Table 3 The independent validation results of biomass and carbon models for 20 forest types.
From: Estimating changes of forest carbon storage in China for 70 years (1949–2018)
Forest type | TRE/% | ASE/% | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | |
Coniferous | ||||||
Fir | − 0.09 | 0.02 | − 0.11 | − 0.03 | 0.40 | − 0.02 |
Spruce | − 1.56 | − 1.40 | − 1.57 | − 3.31 | − 3.38 | − 3.32 |
Larch | 0.29 | 0.24 | 0.27 | − 3.13 | − 2.06 | − 3.14 |
Chinese fir | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.52 |
Cypress | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 2.05 | 2.20 | 2.18 |
Masson pine | − 0.44 | − 0.56 | − 0.46 | 3.61 | 2.95 | 3.56 |
Chinese pine | 0.60 | 0.73 | 0.71 | 3.92 | 3.34 | 3.92 |
Yunnan pine | 1.10 | 1.01 | 1.19 | − 0.93 | − 1.11 | − 1.04 |
Other coniferous | − 2.93 | − 2.90 | − 3.16 | 2.03 | 2.36 | 2.16 |
Broadleaved | ||||||
Oak | − 0.61 | − 0.46 | − 0.57 | 1.60 | 3.06 | 1.50 |
Birch | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 2.91 | 4.08 | 2.91 |
Poplar | − 0.72 | − 0.75 | − 0.75 | 3.32 | 4.31 | 3.38 |
Robinia | 2.16 | 2.09 | 2.11 | 3.48 | 4.47 | 3.41 |
Eucalypt | 1.19 | 1.19 | 1.22 | 0.97 | 1.72 | 1.15 |
Rubber-woods | − 0.05 | − 0.08 | − 0.02 | − 3.32 | − 2.72 | − 3.29 |
Other hard-broad | − 0.87 | − 0.92 | − 0.97 | 1.52 | 2.64 | 1.03 |
Other soft-broad | 0.57 | 0.78 | 0.48 | 3.57 | 4.87 | 3.45 |
Mixed | ||||||
Coniferous | 0.66 | 0.48 | 0.70 | 1.58 | 1.33 | 1.51 |
Conifer-broadleaved | − 0.16 | − 0.30 | − 0.21 | 1.58 | 1.73 | 1.45 |
Broadleaved | − 0.10 | − 0.09 | − 0.08 | 0.78 | 1.70 | 0.63 |
