Variability and uncertainty in forest biomass estimates from the tree to landscape scale: the role of allometric equations

Table 5 Comparison of aboveground tree biomass (stump included, foliage excluded for all allometric equations) for tree species common in our study area, but not destructively sampled

Species	Local—Jenkins		Local—FIA-CRM		Jenkins—FIA-CRM
Species	Mean diff (kg)	Mean relative diff (%)	Mean diff (kg)	Mean relative diff (%)	Mean diff (kg)	Mean relative diff (%)
Engelmann spruce	− 20.2	− 15.6	67.8	33.4	83.4	41.2
Subalpine fir	− 60.8	− 116.3	NA	NA	60.8	44.2
Quaking aspen	− 35.1	− 30.0	12.4	23.3	47.9	41.2

Local biomass estimates for Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and aspen were made using allometric equations from Landis and Mogren [52], FIA-CRM, and Johnston and Bartos [53], respectively
The relative differences were calculated by dividing each tree biomass difference by the minuend. FIA-CRM was used to estimate tree-level biomass in both the local and FIA-CRM scenario, so their difference is not applicable

ISSN: 1750-0680