Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 171–176 | Cite as

Application of remote sensing, an artificial neural network leaf area model, and a process-based simulation model to estimate carbon storage in Florida slash pine plantations

  • Douglas A. Shoemaker
  • Wendell P. CropperJr.
Research Paper

Abstract

Carbon sequestration in forests is of great interest due to concerns about global climate change. Carbon storage rates depend on ecosystem fluxes (photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration), typically quantified as net ecosystem exchange (NEE). Methods to estimate forest NEE without intensive site sampling are needed to accurately assess rates of carbon sequestration at stand-level and larger scales. We produced spatially-explicit estimates of NEE for 9 770 ha of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations in North-Central Florida for a single year by coupling remote sensing-based estimates of leaf area index (LAI) with a process-based growth simulation model. LAI estimates produced from a neural-network modeling of ground plot and Landsat TM satellite data had a mean of 1.06 (range 0–3.93, including forest edges). Using the neural network LAI values as inputs, the slash pine simulation model (SPM2) estimates of NEE ranged from −5.52 to 11.06 Mg·ha−1·a−1 with a mean of 3.47 Mg·ha−1·a−1. Total carbon storage for the year was 33 920 t, or about 3.5 tons per hectare. Both estimated LAI and NEE were highly sensitive to fertilization.

Keywords

artificial neural network leaf area carbon exchange slash pine NEE forest carbon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asner GP, Wessman CA. 1997. Scaling PAR absorption from the leaf to landscape level in spatially heterogeneous ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, 103: 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binford MW, Gholz HL, Starr G, Martin TA. 2006. Regional carbon dynamics in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain: balancing land cover type, timber harvesting, fire, and environmental variation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111: D24S92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen JM, Rich PM, Gower ST, Norman JM, Plummer S. 1997. Leaf area index of boreal forests: Theory, techniques, and measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102: 29,429–29,443.Google Scholar
  4. Clark KL, Cropper Jr, WP, Gholz HL. 2001. Evaluation of modeled carbon fluxes for a slash pine ecosystem: SPM2 simulations compared to eddy flux measurements. Forest Science, 47: 52–59.Google Scholar
  5. Cropper, Jr., W.P., Gholz, H.L. 1993. Simulation of the carbon dynamics of a Florida slash pine plantation. Ecological Modelling, 66: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cropper Jr WP. 2000. SPM2: A simulation model for slash pine (Pinus elliottii) forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 126: 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ESRI (2003) ArcMap 8.3. ESRI. Redlands CA.Google Scholar
  8. Fassnacht KS, Gower ST, MacKenzie MD, Nordheim EV, Lillesand TM. 1997. Estimating the leaf area index of North Central Wisconsin forests using the Landsat Thematic Mapper. Remote Sensing of Environment, 61:229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gholz HL, Fisher RF. 1982. Organic matter production and distribution in slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations. Ecology, 63: 827–1839.Google Scholar
  10. Gholz HL, Vogel SA, Cropper Jr WP, McKelvey K, Ewel KC, Teskey RO, Curran PJ. 1991. Dynamics of canopy structure and light interception in Pinus elliottii stands of north Florida. Ecological Monographs, 61: 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang C, Wylie B, Yang L, Homer C, Zylstra G. 2002. Derivation of a tasselled cap transformation based on Landsat 7 at-satellite reflectance. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23: 1741–1748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karl TR, Knight RW. 1985. Atlas of the Palmer Hydrological Drought Indices (1931–1983) for the contiguous United States. National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, Asheville, N.C.Google Scholar
  13. King DA. 2004. Climate change science: Adapt, mitigate, or ignore? Science, 303: 176–177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Leica Geosystems GIS and Mapping. 2003. ERDAS IMAGINE 8.7. Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucas RM, Milne AK, Cronin N, Witte C, Denham R. 2000. The potential of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) for quantifying the biomass of Australia’s woodlands. Rangeland Journal, 22:124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lui C, Zhang L, Davis CJ, Solomon DS, Brann TB, Caldwell LE. 2003. Comparison of neural networks and statistical methods in classification of ecological habitats using FIA data. Forest Science, 49: 619–631.Google Scholar
  17. Macdicken KG. 1997. Project specific monitoring and verification: State of the art and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2: 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin TA, Jokela EJ. 2004. Developmental patterns and nutrition impact radiation use efficiency components in southern pine stands. Ecological Applications, 14: 1839–1854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutt R, Frame DJ, Allen MR. 2009. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2° C. Nature, 458: 1158–1162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ozesmi SL, Tan CO, Ozesmi, U. 2006. Methodological issues in building, training, and testing artificial neural networks in ecological applications. Ecological Modelling, 195: 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Powell TL, Gholz HL, Clark KL, Starr G., Cropper Jr WP, Martin TA. 2008. Carbon exchange of a naturally-regenerated pine forest in north Florida. Global Change Biology, 14: 2523–2538.Google Scholar
  22. Ray DG, Seymour RS, Scott NA, Keeton WS. 2009. Mitigating climate change with managed forests: Balancing expectations, opportunity, and risk. Journal of Forestry, 107: 50–51.Google Scholar
  23. Running SW, Peterson DL, Spanner MA, Teuber KB. 1986. Remote-Sensing of Coniferous Forest Leaf-Area. Ecology, 67: 273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sampson DA, Vose JM, Allen HL. 1998. A conceptual approach to stand management using leaf area index as the integral of site structure, physiological function, and resource supply. In: Proceedings of the ninth biennial southern silvicultural research conference (ed. Waldrop TA), pp. 447–451. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, S. C.Google Scholar
  25. Smith ML, Ollinger SV, Martin ME, Aber JD, Hallett RA, Goodale CL. 2002. Direct estimation of aboveground forest productivity through hyperspectral remote sensing of canopy nitrogen. Ecological Applications, 12: 1286–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shoemaker DA, Cropper Jr WP 2008. Prediction of leaf Area Index for Southern Pine Plantations from Satellite Imagery Using Regression and Artificial Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 6th Southern Forestry and Natural Resources GIS Conference (2008). (ed. P. Bettinger, K. Merry, S. Fei, J. Drake, N. Nibblelink and J. Hepinstall), pp. 139–160. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  27. StatSoft I. 2004. Statistica (data analysis software system). Tulsa, OKGoogle Scholar
  28. Teskey RO, Gholz HL, Cropper Jr WP. 1994. Influence of climate and nutrient availability on net photosynthesis of mature slash pine. Tree Physiology, 14: 1215–1227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner DP, Guzy M, Lefsky MA, Ritts WD, Van Tuyl S, Law BE. 2004a. Monitoring forest carbon sequestration with remote sensing and carbon cycle modeling. Environmental Management, 33: 457–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner DP, Ollinger SV, Kimball JS. 2004b. Integrating remote sensing and ecosystem process models for landscape- to regional-scale analysis of the carbon cycle. Bioscience, 54: 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waring RH, Running SW. 1998. Forest Ecosystems: Analysis at Multiple Scales. San Diego: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Center for Applied Geographical Information ScienceMcEniry 320, University of North Carolina-CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.School of Forest Resources and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations