Carbon Balance and Management Journal Impact Factor & Information
Carbon Balance and Management will encompass all aspects of research results aimed at a comprehensive, policy relevant understanding of the global carbon cycle. The global carbon cycle involves important couplings between climate, atmospheric CO2 and the terrestrial and oceanic biospheres. The current transformation of the carbon cycle due to changes in climate and atmospheric composition is widely recognized as potentially dangerous for the biosphere and for the well-being of humankind, and therefore monitoring, understanding and predicting the evolution of the carbon cycle in the context of the whole biosphere (both terrestrial and marine) is a challenge to the scientific community. This demands interdisciplinary research and new approaches for studying geographical and temporal distributions of carbon pools and fluxes, control and feedback mechanisms of the carbon-climate system, points of intervention and windows of opportunity for managing the carbon-climate-human system. Researchers carrying out interdisciplinary studies in the field need a medium to convey the results of their research across disciplinary boundaries. This must be done in 'real-time' to support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and to provide governmental and non-governmental organizations with instantaneous access to continually emerging knowledge, including paradigm shifts and consensual views. Researchers also need a peer-review process that will help them to build a new generation of scientists trained in the highly interdisciplinary topics of the carbon-climate-human system.
Current impact factor: 0.00
Impact Factor Rankings
|Website||Carbon Balance and Management website|
|Material type||Document, Periodical, Internet resource|
|Document type||Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper|
- Author can archive a pre-print version
- Author can archive a post-print version
- Publisher's version/PDF may be used
- Eligible UK authors may deposit in OpenDepot
- Creative Commons Attribution License
- Copy of License must accompany any deposit.
- All titles are open access journals
- 'BioMed Central' is an imprint of 'Springer Verlag (Germany)'
Publications in this journal
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Africa is an important part of the global carbon cycle. It is also a continent facing potential problems due to increasing resource demand in combination with climate change-induced changes in resource supply. Quantifying the pools and fluxes constituting the terrestrial African carbon cycle is a challenge, because of uncertainties in meteorological driver data, lack of validation data, and potentially uncertain representation of important processes in major ecosystems. In this paper, terrestrial primary production estimates derived from remote sensing and a dynamic vegetation model are compared and quantified for major African land cover types. Continental gross primary production estimates derived from remote sensing were higher than corresponding estimates derived from a dynamic vegetation model. However, estimates of continental net primary production from remote sensing were lower than corresponding estimates from the dynamic vegetation model. Variation was found among land cover classes, and the largest differences in gross primary production were found in the evergreen broadleaf forest. Average carbon use efficiency (NPP/GPP) was 0.58 for the vegetation model and 0.46 for the remote sensing method. Validation versus in situ data of aboveground net primary production revealed significant positive relationships for both methods. A combination of the remote sensing method with the dynamic vegetation model did not strongly affect this relationship. Observed significant differences in estimated vegetation productivity may have several causes, including model design and temperature sensitivity. Differences in carbon use efficiency reflect underlying model assumptions. Integrating the realistic process representation of dynamic vegetation models with the high resolution observational strength of remote sensing may support realistic estimation of components of the carbon cycle and enhance resource monitoring, providing suitable validation data is available.Carbon Balance and Management 12/2015; 10:8. DOI:10.1186/s13021-015-0018-5
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The forestry and wood products industries play a significant role in CO2 emissions reduction by increasing carbon stocks in living forest biomass and wood products. Moreover, wood can substitute for fossil fuels. Different methods can be used to assess the impact of regional forestry and wood products industries on regional CO2 emissions. This article considers three of those methods and combines them into a multi-tiered approach. The multi-tiered approach proposed in this article combines: 1) a Kyoto-Protocol-oriented method focused on changes in CO2 emissions resulting from regional industrial production, 2) a consumer-oriented method focused on changes in CO2 emissions resulting from regional consumption, and 3) a value-creation-oriented method focused on changes in CO2 emissions resulting from forest management and wood usage strategies. North Rhine-Westphalia is both a typical German state and an example of a region where each of these three methods yields different results. It serves as a test case with which to illustrate the advantages of the proposed approach. This case study argues that the choice of assessment methods is essential when developing and evaluating a strategy for reducing CO2 emissions. Emissions can be reduced through various social and economic processes. Since none of the assessment methods considered above is suitable for all of these processes, only a multi-tiered approach may ensure that strategy development results in an optimal emissions reduction strategy.Carbon Balance and Management 12/2015; 10(1):4. DOI:10.1186/s13021-015-0014-9
Carbon Balance and Management 12/2015; 10(6). DOI:10.1186/s13021-015-0016-7
Carbon Balance and Management 01/2014; 9(1):4. DOI:10.1186/s13021-014-0004-3
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.