Advertisement

Modeling Afforestation and the Underlying Uncertainties

Chapter
  • 751 Downloads

Abstract

A dynamic model of the carbon budget of an oak forest ecosystem that takes into account forest stand age was developed. A numerical experiment was designed to simulate the afforestation process, and a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to determine how parameter uncertainties and environmental variability influence the result. It was found that while the total amount of carbon stored in the ecosystem increases from 1.9 kg C/m2 to 4.4 kg C/m2 over the following 20 years, the relative standard deviation increases from 9 to 21%. The contribution of varying climate and carbon dioxide parameters to total uncertainty is substantial; for example, the standard deviation at the 10th modeling year for phytomass doubles and the uncertainties of the soil pool and total accumulated carbon increase by a factor of nearly 1.4, while the uncertainty of the litter pool stays almost at the same level.

Keywords

afforestation mathematical model Monte Carlo simulation uncertainty estimation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartoszczuk, P., & Horabik, J. (2007). Tradable permit system: Considering uncertainty in emission estimates. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus (in press.) DOI: 10.1007/s11267-006-9110-xGoogle Scholar
  2. Borsuk, D. V., Holubets, M. A., Granatyr, V. F., Grynchak, M., Koziy, I. I., & Krok, B. O. (1982). Forest ecosystems of the upper reaches of Dnister Catchment Basin: Their structure, productivity and water regulation role. Scientific Report, Department of Biogeocenology, Lviv Branch of the M. Kholodnyi Botany Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, Lviv, Ukraine.Google Scholar
  3. Gusti, M. I. (2002). Mathematical modelling of the carbon budget of ecosystems of the Carpathian Region of Ukraine. PhD thesis. Lviv, Ukraine: State Scientific and Research Institute of Information Infrastructure.Google Scholar
  4. Gusti, M. I., Bun, R. A., Dachuk, V. S., & Shpakivska, I. M. (2004). Mathematical model of the carbon budget of a beech forest. Information Technologies and Systems, 2(7), 90–99.Google Scholar
  5. Helming, K. (2001). Wind speed effects on rain erosivity. In D. Stott, R. Mohtar, & G. Steinhardt (Eds.), Sustaining the global farm-Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting, held in 1999 in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture and the International Soil Conservation Organization of Purdue University (pp. 771–776). IN, USA: West Lafayette, See http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/isco99/pdf/ISCOdisc/tableofcontents.htm.Google Scholar
  6. Jonas, M., & Nilsson, S. (2007). Prior to economic treatment of emissions and their uncertainties under the Kyoto Protocol: Scientific uncertainties that must be kept in mind. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus (in press.) DOI: 10.1007/s11267-006-9113-7Google Scholar
  7. Karjalainen, T., & Liski, J. (1997). Approaches for carbon budget analysis of the Siberian forests. Interim Report IR-97-023. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied System Analysis.Google Scholar
  8. Krapivin, V., Svirezhev, Yu., & Tarko, A. (1982). Mathematical modeling of global biosphere processes. Moscow, Russian Federation: Nauka.Google Scholar
  9. Kurtz, W. A., Apps, M. J., Webb, T. M., & McNamee, P. J. (1992). The carbon budget of the Canadian Forest sector: Phase I. Information Report NOR-X-326. Northern Forestry Centre, Northwest Region, Forestry Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Lakida, P., Nilsson, S., & Shvidenko, A. (1996). Estimation of forest phytomass for selected countries of the former European USSR. Biomass and Bioenergy, 11(5), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Monni, S., Syri, S., Pipatti, R., & Savolainen, I. (2007). Extension of EU emissions trading scheme to other sectors and gases: Consequences for uncertainty of total tradable amount. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus (in press.) DOI: 10.1007/s11267-006-9111-9Google Scholar
  12. Nahorski, Z., Horabik, J., & Jonas, M. (2007). Compliance and emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol: Rules for uncertain inventories. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus (in press.) DOI: 10.1007/s11267-006-9112-8Google Scholar
  13. Shpakivska, I., & Maryskevych, O. (2003). The dependence of soil CO2 efflux on temperature in the ecosystems of the Eastern Carpathians. In Proceedings of the 3rd CarboEurope Conference ‘The Continental Carbon Cycle,’ held 19–21 March in Lisbon, Portugal. See http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/public/carboeur/workshop/Poster2/shpakivska.htm.Google Scholar
  14. Shvidenko, A., Venevsky, S., Raile, G., & Nilsson, S. (1996). Dynamics of fully stocked stands in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Working Paper WP-96-19. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied System Analysis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations