Modelbased Tier 3 inventories

Model-based inventories are developed using empirical, process-based or other types of advanced models. It is good practice to have independent measurements to confirm that the model is capable of estimating emissions and removals in the source categories of interest (Prisley and Mortimer, 2004). In general, seven steps are used to implement a Tier 3 model-based inventory (Figure 2.7).

Step 1. Select/develop a model for calculating the stock changes and/or greenhouse gas emissions. A model should be selected or developed that more accurately represents stock changes or non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions than is possible with Tiers 1 and 2 approaches. As part of this decision, it is good practice to consider the availability of input data (Steps 3) and the computing resources needed to implement the model (Step 5).

Figure 2.7 Steps to develop a Tier 3 model-based inventory estimation system

Figure 2.7 Steps to develop a Tier 3 model-based inventory estimation system

Policy Factors

Step 2. Evaluation with calibration data. This is a critical step for inventory development in which model results are compared directly with measurements that were used for model calibration/parameterization (e.g., Falloon and Smith, 2002). Comparisons can be made using statistical tests and/or graphically, with the goal of demonstrating that the model effectively simulates measured trends for a variety of conditions in the source category of interest. It is good practice to ensure that the model responds appropriately to variations in activity data and that the model is able to report results by land-use category as per the conventions laid out in Chapter 3. Re-calibration of the model or modifications to the structure (i.e., algorithms) may be necessary if the model does not capture general trends or there are large systematic biases. In some cases, a new model may be selected or developed based on this evaluation. Evaluation results are an important component of the reporting documentation, justifying the use of a particular model for quantifying emissions in a source category.

Step 3. Gather spatio-temporal data on activities and relevant environmental conditions that are needed as inputs to a model. Models, even those used in Tiers 1 and 2 approaches, require specific input information in order to estimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with a source category. These inputs may range from weather and soils data to livestock number, forest types, natural disturbances or cropping management practices. It is good practice for the input data to be consistent with spatio-temporal scale of the model (i.e., algorithms). For example, if a model operates on a daily time step then the input data should provide information about daily variation in the environmental characteristic or activity data. In some cases, input data may be a limiting factor in model selection, requiring some models to be discarded as inappropriate given the available activity and/or environmental data.

Step 4. Quantify uncertainties. Uncertainties are due to imperfect knowledge about the activities or processes leading to greenhouse gas fluxes, and are typically manifested in the model structure and inputs. Consequently, uncertainty analyses are intended to provide a rigorous measure of the confidence attributed to a model estimate based on uncertainties in the model structure and inputs, generating a measure of variability in the carbon stock changes or non-CO2 greenhouse gas fluxes. Volume 1, Chapter 3 provides specific guidance on appropriate methods for conducting these analyses. Additional information may also be provided for specific source categories later in this volume.

Step 5. Implement the model. The major consideration for this step is that there are enough computing resources and personnel time to prepare the input data, conduct the model simulations, and analyze the results. This will depend on the efficiency of the programming script, complexity of the model, as well as the spatial and temporal extent and resolution of the simulations. In some cases, limitations in computing resources may constrain the complexity and range of spatial or temporal resolution that can be used in implementing at the national scale (i.e., simulating at finer spatial and temporal scales will require greater computing resources).

Step 6. Evaluation with independent data. It is important to realise the difference between Steps 2 and 6. Step 2 involves testing model output with field data that were used as a basis for calibration (i.e., parameterization). In contrast, evaluation with independent data is done with a completely independent set of data from model calibration, providing a more rigorous assessment of model components and results. Optimally, independent evaluation should be based on measurements from a monitoring network or from research sites that were not used to calibrate model parameters. The network would be similar in principle to a series of sites that are used for a measurement-based inventory. However, the sampling does not need to be as dense because the network is not forming the basis for estimating carbon stock changes or non-CO2 greenhouse gas fluxes, as in a purely measurement-based inventory, but is used to check model results.

In some cases, independent evaluation may demonstrate that the model-based estimation system is inappropriate due to large and unpredictable differences between model results and the measured trends from the monitoring network. Problems may stem from one of three possibilities: errors in the implementation step, poor input data, or an inappropriate model. Implementation problems typically arise from computer programming errors, while model inputs may generate erroneous results if these data are not representative of management activity or environmental conditions. In these two cases, it is good practice for the inventory developer to return to either Steps 3 or 6 depending on the issue. It seems less likely that the model would be inappropriate if Step 2 was deemed reasonable. However, if this is the case, it is good practice to return to the model selection/development phase (Step 1).

During Step 2 that follows the selection/development step, it is good practice to avoid using the independent evaluation data to re-calibrate or refine algorithms. If this occurs, these data would no longer be suitable for independent evaluation, and therefore not serve the purpose for Step 6 in this inventory approach.

Step 7. Reporting and Documentation. It is good practice to assemble inventory results in a systematic and transparent manner for reporting purposes. Documentation may include a description of the model, summary of model input data sources, model evaluation results including sources of experiments and/or measurements data from monitoring network, stock change and emissions estimates and the interpretation of emission trends (i.e., contributions of management activities). QA/QC should be completed and documented in the report. For details on QA/QC, reporting and documentation, see the section dealing with the specific source category later in this volume, as well as information provided in Volume 1, Chapter 6.


Andrea, M.O. and Merlet, P. (2001). Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15:955-966.

Armentano, T.V. and Menges, E.S. (1986). Patterns of change in the carbon balance of organic soil-wetlands of the temperate zone. Journal of Ecology 74: 755-774.

Baldocchi, D., Falge, E., Gu, L.H., Olson, R., Hollinger, D., Running, S., Anthoni, P., Bernhofer, C., Davis, K., Evans, R., Fuentes, J., Goldstein, A., Katul, G., Law, B., Lee, X.H., Malhi, Y., Meyers, T., Munger, W., Oechel, W., Pilegaard, K., Schmid, H.P., Valentini, R., Verma, S., Vesala, T., Wilson, K. and Wofsy, S. (2001). FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: pp. 2415-2434.

Bernoux, M., Carvalho, M.D.S., Volkoff, B. and Cerri, C.C. (2002). Brazil's soil carbon stocks. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:888-896.

Bhatti, J.S., Apps, M.J. and Jiang, H. (2001). Examining the carbon stocks of boreal forest ecosystems at stand and regional scales. In: Lal R. et al. (eds.) Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton FL, pp. 513-532.

Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. (1999). The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 881 pp.

Clymo, R.S. (1984). The limits to peat bog growth. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 303:605-654.

Conant, R.T., Paustian, K. and Elliott, E.T. (2001). Grassland management and conversion into grassland: Effects on soil carbon. Ecological Application 11:343-355.

Coomes, D.A., Allen, R.B., Scott, N.A., Goulding, C. and Beets, P. (2002). Designing systems to monitor carbon stocks in forests and shrublands. Forest Ecology and Management 164, pp. 89 - 108.

Davidson, E. A. and Ackerman, I.L. (1993). Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20:161-164.

Ellert, B.H., Janzen, H.H. and McConkey, B.G. (2001). Measuring and comparing soil carbon storage. In: R. Lal, J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds.). Soil Management for Enhancing Carbon Sequestration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.: pp. 593-610.

Falloon, P. and Smith, P. (2002). Simulating SOC changes in long-term experiments with the RothC and Century; model evaluation for a regional application. Soil Use and Management 18:101-111.

Falloon, P. and Smith, P. (2003). Accounting for changes in soil carbon under the Kyoto Protocol: need for improved long-term data sets to reduce uncertainty in model projections. Soil Use and Management 19:265-269.

Forbes, M.S., Raison, R.J. and Skjemstad, J.O. (2006). Formation, transformation and transport of black carbon (charcoal) in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Journal of the Science of the Total Environment (in press).

Gifford, R.M. and Roderick, M.L. (2003). Soil carbon stocks and bulk density: spatial and cumulative mass coordinates as a basis for expression? Global Change Biology 9:1507-1513.

Gorham, E. (1991). Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probably responses to climatic warming.

Ecological Applications 1:182-195.

Harmon, M.E. and Hua, C. (1991). Coarse woody debris dynamics in two old-growth ecosystems. BioScience 41: 604-610.

Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S.V., Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P., Aumen, N.G., Sedell, J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack, J.R. and Cummins, K.W. (1986). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133-302.

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories. Houghton J.T., Meira Filho L.G., Lim B., Tréanton K., Mamaty I., Bonduki Y., Griggs D.J. Callander B.A. (Eds). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.

IPCC (2000). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Penman J., Kruger D., Galbally I., Hiraishi T., Nyenzi B., Emmanuel S., Buendia L., Hoppaus R., Martinsen T., Meijer J., Miwa K., Tanabe K. (Eds). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan.

IPCC (2000). Watson R., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo D.J. and Dokken D.J. (Eds). Land use, Land-use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

IPCC (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Penman J., Gytarsky M., Hiraishi T., Krug, T., Kruger D., Pipatti R., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T., Tanabe K., Wagner F. (Eds).Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan.

Jobbagy, E.G. and Jackson, R.B. (2000). The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecological Applications 19(2): 423-436.

Karjalainen, L. and Kuuluvainen, T. (2002). Amount and diversity of coarse woody debris within a boreal forest landscape dominated by Pinus sylvestris in Vienansalo wilderness, eastern Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica 36(1): 147-167.

Kasimir-Klemedtsson, A, Klemedtsson, L., Berglund, K., Martikainen, P., Silvola, J. and Oenema, O. (1997). Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review. Soil Use and Management 13:245-250.

Krankina, O.N., Harmon, M.E., Kukuev, Y.A., Treyfeld, R.E., Kashpor, N.N., Kresnov, V.G., Skudin, V.M., Protasov, N.A., Yatskov, M., Spycher, G. and Povarov, E.D. (2002). Coarse woody debris in forest regions of Russia, Can.J. For. Res. 32: 768-778.

Kurz, W.A., Apps, M.J., Webb, T.M. and McNamee, P.J. (1992). The carbon budget of the Canadian forest sector: phase I. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region. Information Report NOR-X-326, 93 pp.

Lettens, S., van Orshoven, J., van Wesemael, B. and Muys, B. (2004). Soil organic and inorganic carbon contents of landscape units in Belgium derived using data from 1950 to 1970. Soil Use and Management 20: 40-47.

Mann, L.K. (1986). Changes in soil carbon storage after cultivation. Soil Science 142:279-288.

Martikainen, P.J., Nykanen, H., Alm, J. and Silvola, J. (1995). Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy. Plant & Soil 169: 571-577.

McGill, W. B. (1996). Review and classification of ten soil organic matter models. In: Powlson D.S., Smith P., and Smith J.U. (eds.). Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models Using Existing Long-Term Datasets. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg: pp. 111-132.

Nykanen, H., Alm, J., Lang, K., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P.J. (1995). Emissions of CH4, N2O, and CO2 from a virgin fen and a fen drained for grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography 22:351-357.

Ogle, S.M., Breidt, F.J., Eve, M.D. and Paustian, K. (2003). Uncertainty in estimating land-use and management impacts on soil organic carbon storage for U.S. agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. Global Change Biology 9:1521-1542.

Ogle, S.M., Breidt, F.J. and Paustian, K (2005). Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72:87-121.

Ogle, S.M., Conant, R.T. and Paustian, K. (2004). Deriving grassland management factors for a carbon accounting approach developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Environmental Management 33:474-484.

Paustian, K, Andren, O., Janzen, H.H., Lal, R., Smith, P., Tian, G., Tiessen, H., van Noordwijk, M. and Woomer, P.L. (1997). Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use and Management 13:230-244.

Preston, C.M. and Schmidt, M.W.I. (2006). Black (pyrogenic) carbon in the boreal forests:a synthesis of current knowledge and uncertainties. Biogeosciences Discussions 3,211-271.

Prisley, S.P. and Mortimer, M.J. (2004). A synthesis of literature on evaluation of models for policy applications, with implications for forest carbon accounting. Forest Ecology and Management 198:89103.

Shaw, C.H., Bhatti, J.S. and Sabourin, K.J. (2005). An ecosystem carbon database for Canadian forests. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Information Report NOR-X-403.

Siltanen et al. (1997). A soil profile and organic carbon data base for Canadian forest and tundra mineral soils. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta.

Sleutel, S, de Neve, S., Hofman, G., Boeckx, P., Beheydt, D., van Cleemput, O., Mestdagh, I., Lootens, P., Carlier, L., van Camp, N., Verbeeck, H., Vand Walle, I., Sampson, R., Lust, N. and Lemeur, R. (2003). Carbon stock changes and carbon sequestration potential of Flemish cropland soils. Global Change Biology 9:1193-1203.

Smith, J. E. and Heath, L.S. (2001). Identifying influences on model uncertainty: an application using a forest carbon budget model. Environmental Management 27:253-267.

Smith, P., Powlson, D.S., Smith, J.U. and Elliott, E.T. (eds) (1997b). Evaluation and comparison of soil organic matter models. Special Issue, Geoderma 81:1-225.

Smith, P. (2004a). Monitoring and verification of soil carbon changes under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.

Soil Use and Management 20: 264-270.

Smith, P. (2004b). How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected? Global Change Biology 10: 1878-1883.

Smith, S.V., Renwick, W.H., Buddemeier, R.W. and Crossland, C.J. (2001). Budgets of soil erosion and deposition for sediments and sedimentary organic carbon across the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15:697-707.

Smith, W.N., Desjardins, R.L. and Pattey, E. (2000). The net flux of carbon from agricultural soils in Canada 1970-2010. Global Change Biology 6:557-568.

Somogyi, Z., Cienciala, E., Makipaa, R., Muukkonen, P., Lehtonen, A. and Weiss, P. (2006). Indirect methods of large-scale forest biomass estimation. European Journal of Forest Research. DOI: 10.1007/s10342006-0125-7.

Tate, K.R., Wilde, R.H., Giltrap, D.J., Baisden, W.T., Saggar, S., Trustrum, N.A., Scott, N.A. and Barton, J.P. (2005). Soil organic carbon stocks and flows in New Zealand: measurement and modelling. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, in press.

Thormann M.N., Szumigalski A.R. and Bayley S.E. (1999). Above-ground peat and carbon accumulation potentials along a bog-fen-marsh wetland gradient in southern boreal Alberta, Canada. Wetlands 19 (2): 305-317.

Tremblay, S., Ouimet, R. and Houle, D. (2002). Prediction of organic carbon content in upland forest soils of Quebec, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 32: pp. 903-914.

VandenBygaart, A.J., Gregorich, E.G., Angers, D.A., et al. (2004). Uncertainty analysis of soil organic carbon stock change in Canadian cropland from 1991 to 2001. Global Change Biology 10:983-994.

Vogt, K.A., Vogt, D.J., Pamiotto, P.A., Boon, P., O'Hara, J. and Asbjornsen, H. (1996). Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type, and species. Plant and Soil 187: pp. 159-219.

Yavitt, J. B., Fahey, T.J. and Simmons, J.A. (1997). Methane and carbon dioxide dynamics in a northern hardwood ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59: 796-804.


1. Alexander, M. (1978). Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. Canadian Journal of Botany 60: p. 349-357.

2. Amiro, B., Todd, J. and Wotton, B. (2001). Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959-1999. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31: p. 512-525.

3. Araujo, T., Carvalho, J., Higuchi, N., Brasil, A. and Mesquita, A. (1999). A tropical rainforest clearing experiment by biomass burning in the state of Para, Brazil. Atmospheric Environment. 33: p. 1991-1998.

4. Barbosa, R. and Fearnside, P. (1996). Pasture burning in Amazonia: Dynamics of residual biomass and the storage and release of above-ground carbon. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(D20): p. 25847-25857.

5. Bilbao, B. and Medina, E. (1996). Types of grassland fires and nitrogen volatilization in tropical savannas of calabozo, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 2. Biomass burning in South America, Southeast Asia, and temperate and boreal ecosystems, and the oil fires of Kuwait, J. Levine, Editor. MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 569-574.

6. Cachier, H., Liousse, C., Pertusiot, M., Gaudichet, A., Echalar, F. and Lacaux, J. (1996). African fire Particulate emissions and atmospheric influence, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 1. Remote Sensing, Modeling and Inventory Development, and Biomass Burning in Africa, J. Levine, Editor. MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 428-440.

7. Carvalho, J., Higuchi, N., Araujo, T. and Santos, J. (1998). Combustion completeness in a rainforest clearing experiment in Manaus, Brazil. Journal of Geophysical Research. 103(D11): p. 13195.

8. Carvalho, J., Costa, F., Veras, C., et al. (2001). Biomass fire consumption and carbon release rates of rainforest-clearing experiments conducted in northern Mato Grosso, Brazil. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 106(D16): p. 17877-17887.

9. Cheyney, N., Raison, R. and Khana, P. (1980). Release of carbon to the atmosphere in Australian vegetation fires, in Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Australian Research, G. Pearman, Editor. Australian Academy of Science: Canberra. p. 153-158.

10. Cofer, W., Levine, J., Winstead, E. and Stocks, B. (1990). Gaseous emissions from Canadian boreal forest fires. Atmospheric Environment, 24A(7): p. 1653-1659.

11. Cofer, W., Winstead, E., Stocks, B., Goldammer, J. and Cahoon, D. (1998). Crown fire emissions of CO2, CO, H2, CH4, and TNMHC from a dense jack pine boreal forest fire. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(21): p. 3919-3922.

12. De Castro, E.A. and Kauffman, J.B. (1998). Ecosystem structure in the Brazilian Cerrado: a vegetation gradient of above-ground biomass, root mass and consumption by fire. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 14(3): p. 263-283.

13. Delmas, R. (1982). On the emission of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in the atmosphere during bushfires in intertropical savannah zones.

Geophysical Research Letters, 9(7): p. 761-764.

14. Einfeld, W., Ward, D. and Hardy, C. (1991). Effects of fire behaviour on prescribed fire smoke characteristics: A case study, in Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 412-419.

15. Fearnside, P., Filho, N. and Fernandes, F. (1993). Rainforest burning and the global carbon budget: biomass, combustion efficiency and charcoal formation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 98(D9): p. 16733-16743.

16. Fearnside, P., Graca, P., Filho, N., Rodrigues, J. and Robinson, J. (1999). Tropical forest burning in Brazilian Amazonia: measurement of biomass loading, burning efficiency and charcoal formation at Altamira, Para. Forest Ecology and Management, 123: p. 65-79.

17. Fearnside, P., Graca, P. and Rodrigues, J. (2001). Burning of Amazonian rainforests: burning efficiency and charcoal formation in forest cleared for cattle pasture near Manaus, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 146: p. 115-128.

18. Feller, M. (1998). The influence of fire severity, not fire intensity, on understory vegetation biomass in British Columbia. in 13th Fire and Forest Meteorology Conference. Lorne, Australia: IAWF.

19. Flinn, D., Hopmans, P., Farell, P. and James, J. (1979). Nutrient loss from the burning of Pinus radiata logging residue. Australian Forest Research, 9: p. 17-23.

20. Garnett, M., Ineson, P. and Stevenson, A. (2000). Effects of burning and grazing on carbon sequestration in a Pennine blanket bog, UK. Holocene, 10(6): p. 729-736.

21. Graca, P., Fearnside, P. and Cerri, C. (1999). Burning of Amazonian forest in Ariquemes, Rondonia, Brazil: biomass, charcoal formation and burning efficiency. Forest Ecology and Management, 120: p. 179-191.

22. Griffin, G. and Friedel, M. (1984). Effects of fire on central Australian rangelands. I Fire and fuel characteristics and changes in herbage and nutrients. Australian Journal of Ecology, 9: p. 381-393.

23. Guild, L., Kauffman, J., Ellingson, L. and Cummings, D. (1998). Dynamics associated with total above-ground biomass, C, nutrient pools, and biomass burning of primary forest and pasture in Rondonia, Brazil during SCAR-B. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 103(D24): p. 32091-32100.

24. Gupta, P., Prasad, V., Sharma, C., Sarkar, A., Kant, Y., Badarinath, K. and Mitra, A. (2001). CH4 emissions from biomass burning of shifting cultivation areas of tropical deciduous forests - experimental results from ground - based measurements. Chemosphere - Global Change Science, 3: p. 133-143.

25. Harwood, C. and Jackson, W. (1975). Atmospheric losses of four plant nutrients during a forest fire. Australian Forestry, 38(2): p. 9299.

26. Hobbs, P. and Gimingham, C. (1984). Studies on fire in Scottish heathland communities. Journal of Ecology, 72: p. 223-240.

27. Hobbs, P., Reid, J., Herring, J., et al.(1996). Particle and trace-gas measurements from prescribed burns of forest products in the Pacific Northwest, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 2. Biomass burning in South America, Southeast Asia, and temperate and boreal ecosystems, and the oil fires of Kuwait, J. Levine, Editor. MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 697-715.

28. Hoffa, E., Ward, D., Hao, W., Susott, R. and Wakimoto, R. (1999). Seasonality of carbon emissions from biomass burning in a Zambian savanna. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 104(D11): p. 13841-13853.

29. Hopkins, B.(1965). Observations on savanna burning in the Olokemeji forest reserve, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2(2): p. 367-381.

30. Hughes, R., Kauffman, J. and Cummings, D. (2000). Fire in the Brazilian Amazon 3. Dynamics of biomass, C, and nutrient pools in regenerating forests. Oecologia, 124(4): p. 574-588.

31. Hurst, D., Griffith, W. and Cook, G. (1994). Trace gas emissions from biomass burning in tropical Australian savannas. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(D8): p. 16441-16456.

32. Jackson, W. (2000). Nutrient stocks in Tasmanian vegetation and approximate losses due to fire. Papers and proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, 134: p. 1-18.

33. Kasischke, E., French, N., Bourgeau-Chavez, L. and Christensen, N. (1995). Estimating release of carbon from 1990 and 1991 forest fires in Alaska. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 100(D2): p. 2941-2951.

34. Kauffman, J. and Uhl, C. (1990). 8 interactions of anthropogenic activities, fire, and rain forests in the Amazon Basin, in Fire in the Tropical Biota: Ecosystem Processes and Global Changes, J. Goldammer, Editor. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 117-134.

35. Kauffman, J., Sanford, R., Cummings, D., Salcedo, I. and Sampaio, E. (1993). Biomass and nutrient dynamics associated with slash fires in neotropical dry forests. Ecology, 74(1): p. 140-151.

36. Kauffman, J., Cummings, D. and Ward, D. (1994). Relationships of fire, biomass and nutrient dynamics along a vegetation gradient in the Brazilian cerrado. Journal of Ecology, 82: p. 519-531.

37. Kauffman, J., Cummings, D., Ward, D. and Babbitt, R. (1995). Fire in the Brazilian Amazon: 1. Biomass, nutrient pools, and losses in slashed primary forests. Oecologia, 104: p. 397-408.

38. Kauffman, J., Cummings, D. and Ward, D. (1998). Fire in the Brazilian Amazon: 2. Biomass, nutrient pools and losses in cattle pastures. Oecologia, 113: p. 415-427.

39. Kayll, A. (1966). Some characteristics of heath fires in north-east Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 3(1): p. 29-40.

40. Kiil, A. (1969). Fuel consumption by a prescribed burn in spruce-fir logging slash in Alberta. The Forestry Chronicle, : p. 100-102.

41. Kiil, A.(1975). Fire spread in a black spruce stand. Canadian Forestry Service Bi-Monthly Research Notes, 31(1): p. 2-3.

42. Lacaux, J., Cachier, H. and Delmas, R. (1993). Biomass burning in Africa: an overview of its impact on atmospheric chemistry, in Fire in the Environment: The Ecological, Atmospheric, and Climatic Importance of Vegetation Fires, P. Crutzen and J. Goldammer, Editors. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. p. 159-191.

43. Lavoue, D., Liousse, C., Cachier, H., Stocks, B. and Goldammer, J. (2000). Modeling of carbonaceous particles emitted by boreal and temperate wildfires at northern latitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 105(D22): p. 26871-26890.

44. Levine, J. (2000). Global biomass burning: a case study of the gaseous and particulate emissions released to the atmosphere during the 1997 fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia, in Biomass Burning and its Inter-relationships with the Climate System, J. Innes, M. Beniston, and M. Verstraete, Editors. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. p. 15-31.

45. Levine, J. and Cofer, W. (2000). Boreal forest fire emissions and the chemistry of the atmosphere, in Fire, Climate Change and Carbon Cycling in the Boreal Forest, E. Kasischke and B. Stocks, Editors. Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 31-48.

46. Marsdon-Smedley, J. and Slijepcevic, A. (2001). Fuel characteristics and low intensity burning in Eucalyptus obliqua wet forest at the Warra LTER site. Tasforests, 13(2): p. 261-279.

47. Mazurek, M., Cofer, W. and Levine, J. (1991). Carbonaceous aerosols from prescribed burning of a boreal forest ecosystem, in Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 258-263.

48. McNaughton, S., Stronach, N. and Georgiadis, N. (1998). Combustion in natural fires and global emissions budgets. Ecological Applications, 8(2): p. 464-468.

49. McRae, D. and Stocks, B. (1987). Large-scale convection burning in Ontario. in Ninth Conference on Fire and Forest Metearology. San Diego, California: American Meterological Society.

50. Moula, M., Brustet, J., Eva, H., Lacaux, J., Gregoire, J. and Fontan, J. (1996). Contribution of the Spread-Fire Model in the study of savanna fires, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 1. Remote Sensing, Modeling and Inventory Development, and Biomass Burning in Africa, J. Levine, Editor. MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 270-277.

