4.8 Article

An inventory-based analysis of Canada's managed forest carbon dynamics, 1990 to 2008

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 2227-2244

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02369.x

关键词

boreal; carbon; carbon dioxide; CBM-CFS3; climate change; forest; net ecosystem exchange; terrestrial ecosystem modelling

资金

  1. Government of Canada's Clean Air Agenda

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Canada's forests play an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle because of their large and dynamic C stocks. Detailed monitoring of C exchange between forests and the atmosphere and improved understanding of the processes that affect the net ecosystem exchange of C are needed to improve our understanding of the terrestrial C budget. We estimated the C budget of Canada's 2.3 x 106 km2 managed forests from 1990 to 2008 using an empirical modelling approach driven by detailed forestry datasets. We estimated that average net primary production (NPP) during this period was 809 +/- 5 Tg C yr-1 (352 g C m-2 yr-1) and net ecosystem production (NEP) was 71 +/- 9 Tg C yr-1 (31 g C m-2 yr-1). Harvesting transferred 45 +/- 4 Tg C yr-1 out of the ecosystem and 45 +/- 4 Tg C yr-1 within the ecosystem (from living biomass to dead organic matter pools). Fires released 23 +/- 16 Tg C yr-1 directly to the atmosphere, and fires, insects and other natural disturbances transferred 52 +/- 41 Tg C yr-1 from biomass to dead organic matter pools, from where C will gradually be released through decomposition. Net biome production (NBP) was only 2 +/- 20 Tg C yr-1 (1 g C m-2 yr-1); the low C sequestration ratio (NBP/NPP=0.3%) is attributed to the high average age of Canada's managed forests and the impact of natural disturbances. Although net losses of ecosystem C occurred during several years due to large fires and widespread bark beetle outbreak, Canada's managed forests were a sink for atmospheric CO2 in all years, with an uptake of 50 +/- 18 Tg C yr-1 [net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2=-22 g C m-2 yr-1].

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