Search

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]=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., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

National forest inventories (NFIs) are a reliable source for national forest measurements. However, they are usually not developed for linking with remotely sensed (RS) biomass information. There are increasing needs and opportunities to facilitate this link towards better global and national biomass estimation. Thus, it is important to study and understand NFI characteristics relating to their integration with space-based products; in particular for the tropics where NFIs are quite recent, less frequent, and partially incomplete in several countries. Here, we (1) assessed NFIs in terms of their availability, temporal distribution, and extent in 236 countries from FAO's Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2020; (2) compared national forest biomass estimates in 2018 from FRA and global space-based Climate Change Initiative (CCI) product in 182 countries considering NFI availability and temporality; and (3) analyzed the latest NFI design characteristics in 46 tropical countries relating to their integration with space-based biomass datasets. We observed significant NFI availability globally and multiple NFIs were mostly found in temperate and boreal countries while most of the single NFI countries (94 %) were in the tropics. The latest NFIs were more recent in the tropics and many countries (35) implemented NFIs from 2016 onwards. The increasing availability and update of NFIs create new opportunities for integration with space-based data at the national level. This is supported by the agreement we found between country biomass estimates for 2018 from FRA and CCI product, with a significantly higher correlation in countries with recent NFIs. We observed that NFI designs varied greatly in tropical countries. For example, the size of the plots ranged from 0.01 to 1 ha and more than three-quarters of the countries had smaller plots of ≤0.25 ha. The existing NFI designs could pose specific challenges for statistical integration with RS data in the tropics. Future NFI and space-based efforts should aim towards a more integrated approach taking advantage of both data streams to improve national estimates and help future data harmonization efforts. Regular NFI efforts can be expanded with the inclusion of some super-site plots to enhance data integration with currently available space-based applications. Issues related to cost implications versus improvements in the accuracy, timeliness, and sustainability of national forest biomass estimation should be further explored., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)