Search

Abstract Background Quantifying the carbon balance of forested ecosystems has been the subject of intense study involving the development of numerous methodological approaches. Forest inventories, processes-based biogeochemical models, and inversion methods have all been used to estimate the contribution of U.S. forests to the global terrestrial carbon sink. However, estimates have ranged widely, largely based on the approach used, and no single system is appropriate for operational carbon quantification and forecasting. We present estimates obtained using a new spatially explicit modeling framework utilizing a “gain–loss” approach, by linking the LUCAS model of land-use and land-cover change with the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3). Results We estimated forest ecosystems in the conterminous United States stored 52.0 Pg C across all pools. Between 2001 and 2020, carbon storage increased by 2.4 Pg C at an annualized rate of 126 Tg C year−1. Our results broadly agree with other studies using a variety of other methods to estimate the forest carbon sink. Climate variability and change was the primary driver of annual variability in the size of the net carbon sink, while land-use and land-cover change and disturbance were the primary drivers of the magnitude, reducing annual sink strength by 39%. Projections of carbon change under climate scenarios for the western U.S. find diverging estimates of carbon balance depending on the scenario. Under a moderate emissions scenario we estimated a 38% increase in the net sink of carbon, while under a high emissions scenario we estimated a reversal from a net sink to net source. Conclusions The new approach provides a fully coupled modeling framework capable of producing spatially explicit estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes under a range of historical and/or future socioeconomic, climate, and land management futures.

Abstract Background Tropical forests provide a crucial carbon sink for a sizable portion of annual global CO2 emissions. Policies that incentivize tropical forest conservation by monetizing forest carbon ultimately depend on accurate estimates of national carbon stocks, which are often based on field inventory sampling. As an exercise to understand the limitations of field inventory sampling, we tested whether two common field-plot sampling approaches could accurately estimate carbon stocks across approximately 76 million ha of Perúvian forests. A 1-ha resolution LiDAR-based map of carbon stocks was used as a model of the country’s carbon geography. Results Both field inventory sampling approaches worked well in estimating total national carbon stocks, almost always falling within 10 % of the model national total. However, the sampling approaches were unable to produce accurate spatially-explicit estimates of the carbon geography of Perú, with estimates falling within 10 % of the model carbon geography across no more than 44 % of the country. We did not find any associations between carbon stock errors from the field plot estimates and six different environmental variables. Conclusions Field inventory plot sampling does not provide accurate carbon geography for a tropical country with wide ranging environmental gradients such as Perú. The lack of association between estimated carbon errors and environmental variables suggests field inventory sampling results from other nations would not differ from those reported here. Tropical forest nations should understand the risks associated with primarily field-based sampling approaches, and consider alternatives leading to more effective forest conservation and climate change mitigation.