Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 641–658 | Cite as

Modeling carbon storage across a heterogeneous mixed temperate forest: the influence of forest type specificity on regional-scale carbon storage estimates

  • Alison B. AdamsEmail author
  • Jennifer Pontius
  • Gillian L. Galford
  • Scott C. Merrill
  • David Gudex-Cross
Research Article



Accurately assessing forest carbon storage on a landscape scale is critical to understanding global carbon cycles and the effects of land cover changes on ecological processes. Calculations of regional-scale forest carbon storage that rely on maps of land cover typically reflect only coarse forest classes. How differences in carbon stored by different tree species may affect such assessments is largely unexplored. We examined a range of forest carbon storage models to understand the effects of forest type specificity on carbon storage estimates in the northeastern United States.


Models estimated forest carbon in total aboveground and coarse root biomass based on three levels of forest classification specificity: (1) relative basal area by species, (2) species associations, and (3) broad forest types per IPCC (in: IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, IPCC, Japan, 2006) guidelines.


The specificity of forest type classifications influenced results with generally lower carbon storage estimates resulting from higher-specificity forest classifications. The two most specific models, with mean carbon storage estimates of 103–107 Mg/ha, were most accurate compared to field validation points. These estimates are greater than 2013 field-based U.S. Forest Service estimates (84–90 Mg/ha).


There are many sources of uncertainty in landscape-scale carbon storage assessments. Here we show that improving detail in one of these sources, forest stand composition, increases the accuracy of these assessments, and better reflects carbon storage patterns across heterogeneous landscapes. While more work is needed, particularly to improve stand age maps, this information can inform the interpretation of current carbon storage estimates and improve future estimates in heterogeneous forests.


Landscape ecology Carbon modeling Northeastern United States Aboveground biomass Northern forest Landscape modeling Land use Land cover 



This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire-Stennis project (Grant Number 1002440) at the University of Vermont, and by the U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station, Northern States Research Cooperative.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_625_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 13 kb)


  1. Birdsey R, Pregitzer K, Lucier A (2006) Forest carbon management in the United States. J Environ Qual 35:1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop J, Pagiola S (2012) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan Publications Limited, SterlingGoogle Scholar
  3. Bormann FH, Likens GE (1979a) Catastrophic disturbance and the steady state in Northern Hardwood Forests: a new look at the role of disturbance in the development of forest ecosystems suggests important implications for land-use policies. Am Sci 67:660–669Google Scholar
  4. Bormann FH, Likens GE (1979b) Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunker DE, DeClerck F, Bradford JC, Colwell RK, Perfecto I, Phillips OL, Sankaran M, Naeem S (2005) Species loss and aboveground carbon storage in a tropical forest. Science 310:1029–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartus O, Kellndorfer J, Walker W, Franco C, Bishop J, Santos L, Fuentes JMM (2014) A national, detailed map of forest aboveground carbon stocks in Mexico. Remote Sens 6:5559–5588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chokkalingam U, White A (2001) Structure and spatial patterns of trees in old-growth northern hardwood and mixed forests of northern Maine. Plant Ecol 156:139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cogbill CV, Burk J, Motzkin G (2002) The forests of presettlement New England, USA: spatial and compositional patterns based on town proprietor surveys. J Biogeogr 29:1279–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon RK, Solomon AM, Brown S, Houghton RA, Trexier MC, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263:185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Domke GM, Woodall CW, Smith JE, Westfall JA, McRoberts RE (2012) Consequences of alternative tree-level biomass estimation procedures on U.S. forest carbon stock estimates. For Ecol Manage 270:108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dymond CC, Nitschke CR, Coates KD, Scheller RM (2016) Carbon sequestration in managed temperate coniferous forests under climate change. Biogeosciences 13:1933–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fearnside PM (1997) Wood density for estimating forest biomass in Brazilian Amazonia. For Ecol Manag 90:59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative (2015) Tree health and physiology measurements. Data set.
  14. U.S. Geological Survey (2015) USGS 3D elevation program: the national mapGoogle Scholar
  15. Gudex-Cross D, Pontius J, Adams A (2017) Enhanced forest cover mapping using spectral unmixing and object-based classification of multi-temporal Landsat imagery. Remote Sens Environ 196:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold ND, Wickham JK, Megown JD (2015) Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States-representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(5):345–354Google Scholar
  17. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC, JapanGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49:12–35Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2004) Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions for North American tree species. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown SquareCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kellndorfer J, Walker W, Kirsch K, Fiske G, Bishop J, LaPoint L, Hoppus M, Westfall J (2013) NACP aboveground biomass and carbon baseline data, V. 2 (NBCD 2000), 2000. Data setGoogle Scholar
  21. Lamlom SH, Savidge RA (2003) A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy 25:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorimer CG (1989) Relative effects of small and large disturbances on temperate hardwood forest structure. Ecology 70:565–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morin RS, Widmann RH (2016) Forests of Vermont, 2015. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newton SquareCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myneni RB, Dong J, Tucker CJ, Kaufmann RK, Kauppi PE, Liski J, Zhou L, Alexeyev V, Hughes MK (2001) A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of Northern forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:14784–14789CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9495–9500CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis DJ, Plantinga AJ, Lonsdorf E, Denis White, Bael D, Lawler JJ (2008) Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9471–9476CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Olson JS, Watts JA, Allison LJ (1983) Carbon in live vegetation of major world ecosystems. Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao S, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011a) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan Y, Chen JM, Birdsey R, McCullough K, He L, Deng F (2011b) Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests. Biogeosciences 8:715–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pan Y, Chen JM, Birdsey R, McCullough K, He L, Deng F (2012) NACP forest age maps at 1-km resolution for Canada (2004) and the USA. (2006). Data setGoogle Scholar
  31. Patenaude G, Hill RA, Milne R, Gaveau DL, Briggs BBJ, Dawson TP (2004) Quantifying forest above ground carbon content using LiDAR remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 93:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pontius J, Halman JM, Schaberg PG (2016) Seventy years of forest growth and community dynamics in an undisturbed northern hardwood forest. Can J For Res 46:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S, Lefsky M, Mitchard ETA, Salas W, Zutta BR, Buermann W, Lewis SL, Hagen S, Petrova S, White L, Silman M, Morel A (2011) Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:9899–9904CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Seymour RS, White AS, deMaynadier PG (2002) Natural disturbance regimes in northeastern North America—evaluating silvicultural systems using natural scales and frequencies. For Ecol Manag 155:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Mandle LLM, Hamel P, Vogl AL, Rogers L, Bierbower W (2015) InVEST 2.6.0 user’s guide (2015) InVEST 2.6.0 user’s guideGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Soares-Filho BS, Rodrigues H, Costa WLS (2009) Modeling environmental dynamics with Dinamica EGO. Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Forest Service (2016) Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. Forest Service (2017) Forest inventory and analysis database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  40. van Doorn NS, Battles JJ, Fahey TJ, Siccama TG, Schwarz PA (2011) Links between biomass and tree demography in a northern hardwood forest: a decade of stability and change in Hubbard Brook Valley, New Hampshire. Can J For Res 41:1369–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Widmann RH (2015) Forests of New York, 2014. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newton SquareGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson BT, Woodall CW, Griffith DM (2013) Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon Balanc Manag 8:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Woodall CW, Coulston JW, Domke GM, Walters BF, Wear DN, Smith JE, Andersen H, Clough BJ, Cohen WB, Griffith DM, Hagen SC, Hanou IS, Nichols MC, Perry CH, Russell MB, Westfall JA, Wilson BT (2015) The carbon accounting framework: stocks and stock change, 1990–2016. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang F, Chen JM, Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Shen S, Ju W, He L (2012) Attributing carbon changes in conterminous U.S. forests to disturbance and non-disturbance factors from 1901 to 2010. J Geophys Res 117:G2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Gund Institute for EnvironmentUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.United States Forest ServiceWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Plant and Soil ScienceUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations