Next Article in Journal
An Ecologically Based System for Sustainable Agroforestry in Sub-Tropical and Tropical Forests
Next Article in Special Issue
The Dynamics of Deforestation in the Wet and Dry Tropics: A Comparison with Policy Implications
Previous Article in Journal
Armillaria Pathogenesis under Climate Changes
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Forest Service Vision during the Anthropocene
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/f8040101
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Trailblazing the Carbon Cycle of Tropical Forests from Puerto Rico

by
Sandra Brown
1,† and
Ariel E. Lugo
2,*
1
Winrock International, Little Rock, AR 72202, USA
2
USDA Forest Service International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico 00926, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Deceased on 13 February 2017.
Forests 2017, 8(4), 101; https://doi.org/10.3390/f8040101
Submission received: 14 February 2017 / Revised: 15 March 2017 / Accepted: 23 March 2017 / Published: 29 March 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tropical Forest Ecology and Management for the Anthropocene)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We review the literature that led to clarifying the role of tropical forests in the global carbon cycle from a time when they were considered sources of atmospheric carbon to the time when they were found to be atmospheric carbon sinks. This literature originates from work conducted by US Forest Service scientists in Puerto Rico and their collaborators. It involves the classification of forests by life zones, estimation of carbon density by forest type, assessing carbon storage changes with ecological succession and land use/land cover type, describing the details of the carbon cycle of forests at stand and landscape levels, assessing global land cover by forest type and the complexity of land use change in tropical regions, and assessing the ecological fluxes and storages that contribute to net carbon accumulation in tropical forests. We also review recent work that couples field inventory data, remote sensing technology such as LIDAR, and GIS analysis in order to more accurately determine the role of tropical forests in the global carbon cycle and point out new avenues of carbon research that address the responses of tropical forests to environmental change.

1. Introduction

When Leslie Holdridge became the first scientist at the Tropical Forest Experiment Station of the USDA Forest Service in Río Piedras, Puerto Rico in 1939, no one knew that the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (as it became known in 1993) would become heavily engaged in helping unravel the role of tropical forests in the carbon cycle of the world. Based on his experience in the Caribbean, Holdridge developed the Life Zone System for identifying vegetation formations from climatic data [1,2]. Decades later, we showed that Holdridge life zones correlated with carbon storages and fluxes of mature tropical forests [3]. As a contribution to the 75th anniversary of the Institute, we review the contributions of its scientists and collaborators to the understanding of the carbon cycle of tropical forests. We also make observations about the evolving role of tropical forests in storing carbon in the context of the Anthropocene Epoch.

2. Foundational Research

Carbon-related research requires considerable background information about tropical forests such as knowledge about dendrology including wood properties and stand volume stocks. This type of information facilitates estimates of stand biomass and conversion of stand structure to biomass. Institute scientists developed some of that information during the 1950s and 1960s [4,5]. This included tree identification [6,7], the wood properties of tree species [8,9], regressions for tree volume and biomass estimation [10,11,12,13], and volume tables for timber species [14,15]. A system of long-term observation plots was also established in the early 1940s to assess tree growth and stand volume yields [14,16,17,18]. Some of these plots in the Luquillo Mountains, the oldest under continuous measurement in the Neotropics, are described in [19] (pp. 91–92). The tree plantation program of the Institute also yielded information about plantation wood yields under different conditions and plantation species [20].

3. Carbon Flux and Storage Studies at the Institute

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, Institute collaborators Howard T. Odum and Frank B. Golley estimated the biomass of a Rhizophora mangle L. forest [21] and a tabonuco (Dacryodes excelsa Vahl) subtropical wet forest [22,23,24]. Both studies were pioneering in the field of ecology and both led to ecosystem-level carbon budgets for these two types of tropical forests. The Odum studies at the Luquillo Mountains developed into the Radiation Experiment at El Verde [25], which explored in depth the carbon dynamics of a tropical forest [10]. In Figure 1 we reproduce the resulting carbon budget (expressed in energy units) for a stand of tabonuco forest at El Verde. This analysis stimulated similar work in other tropical forests in Puerto Rico, such as the carbon budgets for a dry forest [26,27,28] (see Figure 7.8 in [28]), a palm floodplain forest (see Figure 8 in [29]), various tree plantation species [30,31], and for tree plantations and secondary forests of similar age [32]. In Brazil, Institute scientist Michael Keller and collaborators addressed the carbon cycle of Amazonian forests through allometry [33,34], remote sensing and LIDAR [35], and detailed studies of the effects of logging on the carbon cycle and coarse woody debris (necromass) dynamics [36,37,38]. More recently, Institute scientists addressed the carbon dynamics of novel forests. Novel forests are secondary forests growing on deforested and degraded lands, and are dominated by naturalized tree species [39,40,41,42,43,44]. These forests behaved as net carbon sinks.
The above studies resulted in a number of insights about the carbon dynamics of tropical forests, many of which still hold or apply under comparable conditions. For example:
➢
A large fraction of the carbon uptake in mature forests is consumed by stand respiration, with low net yields [10]. This result confirms early research that showed slow tree growth and low volume yields in these forests [4,15].
➢
Large pools of carbon and nutrients in these forests tend to be belowground (mostly in soil), contrary to early beliefs that tropical forests stored most of their nutrients and mass aboveground [45].
➢
Stand biomass of mature forest varies as much as five-fold depending on topographic position on the landscape [11].
➢
Root biomass tends to be higher in mature forests compared to successional ones and higher in native forests compared to timber tree plantations of similar age [32].
➢
Forested watershed export of carbon is proportional to runoff [29,46,47]. The export of organic matter from a floodplain forest at high elevation is high (35 g/m2·year; [29]) compared to forested tropical watersheds at lower elevations (2.2 to 15.5 g/m2·year). Forested watersheds in turn exhibit higher organic matter exports than intensively used watersheds (weighted average of 3.7 g/m2·year (range of 1.5 to 10.5 g/m2·year) for 14 intensively used watersheds) [47].
➢
Secondary and novel forests accumulate aboveground biomass and nutrients at high rates, and circulate a large fraction of their net primary productivity to the forest floor [41,48,49]. Novel forests have a higher rate of litterfall and nutrient return to the forest floor than native forests in similar climates and soils [39,40,41,42,43].
➢
Wood density increases with age and maturity of forest stands. For example, stand-weighted specific wood density increased by 3.9% (from 304 Kg C/m3 to 316 Kg C/m3) among dichotyledon trees in mature Cyrilla racemiflora L. forests over a 35-year period in the Luquillo Mountains [50].
➢
Logging can be an atmospheric carbon source and its carbon effects can be mitigated, but not eliminated, through management such as reduced impact logging [36].

4. Estimating the Global Role of Tropical Forests in the Carbon Cycle

The carbon budget of tropical forests gained increased scientific attention when Woodwell et al. asserted that “analysis shows through convergent lines of evidence that the biota is not a sink and may be a source of CO2 as large as or larger than the fossil fuel [51] (p. 141).” They estimated that the biota was a global source of carbon of up to 8 Pg/year. This statement and analysis was controversial because it undermined the prevailing understanding of the global carbon cycle, as scientists could not anticipate how the atmosphere and oceans could absorb such a high level of carbon input [52] (Table 1). Research was needed to improve the understanding of the carbon budgets of tropical forests and decrease the uncertainty of global estimates of carbon fluxes.
The summary of forest biome biomass density of Whitaker and Likens [53] was the state of understanding of biomass distribution around the world, later updated by Ajtay et al. [54]. We argued that the types of tropical forests, and therefore their biomass density, were more diverse than the two entries used by those authors (see Table 1 in [53] and Table 5.2 in [54]). To test our hypothesis, we used a Holdridge life zone approach for assessing the biomass of tropical forests [3]. We did an intensive search of the literature on tropical forests and collected all the biomass data we located and then used the ratio of mean annual temperature to mean annual precipitation (T/P) as a surrogate of the potential evapotranspiration to precipitation ratio in the life zone chart to determine if any patterns existed between these variables. These ratios are indicators of the potential water availability to forests. We found that the T/P ratio correlated with forest and soil carbon storage (Figure 2). Using estimates of global distributions of life zones, we developed a new estimate of 185 Mg C/ha for moist tropical forests. Our estimate was lower than the values used in carbon models based on Whittaker and Likens [53] and Ajtay et al. [54]. A lower forest biomass implied lower carbon release to the atmosphere as a result of deforestation, fire, and decomposition.
However, we soon realized that we were synthetizing ecological information that was poorly representative of tropical forests worldwide. The ecological literature usually focused on mature forests on a few sites. For example, the database that we used for that first biomass density estimate was based on field measurements of plots covering less than 30 ha of forest cover, mostly of moist tropical forests. A larger and more representative sample size was required for a more accurate and realistic estimate of the biomass density of tropical forests. We visited the Headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome, and found unpublished reports of extensive timber cruises throughout the tropical world, including the Amazon. Using knowledge from volume and biomass studies from Puerto Rico and elsewhere, we converted volume data to biomass [58]. This analysis required developing volume expansion factors for tropical forests that turned out to be different from those used in temperate regions [59,60] (Figure 3). We also developed regression equations and procedures for estimating tropical tree biomass under different life zone conditions and with different starting tree inventory information [60,61,62], and procedures for converting truncated volume tables to biomass estimates [63]. For root biomass, we conducted a comparative global analysis and found that root biomass density was best correlated with aboveground biomass density regardless of latitudinal location [64].
Our best estimate of carbon density for closed tropical forests around the globe (99 Mg C/ha) was lower than the one based on mature forest data [59]. We deemed these forestry data more indicative of the actual biomass of tropical forests than ecological data because of the larger sample area of the timber cruises and because these volume studies were designed to estimate the actual wood volume on the landscape for economic harvests. Ecological data focused mostly on mature forest stands of limited areal extent. Decades later, when the biomass of island-wide forests in Puerto Rico was estimated from inventory data by Brandeis and Suárez Rozo [13], aboveground biomass was found to be a function of forest structure and age of stands, with the highest values in mature forests, which had the lowest area coverage.
During this stage of our work, we also focused on the carbon storage in tropical timber tree plantations and soils. For plantations, we determined both carbon storage and production rates [65,66]. For soils, our research included soil carbon content of forests and timber tree plantations [67,68,69,70], soil carbon storage in agricultural soils [71,72], and soil carbon under a variety of land covers and through succession [73,74,75].
Some of the insights gained about the carbon dynamics of tropical forests from the studies described in this section are listed below. Subsequent research has expanded the database, the range of values for carbon budget parameters, and addressed the carbon budget in greater detail. However, the general tendencies continue to apply:
➢
In mature tropical forests, carbon storage above and belowground was negatively correlated with the T/P ratio, (i.e., lower at drier locations (Figure 2)). Aboveground carbon storage peaked in moist tropical and subtropical forests and decreased towards the wet, rain, and dry forests, with dry forests exhibiting the lowest carbon density. Soil carbon storage was higher in wet and rain forests and declined towards dry forests.
➢
While deforestation and subsequent agricultural land use caused reductions in soil organic carbon, land abandonment and plant succession accumulated soil organic carbon at rates of 0.3 to 0.5 Mg/ha·year over 40 to 100 years [71,76]. Past land use, life zone, and stage of succession influenced soil organic carbon accumulation with higher values in older and more structurally developed moist secondary forests [67].
➢
Conversion of forests to pasture caused very small or negligible changes in the carbon content of the soil to a meter depth [73,74,75].
➢
Soil carbon and nutrient retention was resilient following agricultural activity [71,72].
➢
Succession from pasture to forests was associated with reductions in pasture derived soil organic carbon (−0.4 Mg/ha·year) and increases in forest derived soil organic carbon of 0.9 Mg/ha·year with a net increase in soil carbon of 33 Mg/ha over 61 years [70].
➢
Litterfall rate peaked in the moist forests and declined towards the wet, rain, and dry forests [3].
➢
Rate of carbon storage in secondary forests is a function of age, peaking at about 20 years depending on the life zone [74].
➢
Functional attributes related to organic matter production and circulation such as net primary productivity and leaf litterfall were up to ten times faster in secondary forests compared to mature forests [48].
➢
Large trees, defined as those with a diameter at breast height equal or greater than 70 cm, contributed few stems, generally no more than 3% of stand tree density, but can account for more than 40% of the aboveground biomass. Total aboveground biomass of stands generally increased with increasing number of large trees. These results were first reported for the Brazilian Amazon [77] but were also found to be true for Southeast Asia [78], and southeastern United States [79]. Because of their longevity, big trees collectively operate as a large and slow carbon sink in forests.
➢
The removal of large trees by legal or illicit felling lowers the biomass of stands and stimulates the growth of remaining trees for a limited period. This degradation process transforms mature forests into short-term successional forests with changes in rates of carbon sequestration without canopy opening. Any increase in carbon sequestration of residual trees, usually of a limited time period [80], does not make up for the loss of the felling of the large diameter trees. The assumption that closed forests are mature forests in carbon steady state is invalidated when those stands are experiencing net growth as a result of recovery from past disturbances [78].
➢
As stands age and larger trees develop, their rate of carbon accumulation through succession can be larger than when they were younger [70].
➢
Secondary forests accelerate the carbon cycle of tropical forests by turning over as much as 100 Mg/ha of biomass in a decade [48].
➢
Tree plantations also function as strong carbon sinks both above and belowground [81]. Their global role has changed as a result of the dramatic increase in their area since 1980 (from about 10 million hectares to 81.6 million hectares in 2015 [82]).
➢
Disturbances such as hurricanes accelerate the carbon cycle even more in secondary forests [83]. Hurricanes can also generate carbon sinks because initial biomass regeneration after the event can be faster than the decomposition of downed woody debris and burial of organic matter associated with landslides [84].
➢
Although aboveground biomass of forests can quickly recover from mechanical disturbances such as hurricanes and tree harvesting [85,86] recovery after physiological stressors such as ionizing radiation or soil degradation slow down biomass recovery rates [86,87,88].
➢
Coarse woody debris (necromass) production in Amazon intact and logged forests can account for 14% to 19% of the forests’ annual carbon flux. The residence time of this necromass is 4.2 year. However, the amount of necromass in the carbon cycle of a forest cannot be accurately estimated from tree mortality data [38].

