Climatic Change

, Volume 134, Issue 1–2, pp 45–58 | Cite as

Estimating annual influx of carbon to harvested wood products linked to forest management activities using remote sensing



We develop a new framework, based on Landsat time series data and forest inventories, to estimate the carbon in roundwood harvested from forest management activities, which will enter the HWP pool and remain stored in end uses and landfills. The approach keeps the distinction between the carbon from different types of roundwood sources, which allows for better integration with the regional HWP carbon lifetime information. We show that existing methods that are based on large scale regional/national values and linear interpolation of data gaps, can provide only very approximate carbon estimates. The model was applied to a US state using county level data, but can also suit different areas as long as sufficient harvest records are available for calibration. The results can be used to study managed forests and evaluate the impact of forest policies on the carbon cycle at a detailed scale. The estimated quantity of carbon in roundwood harvest provides an upper bound on the gross carbon added to HWP in use, prior to deductions from losses. Our results can also be coupled with mill processing efficiency estimate and wood product life cycle analysis to better understand the effect of forest management activities on the carbon cycle.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1510_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (366 kb)
(PDF 365 KB)


  1. Adams DM, Haynes RW, Daigneault AJ (2006) Estimated timber harvested by U.S. region and ownership, 1950–2002. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-659., 64 p. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  2. Apps M, Kurz W, Beukema S, Bhatti J (1999) Carbon budget of the Canadian forest product sector. Environ Sci Pol 2(1):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bivand R, Ono H, Dunlap R (2009) class Int: choose univariate class intervals. R package version 0. 1-14Google Scholar
  4. Bolkesjø TF, Buongiorno J, Solberg B (2010) Joint production and substitution in timber supply: A panel data analysis. Appl Econ 42(6):671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown MJ, New BD (2012) North Carolina, 2010 forest inventory and analysis factsheet. e-Science Update SRS044. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 5Google Scholar
  6. Brownrigg R, Minka T (2011) Maps: draw geographical maps. R package version, 2–1Google Scholar
  7. Clark LA, Pregibon D (1993). In: Chambers JM, Hastie T (eds) Tree-based models. Champan and Hall, London, pp 377–419Google Scholar
  8. Donlan J, Skog K, Byrne KA (2012) Carbon storage in harvested wood products for Ireland 1961–2009. Biomass Bioenergy 46:731–738Google Scholar
  9. Ellison D, Lundblad M, Petersson H (2011) Carbon accounting and the climate politics of forestry. Environ Sci Pol 14(8):1062–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffith GE, Omernik JM, Comstock J, Schafale M, McNab W, Lenat D, MacPherson T (2002) Ecoregions of North Carolina. Western Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  11. Heath LS, Smith JE, et al. (2004) Criterion 5, Indicator 27: contribution of forest ecosystems fo the total global carbon budget, including absorption and release of carbonGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath LS, Smith JE, Skog KE, Nowak DJ, Woodall CW (2011) Managed forest carbon estimates for the US greenhouse gas inventory, 1990-2008. J For 109 (3):167–173Google Scholar
  13. Hoover C, Birdsey R, Goines B, Lahm P, Fan Y, Nowak D, Prisley S, Reinhardt E, Skog K, Skole D, Smith J, Trettin C, Woodall C (2014) Quantifying greenhouse gas sources and sinks in managed forest systems, chapter 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist: 6-1-6.114Google Scholar
  14. Huang C, Goward SN, Masek JG, Thomas N, Zhu Z, Vogelmann JE (2010) An automated approach for reconstructing recent forest disturbance history using dense Landsat time series stacks. Remote Sens Environ 114(1):183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang C, Goward SN, Schleeweis K, Thomas N, Masek JG, Zhu Z (2009) Dynamics of national forests assessed using the Landsat record: Case studies in eastern United States. Remote Sens Environ 113(7):1430–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang C, Ling P-Y, Zhu Z (2015) North Carolina’s forest disturbance and timber production assessed using time series Landsat observations. International Journal of Digital Earth, published online: 2015-05-26.Google Scholar
  17. IPCC (2014) 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto ProtocolGoogle Scholar
