000121153 001__ 121153
000121153 005__ 20240319081010.0
000121153 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s10342-022-01444-w
000121153 0248_ $$2sideral$$a129217
000121153 037__ $$aART-2022-129217
000121153 041__ $$aeng
000121153 100__ $$aAmeztegui, A.
000121153 245__ $$aUncertainty of biomass stocks in Spanish forests: a comprehensive comparison of allometric equations
000121153 260__ $$c2022
000121153 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000121153 5203_ $$aBiomass and carbon content are essential indicators for monitoring forest ecosystems and their role in climate action, but their estimation is not straightforward. A typical approach to solve these limitations has been the estimation of tree or stand biomass based on forest inventory data, using either allometric equations or biomass expansion factors. Many allometric equations exist, but very few studies have assessed how the calculation methods used may impact outcomes and how this impact depends on genera, functional group, climate or forest structural attributes. In this study we evaluate the differences in biomass estimates yielded by the most widely used biomass equations in Spain. We first quantify the discrepancies at tree level and among the main forest tree species. We observed that the divergences in carbon estimations between different equations increased with tree size, especially in the case of hardwoods and for diameters beyond the range used to calibrate the equations. At the plot level, we found considerable differences between the biomass values predicted using different methods (above 25% in one out of three plots), which constitutes a warning against the uncritical choice of equations to determine biomass or carbon values. The spatial representation of the differences revealed geographical patterns related to the dominance of fast-growing species such as Eucalyptus or Pinus pinaster, with a minor effect of forest structure, and almost no effect of climate. Finally, we observed that differences were mostly due to the data source rather than the modelling approach or equation used. Based on our results, BEF equations seem a valid and unbiased option to provide nation-level estimations of carbon balance, although local equations should preferably be used if they are available for the target area. © 2022, The Author(s).
000121153 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
000121153 590__ $$a2.8$$b2022
000121153 592__ $$a0.705$$b2022
000121153 591__ $$aFORESTRY$$b19 / 69 = 0.275$$c2022$$dQ2$$eT1
000121153 593__ $$aPlant Science$$c2022$$dQ1
000121153 593__ $$aForestry$$c2022$$dQ1
000121153 594__ $$a5.1$$b2022
000121153 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000121153 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-0477-0796$$aRodrigues, M.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000121153 700__ $$aGranda, V.
000121153 7102_ $$13006$$2010$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Geograf. Ordenac.Territ.$$cÁrea Análisis Geográfico Regi.
000121153 773__ $$g141 (2022), 395–407$$pEur. J. For. Res.$$tEuropean Journal of Forest Research$$x1612-4669
000121153 8564_ $$s4996480$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/121153/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000121153 8564_ $$s2358552$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/121153/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000121153 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:121153$$particulos$$pdriver
000121153 951__ $$a2024-03-18-15:00:12
000121153 980__ $$aARTICLE