The documented role of United States forests in sequestering carbon, the relatively low cost of forest-based mitigation, and the many co-benefits of increasing forest carbon stocks all contribute to the ongoing trend in the establishment of forest-based carbon offset projects. We present a broad analysis of forest inventory data using site quality indicators to provide guidance to managers planning land acquisition for forest-based greenhouse gas mitigation projects. Specifically, we summarize two condition class indicators of site productivity within the FIA forest inventory database—physclcd and siteclcd—as they relate to current aboveground live tree carbon stocks. Average carbon density is higher on more productive sites, but compared to the overall variability among sites, the differences are relatively small for all but the highest and lowest site classes. Some minor differences in eastern- versus western-forests were apparent in terms of how carbon on the least productive sites differed from most other forest land over time. Overall results suggest that xeric sites in most regions as well as sites that correspond to the lowest, non-productive classifications of forest land should preferentially not be used forestry-based greenhouse gas mitigation projects, but all other forest areas appear to be suitable.
References
[1]
US Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009; EPA 430-R-11-005; US Environmental Protection Agency: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html (accessed on 22 March 2012).
[2]
Richards, K.R.; Stokes, C. A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: A dozen years of research. Climatic Change 2004, 63, 1–48, doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000018503.10080.89.
[3]
Birdsey, R.A.; Alig, R.; Adams, D. Mitigation activities in the forest sector to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases. In The Impact of Climate Change on America’s Forests: A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment; RMRS-GTR-59; Joyce, L.A., Birdsey, R.A., Eds.; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2000; pp. 112–131.
[4]
Vasievich, J.M.; Alig, R.J. Opportunities to increase timber growth and carbon storage on timberlands in the contiguous United States. In Forests and Global Change, Vol. Two: Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions; Sampson, R.N., Hair, D., Eds.; American Forests: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 91–104.
[5]
Wang, J.R.; Zhong, A.L.; Simard, S.W.; Kimmins, J.P. Aboveground biomass and nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of paper birch (Betula papyrifera) in the Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, British Columbia. For. Ecol. Manag. 1996, 83, 27–38, doi:10.1016/0378-1127(96)03703-6.
[6]
Wang, J.R.; Zhong, A.L.; Comeau, P.; Tsze, M.; Kimmins, J.P. Aboveground biomass and nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of aspen (Populus termuloides) stands in the Boreal White and Black Spruce zone, British Columbia. For. Ecol. Manag. 1995, 83, 127–138.
[7]
Balboa-Murias, M.A.; Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R.; Merino, A.; álvarez-González, J.G. Temporal variations and distribution of carbon stocks in aboveground biomass of radiata pine and maritime pine pure stands under different silvicultural alternatives. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 237, 29–38, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.024.
[8]
Keyes, M.R.; Greir, C.C. Above- and below-ground net production in 40-year-old Douglas-fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Can. J. For. Res. 1981, 11, 599–605, doi:10.1139/x81-082.
[9]
Comeau, P.G.; Kimmins, J.P. Above- and below-ground biomass and production of lodgepole pine on sites with differing soil moisture regimes. Can. J. For. Res. 1989, 19, 447–454, doi:10.1139/x89-070.
[10]
Kranabetter, J.M. Site carbon storage along productivity gradients of a late-seral southern boreal forest. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39, 1053–1060, doi:10.1139/X09-031.
[11]
Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L. The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program–National Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures; Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2005.
[12]
Woodall, C.W.; Liknes, G.C. Climatic regions as an indicator of forest coarse and fine woody debris carbon stocks in the United States. Carbon Balance Manag. 2008, 3, 5–1, doi:10.1186/1750-0680-3-5. 18541029
[13]
Hoover, C.M.; Heath, L.S. Potential gains in C storage on productive forestlands in the northeastern United States through stocking management. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 1154–1161, doi:10.1890/10-0046.1.
[14]
Heath, L.S.; Smith, J.E.; Woodall, C.W.; Azuma, D.L.; Waddell, K.L. Carbon stocks on forestland of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2011, 2, rt6, doi:10.1890/ES10-00126.1.
[15]
Woudenberg, S.W.; Conkling, B.L.; O’Connell, B.M.; LaPoint, E.B.; Turner, J.A.; Waddell, K.L. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database Version 4.0: Database Description and Users Manual for Phase 2; Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-245; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2010.
[16]
FIA DataMart, FIADB version 4.0. USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. Available online: http://apps.fs.fed.us/fiadb-downloads/datamart.html (accessed on 17 August 2011).
[17]
Jenkins, J.C.; Chojnacky, D.C.; Heath, L.S.; Birdsey, R.A. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 12–35.
[18]
R？tzer, T.; Dieler, J.; Mette, T.; Moshammer, R.; Pretzsch, H. Productivity and carbon dynamics in managed Central European forests depending on site conditions and thinning regimes. Forestry 2010, 83, 483–496, doi:10.1093/forestry/cpq031.
