
Uncertainty of forest biomass carbon patterns simulation on provincial scale: A case study in Jiangxi Province, China
Yifu WANG, Tianxiang *YUE, Yuancai LEI, Zhengping DU, Mingwei ZHAO
Journal of Geographical Sciences ›› 2016, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (5) : 568-584.
Uncertainty of forest biomass carbon patterns simulation on provincial scale: A case study in Jiangxi Province, China
Forest vegetation carbon patterns are significant for evaluating carbon emission and accumulation. Many methods were used to simulate patterns of forest vegetation carbon stock in previous studies, however, uncertainty apparently existed between results of different methods, even estimates of same method in different studies. Three previous methods, including Atmosphere-vegetation interaction model 2 (AVIM2), Kriging, Satellite-data Based Approach (SBA), and a new method, High Accuracy Surface Modeling (HASM), were used to simulate forest vegetation carbon stock patterns in Jiangxi Province in China. Cross-validation was used to evaluate methods. The uncertainty and applicability of the four methods on provincial scale were analyzed and discussed. The results showed that HASM had the highest accuracy, which improved by 50.66%, 33.37% and 28.58%, compared with AVIM2, Kriging and SBA, respectively. Uncertainty of simulation of forest biomass carbon stock was mainly derived from modeling error, sampling error and statistical error of forest area. Total forest carbon stock, carbon density and forest area of Jiangxi were 288.62 Tg, 3.06 kg/m2 and 94.32×109 m2 simulated by HASM, respectively.
forest carbon stock / HASM / AVIM2 / Kriging / Satellite-data Based Approach (SBA) {{custom_keyword}} /
Table 1 C content of tree species (Li and Lei, 2010) |
Tree species | CC |
---|---|
Pinus massoniana | 0.4596 |
Pinus densata | 0.5009 |
Pinus elliottii | 0.4596 |
Pinus taeda | 0.4596 |
Cunninghamia lanceolata | 0.5201 |
Coniferous mixed forest | 0.5101 |
Broad-leaved and coniferous mixed forest | 0.4978 |
Cinnamomum camphora | 0.4916 |
Schima superba | 0.4916 |
Liquidambar formosana | 0.4916 |
Oaks | 0.5004 |
Sassafras tzumu | 0.4848 |
Eucalyptus robusta | 0.5253 |
Populus | 0.4956 |
Broad-leaved mixed forest | 0.49 |
Table 2 Biomass empirical models for each tree species (Li et al., 2010). WA, WR, WS, WBa, WBr and WL are biomass of aboveground, root, stem, bark, branch and leaf, respectively (kg); D (cm) and H (m) are diameter at breast height and tree height, respectively; a and b are parameters. |
![]() |
Table 3 The forest types contained by two land cover maps (of China) |
GlobCover 2009 land cover map | GLC2000 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Class | Class name | Class | Class name |
20 | Mosaic cropland (50%-70%) / vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (20%-50%) | 1 | Tree cover: broad-leaved, evergreen |
30 | Mosaic vegetation (grassland/shrubland/forest) (50%-70%) / cropland (20%-50%) | 2 | Tree cover: broad-leaved, deciduous, closed |
40 | Closed to open (>15%) broad-leaved evergreen or semi-deciduous forest (>5 m) | 3 | Tree cover: broad-leaved, deciduous, open |
50 | Closed (>40%) broad-leaved deciduous forest (>5 m) | 4 | Tree cover: needle-leaved, evergreen |
60 | Open (15%-40%) broad-leaved deciduous forest/woodland (>5 m) | 5 | Tree cover: needle-leaved, deciduous |
70 | Closed (>40%) needle-leaved evergreen forest (>5 m) | 6 | Tree cover: mixed-leaved type |
90 | Open (15%-40%) needle-leaved deciduous or evergreen forest (>5 m) | 7 | Tree cover: regularly flooded, fresh water |
100 | Closed to open (>15%) mixed broad-leaved and needle-leaved forest (>5 m) | 8 | Tree cover: regularly flooded, saline water |
110 | Mosaic forest or shrubland (50%-70%) / grassland (20%-50%) | 9 | Mosaic: Tree cover / Other natural vegetation |
120 | Mosaic grassland (50%-70%) / forest or shrubland (20%-50%) | 10 | Tree cover: burnt |
Figure 2 Comparison between observed and simulated results of forest vegetation C density (a. AVIM2; b. SBA; c. Kriging; d. HASM) |
Table 4 The accuracy of the four methods for forest vegetation C stock pattern simulation of Jiangxi Province in China |
Table 5 Comparison of forest vegetation C stocks of Jiangxi Province estimated by different methods (Tg =1012 g). Forest vegetation C stocks include C stocks of forest stands, economic forests, woodlands, shrub forests, bamboos and trees in non-forest. C stocks of forest stands include C stocks of needle-leaved forests, broad-leaved forests and mixed-leaved forests. |
Methods | Components | Area (109 m2) | Carbon density (kg/m2) | Carbon stock (Tg) | Periods | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Volume-derived | Forest stands | 78.93 | 2.72 | 214.70 | 2001-2005 | Li X et al., 2011 |
Volume-derived | Forest | 100.33 | 2.63 | 263.87 | 2001-2005 | Li X et al., 2011 |
Volume-derived | Forest stands | 3.00 | 2004-2008 | Li H K et al., 2011 | ||
Volume-derived | Forest | 289.07 | 2004-2008 | Li H K et al., 2011 | ||
Volume-derived | Forest | 99.80 | 2.67 | 297.97 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Forest stands | 76.81 | 3.02 | 231.97 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Needle-leaved forests | 47.05 | 2.60 | 122.33 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Broad-leaved forests | 21.83 | 3.84 | 83.82 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Mixed-leaved forests | 7.94 | 3.25 | 25.82 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Economic forests | 12.03 | 1.19 | 14.26 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Bamboos | 8.52 | 2.06 | 17.54 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Woodlands | 0.45 | 0.99 | 0.44 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Shrub forests | 1.99 | 0.99 | 1.96 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Volume-derived | Trees in non-forest | 31.80 | 2004-2008 | This study | ||
Volume-derived | Forest stands | 72.78 | 2.86 | 208.15 | 1999-2003 | This study |
AVIM2 | Forest | 94.32 | 3.71 | 349.93 | 2004-2008 | This study |
Kriging | Forest | 94.32 | 3.04 | 286.73 | 2004-2008 | This study |
SBA | Forest | 94.32 | 3.25 | 306.54 | 2004-2008 | This study |
HASM | Forest | 94.32 | 3.06 | 288.62 | 2004-2008 | This study |
HASM | Forest | 94.32 | 2.88 | 271.64 | 1999-2003 | This study |
Table 6 Correlation coefficient (R) between biomass C density and factors. ** means the factor was significantly correlated to biomass C density, P < 0.01. |
Factors | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B7 | NDVI | RVI | Altitude | Aspect | Slope |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R | -0.210** | -0.266** | -0.254** | 0.242** | -0.175** | -0.213** | 0.219** | 0.229** | -0.349** | 0.004 | -0.331** |
1 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
2 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
3 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
4 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
5 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
6 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
7 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
8 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
9 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
10 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
11 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
12 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
13 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
14 |
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
15 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
16 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
17 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
18 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
19 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
20 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
21 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
22 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
23 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
24 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
25 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
26 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
27 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
28 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
29 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
30 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
31 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
32 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
33 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
34 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
35 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
36 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
37 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
38 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
39 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
40 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
41 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
42 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
43 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
44 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
45 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
46 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
47 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
48 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
49 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
50 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
{{custom_ref.label}} |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
/
〈 |
|
〉 |