Annex 3A.1

Annex 3A.1 Biomass Default Tables for Section 3.2 Forest Land

Contents
Where to use the tables ......................................................................................................................... 3.152
Table 3A.1.1 Forest area change ....................................................................................................... 3.153
Table 3A.1.2 Aboveground biomass stock in naturally regenerated forests by broad category......... 3.157
Table 3A.1.3 Aboveground biomass stock in plantation forests by broad category .......................... 3.158
Table 3A.1.4 Average growing stock volume (1) and aboveground biomass (2)content (dry matter) in forest in 2000 .......................................................................... 3.159
Table 3A.1.5 Average annual increment in aboveground biomass in natural regeneration
by broad category ....................................................................................................... 3.163
Table 3A.1.6 Average annual increment in aboveground biomass in plantation
by broad category ....................................................................................................... 3.164
Table 3A.1.7 Average Annual above ground net increment in volume in plantations by species ..... 3.167
Table 3A.1.8 Average belowground to aboveground biomass ratio (root-to-shoot ratio, R)
in natural regeneration by broad category .................................................................... 3.168
Table 3A.1.9-1 Basic wood densities of stemwood for boreal and temperate species .......................... 3.171
Table 3A.1.9-2 Basic wood densities (D) of stemwood for tropical tree species .................................. 3.172
Table 3A.1.10 Default values of biomass expansion factors (BEFs) ................................................... 3.178
Table 3A.1.11 Default values for fraction out of total harvest left to decay in the forest, fBL .............. 3.178
Table 3A.1.12 Combustion factor values (proportion of prefire biomass consumed) for
fires in a range of vegetation types.............................................................................. 3.179
Table 3A.1.13 Biomass consumption values for fires in a range of vegetation types .......................... 3.180
Table 3A.1.14 Combustion efficiency (proportion of available fuel actually burnt)
relevant to land-clearing burns, and burns in heavy logging slash for a range
of vegetation types and burning conditions .................................................................. 3.184
Table 3A.1.15 Emission ratios for open burning of cleared forests ..................................................... 3.185
Table 3A.1.16 Emission factors applicable to fuels combusted
in various types of vegetation fires............................................................................... 3.185

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.151

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice GuidanceWhere to Use the Tables
Table
Table 3A.1.1 Forest Area Change
Table 3A.1.2 Aboveground Biomass Stock innaturally regenerated forests by broad category

Application
To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4
To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in Cropland section and for L conversion in
Equation 3.4.13 in Grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for Ct2 or Ct1 in Forest section Equation 3.2.3

Table 3A.1.3 Aboveground Biomass Stock inplantation forests by broad category

To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion inequation in Equation 3.3.8 in Cropland section and for
Lconversion in Equation 3.4.13 in Grassland section, etc. Not
to be applied for Ct2 or Ct1 in Forest section Equation 3.2.3

Table 3A.1.4 Average Growing stock volume(1) and aboveground biomass (2) content (drymatter) in forest in 2000

(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13 in grassland section, etc. Not to be applied
for Ct2 or Ct1 in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

Table 3A.1.5 Average Annual Increment inAboveground Biomass in Natural Regeneration
by broad category
Table 3A.1.6 Annual Average Aboveground
Biomass Increment in plantations by broad
category
Table 3A.1.7 Annual Average Above groundvolume Increment in plantations by species
Table 3A.1.8 Average Belowground to
Aboveground Biomass ratio in Natural
Regeneration by broad category
Table 3A.1.9 –1 Basic wood densities ofstemwood for boreal and temperate species
Table 3A.1.9-2 Basic wood densities (D) of
stemwood for Tropical tree species
Table 3A.1.10 default values of Biomass
Expansion Factors (BEFs)
Table 3A.1.11 default values for fraction out of
total harvest left to decay in the forest
Table 3A.1.12 Combustion factor values(proportion of prefire biomass consumed) for
fires in a range of vegetation types
Table 3A.1.13 Biomass consumption values for
fires in a range of vegetation types
Table 3A.14 Combustion Efficiency(proportionof available fuel actually burnt) relevant toland-clearing burns, and burns in heavy logging
slash for a range of vegetation types andburning conditions.
Table 3A.1.15 Emission ratios for open
burning of cleared forests
Table 3A.1.16 Emission Factors applicable tofuels combusted in various types of vegetation
fires

3.152

To be used for Gw in Equation 3.2.5
To be used for Gw in Equation 3.2.5. In case of missing
values it is preferred to use stemwood volume increment
data Iv from Table 3A.1.7
To be used for Iv in Equation 3.2.5
To be used for R in Equation 3.2.5
To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.25, 3.2.7, 3.2.8
To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.25, 3.2.7, 3.2.8
BEF2 to be used in connection with growing stock biomass
data in Equation 3.2.3; and BEF1 to be used in connection
with increment data in Equation 3.2.5
To be used only for fBL in Equation 3.2.7
Values in column ‘mean’ are to be used for (1-fBL) in
Equation 3.2.9. and for ρburned on site in Equation 3.3.10
To be used in Equation 3.2.9. for the part of the equation:‘BW • (1- fBL)’ , i.e. an absolute amountTo be used in sections ‘forest lands converted to cropland’,‘converted to grassland’, or ‘converted to settlements orother lands’
To be applied to Equation 3.2.19
To be used in connection with Equation 3.2.20

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.1
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)
a. AFRICACountry

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)
a. AFRICA (Continued)

Forest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest Area
1990

2000

000 ha000 ha000 ha /yrCountry% / yrForest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest Area
1990

2000

000 ha000 ha000 ha /yr% / yrAlgeria

1 879

2 145

27

1.3

Madagascar

12 901

11 727-117-0.9

Angola70 99869 756-124-0.2

Malawi

3 269

2 562

-71

-2.4

14 17913 186

-99

-0.7

415

317

-10

-2.7

Benin

3 349

2 650

-70

-2.3

Mali

Botswana

13 611

12 427-118-0.9

Mauritania

Burkina Faso

7 241

7 089

-15

-0.2

Mauritius

17

16

n.s.

-0.6

Burundi

241

94

-15

-9.0

Morocco

3 037

3 025

-1

n.s.

Cameroon

26 07623 858-222-0.9

Mozambique

31 23830 601-64-0.2Cape Verde

35

85

5

9.3

Namibia

8 774

8 040

-73

-0.9

Central African
Republic

23 20722 907

-30

-0.1

Niger

1 945

1 328

-62

-3.7

Chad

13 50912 692-82-0.6

Nigeria

17 50113 517

-398

-2.6

12

8

n.s.

-4.3

Réunion

76

71

-1

-0.8

Congo

22 23522 060-17-0.1

Rwanda

457

307

-15

-3.9

Côte d'Ivoire

9 766

7 117

-265

-3.1

Saint Helena

2

2

n.s.

n.s.

Dem. Rep. of
the Congo

140 531

135 207

-532

-0.4

Sao Tome andPrincipe

27

27

n.s.

n.s.

Comoros

Djibouti

6

6

n.s.

n.s.

Senegal

6 655

6 205

-45

-0.7

Egypt

52

72

2

3.3

Seychelles

30

30

n.s.

n.s.

Equatorial
Guinea

1 858

1 752

-11

-0.6

Sierra Leone

1 416

1 055

-36

-2.9

Eritrea

1 639

1 585

-5

-0.3

Somalia

8 284

7 515

-77

-1.0

Ethiopia

4 996

4 593

-40

-0.8

South Africa

8 997

8 917

-8

-0.1

Gabon

21 92721 826

-10

n.s.

Sudan

71 21661 627-959-1.4

Gambia

436

481

4

1.0

Swaziland

464

522

6

1.2

Ghana

7 535

6 335

-120

-1.7

Togo

719

510

-21

-3.4

Guinea

7 276

6 929

-35

-0.5

Tunisia

499

510

1

0.2

Guinea-Bissau

2 403

2 187

-22

-0.9

Uganda

5 103

4 190

-91

-2.0

Kenya

18 027

17 096-93-0.5

39 72438 811-91-0.2

Lesotho

14

14

n.s.

n.s.

UnitedRepublic of
Tanzania
Western Sahara

152

152

n.s.

n.s.

Liberia

4 241

3 481

-76

-2.0

Zambia39 75531 246-851-2.4

Zimbabwe

22 23919 040-320-1.5

Libyan Arab
311
358
5
1.4
Jamahiriya
n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

3.153

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)

b. ASIACountryb. ASIA (Continued)
Forest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest area
1990

2000

000 ha000 ha000 ha /yrCountry

Forest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest Area

% / yr1990

2000

000 ha000 ha

6 299

6 248

-5

-0.1

1 504

1 504

n.s.

n.s.

000 ha /yr% / yrAfghanistan

1 351

1 351

n.s.

n.s.

Armenia

309

351

4

1.3

Republic of
Korea
Saudi Arabia

Azerbaijan

964

1 094

13

1.3

Singapore

2

2

n.s.

n.s.

Bahrain

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

14.9

2 288

1 940

-35

-1.6

Bangladesh

1 169

1 334

17

1.3

461

461

n.s.

n.s.

Bhutan

3 016

3 016

n.s.

n.s.

Sri Lanka
Syrian Arab
Republic
Tajikistan

380

400

2

0.5

452

442

-1

-0.2

Thailand15 886

14 762-112-0.7Brunei
Darussalam
Cambodia

9 896

9 335

-56

-0.6

Turkey10 005

10 225

22

0.2

China

145 417163 480

1 806

1.2

3 755

3 755

n.s.

n.s.

Cyprus

119

172

5

3.7

Turkmenistan
United ArabEmirates

243

321

8

2.8

8 210

8 210

n.s.

n.s.

Uzbekistan

1 923

1 969

5

0.2

541

507

-3

-0.6

Viet Nam

9 303

9 819

52

0.5

-

-

-

-

West Bank

-

-

-

-

Georgia

2 988

2 988

n.s.

n.s.

541

449

-9

-1.9

India

63 73264 11338

0.1

c. OCEANIA
12

12

n.s.

n.s.

157 359

154 539

-282

-0.2

Dem People's
Rep. of Korea
East Timor
Gaza Strip

Yemen

Indonesia

118 110

104 986-1 312-1.2

AmericanSamoa

Iran, Islamic
Rep.

7 299

7 299

n.s.

n.s.

Australia

Iraq

799

799

n.s.

n.s.

Cook Islands

22

22

n.s.

n.s.

Israel

82

132

5

4.9

832

815

-2

-0.2

Japan

24 04724 081

3

n.s.

Fiji
FrenchPolynesia
Guam

105

105

n.s.

n.s.

JordanKazakhstan

86

86

n.s.

n.s.

9 758

12 148

239

2.2

3

5

n.s.

3.5

21

21

n.s.

n.s.

28

28

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

24

15

-1

-4.5

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.
n.s.

Kyrgyzstan
Lao People'sDem. Rep
Lebanon

775

1 003

23

2.6

Kiribati
MarshallIslands
Micronesia

13 08812 561

-53

-0.4

Nauru

37

36

n.s.

-0.4

New Caledonia

372

372

n.s.

Malaysia

21 66119 292-237-1.2

New Zealand

7 556

7 946

39

0.5

Maldives

1

1

n.s.

n.s.

6

6

n.s.

n.s.

Mongolia

11 245

10 645

-60

-0.5

14

14

n.s.

n.s.

Myanmar39 58834 419

-517

-1.4

35

35

n.s.

n.s.

Nepal

4 683

3 900

-78

-1.8

31 73030 601

-113

-0.4

Oman

1

1

n.s.

5.3

130

105

-3

-2.1

Pakistan

2 755

2 361

-39

-1.5

2 580

2 536

-4

-0.2

Philippines

6 676

5 789

-89

-1.4

Niue
Northern
Mariana Isl.
Palau
Papua New
GuineaSamoa
SolomonIslands
Tonga

4

4

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

1

n.s.

9.6

Vanuatu

441

447

1

0.1

KuwaitQatar

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

3.154

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)

d. EUROPECountry

Albania

d. EUROPE
Forest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest Area
1990

2000

000 ha000 ha1 069

991

000 ha /yr% / yr-8-0.8Country

1990

2000

000 haLiechtenstein
Lithuania

Forest Area Change
1990-2000
Annual Change
ChangeRate

Total Forest Area

000 ha6

7000 ha /yr% / yrn.s.

1.2

Andorra

-

-

-

-

1 946

1 994

5

0.2

Austria

3 809

3 886

8

0.2

Malta

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Belarus

365

375

1

0.3

6 840

9 402

256

3.2

Netherlands

Belgium &Luxembourg

741

728

-1

-0.2

Norway

8 558

8 868

31

0.4

Bosnia &Herzegovina

2 273

2 273

n.s.

n.s.

Poland

8 872

9 047

18

0.2

Bulgaria

3 486

3 690

20

0.6

Portugal

3 096

3 666

57

1.7

318

325

1

0.2

Croatia

1 763

1 783

2

0.1

Republic ofMoldova

Czech Republic

2 627

2 632

1

n.s.

Romania

6 301

6 448

15

0.2

Denmark

445

455

1

0.2

RussianFederation

850 039851 392

135

n.s

Estonia

1 935

2 060

13

0.6

San Marino

-

-

-

-

Finland

21 855

21 9358n.s.

Slovakia

1 997

2 177

18

0.9

France14 72515 34162

0.4

Slovenia

1 085

1 107

2

0.2

Germany

10 74010 740

n.s.

n.s.

Spain

13 51014 37086

0.6

Greece

3 299

3 599

30

0.9

Sweden27 12827 1341n.s.

Hungary

1 768

1 840

7

0.4

Switzerland

1 156

1 199

4

0.4

Iceland

25

31

1

2.2

The FYR of
Macedonia

906

906

n.s.

n.s.

Ireland

489

659

17

3.0

Ukraine

9 274

9 584

31

0.3

Italy

8 737 1

10 00330

0.3

UnitedKingdom

2 624

2 794

17

0.6

Latvia

2 796

2 923

13

0.4

Yugoslavia

2 901

2 887

-1

-0.1

1

The value for Italy was provided by Italy and is referred to in their
Third National Communication to the UNFCCC.

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

3.155

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)
e. NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICACountry

1990

2000

000 ha000 haAntigua andBarbuda9

Bahamas842

Barbados

f. SOUTH AMERICA

Forest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest Area

TABLE 3A.1.1 (CONTINUED)
FOREST AREA CHANGE(To be used for verification of ‘A’ in Equation 3.2.4)
Country

Forest Area Change
1990-2000
AnnualChangeChangeRate

Total Forest Area
1990

2000

000 ha000 ha000 ha /yr% / yr000 ha /yr% / yr

9

n.s.

n.s.

Argentina

37 49934 648

-285

-0.8

842

n.s.

n.s.

Bolivia

54 67953 068

-161

-0.3

2

2

n.s.

n.s.

Brazil566 998

543 905-2 309

-0.4

1 704

1 348

-36

-2.3

Chile

15 73915 536-20-0.1

Bermuda

-

-

-

-

Colombia

51 50649 601-190-0.4

British Virgin
Is.

3

3

n.s.

n.s.

Ecuador11 92910 557-137-1.2

Canada244 571

244 571

n.s.

n.s.

Falkland Islands

-

-

-

-

CaymanIslands

13

13

n.s.

n.s.

French Guiana

7 926

7 926

n.s.

n.s.

Costa Rica

2 126

1 968

-16

-0.8

Guyana17 36516 879

-49

-0.3

Cuba

Belize

2 071

2 348

28

1.3

Paraguay

24 60223 372-123-0.5

Dominica

50

46

n.s.

-0.7

Peru

67 90365 215-269-0.4

Dominican
Republic

1 376

1 376

n.s.

n.s.

Suriname

14 11314 113n.s.

n.s.

El Salvador

193

121

-7

-4.6

Uruguay

791

1 292

50

5.0

Greenland

-

-

-

-

Venezuela

51 68149 506-218-0.4

Grenada

5

5

n.s.

