4.5 Article

Assessing productivity and carbon sequestration capacity of Eucalyptus globulus plantations using the process model forest-DNDC:: Calibration and validation

期刊

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING
卷 192, 期 1-2, 页码 83-94

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.021

关键词

forest-DNDC; prediction error; Eucalyptus globulus; plantation; productivity; model validation; carbon sequestration; afforestation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tree growth sub-module (PnET) of the mechanistic model Forest-DNDC was calibrated and validated for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus. Forest-DNDC describes the biogeochemical cycles of C and N and can assist in estimating soil-borne greenhouse gas fluxes. For validation of the forest growth sub-module, data from commercial forest plantations in south-eastern Australia was used. Growth predictions agreed well with growth measurements taken at age 6 years from 28 permanent sample plots, with an average prediction error of - 1.62 t C ha(-1) (-3.19%). Differences between predicted and measured aboveground C stocks ranged between -23.5 and 12.6 t C ha-1, which amounted to a relative root mean square error in prediction of 17.9%. Correlation between modelled and measured C in standing biomass was good (r(2) = 0.73), with a Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of model efficiency, ME=0.65. The results obtained from the validation test reveal that Forest-DNDC can predict growth of E. globulus to a high level of precision across a broad range of climatic conditions and soil types. Forest-DNDC performed satisfactorily in comparison to other growth and yield models that have already been calibrated for E. globulus (e.g. BIOMASS, 3-PG, PROMOD, or CABALA). In contrast to these growth and yield models, Forest-DNDC can additionally estimate total greenhouse gas budgets. The slightly lower precision of Forest-DNDC in comparison with specific management models, such as CABALA, are compensated for by the simple input requirements and application to regional situations. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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