Carbon Stock Assessment at a Regional Level, on Pure and Mixed Stands, Based on Inventory Data: A Case Study

doi:10.4236/ojf.2011.11002

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Forestry

2011. Vol.1, No.1, 6-9

Carbon Stock Assessment at a Regional Level, on Pure and

Mixed Stands, Based on Inventory Data: A Case Study*

Teresa Fidalgo Fonseca, Carlos Pacheco Marques

Department of Forest Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal.

Email: tfonseca@utad.pt

Received July 4th, 2011; revised July 19th, 2011; accepted July 22th, 2011.

Following Kyoto protocol considerable research efforts have been made on carbon sequestration assessment of

forest stands. The aim of the present study was to test the adequacy of two documented methodologies to obtain

stand level dry biomass and carbon estimates, considering its application at regional scale, for pure and mixed

stands. The procedures refer to: 1) the estimation of dry biomass through the use of tree biomass models and 2)

the use of biomass conversion and expansion factors (BCEF) to convert stem volume raw data into aboveground

dry biomass. Using the dry biomass values, carbon stock is easily estimated using conversion factors, being 0.50

a generally accepted value.

Case study reports to a pilot zone with pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus globulus Labill and Pinus pinas-

ter Ait. in Portugal. Procedure 1) gives the most reliable results when the database includes detailed information

at tree level, both for pure or mixed stands. When individual tree data is not accessible, option 2) is an interest-

ing option to consider for pure stands. The use of BCEF-based procedure in mixed stands is not advocated at

least when considering the direct use of a single conversion factor, as the value of the factor strongly depends on

the forest composition.

Keywords: Biomass, BCEF, Greenhouse Inventory, Carbon Monitoring

Introduction

The assessment of carbon in the forest areas is a timely sub-

ject because carbon stock is an important criterion of Sustain-

able Forest Management and at the same time it is required for

greenhouse gas inventories needed in the LULUCF sector

(Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) for the United Na-

tions Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

reporting.

Two major methodologies have been proposed and accepted

for use to assess the carbon stock of the tree component using

ground level inventory data. One is based on tree biomass and

carbon concentration in the biomass (g of carbon per g of bio-

mass). Under this approach, tree dry biomass is estimated from

tree characteristics using allometric equations that relate tree

biomass with tree size (usually, diameter or diameter and

height). For general forest inventory purposes this approach

seems to be the most reliable provided that there are biomass

models available for the inventoried species. This seems not to

be of great concern as there is a wealth of literature about the

subject for both whole tree biomass and the biomass of differ-

ent components. Just to mention some biomes, Zianis et al.

(2005) present a database on biomass equations for various tree

species growing in Europe. A compilation for North-American

and for Canadian tree species can be found in Ter-Mikaelian

and Korzukhin (1997) and Lambert et al. (2005), respectively.

However, it is not unusual a lack of recorded values on indi-

vidual tree diameters, namely for evaluations made at

sub-regional and at regional scale. In such cases, alternative

methods based on inventory data need to be considered. One of

the most practical approaches makes use of stand volume data

(see Brown et al. 1989; Brown 1997). Biomass (B) is estimated

from volume (v) data using the general formula B =



Ev, where



represents wood density and E goes for an expansion factor

used to expand values from one tree component, usually the

stem, to other tree components (e.g. crown) to get aboveground

estimates. Two main options are offered under this approach.

One option, not discussed here, refers to the use of the individ-

ual values of tree volume and wood density. Dry mass values

are calculated using the volume of the trees (measured or esti-

mated) and the wood density values for the species (a large

database of wood density values is available from the World

Agroforestry Centre website). This is a helpful option when is

required a roughly estimate of carbon and there is no informa-

tion of proper biomass equations for the existing species.

