Evaluation of Four Methods for Predicting Carbon Stocks of Korean Pine Plantations in Heilongjiang Province, China.
basic_science · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 26659257.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0145017 and PMC identifier PMC4684388.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
A total of 89 trees of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) were destructively sampled from the plantations in Heilongjiang Province, P.R. China. The sample trees were measured and calculated for the biomass and carbon stocks of tree components (i.e., stem, branch, foliage and root). Both compatible biomass and carbon stock models were developed with the total biomass and total carbon stocks as the constraints, respectively. Four methods were used to evaluate the carbon stocks of tree components. The first method predicted carbon stocks directly by the compatible carbon stocks models (Method 1). The other three methods indirectly predicted the carbon stocks in two steps: (1) estimating the biomass by the compatible biomass models, and (2) multiplying the estimated biomass by three different carbon conversion factors (i.e., carbon conversion factor 0.5 (Method 2), average carbon concentration of the sample trees (Method 3), and average carbon concentration of each tree component (Method 4)). The prediction errors of estimating the carbon stocks were compared and tested for the differences between the four methods. The results showed that the compatible biomass and carbon models with tree diameter (D) as the sole independent variable performed well so that Method 1 was the best method for predicting the carbon stocks of tree components and total. There were significant differences among the four methods for the carbon stock of stem. Method 2 produced the largest error, especially for stem and total. Methods 3 and Method 4 were slightly worse than Method 1, but the differences were not statistically significant. In practice, the indirect method using the mean carbon concentration of individual trees was sufficient to obtain accurate carbon stocks estimation if carbon stocks models are not available.