<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-13-6321-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>High-resolution mapping of time since disturbance and forest carbon flux
from remote sensing and inventory data to assess harvest, fire, and beetle
disturbance legacies in the Pacific Northwest</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{High-resolution mapping of time since disturbance}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{H. Gu et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gu</surname><given-names>Huan</given-names></name>
          <email>hugu@clarku.edu</email><email>guhuan114031@gmail.com</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>Christopher A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5047-0639</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ghimire</surname><given-names>Bardan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Feng</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Chengquan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD 20742, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Huan Gu (hugu@clarku.edu, guhuan114031@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>25</day><month>November</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>22</issue>
      <fpage>6321</fpage><lpage>6337</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>26</day><month>April</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>17</day><month>May</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20</day><month>October</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>9</day><month>November</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Accurate assessment of forest carbon storage and uptake
is central to policymaking aimed at mitigating climate change and understanding the role forests play in the global carbon cycle. Disturbances have
highly diverse impacts on forest carbon dynamics, making them a challenge
to quantify and report. Time since disturbance is a key intermediate
determinant that aids the assessment of disturbance-driven carbon emissions
and removals legacies. We propose a new methodology of quantifying time
since disturbance and carbon flux across forested landscapes in the Pacific
Northwest (PNW) at a fine scale (30 m) by combining remote sensing (RS)-based disturbance year, disturbance type, and above-ground biomass with
forest inventory data. When a recent disturbance is detected, time since
disturbance can be directly determined by combining three RS-derived
disturbance products, or time since the last stand clearing can be
inferred from a RS-derived 30 m biomass map and field inventory-derived
species-specific biomass accumulation curves. Net ecosystem productivity
(NEP) is further mapped based on carbon stock and flux trajectories derived
from the Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA) model in our prior work that
described how NEP changes with time following harvest, fire, or bark beetle
disturbances of varying severity. Uncertainties from biomass map and forest
inventory data were propagated by probabilistic sampling to provide a
statistical distribution of stand age and NEP for each forest pixel. We mapped
mean, standard deviation, and statistical distribution of stand age and NEP at
30 m in the PNW region. Our map indicated a net ecosystem productivity of
5.9 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for forestlands circa 2010 in the study area, with net
uptake in relatively mature (&gt; 24 years old) forests (13.6 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> overwhelming net negative NEP from tracts that had recent
harvests
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.4 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, fires (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and bark beetle outbreaks
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The approach will be applied to forestlands in other
regions of the conterminous US to advance a more comprehensive monitoring,
mapping, and reporting of the carbon consequences of forest change across the
US.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Disturbances profoundly alter ecosystems, often with legacies that persist
for decades or centuries (Turner, 2010). Correspondingly, time since
disturbance is a key determinant of ecosystem structure, composition, and
function (Jenny, 1980; Chapin et al., 2012). It is also a primary control in
many components of the forest carbon cycle, such as live biomass, coarse
woody debris biomass, forest floor biomass, biomass accumulation, and so
forth (Bradford et al., 2008). Considering time since disturbance is
therefore essential for quantifying and predicting a wide range of
ecological functions, including carbon stocks and fluxes, which are highly
dynamic following disturbances, presenting a significant challenge for
carbon budget assessment (Williams et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>A number of prior studies have sought to incorporate the time since the last
stand-clearing disturbance, analogous to forest stand age, as a determinant
or predictor of carbon fluxes and stocks (Cohen et al., 1996; Chen et al.,
2002, 2003; Law et al., 2004; Turner et al., 2004; Liu et al.,
2011; Pan et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012, 2014; Zhang et al., 2012). Data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) offer one
source for characterizing time since stand-replacing disturbances at broad
scales (Williams et al., 2012, 2014). Stand ages were
recorded by coring and dating of large trees in forest plots (FIA, 2015)
because high-severity stand-replacement events that level all canopy
dominants and even understory individuals leave a clearer mark of
disturbance timing (Schoennagel et al., 2004). Above-ground live biomass also
reflects the time since disturbance in so far as biomass exhibits a
predictable rate of accumulation following stand replacement. The rate of
biomass accumulation is influenced by a wide range of factors, such as
climate, soil and site fertility, species composition, successional
dynamics, the type of stand-replacement disturbance, and impacts from varying
severity disturbance events (Johnson et al., 2000). The complex combination
of how these factors are distributed across landscapes challenges generic
characterization of time since disturbance and, most importantly,
post-disturbance forest carbon dynamics. Though forest inventory remains one
of the only ways of quantifying time since disturbance, it is an imperfect
surrogate for time since disturbance at broad scales. However, because of low-severity, partial-disturbance events, time since disturbance can be
difficult to quantify in field surveys.</p>
      <p>Large-area fine-scale assessments of forest carbon stocks and fluxes require
spatially extensive and continuous characterization of time since
disturbance across landscapes at a scale that is able to detect small-scale
disturbance events, typically around 100 m or less. FIA stand-age plot data
can be used to create a continuous forest stand-age map at resolutions of
250 m in the conterminous US (Pan et al., 2011). However, such efforts are
significantly limited by sparse plot coverage, poor representation of
partial disturbances, and the fact that stand age, disturbance legacies, and
carbon stocks and fluxes all vary widely at 250 m and coarser scales.
Quantification of carbon stocks and fluxes based on coarse-scale stand-age
information could be biased (Zhang et al., 2012). Thus, field inventory
imputed carbon stocks and fluxes can only provide rough guidance for forest
carbon management, monitoring, and verification at small scales (Wilson et
al., 2013).</p>
      <p>A number of remote sensing (RS) data and methods are available to quantify
disturbance timing or disturbance timing-related attributes. Time series
Landsat data and disturbance detection methods generate spatially extensive
characterization of contemporary disturbance events and magnitude, providing
a direct estimate of time since disturbance (Cohen et al., 2002; Goward et
al., 2008; Huang et al., 2009, 2010; Zhu et al., 2012). However, such disturbance
products only record events that occurred within the last several decades,
thus missing the long-lasting legacies from disturbances that occurred
before the beginning of the relevant remote sensing observations.
Fortunately, such long-lasting legacy effects are partially captured from
RS-derived stand ages or above-ground biomass (Cohen et al., 1995; Saatchi et
al., 2011; Kellndorfer et al., 2013). Stand-age maps directly determined
from RS only offer rough age estimates binned into several classes over a
large area, while above-ground biomass products estimated from optical,
radar,
and lidar data can provide pixel-level biomass (Cohen et al., 1995; Saatchi
et al., 2011; Kellndorfer et al., 2013). Such above-ground biomass products
have the potential to support inferences about additional properties of a
given forest stand, such as stand age and disturbance legacy, particularly
when considered within a well-defined regional context of typical biomass
accumulation rates for a local set of edaphic, climatic, and forest-type
settings (Zhang et al., 2014). There may be considerable ambiguity and
confusion arising from incomplete information, as well as the potential for
a range of field conditions that yield similar above-ground biomass or forest
structure. Nonetheless, RS-derived forest biomass still provides a valuable
way of characterizing the pixel-scale (e.g., 30 or 250 m) legacy effects of
disturbance that occurred prior to RS observations, which is required for
quantifying carbon stock recovery and carbon uptake and release rates over
large areas. Combining disturbance products with other available disturbance
layers is needed to distinguish among different disturbance types and
severities to help assess carbon balance as a consequence of varying
disturbance type and severity (Cohen et al., 2002).</p>
      <p>Disturbance events are highly heterogeneous in space, with both occurrence
and severity varying interactively with a wide range of site factors,
resulting in highly diverse impacts on forest carbon dynamics (Turner,
2010). The effects of disturbances on forest carbon in US forests were
assessed and simulated with time since disturbance from FIA data by a number
of growth-based or process-based modeling approaches (e.g., Williams et al.,
2016). This generates regional carbon stock and flux trajectories with time
since disturbance following fire, bark beetle, and harvest with varying
severity (Turner et al., 2004, 2007; Williams et al., 2012, 2014;
Ghimire et al., 2012, 2015; Raymond
et al., 2015). Previous studies that used model-derived trajectory curves to
map carbon fluxes as a consequence of disturbances mainly focused on only
one of the disturbance types, but accounting for multiple disturbance types
is necessary for more accurately mapping and reporting carbon dynamics
(Williams et al., 2016).</p>
      <p>This study estimates and maps time since disturbance at a fine scale of 30 m
from RS-derived products and FIA-derived biomass growth curves, and then
maps net ecosystem productivity (NEP) based on disturbance history, time since
disturbance, and carbon flux legacy. The specific objectives in this study
are to (1) introduce a method for inferring a pixel's representative time
since disturbance from RS-derived biomass and disturbance products at a 30 m resolution; (2) map NEP based on pre-existing, model-derived carbon stock and
flux trajectories that describe how NEP changes with time following harvest,
fire, or bark beetle disturbances of varying severity; and (3) propagate
uncertainties from RS-derived biomass products and FIA into uncertainty
quantification of stand age and NEP. Our research represents an approach to map
carbon stocks and fluxes at a high resolution across the conterminous US in
support of national carbon monitoring, reporting, and management.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Data sources for inferring time since disturbance for
recently disturbed and undisturbed forest pixels.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Data</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Description</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Source</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Year</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Input for</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">recently disturbed</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">and/or</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">undisturbed forests</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NAFD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Forest disturbance</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Landsat</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1986–2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a, b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MTBS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Burned area and severity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Landsat</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1986–2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ADS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Area of insect outbreak and number of trees killed</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Aerial survey</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1997–2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NBCD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Above-ground live biomass</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Landsat, SRTM, FIA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Forest-type group</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Forest-type group</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MODIS, NLCD, etc.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2001</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Site productivity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fraction of high productivity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">FIA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1984–2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biomass-age curves</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biomass accumulation as a function of stand age</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">FIA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1984–2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Data are one of the inputs for inferring time since disturbance for
recently disturbed forest pixels.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Data are one of the inputs for inferring time since disturbance for
recently undisturbed forest pixels.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Overview</title>
      <p>Time since disturbance for each forest pixel was identified with one of the
following two approaches depending on whether a recent disturbance was
detected. The indicators of forest disturbances, including disturbance type
and year, were determined from a combination of three RS-derived disturbance
products based on assumed rules. For those pixels that have been mapped as
having a recent disturbance since the beginning of the relevant RS
observations, time since disturbance was directly estimated by the
difference between the target mapping year (year 2010 in this study) and the
year of the last observed disturbance. For forest pixels that were not
disturbed during the time span of the disturbance product, we inferred time
since last stand-clearing disturbance, which is also called “stand age”
(Masek and Collatz, 2006); the terms “time since disturbance” and “stand
age” are used interchangeably for recently undisturbed forest pixels
thereafter. Stand age was inferred from RS-derived biomass data by finding
the typical stand age that corresponds to each pixel's biomass according to
field-inventory-derived biomass-age curves, known as yield tables in
forestry. The curves were sampled from FIA data and are specific to forest-type
group and site-productivity class. Consequently, maps of forest-type group
and site productivity aid pixel-level determination of which biomass-age
curve is to be used for each pixel.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Year of last disturbance from <bold>(a)</bold> NAFD, <bold>(b)</bold> MTBS, and
<bold>(c)</bold> ADS data of the PNW region. The time periods for NAFD, MTBS, and ADS datasets
are 1986–2010, 1986–2010, and 1997–2010, respectively. NAFD: North American
Forest Dynamics, MTBS: Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity, ADS: aerial
detection surveys.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>NEP in 2010 across the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region was mapped based on carbon stock and flux
trajectories derived from the Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA) model in
our prior work, describing how NEP changes with time following harvest, fire, or
bark beetle disturbances of varying severity (Ghimire et al., 2012, 2015; Williams
et al., 2014). NEP curves with time since disturbance vary
by forest-type group and site-productivity class, and are unique to
post-harvest (Williams et al., 2014), post-fire (Ghimire et al., 2012), and
post-bark beetle (Ghimire et al., 2015) disturbance types. NEP trajectories
were applied to pixels with attributes of time since disturbance, forest-type group, site-productivity class, disturbance type, and disturbance
severity to estimate carbon fluxes in forests caused by post-disturbance
growth and decomposition locally and regionally.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Inferring time since disturbance from remote sensing and inventory
data</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>Time since disturbance for disturbed forest pixels</title>
      <p>North American Forest Dynamics (NAFD) disturbance products, Monitoring
Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS), and aerial detection survey (ADS) polygons
were used to determine whether and when forest pixels were disturbed from
1986 to 2010 (Table 1). NAFD products include 25 annual and 2
time-integrated forest disturbance maps with spatial resolution of 30 m for
the conterminous United States (CONUS; Goward et al., 2015). These maps
were derived from annual time series Landsat images from 1986 to 2010 using
the vegetation change tracker (VCT) algorithm (Huang et al., 2009, 2010). In this paper, we used one of the time-integrated data layers,
which maps the year of the most recent forest disturbance between 1986 and
2010. The MTBS project maps annual burned area and burn severity at 30 m
resolution across all land of the United States from 1984 to 2014
(Eidenshink et al., 2007). Burned areas were determined by the differenced
Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) index calculated across time series Landsat
images. MTBS defines burn severity classes based on distribution of dNBR
values and ecological settings. We integrated the annual MTBS data from 1986
to 2010 into two images: (1) year of the most recent fire event and (2) burn
severity corresponding to the recent fire, and we applied a NAFD forest area
mask to the integrated maps. The ADS program conducts annual surveys to
investigate forest injury caused by insect outbreaks using aircraft
observations since 1997, and it generates polygons recording a number of
attributes, including disturbance year, and areas and number of trees killed by
insects per area. We selected polygons attacked by bark beetles from 1997 to
2010, converted the number of trees killed by bark beetles per area to
biomass killed per area by multiplying county-level FIA-derived average
above-ground biomass per tree for corresponding forest types, and then binned
biomass killed per area into different bark beetle severity levels (Ghimire
et al., 2015). Those polygons were rasterized into two images with a cell
size of 30 m: (1) year of bark beetle occurrence and (2) the severity of
bark beetle outbreak represented by the amount of live biomass killed, with
a NAFD forest mask applied to these two images.</p>
      <p>Preprocessed layers of NAFD (Fig. 1a), MTBS (Fig. 1b), and ADS (Fig. 1c) data
characterized the year of most recent disturbance events. These three layers
were integrated to create a single 30 m resolution image of disturbance type
associated with the last disturbance between 1986 and 2010. Since the NAFD
disturbances have not yet been fully attributed to disturbance type, and
because some pixels are recorded as having experienced more than one
disturbance type, we made four simplistic rules to define a single
disturbance type for each pixel. These assumptions are based on three
rationales: (1) MTBS records most of the notable fire events in the region;
(2) harvest events are one of the most ubiquitous stand-replacement
disturbance types active in the region; (3) ADS-mapped polygons of bark
beetle infestations often include unaffected stands, as has been reported in
the literature (Meddens et al., 2012; Vanderhoof et al., 2014). Our four
rules were (1) when NAFD and MTBS overlapped, if the two events were within 3 years of each other, we assigned fire to the pixel, and if the two were separated by more
than 3 years, we assigned whichever event type was most recent with
harvest for NAFD and fire for MTBS. (2) When NAFD and ADS overlapped, if the
two events were separated by more than 3 years, harvest was assigned to the
overlapping areas, but if they occurred within 3 years of each other,
bark beetle outbreak was assigned. (3) When MTBS and ADS overlapped, the
overlapping areas were assigned fire. (4) Harvest was assigned to all
remaining disturbed pixels identified by NAFD. The year of last disturbance
for each disturbed pixel was then assigned based on the year of disturbance
in each corresponding disturbance data product. Time since disturbance for
disturbed pixels was then calculated as the difference between the target
mapping year of 2010 and the year of last disturbance.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Time since disturbance for recently undisturbed forest pixels</title>
      <p>For the remaining forest pixels that have no disturbance detected from 1986
to 2010, national biomass datasets were used to identify the corresponding
stand age inferred from biomass-age curves that are specific to forest-type
group and site-productivity classes (Table 1). Mapped strata of forest-type
group and site productivity were used to determine the appropriate
biomass-age curve to be used in referring stand age from biomass.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Maps of <bold>(a)</bold> NBCD 2000 (National Biomass and Carbon Dataset)
above-ground biomass, <bold>(b)</bold> forest-type group and <bold>(c)</bold> site productivity in the
PNW region.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p>Biomass-age curves were derived from the FIA database, sampled to provide
means and sampling errors for two attributes: above-ground dry weight of live
trees and area of forest land. The ratio of these two attributes provides
above-ground live wood biomass per area. We obtained the ratios and
associated errors for the PNW region through the USDA Forest Service FIA
EVALIDator online tool (<uri>http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp</uri>). This yielded biomass per
area within strata of forest-type group (28 classes), stand age (11
classes), and site productivity (7 classes); Table S1 in the Supplement. We combined the
original seven site-productivity classes into high- and low-productivity classes,
defined by the rate of forest volume growth as 8.4–15.7<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>
and 1.4–8.3 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Ratios and
sampling errors were recalculated for each forest-type group, age class, and
site productivity based on this grouping. Biomass-age curves were fitted
following Williams et al. (2012) by parameterizing a wood production model
that best matches the field inventory data. A Monte Carlo approach was used
to incorporate uncertainty in the biomass per unit area with one hundred
samples of the biomass at each age class drawn probabilistically. We then
fitted corresponding one hundred curves for each forest type and
productivity class, providing a distribution of biomass at each stand age
from 1 to 200 years.</p>
      <p>Pixel-level biomass was obtained from the National Biomass and Carbon Dataset for the year 2000 (NBCD 2000; Fig. 2a). The 30 m resolution biomass map
was developed based on empirical modeling combining FIA data, InSAR data
from 2000 SRTM, and Landsat ETM<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> optical remote sensing (Kellndorfer et
al., 2013). Only biomass estimates for undisturbed pixels were used for
inferring stand age. Differences in forest masks between NAFD disturbance
and NBCD biomass products led to a number of pixels having a biomass
recorded as zero. These were replaced by the mean biomass of nearby
undisturbed pixels with the same forest type and site productivity within
this region. The 250 m forest-type group maps we used were created by the USDA
Forest Service and were derived from MODIS composite images in combination
with FIA data and nearly 100 other geospatial data layers, portraying 28
forest-type groups across the contiguous United States (Ruefenacht et al.,
2008; Fig. 2b). Differences in map resolution between disturbance and
forest-type maps led forest type to be undefined for some pixels along
forest edges, so we assigned these the forest types of the nearest pixel. Site-productivity maps were also derived from FIA data (Fig. 2c) using the
following procedure. The FIA dataset was sampled to obtain the area of each
county across the region that is of each forest-type group and site-productivity class. We then created a continuous map of county numbers on a
0.01 degree grid, overlayed forest types, and integrated those with the data
on each county's area of high- and low-productivity classes for the forest
type that was most abundant in the pixel. This yielded a map of productivity
class fractions, where each pixel has a fraction high productivity (summed
over classes 1 to 3 spanning 8.4–15.7<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
fraction low productivity (summed over classes 4 to 6 spanning 1.4–8.3 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). In reality, site productivity is unlikely to vary
across the 30 m pixel scale as much as it does at the county scale, whereas
high- and low-site-productivity fractions are likely to vary across counties
in some cases. However, an improved characterization is not available at
this time.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Stand age inferred based on field-inventory-derived
species-specific biomass-age curves <bold>(a)</bold> for a forest pixel of the same
forest-type group with above-ground biomass of 10 kg C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and having no
recent disturbance. Histogram and quantiles of stand ages are shown for
three site-productivity classes: <bold>(b)</bold> high-productivity site (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1), <bold>(c)</bold> low-productivity site (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0), and <bold>(d)</bold> mixture of high- and
low-productivity sites (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p>For each recently undisturbed forest pixel, we extracted its biomass (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
forest type (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and fraction of high productivity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and then
retrieved 100 biomass trajectories for forest type <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and for high- and low-productivity classes, respectively. If the pixel was located at a high-productivity site (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1), we treated 100 biomass curves for high
productivity as 100 biomass realizations at stand ages from 0 to 200. All
the biomass values among those realizations that lie within 20 % of the
pixel's observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were pooled and corresponding stand ages were derived
(Fig. 3a). We then calculated the mean, standard deviation, and each of the
10th quantiles from the pooled stand ages (10th, 20th, 30th, ..., 80th, 90th quantiles
of stand age; Fig. 3b). The quantiles provided a frequency distribution of
stand age for the individual pixel. Similarly, if the pixel was entirely of
low site productivity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0), we followed the steps above but
used trajectories for low-productivity classes to derive stand age
distribution for low productivity (Fig. 3c). In reality, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is almost
always between 0 and 1 (maximum <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.996, minimum <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.015 in PNW). In order to reflect high–low productivity proportion of the
total, we combined the two distributions above (one for high- and the other
for low-productivity classes) by making copies of the two distributions with
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> copies for high productivity and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> copies
for low productivity. We calculated the mean, standard deviation, and
quantiles from the combined distribution of stand age (Fig. 3d). Since
2010 was the target year for our mapping of stand age and carbon fluxes,
while biomass maps were generated for the year 2000, we simply added 10
years to the inferred ages to get adjusted stand ages. Using the procedure above
across all undisturbed forest pixels, we generated maps of the
mean and standard deviation of stand age.</p>
      <p>Finally, we merged the stand-age map for undisturbed forest pixels with the
time since disturbance map for disturbed pixels to obtain a continuous map
for all the forest pixels across the study area. To evaluate the derived map
of time since disturbance, we made comparisons with two currently available
products. First, density curves of stand age were plotted with maps derived
from this study and Pan et al. (2011) for the study area. Another comparison
was made between the distribution of forest area with age class from this
study and that sampled from the FIA dataset.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Estimating NEP and uncertainties across the PNW region</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <title>Carbon flux trajectories for harvest, fire and bark beetle</title>
      <p>Carbon flux trajectories for post-harvest, -fire, and -bark beetle outbreaks
were derived from our prior work (Ghimire et al., 2012, 2015; Williams et al.,
2014) involving an inventory-constrained version of
the CASA carbon cycle process model with inclusion of disturbance processes.