51. Neil, R., Stronach, N. and McNaughton, S. (1989). Grassland fire dynamics in the Serengeti ecosystem, and a potential method of retrospectively estimating fire energy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26: p. 1025-1033.

52. Pivello, V. and Coutinho, L. (1992). Transfer of macro-nutrients to the atmosphere during experimental burnings in an open cerrado (Brazilian savanna). Journal of Tropical Ecology, 8: p. 487-497.

53. Prasad, V., Kant, Y., Gupta, P., Sharma, C., Mitra, A. and Badarinath, K. (2001). Biomass and combustion characteristics of secondary mixed deciduous forests in Eastern Ghats of India. Atmospheric Environment, 35(18): p. 3085-3095.

54. Raison, R., Khana, P. and Woods, P. (1985). Transfer of elements to the atmosphere during low intensity prescribed fires in three Australian subalpine eucalypt forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 15: p. 657-664.

55. Robertson, K. (1998). Loss of organic matter and carbon during slash burns in New Zealand exotic forests. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 28(2): p. 221-241.

56. Robinson, J. (1989). On uncertainty in the computation of global emissions from biomass burning. Climatic Change, 14: p. 243-262.

57. Shea, R., Shea, B., Kauffman, J., Ward, D., Haskins, C. and Scholes, M. (1996). Fuel biomass and combustion factors associated with fires in savanna ecosystems of South Africa and Zambia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(D19): p. 23551-23568.

58. Slijepcevic, A. (2001). Loss of carbon during controlled regeneration burns in Eucalyptus obliqua forest. Tasforests, 13(2): p. 281-289.

59. Smith, D. and James, T. (1978). Characteristics of prescribed burns andresultant short-term environmental changes in Populus tremuloides woodland in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany, 56: p. 1782-1791.

60. Soares, R. and Ribeiro, G. (1998). Fire behaviour and tree stumps sprouting in Eucalyptus prescribed burnings in southern Brazil. in III International Conference on Forest Fire Research / 14th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. Luso.

61. Sorrensen, C. (2000). Linking smallholder land use and fire activity: examining biomass burning in the Brazilian Lower Amazon.

Forest Ecology and Management, 128(1-2): p. 11-25.

62. Stewart, H. and Flinn, D. (1985). Nutrient losses from broadcast burning of Eucalyptus debris in north-east Victoria. Australian Forest Research, 15: p. 321-332.

63. Stocks, B. (1987). Fire behaviour in immature jack pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 17: p. 80-86.

64. Stocks, B. (1989). Fire behaviour in mature jack pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 19: p. 783-790.

65. Stocks, B., van Wilgen B., Trollope W., McRae D., Mason J., Weirich F. and Potgieter A. (1996). Fuels and fire behaviour dynamics on large-scale savanna fires in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(D19): p. 23541-23550.

66. Stocks, B. and Kauffman, J. (1997). Biomass consumption and behaviour of wildland fires in boreal, temperate, and tropical ecosystems: parameters necessary to interpret historic fire regimes and future fire scenarios, in Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global Change, J. Clark, et al., Editors. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 169-188.

67. Susott, R., Ward D., Babbitt R. and Latham D. (1991). The measurement of trace emissions and combustion characteristics for a mass fire, in Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 245-257.

68. Turetsky, M. and Wieder, R. (2001). A direct approach to quantifying organic matter lost as a result of peatland wildfire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31(2): p. 363-366.

69. Van Wagner, C. (1972). Duff consumption by fire in eastern pine stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2: p. 34-39.

70. van Wilgen, B., Le Maitre, D. and Kruger, F. (1985). Fire behaviour in South African fynbos (macchia) vegetation and predictions from Rothermel's fire model. Journal of Applied Ecology, 22: p. 207-216.

71. Vose, J. and Swank, W. (1993). Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: above-ground biomass, forest floor mass, and nitrogen and carbon pools. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23: p. 2255-2262.

72. Walker, J. (1981). Fuel dynamics in Australian vegetation, in Fire and the Australian Biota, A. Gill, R. Groves, and I. Noble, Editors. Australian Academy of Science: Canberra. p. 101-127.

73. Ward, D., Susott, R., Kauffman, J., et al. (1992). Smoke and fire characteristics for Cerrado and deforestation burns in Brazil: BASE-B Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(D13): p. 14601-14619.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Guide to Alternative Fuels

Guide to Alternative Fuels

Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment