4.8 Article

Carbon fractions in the world's dead wood

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21149-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. University of Toronto Connaught New Researcher Award
  3. University of Toronto Scarborough International Research Collaboration Fund
  4. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Research Station
  5. University of Toronto Scarborough Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences graduate research bursary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlights the uncertainty in quantifying dead wood carbon pools globally due to a lack of accurate dead wood carbon fractions. By analyzing a global database, the study found that dead wood carbon fractions in trees average 48.5%, which deviates from the commonly used default value of 50%. Utilizing data-driven dead wood carbon fractions may help correct systematic overestimates in dead wood carbon stocks and provide more accurate global forest carbon estimation.
A key uncertainty in quantifying dead wood carbon (C) stocks-which comprise similar to 8% of total forest C pools globally-is a lack of accurate dead wood C fractions (CFs) that are employed to convert dead woody biomass into C. Most C estimation protocols utilize a default dead wood CF of 50%, but live tree studies suggest this value is an over-estimate. Here, we compile and analyze a global database of dead wood CFs in trees, showing that dead wood CFs average 48.5% across forests, deviating significantly from 50%, and varying systematically among biomes, taxonomic divisions, tissue types, and decay classes. Utilizing data-driven dead wood CFs in tropical forests alone may correct systematic overestimates in dead wood C stocks of similar to 3.0 Pg C: an estimate approaching nearly the entire dead wood C pool in the temperate forest biome. We provide for the first time, robust empirical dead wood CFs to inform global forest C estimation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据