Spelling suggestions: "subject:"canada's managed forests"" "subject:"ganada's managed forests""
1 |
Carbon Dynamics in Canada's Managed Forests from 1991 to 2006: A Comparison of InTEC and CBMZhang, Beiping 18 February 2010 (has links)
This study examined the annual C balance and its shifting trend in Canada’s managed forests from 1991 to 2006 using the Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem C-budget (InTEC) model. During this period, Canada’s managed forests remained a moderate C sink of 58 Mt C yr¬¬¬-1 on average, but displayed an apparent trend of shifting towards a C source. The combined risk of climate change and increased disturbances are weakening the C sink in Canada’s managed forests.
This study also compared the results from InTEC with those from CBM-CFS (Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector) at both national and regional levels. InTEC shows larger inter-annual variability and regional difference than CBM-CFS due to its incorporation of both disturbance and non-disturbance factors. In comparison, CBM-CFS3 has likely underestimated both the true C loss and the C sink potential of Canada’s managed forests, given that it does not account for the non-disturbance factors.
|
2 |
Carbon Dynamics in Canada's Managed Forests from 1991 to 2006: A Comparison of InTEC and CBMZhang, Beiping 18 February 2010 (has links)
This study examined the annual C balance and its shifting trend in Canada’s managed forests from 1991 to 2006 using the Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem C-budget (InTEC) model. During this period, Canada’s managed forests remained a moderate C sink of 58 Mt C yr¬¬¬-1 on average, but displayed an apparent trend of shifting towards a C source. The combined risk of climate change and increased disturbances are weakening the C sink in Canada’s managed forests.
This study also compared the results from InTEC with those from CBM-CFS (Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector) at both national and regional levels. InTEC shows larger inter-annual variability and regional difference than CBM-CFS due to its incorporation of both disturbance and non-disturbance factors. In comparison, CBM-CFS3 has likely underestimated both the true C loss and the C sink potential of Canada’s managed forests, given that it does not account for the non-disturbance factors.
|
Page generated in 0.0753 seconds