TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE FOREST CARBON INVENTORY OF THE UNI - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

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 Slide2

Grant DomkeSean HealeyJohn

Coulston

James SmithAndrew Gray

Co-AuthorsSlide3

OutlineWhere we’ve been…Where we are at…

Where we want to go…Slide4

FIA Carbon/Biomass Goal“Improve 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”Slide5

State of Accounting in 2010Live Tree = Field Measurement

Standing Dead Tree =

ModelLitter = ModelDowned Dead Wood =

ModelSoil Organic Carbon = Model

Belowground =

Model

Data Delivery =

FIA

vs

NGHGI Tools

Vs.

* Used in 2009 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Forests (LULUCF)Slide6

Problem with Models

Do 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?Slide7

Problem with Modelse.g., 1,000 year ice stormSlide8

Improvements in 2011

Jenkins to Component Ratio Method

Phase 2 standing dead

Released to Public in April 2012Slide9

Improvements in 2012Phase 3 Down Woody Materials

Released to Public in April 2013Slide10

CRM vs. Jenkins

Jenkins

Nationally consistent method

Tree component estimates

Single field-based parameter:

dbh

Useful at large scales

Not linked to tree volume

Relies on external stump equation

Component Ratio Method (CRM)

Nationally consistent method

Standardized use of regional volume equations

Utilizes dbh and height measurements

Requires Jenkins to estimate component biomass

Incorporates rotten and missing cull deductions

Relies on external stump equationSlide11

CRM vs. Jenkins

Method

Jenkins:

CRM:

79.5 kg C

70.0 kg C

25.0 kg C

21.7 kg C

4.9 kg C

4.3 kg C

109.4 kg C

96.0 kg C

Bole

Top and limbs

Stump

Total AG carbonSlide12

CRM vs. Jenkins

9 inch tree biomass by tree height across United States

Douglas-fir

Quaking AspenSlide13

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. Slide14

National Volume/Biomass Effort

Consortium

Collect Data Progressively Through SpeciesSlide15

Standing Dead Trees Inventory PlotsSlide16

Standing Dead WoodWood density

Structural lossSlide17

Density Reduction FactorsSlide18

Density Reduction FactorsSlide19

Structural Loss AdjustmentSlide20

Models vs. MeasurementsModels may not account for recent disturbance mortality such as fire or insectsSlide21

Western State Standing Dead Trees

C

Wilson et al. In ReviewSlide22

Standing Dead Research

Woodall, 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. Slide23

Implications of Changes to 2012 US LULUCF

Not 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).Slide24

Phase 2 vs Phase 3 Plots

Phase 2

1 per 6,000 acres

Phase 3

1 per 96,000 acres

Soils

Downed Woody Materials (

DWM

)

Forest Floor

Understory VegetationSlide25

DWM Plots

27,000+ plots

Sampled 2002-2010Slide26

Unique DWM Considerations (i.e., Decay)

Height collapse (volume)

Case hardeningDensity reductionsHarmon et al. 2008 (NRS-GTR-29)Slide27

Prior NGHGI Model

Live Tree Biomass

Downed Dead Biomass

Smith et al. 2006Slide28

DWM P3 vs. NGHGI Model

Field-based

Model: Carbon calculation tool

Estimated CWD C density (Tg)

Domke et al. In reviewSlide29

DWM P3 vs. NGHGI Model

Domke et al. In reviewSlide30

Live versus Dead versus Area

Woodall et

al. In Review.Slide31

Bringing it All Together: A Cohesive View of C Across Pools and US

Wilson et al. In ReviewSlide32

Future WorkInterior Alaska and Managed Land Definition

Missing Data and 1990 Baseline

CCT for National Forest SystemSoil Organic Carbon and Forest FloorBelowground

Unity among on-line reporting toolsVolume/Biomass researchAnd so on…Slide33

SummaryImproving estimation of each pool…step by step

CRM adoption and standing dead refinements in 2011

Downed dead wood in 2012 (right now)Soil organic carbon and forest floor in 2013Small group that tries to leverage the community of carbon scientistsSlide34

Thank You!!!cwoodall@fs.fed.us