Skip to main content
Log in

Dynamics of Biotic Carbon Fluxes under Different Scenarios of Forest Area Changes

  • Published:
Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper estimates the global biotic carbon fluxes into the atmosphere under various scenarios of changes in forest area for temperate/boreal and tropical zones. Forestry scenarios have been developed from both national forest land-cover inventories and various estimates for tree vegetation-cover areas derived from the Earth’s remote sensing data for recent decades. Three scenarios have been proposed for changes in the area of temperate/boreal forests: FAOSTAT (a growth scenario on the basis of inventories), CONST (a scenario of maintaining the present level), and LANDSAT (a scenario on the basis of satellite data from different sources). The trend of tropical deforestation is maintained for FAOSTAT and LANDSAT scenarios. Together with GEPL97 (the base scenario published earlier by the authors), these scenarios have been used to obtain model biotic carbon fluxes. A model of the global carbon cycle developed in MPEI and recently updated to take into account anthropogenic carbon emissions (both industrial and related to deforestation/land use) has been used to perform a thorough analysis of the plausible dynamics of biotic carbon sources and sinks. It has been shown that the magnitude and sign of biotic carbon fluxes into the atmosphere depends substantially on the adopted scenario—from preserving the biosphere as an effective sink of excess carbon from the atmosphere in the current century (GEPL97 and CONST) to its turning into an additional source of CO2 (LANDSAT). The FAOSTAT scenario leads to the return of biotic carbon fluxes by 2100 to the modern level. The maximum difference in net carbon fluxes from the biosphere to atmosphere for the scenarios considered here is almost 2.5 Gt C/year and falls approximately on the middle of the current century. The difference between the corresponding CO2 concentrations for these scenarios reaches 65 ppm by 2100.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. A1.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. R. A. Houghton and A. A. Nassikas, “Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015,” Global Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Ed. by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, and G.-K. Plattner (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. V. Eliseev, “The global CO2 cycle: the main processes and interaction with the climate,” Fundam. Prikl. Klimatol., No. 4, 9–31 (2017).

  4. A. V. Eliseev, “Estimation of changes in characteristics of the climate and carbon cycle in the 21st century accounting for the uncertainty of terrestrial biota parameter values,” Izv., Atmos. Oceanic Phys. 47 (2), 131–153 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. A. M. Tarko and V. V. Usatyuk, “Simulation of the global biogeochemical carbon cycle with account for its seasonal dynamics and analysis of variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations,” Dokl. Earth Sci. 448 (2), 258–261 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. J. Peng and L. Dan, “Impacts of CO2 concentration and climate change on the terrestrial carbon flux using six global climate–carbon coupled models,” Ecol. Modell. 304, 69–83 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R. Prăvălie, “Major perturbations in the Earth’s forest ecosystems. Possible implications for global warming,” Earth–Sci. Rev. 185, 544–571 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Birdsey and Y. Pan, “Trends in management of the world’s forests and impacts on carbon stocks,” For. Ecol. Manage. 355, 83–90 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Russian Submission INDC. https://www4.unfccc.int/ sites/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/ Russia/1/Russian%20Submission%20INDC_rus.doc.

  10. Y. Yan, “Integrate carbon dynamic models in analyzing carbon sequestration impact of forest biomass harvest,” Sci. Total Environ. 615, 581–587 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. T. Nakayama and G. J. Pelletier, “Impact of global major reservoirs on carbon cycle changes by using an advanced eco-hydrologic and biogeochemical coupling model,” Ecol Modell. 387, 172–186 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. A. V. Klimenko, V. V. Klimenko, M. V. Fyodorov, and S. Yu. Snytin, “Modification of major CO2 sources under conditions of the man-changed environment,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Energex’93 (Korea Inst. Energy Res., Seoul, 1993), vol. 5, pp. 56–61.

  13. V. V. Klimenko, A. V. Klimenko, T. N. Andreichenko, et al., Energy, Nature, and Climate (MPEI Publ., Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  14. V. V. Klimenko, A. G. Tereshin, and O. V. Mikushina, “Do we really need a carbon tax?” Appl Energy 64 (1–4), 311–316 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. www.esrl. noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

  16. S. A. Marcott, J. D. Shakun, P. U. Clark, and A. C. Mix, “A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11300 years,” Science 339 (6124), 1198–1201 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed. by S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  18. FAO Production Yearbook 1994 (FAO, Rome, 1995).

  19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.

  20. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 (FAO, Rome, 2015).

  21. R. J. Keenan, G. A. Reams, F. Achard, J. V. de Freitas, et al., “Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015,” For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 9–20 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. R. Anderson, E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witner, A Land Use Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensing Data. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 964 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976).