Other option requires the use of biomass conversion (BCF)

and biomass expansion factors (BEF). Those combined factors

(BCEF) allow converting stem volume raw data per unit area

into stem dry biomass and then to expand stem biomass values

to other components of the trees, such as crown and roots. This

method is one of the methods currently suggested in the Inter-

governmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC guidelines based

on National Forest Inventories for estimating biomass gains

and losses (IPCC 2006, 4.11). The approach presents a great

value for monitoring purposes using data from past forest in-

ventories. Criticism has been made to the use of this approach:

biomass factors used are, in most cases, not representative,

because they are based on local studies (Somogy et al. 2007);

forest inventories often report volumes to different standards,

e.g., to minimum diameters greater than 10 cm, thus particular

care is needed to unify the volume data (Brown, 1997), this

being quite relevant either for monitoring as well as for com-

parison purposes between regions or countries.

Using the dry biomass values, carbon stock of a tree or of a

T. F. FONSECA ET AL.

stand is easily estimated for either method, using conversion

factors. The value of 0.50 is the most usual and generally ac-

cepted, even if the conversion is not completely accurate.

Additional information and reviews on methodologies for

biomass assessment and carbon inventory methods can be

found in Brown (1997), Ketterings et al. (2001), Lindner and

Karjalainen (2007) and Somogy et al. (2008).

The objective of this article is to summarize the results ob-

tained for a pilot zone, with pure and mixed forest stands. Re-

marks are pointed out along presentation of the two tested

methodologies to provide guidance in selecting the best ap-

proach to use when evaluating carbon stocks for sustainable

forest management at regional level.

Material and Methods

Case Study

Under EU funded Project INTERREG III-B FORSEE, car-

bon stock evaluation from biomass equations and from BCEF

approaches were tested for application at regional level, in the

Atlantic region. The objective was to assess for relevance and

feasibility of the evaluation methods. Case study reports to the

essays made under the research project at the pilot region of

Sousa Valley, in North Portugal. This region has a total area of

77 620 hectares. Sampling area refers to an area of 3 384.9 ha

on pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus globulus Labill and

Pinus pinaster Aiton. The most represented forest stratum re-

fers to pure stands of eucalyptus (Ec) with an area of 1801.0 ha,

followed by the mixed stands of eucalyptus and pine (Ec × Pp)

with 1314.5 ha. Maritime pine pure stands (Pp) occupy 269.4

ha.

Data refers to 35 plots, sampled in 2005 according to a sys-

tematic grid that was previously superimposed in the study area

for inventory purposes of the forest existences in 2003. Plots

were circular in size with an area of 500m2.

According to the layout of the systematic grid, 23 plots lo-

cated on Ec stratum; 4 plots were placed on stratum Pp and 8

plots were located on Ec × Pp stratum, of mixed stands of euca-

lyptus and pine.

The age of the trees ranged from 4 to 14 years for the euca-

lyptus and from 4 to 54 years for the pine species. An uneven-

aged structure was reported for the mixed stands and in a num-

ber of pure stands for either species.

At each plot, all living trees with 1.30m of height were nu-

merated and classified by species and tree status. Diameter at

breast height (d) of the living trees were measured with a calli-

per and the height (h) of a sample of those trees were measured

with a Vertex hypsometer. Other species that were recorded in

the pure and the mixed stands belong to the Quercus spp gen-

der. A summary of the stand data is presented in Table 1.

Application and Reliability

Estimation of Dry Biomass through Tree Biomass Models –

Compilation Method

For the two major inventoried tree species, allometric models

for the aboveground dry biomass were available for use (Fabião,

1986 and Lopes, 2005). The models use as explanatory variable

the diameter at breast height over bark and give estimates of

tree aerial biomass per component (stem and crown).

Total aboveground dry mass per plot was obtained by adding

Table 1.

Characterization of the stand variables (mean ± sd) for each forest

stratum.

