Upload
harvey-barker
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
US Forest Disturbance Trends observed with Landsat Time Series
Samuel N. Goward1 (PI), Jeffrey Masek2, Warren Cohen3, Gretchen Moisen4, Chengquan Huang1,
Robert Kennedy5, Karen Schleeweis1, Rama Nemani6
1Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park MD2Biospheric Sciences Lab, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 3U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR4U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT5Earth and Environment Dept., Boston University, Boston MA6NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Biomass
BiologicC Flux
Atmosphericsource
Disturbance, Age Structure, and Carbon
Old
Disturbance Dominated
Regrowth Dominated ar
ea h
isto
gram
s
Balanced
time
Understanding the history of land use, management, and disturbance is critical because disturbance and recovery are major determinants of the net terrestrial carbon flux.” - 2007 SOCCR (SAP 2.2)
• 56 NACP project descriptions include “Disturbance”
• NACP Disturbance Synthesis 2010-2011 (Kasischke)
• JGR-B Special Section “Impacts of Disturbance on the North American Carbon Cycle”
• Many new products, analyses
Forest Disturbance and NACP
North American Forest Dynamics (NAFD): Landsat-based sample of US forest disturbance
•50 sample scenes across US; probability-based sample for area estimates (East, West strata)•Annual time series of Landsat data for each sample (1985-2005)•Disturbance events mapped using Vegetation Change Tracker (VCT approach) (Huang et al, 2010)
NAFD National Disturbance Rates estimates%
US
For
est
Cov
er D
istu
rbed
1985-2005 average = 2.77 Mha/yr (+/- 0.76) = 1.1% US Forest Land
Masek et al, in review
Masek e
t al (2
008)
Hans
en et
al (2
010)
NAFD (
raw)
NAFD (
adjus
t)
FIA Ag
e
Inven
tories
Medde
ns (2
012)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Insects (USFS, 2010)
Fire (EPA, 2010)
Harvest (Smith et al, 2009)
Western Insect Mortality (2005-10)F
ore
st A
rea
Dis
turb
ed
(Mha
/yr)
Estimates of US Disturbance Rates
US Forest Carbon Fluxes from Recent Disturbance (Williams et al., 2012 GBC; in review RSE)
• CASA calibrated to match FIA biomass-age curves for each forest type & region
• Landscape age distribution from FIA and NAFD time since disturbance
• Landscape-scale estimates of NPP, NEP, biomass based on age, type, region
NAFD Phase III
• Annual Time Series (1972 -2012) • Wall-to-wall (440 * 40+ = > 17,000 annual maps) via NEX
computing environment (Nemani – NASA ARC)• Systematic Validation (Cohen – USFS PNW)• Disturbance Causes (Moisen USFS RMS)• Regrowth Dynamics (Masek – NASA GSFC)
0 %disturbed /yr
LEDAPS Disturbance Map 1990-2000 (Masek et al., 2008)
>2.0
Conclusions
• US Forest Disturbance Rates estimated at 1.1%/yr from 1985-2005 via NAFD Landsat analysis… but RS methods tend to miss considerable
partial disturbance (thinning, insect mortality, storm damage)
• Overall disturbance rates varied by ~x2 during mapping epoch
• Western variability driven by fire, insects; Eastern variability driven by management (GDP?)
Forest Carbon Dynamics
“The relative importance of these broad factors in accounting for the current [forest carbon] sink is unknown… Understanding the history of land use, management, and disturbance is critical because disturbance and recovery are major determinants of the net terrestrial carbon flux.” - 2007 SOCCR (SAP 2.2)
US Forest Biomass and C Storage Potential (PgC)
US forests could ~double current stocks
Williams et al., in review
NAFD Staff & CollaboratorsUniversity of Maryland (Goward, Huang)
Feng ZhouResearch Associate
Mary Ann LindseyGRA
Louis KeddellGRA
Elaine DenningGRA
CollaboratorsLiz LaPointUSFS FIA
J. Collatz NASA GSFC
Bev Law OSU
J. Dwyer USGS/EROS
Z. Zhu USGS
H. BastianUSGS
USFS PNW/OSU (Cohen, Kennedy)Stephen StehmanSyracuse University
Zhiqiang YangResearch Associate
Peder NelsonGRA
USFS RMRS (Moisen)Karen Schleeweis Todd Schroeder Chris Toney
NASA GSFC (Masek)Chris Neigh Khaldoun Rishwami