlineWhere weve beenWhere we are atWhere we want to go
-
FIA Carbon/Biomass GoalImprove 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 2010Live Tree = Field MeasurementStanding
Dead Tree = ModelLitter = ModelDowned Dead Wood = ModelSoil Organic
Carbon = ModelBelowground = Model
Data Delivery = FIA vs NGHGI ToolsVs.* Used in 2009 National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Forests (LULUCF)
-
Problem with ModelsDo 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 Modelse.g., 1,000 year ice storm
-
Improvements in 2011Jenkins to Component Ratio MethodPhase 2
standing deadReleased to Public in April 2012
-
Improvements in 2012Phase 3 Down Woody MaterialsReleased to
Public in April 2013
-
CRM vs. JenkinsJenkins Nationally consistent methodTree
component estimatesSingle field-based parameter: dbhUseful at large
scalesNot linked to tree volumeRelies on external stump
equation
Component Ratio Method (CRM)Nationally consistent
methodStandardized use of regional volume equationsUtilizes dbh and
height measurementsRequires Jenkins to estimate component
biomassIncorporates rotten and missing cull deductionsRelies on
external stump equation
-
CRM vs. JenkinsMethodJenkins:CRM:79.5 kg C70.0 kg C25.0 kg C21.7
kg C4.9 kg C4.3 kg C109.4 kg C96.0 kg CBoleTop and limbsStumpTotal
AG carbon
-
CRM vs. Jenkins9 inch tree biomass by tree height across United
StatesDouglas-firQuaking Aspen
-
CRM vs. JenkinsWoodall, 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 EffortConsortiumCollect Data
Progressively Through Species
-
Standing Dead Trees Inventory Plots
-
Standing Dead WoodWood densityStructural loss
-
Density Reduction Factors
-
Density Reduction Factors
-
Structural Loss Adjustment
-
Models vs. MeasurementsModels may not account for recent
disturbance mortality such as fire or insects
-
Western State Standing Dead TreesCWilson et al. In Review
-
Standing Dead ResearchWoodall, 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 LULUCFNot 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 PlotsPhase 21 per 6,000 acresPhase 31 per
96,000 acresSoilsDowned Woody Materials (DWM)Forest FloorUnderstory
Vegetation
-
DWM Plots27,000+ plotsSampled 2002-2010
-
Unique DWM Considerations (i.e., Decay)Height collapse
(volume)Case hardeningDensity reductionsHarmon et al. 2008
(NRS-GTR-29)
-
Prior NGHGI ModelLive Tree BiomassDowned Dead BiomassSmith et
al. 2006
-
DWM P3 vs. NGHGI ModelDomke et al. In review
-
DWM P3 vs. NGHGI ModelDomke et al. In review
-
Live versus Dead versus AreaWoodall et al. In Review.
-
Bringing it All Together: A Cohesive View of C Across Pools and
USWilson et al. In Review
-
Future WorkInterior Alaska and Managed Land DefinitionMissing
Data and 1990 Baseline CCT for National Forest SystemSoil Organic
Carbon and Forest FloorBelowgroundUnity among on-line reporting
toolsVolume/Biomass researchAnd so on
-
SummaryImproving estimation of each poolstep by stepCRM adoption
and standing dead refinements in 2011Downed dead wood in 2012
(right now)Soil organic carbon and forest floor in 2013Small group
that tries to leverage the community of carbon scientists
-
THANK [email protected]
*Mention new FIA developments on NF land*******
