Next Article in Journal
Green Building Pro-Environment Behaviors: Are Green Users Also Green Buyers?
Previous Article in Journal
The Expected Job Satisfaction Affecting Entrepreneurial Intention as Career Choice in the Cultural and Artistic Industry
Open AccessArticle

Evaluating Carbon Stock Changes in Forest and Related Uncertainty

Department of AGRARIA, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Loc. Feo Di Vito, 89165 Reggio Calabria, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2017, 9(10), 1702; https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101702
Received: 15 September 2017 / Revised: 15 September 2017 / Accepted: 19 September 2017 / Published: 22 September 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)
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). View Full-Text
Keywords: carbon stock; uncertainty; Douglas fir; allometric equation; BEF carbon stock; uncertainty; Douglas fir; allometric equation; BEF
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Marziliano, P.A.; Menguzzato, G.; Coletta, V. Evaluating Carbon Stock Changes in Forest and Related Uncertainty. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101702

AMA Style

Marziliano PA, Menguzzato G, Coletta V. Evaluating Carbon Stock Changes in Forest and Related Uncertainty. Sustainability. 2017; 9(10):1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101702

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marziliano, Pasquale A.; Menguzzato, Giuliano; Coletta, Vittoria. 2017. "Evaluating Carbon Stock Changes in Forest and Related Uncertainty" Sustainability 9, no. 10: 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101702

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop