| Literature DB >> 26115195 |
Guodong Yin1, Yuan Zhang1, Yan Sun1, Tao Wang2, Zhenzhong Zeng1, Shilong Piao3.
Abstract
Accurate esti<span class="Disease">mation of forest biomass C stock is essential to understand <span class="Chemical">carbon cycles. However, current estimates of Chinese forest biomass are mostly based on inventory-based timber volumes and empirical conversion factors at the provincial scale, which could introduce large uncertainties in forest biomass estimation. Here we provide a data-driven estimate of Chinese forest aboveground biomass from 2001 to 2013 at a spatial resolution of 1 km by integrating a recently reviewed plot-level ground-measured forest aboveground biomass database with geospatial information from 1-km Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) dataset in a machine learning algorithm (the model tree ensemble, MTE). We show that Chinese forest aboveground biomass is 8.56 Pg C, which is mainly contributed by evergreen needle-leaf forests and deciduous broadleaf forests. The mean forest aboveground biomass density is 56.1 Mg C ha-1, with high values observed in temperate humid regions. The responses of forest aboveground biomass density to mean annual temperature are closely tied to water conditions; that is, negative responses dominate regions with mean annual precipitation less than 1300 mm y-1 and positive responses prevail in regions with mean annual precipitation higher than 2800 mm y-1. During the 2000s, the forests in China sequestered C by 61.9 Tg C y-1, and this C sink is mainly distributed in north China and may be attributed to warming climate, rising CO2 concentration, N deposition, and growth of young forests.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26115195 PMCID: PMC4482713 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Forest types and the distribution of AGBD data in China.
The forest types are according to the 1:4000000 vegetation map of China. DNF = deciduous needle leaf forests, ENF = evergreen needle leaf forests, MF = needle leaf and broadleaf mixed forests, DBF = deciduous broadleaf forests, EBF = evergreen broadleaf forests. The AGBD data is from Luo et al. [18].
Explanatory variables used in MTE.
| Variable | Time | Variable type |
|---|---|---|
| MODIS band 1 (459–479 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| MODIS band 2 (841–876 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| MODIS band 3 (545–565 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| MODIS band 4 (620–670 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| MODIS band 5 (1230–1250 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| MODIS band 6 (1628–1652 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| MODIS band 7 (2105–2155 nm) | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| NDVI | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| EVI | 2001–2013 summer | Regression and split |
| Latitude | — | Split |
| Longitude | — | Split |
| Forest type | — | Split |
1 The 2001–2013 summer values of MODIS reflectance and Vegetation Indices are calculated by averaging values from June to August during 2001–2013.
Fig 2Comparison of observed AGBD (Mg C ha-1) against predicted AGBD using MTE algorithm.
The blue dots indicate the training samples (R2 = 0.57, RMSE = 22.4 Mg C ha-1), and the red ones refer to the validation samples (R2 = 0.46, RMSE = 22.7 Mg C ha-1).
Area and aboveground biomass characteristics for five forest types in China during 2001–2013.
| Forest type | Area (Mha) | Total AGB (Pg C) | Average AGBD (Mg C ha-1) | Median AGBD (Mg C ha-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNF | 12.7 (8.30%) | 0.72 (8.40%) | 56.6 | 56.9 |
| ENF | 68.7 (45.00%) | 3.55 (41.50%) | 51.6 | 42.7 |
| MF | 2.2 (1.40%) | 0.21 (2.50%) | 97.4 | 63.0 |
| DBF | 48.7 (31.90%) | 2.6 (30.40%) | 53.3 | 42.7 |
| EBF | 20.4 (13.40%) | 1.49 (17.40%) | 73 | 48.4 |
| All forests | 152.6 (100%) | 8.56 (100%) | 56.1 | 42.7 |
DNF = deciduous needle leaf forests, ENF = evergreen needle leaf forests, MF = needle leaf and broadleaf mixed forests, DBF = deciduous broadleaf forests, EBF = evergreen broadleaf forests.
Fig 3Spatial distribution of mean forest AGBD during 2001–2013.
Fig 4(A) Distribution of forest AGBD in a two-dimensional space with (MAT) and (MAP) binned into intervals of 1°C MAT and 100 mm MAP.
(B) The sensitivity of AGBD on temperature (S ) along precipitation gradient. (C) The sensitivity of AGBD on precipitation (S ) along temperature gradient. The shaded area in (B) and (C) indicates 95% significance intervals of ST and Sp. Sensitivities were only calculated in bins having more than 100 grid pixels.
Fig 5Spatial distribution of the change in forest AGBD.
The change in AGBD is calculated as the difference between the period 2011–2013 and the period 2001–2003.