. Carbon Storage in Protected Areas – Technical Report. . Carbon, tons/hectare 0 , 1 -25 3^26-50 ' 51 - 75 ] 76 -100 J 101 -150 J 151-200 ~ 201 - 250 251 - 300 301 - 450 Other basins Figure 6: Carbon density in Carbon density in Amazon Basin (based on Ruesch & Gibbs, in review). It is apparent that the global data did not identify areas with carbon density above 200 tonnes per hectare; in fact approximately 80% of this territory was assigned with a single value (193 t/ha). This corresponds with the conclusion of Saatchi et al. (2007) that biome averages are likely to underestimate carbon d
. Carbon Storage in Protected Areas – Technical Report. . Carbon, tons/hectare 0 , 1 -25 3^26-50 ' 51 - 75 ] 76 -100 J 101 -150 J 151-200 ~ 201 - 250 251 - 300 301 - 450 Other basins Figure 6: Carbon density in Carbon density in Amazon Basin (based on Ruesch & Gibbs, in review). It is apparent that the global data did not identify areas with carbon density above 200 tonnes per hectare; in fact approximately 80% of this territory was assigned with a single value (193 t/ha). This corresponds with the conclusion of Saatchi et al. (2007) that biome averages are likely to underestimate carbon density due to the lack of dependency between vegetation type and biomes, and could account for a large proportion of the disagreement between the two datasets Due to the relatively broad range of values (50 t/ha steps) included in separate classes for the regional data sources, there was no straightforward way to calculate the potential carbon stock in the region with any precision. As a simplified assumption, the mid-point value was taken as a basis for calculation of the carbon stock. An estimate of the carbon stock based on regional data for above ground biomass is Gigatons against Gt from the global dataset. Although the result of this simplified comparison (23% difference) cannot be applied as a precise measurement, it is likely that the global map underestimates the carbon content across the Amazon region. Considering that the global data is obviously more coarse scale, this is an expected level of variation between the two datasets. The Saatchi et al. (2007) data was obtained from both sampling of biomass plots and remote sensing data, and included old growth forest, floodplains, and small coastal patches, using a more recent land cover map at 1km resolution. The Amazon regional estimate also included differentiation of disturbed and non-disturbed forest, whereas the global data necessarily utilised biome averages. Further efforts are required for bringing
Size: 1825px × 1369px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bhlconsortium, bookcollectionbiodiversity, bookcont, bookyear2008
