Skip to Main Content
Implications of allometric model selection for county-level biomass mappingAuthor(s): Laura Duncanson; Wenli Huang; Kristofer Johnson; Anu Swatantran; Ronald E. McRoberts; Ralph Dubayah
Source: Carbon Balance and Management
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Northern Research Station
View PDF (1.0 MB)
DescriptionBackground: Carbon accounting in forests remains a large area of uncertainty in the global carbon cycle. Forest aboveground biomass is therefore an attribute of great interest for the forest management community, but the accuracy of aboveground biomass maps depends on the accuracy of the underlying field estimates used to calibrate models. These field estimates depend on the application of allometric models, which often have unknown and unreported uncertainties outside of the size class or environment in which they were developed. Results: Here, we test three popular allometric approaches to field biomass estimation, and explore the implications of allometric model selection for county-level biomass mapping in Sonoma County, California. We test three allometric models: Jenkins et al. (For Sci 49(1): 12–35, 2003), Chojnacky et al. (Forestry 87(1): 129–151, 2014) and the US Forest Service's Component Ratio Method (CRM). We found that Jenkins and Chojnacky models perform comparably, but that at both a field plot level and a total county level there was a ~ 20% difference between these estimates and the CRM estimates. Further, we show that discrepancies are greater in high biomass areas with high canopy covers and relatively moderate heights (25–45 m). The CRM models, although on average ~ 20% lower than Jenkins and Chojnacky, produce higher estimates in the tallest forests samples (> 60 m), while Jenkins generally produces higher estimates of biomass in forests < 50 m tall. Discrepancies do not continually increase with increasing forest height, suggesting that inclusion of height in allometric models is not primarily driving discrepancies. Models developed using all three allometric models underestimate high biomass and overestimate low biomass, as expected with random forest biomass modeling. However, these deviations were generally larger using the Jenkins and Chojnacky allometries, suggesting that the CRM approach may be more appropriate for biomass mapping with lidar. Conclusions: These results confirm that allometric model selection considerably impacts biomass maps and estimates, and that allometric model errors remain poorly understood. Our findings that allometric model discrepancies are not explained by lidar heights suggests that allometric model form does not drive these discrepancies. A better understanding of the sources of allometric model errors, particularly in high biomass systems, is essential for improved forest biomass mapping.
- Check the Northern Research Station web site to request a printed copy of this publication.
- Our on-line publications are scanned and captured using Adobe Acrobat.
- During the capture process some typographical errors may occur.
- Please contact Sharon Hobrla, email@example.com if you notice any errors which make this publication unusable.
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationDuncanson, Laura; Huang, Wenli; Johnson, Kristofer; Swatantran, Anu; McRoberts, Ronald E.; Dubayah, Ralph. 2017. Implications of allometric model selection for county-level biomass mapping. Carbon Balance and Management. 12(1): 18. 11 p. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-017-0086-9.
KeywordsForest biomass, Lidar, Allometry, Carbon accounting
- Estimating aboveground tree biomass on forest land in the Pacific Northwest: a comparison of approaches
- Estimating mangrove aboveground biomass from airborne LiDAR data: a case study from the Zambezi River delta
- Live tree carbon stock equivalence of fire and fuels extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator and Forest Inventory and Analysis approaches
XML: View XML