  23. C. O. Justice, J. R. G. Townshend, B. N. Holben, and C. J. Tucker, “Analysis of the phenology of global vegetation using meteorological satellite data,” Int. J. Remote Sens. 6 (8), 1272–1318 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: Part I. Science and Design (Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C., 2000).

  25. M. A. Friedl, D. Sulla-Menashe, B. Tan, et al., “MODIS Collection 5 global landcover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets,” Remote Sens. Environ. 114 (1), 168–182 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. W. Li, N. MacBean, P. Ciais, et al., “Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015),” Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10 (1), 219–234 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. P. G. Curtis, C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, et al., “Classifying drivers of global forest loss,” Science 361 (6407), 1108–1111 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. M. C. Hansen, P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, et al., “High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change,” Science 342 (6160), 850–853 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. R. A. Houghton and D. L. Skole, “Changes in the global carbon cycle between 1700 and 1985,” in The Earth Transformed by Human Action, Eds. by Turner B.L., Clark W.C., Kates R.W. et al. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  30. G. M. Woodwell, J. E. Hobbie, R. A. Houghton, et al., “Global deforestation: contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Science 222, 181–186 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Climate Change. 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Ed. by J. T. Houghton, B. A. Callander, and S. K. Varney (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. D. Keeling, R. B. Bacastow, A. E. Bainbridge, et al., “Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii,” Tellus 28, 538–551 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  33. K. W. Thoning, P. P. Tans, and W. D. Komhyr, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC data, 1974–1985,” J. Geophys. Res. 94, 8549–8565 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. U. Siegenthaler, “Uptake of excess CO2 by an outcrop-diffusion model of the ocean,” J. Geophys. Res. 88 (C6), 3599–3608 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R. E. Emanuel, G. G. Killough, W. M. Post, and H. H. Shugart, “Modeling terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle with shifts in carbon storage capacity by land-use change,” Ecology 65, 970–983 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 20-08-00320 for calculations using the carbon cycle model, and by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 18-19-00662 for analyzing forest-area dynamics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. V. Klimenko.

Additional information

Translated by V. Arutyunyan

UPGRADED VERSION OF THE GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE MODEL

UPGRADED VERSION OF THE GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE MODEL

The box-diffusion model constructed from the well-known model of the Bern group [34] describes the ocean as a surface (homogeneous) layer and deep layers where the carbon propagation satisfies the one-dimensional diffusion equation. The model also incorporates the upwelling of cold and deep water to the surface in the region of high latitudes, where the carbon exchange with the atmosphere is more intense. The key carbon reservoirs on the surface are soil humus and vegetation (especially forests). The natural exchange of atmospheric CO2 with the biosphere is superimposed by anthropogenic emissions associated with intensive forest clearance and subsequent biomass burning. The model includes a five-component biosphere module (Fig. A1) representing the dynamics of carbon exchange by balance-type ordinary differential equations, which form a subsystem of the model. Its output parameter Qb is important for the correct reproduction and prediction of changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The notations and main equations of this model are as follows: let ν be the change in the carbon content N relative to the preindustrial level Noа(t) in the atmosphere, νm(t) in the mixed layer, and νd(t, z), 0 ≤ zhd, t > 0 in the deep ocean); then, we can write for the carbon balance in the reservoirs

$$\begin{gathered} \frac{{d{{\nu }_{a}}}}{{dt}} = \frac{{{{Q}_{a}}}}{{N_{a}^{o}}} + \frac{{{{Q}_{b}}}}{{N_{a}^{o}}} + {{k}_{{am}}}({{\xi }_{m}}{{\nu }_{m}} - {{\nu }_{a}}) + {{k}_{{ad}}}({{\xi }_{d}}\overline {{{\nu }_{d}}} - {{\nu }_{a}}), \\ \frac{{d{{\nu }_{m}}}}{{dt}} = {{k}_{{ma}}}({{\nu }_{a}} - {{\xi }_{m}}{{\nu }_{m}}) + \frac{1}{{(1 - {{a}_{c}}){{h}_{m}}}}K{{\left. {\frac{{\partial {{\nu }_{d}}}}{{\partial z}}} \right|}_{{z = 0}}}, \\ \frac{{\partial {{\nu }_{d}}}}{{\partial t}} = K\frac{{{{\partial }^{2}}{{\nu }_{d}}}}{{\partial {{z}^{2}}}} + {{k}_{{da}}}({{\nu }_{a}} - {{\xi }_{d}}{{\nu }_{d}}), \\ 0 \leqslant z \leqslant {{h}_{d}},\,\,\,\,t > 0, \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A1)

where t = 0 corresponds to the preindustrial state and is characterized by the stationary distribution of carbon. The initial conditions are

$${{\nu }_{a}}(0) = {{\nu }_{m}}(0) = {{\left. {{{\nu }_{d}}} \right|}_{{t = 0}}} = 0.$$
(A2)

For the diffusion equation, the following boundary conditions are given:

$${{\left. {{{\nu }_{d}}} \right|}_{{z = 0}}} = {{\nu }_{m}},\,\,\,\,{{\left. {\frac{{\partial {{\nu }_{d}}}}{{\partial z}}} \right|}_{{z = {{h}_{d}}}}} = 0.$$
(A3)

Here, kam, kma, kad, kda are exchange coefficients; ξm(t), ξd(t) are buffer coefficients; K is the eddy diffusivity in the deep ocean; \({{\bar {\nu }}_{d}} = \int_0^{{{h}_{d}}} {{{\nu }_{d}}\left( {t,z} \right)dz} {\text{,}}\)Qa(t) is the industrial carbon flux into the atmosphere; Qb(t) is the net carbon flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere; and Qa(t) = Qb(t) = 0 for the stationary state.

The buffer coefficients ξm and ξd are found from empirical equations (A4):

$$\begin{gathered} {{\xi }_{m}} = \xi _{m}^{0} + 4.9{{\xi }_{m}}{{\nu }_{m}} - 0.1{{\left( {{{\xi }_{m}}{{\nu }_{m}}} \right)}^{2}}, \\ {{\xi }_{d}} = \xi _{d}^{0} + 4.9{{\xi }_{d}}{{\nu }_{d}} - 0.1{{\left( {{{\xi }_{d}}\overline {{{\nu }_{d}}} } \right)}^{2}}. \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A4)

The exchange coefficients are

$$\begin{gathered} {{k}_{{am}}} = \left( {1 - {{a}_{c}}} \right){{F_{{am}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{F_{{am}}^{0}} {\left( {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}, \\ {{k}_{{ma}}} = {{F_{{am}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{F_{{am}}^{0}} {\left( {{{h}_{m}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {{{h}_{m}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}, \\ {{k}_{{ad}}} = {{{{a}_{c}}F_{{ad}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{a}_{c}}F_{{ad}}^{0}} {\left( {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}, \\ {{k}_{{da}}} = {{{{a}_{c}}F_{{ad}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{a}_{c}}F_{{ad}}^{0}} {\left( {{{h}_{d}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {{{h}_{d}}{{C}_{0}}} \right)}}, \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A5)

where ac is the relative area of deep water contact with the atmosphere in polar latitudes; \(N_{a}^{0}\) is the preindustrial carbon content in the atmosphere; C0 is the preindustrial concentration of inorganic carbon in surface waters of the ocean; Aoc is the ocean surface area; \({{h}_{a}} = {{N_{a}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{N_{a}^{0}} {{{C}_{0}}{{A}_{{oc}}}}}} \right. \kern-0em} {{{C}_{0}}{{A}_{{oc}}}}}\) is the thickness of the oceanic surface layer containing as much carbon as the preindustrial atmosphere; and \(F_{{am}}^{0}\) and \(F_{{ad}}^{0}\) are the stationary (preindustrial) fluxes between the atmosphere and the mixed layer, as well as between the atmosphere and the ocean in cold surface waters in polar latitudes, respectively. For the stationary state, the direct and reverse fluxes are equal in value. The current version of the model uses the relation \(F_{{am}}^{0} = \lambda F_{{ad}}^{0}{\text{,}}\) where the coefficient λ is determined in the course of numerical experiments. The preindustrial flux from the atmosphere to the ocean is \(F_{{as}}^{0} = \left( {1 - {{a}_{c}}} \right)\) × \(F_{{am}}^{0} + {{a}_{c}}F_{{ad}}^{0}{\text{,}}\) and the exchange coefficients are calculated through \(F_{{as}}^{0}\) using the formulas

$$\begin{gathered} {{k}_{{am}}} = \left( {1 - {{a}_{c}}} \right){{{{F_{{as}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{F_{{as}}^{0}} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{F_{{as}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{F_{{as}}^{0}} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}}}} \right. \kern-0em} {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}}}, \\ {{k}_{{ad}}} = {{{{{{a}_{c}}F_{{as}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{a}_{c}}F_{{as}}^{0}} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{{{a}_{c}}F_{{as}}^{0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{a}_{c}}F_{{as}}^{0}} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} \right. \kern-0em} {\left( {\lambda + \left( {1 - \lambda } \right){{a}_{c}}} \right)}}} {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}}}} \right. \kern-0em} {{{h}_{a}}{{C}_{0}}}}. \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A6)

The value of \(F_{{as}}^{0}\) is estimated from the condition of equilibrium for the preindustrial atmosphere-to-ocean flux of the radioactive carbon isotope 14C and its radioactive decay in the ocean. The respective value of the eddy diffusivity K is determined from the preindustrial profile of the 14C concentration in the deep ocean.

The partition of the biosphere into reservoirs, their carbon content, and characteristic turnover times were chosen based on the model described in [35]. The change in the carbon content Ni in the reservoirs of the biotic module is calculated from the system

$$\begin{gathered} \frac{{d{{N}_{W}}}}{{dt}} = {{F}_{{aW}}} - {{F}_{{WL}}} - \frac{3}{2}{{F}_{{def}}}\frac{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {1 - {{{{\tau }_{W}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{\tau }_{W}}} 2}} \right. \kern-0em} 2}} \right)}}{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {{{t}_{{1980}}}} \right)}} + {{F}_{{aff}}}, \\ \frac{{d{{N}_{G}}}}{{dt}} = {{F}_{{aG}}} - {{F}_{{GL}}},\,\,\, \\ \,\frac{{d{{N}_{L}}}}{{dt}} = {{F}_{{GL}}} + {{F}_{{WL}}} - {{F}_{{La}}} - {{F}_{{LH}}}, \\ \frac{{d{{N}_{H}}}}{{dt}} = {{F}_{{LH}}} - {{F}_{{HS}}} - {{F}_{{Ha}}},\,\,\, \\ \,\frac{{d{{N}_{S}}}}{{dt}} = {{F}_{{HS}}} + \,\,\frac{1}{2}{{F}_{{def}}}\frac{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {1 - {{{{\tau }_{W}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{\tau }_{W}}} 2}} \right. \kern-0em} 2}} \right)}}{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {{{t}_{{1980}}}} \right)}} - {{F}_{{Sa}}} - {{F}_{{soil}}}, \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A7)

where τi is the characteristic time of carbon turnover in reservoir i, Fij is the flux from reservoir i to reservoir j, Fdef is the carbon flux into the atmosphere from reservoir W due to deforestation corresponding to bioproductivity in 1980, and Faff is the carbon flux into the atmosphere from reservoir W due to afforestation. The net carbon flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere is

$$\begin{gathered} {{Q}_{b}} = {{F}_{{ba}}} - {{F}_{{ab}}} = {{F}_{{La}}} + {{F}_{{Ha}}} + {{F}_{{Sa}}} + {{F}_{{def}}} \\ \times \,\,\frac{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {1 - {{{{\tau }_{W}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{\tau }_{W}}} 2}} \right. \kern-0em} 2}} \right)}}{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {{{t}_{{1980}}}} \right)}} + {{F}_{{soil}}} - {{F}_{{aW}}} - {{F}_{{aG}}} - {{F}_{{aff}}}{\text{.}} \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A8)

Here,

$$\begin{gathered} {{F}_{{ba}}} = {{F}_{{La}}} + {{F}_{{Ha}}} + {{F}_{{Sa}}} \\ + \,\,{{F}_{{def}}}\frac{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {1 - {{{{\tau }_{W}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{{\tau }_{W}}} 2}} \right. \kern-0em} 2}} \right)}}{{1 + \gamma {{\nu }_{a}}\left( {{{t}_{{1980}}}} \right)}} + {{F}_{{soil}}}, \\ \end{gathered} $$
(A9)
$${{F}_{{ab}}} = {{F}_{{aW}}} + {{F}_{{aG}}} + {{F}_{{aff}}}.$$
(A10)

The model was adjusted to refine the coefficient γ of bioproductivity growth for doubled atmospheric concentration of CO2, as well as the coefficient that takes into account the change in the mass of long-living biota with changing temperature.

The model parameters and coefficients can be determined either from the results of direct measurements or by calibration according to the preindustrial distribution of radiocarbon 14C; the system of similar equations for 14C is solved simultaneously with the system for 12C. However, the relative area of deep water contact with atmosphere ac cannot be estimated in this way, because the regulation of this area in the model allows the infinitely fast horizontal mixing to be compensated (according to [34], the value of ac should be set in the range from 0.05 to 0.15). Therefore, the further adjustment of the model involves data on the atmospheric CO2 content as well. The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is reproduced by the model by fitting the coefficient ac. In the previous version of the model, the choice of the pair ac = 0.065 and the preindustrial carbon concentration in the atmosphere \(P_{a}^{0}\) = 277 ppm failed to provide the best agreement between the simulation results and experimental data. In the current version, ac = 0.15 and \(P_{a}^{0}\) = 277 ppm, and the adjustment with respect to data on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is performed by fitting the coefficient λ from the relation \(F_{{am}}^{0} = \lambda F_{{ad}}^{0}\) and the coefficient γ of bioproductivity growth for doubled atmospheric concentration of CO2. In addition, the fitted coefficient λ controls the amount of carbon sink into the ocean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klimenko, V.V., Mikushina, O.V. & Tereshin, A.G. Dynamics of Biotic Carbon Fluxes under Different Scenarios of Forest Area Changes. Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 56, 405–413 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433820040039

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433820040039

Keywords:

Navigation