Stratum

Variable Eucalyptus Pine Mixed

Number of trees (n. ha–1)1278 ± 411 690 ± 329 630 ± 269

Basal area (m2. ha–1) 15.9 ± 6.0 17.0 ± 8.1 18.5 ± 11.4

Mean diameter (cm) 12.6 ± 2.4 17.4 ± 0.7 18.5 ± 4.9

Volume (m3. ha–1) 120.2 ± 58.6 122.1 ±1 01.7 137.0 ± 106.7

the dry mass of the inventoried single trees. Individual stratum

estimates of the mean, denoted as

, and of the variance of

biomass among plots were calculated using the data of the plots

measured in that stratum. Variance of the mean in stratum j,

was evaluated as,

(/)(1/ )

jjj

sn nN (1)

where Nj refers to the stratum size.

Use of BCEFs to Convert Stem Volume Raw Data into

Aboveground Dry Biomass – BCEF Method

Carbon stock evaluation on forested areas, for which den-

drometric data expressed in volume units is available, can be

indirectly assessed throughout conversion factors. The method

requires the use of consistent factors to convert volume data

into dry mass. Depending on which tree compartment is being

assessed it may be necessary to expand the converted values to

other tree parts. In Portugal, volume data usually refers to stem,

hence the factors to apply should make the conversion of stem

volume to dry biomass of the stem (implicitly through the den-

sity value of wood) and then to expand the estimates of stem

biomass to the aboveground components, that is, stem compo-

nent plus tree crown.

According to the evaluation protocols defined in FORSEE,

two variants were proposed for testing. In variant 1, the estima-

tion of biomass per stratum j (Bj) is made through the multipli-

cation of the volume of the stratum (Vj) by a BCEF value. That

is,

Bj = Vj  BCEF (2)

Total biomass is obtained by adding the dry mass values (2)

for all strata.

In variant 2, the data processing requires, at a first step, the

estimation of the volume of each tree per plot using a volume

equation. Volume per plot is obtained by adding the individual

volumes. Plot biomass is then estimated by multiplying plot

volume by the BCEF (3).

Bi = Vi BCEF (3)

Total biomass per stratum is estimated as the product of the

average value of biomass times the stratum area. The sum for

all strata provides the estimate of the total biomass.

A prior analysis shown the proposed calculations could pre-

sent problems, namely for the mixed stands. Hence, a new

modification that generalizes the employment of the BCEF-

based procedure was proposed for testing by the authors. This

new variant, hereafter called variant 3, requires that the data

processing is made at a lower scale level and by species.

Briefly, it is completed as follows:

 Compile proper volume equations and BCEF values for

each of the inventoried species in the region;

 Using the raw inventory data on tree size, estimate indi-

T. F. FONSECA ET AL.

vidual volumes;

 Estimate plot volume per specie (Vi) as the sum of indi-

vidual volumes;

 Estimate plot biomass (Bi) by multiplying plot volume

per species with the respective species BCEF value

(BCEFi),

Species

iii

VBCEF





 (4)

 Estimate the mean and the variance of the mean per stra-

tum (see method 1).

 Aggregate the strata values using the appropriate formu-

las for stratified populations.

Volume calculation

For each of the three BCEF-approach variants, the tree vol-

ume of the major species was estimated using a local volume

equation, developed for the study area (5). Available data base

comprised 333 observations of stem volume (outside bark,

from base to tip) evaluated on sample standing trees with a

Bitterlich relaskop.

v = (0.000458-0.000399S) d2.122+0.574S (5)

In Equation 5, v refers to stem volume in m3, S is a binary

variable for coding species, being 0 for eucalyptus and 1 for

maritime pine; and d is already defined. The standard error (syx)

of this model is .049m3.

For the other species inventoried in the sampled plots, stem

volume was directly assessed, with the Bitterlich relaskop.

Total stem volume per plot was obtained by adding the volume

of the single trees.

BCEF values

The general BCEF values proposed for testing under the

FORSEE project were the ones provided by the official agency

of Environment: 0.70 t.m–3 for E. globulus and 0.78 t.m–3 for P.

pinaster. Values refer to the ratio of aboveground biomass (ton)

to the stem volume (m–3).

Calculations were made also using the factors evaluated for

eucalyptus and pine species in the pilot region (mean ± sd):

0.63 ± 0.07 and 0.54 ± 0.05, respectively, using the available

data set of volume and biomass estimates for the sampled plots

in the pure stands.

For the mixed stands there are no published values, as the

value depends on the species composition and varies with the

occupancy of the species.

Overall Estimates of Biomass and of Carbon

Knowing the confidence interval is as critical a knowledge as

the average estimates. Once estimates of individual stratum

parameters (mean and standard error) have been computed, an

estimate of biomass for all three strata combined is calculated

using the formula for the systematic stratified design.

The mean dry biomass for the M strata, denoted B, and the

standard error, denoted by

, are given in Equations 6 and 7,

respectively.



 (6)



 (7)

In Equations 6 and 7, Pj refers to the proportion of stratum j

Table 2.

Carbon estimates using the biomass compilation and the BCEF

method.

BCEF values―variant 3

Carbon Compilation

method Ec: 0.70;

Pp: 0.78

Ec: 0.63;

Pp: 0.54

Mean

(ton. ha–1)43 46 39

SE (%) 37 26 25

CI* for the

total (ton)

145500 

54000 158000  40500 131500  33500

*. Confidence Interval (0.95 level of confidence).

with PEc = 0.53; PPp = 0.08 and PEc×Pp = 0.39.

The sampling error is given by,

SE =

t (8)

In stratified layouts which are not proportional to the stratum

area it is not possible to determine rigorously the number of

degrees of freedom (df) for the Student’s t-distribution. Ac-

cording to the formula proposed by Satterthwaite (1946) a

value of 10 df was estimated, with a corresponding t value of

2.228 at p equal to 0.05.

Calculations of dry mass were made for each of the tested

approaches. A factor of 0.50 was employed to convert the mass

estimates in carbon stock values.

Results and Discussion

The analysis of the biomass and carbon stock evaluation

methods shows that the compilation method based on individ-

ual tree biomass evaluation is generally applicable, allowing its

use in pure and mixed stands.

The method that uses volume data and BCEF values proved

to be inadequate for a widespread use, at least as stated in both

variants approved for evaluation in the FORSEE project. In fact,

variant 1 of BCEF-based method was immediately excluded as

it cannot be directly used on mixed stands. Variant 2 of BCEF-

based method is also not satisfactory as it assumes a unique

BCEF value for the plot, (see 3) independently of the plot com-

position. The exception would be to have a common BCEF

value for all inventoried species, which is not likely to occur in

nature. The problem could be overridden by knowing the spe-

cies contribution in each plot and then to use ratios. Variant 3 is

a generalized alternative that avoids the use of ratios while

accounting for the stand composition, in mixed stands.

Table 2 presents the essential results on carbon stocking for

the study area using the biomass compilation method and the

new version of the BCEF-based method. Depending on the

method used and on the BCEF values adopted (general or re-

gional ones) estimates of dry biomass in the pilot region vary

from 78 to 92 tons per hectare, corresponding to variations of

carbon stocks estimates of 17.9%. The sampling error ranges

from 25 to 37% which might be considered high for an assess-

ment at regional level. This is due to the forest heterogeneity

and to the sample size.

Although confidence intervals overlap for the alternative es-

timation procedures, the results clearly point out, that different

data processing could led to quite different estimates of bio-

mass and therefore to different evaluations of carbon storage.

The under- or the upper- estimation is of concern as it can have

T. F. FONSECA ET AL.

great effects on national policies with respect to compliance

with the Kyoto protocol.

A cautionary note should also be made about the accuracy of

the estimates. At a first analysis it would appear that the bio-

mass compilation method produce a greater uncertainty than

the BCEF-based ones. This may not be true as the use of a con-

stant BCEF reduces the variability in the biomass plot estimates,

namely on mixed stands stratum. The wider confidence interval

computed with the former comes from a greater individual

variability in the biomass plot estimates.

