Advertisement

Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 23–41 | Cite as

Modeling change in forest biomass across the eastern US

  • Erin M. Schliep
  • Alan E. Gelfand
  • James S. Clark
  • Kai Zhu
Article

Abstract

Predictions of above-ground biomass and the change in above-ground biomass require attachment of uncertainty due the range of reported predictions for forests. Because above-ground biomass is seldom measured, there have been no opportunities to obtain such uncertainty estimates. Standard methods involve applying an allometric equation to each individual tree on sample plots and summing the individual values. There is uncertainty in the allometry which leads to uncertainty in biomass at the tree level. Due to interdependence between competing trees, the uncertainty at the plot level that results from aggregating individual tree biomass in this way is expected to overestimate variability. That is, the variance at the plot level should be less than the sum of the individual variances. We offer a modeling strategy to learn about change in biomass at the plot level and model cumulative uncertainty to accommodate this dependence among neighboring trees. The plot-level variance is modeled using a parametric density-dependent asymptotic function. Plot-by-time covariate information is introduced to explain the change in biomass. These features are incorporated into a hierarchical model and inference is obtain within a Bayesian framework. We analyze data for the eastern United States from the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program of the US Forest Service. This region contains roughly 25,000 FIA monitored plots from which there are measurements of approximately 1 million trees spanning more than 200 tree species. Due to the high species richness in the FIA data, we combine species into plant functional types. We present predictions of biomass and change in biomass for two plant functional types.

Keywords

Allometric equations Bayesian hierarchical model Cumulative uncertainty Forest biomass 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers EF-1137364 and CDI-0940671 and the Coweeta LTER. The authors would also like to thank Bradley Tomasek for providing useful discussion on biomass allometry.

References

  1. Barford CC, Wofsy SC, Goulden ML, Munger JW, Pyle EH, Urbanski SP, Hutyra L, Saleska SR, Fitzjarrald D, Moore K (2001) Factors controlling long-and short-term sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in a mid-latitude forest. Science 294(5547):1688–1691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtold WA and Patterson PL (2005) The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program: national sampling design and estimation procedures. Technical report, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station Asheville, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown SL, Schroeder P, Kern JS (1999) Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. For Ecol Manag 123(1):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chave J, Condit R, Aguilar S, Hernandez A, Lao S, Perez R (2004) Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 359(1443):409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chave J, Réjou-Méchain M, Búrquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan MS, Delitti WBC, Duque A, Eid T, Fearnside PM, Goodman RC et al (2014) Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob Change Biol 20(10):3177–3190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietze MC, Moorcroft PR (2011) Tree mortality in the eastern and central United States: patterns and drivers. Glob Change Biol 17(11):3312–3326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelfand AE, Sahu SK, Carlin BP (1995) Efficient parameterizations for normal linear mixed models. Biometrika 82(3):479–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49(1):12–35Google Scholar
  9. MacCleery DW (1993) American forests: a history of resiliency and recovery, vol 540. Forest History Society, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  10. Marklund LG (1988) Biomass functions for pine, spruce and birch in Sweden. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  11. McMahon SM, Parker GG, Miller DR (2010) Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(8):3611–3615PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):988–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  14. Schimel DS, House J, Hibbard K, Bousquet P, Ciais P, Peylin P, Braswell BH, Apps MJ, Baker D, Bondeau A et al (2001) Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 414(6860):169–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Stephenson NL, Das AJ, Condit R, Russo SE, Baker PJ, Beckman NG, Coomes DA, Lines ER, Morris WK, Rüger N et al (2014) Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nat 507(7490):90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Susan S (2007). Climate change 2007—the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, vol 4. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Vayreda J, Martinez-Vilalta J, Gracia M, Retana J (2012) Recent climate changes interact with stand structure and management to determine changes in tree carbon stocks in Spanish forests. Glob Change Biol 18(3):1028–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends Ecol Evol 20(10):553–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wutzler T, Wirth C, Schumacher J (2008) Generic biomass functions for common beech (Fagus sylvatica) in Central Europe: predictions and components of uncertainty. Can J For Res 38(6):1661–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, Mencuccini M (2005) Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe, vol 4. Finnish Society of Forest Science, Finnish Forest Research InstituteGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin M. Schliep
    • 1
  • Alan E. Gelfand
    • 1
  • James S. Clark
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kai Zhu
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Statistical SciencesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Global EcologyCarnegie Institution for ScienceStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations