Changes in land use and management led to a decline in Eastern Europe’s terrestrial carbon sink

Land-based mitigation is essential in reducing net carbon emissions. Yet, the attribution of carbon fluxes remains highly uncertain, in particular for the forest-rich region of Eastern Europe (incl. Western Russia). Here we integrate various data sources to show that Eastern Europe accounted for an above-ground biomass carbon sink of ~0.41 gigatons of carbon per year over the period 2010–2019, that is 78% of the entire European carbon sink. We find that this carbon sink is declining, mainly driven by changes in land use and land management, but also by increasing natural disturbances. Based on a random forest model, we show that land use and management changes are main drivers of the declining carbon sink in Eastern Europe, although soil moisture variability is also important. Specifically, the saturation effect of tree regrowth in abandoned agricultural areas, combined with increasing wood harvest removals, particularly in European Russia, contributed to the decrease in the Eastern European carbon sink

Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system1. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests2–5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced6 and satellitederived approaches2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets.EEA Santa CruzFil: Mo, Lidong. Institute of Integrative Biology. ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology); SuizaFil: Zohner, Constantin M. Institute of Integrative Biology. ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology); SuizaFil: Reich, Peter B. University of Minnesota. Department of Forest Resources; Estados UnidosFil: Reich, Peter B. Western Sydney University. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment; Australia.Fil: Reich, Peter B. University of Michigan. Institute for Global Change Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Liang, Jingjing. Purdue University. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources; Estados UnidosFil: de-Miguel, Sergio. University of Lleida. Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences and Engineering; EspañaFil: de-Miguel, Sergio. Joint Research Unit CTFC - AGROTECNIO – CERCA; EspañaFil: Nabuurs, Gert-Jan. Wageningen University and Research; Países BajosFil: Renner, Susanne S. Washington University. Department of Biology; Estados UnidosFil: van den Hoogen, Johan. Institute of Integrative Biology. ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology); SuizaFil: Araza, Arnan. Wageningen University and Research; Países BajosFil: Herold, Martin. Helmholtz GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences. Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics Section; Alemania.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral.; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Crowther, Thomas W. Institute of Integrative Biology. ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology); Suiz

A comprehensive framework for assessing the accuracy and uncertainty of global above-ground biomass maps

Over the past decade, several global maps of above-ground biomass (AGB) have been produced, but they exhibit significant differences that reduce their value for climate and carbon cycle modelling, and also for national estimates of forest carbon stocks and their changes. The number of such maps is anticipated to increase because of new satellite missions dedicated to measuring AGB. Objective and consistent methods to estimate the accuracy and uncertainty of AGB maps are therefore urgently needed. This paper develops and demonstrates a framework aimed at achieving this. The framework provides a means to compare AGB maps with AGB estimates from a global collection of National Forest Inventories and research plots that accounts for the uncertainty of plot AGB errors. This uncertainty depends strongly on plot size, and is dominated by the combined errors from tree measurements and allometric models (inter-quartile range of their standard deviation (SD) = 30–151 Mg ha−1). Estimates of sampling errors are also important, especially in the most common case where plots are smaller than map pixels (SD = 16–44 Mg ha−1). Plot uncertainty estimates are used to calculate the minimum-variance linear unbiased estimates of the mean forest AGB when averaged to 0.1∘. These are used to assess four AGB maps: Baccini (2000), GEOCARBON (2008), GlobBiomass (2010) and CCI Biomass (2017). Map bias, estimated using the differences between the plot and 0.1∘ map averages, is modelled using random forest regression driven by variables shown to affect the map estimates. The bias model is particularly sensitive to the map estimate of AGB and tree cover, and exhibits strong regional biases. Variograms indicate that AGB map errors have map-specific spatial correlation up to a range of 50–104 km, which increases the variance of spatially aggregated AGB map estimates compared to when pixel errors are independent. After bias adjustment, total pantropical AGB and its associated SD are derived for the four map epochs. This total becomes closer to the value estimated by the Forest Resources Assessment after every epoch and shows a similar decrease. The framework is applicable to both local and global-scale analysis, and is available at https://github.com/arnanaraza/PlotToMap. Our study therefore constitutes a major step towards improved AGB map validation and improvement

Past decade above-ground biomass change comparisons from four multi-temporal global maps

Above-ground biomass (AGB) is considered an essential climate variable that underpins our knowledge and information about the role of forests in mitigating climate change. The availability of satellite-based AGB and AGB change (Delta AGB) products has increased in recent years. Here we assessed the past decade net Delta AGB derived from four recent global multi-date AGB maps: ESA-CCI maps, WRI-Flux model, JPL time series, and SMOS-LVOD time series. Our assessments explore and use different reference data sources with biomass re-measurements within the past decade. The reference data comprise National Forest Inventory (NFI) plot data, local Delta AGB maps from airborne LiDAR, and selected Forest Resource Assessment country data from countries with well-developed monitoring capacities. Map to reference data comparisons were performed at levels ranging from 100 m to 25 km spatial scale. The comparisons revealed that LiDAR data compared most reasonably with the maps, while the comparisons using NFI only showed some agreements at aggregation levels <10 km. Regardless of the aggregation level, AGB losses and gains according to the map comparisons were consistently smaller than the reference data. Map-map comparisons at 25 km highlighted that the maps consistently captured AGB losses in known deforestation hotspots. The comparisons also identified several carbon sink regions consistently detected by all maps. However, disagreement between maps is still large in key forest regions such as the Amazon basin. The overall AAGB map cross-correlation between maps varied in the range 0.11-0.29 (r). Reported AAGB magnitudes were largest in the high-resolution datasets including the CCI map differencing (stock change) and Flux model (gain-loss) methods, while they were smallest according to the coarser-resolution LVOD and JPL time series products, especially for AGB gains. Our results suggest that AAGB assessed from current maps can be biased and any use of the estimates should take that into account. Currently, AAGB reference data are sparse especially in the tropics but that deficit can be alleviated by upcoming LiDAR data networks in the context of Supersites and GEO-Trees

A comprehensive framework for assessing the accuracy and uncertainty of global above-ground biomass maps

International audienceOver the past decade, several global maps of above-ground biomass (AGB) have been produced, but they exhibit significant differences that reduce their value for climate and carbon cycle modelling, and also for national estimates of forest carbon stocks and their changes. The number of such maps is anticipated to increase because of new satellite missions dedicated to measuring AGB. Objective and consistent methods to estimate the accuracy and uncertainty of AGB maps are therefore urgently needed. This paper develops and demonstrates a framework aimed at achieving this. The framework provides a means to compare AGB maps with AGB estimates from a global collection of National Forest Inventories and research plots that accounts for the uncertainty of plot AGB errors. This uncertainty depends strongly on plot size, and is dominated by the combined errors from tree measurements and allometric models (inter-quartile range of their standard deviation (SD) = 30–151 Mg ha−1). Estimates of sampling errors are also important, especially in the most common case where plots are smaller than map pixels (SD = 16–44 Mg ha−1). Plot uncertainty estimates are used to calculate the minimum-variance linear unbiased estimates of the mean forest AGB when averaged to 0.1∘. These are used to assess four AGB maps: Baccini (2000), GEOCARBON (2008), GlobBiomass (2010) and CCI Biomass (2017). Map bias, estimated using the differences between the plot and 0.1∘ map averages, is modelled using random forest regression driven by variables shown to affect the map estimates. The bias model is particularly sensitive to the map estimate of AGB and tree cover, and exhibits strong regional biases. Variograms indicate that AGB map errors have map-specific spatial correlation up to a range of 50–104 km, which increases the variance of spatially aggregated AGB map estimates compared to when pixel errors are independent. After bias adjustment, total pantropical AGB and its associated SD are derived for the four map epochs. This total becomes closer to the value estimated by the Forest Resources Assessment after every epoch and shows a similar decrease. The framework is applicable to both local and global-scale analysis, and is available at https://github.com/arnanaraza/PlotToMap. Our study therefore constitutes a major step towards improved AGB map validation and improvement

Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system 1. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests 2–5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced 6 and satellite-derived approaches 2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea 2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets

Intra-Annual Identification of Local Deforestation Hotspots in the Philippines Using Earth Observation Products

Like many other tropical countries, the Philippines has suffered from decades of deforestation and forest degradation during and even after the logging era. Several open access Earth Observation (EO) products are increasingly being used for deforestation analysis in support of national and international initiatives and policymaking on forest conservation and management. Using a combination of annual forest loss and near-real time forest disturbance products, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the deforestation events in three forest frontiers of the Philippines. A space-time pattern mining approach was used to map quarterly deforestation hotspots at 1 km pixel size (100 hectares), where hotspots are classified according to the spatial and temporal variability of the 2000–2020 deforestation in the study area. Our results revealed that 79–81% of the hotspots overlap with primary forests and 27–29% are inside the state-declared protected areas. The intra-annual analysis of deforestation in 2020 revealed an alarming trend, where most deforestation occurred between the 1st and 2nd quarter (92–94% in hotspot forests; 87–89% in non-hotspot forests), highly overlapping within the slash-and-burn farming season. We also found “new” hotspots (2020) formed mostly from landslide scars and partly from selective logging, the latter is believed to be underestimated. Our study paves the way for rapid and regular assessment of the country’s deforestation, useful for the respective environmental institutions who convene several times a year. Moreover, our findings assert the imperative of alternative livelihoods to upland farmers, efficient forest protection activities, and even the mitigation of landslide risks

Spatial predictions and uncertainties of forest carbon fluxes for carbon accounting

Abstract Countries have pledged to different national and international environmental agreements, most prominently the climate change mitigation targets of the Paris Agreement. Accounting for carbon stocks and flows (fluxes) is essential for countries that have recently adopted the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - ecosystem accounting framework (UNSEEA) as a global statistical standard. In this paper, we analyze how spatial carbon fluxes can be used in support of the UNSEEA carbon accounts in five case countries with available in-situ data. Using global multi-date biomass map products and other remotely sensed data, we mapped the 2010–2018 carbon fluxes in Brazil, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Sweden and the USA using National Forest Inventory (NFI) and local biomass maps from airborne LiDAR as reference data. We identified areas that are unsupported by the reference data within environmental feature space (6–47% of vegetated country area); cross-validated an ensemble machine learning (RMSE=9–39 Mg C $$\textrm{ha}^{-1}$$ ha - 1 and $$\textrm{R}^{2}$$ R 2 =0.16–0.71) used to map carbon fluxes with prediction intervals; and assessed spatially correlated residuals (<5 km) before aggregating carbon fluxes from 1-ha pixels to UNSEEA forest classes. The resulting carbon accounting tables revealed the net carbon sequestration in natural broadleaved forests. Both in plantations and in other woody vegetation ecosystems, emissions exceeded sequestration. Overall, our estimates align with FAO-Forest Resource Assessment and national studies with the largest deviations in Brazil and USA. These two countries used highly clustered reference data, where clustering caused uncertainty given the need to extrapolate to under-sampled areas. We finally provide recommendations to mitigate the effect of under-sampling and to better account for the uncertainties once carbon stocks and flows need to be aggregated in relatively smaller countries. These actions are timely given the global initiatives that aim to upscale UNSEEA carbon accounting