Quantifying the influence of wood carbon fractions on tree- and forest ecosystem-scale carbon estimation in a temperate forest

Abstract. Accurate forest carbon (C) accounting is critical for understanding the role forests play in the global C cycle. Forest C accounting relies on wood carbon fractions (CF) in order to convert estimates of tree biomass into C stock estimates, which are then upscaled to estimate forest C stocks at larger spatial scales. Generic wood CFs are often used in C accounting frameworks, despite evidence suggesting this trait varies widely across species, and that this variability influences our understanding of C stocks in trees and forests. Here, we couple data from over 39,000 trees in a 13.5-ha forest dynamics plot in central Ontario, Canada, with open-access wood CF databases, to quantify how wood CFs influence C stock estimates at individual tree- through to 400 m2 and 1-ha forest ecosystem scales. In comparison to generalized wood CF assumptions (e.g., assuming a 50 % CF or using wood CFs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), species-specific wood CFs significantly influence C estimates at multiple scales. In comparison to species-specific wood CF data, tree-level estimates derived from other wood CF assumptions were biased by 0.8–3.9 kg of C per tree on average, with differences ranging up to > 500 kg of C in large trees. While relatively small, these tree-level differences compound at larger spatial scales, with C stocks estimated using generalized wood CFs differing by 1.3–3.2 Mg of C ha−1 on average vs. those generated using species-specific wood CFs. These forest-scale discrepancies in C estimates increase in forest stands with high amounts of aboveground biomass in large trees and greater proportions of gymnosperms, in some instances exceeding 23.5 Mg of C ha−1 in especially biomass-dense gymnosperm-dominated forest stands. When extrapolated to the temperate forest biome, our results indicate that a 50 % wood CF assumption—historically and presently one of the most common methodological assumptions in forest C research—overestimates global C stocks by 2.2–2.5 Pg of C. Our study is among the first to examine how wood CF assumptions influence tree- and forest-scale C accounting. We specifically demonstrate that species-specific wood CF data—especially for species that comprise the largest trees—are critical to ensuring accurate C stock estimates derived from forest and tree inventory data.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biogeosciences
Published
2026-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5811-2026
Primary Topic
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantifying the influence of wood carbon fractions on tree- and forest ecosystem-scale carbon estimation in a temperate forest

Sean C. Thomas, Adam R. Martin, Adam Gorgolewski, Audrey Barker Plotkin et al.
Biogeosciences
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
article

Quantifying the influence of wood carbon fractions on tree- and forest ecosystem-scale carbon estimation in a temperate forest

Sean C. Thomas, Adam R. Martin, Adam Gorgolewski, Audrey Barker Plotkin, Leeladarshini Sujeeun, Mahendra Doraisami, Benton N. Taylor, David A. Orwig, Rachel. O. Mariani, Mark Givelas, Dilene Mugenzi
article en

Abstract

Abstract. Accurate forest carbon (C) accounting is critical for understanding the role forests play in the global C cycle. Forest C accounting relies on wood carbon fractions (CF) in order to convert estimates of tree biomass into C stock estimates, which are then upscaled to estimate forest C stocks at larger spatial scales. Generic wood CFs are often used in C accounting frameworks, despite evidence suggesting this trait varies widely across species, and that this variability influences our understanding of C stocks in trees and forests. Here, we couple data from over 39,000 trees in a 13.5-ha forest dynamics plot in central Ontario, Canada, with open-access wood CF databases, to quantify how wood CFs influence C stock estimates at individual tree- through to 400 m2 and 1-ha forest ecosystem scales. In comparison to generalized wood CF assumptions (e.g., assuming a 50 % CF or using wood CFs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), species-specific wood CFs significantly influence C estimates at multiple scales. In comparison to species-specific wood CF data, tree-level estimates derived from other wood CF assumptions were biased by 0.8–3.9 kg of C per tree on average, with differences ranging up to > 500 kg of C in large trees. While relatively small, these tree-level differences compound at larger spatial scales, with C stocks estimated using generalized wood CFs differing by 1.3–3.2 Mg of C ha−1 on average vs. those generated using species-specific wood CFs. These forest-scale discrepancies in C estimates increase in forest stands with high amounts of aboveground biomass in large trees and greater proportions of gymnosperms, in some instances exceeding 23.5 Mg of C ha−1 in especially biomass-dense gymnosperm-dominated forest stands. When extrapolated to the temperate forest biome, our results indicate that a 50 % wood CF assumption—historically and presently one of the most common methodological assumptions in forest C research—overestimates global C stocks by 2.2–2.5 Pg of C. Our study is among the first to examine how wood CF assumptions influence tree- and forest-scale C accounting. We specifically demonstrate that species-specific wood CF data—especially for species that comprise the largest trees—are critical to ensuring accurate C stock estimates derived from forest and tree inventory data.

BiogeosciencesVol. 23(16)
Harvard University (US), University of Toronto (CA), Scarborough Health Network (CA), Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (US), U.S. National Arboretum (US), Haliburton Forest & Wild Life Reserve (CA)
Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 100%
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.