0.9

Guadeloupe

67

82

2

2.1

Guatemala

3 387

2 850

-54

-1.7

158

88

-7

-5.7

Honduras

5 972

5 383

-59

-1.0

Jamaica

379

325

-5

-1.5

Haiti

Martinique

47

47

n.s.

n.s.

61 51155 205-631-1.1

Montserrat

3

3

n.s.

n.s.

Netherlands
Antilles

1

1

n.s.

n.s.

Nicaragua

4 450

3 278

-117

-3.0

PanamaMexico

3 395

2 876

-52

-1.6

Puerto Rico

234

229

-1

-0.2

Saint Kitts and
Nevis

4

4

n.s.

-0.6

Santa Lucia

14

9

-1

-4.9

Saint Pierre &Miquelon

-

-

-

-

Saint Vincent& Grenadines

7

6

n.s.

-1.4

Trinidad andTobago

281

259

-2

-0.8

United States

222 113225 993

388

0.2

14

14

n.s.

n.s.

US Virgin
Islands

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

n.s. - not specified
Source: FRA 2000 and Working Paper 59, FRA Programme,
Forestry Department of FAO, Rome 2001, 69p(www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp)

3.156

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.2
ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS STOCK IN NATURALLY REGENERATED FORESTS BY BROAD CATEGORY (tonnes dry matter/ha)(To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in Equation 3.3.8 in Cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in Grassland section, etc. Not to be applied for Ct or Ct in Forest section Equation 3.2.3)
2

Tropical Forests

1

1

Wet

Moist with
Short Dry
SeasonMoist withLong Dry Season

Dry

Montane Moist

MontaneDry

310(131 - 513)

260
(159 – 433)

123
(120 - 130)72
(16 - 195)

191

40

Continental

275(123 - 683)

182
(10 – 562)

127(100 - 155)

60

222
(81 - 310)

50

Insular348(280 - 520)

290

160

70

362
(330 - 505)

50America

347(118 - 860)

217
(212 - 278)212
(202- 406)78
(45 - 90)234
(48 - 348)

60

AfricaAsia & Oceania:

Temperate Forests
Age Class

Coniferous

Broadleaf

Mixed Broadleaf-Coniferous≤20 years

100(17 - 183)1740

>20 years

134(20 - 600)

122
(18 -320)128(20-330)≤20 years

52(17-106)58(7-126)49(19-89)>20 years

126(41-275)132(53-205)140(68-218)

Eurasia & Oceania

America

Boreal Forests
Age Class

Mixed Broadleaf-Coniferous

Coniferous

Forest-Tundra

Eurasia≤20 years>20 years

12

10

4

50

60
(12.3-131)

20(21- 81)

America≤20 years

15

7

3

>20 years

40

46

15

Note: Data are given in mean value and as range of possible values (in parentheses).
1

The definition of forest types and examples by region are illustrated in Box 2 and Tables 5-1, p 5.7-5.8 of the IPCC Guidelines (1996).

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.157

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.3
ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS STOCK IN PLANTATION FORESTS BY BROAD CATEGORY (tonnes dry matter/ha)(To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in equation in Equation 3.3.8 in Cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in Grassland section, etc. Not to be applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3)
2

1

Tropical and sub-tropical Forests
Age ClassWet

R > 2000

Moist with Moist with
Short DryLong Dry
SeasonSeason2000>R>1000

Dry

MontaneMoist

MontaneDry

R<1000R>1000

R<1000AfricaBroadleaf spp≤20 years

100

80

30

20

100

40

>20 years

300

150

70

20

150

60

≤20 years

60

40

20

15

40

10

>20 years

200

120

60

20

100

30

Broadleaf

All

220

180

90

40

150

40

other species

All

130

100

60

30

80

25

Pinus

All

300

270

110

60

170

60

Eucalyptus

All

200

140

110

60

120

30

Tectona

All

170

120

90

50

130

30

other broadleaved

All

150

100

60

30

80

30

Pinus sp
Asia:

AmericaTemperate Forests
Age class

Pine

Other coniferous

Broadleaf

Eurasia
Maritime
Continental≤20 years

40

40

30

>20 years

150

250

200

≤20 years

25

30

15

>20 years

150

200

200

≤20 years

17

20

10

>20 years

100

120

80

S. America

All

120

90

N America

All

100
175
(50−275)

300−

Mediterranean & steppe

Boreal Forests
Eurasia
N. America

3.158

Age class

Pine

Other coniferous

Broadleaf≤20 years

55>20 years

40

40

All

50

40

5
25
25

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.4
AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.

(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.

(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

2

1

a. AFRICACountry
Algeria2

1

a. AFRICA (Continued)
VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSource44

75

NICountry

VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSourceMadagascar

114

194

NI

Angola39

54

NI

Malawi

103

143

NI

Benin

140

195

PI

Mali

22

31

PI

Botswana

45

63

NI

Mauritania

4

6

ES

Burkina Faso

10

16

NI

Mauritius

88

95

ES

Burundi

110

187

ES

Morocco

27

41

NI

Cameroon

135

131

PI

Mozambique

25

55

NI

Cape Verde

83

127

ES

Namibia

7

12

PI

Central African
Republic

85

113

PI/EX

Niger

3

4

PI

Chad

11

16

ES

Nigeria

82

184

ES

Comoros

60

65

ES

Réunion

115

160

ES

Congo

132

213

EX

Rwanda

110

187

ES

Côte d'Ivoire

133

130

PI

Saint Helena

Dem. Rep. of the
Congo

133

225

NI

Sao Tome andPrincipe

108

116

NI

Djibouti

21

46

ES

Senegal

31

30

NI

Egypt

108

106

ES

Seychelles

29

49

ES

Equatorial Guinea

93

158

PI

Sierra Leone

143

139

ES

Eritrea

23

32

NI

Somalia

18

26

ES

Ethiopia

56

79

PI

South Africa

49

81

EX

Gabon

128

137

ES

Sudan

9

12

ES

Gambia13

22

NI

Swaziland

39

115

NI

Ghana

49

88

ES

Togo

92

155

PI

Guinea

117

114

PI

Tunisia

18

27

NI

Guinea-Bissau

19

20

NI

Uganda

133

163

NI

Kenya

35

48

ES

United Republic of
Tanzania

43

60

NI

Lesotho

34

34

ES

Western Sahara

18

59

NI

Liberia

201

196

ES

Zambia

43

104

ES

Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya

14

20

ES

Zimbabwe

40

56

NI

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)3.159

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.4
AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.

(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.

(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

2

1

b. ASIACountry2

1

b. ASIA (Continued)
VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSourceAfghanistan

22

27

FAO

Armenia

128

66

Azerbaijan

136

105

VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)Country

Information

m3 / hat / haSource

Qatar

13

12

FAO

FAO

Republic of Korea

58

36

NI

FAO

Saudi Arabia

12

12

FAO
FAO

Bahrain

14

14

FAO

Singapore

119

205

Bangladesh

23

39

FAO

Sri Lanka

34

59

FAO

Bhutan

163

178

FAO

Syrian Arab Rep.

29

28

FAO

Brunei
Darussalam

119

205

FAO

Tajikistan

14

10

FAO

Cambodia

40

69

FAO

Thailand

17

29

NI

China

52

61

NI

Turkey

136

74

FAO

Cyprus

43

21

FAO

Turkmenistan

4

3

FAO

Dem People's Rep.
of Korea

41

25

ES

United ArabEmirates---

East Timor

79

136

FAO

Uzbekistan

6

Viet Nam

38

66

ES

Gaza Strip

FAO

Georgia

145

97

FAO

West Bank

-

-

-

India

43

73

NI

Yemen

14

19

FAO

Indonesia

79

136

FAO

Iran, Islamic Rep.

86

149

FAO

Iraq

29

28

FAO

Israel

49

-

FAO

Japan

145

88

FAO

Jordan

38

37

FAO

Kazakhstan

35

18

FAO

Kuwait

21

21

FAO

Kyrgyzstan

32

-

FAO

29

31

NI

Lao People's Dem.
Rep
LebanonTABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.
21

c. OCEANIA

23

22

FAO

Malaysia

119

205

ES

Maldives---

Mongolia

128

80

NI

American Samoa

Country

VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)m3 / hat / haInformation
SourceMyanmar

33

57

NI

Australia

55

57

FAO

Nepal

100

109

PI

Cook Islands

-

-

-

Oman

17

17

FAO

Fiji

-

-

-

Pakistan

22

27

FAO

French Polynesia

-

-

-

Philippines

66

114

NI

Guam

-

-

-

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

3.160

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.
21

c.OCEANIA (Continued)
Country

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.
2

1

d. EUROPE (Continued)

VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSourceKiribati---

Marshall Islands

-

-

-

Country

VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSourceCroatia

201

107

FAO

Czech Republic

260

125

FAO

Micronesia

-

-

-

Denmark

124

58

FAO

Nauru

-

-

-

Estonia

156

85

FAO

New Caledonia

-

-

-

Finland

89

50

NI

New Zealand

321

217

FAO

France

191

92

FAO

Niue

-

-

-

Germany

268

134

FAO

Northern Mariana
Isl.

-

-

-

Greece

45

25

FAO

Palau

-

-

-

Hungary

174

112

FAO

Papua New Guinea

34

58

NI

Iceland

27

17

FAO

Samoa

-

-

-

Ireland

74

25

FAO

Solomon Islands

-

-

-

Italy

145

74

FAO

Tonga

-

-

-

Latvia

174

93

FAO

Liechtenstein

254

119

FAO

Lithuania

183

99

FAO

Malta

232

Netherlands

160

107

FAO

Norway

89

49

FAO

Poland

213

94

FAO

Portugal

82

33

FAO

Republic ofMoldova

128

64

FAO

Romania

213

124

FAO

Russian Federation

105

56

FAO

San Marino

0

0

FAO

Slovakia

253

142

FAO

Slovenia

283

178

FAO

Spain

44

24

FAO

Vanuatu
Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.
2

1

d. EUROPECountry

VolumeBiomass(aboveground) (aboveground)m3 / hat / haInformation
SourceFAO

Albania

81

58

FAO

Sweden

107

63

NI

Andorra0

0

FAO

Switzerland

337

165

FAO

Austria

286

250

FAO

The FYR of
Macedonia

70

-

FAO

Belarus

153

80

FAO

Ukraine

179

-

FAO

218

101

FAO

United Kingdom

128

76

FAO

110

-

FAO

Yugoslavia

111

23

FAO

130

76

FAO

Belgium &Luxembourg
Bosnia &Herzegovina
Bulgaria

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)3.161

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.
(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

2

1

e. NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA

1e. NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA (Continued)

Volume(aboveground)

Biomass(aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSourceAntigua andBarbuda

116

210

ES

Bahamas---Country2

Volume(aboveground)

Biomass(aboveground)

Information

m3 / hat / haSourceSaint Vincent andGrenadines

166

173

NI

Trinidad andTobago

71

129

ES

Country

Barbados---

United States

136

108

FAO

Belize

202

211

ES

US Virgin Islands

-

-

-

Bermuda---British Virgin
Islands---

Canada

120

83

FAO

Cayman Islands

-

-

-

Costa Rica

211

220

ES

(1) To be used for V in Equation 3.2.3.

Cuba

71

114

NI

Dominica
Dominican
Republic

91

166

ES

29

53

ES

(2) To be used for Bw in Equation 3.2.9, for Lconversion in
Equation 3.3.8 in cropland section and for Lconversion in
Equation 3.4.13. in grassland section, etc. Not to be
applied for C t or C t in Forest section Equation 3.2.3.

El Salvador

223

202

FAO

Greenland---

Grenada

83

150

PI

Guadeloupe--

Guatemala

355

371

TABLE 3A.1.4 (CONTINUED)AVERAGE GROWING STOCK VOLUME (1) ANDABOVEGROUND BIOMASS CONTENT (2) (DRY MATTER) IN
FOREST IN 2000. (SOURCE FRA 2000)

2

1

f. SOUTH AMERICACountry

Volume(aboveground)

Biomass(aboveground)

Information-

Argentina

m3 / ha25t / ha68

SourceES

ES

Bolivia

114

183

PI

Haiti

28

101

ES

Brazil

131

209

ES

Honduras

58

105

ES

Chile

160

268

ES

Jamaica

82

171

ES

Colombia

108

196

NI

Martinique

5

5

ES

Ecuador

121

151

ES

Mexico52

54

NI

Falkland Islands

-

-

-

Montserrat

-

-

-

French Guiana

145

253

ES

Netherlands
Antilles---Guyana

145

253

ES

Nicaragua

154

161

ES

Paraguay

34

59

ES

Panama

308

322

ES

Peru

158

245

NI

Puerto Rico

-

-

-

Suriname

145

253

ES

Saint Kitts and
Nevis

-

-

-

Uruguay---Saint Lucia

190

198

ES

Venezuela

134

233

ES

Saint Pierre &Miquelon
Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

3.162

Information source: NI = National inventory; PI = Partial inventory;
ES = Estimate; EX = External data (from other regions)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.5
AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREMENT IN ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS IN NATURAL REGENERATION BY BROAD CATEGORY(tonnes dry matter/ha/year)(To be used for GW in Equation 3.2.5)
Tropical and Sub-Tropical Forests
Moist with
Short Dry
SeasonWet

Age ClassR > 2000

Moist withLong Dry
Season2000>R>1000

Dry

Montane Moist Montane Dry

R<1000R>1000

R<1000Africa≤20 years

10.0

5.3

2.4
(2.3 – 2.5)

1.2
(0.8 – 1.5)

5.0

2.0
(1.0 – 3.0)

>20 years

3.1 (2.3 -3.8)

1.3

1.8
(0.6 – 3.0)

0.9
(0.2 – 1.6)

1.0

1. 5
(0.5 – 4.5)

≤20 years

7.0(3.0 – 11.0)

9.0

6.0

5.0

5.0

1.0

>20 years

2.2(1.3 – 3.0)

2.0

1.5

1.3
(1.0 – 2.2)

1.0

0.5

≤20 years

13.0

11.0

7.0

2.0

12.0

3.0

>20 years

3.4

3.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

≤20 years

10.0

7.0

4.0

4.0

5.0

1.8

>20 years

1.9(1.2 – 2.6)

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.4
(1.0 – 2.0)

0.4

Asia & Oceania
Continental

InsularAmericaTemperate Forests
Age Class

Coniferous

Broadleaf≤20 years

3.0(0.5 – 6.0)

4.0
(0.5 – 8.0)

>20 years

3.0(0.5 – 6.0)

4.0
(0.5 – 7.5)

Boreal forests
Mixed BroadleafConiferous

Coniferous

Forest-Tundra

Broadleaf≤20 years

1.0

1.5

0.4
(0.2 – 0.5)

1.5
(1.0 – 2.0)

>20 years

1.5

2.5

0.4
(0.2 – 0.5)

1.5

≤20 years

1.1(0.7 – 1.5)

0.8
(0.5 – 1.0)

0.4
(0.2 – 0.5)

1.5
(1.0 – 2.0)

>20 years

1.1(0.7 –– 1.5)

1.5
(0.5 – 2.5)

0.4
(0.2 – 0.5)

1.3
(1.0 – 1.5)

Age ClassEurasia

America

Note: R= annual rainfall in mm/yr
Note: Data are given as mean value and as the range of possible values.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.163

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

Table 3A.1.6
ANNUAL AVERAGE ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS INCREMENT IN PLANTATIONS BY BROAD CATEGORY(tonnes dry matter/ha/year )(To be used for GW in Equation 3.2.5.
In case of missing values it is preferred to use stemwood volume increment data IV from Table 3A.1.7)
Tropical and sub-tropical Forests
Age Class

Wet

Moist with
Short Dry
Season

R >2000

Moist withLong Dry
Season2000>R>1000

Dry

MontaneMoist

MontaneDry

R<1000R>1000

R<1000Africa
Eucalyptus spp

Pinus sp

≤20 years

-

20.0

12.6

5.1
(3.0-7.0)-->20 years

-

25.0

-

8.0
(4.9-13.6)--≤20 years

18.0

12.0

8.0

3.3 (0.5-6.0)

-

-

15.0

11.0

2.5

-

-

>20 years≤20 years

6.5(5.0-8.0)

9.0(3.0-15.0)

10.0(4.0-16.0)

15.0

11.0

-

>20 years

-

-

-

11.0

-

-

Eucalyptus spp

All

5.0
(3.6-8.0)

8.0

15.0
(5.0-25.0)

-

3.1

-

other species-

5.2(2.4-8.0)

7.8(2.0-13.5)

7.1(1.6-12.6)

6.45(1.2-11.7)

5.0(1.3-10.0)-

America

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7.0
(4.0 - 10.3)

5.0

14.0

-

others

Asia

Pinus

-

18.0

14.5
(5.0 – 19.0)

Eucalyptus-

21.0(6.4 - 38.4)

16.0(6.4 - 32.0)

16.0(6.4 - 32.0)

16.0

13.0
(8.5 - 17.5)-

Tectona

-

15.0

8.0
(3.8 - 11.5)

8.0(3.8 - 11.5)

-

2.2

-

other broadleaved-

17.0(5.0 - 35.0)

18.0(8.0 – 40.0)

10.5(3.2 - 11.8)

-

4.0

-

Note 1 : R= annual rainfall in mm/yr
Note 2 : Data are given as mean value and as the range of possible values.
Note 3 : Some Boreal data were calculated from original values in Zakharov et al. (1962), Zagreev et al. (1993), Isaev et al. (1993) using
0.23 as belowground/aboveground biomass ratio and assuming a linear increase in annual increment from 0 to 20 years.
Note 4 : For plantations in temperate and boreal zones, it is good practice to use stemwood volume increment data (Iv in Equation 3.2.5)
instead of above ground biomass increment as given in above table.

