Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation
Do you wish to request the book?
Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation
2018
Overview
Analysis of long‐term trends in forest carbon stocks is challenged by interactions among climate change, wildfire and other disturbances, forest management actions, and heterogeneous vegetation responses. For such circumstances where complex interactions make it difficult to encompass the full range of processes in any one mode of analysis, expert elicitation is a well‐developed method for documenting judgments about uncertainty, based on available evidence, to inform ongoing decision‐making. Applying this method for the Sierra Nevada, we evaluate subjective probabilistic estimates of trends in aboveground forest carbon for different management scenarios toward the goal of maximizing carbon stored, while also considering implications for wildfire risk. The analysis examines the effects of four treatments in isolation (thinning, timber harvesting, prescribed burning, managed wildfire), as well as a user‐defined management portfolio allocating resources across five management practices (thinning, harvesting, prescribed burning, firefighting, and restoration). The expert elicitation suggests that aboveground forest carbon stocks will decline 8%, from 126 to 116 tC/ha, between 2030 and 2100 (median estimate across experts) assuming conventional forest management practices are continued. Out of all surveyed practices, the custom user‐defined management portfolio results in the highest carbon stock of 129 tC/ha which is 11% higher than conventional practice in 2100 at the 50th percentile. The expert elicitation indicates less beneficial carbon sequestration outcomes than recent modeling studies. Suggesting co‐benefits across objectives, 75 experts collectively estimate a 61% likelihood that managing for carbon also reduces wildfire risk. By contrast, decreases in carbon stocks are anticipated for large magnitudes of climate change or substantial decreases in forest management investments.
