Vista normal Vista MARC

Uncertainties in estimating the potential for carbon mitigation of forest management

Por: De Jong, Bernardus Hendricus Jozeph. Doctor [autor/a].
Tipo de material: Artículo
 impreso(a) 
 Artículo impreso(a) Tema(s): Evaluación del impacto ambiental | Ordenación forestal | Carbono | Cambio climáticoDescriptor(es) geográficos: Región Altos (Chiapas, México) | Juznajab La Laguna, Comitán de Domínguez (Chiapas, México) Clasificación: AR/634.928097275 / D45 Nota de acceso: Disponible para usuarios de ECOSUR con su clave de acceso En: Forest Ecology and Management. volumen 154, número 1-2 (November 2001), páginas 85-104. --ISSN: 0378-1127Número de sistema: 38481Resumen:
Inglés

Forestry and agroforestry are promising land use alternatives for reducing the increasing concentrations of global atmospheric carbon (C). Various methodological approaches to estimate the impact of forestry and agroforestry on C fluxes have been proposed. Uncertainties are inevitable in any estimate of greenhouse gas (GHG) dynamics, caused by differing interpretations of source and sink category or other definitions, assumptions, and units, the use of simplified representations with averaged values, uncertainty in the basic socioeconomic activity data that drive the calculations, and inherent uncertainty in the scientific understanding of the basic processes leading to emissions and removals. In this study, a proposal of a forest management project was used to identify the main sources of uncertainties in the calculation of the GHG-offset impact. Errors in the calculations were related to (i) classification of land-use/land-cover (LU/LC) types, with observed differences of up to around 8% in land cover estimates, (ii) estimation of C stocks within each LU/LC type, with errors varying from around 13 to 34% in total C stock, (iii) historical evidence of LU/LC changes and related GHG fluxes applied in baselines, giving rise to uncertainties of up to about 16%, whereas varying baseline assumptions produced differences between 31 and 73% in the C mitigation calculations, with levels of uncertainty of up to 74%, and (iv) variation in parameter values to calculate C fluxes generated uncertainties of up to around 10%.

Etiquetas de esta biblioteca: No hay etiquetas de esta biblioteca para este título. Ingresar para agregar etiquetas.
Star ratings
    Valoración media: 0.0 (0 votos)
Existencias
Tipo de ítem Biblioteca actual Colección Signatura Info Vol Estado Fecha de vencimiento Código de barras
Artículos Biblioteca Campeche

Texto en la configuración de la biblioteca Campeche

Artículos (AR)
ECOSUR AR 634.928097275 D45 005 Disponible ECO040003783
Artículos Biblioteca Chetumal

Texto en configuración de biblioteca Chetumal

Artículos (AR)
ECOSUR AR 634.928097275 D45 002 Disponible ECO030001495
Artículos Biblioteca Electrónica
Recursos en línea (RE)
ECOSUR Recurso digital ECO400384817718
Artículos Biblioteca San Cristóbal

Texto en la configuración de la biblioteca San Cristóbal

Artículos (AR)
ECOSUR AR 634.928097275 D45 004 Disponible ECO010011077
Artículos Biblioteca Tapachula

Texto colocado en la configuración de la biblioteca Tapachula

Artículos (AR)
ECOSUR AR 634.928097275 D45 001 Disponible ECO020008738
Artículos Biblioteca Villahermosa

Texto en la configuración de la biblioteca Villahermosa

Artículos (AR)
ECOSUR AR 634.928097275 D45 003 Disponible ECO050002856

Disponible para usuarios de ECOSUR con su clave de acceso

Forestry and agroforestry are promising land use alternatives for reducing the increasing concentrations of global atmospheric carbon (C). Various methodological approaches to estimate the impact of forestry and agroforestry on C fluxes have been proposed. Uncertainties are inevitable in any estimate of greenhouse gas (GHG) dynamics, caused by differing interpretations of source and sink category or other definitions, assumptions, and units, the use of simplified representations with averaged values, uncertainty in the basic socioeconomic activity data that drive the calculations, and inherent uncertainty in the scientific understanding of the basic processes leading to emissions and removals. In this study, a proposal of a forest management project was used to identify the main sources of uncertainties in the calculation of the GHG-offset impact. Errors in the calculations were related to (i) classification of land-use/land-cover (LU/LC) types, with observed differences of up to around 8% in land cover estimates, (ii) estimation of C stocks within each LU/LC type, with errors varying from around 13 to 34% in total C stock, (iii) historical evidence of LU/LC changes and related GHG fluxes applied in baselines, giving rise to uncertainties of up to about 16%, whereas varying baseline assumptions produced differences between 31 and 73% in the C mitigation calculations, with levels of uncertainty of up to 74%, and (iv) variation in parameter values to calculate C fluxes generated uncertainties of up to around 10%. eng

Disponible en línea

Adobe Acrobat profesional 6.0 o superior

Con tecnología Koha