References for Tables 3A.1.2, 3A.1.3, 3A.1.4, 3A.1.5, and 3A.1.6
Tropical and subtropical
Brown, S. (1996). A primer for estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forest. FAO, Rome, Italy. 55 pp.
Budowski, G. (1985). The place of Agroforestry in managing tropical forest. In La conservación como instrumento para el desarrollo.
Antología. San José, Costa Rica. EUNED. 19 pp.
Burrows, W. H.; Henry, B. K.; Back, P. V., et al. (2002) Growth and carbon stock change in eucalypt woodlands in northeast Australia:
ecological and greenhouse sink implications. Global Change Biology 8 (8): 769-784 2002
Chudnoff, M. (1980). Tropical Timbers of the World. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Madison,W1. 831 pp.
Clarke et al. (2001) NPP in tropical forests: an evaluation and synthesis of existing field data. Ecol. Applic. 11:371-384
Evans, J. (1982). Plantation forestry in the tropics. Oxford.
Favrichon, V. (1997). Réaction de peuplements forestiers tropicaux a des interventions sylvicoles. Bois et des forets des tropiques 254: 5-24

3.164

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

FBDS: FUNDACAO BRASILERA PARA O DESEMVOLVIMENTO SUSTENTAVEL. (1997). Avaliacao das emissoes de gases de efeito
estufa devido as mudancas no estoques de florestas plantadas. Rio de Janeiro (Brasil). 44 pp.
Fearnside, P.M. (1997). Wood density for estimating forest biomass in Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 90(1): 59-87.
FIA: Fundación para la Innovación Agraria. (2001). Potencial de proyectos forestales en el Mecansimo de Desarrollo Limpio en Chile. In
IV Seminario Regional forestal del Cono Sur, elaboración de proyectos forestales en el Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio, realizado 06-07
de diciembre de 2001. Santiago de Chile. 26 pp.
GASTON G., BROWN S., LORENZINI M. & SING. (1998). State and change in carbon pools in the forests of tropical Africa.Global
Change Biology 4 (1), 97-114.
Gower S.T., Gholz H.L, Nakane K.,Baldwin V.C. (1994). Production and carbon allocation patterns of pine forests Ecological bulletins
43:115-135 (data converted from aNPP values assuming litterfall =2 x L(-38)C foliage annual production)
Grace J., Malhi Y., Higuchi N., Meir P. (2001). Productivity of tropical Rain Forests in "Terrestrial Global productivity" Roy J, Saugier B.,& Mooney H.Eds, Physiological Ecology Series, Academic Press, San Diego , 401-426
Hofmann-Schielle, C., A. Jug, et al. (1999). Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in theFederal Republic of Germany. I. Site-growth relationships. Forest Ecology and Management 121(1/2): 41-55.
IBDF. (1983). Potencial madereira do Grande Carajás. Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal. Brasilia, DF, Brazil. 134 pp.
IPCC Guidelines (1996). Workbook p 5.22. from Houghton etal. 1983, 1987.
Klinge, H.; Rodrigues, W.A. (1973). Biomass estimation in a central Amazonian rain forest. Acta Científica Venezolana 24:225-237
Laclau, J. P., J. P. Bouillet, et al. (2000). Dynamics of biomass and nutrient accumulation in a clonal plantation of Eucalyptus in Congo.
Forest Ecology and Management 128(3): 181-196
Lamprecht, H. (1990). Silviculture in the tropics. GTZ. Rossdorf, Deutsche. 333 pp.
Mandouri T. et al. in "Annales de la recherche forestière (1951-1999); and Thesis from National High School of Forestry (ENFI); andHassan II Agronomic Institut(IAVHII)MDSP/PNCC: MINISTERIO DE DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE Y PLANIFICACION; PROGRAMA NACIONAL DE CAMBIOS
CLIMATICOS. (2002). Inventariación de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero, Bolivia, 1990, 1994, 1998 y 2000. La Paz (Bolivia).
443 pp.
MINISTERIO DE MEDIOAMBIENTE Y RECURSOS NATURALES. (2000). Taller Regional Centro Americano sobre el Cambio
Climático, 24-26 de junio de 2000. Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá.
Montagnini, F. (2000). Accumulation in above-ground biomass and soil storage of mineral nutrients in pure and mixed plantations in ahumid tropical lowland. Forest Ecology and Management 134(1/3): 257-270.
Moreno, H. (2001). Estado de la Investigación sobre dinámica del carbono en proyectos Forestales de Colombia. Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Sede Medellín, Departamento de Ciencias Forestales. Medellín, Colombia.
Norgrove, L. and S. Hauser (2002). Measured growth and tree biomass estimates of Terminalia ivorensis in the 3 years after thinning todifferent stand densities in an agrisilvicultural system in southern Cameroon. Forest Ecology and Management 166(1/3): 261-270.
PAC-NK: NOEL KEMPFF CLIMATE ACTION PROJECT. (2000). Noel Kempff Climate Action Project: project case carbon inventory
and offset benefits. Winrock Drive. Arlington, U.S.A. 45 pp.
Pandey, D (1982).
Parrotta, J. A. (1999). Productivity, nutrient cycling, and succession in single- and mixed-species plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia,
Eucalyptus robusta, and Leucaena leucocephala in Puerto Rico. Forest Ecology and Management 124(1): 45-77
Peters, R. (1977). Fortalecimiento al sector forestal Guatemala inventarios y estudios dendrométricos en bosques de coniferas.
FO:DP/GUA/72/006, Informe Técnico 2, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Ramírez, P.; Chacón, R. (1996). National Inventory of Sources and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases in Costa Rica. U.S. Contry Studies Program.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, U.K. 357-365.
Russell, C.E. (1983). Nutrient cycling and productivity of native and plantation forest at Jari Florestal, Pará, Brazil. Ph.D. dissertation in
ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A. 133 pp.
Saldarriaga, C.A.; Escobar, J.G.; Orrego, S. A.; Del Valle, I. (2001). Proyectos de Reforestación como parte del Mecanismo de Desarrollo
Limpio: una aproximación preliminar para el análisis financiero y ambiental. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Departamento deCiencias Forestales. Medellín (Colombia). 61 pp.
Wadsworth, F.H. (1997). Forest production for tropical America. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 710. Washington, DC, USDA
Forest Service.
Webb, D.B., Wood, P.J., Smith, J.P. & Henman, G.S. (1984). A guide to species selection for tropical and subtropical plantations. Tropical
Forestry Papers No. 15 Oxford, UK, Commonwealth Forestry Institute.

Temperate
Data includes values compiled by DR. JIM SMITH, USDA FOREST SERVICE, DURHAM NH USA 03824. jsmith11@fs.fed.us,
Lheath@fs.fed.us
Botkin D.B., Simpson L.G. (1990) Biomass of North American Boreal Forest. Biogeochemistry, 9: 161-174.
Brown S., Schroeder P., Kern J.S. (1999) Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. Forest Ecology and Management,
123:81-90
Burrows, W. H.; Henry, B. K.; Back, P. V., et al. (2002) Growth and carbon stock change in eucalypt woodlands in northeast Australia:
ecological and greenhouse sink implications. Global Change Biology 8 (8): 769-784 2002
Fang, S., X. Xu, et al. (1999). Growth dynamics and biomass production in short-rotation poplar plantations: 6-year results for three clones atfour spacings. Biomass and Bioenergy 17(5): 415-425.
Götz S, D'Angelo SA , Teixeira W G, l Haag and Lieberei R (2002) Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture
plantations in Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks after 7 years, For. Ecol. Manage 163 Pages 131-150

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.165

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

Gower S.T., Gholz H.L, Nakane K.,Baldwin V.C. (1994) Production and carbon allocation patterns of pine forests Ecological bulletins
43:115-135 (data converted from aNPP values assuming litterfall =2 x foliage annual production)
Grierson, P. F., M. A. Adams, et al. (1992). Estimates of carbon storage in the above-ground biomass of Victoria's forests. Australian Journalof Botany 40(4/5): 631-640.
Hall GMJ, Wiser SK, Allen RB, Beets PN and Goulding C J (2001).Strategies to estimate national forest carbon stocks from inventory data:
the 1990 New Zealand baseline.Global Change Biology,7:389-403.
Hofmann-Schielle, C., A. Jug, et al. (1999). Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in theFederal Republic of Germany. I. Site-growth relationships. Forest Ecology and Management 121(1/2): 41-55.
Mitchell, C. P., E. A. Stevens, et al. (1999). Short-rotation forestry - operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the
UK. Forest Ecology and Management 121(1/2): 123-136.
Santa Regina, I. and T. Tarazona (2001). Nutrient cycling in a natural beech forest and adjacent planted pine in northern Spain. Forestry(Oxford) 74(1): 11-28
Schroeder, P., S. Brown, et al. (1997). Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the United States using inventory data. Forest
Science 43(3): 424-434.
Shan, J Morris L A. & Hendrick, R L. (2001) The effects of management on soil and plant carbon sequestration in slash pine plantations.
Journal of Applied Ecology 38 (5), 932-941.
Smith and Heath. Data includes values compiled by DR. JIM SMITH, USDA FOREST SERVICE, DURHAM NH USA 03824.
jsmith11@fs.fed.us, Lheath@fs.fed.us
Son YH; Hwang JW; Kim ZS; Lee WK; Kim JS (2001) Allometry and biomass of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) in central Korea.
Bioresource Technology 78 (3): 251-255 2001
Turnbull, C.R.A., McLeod, D.E., Beadle, C.L., Ratkowsky, D.A., Mummery, D.C. and Bird, T. (1993). Comparative growth of Eucalyptus
species of the subgenera Monocalyptus and Symphyomyrtus in intensively managed plantations in southern Tasmania. Aust. For. 56, pp.
276–286.
UN-ECE/FAO (2000). Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and new Zealand (industrialized temperate / boreal
countries.UN-ECE/FAO contribution to th Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, united nations, New-Ypork and Geneva, geneva
Timber and Forest Study papers, No 17.446 p.
U'soltsev and Van Clay. (1995). Stand Biomass Dynamics of Pine plantations and natural forests on dry steppe in Kazakhstan Scan J For
Res, 10, 305-312
Vogt K (1991). Carbon budgets of temperate forest ecosystems. Tree Physiology, 9:69-86.
Zhou, G., Y. Wang, et al. (2002). Estimating biomass and net primary production from forest inventory data: a case study of China's Larix
forests. Forest Ecology and Management 169(1/2): 149-157.

BorealFinnish Forest Research Institute (2002). Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. SVT Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki, Finland.
Isaev, A.S., Korovin, G.N., Utkin A.I., Pryazhnikov A.A., and D.G. Zamolodchikov (1993) Estimation of Carbon Pool and Its Annual
Deposition in Phytomass of Forest Ecosystems in Russia, Forestry (Lesovedenie), 5: 3-10 (In Russian).
Kajimoto, T., Y. Matsuura, et al. (1999). Above- and belowground biomass and net primary productivity of a Larix gmelinii stand near Tura,
central Siberia. Tree Physiology 19(12): 815-822.
Koivisto, 1959; Koivisto, P., (1959) Growth and Yield Tables. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. Vol 51 no. 51.8: 1-49 (In Finnish with headings in
English).
Kurz, W.A. and M.J. Apps. (1993): Contribution of northern forests to the global C cycle: Canada as a case study. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, 70, 163-176.
Nilsson S., Shvidenko A., Stolbovoi V., Glick M., Jonas M., Obersteiner M. (2000). Full carbon account for Russia. Interim Report IR -00021 Int Inst Appl Anal, 181 pages.
UN-ECE/FAO (2000). Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and new Zealand (industrialized temperate / boreal
countries.UN-ECE/FAO contribution to th Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, United Nations, New-Ypork and Geneva, geneva
Timber and Forest Study papers, No 17.446 p.
Vuokila, Y. and Väliaho, H. (1980). Growth and yield models for conifers cultures in Finland. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 99(2):1-271
Wirth C. , E.-D. Schulze, W. Schulze, D. von Stünzner-Karbe, W. Ziegler, I. M. Miljukova, A. Sogatchev, A. B. Varlagin, M. Panvyorov, S.
Grigoriev, W. Kusnetzova, M. Siry, G. Hardes, R. Zimmermann, N. N. Vygodskaya (1999). Above-ground biomass and structure ofpristine Siberian Scots pine forests as controlled by competition and fire. Oecologia 121 : 66-80
Zakharov, V.K., Trull, O.A., Miroshnikov, V.S., and V.E. Ermakov (1962) The Reference Book on Forest Inventory. Belarus State
Publishing, Minsk, p. 368. (In Russian).
Zagreev, V.V., Sukhikh, B.I., Shvidenko, A.Z., Gusev, N.N., and A.G. Moshkalev (1993) The All-Union Standards for Forest Inventory.
Kolos, Moscow, p. 495. (In Russian).

3.166

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.7
AVERAGE ANNUAL ABOVE GROUND NET INCREMENT IN VOLUME IN PLANTATIONS BY SPECIES(m3/ha/yr)(To be used for Iv in Equation 3.2.5)IV(m³ ha-¹ yr-¹)

Species
Range

Mean*

E. deglupta

14 - 50

32

E. globulus

10 - 4025

E. grandis

15 - 50

32.5

E. saligna

10 - 55

32.5

E. camaldulensis

15 - 30

22.5

E. urophylla

20 - 60

40

E. robusta

10 - 40

25

Pinus caribaea var. caribaea

10 - 28

19

Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis

20 - 50

35

Pinus patula

8 - 4024

Pinus radiata

12 - 35

23.5

Pinus oocarpa

10 - 40

25

Araucaria angustifolia

8 - 2416

A. cunninghamii

10 - 18

14

Gmelina arborea

12 - 50

31

Swietenia macrophylla

7 - 3018.5

Tectona grandis

6 - 18

12

Casuarina equisetifolia

6 - 2013

C. junghuhniana

7 - 11

9

Cupressus lusitanica

8 - 4024

Cordia alliadora

10 - 20

15

Leucaena leucocephala

30 - 55

42.5

Acacia auriculiformis

6 - 2013

Acacia mearnsii

14 - 25

19.5

Terminalia superba

10 - 14

12

Terminalia ivorensis

8 - 17

12.5

Dalbergia sissoo
5-8
6.5* For those parties that have reason to believe that their plantations are located on more than
average fertile sites it is suggested to use the mean value + 50%, for those Parties that havereason to believe their plantations are located on poor sites, it is suggested to use the meanvalue -50%
Source: Ugalde,L. and Prez,O. Mean annual volume increment of selected industrial forest planatation
species. Forest Plantation Thematic Papers, Working paper 1. FAO (2001)
Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/AC121E/AC121E00.HTM

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.167

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

Other

Grassland

Temperate broadleaf forest/
plantation

Conifer
forest/plantation

Tropical/subtropical forest

TABLE 3A.1.8
AVERAGE BELOWGROUND TO ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS RATIO (ROOT-SHOOT RATIO, R) IN NATURAL REGENERATION BY
BROAD CATEGORY (tonnes dry matter/tonne dry matter)(To be used for R in Equation 3.2.5)
Vegetation type

Abovegroundbiomass (t/ha)

Mean

SD

lower
range

upper
range

References

Secondary tropical/sub-tropicalforest

<125

0.42

0.22

0.14

0.83

5, 7, 13, 25, 28, 31, 48,
71

Primary tropical/sub-tropicalmoist forest

NS

0.24

0.03

0.22

0.33

33, 57, 63, 67, 69

Tropical/sub-tropical dry forest

NS

0.27

0.01

0.27

0.28

65

Conifer forest/plantation

<50

0.46

0.21

0.21

1.06

2, 8, 43, 44, 54, 61, 75

Conifer forest/plantation

50-150

0.32

0.08

0.24

0.50

6, 36, 54, 55, 58, 61

Conifer forest/plantation

>150

0.23

0.09

0.12

0.49

1, 6, 20, 40, 53, 61, 67,
77, 79

Oak forest

>70

0.35

0.25

0.20

1.16

15, 60, 64, 67

Eucalypt plantation

<50

0.45

0.15

0.29

0.81

9, 51, 59

Eucalypt plantation

50-150

0.35

0.23

0.15

0.81

4, 9, 59, 66, 76

Eucalypt forest/plantation

>150

0.20

0.08

0.10

0.33

4, 9, 16, 66

Other broadleaf forest

<75

0.43

0.24

0.12

0.93

30, 45, 46, 62

Other broadleaf forest

75-150

0.26

0.10

0.13

0.52

30, 36, 45, 46, 62, 77,
78, 81Other broadleaf forest

>150

0.24

0.05

0.17

0.30

3, 26, 30, 37, 67, 78, 81

Steppe/tundra/prairie grassland

NS

3.95

2.97

1.92

10.51

50, 56, 70, 72

Temperate/sub-tropical/ tropicalgrassland

NS

1.58

1.02

0.59

3.11

22, 23, 32, 52

Semi-arid grassland

NS

2.80

1.33

1.43

4.92

17-19, 34

Woodland/savanna

NS

0.48

0.19

0.26

1.01

10-12, 21, 27, 49, 65,
73, 74

Shrubland

NS

2.83

2.04

0.34

6.49

14, 29, 35, 38, 41, 42,
47, 67

Tidal marsh

NS

1.04

0.21

0.74

1.23

24, 39, 68, 80

NS = Not specified

References for Table 3A.1.8
1.

Alban, D., D. Perala, and B. Schlaegel (1978) Biomass and nutrient distribution in aspen, pine, and spruce stands on the same soil typein Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 8: 290-299.

2.

Albaugh, T., H. Allen, P. Dougherty, L. Kress, and J. King (1998) Leaf area and above- and below-ground growth responses of loblolly
pine to nutrient and water additions. Forest Science 44(2): 317-328.

3.

Anderson, F. (1971) Methods and Preliminary results of estimation of biomass and primary production in a south Sweedish mixed
deciduous woodland. In: Productivity of forest ecosystems. Proccedings of the Brussels symposium, 1969, ecology and conservation 4.
UNESCO, Paris.

4.

Applegate, G. (1982) Biomass of Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis Sm.) Forests on Fraser Island. Masters Thesis. University of New
England, Armidale.

5.

Bartholomew, W., J. Meyer, and H. Laudelout (1953) Mineral nutrient immobilization under forest and grass fallow in the Yangambi(Belgian Congo) region. Publications de l'Institut National Pour l'Etude Agronomique du Congo Belge Serie scientifique 57: 27pp total.

6.

Baskerville, G. (1966) Dry-matter production in immature balsam fir stands: roots, lesser vegetation, and total stand. Forest Science 12: 49-53.

7.

Berish, C. (1982) Root biomass and surface area in three successional tropicl forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 12: 699-704.

8.

Braekke, F. (1992) Root biomass changes after drainage and fertilisation of a low-shrub pine bog. Plant and Soil 143: 33-43.

9.

Brand, B. (1999) Quantifying biomass and carbon sequestration of plantation blue gums in south west Western Australia. Honours
Thesis. Curtin University of Technology,

10. Burrows, W. (1976) Aspects of nutrient cycling in semi-arid mallee and mulga communities. PhD Thesis. Australian National
University, Canberra.
11. Burrows, W., M. Hoffmann, J. Compton, P. Back, and L. Tait (2000) Allometric relationships and community biomass estimates forsome dominant eucalypts in Central Queensland woodlands. Australian Journal of Botany 48: 707-714.
12. Burrows, W., M. Hoffmann, J. Compton, and P. Back (2001) Allometric relationships and community biomass stocks in white cypress
pine (Callitris glaucophylla) and associated eucalypts of the Carnarvon area - south central Queensland. National Carbon Accounting
System Technical Report No. 33. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. 16 p.

3.168

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

13. Buschbacher, R., C. Uhl, and E. Serrao (1988) Abandoned pastures in eastern Amazonia. II. Nutrient stocks in the soil and vegetation.
Journal of Ecology 76: 682-701.
14. Caldwell, M. and L. Camp (1974) Belowground productivity of two cool desert communities. Oecologia 17: 123-130.
15. Canadell, J. and F. Roda (1991) Root biomass of Quercus ilex in a montane Mediterranean forest. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 21(12): 1771-1778.
16. Chilcott, C. (1998) The initial impacts of reforestation and deforestation on herbaceous species, litter decomposition, soil biota andnutrients in native temperate pastures on the Northern Tablelands, NSW. PhD Thesis. University of New England, Armidale.
17. Christie, E. (1978) Ecosystem processes in semiarid grasslands. I. Primary production and water use of two communities possessing
different photosynthetic pathways. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 773-787.
18. Christie, E. (1979) Eco-physiological studies of the semiarid grasses Aristida leptopoda and Astrebla lappacea. Australian Journal of
Ecology 4: 223-228.
19. Christie, E. (1981) Biomass and nutrient dynamics in a C4 semi-arid Australian grassland community. Journal of Applied Ecology 18:
907-918.
20. Cole, D., S. Gessel, and S. Dice (1967) Distribution and cycling of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium in a second-growth
Douglas-fir ecosystem. In: Symposium : Primary productivity and mineral cycling in natural ecosystems. American Association for the
Advancement of Science 13th Annual Meeting New York City, December 27, 1967: University of Maine Press.
21. Compton, J., L. Tait, M. Hoffmann, and D. Myles (1999) Root-shoot ratios and root distribution for woodland communities across arainfall gradient in central Queensland. In: Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress. Townsville, Australia.
22. Cooksley, D., K. Butler, J. Prinsen, and C. Paton (1988) Influence of soil type on Heteropogon contortus - Bothrichloa bladhii
dominant native pasture in south-eastern Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28: 587-591.
23. De Castro, E.A. and J.B. Kauffman (1998) Ecosystem structure in the Brazilian Cerrado: a vegetation gradient of aboveground biomass,root mass and consumption by fire. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14(3): 263-283.
24. De la Cruz, A. and C. Hackney (1977) Energy value, elemental composition, and productivity of belowground biomass of a Juncus
tidal marsh. Ecology 58: 1165-1170.
25. Drew, W., S. Aksornkoae, and W. Kaitpraneet (1978) An assessment of productivity in successional stages from abandoned swidden(Rai) to dry evergreen forest in northeastern Thailand. Forest Bulletin 56: 31 total.
26. Dylis, N. (1971) Primary production of mixed forests. In: Productivity of forest ecosystems. Proceedings of the Brussels symposium,
1969. Paris: UNESCO.
27. Eamus, D., X. Chen, G. Kelley, and L. Hutley (2002) Root biomass and root fractal analyses of an open Eucalyptus forest in a savannaof north Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 50: 31-41.
28. Ewel, J. (1971) Biomass changes in early tropical succession. Turrialba 21: 110-112.
29. Forrest, G. (1971) Structure and production of North Pennine blanket bog vegetation. Journal of Ecology 59: 453-479.
30. Garkoti, S. and S. Singh (1995) Variation in net primary productivity and biomass of forests in the high mountains of Central Himalaya.
Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 23-28.
31.

Golley, F., H. Odum, and R. Wilson (1962) The structure and metabolism of a Puerto Rican red mangrove forest in May. Ecology 43(1): 9-19.

32. Graham, T. (1987) The effect of renovation practices on nitrogen cycling and productivity of rundown buffel grass pasture. PhD Thesis.
University of Queensland,
33. Greenland, D. and J. Kowal (1960) Nutrient content of the moist tropical forest of Ghana. Plant and Soil 12: 154-173.
34. Grouzis, M. and L. Akpo (1997) Influence of tree cover on herbaceous above- and below-ground phytomas in the Sahelian zone of
Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments 35: 285-296.
35. Groves, R. and R. Specht (1965) Growth of heath vegetation. 1. Annual growth curves of two heath ecosystems in Australia. Australian
Journal of Botany 13: 261-280.
36. Harris, W., R. Kinerson, and N. Edwards (1977) Comparison of belowground biomass of natural deciduous forest and loblolly pine
plantations. Pedobiologica 17: 369-381.
37. Hart, P., P. Clinton, R. Allen, A. Nordmeyer, and G. Evans (2003) Biomass and macro-nutrients (above- and below-ground) in a New
Zealand beech (Nothofagus) forest ecosystem: implications for carbon storage and sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology andManagement 174: 281-294.
38. Hoffmann, M. and J. Kummerow (1978) Root studies in the Chilean matorral. Oecologia 32: 57-69.
39. Hussey, A. and S. Long (1982) Seasonal changes in weight of above- and below-ground vegetation and dead plant material in a salt
marsh at Colne Point, Essex. Journal of Ecology 70: 757-771.
40. Johnstone, W. (1971) Total standing crop and tree component distributions in three stands of 100-year-old lodgepole pine. In: Forest
biomass studies. 15th IUFRO Congress (Ed.^Eds. H. Young). University of Maine Press, Orono. p. 81-89.
41. Jones, R. (1968) Estimating productivity and apparent photosynthesis from differences in consecutive measurements of total living
plant parts of an Australian heathland. Australian Journal of Botany 16: 589-602.
42. Kummerow, J., D. Krause, and W. Jow (1977) Root systems of chaparral shrubs. Oecologia 29: 163-177.
43. Linder, S. and B. Axelsson (1982) Changes in carbon uptake and allocation patterns as a result of irrigation and fertilisation in a young
Pinus sylvestris stand. In: Carbon Uptake and Allocation:Key to Management of Subalpine Forest Ecosystems (Ed.^Eds. R. Waring).
Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. p. 38-44.
44. Litton, C., M. Ryan, D. Tinker, and D. Knight (2003) Belowground and aboveground biomass in young postfire lodgepole pine forestsof contrasting tree density. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33(2): 351-363.
45. Lodhiyal, L. and N. Lodhiyal (1997) Variation in biomass and net primary productivity in short rotation high density central Himalayan
poplar plantations. Forest Ecology and Management 98: 167-179.
46. Lodhiyal, N., L. Lodhiyal, and P. Pangtey (2002) Structure and function of Shisham forests in central Himalaya, India: dry matter
dynamics. Annals of Botany 89: 41-54.
47. Low, A. and B. Lamont (1990) Aerial and belowground phytomass of Banksia scrub-heath at Eneabba, South-Western Australia.
Australian Journal of Botany 38: 351-359.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.169

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

48. Lugo, A. (1992) Comparison of tropical tree plantations with secondary forests of similar age. Ecological Monographs 62: 1-41.
49. Menaut, J. and J. Cesar (1982) The structure and dynamics of a west African savanna. In: Ecology of Tropical Savannas (Ed.^Eds. B.
Huntley and B. Walker). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. p. 80-100.
50. Milchunas, D. and W. Lauenroth (1989) Three-dimensional distribution of plant biomass in relation to grazing and topography in the
shortgrass steppe. Oikos 55: 82-86.
51. Misra, R., C. Turnbull, R. Cromer, A. Gibbons, and A. LaSala (1998) Below- and above-ground growth of Eucalyptus nitens in ayoung plantation. I. Biomass. Forest Ecology and Management 106: 283-293.
52. Nepstad, D. (1989) Forest regrowth in abandoned pastures of eastern Amazonia: limitations to tree seedling survival and growth. PhD
Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven.
53. Nihlgård, B. (1972) Plant biomass, primary production and distribution of chemical elements in a beech and a planted spruce forest inSouth Sweden. Oikos 23: 69-81.
54. Ovington, J. (1957a) Dry matter production by Pinus sylvestris L. Annals of Botany, London N.S. 21: 287-314.
55. Ovington, J. and H. Madgwick (1959a) Distribution of organic matter and plant nutrients in a plantation of Scotts pine. Forest Science
5: 344-355.
56. Ovington, J. (1963) Plant biomass and productivity of prairie, savanna, oakwood, and maize field ecosystems in central Minnesota.
Ecology 44(1): 52-63.
57. Ovington, J. and J. Olson (1970) Biomass and chemical content of El Verde lower montane rain forest plants. In: A tropical rain forest.
A study of irradiation and ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico (Division of Technical Information TID 24270) (Ed.^Eds. H. Odum and R.
Pigeon). US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington DC. p. 53-77.
58. Pearson, J., T. Fahey, and D. Knight (1984) Biomass and leaf area in contrasting lodgepole pine forests. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 14: 259-265.
59. Prasad, R., A. Sah, A. Bhandari, and O. Choubey (1984) Dry matter production by Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehn plantationin
Jabalpur. Indian Forester 110: 868-878.
60. Rawat, Y. and J. Singh (1988) Structure and function of oak forests in Central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Annals of Botany 62:
397-411.
61. Ritson, P. and S. Sochacki (2003) Measurement and prediction of biomass and carbon content of Pinus pinaster trees in farm forestry
plantations, south-western Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 175: 103-117.
62. Ruark, G. and J. Bockheim (1988) Biomass, net primary production, and nutrient distribution for an age sequence of Populus
tremuloides. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18: 435-443.
63. Shanmughavel, P., Z. Zheng, S. Liqing, and C. Min (2001) Floristic structure and biomass distribution of a tropical seasonal rain forest
in Xishuangbanna, southwest China. Biomass and Bioenergy 21: 165-175.
64. Simonovic, V. (1980) Root productivity studies in deciduous forest ecosystem. In: Environment and root behaviour (Ed.^Eds. N.
David). Geobios International, Jodhour, India. p. 213-230.
65. Singh, K. and R. Misra (1979) Structure and Functioning of Natural, Modified and Silvicultural Ecosystems in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.
Final Technical Report (1975-1978) MAB research project. Banras Hindu University, Varanasi. 160 p.
66. Singh, R. and V. Sharma (1976) Biomass estimation in five different aged plantations of Eucalyptus tereticornix Smith in western Uttar
Pradesh. In: Oslo Biomass Studies (Ed.^Eds. University of Maine, Orono. p. 143-161.
67. Singh, S., B. Adhikari, and D. Zobel (1994) Biomass, productivity, leaf longevity, and forest structure in the central Himalaya.
Ecological Monographs 64: 401-421.
68. Suzuki, E. and H. Tagawa (1983) Biomass of a mangrove forest and a sedge marsh on Ishigaki Island, south Japan. Japanese Journalof Ecology 33: 231-234.
69. Tanner, E. (1980) Studies on the biomass and productivity in a series of montane rain forests in Jamaica. Journal of Ecology 68: 573588.
70. Titlyanova, A., G. Rusch, and E. van der Maarel (1988) Biomass structure of limestone grasslands on Öland in relation to grazing
intensity. Acta phytogeographica suecica 76: 125-134.
71. Uhl, C. (1987) Factors controlling succession following slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia. Journal of Ecology 75: 377-407.
72. van Wijk, M., M. Williams, L. Gough, S. Hobbie, and G. Shaver (2003) Luxury consumption of soil nutrients: a possible competitive
strategy in above-ground and below-ground biomass allocation and root morphology for slow growing arctic vegetation? Journal of
Ecology 91: 664-676.
73. Werner, P.A. (1986) Population dynamics and productivity of selected forest trees in Kakadu National Park. Final report to theAustralian National Parks and Wildlife Service. CSIRO Darwin, Tropical Ecosystems Research Centre, p.
74. Werner, P.A. and P.G. Murphy (2001) Size-specific biomass allocation and water content of above- and below-ground components ofthree Eucalyptus species in a northern Australian savanna. Australian Journal of Botany 49(2): 155-167.
75. Westman, E. and R. Whitaker (1975) The pygmy forest region of northern California: studies on biomass and primary productivity.
Journal of Ecology 63: 493-520.
76. Westman, W. and R. Rogers (1977) Biomass and structure of a subtropical eucalypt forest, North Stradbroke Island. Australian Journalof Botany 25: 171-191.
77. Whittaker, R. and G. Woodwell (1971) Measurement of net primary production in forests. In: Productivity of Forest Ecosystems (Eds.)
Paris: UNESCO. p. 159-175.
78. Whittaker, R., F. Borman, G. Likens, and T. Siccama (1974) The Hubbard Brook ecosystem study: forest biomass and production.
Ecological Monographs 44: 233-252.
79. Will, G. (1966) Root growth and dry-matter production in a high-producing stand of Pinus radiata. New Zealand Forestry Research
Notes 44: 1-15.
80. Windham, L. (2001) Comparison of biomass production and decomposition between Phragmites australis (common reed) and Spartina
patens (salt hay grass) in brackish tidal marshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands 21(2): 179-188.
81. Zavitkovski, J. and R. Stevens (1972) Primary productivity of red alder ecosystems. Ecology 53: 235-242.

3.170

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.9-1BASIC WOOD DENSITIES OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume)
FOR BOREAL AND TEMPERATE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
Species or genus
Abies

Basic wood density
m0/VwetSource

0.40

1

Acer

0.52

1

Alnus

0.45

1

Betula0.51

1

Carpinus betulus

0.63

3

Castanea sativa

0.48

3

Fagus sylvatica

0.58

1

Fraxinus

0.57

1

Juglans

0.53

3

Larix decidua

0.46

1

Larix kaempferi

0.49

3

Picea abies

0.40

1

Picea sitchensis

0.40

2

Pinus pinaster

0.44

5

Pinus strobus

0.32

1

Pinus sylvestris

0.42

1

Populus

0.35

1

Prunus0.49

1

Pseudotsuga menziesii

0.45

1

Quercus

0.58

1

Salix

0.45

1

Thuja plicata

0.31

4

Tilia

0.43

1

Tsuga

0.42

4

Source:1. Dietz, P. 1975: Dichte und Rindengehalt von Industrieholz. Holz Roh- Werkstoff 33: 135-141
2. Knigge, W.; Schulz, H. 1966: Grundriss der Forstbenutzung. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg, Berlin
3. EN 350-2 (1994): Durability of wood and wood products - Natural durability of solid wood - Part 2:
Guide to the natural durability and treatability of selected wood species of importance in Europe
4. Forest Products Laboratory: Handbook of wood and wood-based materials. Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, New York, London
5. Rijsdijk, J.F.; Laming, P.B. 1994: Physical and related properties of 145 timbers. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London
6. Kollmann, F.F.P.; Coté, W.A. 1968: Principles of wood science and technology. Springer Verlag,
Berlin, New YorkIPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.171

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.9-2
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
D

TROPICAL AMERICA

D

Acacia leucophloea

TROPICAL ASIA

0.76

Albizia spp.

0.52

Afzelia spp.

TROPICAL AFRICA

0.67

D

Adina cordifolia

0.58, 0.59+

Alcornea spp.

0.34

Aidia ochroleuca

0.78*

Aegle marmelo

0.75

Alexa grandiflora

0.6

Albizia spp.

0.52

Agathis spp.

0.44

Alnus ferruginea

0.38

0.63*

Aglaia llanosiana

0.89

Anacardium excelsum

0.41

Alangium longiflorum

0.65

Anadenanthera macrocarpa

0.86

Allanblackia floribunda
Allophyllus africanus f.
acuminatus
Alstonia congensis

Albizzia amara

0.70*

Andira retusa

0.67

Amphimas pterocarpoides

0.63*

Albizzia falcataria

0.25

Aniba riparia lduckei

0.62

Anisophyllea obtusifolia

0.63*
0.29*

0.45
0.33

Aleurites trisperma

0.43

Antiaris africana

0.38

Annonidium mannii

Alnus japonica

0.43

Apeiba echinata

0.36

Anopyxis klaineana

0.74*

Alphitonia zizyphoides

0.5

0.7

Anthocleista keniensis

0.50*

Alphonsea arborea

0.69

0.75

Anthonotha macrophylla

0.78*

Alseodaphne longipes

0.49

Artocarpus comunis
Aspidosperma spp.
(araracanga group)
Astronium lecointei

0.73

Anthostemma aubryanum

0.32*

Alstonia spp.

0.37

Bagassa guianensis

0.68,0.69+

Amoora spp.

0.6

Banara guianensis

Anisophyllea zeylanica

0.46*

Anisoptera spp,

0.54

Anogeissus latifolia

0.78, 0.79+

Berthollettia excelsa

Anthocephalus chinensis

0.36,0.33+

Antidesma pleuricum

Antiaris spp.

0.38

0.61

Antrocaryon klaineanum

0.50*

Basiloxylon exelsum

0.58

Aucoumea klaineana

0.37

Beilschmiedia sp.

0.61

Autranella congolensis

0.78

0.59, 0.63+

Baillonella toxisperma

0.71

Bixa arborea

0.32

Balanites aegyptiaca

0.63*

0.59

Bombacopsis sepium

0.39

Baphia kirkii

0.93*

Aphanamiris perrottetiana

0.52

Borojoa patinoi

0.52

Beilschmiedia louisii

0.70*

Araucaria bidwillii

0.43

0.74

Beilschmiedia nitida

0.50*

Artocarpus spp.

0.58

0.64, 0.66+

Berlinia spp.

0.58

Azadirachta spp.

0.52

Bowdichia spp.
Brosimum spp. (alicastrum
group)
Brosimum utile

0.41, 0.46+

Blighia welwitschii

0.74*

Balanocarpus spp.

0.76

Brysenia adenophylla

0.54

Barringtonia edulis *0.48

Buchenauia capitata

Bauhinia spp.

0.67

Beilschmiedia tawa

0.58

Berrya cordifolia

0.78*

Bischofia javanica

Bombax spp.

0.4

0.61, 0.63+

Brachystegia spp.

0.52

Bucida buceras

0.93

Bridelia micrantha

0.47*

Bulnesia arborea

1

Calpocalyx klainei

0.63*

Bursera simaruba

0.29, 0.34+

Canarium schweinfurthii

0.40*

0.64

Canthium rubrocostratum

0.63*

0.54,0.58,0.62+ Byrsonima coriacea

Bleasdalea vitiensis

0.43

Cabralea cangerana

0.55

Carapa procera

0.59

Bombax ceiba
Bombycidendron
vidalianum

0.33

Caesalpinia spp.

1.05

Casearia battiscombei

0.5

0.53

Calophyllum sp.

0.65

Cassipourea euryoides

0.70*

0.33,0.50+

Cassipourea malosana

0.59*

Bridelia squamosa

0.5

Campnosperma
panamensis
Carapa sp.

Buchanania latifolia

0.45

Caryocar spp.

Boswellia serrata

0.5

0.47
0.69, 0.72+

Ceiba pentandra

0.26

Celtis spp.

0.59

Bursera serrata

0.59

Casearia sp.

0.62

Chlorophora ercelsa

0.55

Butea monosperma

0.48

Cassia moschata

0.71

Chrysophyllum albidum

0.56*

Calophyllum spp.

0.53

Casuarina equisetifolia

0.81

Cleistanthus mildbraedii

0.87*

Calycarpa arborea

0.53

Catostemma spp.

0.55

Cleistopholis patens

0.36*

Cananga odorata

0.29

Cecropia spp.

0.36

Coelocaryon preussii

0.56”

Canarium spp.

0.44

Cedrela spp.

0.40, 0.46+

0.70”

Canthium monstrosum

0.42

Cedrelinga catenaeformis

0.41, 0.53+

Cola sp.
Combretodendron
macrocarpum

0.7

0.23,0.24,0.25,
Conopharyngia holstii
0.50*
0.29+
+ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.
Carallia calycina

3.172

0.66*

Ceiba pentandra

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.9-2 (CONTINUED)
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
TROPICAL ASIAD

TROPICAL AMERICAD

TROPICAL AFRICA

D

Cassia javanica

0.69

Centrolobium spp.

0.65

Copaifera religiosa .

0.50”

Castanopsis philippensis

0.51

0.63

Cordia millenii

0.34

Casuarina equisetifolia

0.83

0.8

Cordia platythyrsa

0.36”

0.71,0.75+

Corynanthe pachyceras

0.63”

0.53,0.57+

Coda edulis

0.78*

0.67

Croton megalocarpus

0.57

0.26

Cryptosepalum staudtii

0.70*

0.46, 0.55+

Ctenolophon englerianus

0.78*

0.74

Cylicodiscus gabonensis

0.8

0.48

Cynometra alexandri

0.74

Casuarina nodiflora

0.85

Cespedesia macrophylla
Chaetocarpus
schomburgkianus
Chlorophora tinctoria

Cedrela odorata

0.38

Clarisia racemosa

Cedrela spp.

0.42

Cedrela toona
Ceiba pentandra
Celtis luzonica
Chisocheton pentandrus
Chloroxylon swietenia

Clusia rosea
Cochlospermum
0.43
orinocensis
0.23
Copaifera spp.
Cordia spp. (gerascanthus
0.49
group)
Cordia spp. (alliodora
0.52
group)
0.76, 0.79, 0.80+ Couepia sp.

0.7

Dacryodes spp.

0.61

0.50,0.53+

Daniellia ogea

0.40*

Chukrassia tabularis

0.57

Couma macrocarpa

Citrus grandis

0.59

Couratari spp.

0.5

Desbordesia pierreana

0.87”

Cleidion speciflorum

0.5

Croton xanthochloros

0.48

Detarium senegalensis

0.63*

Cleistanthus eollinus

0.88

Cupressus lusitanica

0.43, 0.44+

Dialium excelsum

0.78*

Cleistocalyx spp.
Cochlospermum
gossypium+religiosum
Cocos nucifera

0.76

Cyrilla racemiflora

0.53

Didelotia africana

0.78”

0.27

Dactyodes colombiana

0.51

Didelotia letouzeyi

0.5

0.5

Dacryodes excelsa

0.52, 0.53+

Colona serratifolia
Combretodendron
quadrialatum
Cordia spp.

0.33

Dalbergia retusa.

0.89

Diospyros spp.

0.82
0.32*

0.47

Discoglypremna caloneura
Distemonanthus
benthamianus
Drypetes sp.

0.57

Dalbergia stevensonii

0.82

0.53

Declinanona calycina

Cotylelobium spp.

0.69

Dialium guianensis

0.63*

0.87

Ehretia acuminata

Crataeva religiosa

0.53*

0.51*

Dialyanthera spp.

0.36, 0.48+

Enantia chlorantha

Cratoxylon arborescens

0.42”

0.4

Dicorynia paraensis

0.6

Endodesmia calophylloides

0.66”

Cryptocarya spp.

0.59

Didymopanax sp.

0.74

Entandrophragma utile

0.53

Cubilia cubili

0.49

Dimorphandra mora

0.99*

Eribroma oblongum

0.60*

Cullenia excelsa

0.53

Diplotropis purpurea

0.76, 0.77, 0.78+ Eriocoelum microspermum

0.50”

Cynometra spp.

0.8

Dipterix odorata

0.81,0.86,0.89+ Erismadelphus ensul

0.56*

0.45, 0.47+

Drypetes variabilis

0.69

Erythrina vogelii

0.25”

0.46

Dussia lehmannii

0.59

Erythrophleum ivorense

0.72

Dacrycarpus imbricatus
Dacrydium spp.

0.58

Dacryodes spp.

0.61

Ecclinusa guianensis

0.63

Erythroxylum mannii

0.5

Dalbergia paniculata

0.64

0.39

Fagara macrophylla

0.69

Decussocarpus vitiensis

0.37

0.82

Ficus iteophylla

0.40”

0.78

Fumtumia latifolia

0.45*

0.4

Gambeya spp.

0.56*

Degeneria vitiensis

0.35

Endlicheria cocvirey
Enterolobium
schomburgkii
Eperua spp.

Dehaasia triandra

0.64

Eriotheca sp.

Dialium spp.

0.8

Erisma uncinatum

Dillenia spp.

0.59

Erythrina sp.

Diospyros spp.

0.7

Eschweilera spp.

Diplodiscus paniculatus

0.63

Eucalyptus robusta

0.42, 0.48+

Garcinia punctata
Gilletiodendron
0.23
mildbraedii
Gossweilerodendron
0.71,0.79,0.95+
balsamiferum
0.51
Guarea thompsonii

Dipterocarpus caudatus

0.61

Eugenia stahlii

Dipterocarpus eurynchus

0.56

Euxylophora paraensis

0.73

Dipterocarpus gracilis

0.61

Fagara spp.

0.69

Dipterocarpus grandiflorus

0.62

Ficus sp.

0.32

0.68,0.70+

0.78”
0.87”
0.4
0.55”

Guibourtia spp.

0.72

Hannoa klaineana
Harunganamadagascariensis
Hexalobus crispiflorus

0.28”
0.45”
0.48”

Dipterocarpus kerrii
0.56
Genipa spp.
0.75
Holoptelea grandis
0.59”+ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.173

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.9-2 (CONTINUED)
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
TROPICAL ASIAD

TROPICAL AMERICA

Dipterocarpus kunstlerii

0.57

Goupia glabra

0.67, 0.72+

TROPICAL AFRICAD

Homalium spp.

0.7

Dipterocarpus spp.

0.61

Guarea chalde

0.52

Hylodendron gabonense.

0.78”

Dipterocarpus warburgii

0.52

Dracontomelon spp.

0.5

Guarea spp.

0.52

Hymenostegia pellegrini

0.78”

Guatteria spp.

0.36

Irvingia grandifolia

Dryobalanops spp.

0.61

0.78”

Guazuma ulmifolia

0.52, 0.50+

Julbernardia globiflora

Dtypetes bordenii

0.78

0.75

Guettarda scabra

0.65

Khaya ivorensis

0.44

Durio spp.

0.53

Guillielma gasipae

0.95, 1.25+

Klainedoxa gabonensis

0.87

Lannea welwitschii

0.45”’

Dyera costulata

0.36

Gwtavia sp.

Dysoxylum quercifolium

0.49

Helicostylis tomentosa

Elaeocarpus serratus

0.40*

Hernandia Sonora

Emblica officinalis

0.8

Hevea brasiliense

Endiandra laxiflora

0.54

Himatanthus articulata

Endospermum spp.

0.38

Hirtella davisii

Enterolobium
cyclocarpum

0.35

Humiria balsamifera

Epicharis cumingiana

0.73

Humiriastrum procera

Erythrina subumbrans
Erythrophloeum
densiflorum
Eucalyptus citriodora

0.24

Hura crepitans

0.65

Hyeronima alchorneoides

0.64

Hyeronima laxiflora

Eucalyptus deglupta

0.34

Hymenaea davisii

Eugenia spp.

