In my analysis of coastal blue carbon model, I utilized 2022 Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) data and projected changes for the year 2100. Specifically, I incorporated a mangrove layer for 2100 without altering other land cover classes from 2022. According to my calculations, the mangrove cover in 2100 is expected to decrease by approximately 30% compared to 2022.
However, upon reviewing the output maps, I noticed that the results for both 2022 and 2100 appear identical. While the pixel values have changed as expected, the visual representation on the map remains the same for both years.
I had anticipated observing a decreasing trend in mangrove cover from 2022 to 2100, but this is not reflected in the output maps. I have verified the input data and model settings, and everything appears to be in order.I am reaching out to seek your guidance on whether there might be an error in my approach or if there are additional factors I should consider to accurately depict the anticipated changes over time.
Furthermore, I have field data for the biophysical table for the baseyear 2022.
Hello @Sreelekshmi and welcome back!
Just to be clear, the model won’t alter what the LULC rasters look like in the outputs, it’ll only model the carbon stocks.
Having said that, I think the critical piece here is what your tables look like. I assume your mangroves are classified as blue carbon habitat, so your tables will need to reflect that mangroves are in a state of accumulation rather than NCC (no carbon change).
If that isn’t clear, it may be easiest for us to debug this by looking at your datasets. Could you share your data with us using a filesharing service like Google Drive or similar?
Thanks,
James
I have another doubt. I Run the model successfully. But when i calaculate the carbon stock , it gradually increasing even there is a reduction in area. Also it shows emission. Could you please help me to resolve tgis doubt?
Whether a given pixel accumulates or emits is a question of what’s in your tables. Any pixel that is in a state of accumulation will accumulate carbon. Any pixel that is disturbed during a transition will be in a state of decay and will lose carbon. Whether a pixel is in a state of accumulation or decay depends on what happened during a transition (was the pixel disturbed during the transition? was it restored to blue carbon habitat?).
Each pixel is treated individually, so I would suggest that you select a single pixel to trace through your transitions, and verify that the accumulation or decay states of a pixel makes sense given your tables. This may answer your questions about the stock increasing even though you have a reduction in blue carbon area.
Hope this helps,
James