These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31482440)
1. Impact of modelling choices on setting the reference levels for the EU forest carbon sinks: how do different assumptions affect the country-specific forest reference levels? Forsell N; Korosuo A; Gusti M; Rüter S; Havlik P; Obersteiner M Carbon Balance Manag; 2019 Sep; 14(1):10. PubMed ID: 31482440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Understanding the implications of the EU-LULUCF regulation for the wood supply from EU forests to the EU. Nabuurs GJ; Arets EJMM; Schelhaas MJ Carbon Balance Manag; 2018 Oct; 13(1):18. PubMed ID: 30328011 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Initial forest age distribution may generate computational sinks or sources of carbon: A generic approach to test assumptions underlying the EU LULUCF forest reference levels. Vauhkonen J; Mutanen A; Packalen T; Asikainen A Carbon Balance Manag; 2021 May; 16(1):13. PubMed ID: 33948752 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Setting the forest reference levels in the European Union: overview and challenges. Vizzarri M; Pilli R; Korosuo A; Blujdea VNB; Rossi S; Fiorese G; Abad-Viñas R; Colditz RR; Grassi G Carbon Balance Manag; 2021 Jul; 16(1):23. PubMed ID: 34331610 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Modelling forest carbon stock changes as affected by harvest and natural disturbances. II. EU-level analysis. Pilli R; Grassi G; Kurz WA; Moris JV; Viñas RA Carbon Balance Manag; 2016 Dec; 11(1):20. PubMed ID: 27635153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The role of forests in the EU climate policy: are we on the right track? Korosuo A; Pilli R; Abad Viñas R; Blujdea VNB; Colditz RR; Fiorese G; Rossi S; Vizzarri M; Grassi G Carbon Balance Manag; 2023 Jul; 18(1):15. PubMed ID: 37517072 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Science-based approach for credible accounting of mitigation in managed forests. Grassi G; Pilli R; House J; Federici S; Kurz WA Carbon Balance Manag; 2018 May; 13(1):8. PubMed ID: 29774443 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accounting of GHG emissions and removals from forest management: a long road from Kyoto to Paris. Krug JHA Carbon Balance Manag; 2018 Jan; 13(1):1. PubMed ID: 29330699 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reconciling the EU forest, biodiversity, and climate strategies. Gregor K; Reyer CPO; Nagel TA; Mäkelä A; Krause A; Knoke T; Rammig A Glob Chang Biol; 2024 Aug; 30(8):e17431. PubMed ID: 39092769 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Modelling forest carbon stock changes as affected by harvest and natural disturbances. I. Comparison with countries' estimates for forest management. Pilli R; Grassi G; Kurz WA; Viñas RA; Guerrero NH Carbon Balance Manag; 2016 Dec; 11(1):5. PubMed ID: 27340427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing the INDCs' land use, land use change, and forest emission projections. Forsell N; Turkovska O; Gusti M; Obersteiner M; Elzen MD; Havlik P Carbon Balance Manag; 2016 Dec; 11(1):26. PubMed ID: 28018480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mind the gap: reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates from earth observation and national reporting requires transparency. Heinrich V; House J; Gibbs DA; Harris N; Herold M; Grassi G; Cantinho R; Rosan TM; Zimbres B; Shimbo JZ; Melo J; Hales T; Sitch S; Aragão LEOC Carbon Balance Manag; 2023 Nov; 18(1):22. PubMed ID: 37982938 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Actual European forest management by region, tree species and owner based on 714,000 re-measured trees in national forest inventories. Schelhaas MJ; Fridman J; Hengeveld GM; Henttonen HM; Lehtonen A; Kies U; Krajnc N; Lerink B; Ní Dhubháin Á; Polley H; Pugh TAM; Redmond JJ; Rohner B; Temperli C; Vayreda J; Nabuurs GJ PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207151. PubMed ID: 30418996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improving carbon monitoring and reporting in forests using spatially-explicit information. Boisvenue C; Smiley BP; White JC; Kurz WA; Wulder MA Carbon Balance Manag; 2016 Dec; 11(1):23. PubMed ID: 27853482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. EU mitigation potential of harvested wood products. Pilli R; Fiorese G; Grassi G Carbon Balance Manag; 2015 Dec; 10(1):6. PubMed ID: 26457115 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Revisiting the land use assumptions in forest carbon projects through a case from India. Aggarwal A J Environ Manage; 2020 Aug; 267():110673. PubMed ID: 32421661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Importance of Cross-Sector Interactions When Projecting Forest Carbon across Alternative Socioeconomic Futures. Jones JPH; Baker JS; Austin K; Latta G; Wade CM; Cai Y; Aramayo-Lipa L; Beach R; Ohrel SB; Ragnauth S; Creason J; Cole J J For Econ; 2019; 34(3-4):205-231. PubMed ID: 32280189 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives. Grassi G; Cescatti A; Matthews R; Duveiller G; Camia A; Federici S; House J; de Noblet-Ducoudré N; Pilli R; Vizzarri M Carbon Balance Manag; 2019 Jun; 14(1):8. PubMed ID: 31201580 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Carbon sequestration in European croplands. Smith P; Falloon P SEB Exp Biol Ser; 2005; ():47-55. PubMed ID: 17633030 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Construction of land-use change matrix and estimation of greenhouse gas inventory focusing on settlements in South Korea. Choi SE; Hong S; Song C; Kim J; Kim W; Ha R; Lee WK Carbon Balance Manag; 2023 Mar; 18(1):4. PubMed ID: 36943512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]