The CASA model used here is based on Randerson et al. (1996) and operates on
a monthly time step. It uses a light-use efficiency approach for simulating
net primary productivity (NPP) based on RS-derived absorption of
photosynthetically active radiation, biome parameters, and climate data. The
model then allocates NPP to three live carbon pools (leaves, roots, and wood)
and transfers carbon to dead pools (litter and soils) based on
biome-specific rates of tissue turnover. Carbon in dead organic matter pools
is transferred between pools (surface structural C, surface metabolic C,
soil structural C, soil metabolic C, above-ground coarse woody debris C,
belowground coarse woody debris C, surface microbial C, soil microbial C,
slow C, and passive C; Fig. S1 in the Supplement). Amounts of carbon transferred to microbial
pools and carbon emitted to the atmosphere from microbial decomposition of
soil and litter, i.e., heterotrophic respiration (Rh), depend on the rate and
efficiency of heterotrophic consumption, which varies between pools in the
model and also depends on biome- and pool-specific chemistry and
site-specific climate setting, such as soil moisture and temperature. The
difference between NPP and summed Rh of the 10 detrital pools is then calculated
as NEP. Above-ground biomass-age curves sampled from the FIA database were used as a
constraint to adjust wood turnover rate (mortality and shedding) and default
output NPP by a scalar parameter, which therefore influences accumulation of live
biomass and the amount of carbon allocated to live and deal pools. The
adjustment of those CASA parameters was performed for each specific
combination of forest-type group and site-productivity class. Implementation
of the model involved a simulation sequence that began with spin-up to
equilibrium carbon pools using FIA-adjusted NPP, which was followed by a pre-disturbance
with ensuing regrowth to a set of pre-disturbance ages, and lastly,
imposition of the disturbance of interest to generate flux and stock
dynamics in response to harvest, fire, or beetle outbreak disturbance types
at different severities. The fate of carbon influenced by disturbances
varied by disturbance type as described below. Disturbance types considered
in the model included stand-replacing harvest, fire, and bark beetle
outbreaks, with full descriptions of the carbon dynamics in pools after a
disturbance provided in Ghimire et al. (2012, 2015), Williams et al. (2014), and described further below.</p>
      <p>Model treatments of disturbance impacts to the carbon cycle were as follows.
For all disturbance type cases, a post-disturbance decline and ensuing
recovery of NPP and fractional allocation to wood were modeled as a
negative exponential function of time since disturbance, recovering to the
pre-disturbance level within 8 years (Williams et al.,  2012). The
mortality and fate of disturbance-killed and/or -combusted carbon pools
differed by disturbance type. For harvest (Williams et al.,  2014), the
post-disturbance biomass was set to 50 % of the above-ground live wood
biomass reported in FIA data for the 0 to 20 year-old age class, regardless
of the pre-disturbance biomass condition. Harvest-killed live wood, leaves,
and roots were calculated from their corresponding fractions of
pre-disturbance to post-disturbance conditions. Of the
disturbance-killed above-ground live wood, 80 % was assumed to have been removed
from the site, with the remainder being treated as slash subject to
decomposition as coarse woody debris. All leaves of disturbance-killed trees
are assumed to decompose on-site. All belowground wood that succumbs to
mortality enters a belowground coarse woody debris carbon pool. For fire
(Ghimire et al.,  2012), disturbance kill is portrayed as a partial-mortality
event in which fires reduce pre-fire live biomass pools based on the
fractional tree mortality, which varies by forest-type group and fire-severity class (high, medium, or low to match the MTBS dataset). The amount
of live biomass remaining after a fire is calculated from the fraction of
vegetation mortality emerging from an extensive literature survey.
Fire-killed material is either directly combusted and released to the
atmosphere or transferred to dead carbon pools. The same applies to foliage
and root mortality, though roots are not directly combusted. Fire-killed
trees enter a new standing dead pool in the model with a fast turnover fall
rate of 10 years post fire with transfer to the coarse woody debris pool.
Litter and soil organic carbon in the upper soil layers were also vulnerable
to combustion. All of these rates were based on literature review (Ghimire
et al.,  2012). For bark beetle outbreaks (Ghimire et al.,  2015), beetle-killed
biomass was simulated for a wide range of intensities from near zero to
100 % mortality to generate a family of curves that could be applied in
the mapping stage. Beetle attack caused leaf carbon to enter the surface
litter pool, above-ground wood to enter a snag pool, and belowground wood and
fine root to enter corresponding soil carbon pools. The portions killed for
each were based on the percent mortality imposed for each severity level
being simulated, which was derived from the ratio of the biomass at the midpoint of
each severity class (of 1680 levels of intensity) to the pre-disturbed
above-ground biomass values corresponding to the mean age of a given forest
type under attack (Ghimire et al.,  2015). Soil carbon pools respond to all of
these dynamics according to the model's climate-mediated turnover times for
each carbon pool, and the associated carbon flows (Fig. S1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Carbon flux trajectories of (<bold>a</bold>, <bold>d</bold>) post-harvest (Williams
et al., 2014), (<bold>b</bold>, <bold>e</bold>) post-fire (Ghimire et al., 2012), and (<bold>c</bold>, <bold>f</bold>)
post-beetle (Ghimire et al., 2015) for a range of severities in high-site-productivity Douglas-fir stands of the PNW region. The typical pattern of
NEP following a disturbance involves a large negative value immediately after
disturbance, a rise for a number of years to reach a maximum rate of carbon
uptake, and then a gradual decline to a steady state.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Area (ha) of all forest lands, forests disturbed by
harvest (1986–2010), fire (1986–2010), and bark beetle (1997–2010) by forest-type group, and for high- and low-site-productivity class in the PNW region.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">All forests </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Harvested </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Burned </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col8" nameend="col9" align="center">Bark beetle infested </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Forest-type group<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">High</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Low</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">High</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Low</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">High</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Low</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">High</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Low</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Douglas-fir</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6 909 151</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 097 083</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2 039 661</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">752 902</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">161 221</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">181 147</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">301 234</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">41 6181</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ponderosa pine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">565 633</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2 953 701</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">188 300</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">888 668</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">39 135</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">213 925</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">53 982</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">26 1530</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1 220 916</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 914 562</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">155 898</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">250 135</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">61 140</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">135 947</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">193 838</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">343 326</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hemlock/Sitka spruce</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1 168 836</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">211 376</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">338 263</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">45 762</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">255</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">226</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">54 352</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">19 382</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pinyon/juniper</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">79 800</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">664 050</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 561</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">84 517</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2988</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">27 601</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">250</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1378</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alder/maple</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">633 369</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">43 005</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">278 797</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18128</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">325</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">3442</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">290</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lodgepole pine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">135 874</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">441 717</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">38 737</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">167 320</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">13 064</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">42 235</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">22 692</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">78 753</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Western oak</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52 774</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">97 472</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15 572</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">25 392</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4371</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7817</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1036</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2026</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">California mixed conifer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16 841</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">73 817</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5017</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">18 369</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">550</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1669</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">836</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1376</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tanoak/laurel</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50 897</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">26 536</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11 291</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5351</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6431</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3509</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">265</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">160</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Other western hardwoods</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">39 696</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">33 718</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 542</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7342</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">535</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">844</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">912</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">777</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Elm/ash/cottonwood</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">34 093</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17 945</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14 779</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7812</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">331</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">284</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">41</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Western larch</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20 464</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">28 342</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3126</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4611</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">744</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1436</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">5078</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">6597</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Other western softwood</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9956</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">24 206</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1441</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2587</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1711</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6037</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1726</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">5259</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Western white pine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7877</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4471</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">204</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">183</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7360</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">3951</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">35</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">37</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aspen/birch</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1908</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2607</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">730</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">894</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">176</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">286</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">124</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">353</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Forest-type groups are ordered by forest area from largest to smallest.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>For a given forest type, site productivity, and prior disturbance, this
forest disturbance version of the CASA model simulates NPP, Rh, and NEP as a function
of time since disturbance. A family of curves describing carbon stocks in
carbon pools (soil organic carbon, litter, slow turnover soil carbon,
above-ground coarse woody debris, belowground coarse woody debris, and total
live woody biomass), NPP, Rh, and NEP with time since disturbance for each
combination were created to represent uncertainties in the amount of biomass
killed and left on site after a disturbance, the amount of biomass left live
on site post-disturbance, and the rate of biomass accumulation and mortality
(Ghimire et al., 2012, 2015; Williams et al., 2014). This
study emphasized the use of NEP curves from our prior works combined with time
since disturbance derived from this study to map spatially explicit NEP in the
PNW region. Fig. 4 provides examples of post-disturbance NEP trajectories from
our prior work, showing the average of 20 simulations of post-harvest NEP (Fig. 4a,
d), the average of 25 simulations of post-fire NEP for three different fire
severities (Fig. 4b, e), and one simulation of post-bark beetle NEP for three
examples of bark beetle disturbances that kill low, medium, and high amounts
of biomass (Fig. 4c, f) in high-site-productivity Douglas-fir stands in the
PNW region. The typical overall pattern of NEP following a disturbance involves
a large negative value immediately after the disturbance, a rise for a number of
years to reach a maximum rate of carbon uptake, and then a gradual decline
to a steady state. The post-disturbance NEP curves across all forest types,
productivity classes, and disturbance types are presented in the
Supplement figures (Figs. S2, S3, S4, S5, S6), Rh trajectories are shown in
Figs. S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, and characteristic trajectories of
post-disturbance carbon stocks in carbon pools are provided as well (Figs. S12, S13, S14, S15, S16, S17 for harvest as an example).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Maps of <bold>(a)</bold> disturbance year and <bold>(b)</bold> disturbance type
integrated from NAFD (Fig. 1a), MTBS (Fig. 1b), and ADS (Fig. 1c) data in the
PNW region. NAFD: North American Forest Dynamics, MTBS: Monitoring Trends in
Burn Severity, ADS: aerial detection survey.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>Biomass-age curves sampled from FIA data for each forest-type group and site-productivity class in the PNW region. Curves for the
three most abundant forest-type groups are shown (DougFir is Douglas-fir,
Ponderosa P is ponderosa pine, and FirSprMtnHem is fir/spruce/mountain
hemlock). Red dots are independent samples drawn probabilistically from the
FIA data.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <title>Mapping NEP and uncertainties across the PNW region</title>
      <p>The characteristic trajectories serve as look-up tables relating carbon
fluxes and stocks (here just NEP) to years since disturbance within the strata
of forest-type group, site-productivity fraction, disturbance type, and
severity. For disturbed pixels, the distribution of NEP corresponding to the
pixel's time since disturbance and forest type was sampled for both high- and
low-productivity classes. It was then weighted according to the pixel's
fraction of high site productivity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Weighting involved a simple
repetition of each data population based on the pixel's fraction of high
productivity, with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> copies for the high-productivity estimates
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> copies for the low-productivity population. These
two populations were then combined to create a single composite distribution
representing the full probability distribution for the pixel's NEP. A similar
procedure was performed for all remaining undisturbed forest pixels but
including the additional uncertainty on the pixel's stand age. We propagated
stand-age uncertainty by obtaining the NEP distribution for each of the 10th
quantiles of the age distribution corresponding to the pixel's biomass and
forest type for both high- and low-productivity classes and compositing
these into a full probability distribution of the pixel's NEP based on the
pixel's fraction of high probability (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>high</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Finally, we calculated the
mean, standard deviation, and quantiles (10th, 20th, 30th, ..., 80th, 90th quantiles)
of NEP distribution for each forest pixel across the PNW region.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Maps of <bold>(a)</bold> years since disturbance and <bold>(b)</bold> standard
deviation in 2010 in the PNW region.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Disturbance maps derived from NAFD, MTBS, and ADS</title>
      <p>Across the 2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha of forest in the PNW region, harvest was recorded
as having affected the largest area (5.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha from 1986 to
2010), followed by bark beetles (1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha from 1997 to 2010), and then fire
(9.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha from 1986 to 2010). Their distributions are displayed in
Fig. 5. Reported as percentages, harvest, bark beetles, and fire affected
26, 9, and 5 % of all forestland in the PNW during their
respective time intervals. Table 2 provides an additional report of each
area by forest-type group and for high- and low-productivity-class sites.
Douglas-fir comprises nearly 50 % of all forest in the PNW, with about
70 % of it being in high-productivity-class lands. Ponderosa pine,
fir–spruce–mountain hemlock, and hemlock–Sitka spruce are the next most
abundant forest-type groups, comprising 17, 15, and 7 % of the PNW
forest, with 16, 39, and 85 % in high-productivity sites,
respectively.</p>
      <p>About half (52 %) of all harvesting occurred in Douglas-fir forests, with
20 % in ponderosa pine stands and 8 and 7 % in fir–spruce–mountain
hemlock, and hemlock–Sitka spruce stands. Of all forestland that burned,
37 % was in Douglas-fir stands, 27 % in ponderosa pine, and 21 % in
fir–spruce–mountain hemlock. Hemlock–Sitka spruce was not vulnerable to
fire. Though fire affected a larger area of low-productivity sites for
ponderosa pine and fir–spruce–mountain hemlock forest types, fire occurrence
was equally likely across low- and high-productivity classes. In contrast,
Douglas-fir stands had similar burned areas for low- and high-productivity
sites, but low-productivity sites were 3 times as likely to experience
fire. Bark beetle outbreaks were most common in Douglas-fir stands, with
40 % of all of the outbreak area, while 30 and 18 % occurred in
fir–spruce–mountain hemlock and ponderosa pine stands, respectively. As with
fire, though a larger proportion of the total bark beetle outbreak area
occurred in low-productivity ponderosa pine and fir–spruce–mountain hemlock
stands, their occurrence was equally likely across low- and high-productivity
sites. Again in contrast, bark beetle outbreak areas for low- and high-productivity classes are similar in Douglas-fir forests, but beetle outbreak
occurrence was about 3 times more likely in low-productivity sites. Of
all Douglas-fir stands, 28 % were disturbed by harvest, 3 % by fire, and
7 % by bark beetles. Percentages for ponderosa pine stands were 31,
7, and 9 % for harvest, fire, and bark beetles, respectively. For
fir–spruce–mountain hemlock they were 13, 6, and 17 %, respectively, and hemlock–Sitka spruce was mainly disturbed by harvesting (28 %), with 0 %
for fire and 5 % for bark beetles.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Biomass-age curves by forest-type group and site-productivity
class</title>
      <p>The fitted biomass regrowth curves exhibit considerable variations across
forest type and site-productivity class (Fig. 6 for Douglas-fir,
ponderosa pine and fir–spruce–mountain hemlock). Compared to Douglas-fir
forests, ponderosa pine forests hold only about 28 to 33 % as much
biomass, and fir–spruce–mountain hemlock forests hold about 59 to 64 % as
much. Biomass accumulates more rapidly and to a higher maximum stock for
high-productivity sites for all forest types according to FIA data and
corresponding model fits, achieving about 1.4 to 1.8 times the biomass at
low-productivity sites. However, the biomass-age curves share some common
features among different forest types and site-productivity classes. Biomass
accumulates rapidly at early ages (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0–50 years), slowing
down with age until it saturates, often around 150–200 years. Furthermore,
variation in biomass increases as a function of stand age both in the FIA
data and in the model fits. The fitted curves provided a range and
distribution of biomass at each stand age from 0 to 200 years. Because of the
simple stand-level growth equation that was assumed, these curves yielded a
smoothed fit to the inventory data rather than the erratic and fluctuating
jumps imposed on the general increase of stand age seen in the field data.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Maps of time since disturbance and uncertainties across the PNW
region</title>
      <p>The forested landscape is a complicated mosaic of time since the last
disturbance (Fig. 7a). Overall, a wide range of years are spanned, with
abrupt discontinuities related to recent stand-replacement disturbances,
transitions between forest types, and transitions between site-productivity
classes. One feature that stands out prominently is the prevalence of recent
disturbances along the eastern, drier side of the Cascade Range, resulting
from both harvesting and bark beetle outbreaks (Fig. 5b). Large fires
produced sizable patches with the same time since disturbance. The imprint of
segments of relatively old, high-elevation forests is also evident. It
should be noted that this map  was not used directly in the computation of
NEP for undisturbed forest pixels, which relied instead on stand-age
distributions for high- and low-site-productivity classes, but it is
presented here to provide a best estimate of disturbance timing at the pixel
scale.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Mean net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and total net carbon
uptake by forest-type group in all forests, recently undisturbed forests,
forests disturbed by harvest, fire, and bark beetle, which occurred during the time
span
of remote sensing disturbance products.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.70}[.70]?><oasis:tgroup cols="11">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">All forests </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Recently undisturbed </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Harvested </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col8" nameend="col9" align="center" colsep="1">Burned </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col10" nameend="col11" align="center">Bark beetle infested </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Forest-type group<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mean NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Total NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mean NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Total NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Mean NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Total NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Mean NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Total NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Mean NEP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">Total NEP</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(Gg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(Gg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(Gg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(Gg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">(g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">(Gg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Douglas-fir</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">14.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1489.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">128.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7912.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>205.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5745.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>130.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>445.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>32.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>235.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ponderosa pine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">594.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">47.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">887.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>159.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>40.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>127.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fir/spruce/mountain</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1649.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">108.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2161.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>89.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>69.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>66.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>354.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">hemlock</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hemlock/Sitka spruce</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">107.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1483.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">197.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1816.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>76.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>294.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>106.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>52.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>38.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pinyon/juniper</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">39.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">58.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>48.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Alder/maple</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">58.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">395.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">118.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">442.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>16.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>49.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">97.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lodgepole pine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">55.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">36.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">78.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">28.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">15.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>46.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>47.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Western oak</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">28.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">26.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>33.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">5.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">California mixed</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">14.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">27.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">17.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>19.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">70.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>51.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">conifer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tanoak/laurel</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">79.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">61.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">161.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">81.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>82.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>73.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Other western</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">43.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">32.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">62.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">32.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">59.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">hardwoods</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Elm/ash/cottonwood</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">29.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">119.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">34.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>81.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>61.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Western larch</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">35.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">97.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">26.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>34.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>50.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Other western</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">26.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>39.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>64.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">softwood</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Western white pine</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">35.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">39.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">4.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>53.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">0.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aspen/birch</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">51.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5861.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">108.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13581.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>118.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6404.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>55.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>510.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>46.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col11"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>814.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.70}[.70]?><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Forest-type groups are ordered by the forest area from largest to
smallest.</p></table-wrap-foot><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></table-wrap>

      <p>Uncertainty on the time since disturbance for disturbed forest pixels is not
currently available from disturbance products and thus was not mapped. For
undisturbed forest pixels, the uncertainty of stand age was represented by
standard deviation of the full stand-age distribution combined from high and
low site productivity and reflecting high–low productivity proportion. The
uncertainty map identifies locations where stand age is more tightly
constrained by the data and method (Fig. 7b). Across all the stand ages
inferred from the biomass data (undisturbed forest pixels), the
spatially averaged mean standard deviation of stand age is around 25 years.</p>
      <p>Density curves of stand age were compared between maps derived from this
study and from Pan et al. (2011) for the study area. In undisturbed areas,
spatial pattern and density distribution of stand age between the two
studies are mostly consistent (Fig. 9a, b), but this study has a much
higher density at the age class of 0–10 years and a bit lower density at
50–100 years (Fig. 9c). Furthermore, the distribution of forest area with age
class from this study was compared with that sampled from the FIA dataset
(Fig. 10 for Douglas-fir and fir–spruce–mountain hemlock). We provided two
age distributions from this study, one sampled from only undisturbed pixels
and another including all forested pixels. Overall, the pattern of
FIA-derived age distribution matches well with that derived from our study,
but with our study having consistently lower forest areas of age classes
larger than 20 years. This is true except for in the youngest age classes when we
include the pixels marked as disturbed in this study, finding a much larger
frequency of young forests.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Maps of NEP and uncertainties across the PNW region in 2010</title>
      <p>Spatial variations in mean annual NEP are determined by differences in strata
of time since disturbance, forest-type group, and site productivity used in
the mapping procedure (Fig. 8a). There is a general pattern of weaker carbon
sinks in the eastern portion of the study area. Both sink strength and
carbon source strength tend to be largest in western areas of higher
biomass. Recent (&lt; 20 years) fire and harvest disturbances tend to
create focused carbon sources on the landscape, giving way to sinks as
regrowth ensues. For example, one can see a clear imprint of the well-known
2002 Biscuit Fire in southwestern Oregon (bottom left of Fig. 8a, also refer
to bottom left of Fig. 5a and b). Area with very recent but low-severity
bark beetle outbreaks have only a muted reduction in NEP compared to nearby
undisturbed forest remaining carbon sinks, despite the disturbance episode.</p>
      <p>At the regional scale, NEP is estimated to be 5.9 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, or about 28.5g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> averaged for the 2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ha
forest (Table 3).
Recently undisturbed forests are the region's main terrestrial carbon sink,
with a NEP of 13.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.7 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. In contrast, NEP for forests disturbed
by harvest, fire, and bark beetles within the prior two and a half decades
are estimated to be <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.3, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, serving as
significant carbon sources. Table 3 also reports mean NEP by forest-type group
for all forestland and separately for undisturbed and disturbed
forests. Fir–spruce–mountain hemlock followed by Douglas-fir and
hemlock–Sitka spruce were the largest carbon sinks with 1.6, 1.5, and 1.5 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Considering only
undisturbed forestlands, Douglas-fir was the largest carbon sink with 7.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.1 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, but this was mostly offset by it also having the
region's largest carbon sources from harvest, fire events, and bark beetle
outbreaks, with NEP of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.6, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Douglas-fir's
relatively large area-integrated carbon fluxes result not only from it being
the most abundant forest type in the PNW region, but also because of its large
disturbed areas and large carbon stock potential. Recently disturbed forests
tend to aggregate to carbon sources. In some forest-type groups we found a
net carbon sink even for recently disturbed forests. For example, lodgepole
pine had net carbon sinks for harvested and burned stands. This resulted from
a large proportion of disturbance events having occurred early in the
disturbance record, allowing recovery and regrowth to overwhelm the carbon
sources from the most recent events.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Maps of <bold>(a)</bold> net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and <bold>(b)</bold> standard
deviation in 2010 in the PNW region.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Assumptions of method for mapping time since disturbance and
NEP</title>
      <p>Our method of inferring time since disturbance to estimate carbon flux and
biomass accumulation relies on a number of data products and assumptions
that need to be critically evaluated. First, the method assumes that field
inventory data provide a reliable and well-constrained estimation of forest
biomass as a function of stand age for regionally specific strata of forest
type and site-productivity class. However, both stand age and biomass are
difficult to measure and estimate, especially considering the difficulty of
assigning a stand age to unevenly aged forest stands, as well as selecting
appropriate species-specific biomass equations (Parresol, 1999). If FIA ages
are older than actual stand ages, the associated forest biomass will be
underestimated, and stand age inferred from biomass products will be
overestimated. Likewise, FIA ages younger than actual ages will result in an
overestimation in biomass accumulation, but an underestimation in
biomass-inferred stand ages. Though a bias in stand ages is possible, our
estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes are not likely to be largely adjusted
by a stand-age bias within 5 years (Williams et al., 2012).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Maps of time since disturbance from <bold>(a)</bold> this study (same as
Fig. 7a) and stand age from <bold>(b)</bold> Pan et al. (2011) in the PNW region.
Associated density curves of stand age are plotted in <bold>(c)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Second, we assume RS-derived NBCD biomass products were well calibrated by
field-derived biomass. However, the correlation coefficients between
observed and predicted biomass were estimated to be 0.62–0.75 in the PNW
region (Kellndorfer et al., 2013). At the 30 m pixel level, NBCD biomass
values were biased, with a large number of zero biomass values that had
predictions in local biomass products (Huang et al., 2015). Discrepancies in
biomass values between RS- and field-derived data lead to biased estimates
in stand age and associated carbon stocks and fluxes. These were addressed
in this study by imposing 20 % error on pixel-level biomass estimates and
replacing zero biomass with the mean biomass of neighboring forest pixels of
the same forest type and site productivity.</p>
      <p>Third, the approach described here assumes that stand-level biomass is a
useful predictor of stand age, biomass accumulation, and net carbon flux
regardless of how that stand-level biomass was actually achieved (Zhang et
al., 2014). However, a particular stand-level biomass may be reached from
steady accumulation during a relatively disturbance-free interval of time,
or from a decline in biomass accumulation after the biomass reaches the
maximum, or from a previous disturbance that reduced biomass and then
accumulated to the current level (Xu et al., 2012). Information is also
lacking on how the biomass–age relationship varies depending on the type of
stand-replacing disturbance. Such path dependency can have important
implications for the true stand age as well as for post-disturbance carbon
fluxes and stocks by influencing species composition, stand structure, site
fertility, and other relevant factors (Williams et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>Next, the carbon cycle model used to estimate carbon fluxes as a function of
time since disturbance relies on a simple growth rate equation to
characterize biomass accumulation over time with a constant wood turnover
time, regardless of stand age, and a constant rate of carbon allocation to
wood. It also assumes that mean annual net primary productivity is constant
after an initial rise through stand initiation (8 years of
initialization is assumed in the model). These assumptions arise from limited data
for
describing these dynamics for the range of settings active at a
continental scale but improvement may be possible with detailed explorations
into regional parameterizations. Our prior work indicated some sensitivity
of carbon flux estimation to these assumptions, though the impact on
continental-scale carbon flux estimation was modest (Williams et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>Finally, the method relies on maps of above-ground biomass, forest-type
group, site-productivity class, and forest disturbance, which are sure to have
errors. Accuracies of biomass and forest-type group maps were assessed and
provided by the data provider, while the rest of them were not. Accuracy of
forest-type group maps in the PNW region ranges from 61 to 69 %
(Ruefenacht et al., 2008); furthermore, forest-type groups for some pixels
undefined from original data were assigned as the forest types of the
nearest pixels. For the same biomass value, inferred stand age and estimated
carbon fluxes can vary greatly given differences in forest-type group (Figs. 4
and 6); however, NEP biases induced by forest-type group were not
accounted for due to lack of information on associated errors from the
spatial assignment of forest-type group. The ADS dataset is known to be
limited by the areas flown in the survey years, and it likely underestimates the
number of trees killed by bark beetles but overestimates the area of
affected stands (Meddens et al., 2012). Uncertainties in the ADS dataset have
important consequences for the carbon balance and flux estimates from bark
beetle outbreaks, part of which was accounted for by Ghimire et al. (2015).
Incorporation of local high-resolution high-accuracy maps for these strata
into national maps can significantly reduce uncertainties in our mapping and
interpretation of stand age, carbon accumulation, and fluxes at fine scales
(Huang et al., 2015).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Distribution of forest area by age for <bold>(a)</bold> Douglas-fir and
<bold>(b)</bold> fir–spruce–mountain hemlock of the PNW region comparing results from FIA
data and remote-sensing-derived (RS) estimates for undisturbed and all
forests, including those marked as disturbed in NAFD, ADS, and MTBS datasets
and shown here as if they were stand-clearing events.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/6321/2016/bg-13-6321-2016-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Our analyses have sought to incorporate three main sources of uncertainties
in input data layers to estimate mean annual NEP for a given pixel. The first
is uncertainty in the biomass defined at the pixel scale. The second source of
uncertainty comes from a range of potential stand ages that could correspond
to a given biomass stock. The third source of uncertainty comes from the
NEP that we estimate for a given stand age, forest type, site productivity, and
prior disturbance type and severity. The first and second uncertainties were
propagated to provide a probabilistic, statistical estimation of stand age.