  18. Karjalainen T, Kellomäki S, Pussinen A (1994) Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmospheric carbon. Silva Fennica 28(1):67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kasischke ES, Amiro BD, Barger NN, French NH, Goetz SJ, Grosse G, Harmon ME, Hicke JA, Liu S, Masek JG (2013) Impacts of disturbance on the terrestrial carbon budget of North America. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 118(1):303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lippke B, Oneil E, Harrison R, Skog K, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2011) Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns. Carbon Manage 2(3):303–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu S, Bond-Lamberty B, Hicke JA, Vargas R, Zhao S, Chen J, Edburg SL, Hu Y, Liu J, McGuire AD, et al. (2011) Simulating the impacts of disturbances on forest carbon cycling in North America: Processes, data, models, and challenges. J Geophys Res Biogeosci (2005–2012) 116(G4)Google Scholar
  22. Masek JG, Cohen WB, Leckie D, Wulder A, Vargas R, de Jong B, Healey S, Law B, Birdsey R, Houghton R, et al. (2011) Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America. J Geophys Res Biogeosci (2005–2012) 116(G4)Google Scholar
  23. McKerrow AJ, Williams SG, Collazo JA (2006) The North Carolina GAP analysis project: final report. North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles PD, Smith WB (2009) Specific gravity and other properties of wood and bark for 156 tree species found in North America. Res. Note NRS-38., 35 p. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research StationGoogle Scholar
  25. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (2010) North Carolina’s Forest Resources Assessment: A Statewide Analysis of the Past, Current and Projected Future Conditions of North Carolina’s Forest Resources. NC Division of Forest ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  26. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, et al. (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the worlds forests. Science 333(6045):988–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Profft I, Mund M, Weber G-E, Weller E, Schulze E-D (2009) Forest management and carbon sequestration in wood products. Eur J For Res 128(4):399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruddell S, Sampson R, Smith M, Giffen R, Cathcart J, Hagan J, Sosland D, Godbee J, Heissenbuttel J, Lovett S, et al. (2007) The role for sustainably managed forests in climate change mitigation. J For 105(6):314–319Google Scholar
  29. Skog KE, Pingoud K, Smith JE (2004) A method countries can use to estimate changes in carbon stored in harvested wood products and the uncertainty of such estimates. Environ Manage 33(1):S65–S73Google Scholar
  30. Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA (2006) Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA, 216Google Scholar
  31. Smith P, Bustamante M (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx J (eds) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chapter 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Stockmann KD, Anderson NM, Skog KE, Healey SP, Loeffler DR, Jones G, Morrison JF, et al. (2012) Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from the United States forest service northern region, 1906-2010. Carbon Balance Manage 7(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner DP, Koerper GJ, Harmon ME, Lee JJ (1995) A carbon budget for forests of the conterminous United States. Ecol Appl 5(2):421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2015) Timber Product Output (TPO) Reports. Knoxville, TN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Accessed: 2015-07-31
  35. Weinberg P, Reilly K (2008) Understanding environmental law (revised ed.). LexisNexisGoogle Scholar
  36. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer Science and Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Goward SN (2012) Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 26(1)Google Scholar
  38. Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Huang C, Goward SN (2014) Impacts of disturbance history on forest carbon stocks and fluxes: Merging satellite disturbance mapping with forest inventory data in a carbon cycle model framework. Remote Sens Environ 151:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeng N (2008) Carbon sequestration via wood burial. Carbon Balance Manage 3(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou D, Liu S, Oeding J, Zhao S (2013) Forest cutting and impacts on carbon in the eastern United States. Scientific reports, 3Google Scholar
  42. Zhu Z, Bergamaschi B, Bernknopf R, Clow D, Dye D, Faulkner S, Forney W, Gleason R, Hawbaker T, Liu J, et al. (2010) A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios. US Department of the Interior, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pui-Yu Ling
    • 1
  • Giovanni Baiocchi
    • 1
  • Chengquan Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations