# Presentation: 817083

## Topics

- Forests, Land Cover, Land Use and Carbon
- New England
- Black Sea Region (Romania and Georgia)
- Clouds (briefly)
- Multitemporal sets of images
- Cirrus

## THE EFFECTS OF LAND USE CHANGE ON THE TERRESTRIAL CARBON BUDGETS OF NEW ENGLAND 

- Sung Bae Jeon, Curtis E. Woodcock, Feng Zhao, Xiaoyuan Yang,
- Richard A. Houghton* and Joseph L. Hackler*

- Department of Geography and Environment, Boston University
- 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA
- *The Woods Hole Research Center, PO Box 296, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA
- _[sjeon@bu.edu](mailto:sjeon@bu.edu)_

**Concord, MA**

## Background

**New England Forest Change**
_**17**__**th**__**~18th Century**_**- Large areas of forest were converted to agricultural land due to European settlement.**
_**Mid-Late 19th Century**_** – Agricultural abandonment. Regrowth & Urbanization**
_**20th Century**_** – Fully recovered forest. ****Diversity of forest types**
** **

**Fig****1. Changes in land use and human population**
** ****(dark solid line) through the historical period in **
**central Massachusetts  (Foster et al., 1997).**

**Stone Wall (agricultural land before), MA**

## US became a net sink for carbon after around 1950.

- Northeast US regions became a net sink for carbon after about 1920.
- (Houghton and Hackler, 2000)

- http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html

- Fig2. Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Change :
- 1850-2005 (Houghton)

## Objectives

- 1. Remote Sensing of Land Use Change
- Measure rates for recent land use change in parts of New England due to human activities (1990-2005)
- 2. Carbon Modeling
- How does recent land use change in parts of New England from 1990 to 2005 affect the terrestrial carbon budget?
- Carbon budget projection to 2100

- Old growth, Barlette, NH

## Study Area

- Study Area

- Connecticut
- Massachusetts,
- New Hampshire,
- Rhode island
- Vermont

- The total study area is approximately 82,627km2.

**Boston**

**Fig3. Study Area**

## Landsat Data

- Landsat 5 & ETM+ from Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF) _[http://](http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml)__[glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml](http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/index.shtml)_
- USGS Landsat satellites  _[http://](http://landsat.usgs.gov/)__[landsat.usgs.gov](http://landsat.usgs.gov/)_

**Table1. Landsat Data for Study Area**

| Path/ Row
(Scene) | Landsat5 TM
(GeoCover) | Landsat7 ETM
(GeoCover) | Landsat7 ETM
(L1G) | Landsat5 TM
(L1G) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | TIME 1  |  | TIME 2  |  |
| 12/30 | 1990/09/08 | 2000/09/27 | 2000/09/27 | 2004/09/14 |
| 12/31 | 1987/09/16 | 2000/09/27 | 2000/09/27 | 2006/09/20 |
| 13/29 | 1992/06/16 | 1999/08/31 | 1999/08/31 | 2005/09/24 |
| 13/30 | 1989/09/28 | 2002/09/08 | 2002/09/08 | 2005/09/24 |
| 13/31 | 1989/09/28 | 2002/09/08 | 2002/09/08 | 2005/09/08 |

## Multi-temporal Change Detection

**1. Multi-temporal Kauth-Thomas transformation (MKT)**
**-****	****based on MKT matrix for TM digital counts data (Collins and Woodcock, 1996) **
**-****	****6 bands B, G, W, ΔB, ΔG, ΔW**
**2. Multi-temporal Change Detection**
**-****	****Fuzzy Artmap Neural Network**
**	****	****5 Classes**
**	****1) Forest to Nonforest**
**	****2) Stable Forest**
**	****3) Stable Nonforest**
**	****4) Nonforest to Forest**
**	****5) Clouds and Shadow**
**3. Segmentation**
**-****	****minimum area of 0.89ha (Landsat 11 pixels).**

**Vermont**

## Norfolk County, MA (12,600 ha)

**Norfolk County, MA (12,600 ha)**

**Boston**

**453 Pseudo Color Combination**

## Residential Development. Norfolk County, MA (70 ha)

**Residential Development. Norfolk County, MA (70 ha)**

**Google Earth (winter)**

## Commercial Buildings. Norfolk County, MA (70 ha)

**Commercial Buildings. Norfolk County, MA (70 ha)**

**Google Earth**

## Golf Course. Norfolk County, MA (70 ha)

**Golf Course. Norfolk County, MA (70 ha)**

**Google Earth**

## Error Matrix

| Accuracy  | p12r31 | Time1 | 1987-2000 |   |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | 1 | 2 | 3 | Total (polygon) | Total Area (%) |
| 1 | 97 | 0 | 3 | 100 | 1.26 |
| 2 | 3 | 279 (14) | 18 | 300 | 63.55 |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 96 | 100 | 35.19 |
| Total | 102 | 281 | 117 | 500 |          100.00 |
|   | producer's accuracy %
 (omission error) |  | user's accuracy %
(commission error) |  | overall  accuracy % |
| 1 | 95.10  |   | 97.00  |   | 94.40  |
| 2 | 99.29  |   | 93.00  |   |   |
| 3 | 82.05  |   | 96.00  |   |   |

| Adjustment |  p12r31 |  Time1 |  1987-2000 |   |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | 1 (%) | 2 (%) | 3 (%) | Total Area ( %) |  |
| 1 | 1.22 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 1.26 |   |
| 2 | 0.64 | 59.10 | 3.81 | 63.55 |   |
| 3 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 33.78 | 35.19 |   |
| Total Area (%)  | 2.56 | 59.80 | 37.63 | 100.00 |   |
|   | producer's accuracy %
(omission error) |  | user's accuracy %
(commission error) |  | overall accuracy % |
| 1 | 47.77 |   | 97.00 |   | 94.11 |
| 2 | 98.82 |   | 93.00 |   |   |
| 3 | 89.77 |   | 96.00 |   |   |

**1. Clearcut**
**2. Stable Forest**
**3. Regrowth**

**Error Matrix**

## Comparison with before and after adjusted areas 

**Comparison with before and after adjusted areas **
**based on accuracy assessment. Adjusted areas have 95% confidence intervals. **

## Year1  (1987)                                                  Year2 (2000)

**Year1  (1987)                                                  Year2 (2000)**

**Google Earth**
- (a) Very small clearings for houses, still much forest
-  (within white polygon boundary -10.5ha)
**Examples of missing clearcut polygons**

## Year1 (1987)		           Year 2 (2000)

**Year1 (1987)****	****	****           Year 2 (2000)**

**Google Earth **
- (b) New houses (within white polygon boundary -approximately 3 ha)
**Examples of missed change polygons**

## Year1 (1989)			Year2 (2002)		

**Year1 (1989)****	****	****	****Year2 (2002)****	****	**

**	****Google Earth**
- (c) New houses with some forest remaining
- (within white polygon boundary- 2.8ha)
**Examples of missed change polygons**

## Time1 (1987)                                              Time2 (2000)

**Time1 (1987)                                              Time2 (2000)**
** ****(Total area: 50ha, 3.8 ha for white polygon area)**

**Google Earth- Residential area with lots of trees. It is hard to say whether it **
**belongs in the class *****forest***** or *****residential*****.**
**Suburban Boston- Middlesex County, MA**

## Green: Forest Cover - 51%

**Green: Forest Cover - 51%**
**Black: Shadow – 32%**
**Cyan: Nonforest – 17%**

**Notes:**
0.319717	
0.511437	
0.168845	

## Fig4. Forest Area (comparions with FIA)

- (a) Forest area 1600-2005

- (b) Forest Area, 1985-2005

**Fig4. Forest Area (comparions with FIA)**

## Results: Land Use Change

| State | 1990-2000 |  |  | 2000-2005 |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | clearcut | regrowth | net loss | clearcut | regrowth | net loss |
| CT | 1,236 | 10 | 1,225 
(0.15) | 963 | 0 | 963
(0.12) |
| MA | 3,468 | 61 | 3,406 
(0.28) | 1,869 | 0 | 1,869
(0.16) |
| NH | 3,335 | 210 | 3,125
(0.33) | 3,426 | 691 | 2,735
(0.31) |
| RI | 395 | 0 | 395
(0.24) | 269 | 0 | 269
(0.17) |
| VT | 2,817 | 750 | 2,067
(0.15) | 1,242 | 1,652 | -410
(-0.03) |
| Total
Area | 11251 | 1032 | 10219
(0.23) | 7,769 | 2,343 | 5,427 
(0.13) |

- Table2. Forest net loss area (ha) per year
- by state and total area

- ( ) is annual forest change rate %.

## Fig5.

**Spatial  Analysis - Forest change rate (%/year) for Time1 and Time2 **
**Buffer (20km) from Boston**

**Fig5.**

## Carbon Modeling

- The **bookkeeping** model was used to calculate changes in terrestrial carbon storage following changes in land use.

**Data 1.**

**Data 2.**

- (Houghton and Hackler,1995; Houghton, 1999).

## Bookkeeping Model 

- Carbon Accounting Model Schematic

- http://www.whrc.org/

**Notes:**
Houghton (1999). 1850-1990 flows of carbon between terrestrial ecosystem and atmosphere as a result of land use change

## Book-keeping ModelR. Houghton

- Book-keeping Model*R. Houghton*

- Secondary
- Forest

- Net terrestrial flux
- Full time trajectory of disturbance
- Inherited carbon fluxes
- - Fate of carbon removed

**Notes:**
Curve describing carbon stock changes that fallow disturbance

## Data for carbon modeling (land use change rates) 

- Data for carbon modeling (land use change rates)

- 1700-1945: Historical cropland, pasture, industrial harvesting and fuelwood harvesting rates of the “Northeast”
- 	(Houghton and Hackler, 2000)
- 1700-1945: Forestland from Harvard Forest Data Archive for each state of our study area (same relative proportions of cropland to pasture that Houghton and Hackler(2000) used for the entire northeast to calculate the land use change rate for cropland and pasture of New England.)
- 1946-1989: areas of forests, croplands and pasture for each state
- 	of our study area, 5 year intervals from agricultural census (USDA)
- 1990-2005: Land use change from remote sensing

**Notes:**
For forest change rate, the Harvard Data Archive for New England from 1700 to 1945 (as they are available for each region of our study area).

Same relative proportions of cropland to pasture that Houghton and Hackler (2000) were used for the entire northeast to calculate the land use change rate for cropland and pasture of New England.

Scaled the amount of industrial harvesting and fuelwood harvesting according to the proportion of the total forest area of the Northeast found in our five states.

## Positive values: clearcutting, Negative values: abandonment

**Positive values: clearcutting, Negative values: abandonment**

## Positive values: a release of carbon to the atmosphere, Negative values: a carbon sink

**Results of Annual net flux of carbon between the atmosphere and New England region calculated from changes in land use**

**Positive values: a release of carbon to the atmosphere, Negative values: a carbon sink**

## Annual net flux with urban and without urban (1950-2100)

**Annual net flux with urban and without urban (1950-2100)**

- Approximately 50% of remaining potential sink is being decreased by urban growth

## Conclusion

- The forest area of New England is decreasing due to urban growth.
- For the period 1990-2000, study area lost 10,219ha (0.23%) forest per year.
- For the period 2000-2005, study area lost 5,427 ha (0.13%) forest per year.
- 2. 	Urban growth is significantly reducing ongoing terrestrial carbon sink in New England.
- The area converted from forest to human development for houses and commercial buildings released 17.3 TgC from 1990 to 2005 and approximately 50% of remaining potential sink will be decreased by urban growth to 2100 .
- Currently, New England terrestrial ecosystems are a carbon sink. However, the carbon sink will slowly decrease until around 2090 at which time the trend will reverse and they will become a carbon source.

## Integrating Monitoring of Forest Harvest with a Carbon Model to Estimate the Effects of Land Use Change on Terrestrial Carbon Budgets in the Black Sea Region

- Integrating Monitoring of Forest Harvest with a Carbon Model to Estimate the Effects of Land Use Change on Terrestrial Carbon Budgets in the Black Sea Region

**Alessandro Baccini**
- Curtis E. Woodcock, Richard A. Houghton, Joe Hackler, Mutlu Ozdogan, Vlad Gancz (ICAS), Viorel Blujdea (ICAS)

**Notes:**
Thank Navin and Jon, etc

## Black Sea Project

## Romania

- We know very little about land cover dynamics in this region
- Significant political changes following the collapse of the USSR

- Time 1 1990/08/21

- Time 2 2000/06/05

## Questions

- What is happening to Romanian forests?
- Is Romania a carbon sink or source?
- What are existing arbon stocks?

## Romania Land Cover Change Map 1990 – 2000

## Results

- Forested land 5.9 millions ha
- In the period 1990 - 2000, 2.4 percent of what was forest in 1990 changed to non forest.
- Average change size 7.9 ha
- Accuracy (829 sites) northern region 89 %

- Deforestation

- Stable Forest

- Stable non Forest

- Forest re-growth

## Average Linear Size of Changes

## Carbon Accounting

- A = F – S ± L
- A = Annual increase in atmospheric CO2
- F = Release of CO2 fossil fuel combustion
- S = Movement of carbon into oceans
- L = Net exchange of C between atmosphere and the land surface

## Terrestrial Carbon

- 1990 – 2000 period
- Forest area, forest change, growth rate, average biomass
**Ac** (Atmospheric carbon) = **Ca** (Carbon absorbed) – **Cr** (Carbon released)
**Ca** = Forest area * growth rate * time
**Cr** = Forest change * average carbon
- _Romania Results_
**Ca** = 5,995,217 ha * 3 * 10  / 2 = 89.9 millions (Tonnes)
**Cr** = 147,290.3 * 135.2 / 2 = 9.9 millions (Tonnes)
**Ac** =  – 89.9 + 9.9 = -79.9 millions (Tonnes) of carbon absorbed
-  Full terrestrial carbon accounting
- Land use history
- Changes in carbon pools

## Romania Net Carbon Flux

## Forest Carbon Stocks

## Summary: Romania

- Remote sensing of forest change and a bookkeeping model allow estimation of national level carbon budgets
- Romania is a net carbon sink (approximately 10% of fossil fuel emissions)
- Under the current harvesting rates the annual sink will decline to zero in about 90 years

## Forest change in Georgia, circa 1990-2000

- Not much forest change - around 2% of the forested area in 1990 has been cut or partially cut (prel. res.)
- Illegal logging in proximity to villages
- 60% of harvest as unrecorded fuelwood (according to FAO)
- Less harvesting than in Romania, more than in Turkey
- Higher degree of partial cutting than in Romania and Turkey

## Slide 44

## Example of forest change

- Next slide

## Example of partial cutting (illegal) in Central Georgia

## Example of stable forest in Southern Georgia