Difference between revisions of "Dead Wood Results"

From Heureka Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
| Carbon in Deadwood||tonnes C/ha||Carbon content in dead wood, based on the biomass (which differs between decay class) in stem and bark.  
 
| Carbon in Deadwood||tonnes C/ha||Carbon content in dead wood, based on the biomass (which differs between decay class) in stem and bark.  
 
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
| Dead Standing Trees|| volume, m<sup>3</sup>/ha || Volume of dead standing trees, with a diameter &ge MinDiam; when the tree died. MinDiam is the minimum diameter for coarse wood set in the [[ControlTable_Dead_wood|Dead Wood control table]]. Depending on decay class, a certain proportion of the dead wood is assumed standing dead trees, and the rest assumed downed, see table below.
+
| Dead Standing Trees|| volume, m<sup>3</sup>/ha || Volume of dead standing trees, with a diameter &ge MinDiam; when the tree died. MinDiam is the minimum diameter for coarse wood set in the [[ControlTable_Dead_wood|Dead Wood control table]] (default 10 cm). Depending on decay class, a certain proportion of the dead wood is assumed standing dead trees, and the rest assumed downed, see table below.
 
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
 
| Dead Standing Coniferous Trees|| volume, m<sup>3</sup>/ha || Volume of dead standing trees of pine, spruce and birch. Larch is also included. When mortality occurs, part of the trees are assumed stand and part assumed lying.
 
| Dead Standing Coniferous Trees|| volume, m<sup>3</sup>/ha || Volume of dead standing trees of pine, spruce and birch. Larch is also included. When mortality occurs, part of the trees are assumed stand and part assumed lying.

Revision as of 15:56, 16 March 2016

This result group contains: Volume of dead wood per decay class.

Dead wood as a result of dead wood inventory data (if supplied or calculated), occurrence of mortality, and dead wood decay.

Note! All dead wood results refer to the stem part, including bark if any, above ground. Branches, foliage, tree tops, stumps and roots are input to the soil carbon model, i fnot extrcted as bio fuels.

Result variables

Variable name Unit Description
Carbon in Deadwood tonnes C/ha Carbon content in dead wood, based on the biomass (which differs between decay class) in stem and bark.
Dead Standing Trees volume, m3/ha Volume of dead standing trees, with a diameter &ge MinDiam; when the tree died. MinDiam is the minimum diameter for coarse wood set in the Dead Wood control table (default 10 cm). Depending on decay class, a certain proportion of the dead wood is assumed standing dead trees, and the rest assumed downed, see table below.
Dead Standing Coniferous Trees volume, m3/ha Volume of dead standing trees of pine, spruce and birch. Larch is also included. When mortality occurs, part of the trees are assumed stand and part assumed lying.
Dead Standing Deciduous Trees volume, m3/ha Volume of dead standing trees of broad-leaved trees. When mortality occurs, part of the trees are assumed stand and part assumed lying.
Downed Dead Wood volume, m3/ha Volume of downed standing trees.
Downed Dead Wood Coniferous volume, m3/ha
Downed Dead Wood Deciduous volume, m3/ha
Volume Decay Class 0-4 volume, m3/ha Volume of dead wood in a given decacy class.

Proportion standing and downed dead wood

Default decay class distribution

Carbon concentration per decay class

Values are given as percentage (%) of dead wood dry matter. Based on Sandström et al. 2007 (Table 10)[1]. For birch, no data was avaliable and has therefore been set to 50 % for all classes.

Decay Class Pine, Contorta and Larch Spruce Birch (and other species)
0 50.32 49.22 50.0
1 50.52 49.17 50.0
2 51.46 49.68 50.0
3 51.46 50.81 50.0
4 52.23 51.27 50.0

References

  1. Sandström, F., Petersson, H., Kruys, N., & Ståhl, G. (2007). Biomass conversion factors (density and carbon concentration) by decay classes for dead wood of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula spp. in boreal forests of Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume: 243, Number: 1, pp 19-27. http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8937/1/sandstrom_et_al_120612.pdf