Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Estimating the Uncertainty and Validation of Basic Wood Density for Pinus densiflora in Korea

소나무 용적밀도의 적용성 및 불확도 평가

  • Pyo, Jung-Kee (Division of Forest management, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Son, Yeong-Mo (Division of Forest management, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Kyeong-Hak (Division of Forest management, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Kim, Rae-Hyun (Division of Forest management, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Kim, Yeong-Hwan (Division of Forest management, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Young-Jin (Department of Forest Resources, Kongju National University)
  • 표정기 (국립산림과학원 탄소경영연구) ;
  • 손영모 (국립산림과학원 탄소경영연구) ;
  • 이경학 (국립산림과학원 탄소경영연구) ;
  • 김래현 (국립산림과학원 탄소경영연구) ;
  • 김영환 (국립산림과학원 탄소경영연구) ;
  • 이영진 (공주대학교 산림자원학과)
  • Received : 2010.09.20
  • Accepted : 2010.11.11
  • Published : 2010.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

According to the IPCC guideline (2006), uncertainty assessment is very important in terms of the greenhouse gas inventory. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to estimate the basic wood density (BWD) and its uncertainty for Pinus densiflora in Korea. In this study, Pinus densiflora forests were divided into two ecotypes which were Gangwon and Jungbu regions. A total of 33 representative sampling plots was selected to collect sample trees after considering the tree ages and DBH distributions. The BWD showed statistically no difference between age classes based on IPCC's classification. While, it showed statistically difference(pvalue=0.0017) between eco-types. The BWD and uncertainty was 0.396(g/$cm^3$) and 12.9(%) for Pinus densiflora in Gangwon, while it was 0.470(g/$cm^3$) and 3.8(%) for Pinus densiflora in Jungbu. The values of the BWD uncertainty for Pinus densiflora were more precised than the values given by the IPCC guideline.

본 연구의 목적은 우리나라 대표 수종인 소나무(Pinus densiflora)의 정확한 용적밀도(Basic wood density)를 산출하고, 용적밀도의 불확도(Uncertainty)를 평가하는데 있다. 소나무림의 지역적인 분포 차이를 고려하여 강원지방 소나무와 중부지방소나무로 구분하였으며, 전국적으로 총 33개소의 조사구를 선정한 후, 각 조사구를 대표하는 표본목을 채취하여 분석하였다. 용적밀도의 경우, IPCC 기준임령에 따른 20년생 이전의 유령림과 21년생 이후의 성숙림 간에 통계적인 유의성이 나타나지 않은 반면, 강원지방소나무와 중부지방소나무간의 지역적인 차이에서는 통계적인 유의성(p-value=0.0017)이 나타났다. 강원지방소나무의 용적밀도와 불확도는 0.396(g/$cm^3$)과 12.9(%)로 산출된 반면에, 중부지방소나무는 각각 0.470(g/$cm^3$)과 3.8(%)로 나타났다. 따라서 본 연구에서 제시된 소나무의 용적밀도에 대한 불확도는 IPCC(2006)가 권장하는 불확도의 범위보다 훨씬 더 정밀한 값을 나타내었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립산림과학원. 2007. 산림 바이오매스 및 토양탄소 조사.분석 표준. 국립산림과학원. pp. 74.
  2. 박인협, 박민수, 이경학, 손영모, 서정호, 손요한, 이영진. 2005. 소나무의 생태형과 임령에 따른 물질 현존량 확 장계수. 한국임학회 94: 441-445.
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO). 2006. Global forest resources assessment 2005. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  4. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 1. General Guidance and Reporting. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. pp. 3.6-3.78.
  5. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. pp. 4.73.
  6. Kangas, A.S. and Kangas, J. 2004. Probability, possibility and evidence : approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00083-7
  7. Lauenroth, W.K., Wade, A.A., Williamson, M.A., Ross, B.E., Kumar, S. and Cariveau, D.P. 2006. Uncertainty in calculations of net primary production for grasslands. Ecosystems 9: 843-851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0072-z
  8. Lehtonen, A., Mäkipää, R., Heikkinen, J., Sievänen, R. and Liski, J. 2004. Biomass Expansion factor(BEFs) for Scotes pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 188: 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.07.008
  9. Macfarlane, D.W., Edwin, J.G. and Harry, T.V. 2000. Incorporating uncertainty into the parameters of a forest process model. Ecological Modelling 134: 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00329-X
  10. Monte, L., Lars, H., Ulla, B., John, B. and Rudie, H. 1996. Uncertainty analysis and validation of environmental models : The empirically based uncertainty analysis. Ecological Modelling 91: 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00185-9
  11. Refsgaard, J.C., Jeroen, P.V.D.S., Anker, L.H. and Peter, A.V. 2007. Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process-A framework and guidance. Environmental Modelling and Software 22: 1543-1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.02.004
  12. Peltoniemi, M., Palosuo, T., Monni, S. and Makipaa, R. 2006. Factors affecting the uncertainty of sinks and stocks of carbon in Finnish forests soil and vegetation. Forest Ecology and Management 232: 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.045
  13. SAS Institute, Inc., 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC.
  14. Fujiwara, T., Yamashita, K. and Kuroda, K. 2007. Basic densities as a parameter for estimating the amount of carbon removal by forests and their variation. 森林綜合硏究所報告 6(4): 215-226.
  15. Winiwarter, W., and Kristin, R. 2001. Assessing the uncertainty associated with national greenhouse gas emission inventories : A case study for Austria. Atmospheric Environment 35: 5425-5440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00171-6
  16. Woodlley, T.J., Harmon, M.E. and O'connell, K.B. 2007. Estimating annual bole biomass production using uncertainty analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 253: 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.052