0.65

Hymenolobium sp.
Inga sp.

D

0.56
0.68, 0.72+
0.29
0.49
0.40,0.54+
0.74
0.66,0.67+

Lecomtedoxa klainenna

0.78”

Letestua durissima

0.87”

Lophira alata

0.87”

Lovoa trichilioides
Macarangakilimandscharica

0.45”

Maesopsis eminii

Malacantha sp. aff.
alnifolia
0.36, 0.37, 0.38+ Mammea africana
0.7

0.60,0.64+

0.40*
0.41
0.45”
0.62

Manilkara lacera

0.78”

0.59

Markhamia platycalyx

0.45*

0.67

Memecylon capitellatum
Microberlinia
brazzavillensis

0.77”

0.64

0.49,0.52,0.58,
Microcos coriaceus
0.64+
0.46
Milletia spp.

Fagraea spp.

0.73

Ficus benjamina

0.65

Iryanthera spp.

Ficus spp.

0.39

Jacaranda sp.

0.55

Ganua obovatifolia

0.59

Joannesia heveoides

0.39

0.7
0.42”
0.72

Garcinia myrtifolia

0.65

Lachmellea speciosa

0.73

Mitragyna stipulosa
Monopetalanthus
pellegrinii
Musanga cecropioides

Garcinia spp.

0.75

Laetia procera

0.68

Nauclea diderrichii

0.63

Gardenia turgida

0.64

Lecythis spp.

0.77

0.32”

Garuga pinnata

0.51

Licania spp.

0.78

0.63

Licaria spp.

0.82

Neopoutonia macrocalyx
Nesogordonia
papaverifera
Ochtocosmus africanus

Lindackeria sp.

0.41

Odyendea spp.

0.32

Linociera domingensis

0.81

Oldfieldia africana

0.78*

Gluta spp.
Gmelina arborea

0.41,0.45+

Gmelina vitiensis

0.54

0.47
0.47”
0.23

0.65
0.78’

Gonocaryum calleryanum

0.64

Lonchocarpus spp.

0.69

Ongokea gore

0.72

Gonystylus punctatus

0.57

Loxopterygium sagotii

0.56

Oxystigma oxyphyllum

0.53

Grewia tiliaefolia

0.68

Lucuma spp.

0.79

Pachyelasma tessmannii

0.70”

Hardwickia binata

0.73

Luehea spp.

0.5

Pachypodanthium staudtii

0.58”

Harpullia arborea

0.62

Lueheopsis duckeana

0.64

Paraberlinia bifoliolata

0.56”

Heritiera spp.

0.56

Mabea piriri

0.59

Parinari glabra

0.87”

Hevea brasiliensis

0.53

Machaerium spp.

0.7

Parkia bicolor

0.36”

Hibiscus tiliaceus

0.57

Macoubea guianensis

0.40*

Pausinystalia brachythyrsa

0.56”

Homalanthus populneus

0.38

Magnolia spp.

0.52

Pausinystalia cf. talbotii

0.56”

Homalium spp.

0.76

Maguira sclerophylla

0.57

Pentaclethra macrophylla

0.78”

Hopea acuminata

0.62

Mammea americana

0.62

Pentadesma butyracea

0.78”

Hopea spp.

0.64

Mangifera indica

0.55

Phyllanthus discoideus

0.76”

Intsia palembanica

0.68

Manilkara sp.

0.89

Pierreodendron africanum

0.70;”

Kayea garciae
0.53
Marila sp.
0.63
Piptadeniastrum africanum
0.56+ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.

3.174

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.9-2 (CONTINUED)
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
TROPICAL ASIA
Kingiodendron
alternifolium
Kleinhovia hospita
Knema spp.
Koompassia excelsa
Koordersiodendron
pinnatum
Kydia calycina
Lagerstroemia spp.
Lannea grandis
Leucaena leucocephala
Litchi chinensis ssp.
philippinensis
Lithocarpus soleriana

D

TROPICAL AMERICAD

TROPICAL AFRICA

D

0.48

Marmaroxylon racemosum

0.78*

Plagiostyles africana

0.70”

0.36
0.53
0.63

Matayba domingensis
Matisia hirta
Maytenus spp.

0.7
0.61
0.71

Poga oleosa
Polyalthia suaveolens
Premna angolensis

0.36
0.66”
0.63”

0.65, 0.69+

Mezilaurus lindaviana

0.68

Pteleopsis hylodendron

0.63*

0.72
0.55
0.5
0.64

Michropholis spp.
Minquartia guianensis
Mora sp.
Mouriria sideroxylon

0.610.76,0.79+
0.71
0.88

Pterocarpus soyauxii
Pterygota spp.
Pycnanthus angolensis
Randia cladantha

0.61
0.52
0.4
0.78*

0.88

Myrciaria floribunda

0.73

Rauwolfia macrophylla

0.47*

0.46

Ricinodendron heudelotii

0.2

0.74, 0.76, 0.78+ Saccoglottis gabonensis

0.74”

0.63

Myristica spp.

Litsea spp.

0.4

Myroxylon balsamum

Lophopetalum spp.

0.46

Nectandra spp.

0.52

Santiria trimera

0.53*

Macaranga denticulata

0.53

0.51

Sapium ellipticum

0.50*

Madhuca oblongifolia

0.53

0.64

Schrebera arborea

0.63*

Mallotus philippensis

0.64

O c o t e a spp.
Onychopetalum
amazonicum
Ormosia spp.

0.59

Sclorodophloeus zenkeri

0.68*
0.56

Mangifera spp.

0.52

Ouratea sp.

0.66

Scottellia coriacea

Maniltoa minor

0.76

Pachira acuatica

0.43

Scyphocephalium ochocoa

0.48

Mastixia philippinensis

0.47

Paratecoma peroba

0.6

Scytopetalum tieghemii

0.56”

Melanorrhea spp.

0.63

Parinari spp.

0.68

Sindoropsis letestui

0.56*

Melia dubia

0.4

Parkia spp.

0.39

Staudtia stipitata

0.75

Melicope triphylla

0.37

Peltogyne spp.

0.79

Stemonocoleus micranthus

0.56”

Meliosma macrophylla

0.27

Pentaclethra macroloba

Melochia umbellata

0.25Peru glabrata

Me&a ferrea

0.83,0.85+

Peru schomburgkiana

Metrosideros collina

0.70,0.76+

Persea spp.

Michelia spp.

0.43

Petitia domingensis

0.65,0.68+

Sterculia rhinopetala

0.64

0.65

Strephonema pseudocola

0.56*

0.59

Strombosiopsis tetrandra

0.63”

0.40, 0.47,0.52+ Swartzia fistuloides
0.66

0.82

Symphonia globulifera

0.58”
0.59*

Microcos stylocarpa

0.4

Pinus caribaea

0.51

Syzygium cordatum

Micromelum compressum

0.64

Pinus oocarpa

0.55

Terminalia superba

0.45

Milliusa velutina

0.63

Pinus patula

0.45

Tessmania africana

0.85”

Mimusops elengi

0.72*

Piptadenia sp.

0.58

Testulea gabonensis

0.6

Mitragyna parviflora

0.56

Piranhea longepedunculata

0.9

Tetraberlinia tubmaniana

0.60”

Myristica spp.

0.53

Tetrapleura tetraptera

0.50”

0.53

Piratinera guianensis
Pithecellobium guachapele(syn. Pseudosamea)
Platonia insignis
Platymiscium spp.
Podocarpus spp.
Pourouma aff. melinonii
Pouteria spp.
Prioria copaifera
Protium spp.
Pseudolmedia laevigata
Pterocarpus spp.
Pterogyne nitens
Qualea albiflora
Qualea cf. lancifolia
Qualea dinizii

0.96

Neesia spp.

0.56

Tieghemella heckelii

0.55”

Trema sp.
Trichilia prieureana
Trichoscypha arborea
Triplochiton scleroxylon.
Uapaca spp.
Vepris undulata
Vitex doniana
Xylopia staudtii

0.40*
0.63”
0.59”
0.32
0.6
0.70”
0.4
0.36*

Neonauclea bernardoi
Neotrewia cumingii
Ochna foxworthyi
Ochroma pyramidale
Octomeles sumatrana
Oroxylon indicum
Ougenia dalbergiodes
Palaquium spp.
Pangium edule
Parashorea malaanonan
Parashorea stellata
Paratrophis glabra
Parinari spp.

0.62
0.55
0.86
0.3
0.27, 0.32+
0.32
0.7
0.55
0.5
0.51
0.59
0.77
0.68

0.70’
0.71, 0.84+
0.46
0.32
0.64, 0.67+
0.40,0.41+
0.53,0.64+
0.64
0.44
0.66
0.5
0.58
0.58

+ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.175

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.9-2 (CONTINUED)
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
TROPICAL ASIA
Parkia roxburghii
Payena spp.

D

TROPICAL AMERICAD

TROPICAL AFRICA

0.34
0.55

Qualea spp.
Quararibaea guianensis

0.55
0.54

Peltophorum pterocarpum

0.62

Quercus alata

0.71

Pentace spp.

0.56

Quercus costaricensis

0.61

Phaeanthus ebracteolatus

0.56

Quercus eugeniaefolia

0.67

Phyllocladus hypophyllus

0.53

Quercus spp.

0.7

Pinus caribaea

0.48

Raputia sp.

0.55

Pinus insularis

0.47,0.48+

Rheedia spp.

0.72

Pinus merkusii

0.54

Rollinia spp.

0.36

Pisonia umbellifera

0.21

Saccoglottis cydonioides

Pittosporum pentandrum

0.51

Sapium ssp.

Planchonia spp.

0.59

Schinopsis spp.

1

Podocarpus spp.

0.43

Sclerobium spp.

0.47
0.52

D

0.72
0.47,0.72+

Polyalthia flava

0.51

Sickingia spp.

Polyscias nodosa

0.38

Simaba multiflora

0.51

Pometia spp.

0.54

Simarouba amara

0.32, 0.34,0.38+

Pouteria villamilii

0.47

Sloanea guianensis

0.79

Premna tomentosa

0.96

Spondias mombin

0.30, 0.40,0.41+

Pterocarpus marsupium

0.67

Sterculia spp.

0.55

Pterocymbium tinctorium

0.28

Stylogyne spp.

0.69

Pyge’um vulgare

0.57

Swartzia spp.

Quercus spp.

0.7

Swietenia macrophylla

Radermachera pinnata

0.51

Salmalia malabarica

0.32,0.33+

Samanea saman

0.45, 0.46+

Symphonia globulifera
Tabebuia spp. (lapachogroup)
Tabebuia spp. (roble)

0.95
0.42,0.45,0.46,
0.54+
0.68

Sandoricum vidalii

0.43

Tabebuia spp. (white cedar)

Sapindus saponaria

0.58

Tabebuia stenocalyx

Sapium luzontcum

0.4

Tachigalia myrmecophylla

0.56

Schleichera oleosa

0.96

Talisia sp.

0.84

Schrebera swietenoides

0.82

Tapirira guianensis

Semicarpus anacardium

0.64

Terminalia sp.

Serialbizia acle

0.57

Tetragastris altisima

Serianthes melanesica

0.48

Toluifera balsamum

0.74

Sesbania grandiflora
Shorea assamica forma
philippinensis
Shorea astylosa

0.4

Torrubia sp.

0.52

0.41

Toulicia pulvinata

0.63

0.73

Tovomita guianensis

0.6

0.91
0.52
0.57
0.55,0.57+

0.47*
0.50, 0.51,
0.58+
0.61

Shorea ciliata

0.75

Trattinickia sp.

0.38

Shorea contorta

0.44

Trichilia propingua

0.58

Shorea gisok

0.76

Trichosperma mexicanum

0.41

Shorea guiso

0.68

Triplaris spp.

0.56

Shorea hopeifolia

0.44

Trophis sp.

0.54

Shorea malibato

0.78

Vatairea spp.

Shorea negrosensis

0.44

Virola spp.

Shorea palosapis

0.39

Vismia spp.

Shorea plagata

0.7

Vitex spp.

0.6
0.40, 0.44,
0.48+
0.41
0.52,0.56,
0.57++ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.

3.176

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.9-2 (CONTINUED)
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
TROPICAL ASIAD

TROPICAL AMERICA

D

Shorea polita

0.47

Vitex stahelii

Shorea polysperma

0.47

Vochysia spp.

Shorea robusta

0.72

Vouacapoua americana

0.6
0.40,0.47,
0.79+
0.79

Shorea spp. balau group
Shorea spp. dark red
meranti
Shorea spp. light red
meranti
Shorea spp. white meranti
Shorea spp. yellow
meranti
Shorea virescens

0.7

Warszewicsia coccinea

0.56

0.55

Xanthoxylum martinicensis

0.46

0.4

Xanthoxylum spp.

0.44

0.48

Xylopia frutescens

0 64”

TROPICAL AFRICA

D

0.46
0.42

Sloanea javanica

0.53

Soymida febrifuga

0.97

Spathodea campanulata

0.25

Stemonurus luzoniensis

0.37

Sterculia vitiensis
Stereospermum
suaveolens
Strombosia philippinensis

0.31
0.62

Strychnos potatorum

0.88

Swietenia macrophylla

0.49,0.53+

Swintonia foxworthyi

0.62

Swintonia spp.

0.61

0.71

Sycopsis dunni

0.63

Syzygium spp.

0.69, 0.76+

Tamarindus indica

0.75

Tectona grandis
Teijsmanniodendron
ahernianum
Terminalia citrina

0.50,0.55+

Terminalia copelandii

0.46

Terminalia foetidissima

0.55

Terminalia microcarpa

0.53

Terminalia nitens

0.58

0.9
0.71

Terminalia pterocarpa

0.48

Terminalia tomentosa

0.73,0.76, 0.77+

Ternstroemia megacarpa

0.53

Tetrameles nudiflora

0.3

Tetramerista glabra

0.61

Thespesia populnea

0.52

Toona calantas

0.29

Trema orientalis
0.31+ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.177

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.9-2 (CONTINUED)
BASIC WOOD DENSITIES (D) OF STEMWOOD (tonnes dry matter/m3 fresh volume) FOR TROPICAL TREE SPECIES(To be used for D in Equations 3.2.3., 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8)
TROPICAL ASIA

D

Trichospermum richii

0.32

Tristania spp.

0.80

Turpinia ovalifolia

0.36

Vateria indica

0.47*

Vatica spp.

0.69

Vitex spp.
Wallaceodendron
celebicum
Weinmannia luzoniensis

0.65

TROPICAL AMERICAD

TROPICAL AFRICA

D

0.55, 0.57+
0.49

Wrightia tinctorea

0.75

Xanthophyllum excelsum
Xanthostemon
verdugonianus
Xylia xylocarpa

0.63
1.04
0.73,0.81+

Zanthoxylum rhetsa

0.33

Zizyphus spp.

0.76

+ The wood densities specified pertain to more than one bibliographic source.
* Wood density value is derived from the regression equation in Reyes et al. (1992).
Source: Reyes, Gisel; Brown, Sandra; Chapman, Jonathan; Lugo, Ariel E. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-88 New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15pp.

TABLE 3A.1.10
DEFAULT VALUES OF BIOMASS EXPANSION FACTORS (BEFS)(BEF 2 to be used in connection with growing stock biomass data in Equation 3.2.3;
and BEF 1 to be used in connection with increment data in Equation 3.2.5)

Climatic zone
BorealTemperate

TropicalBEF2 (overbark)

BEF1 (overbark)

Forest type

Minimum dbh(cm)

to be used in connection to growing
stock biomass data (Equation 3.2.3)

to be used in connection toincrement data (Equation 3.2.5)

Conifers

0-8.0

1.35 (1.15-3.8)

1.15 (1-1.3)

Broadleaf
Conifers:
Spruce-fir
Pines

0-8.0

1.3 (1.15-4.2)

1.1 (1-1.3)

0-12.5

1.3 (1.15-4.2)

1.15 (1-1.3)

0-12.5

1.3 (1.15-3.4)

1.05 (1-1.2)

Broadleaf

0-12.5

1.4 (1.15-3.2)

1.2 (1.1-1.3)

Pines

10.0

1.3 (1.2-4.0)

1.2 (1.1-1.3)

Broadleaf

10.0

3.4 (2.0-9.0)

1.5 (1.3-1.7)

Note: BEF2s given here represent averages for average growing stock or age, the upper limit of the range represents young forests orforests with low growing stock; lower limits of the range approximate mature forests or those with high growing stock. The values apply
to growing stock biomass (dry weight) including bark and for given minimum diameter at breast height; Minimum top diameters andtreatment of branches is unspecified. Result is above-ground tree biomass.
Sources: Isaev et al., 1993; Brown, 1997; Brown and Schroeder, 1999; Schoene, 1999; ECE/FAO TBFRA, 2000; Lowe et al., 2000;
please also refer to FRA Working Paper 68 and 69 for average values for developing countries ( http://www.fao.org/forestry/index.jsp)

TABLE 3A.1.11
DEFAULT VALUES FOR FRACTION OUT OF TOTAL HARVEST LEFT TO DECAY IN THE FOREST, fBL(To be used only for fBL in Equation 3.2.7)
Region3.178

fBL

Boreal intensively managed

0.07

Temperate intensively managed

0.1

Temperate semi natural forests

0.15

Tropical plantation

0.25

Tropical selective logging in primary forests

0.4

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.12
COMBUSTION FACTOR VALUES (PROPORTION OF PREFIRE BIOMASS CONSUMED) FOR FIRESIN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES.
(Values in column ‘mean’ are to be used for (1-fBL) in Equation 3.2.9 and for ρburned on site in Equation 3.3.10)
Vegetation TypePrimary Tropical
Forest (slash andburn)

Sub-category

Mean

SD

No. m1Range

No. r2

References

Primary tropical forest

0.32

0.12

14

0.20 – 0.62

17

7, 8, 15, 56, 66, 3,
16, 53, 17, 45,

Primary open tropical forest

0.45

0.09

3

0.36 – 0.54

3

21

Primary tropical moist forest

0.50

0.03

2

0.39 – 0.54

237, 73

Primary tropical dry forest

-

-

0

0.78 – 0.95

166

All primary tropical forests

0.36

0.13

19

0.19 – 0.95

23Young secondary tropicalforest (3-5 yrs)

0.46

-

1

0.43 – 0.52

161Intermediate secondary
tropical forest (6-10 yrs)

0.67

0.21

2

0.46 – 0.90

261, 35

Advanced secondary tropicalforest (14-17 yrs)

0.50

0.10

2

0.36 – 0.79

261, 73All secondary tropical forests

0.55

0.06

8

0.36 – 0.90

956, 66, 34, 30

All Tertiary tropical forest

0.59

-

1

0.47 – 0.88

266, 30

Secondary tropicalforest (slash andburn)

Boreal Forest

Wildfire (general)

0.40

0.06

2

0.36 – 0.45

233

Crown fire

0.43

0..21

3

0.18 – 0.76

666, 41, 64, 63

surface fire

0.15

0.08

3

0.05 – 0.73

364, 63

Post logging slash burn

0.33

0.13

4

0.20 – 0.58

4

49, 40, 18

Land clearing fire

0.59

-

1

0.50 – 0.70

1

67

0.34

0.17

15

0.05 – 0.76

1645, 47All Boreal Forest
Wildfire
Eucalyptus forests

-

-

0

-

0

Prescribed fire – (surface)

0.61

0.11

6

0.50 – 0.77*

672, 54, 60, 9

Post logging slash burn

0.68

0.14

5

0.49 – 0.82

5

25, 58, 46

Felled and burned (landclearing fire)

0.49

-

1

-

1

62

0.63

0.13

12

0.49 – 0.82

12

Post logging slash burn

0.62

0.12

7

0.48 – 0.84

755, 19, 27, 14

Felled and burned (landclearing fire)

0.51

-

1

0.16 – 0.58

353, 24, 71

0.45

0.16

19

0.16 – 0.84

1753, 56All Eucalyptus Forests
Other temperate
forests

All “other” temperate forests
Shrubland (general)

0.95

-

1

-

1

44

Calluna heath

0.71

0.30

4

0.27 – 0.98

426, 56, 39

Fynbos

0.61

0.16

2

0.50 – 0.87

270, 44

0.72

0.25

7

0.27 – 0.98

7Savanna woodland@

0.22

-

1

0.01 – 0.47

128

Savanna parkland

0.73

-

1

0.44 – 0.87

157

Other savanna woodlands

0.37

0.19

4

0.14 – 0.63

4

22, 29All savanna woodlands (early dry season burns)

0.40

0.22

6

0.01 – 0.87

6

0.72

-

1

0.71 – 0.88

2

Shrublands
All Shrublands
Savanna Woodlands(early dry season
burns)*

Savanna woodland @Savanna Woodlands(mid/late dry season
burns)*

66, 57

Savanna parkland

0.82

0.07

6

0.49 – 0.96

6

57, 6, 51

Tropical savanna#

0.73

0.04

3

0.63 – 0.94

552, 73, 66, 12

Other savanna woodlands

0.68

0.19

7

0.38 – 0.96

722, 29, 44, 31, 57

0.74

0.14

17

0.29 – 0.96

20

All savanna woodlands (mid/late dry season burns)*
1

No. m = the number of observations for the mean
No. r = the number of observations for the range* Surface layer combustion only, # campo cerrado, cerrado sensu stricto, $ campo sujo, campo limpo, dambo, @ miombo~
derived from slashed tropical forest (includes unburned woody material)
2

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.179

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

TABLE 3A.1.12 (CONTINUED)COMBUSTION FACTOR VALUES (PROPORTION OF PREFIRE BIOMASS CONSUMED) FOR FIRESIN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES.
(Values in column ‘mean’ are to be used for (1-fBL) in Equation 3.2.9 and for ρburned on site in Equation 3.3.10)
Vegetation Type

Sub-category

Mean

SD

No.m1

Range

No.r2

Savanna Grasslands /Pastures (early dry
season burns)*

Tropical/sub-tropicalgrassland$

0.74

-

1

0.44 – 0.98

1

28

-

-

0

0.18 – 0.78

148

Grassland

All savanna grasslands (early dry season burns)*

Savanna Grasslands /Pastures (mid/latedry season burns)*

0.74

-

1

0.18 – 0.98

2

Tropical/sub-tropicalgrassland$

0.92

0.11

7

0.71 – 1.00

8

44, 73, 66, 12, 57

Tropical pasture~

0.35

0.21

6

0.19 – 0.81

74, 23, 38, 66

Savanna

0.86

0.12

16

0.44 – 1.00

23

53, 5, 56, 42, 50,
6, 45, 13, 44, 65,
66

0.77

0.26

29

0.19 – 1.00

38

Peatland

0.50

-

1

0.50 – 0.68

2

20, 44Tropical Wetlands

0.70

-

1

-

1

44

All savanna grasslands (mid/late dry season
burns)*
Other Vegetation
Types

References

1

No. m = the number of observations for the mean
2
No. r = the number of observations for the range* Surface layer combustion only, # campo cerrado, cerrado sensu stricto, $ campo sujo, campo limpo, dambo, @ miombo~
derived from slashed tropical forest (includes unburned woody material)

TABLE 3A.1.13
BIOMASS CONSUMPTION (t/ha) VALUES FOR FIRES IN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES(To be used in Equation 3.2.9. for the part of the equation: ‘BW • (1- fBL)’ , i.e., an absolute amount)
Sub-category

Mean

SE

No. m1Range

No. r 2

References

Primary tropical forest

83.9

25.8

6

10 – 22897, 15, 66, 3, 16,
17, 45

Primary open tropical forest

163.6

52.1

3

109.9 – 214

3

21,

Primary tropical moist forest

160.4

11.8

2

115.7 – 216.6

237, 73
66

Vegetation TypePrimary Tropical
Forest (slash andburn)Primary tropical dry forest

-

-

0

57 – 70

1

119.6

50.7

11

10 – 22815

Young secondary tropicalforest (3-5 yrs)

8.1

-

1

7.2 – 9.4

1

61

Intermediate
secondarytropical forest (6-10 yrs)

41.1

27.4

2

18.8 – 66

2

61, 35

Advanced secondary tropicalforest (14-17 yrs)

46.4

8.0

2

29.1 – 63.2

2

61, 73All secondary tropical forests

42.2

23.6

5

7.2 – 93.6

566, 30All Tertiary tropical forest

54.1

-

1

4.5 – 532

66, 30Wildfire (general)

52.8

48.4

6

18 – 149

6

2, 33, 66

Crown fire

25.1

7.9

10

15 – 43

10

11, 43, 66, 41, 63,
64

Surface fire

21.6

25.1

12

1.0 – 148

13

43, 69, 66, 63, 64,1

Post logging slash burn

69.6

44.8

7

7 – 202949, 40, 66, 18

Land clearing fire

87.5

35.0

3

48 – 136

3

10, 67

41.0

36.5

44

1.0 – 20249

43, 45, 69, 47

Wildfire

53.0

53.6

8

20 – 1798

66, 32, 9

Prescribed fire – (surface)

16.0

13.7

8

4.2 – 178

66, 72, 54, 60, 9

Post logging slash burn

168.4

168.8

5

34 – 453

5

25, 58, 46

Felled and burned (landclearing fire)

132.6

-

1

50 – 133

2

62, 9

69.4

100.8

22

4.2 – 453

23

All primary tropical forests

Secondary tropicalforest (slash andburn)

Boreal Forest

All Boreal Forest

Eucalypt forests

All Eucalypt Forests

3.180

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.13 (CONTINUED)
BIOMASS CONSUMPTION (t/ha) VALUES FOR FIRES IN A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES(To be used in Equation 3.2.9. for the part of the equation: ‘BW • (1- fBL)’ , i.e., an absolute amount)
Mean

SE

No. m1Range

No. r 2

References

Wildfire

19.8

6.3

4

11 - 25

4

32, 66

Post logging slash burn

77.5

65.0

7

15 – 220855, 19, 14, 27, 66

Felled and burned (landclearing fire)

48.4

62.7

2

3 – 1303

53, 24, 71

Vegetation Type

Other temperate
forests

Sub-category

50.4

53.7

15

3 – 22018

43, 56

Shrubland (general)

26.7

4.2

3

22 – 30

3

43

Calluna heath

11.5

4.3

3

6.5 – 213

26, 39Sagebrush

5.7

3.8

3

1.1 – 18

4

66

Fynbos

12.9

0.1

2

5.9 – 23

2

70, 66

14.3

9.0

11

1.1 – 30

12

2.5

-

1

0.1 – 5.3

1

All “other” temperate forests

Shrublands

All Shrublands
Savanna Woodlands(early dry season
burns)*

Savanna woodland@
Savanna parkland

2.7

-

1

1.4 – 3.9

1

2.6

0.1

2

0.07 – 3.9

2

Savanna woodland @

3.3

-

1

3.2 – 3.3

1

Savanna parkland

4.0

1.1

6

1 – 10.6

6

57, 6, 51

Tropical savanna#

6

1.8

2

3.7 – 8.4

252, 7359, 57, 31

All savanna woodlands (early dry season burns)
Savanna Woodlands(mid/late dry season
burns)*

Other savanna woodlands

5.3

1.7

3

3.7 – 7.6

3

4.6

1.5

12

1.0 – 10.6

12

Tropical/sub-tropicalgrassland$

2.1

-

1

1.4 – 3.1

1

Grassland---

1.2 – 111

All savanna woodlands (mid/late dry season burns)*
Savanna Grasslands /Pastures (early dry
season burns)*

All savanna grasslands (early dry season burns)*

Savanna Grasslands /Pastures (mid/latedry season burns)*

57

57

28
48

2.1

-

1

1.2 – 112

Tropical/sub-tropicalgrassland$

5.2

1.7

6

2.5 – 7.1

6

Grassland

4.1

3.1

6

1.5 – 10

6

43, 9

Tropical pasture

23.7

11.8

6

4.7 – 4574, 23, 38, 66

Savanna

7.0

2.7

6

0.5 – 1810

42, 50, 6, 45, 13,
65

10.0

10.1

24

0.5 – 45

29

Peatland

41

1.4

2

40 – 422

68, 33Tundra

10

-

1

-

-

33

~

All savanna grasslands (mid/late dry season
burns)*
Other Vegetation
Types

28

1

No. m = the number of observations for the mean

2

No. r = the number of observations for the range

9, 73, 12, 57* Surface layer combustion only, # campo cerrado, cerrado sensu stricto, $ campo sujo, campo limpo, dambo,@

miombo~ derived from slashed tropical forest (includes unburned woody material)

References to Tables 3A.1.12 and 3A.1.13
1.

Alexander, M., Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 1978. 60: p. 349-357.

2.

Amiro, B., J. Todd, and B. Wotton, Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959-1999. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF
FOREST RESEARCH, 2001. 31: p. 512-525.

3.

Araújo, T., J. Carvalho, N. Higuchi, A. Brasil, and A. Mesquita, A tropical rainforest clearing experiment by biomass burning in thestate of Pará, Brazil. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1999. 33: p. 1991-1998.

4.

Barbosa, R. and P. Fearnside, Pasture burning in Amazonia: Dynamics of residual biomass and the storage and release ofaboveground carbon. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1996. 101(D20): p. 25847-25857.

5.

Bilbao, B. and E. Medina, Types of grassland fires and nitrogen volatilization in tropical savannas of calabozo, in Biomass Burning
and Global Change: Volume 2. Biomass burning in South America, Southeast Asia, and temperate and boreal ecosystems, and the oilfires of Kuwait, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 569-574.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.181

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

6.

Cachier, H., C. Liousse, M. Pertusiot, A. Gaudichet, F. Echalar, and J. Lacaux, African fire Particulate emissions and atmosphericinfluence, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 1. Remote Sensing, Modeling and Inventory Development, and Biomass
Burning in Africa, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 428-440.

7.

Carvalho, J., N. Higuchi, T. Araujo, and J. Santos, Combustion completeness in a rainforest clearing experiment in Manaus, Brazil.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1998. 103(D11): p. 13195.

8.

Carvalho, J., F. Costa, C. Veras, et al., Biomass fire consumption and carbon release rates of rainforest-clearing experiments
conducted in northern Mato Grosso, Brazil. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2001. 106(D16): p.
17877-17887.

9.

Cheyney, N., R. Raison, and P. Khana, Release of carbon to the atmosphere in Australian vegetation fires, in Carbon Dioxide andClimate: Australian Research, G. Pearman, Editor. 1980, Australian Academy of Science: Canberra. p. 153-158.