Conclusions

The present study focused on the use of two widely divul-

gated approaches for dry biomass and carbon stock assessment

in forest areas. The key point here was to evaluate the appro-

priateness of the use at a regional scale, using sample inventory

data. Results showed that the approach based on biomass esti-

mation with equations (compilation method) is of easy data

handling and is compatible with forest inventories at local,

regional or national level. When biomass equations are not

available, carbon stock might be evaluated indirectly from

volume estimates. The use of BCEFs appears as a promising

approach as they can be readily used with existing forest vol-

ume inventory data to obtain estimates of biomass stocks. Re-

marks are made concerning data processing using BCEF-based

approaches. Estimating the biomass of mixed stands using this

approach is not always feasible as some of the existing variants

of calculation are appropriate to apply just to pure stands. A

modification of BCEF-based method that accounts for mixed

stands is presented. The new modification also applies to pure

stands with woody biomass from dominated species. In order to

get consistent estimates of dry biomass, the BCEF-based ap-

proach needs, however, to be reliable. The example provided in

this paper clearly shows how the carbon stock estimates depend

on the value of the factor used. Biomass conversion and expan-

sion factors obtained from different sources might give quite

diverse estimates of carbon stocking. It is necessary to do more

research in this field, including the analysis of the factors varia-

tion with stand characteristics.

The statements made for the pilot zone can be extended to

other regions and are expected to assist for enhancement of

carbon-related assessment issues, including emissions from

forest fires or removals from forest harvesting, at the regional

level, and for supporting monitoring and reporting programs

requiring information about carbon, such as case of the REDD

+ program.

Acknowledgements

T.F. Fonseca thanks to Prof. Américo Mendes from the Por-

tuguese Catholic University for his invitation to participate in

the FORSEE Project.

References

Brown, S., (1997). Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical

forests: A primer. FAO Forestry Paper 134.

Brown, S., Gillespie, A. J. R., & Lugo, A. E. (1989). Biomass estima-

tion methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory

data. Forest Science, 35, 881-902.

Fabião, A. M., (1986). Contribuição para o estudo da dinâmica da

biomassa e da produtividade primária líquida em eucaliptais―região

litoral do centro de Portugal. Ph. D. Thesis, Lisbon: Universidade

Técnica de Lisboa.

IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol-

ume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. URL (last checked 29

June 2011)

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Vo lume4/V4_04

_Ch4_Forest_Land.pdf

Ketterings, Q. M., Coe, R., van Noordwijk, M., Ambagau, Y., & Palm,

C. A. (2001). Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass

equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secon-

dary forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 146, 199-209.

Lambert, M. C., Ung, C. H., & Raulier, F. (2005). Canadian national

tree aboveground biomass equations. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research, 35, 1996-2018.

Lindner, M., & Karjalainen, T. (2007). Carbon inventory methods and

carbon mitigation potentials of forests in Europe: a short review of

recent progress. European Journal of Forest Research, 126, 149-

156.

Lopes, D., (2005). Estimating net primary production in Eucalyptus

globulus and Pinus pinaster ecossytems in Portugal. Ph. D. Thesis,

Kingston: Kingston University.

Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of

variance components. Biometrics, 2, 110-114.

Somogyi Z., Teobaldelli, M., Federici, S., Matteucci, G., Pagliari, V.,

Grassi, G., & Seufert, G. (2008). Allometric biomass and carbon

factors database. Journal of Biogeosciences and Forestry, 1, 107-

113.

Ter-Mikaelian, M., & Korzukhin, M. D. (1997). Biomass equations for

sixty-five North American tree species. Forest Ecology and Man-

agement, 97, 1-24.

Wood density Database (2011). URL (last checked 29 June 2011)

http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Products/AFDbases/wd/

index.htm

Zianis, D., Muukkonen, P., Mäkipää, R. & Mencuccini, M. (2005).

Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva

Fennica Monographs, 4, 63.