Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(s): Laura Duncanson; Wenli Huang; Kristofer Johnson; Anu Swatantran; Ronald E. McRoberts; Ralph Dubayah
    Date: 2017
    Source: Carbon Balance and Management
    Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
    Station: Northern Research Station
    PDF: View PDF  (1.0 MB)

    Description

    Background: 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.

    Publication Notes

    • 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, shobrla@fs.fed.us 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.

    Citation

    Duncanson, 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.

    Cited

    Google Scholar

    Keywords

    Forest biomass, Lidar, Allometry, Carbon accounting

    Related Search


    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/56374