The full-range distribution of stand age and the third uncertainty were
further propagated by probabilistic sampling to obtain an NEP distribution for
each forest pixel. The potential biases in NEP due to those uncertainties were
reflected by the standard deviation map of NEP in Fig. 8b. Though pixel-level
accuracies are correspondingly low for many situations, aggregation to
larger scales involves spatial cancellation such that regional and
continental uncertainties are much reduced relative to what would be
inferred directly from the pixel scale.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Comparing maps of time since disturbance to other studies</title>
      <p>We identified disagreements in density curves derived from the time since
disturbance map in this study and the stand-age map in Pan et al. (2011) for the
age classes of 0–10  and 50–100 years (Fig. 9c). There are a number of
likely explanations for these discrepancies. The first is definitional; in
this study we estimated time since disturbance including both partial and
stand-replacing disturbances, resulting in assigning a young age to an
old-growth forest stand undergoing a light-severity partial disturbance,
while Pan et al. (2011) mapped stand age with consideration of only
stand-clearing disturbances. The second cause could be related to the years
included in each study, with a large percent of forestlands disturbed by
harvest, fire, or bark beetles between 2000 (mapping year in Pan's study) and
2010 (mapping year in this study; Fig. 5). Other factors that may
contribute to this discrepancy include different datasets and methodologies
used for analysis and mapping, and different spatial resolutions between the
maps. For example, when mapping at a much coarser resolution (250 m or 1 km), fragmented disturbed forest patches are likely lost due to disturbed
areas taking up a small fraction in the coarse-scale pixel, yielding a stand
age for those areas that is represented by nearby undisturbed forest stands that are
more abundant in that pixel. The definition bias described above also
helps explain partially inconsistent distribution of forest area with
age class in this study from the FIA dataset (Fig. 10). In this study, we
included partial low-severity disturbances from stands with ages ranging from
0 to 24 years, but which are described as undisturbed forests of older stand age
from 20 to 40 years up to 200<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> years in the FIA dataset. FIA data miss some
recent disturbances, partly because FIA remeasurement cycle in the PNW
region is about 10 years, with the average time lag of the data being around
5 years. We note that this definitional issue does bias estimates of NEP or
biomass, which are derived based on severity-specific carbon stock and flux
trajectories.</p>
      <p>The map of time since disturbance from this study, with a spatial
resolution of 30 m, is able to distinguish finer differences in the stand-age
structure for persistent forests, but it is also able to capture abrupt
discontinuities related to recent stand-replacement disturbances, transitions
between forest types, and transitions between site-productivity class
abundances. This fine spatial detail of the data indicates the information
that is lost when stand age is spatially averaged to coarser grids. Such
spatial averaging of stand age becomes even more problematic when combined
with the nonlinear relationships between forest properties and age, such as
with biomass and NEP. Maps of time since disturbance and uncertainties from
this study may be valuable for various ecological
applications even if our purpose was to generate them as an intermediate variable
needed for accurate description and interpretation of carbon
stocks and fluxes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Comparing maps of NEP to other studies</title>
      <p>The PNW-wide forest NEP reported here (6 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is lower than in our
earlier work (11 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that used similar methods (see RS-based
results in Williams et al.,  2014). A portion of this difference can be
attributed to larger net carbon losses from forestlands (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
carbon loss in this study vs. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> carbon loss in Williams et al.)
due to recent (1986 to 2010) disturbance by either harvest or fire. Here we
also include additional net carbon losses from bark beetle outbreaks (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that were not considered in our earlier work. The remaining
discrepancy (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.2 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may be due to other methodological
and data source innovations introduced here, including (1) use of the newly
available Landsat-derived forest-disturbance product that now offers full
spatial coverage, compared to only about 50 % coverage previously, and (2) new use of biomass data to characterize stand age and associated carbon flux
patterns.</p>
      <p>The net carbon release from recent bark beetle outbreaks (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in 2010) is comparable to that reported in our earlier work (Ghimire et al.,
2015). In our earlier work we reported that the PNW region contributed about
28 % to the net carbon release in western US regions. Applying that
percentage to the US western-wide NEP reduction of 1.8 to 3.6 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Ghimire et al.,  2015) indicates a NEP reduction for just the PNW of about 0.5
to 1.0 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, within the range of the net carbon release induced by
bark beetles reported here.</p>
      <p>Additional points of comparison come from a variety of papers focused on
regions of Oregon by Turner et al. (2004, 2007,  2015). These studies
report similar west vs. east patterns of NEP across the mountain ranges of
the region and similar variation in NEP across forest types. However, the work
of Turner et al. (2004, 2007 &amp; 2015) tends to estimate higher NEP in
regenerating forests (e.g., 14 to 99 years since stand clearing) reaching 250 to 390 g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the Coast
Range and Western Cascades, whereas
our curves peak at around 245 g C m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the full PNW region
(Fig. S2). This discrepancy could be due to the greater spatial detail of
climate patterns included in their modeling work and also because of plant
productivity, allocation, and turnover rates prescribed at the
ecoregion scale in the work of Turner et al. (2004, 2007, 2015). Given
our work's aim of estimating forest carbon stocks and fluxes across the full
conterminous US, it is not currently feasible to assemble the data needed to
perform such fine-scale ecoregional calibration even while appreciating its
value.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>In this paper, we introduced a new methodology for comprehensively combining
RS-based 30 m resolution data on disturbance year, disturbance type, and
above-ground biomass with forest inventory data to quantify time since
disturbance and associated carbon uptake and release across forested
landscapes at a fine scale (30 m). Time since disturbance was an important
intermediate variable that aided the assessment of disturbance-driven carbon
emissions and removal legacies. We mapped mean, standard deviation, and
statistical distribution of stand age and NEP that were propagated from
uncertainties in input data layers by probabilistic sampling. This method
was applied to the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the US. Region-wide we
found a net ecosystem productivity of 5.9 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for forestlands
circa 2010, with net uptake in undisturbed forests during 1986–2010 (13.6 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> overwhelming net negative NEP from tracts that saw recent
harvest (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.4 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, fires (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and bark beetle
outbreaks (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8 Tg C yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Our proposed approach will be further
applied to forestlands in other regions of the conterminous US to advance a
more comprehensive monitoring, mapping, and reporting of the carbon consequences
of forest change across the US.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Data availability</title>
      <p>Data are available upon request.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-6321-2016-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/bg-13-6321-2016-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was financially supported by NASA's Carbon Monitoring System
program (NNH14ZDA001N-CMS) under award NNX14AR39G. Thanks to Yu Zhou for the
helpful discussions on carbon flows in the CASA model. Thank you to the associate
editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to greatly
improve our paper.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: M. Williams<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bradford, J. B., Birdsey, R. A., Joyce L. A., and Ryan M. G.: Tree age,
disturbance history, and carbon stocks and fluxes in subalpine Rocky
Mountain forests, Glob. Change Biol., 14, 2882–2897, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Chapin III, F. S., Matson, P. A., and Mooney, H. A.: Principles of Terrestrial
Ecosystem Ecology, 2nd Edn. Springer, New York, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, J. M., Ju, W., Cihlar, J., Price, D., Liu, J., Chen, W., Pan, J.,
Black, A., and Barr, A.: Spatial distribution of carbon sources and sinks in
Canada's forests based on remote sensing, Tellus, 55, 622–641, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, W., Chen, J. M., Price, D. T., and Cihlar, J.: Effects of stand age on
net primary productivity of boreal black spruce forests in Canada, Can. J. Forest Res., 32, 833–842, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Cohen, W. B., Spies, T. A., and Fiorella, M.: Estimating the age and structure
of forests in a multi-ownership landscape of western Oregon, USA, Int. J.
Remote Sens., 16, 721–746, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Cohen, W. B., Harmon, M. E., Wallin, D. O., and Fiorella, M.: Two decades of
carbon flux from forests of the Pacific Northwest, BioScience, 46, 836–844,
1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Cohen, W. B., Spies, T. A., Alig, R. J., Oetter, D. R., Maiersperger, T. K., and
Fiorella, M.: Characterizing 23 years (1972–95) of stand replacement
disturbance in western Oregon forests with Landsat imagery, Ecosystems, 5,
122–137, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0060-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10021-001-0060-X</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Eidenshink, J., Schwind, B., Brewer, K., Zhu, Z., Quayle, B., and Howard,
S.: A project for monitoring trends in burn severity, Fire Ecol., 3,
3–21, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Forest Inventory &amp; Analysis (FIA): USDA Forest Service National Core
Field Guide Version 7.0., available at:
<uri>http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/2015/Core-FIA-FG-7.pdf</uri>,
last access: 1 August 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Ghimire, B., Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., and Vanderhoof, M.: Fire-induced
carbon emissions and regrowth uptake in western US forests: documenting
variation across forest types, fire severity, and climate regions, J.
Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 117,
G03036, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001935" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JG001935</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Ghimire, B., Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Vanderhoof, M., Rogan, J.,
Kulakowski, D., and Masek, J. G.: Large carbon release legacy from bark
beetle outbreaks across Western United States, Glob. Change Biol., 21,
3087–3101, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12933" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12933</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Goward, S. N., Masek, J. G., Cohen, W. B., Moisen, G., Collatz, G. J., Healey,
S., Houghton, R. A., Huang, C., Kennedy, R. E., Law, B. E., Powell, S., Turner,
D. P., and Wulder, M. A.: Forest disturbance and North American carbon flux,
EOS Transactions, Am. Geophys. Union, 89, 105–106, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Goward, S. N., Huang, C., Zhao, F., Schleeweis, K., Rishmawi, K., Lindsey,
M., Dungan, J. L., and Michaelis, A.: NACP NAFD Project: Forest Disturbance
History from Landsat, 1986–2010, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1290" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1290</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, C., Goward, S. N., Masek, J. G., Gao, F., Vermote, E. F., Thomas, N.,
Schleeweis, K., Kennedy, R. E., Zhu, Z., Eidenshink, J. C., and Townshend,
J. R. G.: Development of time series stacks of Landsat images for
reconstructing forest disturbance history, Int. J. Digital
Earth, 2, 195–218, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, C., Goward, S. N., Masek, J. G., Thomas, N., Zhu, Z., and Vogelmann,
J. E.: An automated approach for reconstructing recent forest disturbance
history using dense Landsat time series stacks, Remote Sens. Environ.,
114, 183–198, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Huang, W., Swatantran, A., Johnson, K., Duncanson, L., Tang, H.,
O'Neil-Dunne, J., Hurtt, G., and Dubayah, R.: Local discrepancies in
continental scale biomass maps: a case study over forested and non-forested
landscapes in Maryland, USA, Carbon Balance  Manage., 10,
19, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0030-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1186/s13021-015-0030-9</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Jenny, H.: The Soil Resources: Origin and Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, C. M., Zarin, D. J., and Johnson, A. H.: Post-disturbance aboveground
biomass accumulation in global secondary forests, Ecology, 81, 1395–1401,
2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Kellndorfer, J., Walker, W., Kirsch, K., Fiske, G., Bishop, J., LaPoint, L.,
Hoppus, M., and Westfall, J.: NACP Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Baseline
Data, V. 2 (NBCD 2000), USA, 2000, from ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1161" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1161</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Law, B. E., Turner, D., Campbell, J. L., Sun, O. J., Van Tuyl, S., Ritts, W. D.,
and Cohen, W. B.: Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks and fluxes
across Western Oregon USA, Glob. Change Biol., 10, 1429–1444,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00822.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00822.x</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Bond-Lamberty, B., Hicke, J. A., Vargas, R., Zhao, S., Chen, J.,
Edburg, S. L., Hu, Y., Liu, J., McGuire, A. D., Xiao, J., Keane, R., Yuan, W.,
Tang, J., Luo, Y., Potter, C., and Oeding, J.: Simulating the impacts of
disturbances on forest carbon cycling in North America: Processes, data,
models, and challenges, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 116, G00K08,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001585" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JG001585</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Masek, J. G. and Collatz, G. J.: Estimating forest carbon fluxes in a
disturbed southeastern landscape: Integration of remote sensing, forest
inventory, and biogeochemical modelling, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 111,
G01006, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JG000062" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JG000062</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Meddens, A. J. H., Hicke, J. A., and Ferguson, C. A.: Spatial and temporal
patterns of observed bark beetle-caused tree mortality in British Columbia
and western US, Ecol. Appl., 22, 1876–1891, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Pan, Y., Chen, J. M., Birdsey, R., McCullough, K., He, L., and Deng, F.: Age structure and disturbance legacy of North
American forests, Biogeosciences, 8, 715–732, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-715-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-8-715-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Parresol, B. R.: Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and
critical comparisons, Forest Sci., 45, 573–593, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Randerson, J. T., Thompson, M. V., and Malmstrom, C. M.: Substrate limitations
for heterotrophs: Implications for models that estimate the seasonal cycle
of atmospheric CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 10, 585–602, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Raymond, C. L., Healey, S., Peduzzi, A., and Patterson, P.: Representative
regional models of post-disturbance forest carbon accumulation: Integrating
inventory data and a growth and yield model, Forest Ecol. Manage., 336,
21–34, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Ruefenacht, B., Finco, M. V., Nelson, M. D., Czaplewski, R., Helmer, E. H.,
Blackard, J. A., Holden, G. R., Lister, A. J., Salajanu, D., Weyermann, D.,
and Winterberger, K.: Conterminous U.S. and Alaska Forest Type Mapping Using
Forest Inventory and Analysis Data, Photogramm, Eng. Rem. S., 74,
1379–1388, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Saatchi, S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T. A., Salas,
W., Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White,
L., Silman, M., and Morel, A.: Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in
tropical regions across three continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108,
9899–9904, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Schoennagel, T., Veblen, T. T., and Romme, W. H.: The interaction of fire,
fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests, BioScience, 54,
661–676, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, D. P., Guzy, M., Lefsky, M. A., Ritts, W. D., Van Tuyl, S., and Law,
B. E.: Monitoring forest carbon sequestration with remote sensing and carbon
cycle modeling, Environ. Manage., 4, 457–466, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Turner, D. P., Ritts, W. D., Law, B. E., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Hudiburg, T., Campbell, J. L.,
and Duane, M.: Scaling net ecosystem production and net biome production over a heterogeneous region in the
western United States, Biogeosciences, 4, 597–612, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-4-597-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-4-597-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Turner, D. P., Ritts, W. D., Kennedy, R. E., Gray, A. N., and Yang, Z.: Effects
of harvest, fire, and pest/pathogen disturbances on the West Cascades
ecoregion carbon balance, Carbon Balance and Management, 10,
12, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0022-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1186/s13021-015-0022-9</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, M. G.: Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world,
Ecology, 91, 2833–2849, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Vanderhoof, M., Williams, C. A., Shuai, Y., Jarvis, D., Kulakowski, D., and Masek, J.: Albedo-induced radiative forcing
from mountain pine beetle outbreaks in forests, south-central Rocky Mountains: magnitude, persistence, and relation to
outbreak severity, Biogeosciences, 11, 563–575, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-563-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-11-563-2014</ext-link>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Masek, J., and Goward, S. N.: Carbon
consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous
United States, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 26,
GB1005, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GB003947" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GB003947</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Masek, J., Huang, C., and Goward, S. N.:
Impacts of disturbance history on forest carbon stocks and fluxes: merging
satellite disturbance mapping with forest inventory data in a carbon cycle
model framework, Remote Sens. Environ., 151, 57–71, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, C. A., Gu, H., MacLean, Masek, J., and Collatz, G. J.: Disturbance
and the carbon balance of US forests: A quantitative review of impacts from
harvests, fires, insects, and droughts, Global Planet. Change, 143, 66–80,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Wilson, B. T., Woodall, C. W., and Griffith, D. M.: Imputing forest carbon
stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage,
Carbon Balance Manage., 8,
1, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-8-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1186/1750-0680-8-1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Xu, C., Turnbull, M. H., Tissue, D. T., Lewis, J. D., Carson, R., Schuster,
W. S. F., Whitehead, D., Walcroft, A. S., Li, J., and Griffin, K. L.:
Age-related decline of stand biomass accumulation is primarily due to
mortality and not to reduction in NPP associated with individual tree
physiology, tree growth or stand structure in a <italic>Quercus</italic>-dominated forest, J. Ecol.,
100, 428–440, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01933.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01933.x</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, F., Chen, J. M., Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Shen, S., Ju, W., and He, L.:
Attributing carbon changes in conterminous US forests to disturbance and
non-disturbance factors from 1901 to 2010, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 117,
G02021, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001930" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JG001930</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, C., Ju, W., Chen, J. M., Li, D., Wang, X., Fan, W., Li, M., and Zan,
M.: Mapping forest stand age in China using remotely sensed forest height
and observation data, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119, 1163–1179, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002515" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JG002515</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, Z., Woodcock, C. E., and Olofsson, P.: Continuous monitoring of forest
disturbance using all available Landsat imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 122,
75–91, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>High-resolution mapping of time since disturbance and forest carbon flux from remote sensing and inventory data to assess harvest, fire, and beetle disturbance legacies in the Pacific Northwest</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">Accurate assessment of forest carbon storage and uptake
is central to policymaking aimed at mitigating climate change and understanding the role forests play in the global carbon cycle. Disturbances have
highly diverse impacts on forest carbon dynamics, making them a challenge
to quantify and report. Time since disturbance is a key intermediate
determinant that aids the assessment of disturbance-driven carbon emissions
and removals legacies. We propose a new methodology of quantifying time
since disturbance and carbon flux across forested landscapes in the Pacific
Northwest (PNW) at a fine scale (30 m) by combining remote sensing (RS)-based disturbance year, disturbance type, and above-ground biomass with
forest inventory data. When a recent disturbance is detected, time since
disturbance can be directly determined by combining three RS-derived
disturbance products, or time since the last stand clearing can be
inferred from a RS-derived 30 m biomass map and field inventory-derived
species-specific biomass accumulation curves. Net ecosystem productivity
(NEP) is further mapped based on carbon stock and flux trajectories derived
from the Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA) model in our prior work that
described how NEP changes with time following harvest, fire, or bark beetle
disturbances of varying severity. Uncertainties from biomass map and forest
inventory data were propagated by probabilistic sampling to provide a
statistical distribution of stand age and NEP for each forest pixel. We mapped
mean, standard deviation, and statistical distribution of stand age and NEP at
30 m in the PNW region. Our map indicated a net ecosystem productivity of
5.9 Tg C yr<sup>−1</sup> for forestlands circa 2010 in the study area, with net
uptake in relatively mature (&gt; 24 years old) forests (13.6 Tg C yr<sup>−1</sup>) overwhelming net negative NEP from tracts that had recent
harvests
(−6.4 Tg C yr<sup>−1</sup>), fires (−0.5 Tg C yr<sup>−1</sup>), and bark beetle outbreaks
(−0.8 Tg C yr<sup>−1</sup>). The approach will be applied to forestlands in other
regions of the conterminous US to advance a more comprehensive monitoring,
mapping, and reporting of the carbon consequences of forest change across the
US.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bradford, J. B., Birdsey, R. A., Joyce L. A., and Ryan M. G.: Tree age,
disturbance history, and carbon stocks and fluxes in subalpine Rocky
Mountain forests, Glob. Change Biol., 14, 2882–2897, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Chapin III, F. S., Matson, P. A., and Mooney, H. A.: Principles of Terrestrial
Ecosystem Ecology, 2nd Edn. Springer, New York, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, J. M., Ju, W., Cihlar, J., Price, D., Liu, J., Chen, W., Pan, J.,
Black, A., and Barr, A.: Spatial distribution of carbon sources and sinks in
Canada's forests based on remote sensing, Tellus, 55, 622–641, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, W., Chen, J. M., Price, D. T., and Cihlar, J.: Effects of stand age on
net primary productivity of boreal black spruce forests in Canada, Can. J. Forest Res., 32, 833–842, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Cohen, W. B., Spies, T. A., and Fiorella, M.: Estimating the age and structure
of forests in a multi-ownership landscape of western Oregon, USA, Int. J.
