Suchergebnisse

Aim: The accurate mapping of forest carbon stocks is essential for understanding the global carbon cycle, for assessing emissions from deforestation, and for rational land-use planning. Remote sensing (RS) is currently the key tool for this purpose, but RS does not estimate vegetation biomass directly, and thus may miss significant spatial variations in forest structure. We test the stated accuracy of pantropical carbon maps using a large independent field dataset. Location: Tropical forests of the Amazon basin. The permanent archive of the field plot data can be accessed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5521/FORESTPLOTS.NET/2014_1 Methods: Two recent pantropical RS maps of vegetation carbon are compared to a unique ground-plot dataset, involving tree measurements in 413 large inventory plots located in nine countries. The RS maps were compared directly to field plots, and kriging of the field data was used to allow area-based comparisons. Results: The two RS carbon maps fail to capture the main gradient in Amazon forest carbon detected using 413 ground plots, from the densely wooded tall forests of the north-east, to the light-wooded, shorter forests of the south-west. The differences between plots and RS maps far exceed the uncertainties given in these studies, with whole regions over- or under-estimated by >25%, whereas regional uncertainties for the maps were reported to be <5%. Main conclusions: Pantropical biomass maps are widely used by governments and by projects aiming to reduce deforestation using carbon offsets, but may have significant regional biases. Carbon-mapping techniques must be revised to account for the known ecological variation in tree wood density and allometry to create maps suitable for carbon accounting. The use of single relationships between tree canopy height and above-ground biomass inevitably yields large, spatially correlated errors. This presents a significant challenge to both the forest conservation and remote sensing communities, because neither wood density nor species assemblages can be reliably mapped from space.

Aim: The accurate mapping of forest carbon stocks is essential for understanding the global carbon cycle, for assessing emissions from deforestation, and for rational land-use planning. Remote sensing (RS) is currently the key tool for this purpose, but RS does not estimate vegetation biomass directly, and thus may miss significant spatial variations in forest structure. We test the stated accuracy of pantropical carbon maps using a large independent field dataset. Location: Tropical forests of the Amazon basin. The permanent archive of the field plot data can be accessed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5521/FORESTPLOTS.NET/2014_1 Methods: Two recent pantropical RS maps of vegetation carbon are compared to a unique ground-plot dataset, involving tree measurements in 413 large inventory plots located in nine countries. The RS maps were compared directly to field plots, and kriging of the field data was used to allow area-based comparisons. Results: The two RS carbon maps fail to capture the main gradient in Amazon forest carbon detected using 413 ground plots, from the densely wooded tall forests of the north-east, to the light-wooded, shorter forests of the south-west. The differences between plots and RS maps far exceed the uncertainties given in these studies, with whole regions over- or under-estimated by >25%, whereas regional uncertainties for the maps were reported to be <5%. Main conclusions: Pantropical biomass maps are widely used by governments and by projects aiming to reduce deforestation using carbon offsets, but may have significant regional biases. Carbon-mapping techniques must be revised to account for the known ecological variation in tree wood density and allometry to create maps suitable for carbon accounting. The use of single relationships between tree canopy height and above-ground biomass inevitably yields large, spatially correlated errors. This presents a significant challenge to both the forest conservation and remote sensing communities, because neither wood density nor species assemblages can be reliably mapped from space.

Understanding the processes that determine aboveground biomass (AGB) in Amazonian forests is important for predicting the sensitivity of these ecosystems to environmental change and for designing and evaluating dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs). AGB is determined by inputs from woody productivity (woody NPP) and the rate at which carbon is lost through tree mortality. Here, we test whether two direct metrics of tree mortality (the absolute rate of woody biomass loss and the rate of stem mortality) and/or woody NPP, control variation in AGB among 167 plots in intact forest across Amazonia. We then compare these relationships and the observed variation in AGB and woody NPP with the predictions of four DGVMs. The observations show that stem mortality rates, rather than absolute rates of woody biomass loss, are the most important predictor of AGB, which is consistent with the importance of stand size-structure for determining spatial variation in AGB. The relationship between stem mortality rates and AGB varies among different regions of Amazonia, indicating that variation in wood density and height/diameter relationships also influence AGB. In contrast to previous findings, we find that woody NPP is not correlated with stem mortality rates, and is weakly positively correlated with AGB. Across the four models, basin-wide average AGB is similar to the mean of the observations. However, the models consistently overestimate woody NPP, and poorly represent the spatial patterns of both AGB and woody NPP estimated using plot data. In marked contrast to the observations, DGVMs typically show strong positive relationships between woody NPP and AGB. Resolving these differences will require incorporating forest size structure, mechanistic models of stem mortality and variation in functional composition in DGVMs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. ; This paper is a product of the European Union's Seventh Frame-work Programme AMAZALERT project (282664). The field dataused in this study have been generated by the RAINFOR net-work, which has been supported by a Gordon and Betty MooreFoundation grant, the European Union's Seventh FrameworkProgramme projects 283080, 'GEOCARBON'; and 282664,'AMAZALERT'; ERC grant 'Tropical Forests in the ChangingEarth System'), and Natural Environment Research Council(NERC) Urgency, Consortium and Standard Grants 'AMAZO-NICA' (NE/F005806/1), 'TROBIT' (NE/D005590/1) and 'NicheEvolution of South American Trees' (NE/I028122/1). Additionaldata were included from the Tropical Ecology Assessment andMonitoring (TEAM) Network – a collaboration between Conser-vation International, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Smith-sonian Institution and the Wildlife Conservation Society, andpartly funded by these institutions, the Gordon and Betty MooreFoundation, and other donors. Fieldwork was also partially sup-ported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı´fico eTecnolo´gico of Brazil (CNPq), project Programa de PesquisasEcolo´gicas de Longa Duracßa˜o (PELD-403725/2012-7). A.R.acknowledges funding from the Helmholtz Alliance 'RemoteSensing and Earth System Dynamics'; L.P., M.P.C. E.A. andM.T. are partially funded by the EU FP7 project 'ROBIN'(283093), with co-funding for E.A. from the Dutch Ministry ofEconomic Affairs (KB-14-003-030); B.C. [was supported in partby the US DOE (BER) NGEE-Tropics project (subcontract toLANL). O.L.P. is supported by an ERC Advanced Grant and is aRoyal Society-Wolfson Research Merit Award holder. P.M.acknowledges support from ARC grant FT110100457 and NERCgrants NE/J011002/1, and T.R.B. acknowledges support from aLeverhulme Trust Research Fellowship.