IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p3898-d780032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Forest Wood and Carbon Stock at the Stand Level: First Results of a Modeling Approach for an Italian Case Study Area of the Central Alps

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Nonini

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences—Production, Landscape, Agroenergy (DiSAA), University of Milan, Via G. Celoria 2, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Marco Fiala

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences—Production, Landscape, Agroenergy (DiSAA), University of Milan, Via G. Celoria 2, 20133 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Models for carbon (C) stock assessment are widely applied in forest science, and mainly differ according to the scale of application, the required data, and the objectives for their implementation. This work presents the methodology implemented into the second version of an empirical model, WOody biomass and Carbon ASsessment (WOCAS v2), that uses the data of forest management plans (FMP) to calculate the mass of wood (t∙year −1 of dry matter, DM) and C (t∙year −1 C) at the stand level and from the year in which the FMPs came into force until a predefined reference year, for an Italian Case Study Area of Central Alps. The mass of wood and C are computed for (i) aboveground wood biomass (AWB), (ii) belowground wood biomass (BWB), and (iii) dead organic matter (DOM; i.e., dead wood and litter) according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. WOCAS v2 was tested for the first time for 2019 public forest stands (3.67 × 10 4 ha) of Valle Camonica for the period 1984–2018. Results showed that, in 2018 and at the landscape level, the total living wood biomass (TLB; AWB + BWB) reached 5.35∙10 6 t DM. TLB yield (t·ha −1 ·year −1 DM) ranged from 44.72 ± 44.42 t·ha −1 ·year −1 DM (1984) to 145.49 ± 70.76 t·ha −1 ·year −1 DM (2018). In the same year, DOM amounted to 6.12∙10 5 t DM, ranging from 8.28 ± 7.79 t·ha −1 ·year −1 DM (1989) to 17.11 ± 12.03 t·ha −1 ·year −1 DM (2015). The total weighted C yield, computed as the sum of C yield in AWB, BWB, and DOM of each stand, ranged from 26.63 ± 26.80 t∙ha −1 ∙year −1 C (1984) to 80.28 ± 41.32 t∙ha −1 ∙year −1 C (2018). The results demonstrated that FMPs data can be useful in estimating wood and C mass at the stand level and their variation over space and time for AWB as well as for BWB and DOM, which are not considered in the FMPs. This can represent a starting point for defining sustainable forest management policies and practices to improve forest vitality and conservation in compatibility with ecosystem services provision. Moreover, as the model is based on a standardized methodology it can be applied in any other forest area where the same input data are made available; this may constitute the basis for further applications on a broader scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Nonini & Marco Fiala, 2022. "Assessment of Forest Wood and Carbon Stock at the Stand Level: First Results of a Modeling Approach for an Italian Case Study Area of the Central Alps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3898-:d:780032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3898/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3898/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rupert Seidl & Mart-Jan Schelhaas & Werner Rammer & Pieter Johannes Verkerk, 2014. "Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(9), pages 806-810, September.
    2. Silvano Fares & Giuseppe Scarascia Mugnozza & Piermaria Corona & Marc Palahí, 2015. "Sustainability: Five steps for managing Europe's forests," Nature, Nature, vol. 519(7544), pages 407-409, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tie Zhang & Guijie Ding & Jiangping Zhang & Yujiao Qi, 2022. "Contributions of Biotic and Abiotic Factors to the Spatial Heterogeneity of Aboveground Biomass in Subtropical Forests: A Case Study of Guizhou Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Ali Jahani & Maryam Saffariha, 2022. "Tree failure prediction model (TFPM): machine learning techniques comparison in failure hazard assessment of Platanus orientalis in urban forestry," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(2), pages 881-898, January.
