English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports two methods for the evaluation of changes in the carbon stock of living biomass in the Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry: 1) The default method requires the biomass carbon loss to be subtracted from the biomass carbon increment for the reporting year; 2) the stock change method requires two consecutive biomass carbon stock inventories for a given forest area at two points in time. The aim of this study was the estimate of changes in carbon stock and the related uncertainty in a Douglas fir plantation constituted by plots with different planting densities, monitored at ages 15, 25, 30 and 40. Three methods were used to estimate above-ground biomass: 1) application of allometric equations; 2) constant BEF (biomass expansion factor); 3) age-dependent BEF. Results showed that estimates based on allometric equations had the lowest uncertainty, whereas biomass estimated with the constant BEF had higher uncertainty than biomass estimated with age dependent BEFs. With a constant BEF it is usually difficult to obtain a reliable value for the whole tree biomass because stem proportion increases with tree size at the expense of the other components. The age dependent BEF saim to reduce the bias representing the actual change in stock. The default method had the highest uncertainty (38.3% 51.3%) and gave an estimate 47% higher than the stock change method, that had an uncertainty ranging from 2.5% (estimated by allometric equation) to 3.9% (estimated by constant BEF).

A comparative study between “default method” and “stock change method” of Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IPCC, 2003) to evaluate carbon stock changes in forest