Remote Sens., 16, 721–746, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Cohen, W. B., Harmon, M. E., Wallin, D. O., and Fiorella, M.: Two decades of
carbon flux from forests of the Pacific Northwest, BioScience, 46, 836–844,
1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Cohen, W. B., Spies, T. A., Alig, R. J., Oetter, D. R., Maiersperger, T. K., and
Fiorella, M.: Characterizing 23 years (1972–95) of stand replacement
disturbance in western Oregon forests with Landsat imagery, Ecosystems, 5,
122–137, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0060-X" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0060-X</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Eidenshink, J., Schwind, B., Brewer, K., Zhu, Z., Quayle, B., and Howard,
S.: A project for monitoring trends in burn severity, Fire Ecol., 3,
3–21, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Forest Inventory &amp; Analysis (FIA): USDA Forest Service National Core
Field Guide Version 7.0., available at:
<a href="http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/2015/Core-FIA-FG-7.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/2015/Core-FIA-FG-7.pdf</a>,
last access: 1 August 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Ghimire, B., Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., and Vanderhoof, M.: Fire-induced
carbon emissions and regrowth uptake in western US forests: documenting
variation across forest types, fire severity, and climate regions, J.
Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 117,
G03036, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001935" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011JG001935</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Ghimire, B., Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Vanderhoof, M., Rogan, J.,
Kulakowski, D., and Masek, J. G.: Large carbon release legacy from bark
beetle outbreaks across Western United States, Glob. Change Biol., 21,
3087–3101, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12933" target="_blank">doi:10.1111/gcb.12933</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Goward, S. N., Masek, J. G., Cohen, W. B., Moisen, G., Collatz, G. J., Healey,
S., Houghton, R. A., Huang, C., Kennedy, R. E., Law, B. E., Powell, S., Turner,
D. P., and Wulder, M. A.: Forest disturbance and North American carbon flux,
EOS Transactions, Am. Geophys. Union, 89, 105–106, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Goward, S. N., Huang, C., Zhao, F., Schleeweis, K., Rishmawi, K., Lindsey,
M., Dungan, J. L., and Michaelis, A.: NACP NAFD Project: Forest Disturbance
History from Landsat, 1986–2010, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1290" target="_blank">doi:10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1290</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, C., Goward, S. N., Masek, J. G., Gao, F., Vermote, E. F., Thomas, N.,
Schleeweis, K., Kennedy, R. E., Zhu, Z., Eidenshink, J. C., and Townshend,
J. R. G.: Development of time series stacks of Landsat images for
reconstructing forest disturbance history, Int. J. Digital
Earth, 2, 195–218, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, C., Goward, S. N., Masek, J. G., Thomas, N., Zhu, Z., and Vogelmann,
J. E.: An automated approach for reconstructing recent forest disturbance
history using dense Landsat time series stacks, Remote Sens. Environ.,
114, 183–198, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, W., Swatantran, A., Johnson, K., Duncanson, L., Tang, H.,
O'Neil-Dunne, J., Hurtt, G., and Dubayah, R.: Local discrepancies in
continental scale biomass maps: a case study over forested and non-forested
landscapes in Maryland, USA, Carbon Balance  Manage., 10,
19, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0030-9" target="_blank">doi:10.1186/s13021-015-0030-9</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Jenny, H.: The Soil Resources: Origin and Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, C. M., Zarin, D. J., and Johnson, A. H.: Post-disturbance aboveground
biomass accumulation in global secondary forests, Ecology, 81, 1395–1401,
2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Kellndorfer, J., Walker, W., Kirsch, K., Fiske, G., Bishop, J., LaPoint, L.,
Hoppus, M., and Westfall, J.: NACP Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Baseline
Data, V. 2 (NBCD 2000), USA, 2000, from ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1161" target="_blank">doi:10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1161</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Law, B. E., Turner, D., Campbell, J. L., Sun, O. J., Van Tuyl, S., Ritts, W. D.,
and Cohen, W. B.: Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks and fluxes
across Western Oregon USA, Glob. Change Biol., 10, 1429–1444,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00822.x" target="_blank">doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00822.x</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, S., Bond-Lamberty, B., Hicke, J. A., Vargas, R., Zhao, S., Chen, J.,
Edburg, S. L., Hu, Y., Liu, J., McGuire, A. D., Xiao, J., Keane, R., Yuan, W.,
Tang, J., Luo, Y., Potter, C., and Oeding, J.: Simulating the impacts of
disturbances on forest carbon cycling in North America: Processes, data,
models, and challenges, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 116, G00K08,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001585" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2010JG001585</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Masek, J. G. and Collatz, G. J.: Estimating forest carbon fluxes in a
disturbed southeastern landscape: Integration of remote sensing, forest
inventory, and biogeochemical modelling, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 111,
G01006, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JG000062" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2005JG000062</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Meddens, A. J. H., Hicke, J. A., and Ferguson, C. A.: Spatial and temporal
patterns of observed bark beetle-caused tree mortality in British Columbia
and western US, Ecol. Appl., 22, 1876–1891, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, Y., Chen, J. M., Birdsey, R., McCullough, K., He, L., and Deng, F.: Age structure and disturbance legacy of North
American forests, Biogeosciences, 8, 715–732, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-715-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-8-715-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Parresol, B. R.: Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and
critical comparisons, Forest Sci., 45, 573–593, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Randerson, J. T., Thompson, M. V., and Malmstrom, C. M.: Substrate limitations
for heterotrophs: Implications for models that estimate the seasonal cycle
of atmospheric CO<sup>2</sup>, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 10, 585–602, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Raymond, C. L., Healey, S., Peduzzi, A., and Patterson, P.: Representative
regional models of post-disturbance forest carbon accumulation: Integrating
inventory data and a growth and yield model, Forest Ecol. Manage., 336,
21–34, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Ruefenacht, B., Finco, M. V., Nelson, M. D., Czaplewski, R., Helmer, E. H.,
Blackard, J. A., Holden, G. R., Lister, A. J., Salajanu, D., Weyermann, D.,
and Winterberger, K.: Conterminous U.S. and Alaska Forest Type Mapping Using
Forest Inventory and Analysis Data, Photogramm, Eng. Rem. S., 74,
1379–1388, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Saatchi, S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T. A., Salas,
W., Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White,
L., Silman, M., and Morel, A.: Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in
tropical regions across three continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108,
9899–9904, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Schoennagel, T., Veblen, T. T., and Romme, W. H.: The interaction of fire,
fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests, BioScience, 54,
661–676, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, D. P., Guzy, M., Lefsky, M. A., Ritts, W. D., Van Tuyl, S., and Law,
B. E.: Monitoring forest carbon sequestration with remote sensing and carbon
cycle modeling, Environ. Manage., 4, 457–466, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, D. P., Ritts, W. D., Law, B. E., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Hudiburg, T., Campbell, J. L.,
and Duane, M.: Scaling net ecosystem production and net biome production over a heterogeneous region in the
western United States, Biogeosciences, 4, 597–612, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-4-597-2007" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-4-597-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, D. P., Ritts, W. D., Kennedy, R. E., Gray, A. N., and Yang, Z.: Effects
of harvest, fire, and pest/pathogen disturbances on the West Cascades
ecoregion carbon balance, Carbon Balance and Management, 10,
12, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0022-9" target="_blank">doi:10.1186/s13021-015-0022-9</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, M. G.: Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world,
Ecology, 91, 2833–2849, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Vanderhoof, M., Williams, C. A., Shuai, Y., Jarvis, D., Kulakowski, D., and Masek, J.: Albedo-induced radiative forcing
from mountain pine beetle outbreaks in forests, south-central Rocky Mountains: magnitude, persistence, and relation to
outbreak severity, Biogeosciences, 11, 563–575, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-563-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-11-563-2014</a>, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Masek, J., and Goward, S. N.: Carbon
consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous
United States, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 26,
GB1005, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GB003947" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2010GB003947</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, C. A., Collatz, G. J., Masek, J., Huang, C., and Goward, S. N.:
Impacts of disturbance history on forest carbon stocks and fluxes: merging
satellite disturbance mapping with forest inventory data in a carbon cycle
model framework, Remote Sens. Environ., 151, 57–71, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, C. A., Gu, H., MacLean, Masek, J., and Collatz, G. J.: Disturbance
and the carbon balance of US forests: A quantitative review of impacts from
harvests, fires, insects, and droughts, Global Planet. Change, 143, 66–80,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, B. T., Woodall, C. W., and Griffith, D. M.: Imputing forest carbon
stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage,
Carbon Balance Manage., 8,
1, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-8-1" target="_blank">doi:10.1186/1750-0680-8-1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, C., Turnbull, M. H., Tissue, D. T., Lewis, J. D., Carson, R., Schuster,
W. S. F., Whitehead, D., Walcroft, A. S., Li, J., and Griffin, K. L.:
Age-related decline of stand biomass accumulation is primarily due to
mortality and not to reduction in NPP associated with individual tree
physiology, tree growth or stand structure in a <i>Quercus</i>-dominated forest, J. Ecol.,
100, 428–440, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01933.x" target="_blank">doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01933.x</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, F., Chen, J. M., Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Shen, S., Ju, W., and He, L.:
Attributing carbon changes in conterminous US forests to disturbance and
non-disturbance factors from 1901 to 2010, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 117,
G02021, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001930" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011JG001930</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, C., Ju, W., Chen, J. M., Li, D., Wang, X., Fan, W., Li, M., and Zan,
M.: Mapping forest stand age in China using remotely sensed forest height
and observation data, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119, 1163–1179, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002515" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2013JG002515</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, Z., Woodcock, C. E., and Olofsson, P.: Continuous monitoring of forest
disturbance using all available Landsat imagery, Remote Sens. Environ., 122,
75–91, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