5. Tropical Forests: Carbon Sources or Sinks?

As we advanced our understanding of the carbon cycle of tropical forests, we focused attention on the question of whether tropical forests were sources or sinks of atmospheric carbon. We had already found that the biomass density of tropical forests was lower than initially thought and that maturing secondary forests dramatically increased the rate of carbon sequestration. Although with newer studies we are finding that many forests under timber concessions in Indonesia, Central Africa, and Guyana have very high biomass density before logging commences, up to 250 Mg C/ha or more [80]. We had also found that tropical soils could be important carbon sinks, particularly after abandonment of agricultural lands and through pasture or forest succession. We found that even at maturity tropical forests continued to accumulate carbon in the growth of developing large trees, increasing the weighted wood density, accumulating soil carbon and aboveground biomass (including necromass), and exporting organic carbon. The leaching of organic carbon from mature forests is a slow atmospheric carbon sink that is exported downstream from the terrestrial sector of the biosphere. Thus, to address the question of carbon balance, we needed information on land cover and land cover change to expand our findings on carbon dynamics of stands to larger scales.
While browsing in the stacks of the Commerce Department Library in Washington, DC, we ran across the two-volume analysis of the global forest resource by Zon and Sparhawk [89]. This work, commissioned for the first global Forestry Congress in the United States, gave us an insight about the perceived area of tropical forest in the world (Figure 4). It appeared that estimates of the area of tropical forests since the time of Zon and Sparhawk had shown an increase. Moreover, recent estimates are similar to estimates in the 1970s, which considering the inaccuracies of such global estimates, suggested little change in actual forest area. It was possible that global carbon models were using rates of tropical forest deforestation that were much higher than perception from a number of estimates conducted by different organizations. At the time of the Woodwell et al. paper [60], estimates of annual tropical deforestation ranged from 2% to 4%. Higher deforestation rates, multiplied by higher estimates of biomass density of tropical forests would yield higher carbon emissions to the atmosphere than would the use of our lower estimates of biomass density and lower rates of deforestation (1% per year or less).
Moreover, the dynamics of land use in the tropics are more complex than the dynamics used by global carbon models of the time [48]. Global models typically included three states for tropical forests: mature, undergoing deforestation, and recovering from deforestation [55]. For convenience, mature forests were assumed to be in carbon steady state, and thus neutral with respect to their effects on the carbon content of the atmosphere. This fraction of the tropical forest “biome” had the largest land area assigned in the model. Thus, the global role of tropical forests in the carbon cycle was limited to those forestlands in transition since the pre-industrial atmosphere in 1860 (i.e., forestlands were either being deforested or recovering from deforestation since 1860). Models allowed 120 years for forests to reach maturity or carbon steady state with the atmosphere.
Our analysis of the role of tropical forests on the global carbon cycle revealed that the area of forests contributing to net carbon exchange with the atmosphere was much greater than in the carbon models because the role of secondary forests was underrepresented and the carbon budget of presumed mature tropical forests was not necessarily in steady state as assumed. Moreover, we inferred from tropical forest succession literature that 120 years was too short a span of time for achieving carbon steady state. More time is needed to develop a forest structure with large trees and soil carbon at steady state [92]. Our empirical support for our arguments was summarized above and as early as 1980, when we proposed that tropical forests were sinks of atmospheric carbon [93,94,95]. As more information became available, we updated our case for considering tropical forests as net carbon sinks [92,96,97,98,99,100]. By 1992 and 1993, a shift in scientific consensus was signaled by two international conferences that were dedicated to the identification of carbon sinks in the terrestrial biota [101,102]
Today, there is general agreement that tropical forests are sinks of atmospheric carbon due to secondary forests that are predominant in the tropical landscape [103], as we had suggested many years ago [48]. Moreover, intact old-growth forests have also been shown to be carbon sinks [104], as was demonstrated in Africa [105] and confirmed in the Amazon [106,107]. However, Clark [108], questioned the analysis of plot data, and disputed this conclusion that was based on Phillips et al. [109]. Subsequently, Espírito Santo et al. [106] accounted for the effects of disturbances at various scales, and found that these sources of atmospheric carbon were smaller than the atmospheric sink functions in those mature forests, thus supporting the notion that mature forests in the Amazon were sinks of atmospheric carbon.
Table 1 shows that the 2007 magnitude of carbon sinks in the atmosphere and oceans remain within the range recognized in the 1970s but that the role of vegetation (particularly in the tropics) changed from a source to a sink of carbon, suggesting that the early models underestimated the functioning of tropical forests. The result has been that while more fossil fuel carbon is added to the global carbon cycle, the uncertainty of the global carbon budget has declined, although one can argue about the precision of those estimates. Nevertheless, increased scientific attention to the global carbon cycle has yielded better estimates of carbon fluxes and storages and highlighted additional smaller carbon fluxes that contribute to the source-sink question. An example is carbon burial [110]. According to McLeod et al., carbon burial in tropical forests is 0.04 Mg C·ha−1 year−1, that when added to other smaller fluxes such as carbon exports from the terrestrial biota, accumulation of dead woody debris (necromass), increases in wood carbon density, carbon accumulation in large trees, soil carbon sequestration through succession, or carbon in wood products, collectively make a global difference and which we estimated as 3.1 Pg C/year in the 1990s [99].
With the onset of the Anthropocene Epoch, many worry that the sink function of tropical forests might come to an end due to changes in the atmosphere, climate change, and land cover changes [111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118]. Recent studies focus on the potential effects on the carbon balance of land degradation [119], lianas [120] residence time of woody biomass [121], stem mortality [122], selective logging [123] as well as the ecophysiological responses of tropical trees and forests to environmental change [124,125,126,127,128,129]. Clearly, there are many factors that potentially can change the carbon balance of tropical forests and convert them from sinks to sources of atmospheric carbon. However, just as forests adapted to human activity during the Holocene, they are likely to adapt to Anthropocene conditions through novelty [130]. The emergence of novel forests [131] and Anthromes [132] suggests that a major restructuring of the biota is underway and that these changes are adaptive and unlikely to fundamentally change the functioning of ecosystems. We expect novel ecosystems to adapt to Anthropocene conditions and continue to function as carbon sinks in a new world order where the speed of ecological processes is accelerated.

6. Outlook

Most aspects of our early work have been addressed recently and improved considerably in terms of geographic and ecological coverage and detail of analyses. Some examples include tree allometry [133,134,135,136], measurements of net primary productivity [137,138], the relationship between above and belowground biomass allocation [139], and the effects of hyperdominance in carbon cycling [140]. The use of permanent plots to assess carbon dynamics is now common in the literature (e.g., [141,142,143]). Comprehensive estimates of carbon stocks within countries (e.g., [144,145,146]) or across various landscape gradients (e.g., [147,148,149,150]) are also common in the literature.
New technology allows for a stronger empirical basis for estimating the global role of tropical forests. For example, our life zone approach has been expanded to encompass larger data sets and diverse controls on biomass accumulation other than climatic. These new efforts lead to cross latitudinal comparisons of the carbon cycle of forests [151,152]. We applied remote sensing and GIS technology to detect changes of carbon density of southeast Asian forests even in the absence of changes of forest cover [153,154,155]. The changes in biomass were due to either maturation of forests (gains of biomass) or degradation of forest stands (loss of biomass). Losses in carbon density were correlated with the perimeter to area (P/A) ratio of forest fragments, suggesting that human access was a causal factor of forest degradation. Fragmented forests (P/A > 0) had net biomass decreases while non-fragmented forests (P/A < 0) had net biomass increases. We also applied remote sensing technologies to estimate forest biomass using regressions of tree canopy area to tree carbon storage obtained from intensive fieldwork [156].
Recent field approaches for assessing carbon stocks of extensive tropical forest landscapes were also developed to assure the estimation of error of field carbon stock determinations (e.g., [157]) and expand the area covered by estimates (e.g., [158,159,160,161]). These inventory techniques using thousands of plots, coupled with high-resolution remote sensing images, LIDAR, and GIS analysis were used to conduct carbon accounting procedures for producing maps of carbon stocks and carbon emissions at various geographical scales [162,163]. Producing continental [153,164] and global [165,166] carbon density maps based on site-specific empirical information is now possible (Figure 5) in spite of the challenges involved in the development of these maps [167]. Airborne observatories such as the Carnegie Airborne Observatory [168] are shedding new light on the complexities of tropical forest cover, logging, deforestation, and climate change. These complexities of land use and cover change due to human activities can shift the carbon balance of whole landscapes and lead to new cycles of trailblazing research activity much like what happened between the 1940s and 1990s when we and other Institute scientists and collaborators had the opportunity to address similar questions but starting from a different perspective.

Acknowledgments

This study was done in collaboration with the University of Puerto Rico. We acknowledge financial support from the USA Department of Energy Office of Environment, especially through Program Manager Roger Dahlman, and from the USDA Forest Service. Colleagues Charles Hall, H.S. Louise Iverson, Gisel Reyes, Nancy Harris, and the staffs of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and Winrock International were also instrumental in the success of this research. We also thank Benjamin Branoff and Michael Keller for improving the manuscript.

Author Contributions

The authors contributed equally to this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Holdridge, L.R. Determination of the world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science 1947, 105, 367–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Holdridge, L.R. Life Zone Ecology; Tropical Science Center: San José, Costa Rica, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. The storage and production of organic matter in tropical forests and their role in the global carbon cycle. Biotropica 1982, 14, 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wadsworth, F.H. A review of past research in the Luquillo Mountains. In A tropical Rain Forest; Odum, H.T., Pigeon, R.F., Eds.; United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Division of Technical Information: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 1970; pp. B33–B46. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wadsworth, F.H. A forest research institution in the West Indies: The first 50 years. In Tropical forests: Management and Ecology; Lugo, A.E., Lowe, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 33–56. [Google Scholar]
  6. Little, E.L.; Wadsworth, F.H. Common Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; Agriculture Handbook 249; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1964.
  7. Little, E.L.; Woodbury, R.O.; Wadsworth, F.H. Trees of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 449; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Washington, DC, USA, 1974; Volume 2.
  8. Longwood, F.R. Puerto Rican Woods: Their Machining, Seasoning, and Related Characteristics; United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 205; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Washington, DC, USA, 1961.
  9. Reyes, G.; Brown, S.; Chapman, J.; Lugo, A.E. Wood Densities of Tropical Tree Species; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SO-88; Southern Forest Experiment Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1992.
  10. Odum, H.T. Summary: An emerging view of the ecological systems at El Verde. In A Tropical Rain Forest; Odum, H.T., Pigeon, R.F., Eds.; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1970; pp. I191–I289. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ovington, J.D.; Olson, J.S. 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; Odum, H.T., Pigeon, R.F., Eds.; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1970; pp. H53–H77. [Google Scholar]
  12. Weaver, P.L.; Gillespie, A.J.R. Tree biomass equations for the forests of the Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico. Common. For. Rev. 1992, 71, 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brandeis, T.J.; del Rocio, M.R.; Rozo, S. Effects of model choice and forest structure on inventory-based estimations of Puerto Rican forest biomass. Caribb. J. Sci. 2005, 41, 250–268. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wadsworth, F.H. The development of the forest land resources of the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  15. Briscoe, C.B.; Wadsworth, F.H. Stand structure and yield in the tabonuco forest of Puerto Rico. In A Tropical Rain Forest: A Study of Irradiation and Ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico; Odum, H.T., Pigeon, R.F., Eds.; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wadsworth, F.H. Growth in the lower montane rain forest of Puerto Rico. Caribb. For. 1947, 8, 27–43. [Google Scholar]
  17. Weaver, P.L. Tree Growth in Several Tropical Forests of Puerto Rico; USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-152; Southern Forest Experiment Station: New Orleans, LA, USA, 1979.
  18. Wadsworth, F.H.; Parresol, B.R.; Figueroa Colón, J.C. Tree increment indicators in a subtropical wet forest. In Proceedings of Seminar on Growth and Yield in Tropical Mixed/Moist Forests; Wan Razali, W.M., Chan, H.T., Appanah, S., Eds.; Forest Research Institute: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1989; pp. 205–212. [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E.; Silander, S.; Liegel, L. Research History and Opportunities in the Luquillo Experimental Forest; USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-44; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): New Orleans, LA, USA, 1983.
  20. Francis, J.K. Forest plantations in Puerto Rico. In Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology; Lugo, A.E., Lowe, C.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 210–223. [Google Scholar]
  21. Golley, F.B.; Odum, H.T.; Wilson, R.F. The structure and metabolism of a Puerto Rican red mangrove forest in May. Ecology 1962, 43, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Odum, H.T. Man and the ecosystem. In Lockwood Conference on the Suburban Forest and Ecology; The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station: New Haven, CN, USA, 1962; pp. 57–75. [Google Scholar]
  23. Odum, H.T.; Copeland, B.J.; Brown, R.Z. Direct and optical assay of leaf mass of the lower montane rain forest of Puerto Rico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1963, 49, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Odum, H.T.; Abbott, W.; Selander, R.K.; Golley, F.B.; Wilson, R.F. Estimates of chlorophyll and biomass of the tabonuco forest of Puerto Rico. In A Tropical Rain Forest a Study of Irradiation and Ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico; Odum, H.T., Pigeon, R.F., Eds.; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1970; pp. I3–I19. [Google Scholar]
  25. Odum, H.T.; Pigeon, R.F. A Tropical Rain Forest; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lugo, A.E.; González Liboy, J.A.; Cintrón, B.; Dugger, K. Structure, productivity, and transpiration of a subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 1978, 10, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Murphy, P.G.; Lugo, A.E. Structure and biomass of a subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 1986, 18, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Murphy, P.G.; Lugo, A.E.; Murphy, A.J.; Nepstad, D.C. The dry forests of Puerto Rico’s south coast. In Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology; Lugo, A.E., Lowe, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 178–209. [Google Scholar]
  29. Frangi, J.L.; Lugo, A.E. Ecosystem dynamics of a subtropical floodplain forest. Ecol. Monogr. 1985, 55, 351–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, D.; Bormann, F.H.; Lugo, A.E.; Bowden, R.D. Comparison of nutrient-use efficiency and biomass production in five tropical tree taxa. For. Ecol. Manag. 1991, 46, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lugo, A.E.; Wang, D.; Bormann, F.H. A comparative analysis of biomass production in five tropical tree species. For. Ecol. Manag. 1990, 31, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lugo, A.E. Comparison of tropical tree plantations with secondary forests of similar age. Ecol. Monogr. 1992, 62, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Keller, M.; Palace, M.; Hurtt, G.E. Biomass estimation in the Tapajos National Forest, Brazil: Examination of sampling and allometric uncertainties. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 154, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lefsky, M.A.; Harding, D.J.; Keller, M.; Cohen, W.B.; Carabajal, C.C.; Del Espirito-Santo, F.B.; Hunter, M.O.; de Oliveira, R. Estimates of forest canopy height and aboveground biomass using ICESat. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, Q.; Lu, D.; Keller, M.; dos-Santos, M.; Bolfe, E.; Feng, Y.; Wang, C. Modeling and mapping agroforestry aboveground biomass in the Brazilian Amazon using airborne LIDAR data. Remote Sens. 2015, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Keller, M.; Asner, G.P.; Silva, N.; Palace, M. Sustainability of selective logging of upland forests in the Brazilian Amazon: Carbon budgets and remote sensing as tools for evaluating logging effects. In Working Forests in the Neotropics: Conservation Through Sustainable Management? Zarin, D.J., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Putz, F.E., Schmink, M., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 41–63. [Google Scholar]
  37. Palace, M.; Keller, M.; Asner, G.P.; Silva, J.N.M.; Passos, C. Necromass in undisturbed and logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 238, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Palace, M.; Keller, M.; Silva, H. Necromass production: Studies in undisturbed and logged Amazon forests. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lugo, A.E.; da-Silva, J.F.; Sáez-Uribe, A. Balance de carbono en un bosque de Castilla elastica: Resultados preliminares. Acta Cient. 2008, 22, 13–28. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lugo, A.E.; Abelleira, O.J.; Collado, A.; Viera, C.A.; Santiago, C.; Vélez, D.O.; Soto, E.; Amaro, G.; Charón, G.; Colón, H.; et al. Allometry, biomass, and chemical content of novel African tulip tree (Spathodea campanulata) forests in Puerto Rico. New For. 2011, 42, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lugo, A.E.; Martínez, O.A.; da Silva, J.F. Aboveground biomass, wood volume, nutrient stocks and leaf litter in novel forests compared to native forests and tree plantations in Puerto Rico. Bois For. Trop. 2012, 314, 7–16. [Google Scholar]
  42. Abelleira Martínez, O.J. Flooding and profuse flowering result in high litterfall in novel Spathodea campanulata forests in northern Puerto Rico. Ecosphere 2011, 2, 105. [Google Scholar]
  43. Da Silva, J.F. Ecophysiology and Productivity of Castilla Elastica, an Introduced Tropical Tree Species. Master’s Thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  44. Del Arroyo, G.; Santiago, O. Soil Respiration of a Novel Subtropical Moist Forest: From Diel to Seasonal Patterns. Master’s Thesis, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. Tropical lands: Popular mis2014 conceptions. Mazingira 1981, 5, 10–19. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lugo, A.E. Organic carbon export by riverine waters of Spain. In Transport of Carbon and Minerals in Major World Rivers; Degens, E.T., Kempe, S., Soliman, H., Eds.; University of Hamburg: Hamburg, Germany, 1983; pp. 267–279. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lugo, A.E.; Quiñones, F. Organic carbon export from intensively used watersheds in Puerto Rico. In Transport of Carbon and Minerals in Major World Rivers; Degens, E.T., Kempe, S., Soliman, H., Eds.; University of Hamburg: Hamburg, Germany, 1983; pp. 237–242. [Google Scholar]
  48. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Tropical secondary forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 1990, 6, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lugo, A.E.; Domínguez Cristóbal, C.; Santos, A.; Torres Morales, E. Nutrient return and accumulation in litter of a secondary forest in the coffee region of Puerto Rico. Acta Cient. 1999, 13, 43–74. [Google Scholar]
  50. Weaver, P.L. The colorado and dwarf forests of Puerto Rico’s Luquillo Mountainsin. In Tropical Forests: Management and Ecology; Lugo, A.E., Lowe, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 109–141. [Google Scholar]
  51. Woodwell, G.M.; Whittaker, R.H.; Reiners, W.A.; Likens, G.E.; Delwiche, C.S.; Botkin, D.B. The biota and the world carbon budget. Science 1978, 199, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Broecker, W.S.; Takahashi, T.; Simpson, H.J.; Peng, T.P. Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget. Science 1979, 206, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Whittaker, R.H.; Likens, G.E. Carbon in the biota. In Carbon and the Biosphere; Technical Information Center: Springfield, VA, USA, 1973; pp. 281–302. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ajtay, G.L.; Ketner, P.; Duvigneaud, P. Terrestrial primary production and phytomass. In The Global Carbon Cycle; Bolin, B., Degens, E.T., Kempe, S., Ketner, P., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1979; pp. 129–181. [Google Scholar]
  55. Woodwell, G.M.; Hobbie, J.E.; Houghton, R.A.; Melillo, J.M.; Moore, B.; Peterson, B.J.; Shaver, G.R. Global deforestation: Contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science 1983, 222, 1081–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R.; Kauppi, P.E.; Kurz, W.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Shvidenko, A.; Lewis, S.L.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 2011, 333, 988–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Watson, R.T.; Rodhe, H.; Oeschger, H.; Siegenthaler, U. Greehouse gases and aerosols. In Cimate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment; Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J., Ephraums, J.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  58. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Biomass of tropical forests: A new estimate based on forest volumes. Science 1984, 223, 1290–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Brown, S.; Gillespie, A.J.R.; Lugo, A.E. Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory data. For. Sci. 1989, 35, 881–902. [Google Scholar]
  60. Brown, S. Estimating Biomass and Biomass Change of Tropical Forests: A Primer; FAO Forestry Paper 134; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  61. Brown, S.; Gillespie, A.J.R.; Lugo, A.E. Use of forest inventory data for biomass estimation of tropical forests. In Global Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessments: Preparing for the 21st Century; Lund, H.G., Preto, G., Eds.; American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1990; pp. 1046–1055. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gillespie, A.J.R.; Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Biomass estimates for tropical forests based on existing inventory data. In State-of-the-Art Methodology of Forest Inventory: A Symposium Proceedings; Bau, V.J.L., Cunia, T., Eds.; USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-263; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Portland, OR, USA, 1990; pp. 246–253. [Google Scholar]
  63. Gillespie, A.J.R.; Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Tropical forest biomass estimation from truncated stand tables. For. Ecol. Manag. 1992, 48, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cairns, M.A.; Brown, S.; Helmer, E.H.; Baumgardner, G.A. Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 1997, 111, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lugo, A.E.; Schmidt, R.; Brown, S. Preliminary estimates of storage and production of stemwood and organic matter in tropical tree plantations. In Wood Production in the Neotropics via Plantations; Whitmore, J.L., Ed.; IUFRO/MAB/Forest Service Symposium: Washington, DC, USA, 1981; pp. 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  66. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S.; Chapman, J. An analytical review of production rates and stemwood biomass of tropical forest plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 1988, 23, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Weaver, P.L.; Birdsey, R.A.; Lugo, A.E. Soil organic matter in secondary forests of Puerto Rico. Biotropica 1987, 19, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lugo, A.E.; Cuevas, E.; Sanchez, M.J. Nutrients and mass in litter and top soil of ten tropical tree plantations. Plant Soil 1990, 125, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cuevas, E.; Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Above and belowground organic matter storage and production in a tropical pine plantation and a paired broadleaf secondary forest. Plant Soil 1991, 135, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Silver, W.L.; Kueppers, L.M.; Lugo, A.E.; Ostertag, R.; Matzek, V. Carbon sequestration and plant community dynamics following reforestation of tropical pasture. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14, 1115–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lugo, A.E.; Sánchez, M.J.; Brown, S. Land use and organic carbon content of some subtropical soils. Plant Soil 1986, 96, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Beinroth, F.H.; Vázquez, M.A.; Snyder, V.A.; Reich, P.F.; Pérez Alegría, L.R. Factors Controlling Carbon Sequestration in Tropical Soils: A Case Study of Puerto Rico; University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, 1996.
  73. Brown, S.; Glubczynski, A.; Lugo, A.E. Effects of land use and climate on the organic carbon content of tropical forest soils in Puerto Rico. In Proceedings of the Convention of the Society of American Foresters; Society of American Foresters: Washington, DC, USA; Portland, Oregon, OR, USA, 1984; pp. 204–209. [Google Scholar]
  74. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Effects of forest clearing and succession on the carbon and nitrogen content of soils in Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. Plant Soil 1990, 124, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. Management of tropical soils as sinks or sources of atmospheric carbon. Plant Soil 1993, 149, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Silver, W.L.; Ostertag, R.; Lugo, A.E. The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. Restor. Ecol. 2000, 8, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Above ground biomass estimates for tropical moist forests of the Brazilian Amazon. Interciencia 1992, 17, 8–18. [Google Scholar]
