1. WP3
Jukka Alm
Photo by Saulius Marcinconis

2. Main goals for WG3
WG3 focuses on quality assessment of existing methodology. This applies to all its work on monitoring, modelling and risk assessment. WG3 will examine methods that are currently being used in Europe in soil GHG and stocks inventorisation, and come up with recommendations on how to improve methodology.
WG3’s output will mainly consists of review papers that include methodological recommendations.
WG3 focuses on quality assessment of existing methodology. This applies to all its work on monitoring, modelling and risk assessment. WG3 will examine methods that are currently being used in Europe in soil GHG and stocks inventorisation, and come up with recommendations on how to improve methodology.
WG3’s output will mainly consists of review papers that include methodological recommendations.

3. Modelling Photo by Saulius Marcinconis
WG3 will examine how process-based models are currently being used in national inventories for C & N stocks for inventories of GHG fluxes associated with LULUCF.

4. Model comparison on Austrian forest stand data
Vienna
Vilnius
Milan
With discussions on modeling the impacts of LUC
In Vienna, we started a model comparison with data from an Austrian forest stand with 8 models. That modelling work then continued until Christmas (also a major topic of the Vilnius meeting) and the manuscript (Palosuo et al. How consistent are the simulation models in their soil carbon assessments at forest stand level?) was submitted in March. In Vilnius we also started discussions on possibilities for modelling some LUC case(s). The data was gathered and then discussed in Milan, where we finally agreed to model a Lithuanian LUC study site (provided by Saulius) and to start with an afforestation case and perhaps to continue with an abandoned agricultural site. That work is co-ordinated by Carina Ortiz from SLU ( above). Our SLU partners also were willing to host one more modelling workshop and that is planned to be in early October in Uppsala. The LUC modelling is aimed to be discussed further there and to study the first results.

5. Photo by Saulius Marcinconis

6. Results from the model comparison
Manuscript submitted to Modelling and Software:
Authors: Taru Palosuo, Bente Foereid, Magnus Svensson, Narasinha Shurpali, Aleksi Lehtonen, Michael Herbst, Tapio Linkosalo, Carina Ortiz, Gorana Rampazzo Todorovic, Saulius Marcinkonis, Changsheng Lii, Robert Jandl
How consistent are the simulation models in their soil carbon assessments at forest stand level?

7. Data used
Meteorological data: Temperature and precipitation at daily resolution

8. Models applied

9. Main results and conclusions Biomass C stock estimates reasonaly consistent

10. But more differences were found in soil C simulations

11. 2) Modeling the impacts of LUC
During the Vilnius and Milan workshops it was agreed that
Lithuanian LUC study site (data provided by Saulius) and to start with an afforestation case
Possibly to continue with an abandoned agricultural site
More modeling workshops are needed
In Vilnius we also started discussions on possibilities for modelling some LUC case(s). The data was gathered and then discussed in Milan, where we finally agreed to model a Lithuanian LUC study site (provided by Saulius) and to start with an afforestation case and perhaps to continue with an abandoned agricultural site.

12. Activities continuing
Modeling of growing energy crops on residual cutaway peat, DNDC, COUP
Narasinha Shurpali (UEF), Annemieke Gärdenäs (SLU)
The LUC work continues and will be coordinated by Carina Ortiz, SLU
SLU can organize a modeling workshop in Uppsala in October 2010
In addition, Shurpali provided the Linnansuo dataset for a model comparison and I got an impression that he together with the COUP team may be working with that. As that is on organic soil, the other modellers were hesitating to join that activitity with the models aimed mainly for mineral soils. More information about that activity you could perhaps ask directly from Shurpali.