» Articles » PMID: 26294932

Local Discrepancies in Continental Scale Biomass Maps: a Case Study over Forested and Non-forested Landscapes in Maryland, USA

Overview
Date 2015 Aug 22
PMID 26294932
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: 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.

Results: 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). 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) 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Citing Articles

The Importance of Consistent Global Forest Aboveground Biomass Product Validation.

Duncanson L, Armston J, Disney M, Avitabile V, Barbier N, Calders K Surv Geophys. 2019; 40(4):979-999.

PMID: 31395994 PMC: 6647371. DOI: 10.1007/s10712-019-09538-8.


Multiscale divergence between Landsat- and lidar-based biomass mapping is related to regional variation in canopy cover and composition.

Bell D, Gregory M, Kane V, Kane J, Kennedy R, Roberts H Carbon Balance Manag. 2018; 13(1):15.

PMID: 30218413 PMC: 6138055. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-018-0104-6.


Implications of allometric model selection for county-level biomass mapping.

Duncanson L, Huang W, Johnson K, Swatantran A, McRoberts R, Dubayah R Carbon Balance Manag. 2017; 12(1):18.

PMID: 29046991 PMC: 5647317. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-017-0086-9.


Attribution of net carbon change by disturbance type across forest lands of the conterminous United States.

Harris N, Hagen S, Saatchi S, Pearson T, Woodall C, Domke G Carbon Balance Manag. 2016; 11(1):24.

PMID: 27909460 PMC: 5108824. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-016-0066-5.


Comparison of national level biomass maps for conterminous US: understanding pattern and causes of differences.

Neeti N, Kennedy R Carbon Balance Manag. 2016; 11(1):19.

PMID: 27635152 PMC: 5002052. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-016-0060-y.


References
1.
Johnson K, Birdsey R, Finley A, Swantaran A, Dubayah R, Wayson C . Integrating forest inventory and analysis data into a LIDAR-based carbon monitoring system. Carbon Balance Manag. 2014; 9:3. PMC: 4019357. DOI: 10.1186/1750-0680-9-3. View

2.
Cutler D, Edwards Jr T, Beard K, Cutler A, Hess K, Gibson J . Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology. 2007; 88(11):2783-92. DOI: 10.1890/07-0539.1. View

3.
Avitabile V, Herold M, Henry M, Schmullius C . Mapping biomass with remote sensing: a comparison of methods for the case study of Uganda. Carbon Balance Manag. 2011; 6:7. PMC: 3198671. DOI: 10.1186/1750-0680-6-7. View

4.
Wilson B, Woodall C, Griffith D . Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon Balance Manag. 2013; 8(1):1. PMC: 3564769. DOI: 10.1186/1750-0680-8-1. View

5.
Saatchi S, Harris N, Brown S, Lefsky M, Mitchard E, Salas W . Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(24):9899-904. PMC: 3116381. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1019576108. View