[A & I plus PDF only]
COPYRIGHT: © Author(s) 2012. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright Copernicus GmbH 2012
Abstract
We determine the net land to atmosphere flux of carbon in Russia, including Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, using inventory-based, eddy covariance, and inversion methods. Our high boundary estimate is -342 Tg C yr-1 from the eddy covariance method, and this is close to the upper bounds of the inventory-based Land Ecosystem Assessment and inverse models estimates. A lower boundary estimate is provided at -1350 Tg C yr-1 from the inversion models. The average of the three methods is -613.5 Tg C yr-1 . The methane emission is estimated separately at 41.4 Tg C yr-1 .
These three methods agree well within their respective error bounds. There is thus good consistency between bottom-up and top-down methods. The forests of Russia primarily cause the net atmosphere to land flux (-692 Tg C yr-1 from the LEA. It remains however remarkable that the three methods provide such close estimates (-615, -662, -554 Tg C yr-1 ) for net biome production (NBP), given the inherent uncertainties in all of the approaches. The lack of recent forest inventories, the few eddy covariance sites and associated uncertainty with upscaling and undersampling of concentrations for the inversions are among the prime causes of the uncertainty. The dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) suggest a much lower uptake at -91 Tg C yr-1 , and we argue that this is caused by a high estimate of heterotrophic respiration compared to other methods.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer