Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Geospatial analysis reveals shifts in living biomass carbon across European beech footprints in Greece, highlighting the substantial impact of spatial mask selection on carbon accounting.
Reliable spatial evidence can support quality assurance and quality control for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), but land-cover and species-distribution layers do not by themselves identify IPCC Forest Land or species-pure stands. We estimated 2010 and 2020 above- and below-ground living biomass carbon within tree-covered European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) distribution and occurrence footprints in Greece. Our operational hypothesis was that increasingly restrictive species masks would materially alter the mapped extent and carbon estimates. ESA Climate Change Initiative Biomass v6, ESA WorldCover 2021, European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) polygons, and Forest Information System for Europe (FISE) relative probability of presence layers were processed in Google Earth Engine. Biomass was converted with IPCC default carbon fractions and root:shoot ratios, and the results were summarized nationally and for GAUL Level-2 units. The broad EUFORGEN footprint covered 22,133 km2, whereas the Combined overlap of EUFORGEN, FISE relative probability of presence ≥ 0.50, and tree cover covered 2742 km2. Within the Combined footprint, the pixel mean living biomass carbon density was 60.33 Mg C ha−1 in 2010 and 62.50 Mg C ha−1 in 2020, and the area-integrated change was +0.58 Tg C; the area-normalized regional change was positive in 13 of 17 units and negative in 4. Across masks, the mean decadal change ranged from −0.50 to +3.37 Mg C ha−1 and the approximate area-integrated totals from −1.10 to +0.58 Tg C. These scenario-conditioned estimates are neither official national greenhouse gas inventory estimates nor tests of statistical significance; instead, they provide reproducible spatial screening while making mask sensitivity and unpropagated uncertainty explicit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arampatzis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: