No abstract

Background: To accurately and efficiently quantify forest carbon stocks, a good forest inventory using appropriate sampling that minimizes costs and human effort is needed for landowners who want to enter carbon offset markets. The most commonly used sampling unit is the fixed-area plot; however, it is time consuming, expensive, and is often less accurate than variable probability methods when resources are limited. Previous studies show that big BAF sampling is efficient at estimating volume, therefore, it is interesting to explore whether the efficiency can be extended to carbon. The study is conducted at Noonan Research Forest, which located 30 km northwest of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. In this study, we compared count BAF effects and measure BAF effects on the overall sampling outcome and sampling error for total aboveground C and each C component (wood, bark, branches, and foliage) and explored the minimum sample size requirements and costs for different combinations of count and measure BAFs. Results: From our research, we found that the efficiency gained from estimating volume using big BAF sampling can be extended to carbon estimation. The minimum overall inventory cost from this study is $3500 Canadian, compared to a full Noonan inventory costs of $40,000 with 2% standard error. We also found that, similar to volume, count BAF has a larger effect on carbon estimation than measure BAF and the optimum choice of measure BAF depends on the choice of count BAF. The optimal count BAF and measure BAF combination for Noonan Research Forest was 2/24. Conclusion: Our results show that big BAF sampling was a very efficient sampling design for estimating carbon and significantly reduces overall inventory costs. Although big BAF sampling is not widely used in forest inventory, it should be considered by landowners facing the cost constraint barrier for entering carbon market and seeking a cost-effective inventory system for estimating carbon.

No abstract

Efficient subsampling designs reduce forest inventory costs by focusing sampling efforts on more variable forest attributes. Sector subsampling is an efficient and accurate alternative to big basal area factor (big BAF) sampling to estimate the mean basal area to biomass ratio. In this study, we apply sector subsampling of spherical images to estimate aboveground biomass and compare our image-based estimates with field data collected from three early spacing trials on western Newfoundland Island in eastern Canada. The results show that sector subsampling of spherical images produced increased sampling errors of 0.3–3.4 per cent with only about 60 trees measured across 30 spherical images compared with about 4000 trees measured in the field. Photo-derived basal area was underestimated because of occluded trees; however, we implemented an additional level of subsampling, collecting field-based basal area counts, to correct for bias due to occluded trees. We applied Bruce’s formula for standard error estimation to our three-level hierarchical subsampling scheme and showed that Bruce’s formula is generalizable to any dimension of hierarchical subsampling. Spherical images are easily and quickly captured in the field using a consumer-grade 360° camera and sector subsampling, including all individual tree measurements, were obtained using a custom-developed python software package. The system is an efficient and accurate photo-based alternative to field-based big BAF subsampling.

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning has been increasingly applied in forest ecosystem surveys. Data from LiDAR describe forest structure and provide attribute information for forest inventory. These attributes can potentially aid in the estimation of biomass and carbon by providing sampling covariates. Therefore, this study explored the accuracy of estimating carbon storage by calibrating LiDAR attributes using list sampling with a ratio estimator. Standing tree carbon and down woody debris carbon were estimated across 10 broad forest types. LiDAR-derived gross total volume was used as a listing factor and big BAF samples to collect field data. Gross total volumes were “corrected” using a ratio estimator. The results show that standing tree carbon was 58.5 Mg C × ha-1 (± 2.9% SE), and dead woody debris carbon 1.8 Mg C × ha-1 (± 7.2% SE). With the exception of one forest type, these estimates were comparable to those derived from the carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector (CBM-CFS3).