10. Cofer, W., J. Levine, E. Winstead, and B. Stocks, Gaseous emissions from Canadian boreal forest fires. ATMOSPHERICENVIRONMENT, 1990. 24A(7): p. 1653-1659.
11. Cofer, W., E. Winstead, B. Stocks, J. Goldammer, and D. Cahoon, Crown fire emissions of CO2, CO, H2, CH4, and TNMHC from adense jack pine boreal forest fire. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 1998. 25(21): p. 3919-3922.
12. De Castro, E.A. and J.B. Kauffman, Ecosystem structure in the Brazilian Cerrado: a vegetation gradient of aboveground biomass, root
mass and consumption by fire. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 1998. 14(3): p. 263-283.
13. Delmas, R., On the emission of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in the atmosphere during bushfires in intertropical savannah zones.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 1982. 9(7): p. 761-764.
14. Einfeld, W., D. Ward, and C. Hardy, Effects of fire behaviour on prescribed fire smoke characteristics: A case study, in Global
Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. 1991, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 412-419.
15. Fearnside, P., N. Filho, and F. Fernandes, Rainforest burning and the global carbon budget: biomass, combustion efficiency andcharcoal formation in the Brazilian Amazon. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1993. 98(D9): p.
16733-16743.
16. Fearnside, P., P. Graca, N. Filho, J. Rodrigues, and J. Robinson, Tropical forest burning in Brazilian Amazonia: measurement ofbiomass loading, burning efficiency and charcoal formation at Altamira, Para. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 1999.
123: p. 65-79.
17. Fearnside, P., P. Graca, and J. Rodrigues, Burning of Amazonian rainforests: burning efficiency and charcoal formation in forest
cleared for cattle pasture near Manaus, Brazil. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2001. 146: p. 115-128.
18. Feller, M. The influence of fire severity, not fire intensity, on understory vegetation biomass in British Columbia. in 13th Fire andForest Meteorology Conference. 1998. Lorne, Australia: IAWF.
19. Flinn, D., P. Hopmans, P. Farell, and J. James, Nutrient loss from the burning of Pinus radiata logging residue. AUSTRALIANFOREST RESEARCH, 1979. 9: p. 17-23.
20. Garnett, M., P. Ineson, and A. Stevenson, Effects of burning and grazing on carbon sequestration in a Pennine blanket bog, UK.
HOLOCENE, 2000. 10(6): p. 729-736.
21. Graca, P., P. Fearnside, and C. Cerri, Burning of Amazonian forest in Ariquemes, Rondonia, Brazil: biomass, charcoal formation andburning efficiency. FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 1999. 120: p. 179-191.
22. Griffin, G. and M. Friedel, Effects of fire on central Australian rangelands. I Fire and fuel characteristics and changes in herbage andnutrients. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1984. 9: p. 381-393.
23. Guild, L., J. Kauffman, L. Ellingson, and D. Cummings, Dynamics associated with total aboveground biomass, C, nutrient pools, andbiomass burning of primary forest and pasture in Rondonia, Brazil during SCAR-B. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCHATMOSPHERES, 1998. 103(D24): p. 32091-32100.
24. Gupta, P., V. Prasad, C. Sharma, A. Sarkar, Y. Kant, K. Badarinath, and A. Mitra, CH4 emissions from biomass burning of shifting
cultivation areas of tropical deciduous forests - experimental results from ground - based measurements. CHEMOSPHERE GLOBAL CHANGE SCIENCE, 2001. 3: p. 133-143.
25. Harwood, C. and W. Jackson, Atmospheric losses of four plant nutrients during a forest fire. AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY, 1975. 38(2):p. 92-99.
26. Hobbs, P. and C. Gimingham, Studies on fire in Scottish heathland communities. JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1984. 72: p. 223-240.
27. Hobbs, P., J. Reid, J. Herring, et al., Particle and trace-gas measurements from prescribed burns of forest products in the PacificNorthwest, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 2. Biomass burning in South America, Southeast Asia, and temperate andboreal ecosystems, and the oil fires of Kuwait, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 697-715.
28. Hoffa, E., D. Ward, W. Hao, R. Susott, and R. Wakimoto, Seasonality of carbon emissions from biomass burning in a Zambiansavanna. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1999. 104(D11): p. 13841-13853.
29. Hopkins, B., Observations on savanna burning in the Olokemeji forest reserve, Nigeria. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1965.
2(2): p. 367-381.
30. Hughes, R., J. Kauffman, and D. Cummings, Fire in the Brazilian Amazon 3. Dynamics of biomass, C, and nutrient pools inregenerating forests. OECOLOGIA, 2000. 124(4): p. 574-588.
31. Hurst, D., W. Griffith, and G. Cook, Trace gas emissions from biomass burning in tropical Australian savannas. JOURNAL OF
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1994. 99(D8): p. 16441-16456.
32. Jackson, W., Nutrient stocks in Tasmanian vegetation and approximate losses due to fire. Papers and proceedings of the Royal Societyof Tasmania, 2000. 134: p. 1-18.

3.182

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

33. Kasischke, E., N. French, L. Bourgeau-Chavez, and N. Christensen, Estimating release of carbon from 1990 and 1991 forest fires in
Alaska. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1995. 100(D2): p. 2941-2951.
34. Kauffman, J. and C. Uhl, 8 interactions of anthropogenic activities, fire, and rain forests in the Amazon Basin, in Fire in the Tropical
Biota: Ecosystem Processes and Global Changes, J. Goldammer, Editor. 1990, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 117-134.
35. Kauffman, J., R. Sanford, D. Cummings, I. Salcedo, and E. Sampaio, Biomass and nutrient dynamics associated with slash fires inneotropical dry forests. ECOLOGY, 1993. 74(1): p. 140-151.
36. Kauffman, J., D. Cummings, and D. Ward, Relationships of fire, biomass and nutrient dynamics along a vegetation gradient in theBrazilian cerrado. JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1994. 82: p. 519-531.
37. Kauffman, J., D. Cummings, D. Ward, and R. Babbitt, Fire in the Brazilian Amazon: 1. Biomass, nutrient pools, and losses in slashedprimary forests. OECOLOGIA, 1995. 104: p. 397-408.
38. Kauffman, J., D. Cummings, and D. Ward, Fire in the Brazilian Amazon: 2. Biomass, nutrient pools and losses in cattle pastures.
OECOLOGIA, 1998. 113: p. 415-427.
39. Kayll, A., Some characteristics of heath fires in north-east Scotland. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1966. 3(1): p. 29-40.
40. Kiil, A., Fuel consumption by a prescribed burn in spruce-fir logging slash in Alberta. THE FORESTRY CHRONICLE, 1969: p. 100102.
41. Kiil, A., Fire spread in a black spruce stand. CANADIAN FORESTRY SERVICE BI-MONTHLY RESEARCH NOTES, 1975. 31(1):p. 2-3.
42. Lacaux, J., H. Cachier, and R. Delmas, Biomass burning in Africa: an overview of its impact on atmospheric chemistry, in Fire in theEnvironment: The Ecological, Atmospheric, and Climatic Importance of Vegetation Fires, P. Crutzen and J. Goldammer, Editors. 1993,
John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. p. 159-191.
43. Lavoue, D., C. Liousse, H. Cachier, B. Stocks, and J. Goldammer, Modeling of carbonaceous particles emitted by boreal andtemperate wildfires at northern latitudes. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2000. 105(D22): p. 2687126890.
44. Levine, J., Global biomass burning: a case study of the gaseous and particulate emissions released to the atmosphere during the 1997
fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia, in Biomass Burning and its Inter-relationships with the Climate System, J. Innes, M.
Beniston, and M. Verstraete, Editors. 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. p. 15-31.
45. Levine, J. and W. Cofer, Boreal forest fire emissions and the chemistry of the atmosphere, in Fire, Climate Change and Carbon
Cycling in the Boreal Forest, E. Kasischke and B. Stocks, Editors. 2000, Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 31-48.
46. Marsdon-Smedley, J. and A. Slijepcevic, Fuel characteristics and low intensity burning inEucalyptus obliqua wet forest at the Warra
LTER site. TASFORESTS, 2001. 13(2): p. 261-279.
47. Mazurek, M., W. Cofer, and J. Levine, Carbonaceous aerosols from prescribed burning of a boreal forest ecosystem, in Global
Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. 1991, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p. 258-263.
48. McNaughton, S., N. Stronach, and N. Georgiadis, Combustion in natural fires and global emissions budgets. ECOLOGICALAPPLICATIONS, 1998. 8(2): p. 464-468.
49. McRae, D. and B. Stocks. Large-scale convection burning in Ontario. in Ninth Conference on Fire and Forest Metearology. 1987. San
Diego, California: American Meterological Society.
50. Moula, M., J. Brustet, H. Eva, J. Lacaux, J. Gregoire, and J. Fontan, Contribution of the Spread-Fire Model in the study of savanna
fires, in Biomass Burning and Global Change: Volume 1. Remote Sensing, Modeling and Inventory Development, and Biomass
Burning in Africa, J. Levine, Editor. 1996, MIT Press: Cambridge. p. 270-277.
51. Neil, R., N. Stronach, and S. McNaughton, Grassland fire dynamics in the Serengeti ecosystem, and a potential method ofretrospectively estimating fire energy. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1989. 26: p. 1025-1033.
52. Pivello, V. and L. Coutinho, Transfer of macro-nutrients to the atmosphere during experimental burnings in an open cerrado(Brazilian savanna). JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY, 1992. 8: p. 487-497.
53. Prasad, V., Y. Kant, P. Gupta, C. Sharma, A. Mitra, and K. Badarinath, Biomass and combustion characteristics of secondary mixed
deciduous forests in Eastern Ghats of India. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2001. 35(18): p. 3085-3095.
54. Raison, R., P. Khana, and P. Woods, Transfer of elements to the atmosphere during low intensity prescribed fires in three Australiansubalpine eucalypt forests. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1985. 15: p. 657-664.
55. Robertson, K., Loss of organic matter and carbon during slash burns in New Zealand exotic forests. NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF
FORESTRY SCIENCE, 1998. 28(2): p. 221-241.
56. Robinson, J., On uncertainty in the computation of global emissions from biomass burning. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 1989. 14: p. 243262.
57. Shea, R., B. Shea, J. Kauffman, D. Ward, C. Haskins, and M. Scholes, Fuel biomass and combustion factors associated with fires insavanna ecosystems of South Africa and Zambia. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1996. 101(D19): p. 23551-23568.
58. Slijepcevic, A., Loss of carbon during controlled regeneration burns in Eucalyptus obliqua forest. TASFORESTS, 2001. 13(2): p. 281289.
59. Smith, D. and T. James, Characteristics of prescribed burns andresultant short-term environmental changes in Populus tremuloides
woodland in southern Ontario. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 1978. 56: p. 1782-1791.
60. Soares, R. and G. Ribeiro. Fire behaviour and tree stumps sprouting in Eucalyptus prescribed burnings in southern Brazil. in III
International Conference on Forest Fire Research / 14th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. 1998. Luso.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.183

Chapter 3: LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance

61. Sorrensen, C., Linking smallholder land use and fire activity: examining biomass burning in the Brazilian Lower Amazon. FOREST
ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2000. 128(1-2): p. 11-25.
62. Stewart, H. and D. Flinn, Nutrient losses from broadcast burning of Eucalyptus debris in north-east Victoria. AUSTRALIAN FORESTRESEARCH, 1985. 15: p. 321-332.
63. Stocks, B., Fire behaviour in immature jack pine. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1987. 17: p. 80-86.
64. Stocks, B., Fire behaviour in mature jack pine. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1989. 19: p. 783-790.
65. Stocks, B., B. van Wilgen, W. Trollope, D. McRae, J. Mason, F. Weirich, and A. Potgieter, Fuels and fire behaviour dynamics onlarge-scale savanna fires in Kruger National Park, South Africa. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1996. 101(D19): p.
23541-23550.
66. Stocks, B. and J. Kauffman, Biomass consumption and behaviour of wildland fires in boreal, temperate, and tropical ecosystems:
parameters necessary to interpret historic fire regimes and future fire scenarios, in Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global
Change, J. Clark, et al., Editors. 1997, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 169-188.
67. Susott, R., D. Ward, R. Babbitt, and D. Latham, The measurement of trace emissions and combustion characteristics for a mass fire, in
Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, J. Levine, Editor. 1991, MIT Press: Massechusetts. p.
245-257.
68. Turetsky, M. and R. Wieder, A direct approach to quantifying organic matter lost as a result of peatland wildfire. CANADIANJOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2001. 31(2): p. 363-366.
69. Van Wagner, C., Duff consumption by fire in eastern pine stands. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1972. 2: p. 3439.
70. van Wilgen, B., D. Le Maitre, and F. Kruger, Fire behaviour in South African fynbos (macchia) vegetation and predictions from
Rothermel's fire model. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1985. 22: p. 207-216.
71. Vose, J. and W. Swank, Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: aboveground biomass,forest floor mass, and nitrogen and carbon pools. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 1993. 23: p. 2255-2262.
72. Walker, J., Fuel dynamics in Australian vegetation, in Fire and the Australian Biota, A. Gill, R. Groves, and I. Noble, Editors. 1981,
Australian Academy of Science: Canberra. p. 101-127.
73. Ward, D., R. Susott, J. Kauffman, et al., Smoke and fire characteristics for Cerrado and deforestation burns in Brazil: BASE-B
Experiment. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1992. 97(D13): p. 14601-14619.

TABLE 3A.1.14
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY (PROPORTION OF AVAILABLE FUEL ACTUALLY BURNT) RELEVANT TO LAND-CLEARING BURNS,
AND BURNS IN HEAVY LOGGING SLASH FOR A RANGE OF VEGETATION TYPES AND BURNING CONDITIONS(To be used in sections ‘forest lands converted to cropland’, ‘converted to grassland’, or ‘converted to settlements or other lands’)
Burn type and drying time (Months)
Forest Types
BroadcastWindrow
Windrow+Stoking<6>60.15-0.3

~0.30

<6

>6

<6

>6

-

0.8

-

~0.95

Tropical moist- primary a- secondary

b

0.40

Tropical dry- Mixed species c- Acacia>0.9dTemperate Eucalyptus e

Boreal forest f

0.3

0.5-0.6

0.25

Note: The combustion efficiency or fraction of biomass combusted, is a critical number in the calculation of emissions, that is highlyvariable depending on fuel arrangement (e.g. broadcast v heaped), vegetation type affecting the (size of fuel components andflammability) and burning conditions (especially fuel moisture).
Sources: aFearnside (1990), Wei Min Hao et. al (1990); bWei Min Hao et. al (1990); cKauffmann and Uhl; et. al (1990); dWilliams et. al(1970), Cheney (pers. comm. 2002); e McArthur (1969), Harwood & Jackson (1975), Slijepcevic (2001), Stewart & Flinn (1985); andfFrench et. al (2000)

3.184

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

Annex 3A.1

TABLE 3A.1.15
EMISSION RATIOS FOR OPEN BURNING OF CLEARED FORESTS(To be applied to Equation 3.2.19)
CompoundEmission Ratios

CH40.012 (0.009-0.015)aCO

0.06 (0.04-0.08)b

N2O

0.007 (0.005-0.009)c
0.121 (0.094-0.148)c

NOx
a

b

Source: Delmas, 1993, Lacaux et al., 1993, and Crutzen and Andreae, 1990. Note: Ratios for carbon
compounds, i.e. CH4 and CO, are mass of carbon compound released (in units of C) relative to mass of
total carbon released from burning. Those for the nitrogen compounds are expressed as the ratios ofemission (in units of N) relative to total nitrogen released from the fuel.

TABLE 3A.1.16
EMISSION FACTORS (G/KG DRY MATTER COMBUSTED)APPLICABLE TO FUELS COMBUSTED IN VARIOUS TYPES OF VEGETATION FIRES(To be used in connection with Equation 3.2.20)
Moist/infertile broadleaved savanna
Arid fertile fineleaved savanna
Moist- infertile
grassland
Arid-fertile grassland
Wetland
All vegetation types l

CO2

CO

CH4

NOx

N2O*

NMHC 2

1 523

92

3

6

0.11

-

Scholes (1995)

1 524

73

2

5

0.11

-

Scholes (1995)

1 498

59

2

4

0.10

-

Scholes (1995)

1 540

97

3

7

0.11

-

Scholes (1995)

Source

1 554

58

2

4

0.11

-

Scholes (1995)

1 403 -1 503

67-1204-7

0.5-0.8

0.10-

IPCC (1994)

Forest fires

1 531

112

7.1

0.6-0.8

0.11

8-12

Savanna fires

1 612

152

10.8

-

0.11

-

Ward et al. (1992)

Kaufman et al. (1992)

Forest fires

1 580

130

9

0.7

0.11

10

Delmas et al. (1995)

Savanna fires

1 640

65

2.4

3.1

0.15

3.1

Delmas et al. (1995)lAssuming 41-45% C content, 85-100% combustion completeness.
NMHC non methane hydrocarbons.
* Calculated from data of Crutzen and Andreae (1990) assuming an N/C ratio of 0.01, except for savanna fires.

2

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

3.185