University of Limerick Institutional Repository

Two large-scale forest scenario modelling approaches for reporting CO2 removal: a comparison for the Romanian forests

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Blujdea, Viorel N. B.
dc.contributor.author Sikkema, Richard
dc.contributor.author Dutca, Ioan
dc.contributor.author Nabuurs, Gert‑Jan
dc.date.accessioned 2021-08-23T14:17:22Z
dc.date.available 2021-08-23T14:17:22Z
dc.date.issued 2021
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10344/10511
dc.description peer-reviewed en_US
dc.description.abstract Background: Forest carbon models are recognized as suitable tools for the reporting and verification of forest carbon stock and stock change, as well as for evaluating the forest management options to enhance the carbon sink pro‑ vided by sustainable forestry. However, given their increased complexity and data availability, different models may simulate diferent estimates. Here, we compare carbon estimates for Romanian forests as simulated by two models (CBM and EFISCEN) that are often used for evaluating the mitigation options given the forest-management choices. Results: The models, calibrated and parameterized with identical or harmonized data, derived from two successive national forest inventories, produced similar estimates of carbon accumulation in tree biomass. According to CBM simulations of carbon stocks in Romanian forests, by 2060, the merchantable standing stock volume will reach an average of 377 m3 ha−1 , while the carbon stock in tree biomass will reach 76.5 tC ha−1 . The EFISCEN simulations produced estimates that are about 5% and 10%, respectively, lower. In addition, 10% stronger biomass sink was simulated by CBM, whereby the difference reduced over time, amounting to only 3% toward 2060. Conclusions: This model comparison provided valuable insights on both the conceptual and modelling algorithms, as well as how the quality of the input data may affect calibration and projections of the stock and stock change in the living biomass pool. In our judgement, both models performed well, providing internally consistent results. Therefore, we underline the importance of the input data quality and the need for further data sampling and model improvements, while the preference for one model or the other should be based on the availability and suitability of the required data, on preferred output variables and ease of use. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher BMC en_US
dc.relation 696356 en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Carbon Balance and Management;16:25
dc.subject CBM-CFS3 en_US
dc.subject data harmonization en_US
dc.subject forest sink en_US
dc.subject NFI en_US
dc.subject Romania en_US
dc.subject forests available for wood supply en_US
dc.title Two large-scale forest scenario modelling approaches for reporting CO2 removal: a comparison for the Romanian forests en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en_US
dc.type.supercollection all_ul_research en_US
dc.type.supercollection ul_published_reviewed en_US
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/s13021-021-00188-1
dc.contributor.sponsor Horizon 2020 en_US
dc.contributor.sponsor European Union (EU) en_US
dc.relation.projectid 696356 en_US
dc.relation.projectid 776810 en_US
dc.relation.projectid 82/2017 en_US
dc.rights.accessrights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ULIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics