Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: A comparison of pan-tropical maps

Edward T.A. Mitchard, Sassan S. Saatchi, Alessandro Baccini, Gregory P. Asner, Scott J. Goetz, Nancy L. Harris, Sandra Brown

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

101 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Mapping the aboveground biomass of tropical forests is essential both for implementing conservation policy and reducing uncertainties in the global carbon cycle. Two medium resolution (500 m - 1000 m) pantropical maps of vegetation biomass have been recently published, and have been widely used by sub-national and national-level activities in relation to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Both maps use similar input data layers, and are driven by the same spaceborne LiDAR dataset providing systematic forest height and canopy structure estimates, but use different ground datasets for calibration and different spatial modelling methodologies. Here, we compare these two maps to each other, to the FAO's Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) 2010 country-level data, and to a high resolution (100 m) biomass map generated for a portion of the Colombian Amazon.Results: We find substantial differences between the two maps, in particular in central Amazonia, the Congo basin, the south of Papua New Guinea, the Miombo woodlands of Africa, and the dry forests and savannas of South America. There is little consistency in the direction of the difference. However, when the maps are aggregated to the country or biome scale there is greater agreement, with differences cancelling out to a certain extent. When comparing country level biomass stocks, the two maps agree with each other to a much greater extent than to the FRA 2010 estimates. In the Colombian Amazon, both pantropical maps estimate higher biomass than the independent high resolution map, but show a similar spatial distribution of this biomass.Conclusions: Biomass mapping has progressed enormously over the past decade, to the stage where we can produce globally consistent maps of aboveground biomass. We show that there are still large uncertainties in these maps, in particular in areas with little field data. However, when used at a regional scale, different maps appear to converge, suggesting we can provide reasonable stock estimates when aggregated over large regions. Therefore we believe the largest uncertainties for REDD+ activities relate to the spatial distribution of biomass and to the spatial pattern of forest cover change, rather than to total globally or nationally summed carbon density.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number10
JournalCarbon Balance and Management
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 26 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

tropical forest
spatial distribution
biomass
aboveground biomass
comparison
dry forest
Food and Agricultural Organization
biome
forest cover
carbon cycle
savanna
deforestation
woodland
canopy
calibration
degradation
methodology
vegetation
carbon

Keywords

  • Aboveground biomass
  • Carbon
  • Data inter-comparison
  • Maxent
  • Random forest
  • REDD
  • REDD+
  • Remote sensing
  • Tropical forests
  • UNFCCC

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)

Cite this

Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass : A comparison of pan-tropical maps. / Mitchard, Edward T.A.; Saatchi, Sassan S.; Baccini, Alessandro; Asner, Gregory P.; Goetz, Scott J.; Harris, Nancy L.; Brown, Sandra.

In: Carbon Balance and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, 10, 26.10.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mitchard, Edward T.A. ; Saatchi, Sassan S. ; Baccini, Alessandro ; Asner, Gregory P. ; Goetz, Scott J. ; Harris, Nancy L. ; Brown, Sandra. / Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass : A comparison of pan-tropical maps. In: Carbon Balance and Management. 2013 ; Vol. 8, No. 1.
@article{a932661b23804f6595de0ab727973ed4,
title = "Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: A comparison of pan-tropical maps",
abstract = "Background: Mapping the aboveground biomass of tropical forests is essential both for implementing conservation policy and reducing uncertainties in the global carbon cycle. Two medium resolution (500 m - 1000 m) pantropical maps of vegetation biomass have been recently published, and have been widely used by sub-national and national-level activities in relation to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Both maps use similar input data layers, and are driven by the same spaceborne LiDAR dataset providing systematic forest height and canopy structure estimates, but use different ground datasets for calibration and different spatial modelling methodologies. Here, we compare these two maps to each other, to the FAO's Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) 2010 country-level data, and to a high resolution (100 m) biomass map generated for a portion of the Colombian Amazon.Results: We find substantial differences between the two maps, in particular in central Amazonia, the Congo basin, the south of Papua New Guinea, the Miombo woodlands of Africa, and the dry forests and savannas of South America. There is little consistency in the direction of the difference. However, when the maps are aggregated to the country or biome scale there is greater agreement, with differences cancelling out to a certain extent. When comparing country level biomass stocks, the two maps agree with each other to a much greater extent than to the FRA 2010 estimates. In the Colombian Amazon, both pantropical maps estimate higher biomass than the independent high resolution map, but show a similar spatial distribution of this biomass.Conclusions: Biomass mapping has progressed enormously over the past decade, to the stage where we can produce globally consistent maps of aboveground biomass. We show that there are still large uncertainties in these maps, in particular in areas with little field data. However, when used at a regional scale, different maps appear to converge, suggesting we can provide reasonable stock estimates when aggregated over large regions. Therefore we believe the largest uncertainties for REDD+ activities relate to the spatial distribution of biomass and to the spatial pattern of forest cover change, rather than to total globally or nationally summed carbon density.",
keywords = "Aboveground biomass, Carbon, Data inter-comparison, Maxent, Random forest, REDD, REDD+, Remote sensing, Tropical forests, UNFCCC",
author = "Mitchard, {Edward T.A.} and Saatchi, {Sassan S.} and Alessandro Baccini and Asner, {Gregory P.} and Goetz, {Scott J.} and Harris, {Nancy L.} and Sandra Brown",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1186/1750-0680-8-10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
journal = "Carbon Balance and Management",
issn = "1750-0680",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass

T2 - A comparison of pan-tropical maps

AU - Mitchard, Edward T.A.

AU - Saatchi, Sassan S.

AU - Baccini, Alessandro

AU - Asner, Gregory P.

AU - Goetz, Scott J.

AU - Harris, Nancy L.

AU - Brown, Sandra

PY - 2013/10/26

Y1 - 2013/10/26

N2 - Background: Mapping the aboveground biomass of tropical forests is essential both for implementing conservation policy and reducing uncertainties in the global carbon cycle. Two medium resolution (500 m - 1000 m) pantropical maps of vegetation biomass have been recently published, and have been widely used by sub-national and national-level activities in relation to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Both maps use similar input data layers, and are driven by the same spaceborne LiDAR dataset providing systematic forest height and canopy structure estimates, but use different ground datasets for calibration and different spatial modelling methodologies. Here, we compare these two maps to each other, to the FAO's Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) 2010 country-level data, and to a high resolution (100 m) biomass map generated for a portion of the Colombian Amazon.Results: We find substantial differences between the two maps, in particular in central Amazonia, the Congo basin, the south of Papua New Guinea, the Miombo woodlands of Africa, and the dry forests and savannas of South America. There is little consistency in the direction of the difference. However, when the maps are aggregated to the country or biome scale there is greater agreement, with differences cancelling out to a certain extent. When comparing country level biomass stocks, the two maps agree with each other to a much greater extent than to the FRA 2010 estimates. In the Colombian Amazon, both pantropical maps estimate higher biomass than the independent high resolution map, but show a similar spatial distribution of this biomass.Conclusions: Biomass mapping has progressed enormously over the past decade, to the stage where we can produce globally consistent maps of aboveground biomass. We show that there are still large uncertainties in these maps, in particular in areas with little field data. However, when used at a regional scale, different maps appear to converge, suggesting we can provide reasonable stock estimates when aggregated over large regions. Therefore we believe the largest uncertainties for REDD+ activities relate to the spatial distribution of biomass and to the spatial pattern of forest cover change, rather than to total globally or nationally summed carbon density.

AB - Background: Mapping the aboveground biomass of tropical forests is essential both for implementing conservation policy and reducing uncertainties in the global carbon cycle. Two medium resolution (500 m - 1000 m) pantropical maps of vegetation biomass have been recently published, and have been widely used by sub-national and national-level activities in relation to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Both maps use similar input data layers, and are driven by the same spaceborne LiDAR dataset providing systematic forest height and canopy structure estimates, but use different ground datasets for calibration and different spatial modelling methodologies. Here, we compare these two maps to each other, to the FAO's Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) 2010 country-level data, and to a high resolution (100 m) biomass map generated for a portion of the Colombian Amazon.Results: We find substantial differences between the two maps, in particular in central Amazonia, the Congo basin, the south of Papua New Guinea, the Miombo woodlands of Africa, and the dry forests and savannas of South America. There is little consistency in the direction of the difference. However, when the maps are aggregated to the country or biome scale there is greater agreement, with differences cancelling out to a certain extent. When comparing country level biomass stocks, the two maps agree with each other to a much greater extent than to the FRA 2010 estimates. In the Colombian Amazon, both pantropical maps estimate higher biomass than the independent high resolution map, but show a similar spatial distribution of this biomass.Conclusions: Biomass mapping has progressed enormously over the past decade, to the stage where we can produce globally consistent maps of aboveground biomass. We show that there are still large uncertainties in these maps, in particular in areas with little field data. However, when used at a regional scale, different maps appear to converge, suggesting we can provide reasonable stock estimates when aggregated over large regions. Therefore we believe the largest uncertainties for REDD+ activities relate to the spatial distribution of biomass and to the spatial pattern of forest cover change, rather than to total globally or nationally summed carbon density.

KW - Aboveground biomass

KW - Carbon

KW - Data inter-comparison

KW - Maxent

KW - Random forest

KW - REDD

KW - REDD+

KW - Remote sensing

KW - Tropical forests

KW - UNFCCC

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886177120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886177120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1750-0680-8-10

DO - 10.1186/1750-0680-8-10

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84886177120

VL - 8

JO - Carbon Balance and Management

JF - Carbon Balance and Management

SN - 1750-0680

IS - 1

M1 - 10

ER -