  78. Brown, S.; Gillespie, A.J.R.; Lugo, A.E. Biomass of tropical forests of southeast Asia. Can. J. For. Res. 1991, 21, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Brown, S.; Schroeder, P.; Birdsey, R. Aboveground biomass distribution of US Eastern hardwood forests and the use of large trees as an indicator of forest development. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 96, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pearson, T.R.H.; Brown, S.; Casarim, F.M. Carbon emissions from tropical forest degradation caused by logging. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 034017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E.; Chapman, J. Biomass of tropical tree plantations and its implications for the global carbon budget. Can. J. For. Res. 1986, 16, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Keenan, R.J.; Reams, G.A.; Achard, F.; de-Freitas, J.V.; Grainger, A.; Lindquist, E. Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lugo, A.E.; Domínguez Cristóbal, C.; Méndez, N. Hurricane Georges accelerated litterfall fluxes of a 26-year-old novel secondary forest in Puerto Rico. In Recent Hurricane Research: Climate, Dynamics, and Societal Impacts; Lupo, A.R., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; pp. 535–554. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lugo, A.E. Visible and invisible effects of hurricanes on forest ecosystems: an international review. Austral Ecol. 2008, 33, 368–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Scatena, F.N.; Moya, S.; Estrada, C.; Chinea, J.D. The first five years in the reorganization of aboveground biomass and nutrient use following Hurricane Hugo in the Bisley Experimental Watersheds, Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Biotropica 1996, 28, 424–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Molina Colón, S.; Lugo, A.E. Recovery of a subtropical dry forest after abandonment of different land uses. Biotropica 2006, 38, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lugo, A.E.; Heartsill Scalley, T. Research in the Luquillo Experimental Forest has advanced understanding of tropical forests and resolved management issues. In USDA Forest Service Experimental Forests and Ranges: Research for the Long-Term; Hayes, D.C., Stout, S.L., Crawford, R.H., Hoover, A.P., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 435–461. [Google Scholar]
  88. Aide, T.M.; Zimmerman, J.K.; Pascarella, J.B.; Rivera, L.; Marcano-Vega, H. Forest regeneration in a chronosequence of tropical abandoned pastures: Implications for restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2000, 8, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zon, R.; Sparhawk, W.N. Forest Resources of the World; McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1923. [Google Scholar]
  90. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Forest Resources Assessment 1990: Tropical Countries; Food and Agriculture Organization Forestry Paper 112; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  91. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  92. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. Steady state ecosystems and the global carbon cycle. Vegetatio 1986, 68, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lugo, A.E. Are tropical forest ecosystems sources or sinks of carbon? In The Role of Tropical Forests on the world Carbon Cycle; Brown, S., Lugo, A.E., Liegel, B., Eds.; CONF-800350 UC-11; U.S. Department of Energy, National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1980; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  94. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. Tropical forest ecosystems: Sources or sinks of atmospheric carbon? Unasylva 1980, 32, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  95. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. Ecological issues associated with the interpretation of atmospheric CO2 data. In The Role of Tropical Forests on the World Carbon Cycle; Brown, S., Lugo, A.E., Liegel, B., Eds.; CONF-800350 UC-11; U.S. Department of Energy, National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 1980; pp. 30–43. [Google Scholar]
  96. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. The Role of Terrestrial Biota in the Global CO2 Cycle; American Chemical Society (ACS) Division of Petroleum Inc. Preprints: San Diego, CA, USA, 1981; Volume 26, pp. 1019–1025. [Google Scholar]
  97. Brown, S.; Gertner, G.Z.; Lugo, A.E.; Novak, J.M. Carbon dioxide dynamics of the biosphere. In Energy and Ecological Modelling; Mitsch, W.J., Bosserman, R.W., Klopatek, J.M., Eds.; Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1981; pp. 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  98. Lugo, A.E. Influence of green plants on the world carbon budget. In Alternative Energy Sources V. Part E: Nuclear/Conservation/Environment; Veziroglu, T.N., Ed.; Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1983; pp. 391–398. [Google Scholar]
  99. Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S. Tropical forests as sinks of atmospheric carbon. For. Ecol. Manag. 1992, 54, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E.; Wisniewski, J. Missing carbon dioxide. Science 1992, 257, 11. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wisniewski, J.; Lugo, A.E. Natural sinks of CO2. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1992, 64, 1–463. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wisniewski, J.; Sampson, R.N. Terrestrial biospheric carbon fluxes: Quantification of sinks and sources of CO2. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1993, 70, 1–696. [Google Scholar]
  103. Chazdon, R.L. Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age of Deforestation; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  104. Luyssaert, S.; Schulze, E.-D.; Börner, A.; Knohl, A.; Hessesmöler, D.; Law, B.E.; Ciais, P.; Grace, J. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 2008, 455, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Lewis, S.L.; Lopez Gonzalez, G.; Sonké, B.; Affum-Baffoe, K.; Baker, T.R.; Ojo, L.O.; Phillips, O.L.; Reitsma, J.M.; White, L.; Comiskey, J.A.; et al. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nat. Lett. 2009, 457, 1003–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Espírito Santo, F.D.B.; Gloor, M.; Keller, M.; Malhi, Y.; Saatchi, S.; Nelson, B.; Junior, R.C.; Pereira, C.; Lloyd, J.; Frolking, S.; Palace, M.; et al. Size and frequency of natural forest disturbances and the Amazon forest carbon balance. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3434. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  107. Phillips, O.L.; Brienen, R.J.W. Carbon uptake by mature Amazon forests has mitigated Amazon nation’s carbon emissions. Carbon Balance Manag. 2017, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Clark, D.A. Are tropical forests an important carbon sink? Reanalysis of the long-term plot data. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Phillips, O.L.; Mahli, Y.; Higuchi, N.; Laurance, W.F.; Nunez, P.V.; Vazquez, R.M.; Laurance, S.G.; Ferreira, L.V.; Stern, M.; Brown, S.; et al. Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: Evidence from long-term plots. Science 1998, 282, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Mcleod, E.; Chmura, G.L.; Bouillon, S.; Salm, R.; Björk, M.; Duarte, C.M.; Lovelock, C.E.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Silliman, B.R. A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Brienen, R.J.W.; Phillips, O.L.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Gloor, E.; Baker, T.R.; Lloyd, J.; Lopez-Gonzalez, G.; Monteagudo-Mendoza, A.; Malhi, Y.; Lewis, S.L.; et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 2015, 519, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Clark, D.A. Sources or sinks? The responses of tropical forests to current and future climate and atmospheric composition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2004, 359, 477–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Clark, D.A. Tropical forests and global warming: Slowing it down or speeding it up? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cramer, W.; Bondeau, A.; Schaohoff, S.; Lucht, W.; Smith, B.; Sitch, S. Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: Impacts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate change and rate of deforestation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2004, 359, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Dutra Aguilar, A.P.; Guimarães Vieira, I.C.; Oliveira Assis, T.; Dalla-Nora, E.L.; Toledo, P.M.; Santos-Junior, R.A.O.; Batistella, M.; Coelho, A.S.; Savaget, E.K.; Nobre, C.A.; et al. Land use change emission scenarios: Anticipating a forest transition process in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 1821–1840. [Google Scholar]
  116. Gloor, M.; Phillips, O.L.; Lloyd, J.J.; Lewis, S.L.; Malhi, Y.; Baker, T.R.; Lopez-Gonzalez, G.; Peacock, J.; Almeida, S.; Alves de Oliveiraet, A.C.; et al. Does the disturbance hypothesis explain the biomass increase in basin-wide Amazon forest plot data? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 15, 2418–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Phillips, O.L.; Lewis, S.L.; Baker, T.R.; Chao, K.J.; Higuchi, N. The changing Amazon forest. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 1819–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Willcock, S.; Phillips, O.L.; Platts, P.J.; Swetnam, R.D.; Balmford, A.; Burgess, N.D.; Ahrends, A.; Bayliss, J.; Doggart, N.; Doody, K.; et al. Land cover change and carbon emissions over 100 years in an African biodiversity hotspot. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 2787–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Pearson, T.R.H.; Brown, S.; Murray, L.; Sidman, G. Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag. 2017, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Phillips, O.L.; Martínez, R.V.; Arroyo, L.; Baker, T.R.; Killeen, T.; Lewis, S.L.; Malhi, Y.; Monteagudo Mendoza, A.; Neill, D.; Núñez Vargas, P.; et al. Increasing dominance of large lianas in Amazonian forests. Nature 2002, 418, 770–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Galbraith, D.; Malhi, Y.; Affum-Baffoe, K.; Castanho, A.D.A.; Doughty, C.E.; Fisher, R.A.; Lewis, S.L.; Peh, K.S.-H.; Phillips, O.L.; Quesada, C.A.; et al. Residence times of woody biomass in tropical forests. Plant Ecol. Divers. 2013, 6, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Johnson, M.O.; Galbraith, D.; Gloor, M.; De Deurwaerder, H.; Guimberteau, M.; Rammig, A.; Thonicke, K.; Verbeeck, H.; von Randow, C.; Monteagudo, A.; et al. Variation in stem mortality rates determines patterns of above-ground biomass in Amazonian forests: Implications for dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 3996–4013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Blanc, L.; Echard, M.; Herault, B.; Bonal, D.; Marcon, E.; Chave, J.; Baraloto, C. Dynamics of aboveground carbon stocks in a selectively logged tropical forest. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 1397–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Clark, D.A. Detecting tropical forests responses to global climatic and atmospheric change: Current challenges and a way forward. Biotropica 2007, 39, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Clark, D.B.; Clark, D.A.; Oberbauer, S.F. Annual wood production in a tropical rain forest in NE Costa Rica linked to climatic variation but not to increasing CO2. Glob. Chang Biol. 2010, 16, 747–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Clark, D.A.; Clark, D.B.; Oberbauer, S.F. Field-quantified responses of tropical rainforest aboveground productivity to increasing CO2 and climate stress, 1997–2009. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2013, 118, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Clark, D.A.; Piper, S.C.; Keeling, C.D.; Clark, D.B. Tropical rain forest tree growth and atmospheric carbon dynamics linked to interannual temperature variation during 1984–2000. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 5852–5857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Malhi, Y.; Doughty, C.E.; Goldsmith, G.R.; Metcalfe, D.B.; Girardin, C.A.; Marthews, T.R.; del Aguila-Pasquel, J.; Aragão, L.E.; Araujo-Murakami, A.; Brando, P.; et al. The linkages between photosynthesis, productivity, growth and biomass in lowland Amazonian forests. Glob. Chang Biol. 2015, 21, 2283–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Wagner, F.H.; Hérault, B.; Bonal, D.; Stahl, C.; Anderson, L.O.; Baker, T.R.; Becker, G.S.; Beeckman, H.; Boanerges Souza, D.; Botosso, P.C.; et al. Climate seasonality limits leaf carbon assimilation and wood productivity in tropical forests. Biogeosciences 2016, 13, 2537–2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lugo, A.E. Novel tropical forests: Nature’s response to global change. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2013, 6, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.S.; Hall, C.M. Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order; Willey-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  132. Ellis, E.C. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 2015, 85, 287–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Chave, J.; Andalo, C.; Brown, S.; Cairns, M.A.; Chambers, J.Q.; Eamus, D.; Fölster, H.; Fromard, F.; Higuchi, N.; Kira, T.; et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 2005, 145, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Chave, J.; Réjou-Méchain, M.; Búrquez, A.; Chidumayo, E.; Colgan, M.S.; Delitti, W.B.; Duque, A.; Eid, T.; Fearnside, P.M.; Goodman, R.C.; et al. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 20, 3177–3190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Feldpausch, T.R.; Banin, L.; Phillips, O.L.; Baker, T.R.; Lewis, S.L.; Quesada, C.A.; Affum-Baffoe, K.; Arets, E.G.M.M.; Berry, N.G.; Bird, M.; et al. Height-diameter allometry of tropical forest trees. Biogeosciences 2011, 8, 1081–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Goodman, R.C.; Phillips, O.L.; Baker, T.R. The importance of crown dimensions to improve tropical tree biomass estimates. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 680–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Clark, D.A.; Brown, S.; Kicklighter, D.W.; Chambers, J.Q.; Thomlinson, J.R.; Ni, J. Measuring net primary production in forests: Concepts and field methods. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 356–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Clark, D.A.; Brown, S.; Kicklighter, D.W.; Chambers, J.Q.; Thomlinson, J.R.; Ni, J.; Holland, E.A. Net primary production in tropical forests: An evaluation and synthesis of existing field data. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Raich, J.W.; Clark, D.A.; Schwendenmann, L.; Wood, T.E. Aboveground tree growth varies with belowground carbon allocation in a tropical rainforest environment. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e100275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Fauset, S.; Johnson, M.O.; Gloor, M.; Baker, T.R.; Monteagudo, M.A.; Brienen, R.J.W.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Lopez-Gonzalez, G.; Malhi, Y.; ter Steege, H.; et al. Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Báez, S.; Malizia, A.; Carilla, J.; Blundo, C.; Aguilar, M.; Aguirre, N.; Aquirre, Z.; Álvarez, E.; Cuesta, F.; Duque, Á.; et al. Large-scale patterns of turnover and basal area change in Andean forests. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Chave, J.; Condit, R.; Lao, Z.; Caspersen, J.P.; Foster, R.B.; Hubbell, S.P. Spatial and temporal variation of biomass in a tropical forest: Results from a large census plot in Panama. J. Ecol. 2003, 91, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Lewis, S.L.; Phillips, O.L.; Baker, T.R.; Lloyd, J.; Malhi, Y.; Almeida, S.; Higuchi, N.; Laurance, W.F.; Neill, D.A.; Silva, J.N.; et al. Concerted changes in tropical forest structure and dynamics: Evidence from 50 South American long-term plots. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2004, 359, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Phillips, J.; Duque, A.; Scott, C.; Wayson, C.; Galindo, G.; Cabrera, E.; Chave, J.; Peña, M.; Álvarez, E.; Cárdenas, D.; et al. Live aboveground carbon stocks in natural forests of Colombia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 374, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Vieira, S.A.; Alves, L.F.; Aidar, M.; Araújo, L.S.; Baker, T.; Batista, J.L.F.; Campos, M.C.; Camargo, P.B.; Chave, J.; Delitti, W.B.C.; et al. Estimation of biomass and carbon stocks: The case of the Atlantic Forest. Biota Neotrop 2008, 8, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Yepes, A.; Herrera, J.; Phillips, J.; Cabrera, E.; Galindo, G.; Granados, E.; Duque, A.; Barbosa, A.; Olarte, C.; Cardona, M. Contribución de los bosques tropicales de montaña en el almacenamiento de carbono en Colombia. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2015, 63, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Clark, D.B.; Clark, D.A. Landscape-scale variation in forest structure and biomass in a tropical rain forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 137, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Laurance, W.F.; Fearnside, P.M.; Laurance, S.G.; Delamonica, P.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Rankin-de-Merona, J.M.; Chambers, J.Q.; Gascon, C. Relationship between soils and Amazon forest biomass: A landscape-scale study. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 118, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Longo, M.; Keller, M.; Dos-Santos, M.N.; Leitold, V.; Pinagé, E.R.; Baccini, A.; Saatchi, S.; Nogueira, E.M.; Batistella, M.; Morton, D.C. Aboveground biomass variability across intact and degraded forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2016, 30, 1639–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Sullivan, M.J.P.; Talbot, J.; Lewis, S.L.; Phillips, O.L.; Qie, L.; Begne, S.K.; Chave, J.; Cuni-Sanchez, A.; Hubau, W.; Lopez-Gonzalez, G.; et al. Diversity and carbon storage across the tropical forest biome. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 39102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Fernández Martínez, M.; Vicca, S.; Janssens, I.A.; Luyssaert, S.; Campioli, M.; Sardans, J.; Estiarte, M.; Peñuelas, J. Spatial variability and controls over biomass stocks, carbon fluxes, and resourse-use efficiencies across forest ecosystems. Trees 2014, 28, 597–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Luyssaert, S.; Inglima, I.; Jung, M.; Richardson, A.D.; Reichstein, M.; Papale, D.; Piao, S.L.; Schulze, E.D.; Wingate, L.; Matteucci, G.; et al. CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob. Change Biol. 2007, 13, 2509–2537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Brown, S.; Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.; Liu, D. Geographic distribution of carbon in biomass and soils of tropical Asian forests. Geocarto Int. 1993, 8, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Brown, S.; Iverson, L.R.; Lugo, A.E. Land-use and biomass changes of forests in Peninsular Malaysia from 1972 to 1982: A GIS approach. In Effects of Land Use Change on Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations. Southeast Asia as a Case Study; Dale, V.H., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 117–143. [Google Scholar]
  155. Iverson, L.R.; Brown, S.; Prasad, A.; Mitasova, H.; Gillespie, A.J.R.; Lugo, A.E. Use of GIS for estimating potential and actual forest biomass for continental south and southeast Asia. In Effects of Land Use Change on Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations. Southeast Asia as a Case Study; Dale, V.H., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 67–116. [Google Scholar]
  156. Brown, S.; Pearson, T.; Slaymaker, D.; Ambagis, S.; Moore, N.; Novelo, D.; Sabido, W. Creating a virtual tropical forest from three-dimensional aerial imagery: Application for estimating carbon stocks. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Chave, J.; Condit, R.; Aguilar, S.; Hernandez, A.; Lao, S.; Perez, R. Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2004, 359, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Campioli, M.; Malhi, Y.; Vicca, S.; Luyssaert, S.; Papale, D.; Peñuelas, J.; Reichstein, M.; Migliavacca, M.; Arain, M.A.; Janssens, I.A. Evaluating the convergence between eddy-covariance and biometric methods for assessing carbon budgets of forests. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Morel, A.C.; Fisher, J.B.; Malhi, Y. Evaluating the potential to monitor aboveground biomass in forest and oil palm in Sabah, Malaysia, for 2000–2008 with Landsat ETM+ and ALOS-PALSAR. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2012, 33, 3614–3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Réjou-Méchain, M.; Tymen, B.; Blanc, L.; Fauset, S.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Monteagudo, A.; Phillips, O.L.; Richard, H.; Chave, J. Using repeated small-footprint LIDAR acquisitions to infer spatial and temporal variations of a high-biomass Neotropical forest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 169, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Tong Minh, D.H.; Toan, T.L.; Rocca, F.; Tebaldini, S.; Villard, L.; Réjou-Méchain, M.; Phillips, O.L.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Dubois-Fernandez, P.; Scipal, K.; et al. SAR tomography for the retrieval of forest biomass and height: Cross-validation at two tropical forest sites in French Guiana. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 175, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Espírito Santo, F.D.B.; Keller, M.M.; Linder, E.; Junior, R.C.O.; Pereira, C.; Oliveira, C.G. Gap formation and carbon cycling in the Brazilian Amazon: Measurement using high-resolution optical remote sensing and studies of large forest plots. Plant Ecol. Divers. 2013, 7, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Harris, N.L.; Brown, S.; Hagen, S.C.; Saatchi, S.S.; Petrova, S.; Salas, W.; Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Lotsch, A. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 2012, 336, 1573–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Gaston, G.; Brown, S.; Lorenzini, M.; Singh, K.D. State and change in carbon pools in the forests of tropical Africa. Glob. Change Biol. 1998, 4, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Saatchi, S.S.; Harris, N.L.; Brown, S.; Lefsky, M.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; Salas, W.; Zutta, B.R.; Buermann, W.; Lewis, S.L.; Hagen, S.; et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 9899–9904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Avitabile, V.; Herold, M.; Heuvelink, G.B.M.; Lewis, S.L.; Phillips, O.L.; Asner, G.P.; Armston, J.; Ashton, P.S.; Banin, L.; Bayol, N.; et al. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Glob. Chang Biol. 2016, 22, 1406–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Mitchard, E.T.A.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Brienen, R.J.; Lopez Gonzalez, G.; Monteagudo, A.; Baker, T.R.; Lewis, S.L.; Lloyd, J.; Quesada, C.A.; Gloor, M.; et al. Markedly divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014, 23, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Asner, G. Carnegie Airborne Observatory. Available online: https://cao.carnegiescience.edu (accessed on 27 March 2017).
Forests 08 00101 g001 550
Figure 1. Carbon budget of a subtropical wet forest at El Verde, Puerto Rico [10] expressed in energy units (about 4 kcalories per g of vegetation material, because Odum used caloric equivalents of the various materials). The budget was constructed assuming steady state for the whole system. However, plants do exhibit greater production than respiration. Photosynthesis is P, R is respiration, structure refers to leaf biomass, and the symbols are those of the energy language of Odum [10]: bullet symbol represents photosynthesis, hexagons are consumer compartments, tanks are storages, the circle represents external energy inputs, the heat sinks are energy losses as a result of energy transformations, and lines represent the fluxes.
Figure 1. Carbon budget of a subtropical wet forest at El Verde, Puerto Rico [10] expressed in energy units (about 4 kcalories per g of vegetation material, because Odum used caloric equivalents of the various materials). The budget was constructed assuming steady state for the whole system. However, plants do exhibit greater production than respiration. Photosynthesis is P, R is respiration, structure refers to leaf biomass, and the symbols are those of the energy language of Odum [10]: bullet symbol represents photosynthesis, hexagons are consumer compartments, tanks are storages, the circle represents external energy inputs, the heat sinks are energy losses as a result of energy transformations, and lines represent the fluxes.
Forests 08 00101 g001
Forests 08 00101 g002 550
Figure 2. Relationship between aboveground and soil organic matter of mature tropical forests and the ratio of mean annual temperature to mean annual precipitation (T/P) [3].
Figure 2. Relationship between aboveground and soil organic matter of mature tropical forests and the ratio of mean annual temperature to mean annual precipitation (T/P) [3].
Forests 08 00101 g002
Forests 08 00101 g003 550
Figure 3. Relationship between the biomass expansion factor and growing stock volume of tropical and temperate forests [59,60].
Figure 3. Relationship between the biomass expansion factor and growing stock volume of tropical and temperate forests [59,60].
Forests 08 00101 g003
Forests 08 00101 g004 550
Figure 4. Area of tropical forests between the 1920s [89] and 2015 [3,82,90,91]. The 1990 estimates are both from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), but estimated at different times; the last five estimates are from 2015. We selected these estimates as the most credible for their time because they contained supporting empiric information. Nevertheless, each estimate has unique assumptions and definitions that preclude precise comparisons among them.
Figure 4. Area of tropical forests between the 1920s [89] and 2015 [3,82,90,91]. The 1990 estimates are both from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), but estimated at different times; the last five estimates are from 2015. We selected these estimates as the most credible for their time because they contained supporting empiric information. Nevertheless, each estimate has unique assumptions and definitions that preclude precise comparisons among them.
Forests 08 00101 g004
Forests 08 00101 g005 550
Figure 5. A global map of carbon density of tropical and subtropical forests (a) and the geographic distribution of the uncertainty of the estimate (b) [165].
Figure 5. A global map of carbon density of tropical and subtropical forests (a) and the geographic distribution of the uncertainty of the estimate (b) [165].
Forests 08 00101 g005
Table
Table 1. Consensus on the magnitude of atmospheric global carbon source and sink fluxes (Pg/year) at four historic moments. The perceived role of vegetation as a carbon sink and the level of uncertainty in the budget estimate are highlighted (rows in bold). Values are based on [55,56,57].
Table 1. Consensus on the magnitude of atmospheric global carbon source and sink fluxes (Pg/year) at four historic moments. The perceived role of vegetation as a carbon sink and the level of uncertainty in the budget estimate are highlighted (rows in bold). Values are based on [55,56,57].
Global Process and Sinks19801980–19891990–19992000–2007
Sources
Fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture4.5–5.95.4 ± 0.56.5 ± 0.47.6 ± 0.4
Change in land use *1.8–3.31.6 ± 1.01.5 ± 0.71.1 ± 0.7
Total6.3–9.27.08.0 ± 0.88.7 ± 0.8
Sinks
Atmosphere2.3–2.73.4 ± 0.23.2 ± 0.14.1 ± 0.1
Oceans1.5–2.52.0 ± 0.82.2 ± 0.42.3 ± 0.4
Terrestrial vegetation 2.5 ± 0.42.3 ± 0.5
Total3.8–5.25.47.9 ± 0.68.7 ± 0.7
Residual (uncertainty)1.1–6.81.6 ± 1.40.1 ± 1.00.0 ± 1.0
* Estimated at 8 Pg/year by [51].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brown, S.; Lugo, A.E. Trailblazing the Carbon Cycle of Tropical Forests from Puerto Rico. Forests 2017, 8, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8040101

AMA Style

Brown S, Lugo AE. Trailblazing the Carbon Cycle of Tropical Forests from Puerto Rico. Forests. 2017; 8(4):101. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8040101

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brown, Sandra, and Ariel E. Lugo. 2017. "Trailblazing the Carbon Cycle of Tropical Forests from Puerto Rico" Forests 8, no. 4: 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8040101

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop