IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i10p1702-d112821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Carbon Stock Changes in Forest and Related Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Pasquale A. Marziliano

    (Department of AGRARIA, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Loc. Feo Di Vito, 89165 Reggio Calabria, Italy)

  • Giuliano Menguzzato

    (Department of AGRARIA, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Loc. Feo Di Vito, 89165 Reggio Calabria, Italy)

  • Vittoria Coletta

    (Department of AGRARIA, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Loc. Feo Di Vito, 89165 Reggio Calabria, Italy)

Abstract

For the evaluation of changes in the carbon stock of living biomass, two methods are reported in the Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: (1) the default method, which requires the biomass carbon loss to be subtracted from the biomass carbon increment for the reporting year; and (2) the stock change method, which requires two consecutive biomass carbon stock inventories for a given forest area at two points in time. We used three methods to estimate above-ground biomass: (1) application of allometric equations, (2) constant BEF (biomass expansion factor), and (3) age-dependent BEF, following which we evaluated the changes in carbon stock and the related uncertainty. Our study was carried out in a Douglas fir plantation composed of plots with three different planting densities, monitored at three different ages (15, 25, and 40 years old). Results showed the highest uncertainty in the estimates based on the constant BEF, whereas the use of allometric equations led to the lowest uncertainty in the estimates. With a constant BEF, it is usually difficult to obtain a reliable value for the whole tree biomass because stem proportion increases with tree size at the expense of the other components. The age-dependent BEFs aim to reduce the bias representing the actual change in stock, thus we found a lower uncertainty in the estimates by using this method compared to the constant BEF. The default method had the highest uncertainty (35.5–48.1%) and gave an estimate higher by almost double compared to the stock change method, which had an uncertainty ranging from 2.9% (estimated by the allometric equation) to 3.4% (estimated by the constant BEF).

Suggested Citation

  • Pasquale A. Marziliano & Giuliano Menguzzato & Vittoria Coletta, 2017. "Evaluating Carbon Stock Changes in Forest and Related Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1702-:d:112821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1702/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1702/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1702-:d:112821. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.