林业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (1): 142-150.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20230098
• 综合评述 • 上一篇
劳万里,李晓玲*,段新芳
收稿日期:
2023-03-15
出版日期:
2024-01-25
发布日期:
2024-01-29
通讯作者:
李晓玲
基金资助:
Wanli Lao,Xiaoling Li*,Xinfang Duan
Received:
2023-03-15
Online:
2024-01-25
Published:
2024-01-29
Contact:
Xiaoling Li
摘要:
气候变化是全球治理的一个重要方面,评估人类活动引起的温室气体排放量是应对气候变化的基础性工作,受到世界各国政府、科研机构和企业广泛关注。随着我国“碳达峰”“碳中和”(简称“双碳”)目标的提出以及相关政策的落地实施,碳足迹作为温室气体排放测度指标,其重要性日益凸显。开展木竹产品碳足迹评价是我国木竹加工企业落实国家“双碳”目标的核心工作,对木竹产业低碳高质量发展亦具有重要意义。本文全面分析锯材、改性材、人造板及其制品、结构用集成材和胶合木等主要木竹产品碳足迹评价的研究现状,以及碳足迹评价方法的研究进展。目前,生命周期评价法是国际主流的碳足迹评价方法,依据的标准主要为ISO/TS 14067、GHG Protocol和PAS 2050;在木竹产品中储存的生物碳及其延迟碳排放效应的评估方法,以及计入产品碳足迹评价结果的形式等方面尚未形成国际共识;因不同国家木竹加工技术水平和能源结构有所不同,同一类别产品碳足迹差异显著。此外,不同科研人员采用的评价标准和研究假设等各异,导致同一产品碳足迹评价结果可比性不强。未来应:1) 研制木竹产品延迟碳排放效应的评估方法,科学量化木竹产品对应对气候变化的积极贡献;2) 制定适于木竹产品碳足迹评价国际统一的产品种类规则,进一步增强碳足迹核算结果的可比性,推动木竹产品碳足迹评价结果国际互认;3) 建立木竹产品全生命周期回溯跟踪体系,助力木竹产品全生命周期碳足迹评价工作的顺利开展;4) 构建契合我国木竹产业特点全国统一的碳排放因子数据库,为准确计量木竹产品碳足迹提供数据支撑。
中图分类号:
劳万里,李晓玲,段新芳. 木竹产品碳足迹评价研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(1): 142-150.
Wanli Lao,Xiaoling Li,Xinfang Duan. Research Progress for Carbon Footprint Assessment of Wood and Bamboo Products[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2024, 60(1): 142-150.
表1
9种常见竹材产品碳足迹(周国模等,2017)"
产品类别 Product category | 规格 Specification | 运输过程碳排放 Carbon emissions from transportation | 加工过程碳排放Carbon emissions from processing | 附加物隐含碳排放Carbon emissions from the additives | 竹废料燃烧碳排放Carbon emissions from bamboo scraps | 碳储量 Biogenic carbon storage | 碳足迹 Carbon footprints |
带青竹展开地板 The flattened bamboo floor with green bark | 1 200 mm×137 mm×18 mm | 31.2 | 87.8 | 31.8 | 232.2 | 168.8 | ?17.9 |
竹展开砧板(规格1) The flattened bamboo chopping board | 360 mm×240 mm×17 mm | 28.4 | 122.9 | 43.1 | 162.2 | 79.8 | 114.6 |
竹展开砧板 (规格2)The flattened bamboo chopping board | 380 mm×280 mm×18 mm | 26.0 | 138.0 | 39.5 | 154.8 | 73.1 | 130.4 |
户外竹重组地板 Reconstituted bamboo floor (outdoors) | 1 860 mm×137 mm×20 mm | 31.0 | 143.6 | 78.3 | 95.9 | 249.1 | 3.8 |
室内竹重组地板 Reconstituted bamboo floor (indoors) | 910 mm×127 mm×14 mm | 27.2 | 156.4 | 73.1 | 91.1 | 205.1 | 51.6 |
竹刨切片Bamboo sliced veneer | 2 500 mm×450 mm×0.6 mm | 37.1 | 253.5 | 30.2 | 331.4 | 168.2 | 152.6 |
竹窗帘 Bamboo curtain | 1 500 mm×3.5 mm×1.5 mm | 28.9 | 187.7 | 26.0 | 284.2 | 124.5 | 118.1 |
竹地毯 Bamboo blanket | 1 500 mm×2.5 mm×2.5 mm | 28.7 | 174.8 | 72.8 | 291.8 | 124.0 | 152.3 |
竹凉席 Bamboo mat | 1 500 mm×4.5 mm×2.0 mm | 31.0 | 178.1 | 32.1 | 303.8 | 129.0 | 112.2 |
表2
不同方法计算的刨花板产品碳足迹(García et al., 2014)"
碳足迹评价方法 Carbon footprint methodologies | 从摇篮到大门阶段的碳足迹 Cradle-to-gate carbon footprints/(kg·m?3) | 从摇篮到坟墓阶段的碳足迹 Cradle-to-grave carbon footprints/(kg·m?3) | |
生命末期采用焚烧处理方式 Incineration is used at the end of life | 生命末期采用填埋处理方式 Landfill is used at the end of life | ||
ISO/TS 14067 | 188 | 140 | 433(?1 092) |
PAS 2050 | ?939 | 189 | ?692 |
GHG Protocol | ?913 | 113 | ?682 |
气候宣言 Climate declaration | 168 | 201 | 287 |
陈 硕, 胡继梅, 沈乃强, 等. 强化木地板的“碳足迹”计算分析. 木材工业, 2014, 28 (2): 36- 38.
doi: 10.19455/j.mcgy.2014.02.011 |
|
Chen S, Hu J M, Shen N Q, et al. “Carbon footprint” calculation and analysis for laminate flooring. China Wood Industry, 2014, 28 (2): 36- 38.
doi: 10.19455/j.mcgy.2014.02.011 |
|
李俊峰, 李 广. 碳中和: 中国发展转型的机遇与挑战. 环境与可持续发展, 2021, 46 (1): 50- 57. | |
Li J F, Li G. Carbon neutrality: opportunities and challenges for development transformation in China. Environment and Sustainable Development, 2021, 46 (1): 50- 57. | |
吕 倩. 2020. 中国能源消费碳排放时空演变特征及减排策略研究. 北京: 中国矿业大学. | |
Lü Q. 2020. Study on spatiotemporal dynamic characteristics and reduction strategy of energy consumption carbon emissions in China. Beijing: China University of Mining and Technology. [in Chinese] | |
王珊珊, 杨红强. 2019. 基于国际碳足迹标准的中国人造板产业碳减排路径研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 29(4): 27-37. | |
Wang S S, Yang H Q. 2019. Study on carbon emission reduction path of China’s wood-based panel industry based on international carbon footprint standards. China Population, Resources and Environment, 29(4): 27-37. [in Chinese] | |
许培玉, 朱建君, 徐霄枭, 等. 竹建筑材料全生命周期碳足迹测算及碳汇优势研究. 人民长江, 2023, 54 (5): 88- 93.
doi: 10.16232/j.cnki.1001-4179.2023.05.012 |
|
Xu P Y, Zhu J J, Xu X X, et al. Whole-life carbon footprint measurement and carbon sink advantages of bamboo construction materials. Yangtze River, 2023, 54 (5): 88- 93.
doi: 10.16232/j.cnki.1001-4179.2023.05.012 |
|
周国模, 顾 蕾. 2017. 竹材产品碳储量与碳足迹研究. 北京: 科学出版社, 135-136. | |
Zhou G M, Gu L. 2017. Carbon stocks and carbon footprint of bamboo timber products. Beijing: Science Press, 135-136.[in Chinese] | |
周鹏飞, 顾 蕾, 彭维亮, 等. 竹展开砧板碳足迹计测及构成分析. 浙江农林大学学报, 2014, 31 (6): 860- 867.
doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2014.06.006 |
|
Zhou P F, Gu L, Peng W L, et al. A carbon footprint assessment and composition analysis of flattened bamboo chopping board. Journal of Zhejiang A & F University, 2014, 31 (6): 860- 867.
doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2014.06.006 |
|
Alvarez S, Rubio A. Compound method based on financial accounts versus process-based analysis in product carbon footprint: a comparison using wood pallets. Ecological Indicators, 2015, 49, 88- 94.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.10.005 |
|
Alvarez S, Tobarra M A, Zafrilla J E. Corporate and product carbon footprint under compound hybrid analysis: application to a Spanish timber company. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2019, 23 (2): 496- 507.
doi: 10.1111/jiec.12759 |
|
Bergman R D. 2012. The effect on climate change impacts for building products when including the timing of greenhouse gas emissions. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin-Madison. | |
Bergman R D. 2014. Life-cycle inventory analysis of cellulosic fiberboard production in north America. Proceedings, Society of Wood Science and Technology 57th International Convention, Zvolen, Slovakia, 542-550. | |
Bergman R D, Gu H, Falk R H, et al. 2010. Using reclaimed lumber and wood flooring in construction: measuring environmental impact using life-cycle inventory analysis. Proceedings of the International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe-Timber Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, 11. | |
Bowers T, Puettmann M E, Ganguly I, et al. Cradle-to-gate life-cycle impact analysis of glued-laminated (glulam) timber: environmental impacts from glulam produced in the US Pacific northwest and southeast. Forest Products Journal, 2017, 67 (5/6): 368- 380. | |
Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum M U F, et al. Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013, 18 (1): 230- 240.
doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0451-6 |
|
Carrano A L, Thorn B K, Woltag H. Characterizing the carbon footprint of wood pallet logistics. Forest Products Journal, 2014, 64 (7/8): 232- 241. | |
Chang F C, Chen K S, Yang P Y, et al. Environmental benefit of utilizing bamboo material based on life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 204, 60- 69.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.248 |
|
Chang Y S, Kim S, Son W L, et al. Assessment of carbon emission for quantification of environmental load on structural glued laminated timber in Korea. Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology, 2016, 44 (3): 449- 456.
doi: 10.5658/WOOD.2016.44.3.449 |
|
Chen X, Chen F, Yang Q, et al. An environmental food packaging material part I: a case study of life-cycle assessment (LCA) for bamboo fiber environmental tableware. Industrial Crops and Products, 2023, 194, 116279.
doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116279 |
|
Corradini G, Pierobon F, Zanetti M. Product environmental footprint of a cross-laminated timber system: a case study in Italy. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019, 24 (5): 975- 988.
doi: 10.1007/s11367-018-1541-x |
|
Demertzi M, Garrido A, Dias A C, et al. Environmental performance of a cork floating floor. Materials & Design, 2015a, 82, 317- 325. | |
Demertzi M, Dias A C, Matos A, et al. Evaluation of different end-of-life management alternatives for used natural cork stoppers through life cycle assessment. Waste Management, 2015b, 46, 668- 680.
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.026 |
|
Demertzi M, Paulo J A, Faias S P, et al. Evaluating the carbon footprint of the cork sector with a dynamic approach including biogenic carbon flows. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018, 23 (7): 1448- 1459.
doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1406-8 |
|
Demertzi M, Sierra-Pérez J, Paulo J A, et al. Environmental performance of expanded cork slab and granules through life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 145, 294- 302.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.071 |
|
Erdil M, Yilgor N, Gungor Y. Evaluation of carbon footprint for wood based panel industry in Turkey. Pressacademia, 2017, 5 (1): 10- 18.
doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.564 |
|
Erdil M, Yilgor N. An assessment of carbon footprint in medium-density fiberboard (MDF) manufacturing: a case study of wood based panel production in Turkey. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 2020, 5 (5): 841- 848.
doi: 10.35229/jaes.836311 |
|
Espiritu-Cabral D, Racelis D, Predo C, et al. Carbon footprint of lumber production from falcata [Falcataria moluccana (Miq. ) Barneby & JW Grimes] in the CARAGA region, Philippines. Ecosystems and Development Journal, 2020, 10 (1/2): 50- 55. | |
Ganne-Chédeville C, Diederichs S. Potential environmental benefits of ultralight particleboards with biobased foam cores. International Journal of Polymer Science, 2015, (1): 1- 14. | |
García R, Freire F. Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014, 66, 199- 209.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.073 |
|
Gu L, Zhou Y F, Mei T T, et al. Carbon footprint analysis of bamboo scrimber flooring—implications for carbon sequestration of bamboo forests and its products. Forests, 2019, 10 (1): 51.
doi: 10.3390/f10010051 |
|
Hafezi S M, Zarea-Hosseinabadi H, Huijbregts M A J, et al. The importance of biogenic carbon storage in the greenhouse gas footprint of medium density fiberboard from poplar wood and bagasse. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2021, 3, 100066.
doi: 10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100066 |
|
Halava S. 2013. Carbon footprint of thermowood. Satakunnan Ammattikorkeakoulu. | |
Hassan O A B, Johansson C. 2018. Glued laminated timber and steel beams: a comparative study of structural design, economic and environmental consequences. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(3): 398-417. | |
Hossain M U, Wang L, Yu I, et al. Environmental and technical feasibility study of upcycling wood waste into cement-bonded particleboard. Construction and Building Materials, 2018, 173, 474- 480.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.066 |
|
Hu S Y, Guan X, Guo M H, et al. Environmental load of solid wood floor production from larch grown at different planting densities based on a life cycle assessment. Journal of Forestry Research, 2018, 29 (5): 1443- 1448.
doi: 10.1007/s11676-017-0529-x |
|
Hussain M, Malik R N, Taylor A. Carbon footprint as an environmental sustainability indicator for the particleboard produced in Pakistan. Environmental Research, 2017, 155, 385- 393.
doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.02.024 |
|
Kaestner D. 2017. Compile a life cycle assessment of the OSB and plywood industries in the US & analysis of the OSB and plywood industries in the US based on a life cycle assessment. Tennessee: University of Tennessee. | |
Knight L, Huff M, Stockhausen J I, et al. Comparing energy use and environmental emissions of reinforced wood doors and steel doors. Forest Products Journal, 2005, 55 (6): 48- 52. | |
Ks G A N, Massijaya M Y. 2014. Life cycle assessment for environmental product declaration of tropical plywood production in Malaysia and Indonesia. Report: Prepared for International Tropical Timber Organization. | |
Kujanpää M, Pajula T, Hohenthal C. Carbon footprint of a forest product–challenges of including biogenic carbon and carbon sequestration in the calculations. Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Technologies, 2009, 15 (3): 27- 39. | |
Lan K, Kelley S S, Nepal P, et al. Dynamic life cycle carbon and energy analysis for cross-laminated timber in the Southeastern United States. Environmental Research Letters, 2020, 15 (12): 124036.
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc5e6 |
|
Lao W L, Chang L. Greenhouse gas footprint assessment of wood-based panel production in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023, 389, 136064.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136064 |
|
Martínez-Alonso C, Berdasco L. Carbon footprint of sawn timber products of Castanea sativa Mill. in the north of Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 102, 127- 135.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.004 |
|
Murphy F, Devlin G, McDonnell K. Greenhouse gas and energy based life cycle analysis of products from the Irish wood processing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 92, 134- 141.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.001 |
|
Nakano K, Ando K, Takigawa M, et al. Life cycle assessment of wood-based boards produced in Japan and impact of formaldehyde emissions during the use stage. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018, 23 (4): 957- 969.
doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1343-6 |
|
Nakano K, Koike W, Yamagishi K, et al. Environmental impacts of cross-laminated timber production in Japan. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2020, 22 (10): 2193- 2205.
doi: 10.1007/s10098-020-01948-2 |
|
Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener G. Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings-a representative study for the German flooring industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2006, 11 (3): 172- 182.
doi: 10.1065/lca2004.10.187 |
|
Ng R, Shi C W P, Low J S C, et al. 2011. Comparative carbon footprint assessment of door made from recycled wood waste versus virgin hardwood: case study of a Singapore wood waste recycling plant. Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 629-634. | |
Ng R, Shi C W P, Tan H X, et al. Avoided impact quantification from recycling of wood waste in Singapore: an assessment of pallet made from technical wood versus virgin softwood. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014, 65, 447- 457.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.053 |
|
Nordlund T. 2015. Carbon footprint of thermowood. Satakunnan Ammattikorkeakoulu. | |
O'Connor J. 2009. Considerations for environmental footprinting of wood doors. FPInnovations-Forintek, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 28. | |
Petersen A K, Solberg B. Greenhouse gas emissions and costs over the life cycle of wood and alternative flooring materials. Climatic Change, 2004, 64 (1): 143- 167. | |
Phuong V T, Xuan N V. Life cycle assessment for key bamboo products in Viet Nam. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR), 2020, Beijing, 57. | |
Ratnasingam J, Ramasamy G, Toong W, et al. An assessment of the carbon footprint of tropical hardwood sawn timber production. BioResources, 2015, 10 (3): 5174- 5190. | |
Sahoo K, Bergman R, Khatri P. Cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment of cellulosic fiberboard. Recent Progress in Materials, 2021, 3 (4): 1- 27. | |
Shang X Y, Song S Q, Yang J W. Comparative environmental evaluation of straw resources by LCA in China. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2020, 2020, 1- 16. | |
Sinha A, Kutnar A. Carbon footprint versus performance of aluminum, plastic, and wood window frames from cradle to gate. Buildings, 2012, 2 (4): 542- 553.
doi: 10.3390/buildings2040542 |
|
Sinha R, Lennartsson M, Frostell B. Environmental footprint assessment of building structures: a comparative study. Building and Environment, 2016, 104, 162- 171.
doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.012 |
|
Tarantini M, Dominici Loprieno A, Porta P L. A life cycle approach to Green Public Procurement of building materials and elements: a case study on windows. Energy, 2011, 36 (5): 2473- 2482.
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.039 |
|
Tártaro A S S. 2016. Life cycle assessment methodology of ICB and the applications of cork powder in aroma elimination. Portugal: Universidade do Porto. | |
Tellnes L G, Ganne-Chedeville C, Dias A, et al. Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products. IForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2017, 10 (5): 815- 823.
doi: 10.3832/ifor2386-010 |
|
Tellnes L G F, Gobakken L R, Flæte P O, et al. Carbon footprint including effect of carbon storage for selected wooden facade materials. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 2014, 9 (3): 139- 143. | |
Tellnes L G F, Alfredsen G, Flæte P O, et al. Effect of service life aspects on carbon footprint: a comparison of wood decking products. Holzforschung, 2020a, 74 (4): 426- 433.
doi: 10.1515/hf-2019-0055 |
|
Tellnes L G F, Nyrud A Q, Flaete P O. 2012. Carbon footprint of products from the Norwegian sawmilling industry. Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, 152-158. | |
Tellnes L G F, Saxegård S A, Johnsen F M. Cross-laminated timber constructions in a sustainable future-transition to fossil free and carbon capture technologies. IOP Conference Series:Earth and Environmental Science, 2020b, 588 (4): 042060.
doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/588/4/042060 |
|
Vogtlander J G, van der Lugt P. The environmental impact of industrial bamboo products: life-cycle assessment and carbon sequestration. The International Network for Bamboo and Rattan, 2015, 35, 57. | |
Wang S S, Wang W F, Yang H Q. Comparison of product carbon footprint protocols: case study on medium-density fiberboard in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, 15 (10): 2060.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102060 |
|
Weir G, Muneer T. Energy and environmental impact analysis of double-glazed windows. Energy Conversion and Management, 1998, 39 (3/4): 243- 256. | |
Vamza I, Diaz F, Resnais P, et al. Life cycle assessment of reprocessed cross laminated timber in Latvia. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 2021, 25 (1): 58- 70.
doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2021-0005 |
|
Vaňová R, Štefko J. Assessment of selected types of the structural engineered wood production from the environmental point of view. Acta Facultatis Xylologiae Zvolen res Publica Slovaca, 2021, 63 (2): 117- 130. | |
Xiao Y, Yang R Z, Shan B. Production, environmental impact and mechanical properties of glubam. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, 44, 765- 773.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.03.087 |
[1] | 曾伟生,蒲莹,杨学云,易善军. 我国5种主要人工林乔木层碳储量生长模型及其气候驱动分析[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(3): 21-30. |
[2] | 张煜星,王雪军. 1973—2018年我国桉树人工林生产力及碳汇能力[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(3): 54-64. |
[3] | 郭泽鑫,胡中岳,曹聪,刘萍. 广东主要森林类型林分生物量和碳储量模型研建[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(12): 37-50. |
[4] | 张小标,逯非,杨红强,欧阳志云. 森林伐后碳减排路径研究动态与前瞻[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(8): 182-196. |
[5] | 田惠玲,朱建华,何潇,陈新云,简尊吉,李宸宇,郭学媛,黄国胜,肖文发. 基于随机森林模型的东北三省乔木林生物质碳储量预测[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(4): 40-50. |
[6] | 侯志康,曾松伟,莫路锋,周宇峰. 基于GA-BP神经网络的雷竹林CO2浓度反演[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(2): 42-48. |
[7] | 王雪峰,陈珠琳,管青军,刘嘉政,王甜,袁莹. 基于林内图像的单位面积碳储量估计方法[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(1): 105-112. |
[8] | 王振鹏,陈金磊,李尚益,张仕吉,方晰. 湘中丘陵区不同恢复阶段森林生态系统的碳储量特征[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(5): 19-28. |
[9] | 武金翠,周军,张宇,余晓燕,石雷,漆良华. 毛竹林固碳增汇价值的动态变化:以福建省为例[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(4): 181-187. |
[10] | 朱万泽. 成熟森林固碳研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(3): 117-126. |
[11] | 刘伟玮, 刘某承, 李文华, 曾凡顺, 曲艺. 落叶松-人参复合系统的植物多样性和碳储量特征[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(9): 124-132. |
[12] | 史琰, 葛滢, 金荷仙, 任远, 屈泽龙, 包志毅, 常杰. 城市植被碳固存研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(6): 122-129. |
[13] | 戚玉娇, 李凤日. 基于KNN方法的大兴安岭地区森林地上碳储量遥感估算[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(5): 46-55. |
[14] | 黄国胜, 马炜, 王雪军, 夏朝宗, 党永锋. 东北地区落叶松林碳储量估算[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(6): 167-174. |
[15] | 王长委, 胡月明, 沈德才, 黄胜利, 朱剑云, 王璐. 基于CBERS数据的亚热带森林地上碳储量估算[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(1): 88-96. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||