Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States

Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S.; Skog, Kenneth E.; Birdsey, Richard A.

doi:10.2737/ne-gtr-343

Cited by 294 publications

(373 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

365

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We estimate the carbon accumulation flows of this pool using the growth function from Shoch et al (2009), who examined the carbon sequestration potential of bottomland hardwood afforestation in the MAV. The authors produced a chronosequence of even-aged plantations and naturally regenerated stands and statistically estimated a growth path that is markedly greater for years 20 to 90 than that derived from the USFS FORCARB2 tables for afforested oak-gum-cypress stands (Smith et al, 2006). This substantial difference between Shoch et al (2009) and FORCARB2 is neither surprising nor a criticism of the FORCARB2, which is clearly defined as a model with large regional resolution.…”

Section: Live Biomass Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the carbon pools, the majority of carbon sequestration potential resides in the growth of live biomass carbon through time, increasing from 72% at year 10 to over 86% in year 90 according to the USFS FORCARB2 tables (Smith et al, 2006). We estimate the carbon accumulation flows of this pool using the growth function from Shoch et al (2009), who examined the carbon sequestration potential of bottomland hardwood afforestation in the MAV.…”

Section: Live Biomass Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carbon accumulation growth is tracked in three carbon pools-soil, live biomass, and other non-soil-and is projected for the future employing two different process models. (Smith et al, 2006). To use the FORCARB2 soil model, WRP land in the MAV is proxied by afforested oak-gum-cypress forest in the south-central U.S.…”

Section: Carbon Sequestrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Jenkins

Murray

Kramer

et al. 2010

Ecological Economics

227

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assesses the value of restoring forested wetlands via the U.S. government's Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley by quantifying and monetizing ecosystem services. The three focal services are greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, nitrogen mitigation, and waterfowl recreation. Site-and region-level measurements of these ecosystem services are combined with process models to quantify their production on agricultural land, which serves as the baseline, and on restored wetlands. We adjust and transform these measures into per-hectare, valuation-ready units and monetize them with prices from emerging ecosystem markets and the environmental economics literature. By valuing three of the many ecosystem services produced, we generate lower bound estimates for the total ecosystem value of the wetlands restoration. Social welfare value is found to be between $1435 and $1486/ha/year, with GHG mitigation valued in the range of $171 to $222, nitrogen mitigation at $1248, and waterfowl recreation at $16. Limited to existing markets, the estimate for annual market value is merely $70/ha, but when fully accounting for potential markets, this estimate rises to $1035/ha. The estimated social value surpasses the public expenditure or social cost of wetlands restoration in only 1 year, indicating that the return on public investment is very attractive for the WRP. Moreover, the potential market value is substantially greater than landowner opportunity costs, showing that payments to private landowners to restore wetlands could also be profitable for individual landowners.

show abstract

Section: Live Biomass Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Live Biomass Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Jenkins

Murray

Kramer

et al. 2010

Ecological Economics

227

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We assumed that all privately owned forests would be managed with even-aged rotations, that the rotation length was determined by the Faustmann formula, and that all age classes were evenly represented in the landscape. Forest biomass carbon was then assessed based on the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) estimates for forest types in each county and allometric curves of tree growth (26). Soil carbon estimates to a soil depth of 30 cm for each land-use type in a county were based on carbon stock estimates from Bliss et al (27).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States

Lawler

Lewis

Nelson

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

641

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing food, timber, energy, housing, and other goods and services, while maintaining ecosystem functions and biodiversity that underpin their sustainable supply, is one of the great challenges of our time. Understanding the drivers of land-use change and how policies can alter land-use change will be critical to meeting this challenge. Here we project land-use change in the contiguous United States to 2051 under two plausible baseline trajectories of economic conditions to illustrate how differences in underlying market forces can have large impacts on land-use with cascading effects on ecosystem services and wildlife habitat. We project a large increase in croplands (28.2 million ha) under a scenario with high crop demand mirroring conditions starting in 2007, compared with a loss of cropland (11.2 million ha) mirroring conditions in the 1990s. Projected land-use changes result in increases in carbon storage, timber production, food production from increased yields, and >10% decreases in habitat for 25% of modeled species. We also analyze policy alternatives designed to encourage forest cover and natural landscapes and reduce urban expansion. Although these policy scenarios modify baseline land-use patterns, they do not reverse powerful underlying trends. Policy interventions need to be aggressive to significantly alter underlying land-use change trends and shift the trajectory of ecosystem service provision.econometric model | incentives | at-risk birds | game species | amphibians L and-use change can greatly alter the provision of ecosystem services. Globally, the conversion of native grasslands, forests, and wetlands into croplands, tree plantations, and developed areas has led to vast increases in production of food, timber, housing, and other commodities but at the cost of reductions in many ecosystem services and biodiversity (1). Although recent land-use change in the United States has not been as rapid as in the tropics, it has been significant. The area of croplands has decreased and forests and urban areas have expanded since World War II (2). For example, forest lands in the contiguous United States expanded by 5.7 million acres between 1982 and 2007. However, basic estimates of net land-use change often hide more complex dynamics. More than 30 million acres transitioned into or out of forest between 1982 and 2007 (3). Such transitions alter landscape patterns and ecosystem functions, both of which affect the provision of ecosystem services.We use an econometric model to predict spatially explicit landuse change across the contiguous United States from 2001 to 2051. The model estimates the probability of conversion among major land-use categories (cropland, pasture, forest, range, and urban) based on observations of past land-use change, characteristics of land parcels, and economic returns, while accounting for endogenous feedbacks from the policies into commodity prices. A key advantage of this approach is that it allows us to simulate the effects of future policies that modify the relative ret...

show abstract

“…Additional categories used in the US are standing live trees, standing dead trees, understory vegetation, down and dead woody (DDW) materials, forest floor (litter), understory, and soils (Heath et al, 2003;Heath and Smith, 2004;Smith et al, 2006). The DDW pool essentially consists of down coarse woody debris (CWD), fine woody debris (FWD), and tree stumps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National inventories of down and dead woody material forest carbon stocks in the United States: Challenges and opportunities

Woodall

Heath

Smith

2008

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States

Cited by 294 publications

References 0 publications

Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States

National inventories of down and dead woody material forest carbon stocks in the United States: Challenges and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About