    3. Sampo Soimakallio & Tuomo Kalliokoski & Aleksi Lehtonen & Olli Salminen, 2021. "On the trade-offs and synergies between forest carbon sequestration and substitution," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Honkaniemi, Juha & Ojansuu, Risto & Kasanen, Risto & Heliövaara, Kari, 2018. "Interaction of disturbance agents on Norway spruce: A mechanistic model of bark beetle dynamics integrated in simulation framework WINDROT," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 388(C), pages 45-60.
    5. Patrice Loisel & Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture, 2022. "Ambiguity, value of information and forest rotation decision under storm risk," Working Papers of BETA 2022-26, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Thomas, J. & Brunette, M. & Leblois, A., 2022. "The determinants of adapting forest management practices to climate change: Lessons from a survey of French private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Lee, Christine & Schlemme, Claire & Murray, Jessica & Unsworth, Robert, 2015. "The cost of climate change: Ecosystem services and wildland fires," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 261-269.
    8. Ping, Jiaye & Zhou, Jian & Huang, Kun & Sun, Xiaoying & Sun, Huanfa & Xia, Jianyang, 2021. "Modeling the typhoon disturbance effect on ecosystem carbon storage dynamics in a subtropical forest of China's coastal region," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    9. Raymundo Marcos-Martinez & José J. Sánchez & Lorie Srivastava & Natthanij Soonsawad & Dominique Bachelet, 2022. "Valuing the Impact of Forest Disturbances on the Climate Regulation Service of Western U.S. Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-12, January.
    10. Marielle Brunette & Marc Hanewinkel, 2021. "Assurance financière et assurance naturelle : une application à la forêt," Working Papers of BETA 2021-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Louise Eriksson, 2017. "The importance of threat, strategy, and resource appraisals for long-term proactive risk management among forest owners in Sweden," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 868-886, July.
    12. Debojyoti Chakraborty & Albert Ciceu & Dalibor Ballian & Marta Benito Garzón & Andreas Bolte & Gregor Bozic & Rafael Buchacher & Jaroslav Čepl & Eva Cremer & Alexis Ducousso & Julian Gaviria & Jan Pet, 2024. "Assisted tree migration can preserve the European forest carbon sink under climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 14(8), pages 845-852, August.
    13. Knoke, Thomas & Gosling, Elizabeth & Thom, Dominik & Chreptun, Claudia & Rammig, Anja & Seidl, Rupert, 2021. "Economic losses from natural disturbances in Norway spruce forests – A quantification using Monte-Carlo simulations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Wildemeersch, Matthias & Franklin, Oskar & Seidl, Rupert & Rogelj, Joeri & Moorthy, Inian & Thurner, Stefan, 2019. "Modelling the multi-scaled nature of pest outbreaks," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 409(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    16. Juutinen, Artti & Haeler, Elena & Jandl, Robert & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Kurttila, Mikko & Mäkipää, Raisa & Pohjanmies, Tähti & Rosenkranz, Lydia & Skudnik, Mitja & Triplat, Matevž & Tolvanen, Anne & Vi, 2022. "Common preferences of European small-scale forest owners towards contract-based management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    17. Giovanni B. Concu & Claudio Detotto & Marco Vannini, 2021. "Drivers of intentions and drivers of actions: willingness toparticipate versus actual participation in fire management inSardinia, Italy," Working Papers 018, Laboratoire Lieux, Identités, eSpaces et Activités (LISA).
    18. Kallio, A. Maarit I. & Solberg, Birger & Käär, Liisa & Päivinen, Risto, 2018. "Economic impacts of setting reference levels for the forest carbon sinks in the EU on the European forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 193-201.
    19. Montagné-Huck, Claire & Brunette, Marielle, 2018. "Economic analysis of natural forest disturbances: A century of research," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 42-71.
    20. Rupert Seidl & Dominik Thom & Markus Kautz & Dario Martin-Benito & Mikko Peltoniemi & Giorgio Vacchiano & Jan Wild & Davide Ascoli & Michal Petr & Juha Honkaniemi & Manfred J. Lexer & Volodymyr Trotsi, 2017. "Forest disturbances under climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(6), pages 395-402, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3898-:d:780032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.