Title |
Local discrepancies in continental scale biomass maps: a case study over forested and non-forested landscapes in Maryland, USA
|
---|---|
Published in |
Carbon Balance and Management, August 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13021-015-0030-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Wenli Huang, Anu Swatantran, Kristofer Johnson, Laura Duncanson, Hao Tang, Jarlath O’Neil Dunne, George Hurtt, Ralph Dubayah |
Abstract |
Continental-scale aboveground biomass maps are increasingly available, but their estimates vary widely, particularly at high resolution. A comprehensive understanding of map discrepancies is required to improve their effectiveness in carbon accounting and local decision-making. To this end, we compare four continental-scale maps with a recent high-resolution lidar-derived biomass map over Maryland, USA. We conduct detailed comparisons at pixel-, county-, and state-level. Spatial patterns of biomass are broadly consistent in all maps, but there are large differences at fine scales (RMSD 48.5-92.7 Mg ha(-1)). Discrepancies reduce with aggregation and the agreement among products improves at the county level. However, continental scale maps exhibit residual negative biases in mean (33.0-54.6 Mg ha(-1)) and total biomass (3.5-5.8 Tg) when compared to the high-resolution lidar biomass map. Three of the four continental scale maps reach near-perfect agreement at ~4 km and onward but do not converge with the high-resolution biomass map even at county scale. At the State level, these maps underestimate biomass by 30-80 Tg in forested and 40-50 Tg in non-forested areas. Local discrepancies in continental scale biomass maps are caused by factors including data inputs, modeling approaches, forest/non-forest definitions and time lags. There is a net underestimation over high biomass forests and non-forested areas that could impact carbon accounting at all levels. Local, high-resolution lidar-derived biomass maps provide a valuable bottom-up reference to improve the analysis and interpretation of large-scale maps produced in carbon monitoring systems. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 36% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
Canada | 1 | 7% |
Curaçao | 1 | 7% |
Mexico | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
Scientists | 5 | 36% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 10% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 35 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 13 | 33% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 28% |
Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Professor | 2 | 5% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Unknown | 4 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Environmental Science | 13 | 33% |
Earth and Planetary Sciences | 13 | 33% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 13% |
Engineering | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 8 | 20% |