Research Article
Participatory Forest Carbon Assessment and REDD+: Learning from Tanzania
Table 8
Stand parameters for three studied VLFR.
| Forest name | Vegetation type | | (M2/ha) | (M3/ha) | Biomass (t/ha) | Carbon (t/ha) |
| Mihumo | Dry miombo | (14) | (7.99) | (14.79) | (14.79) | (14.79) | Wet miombo | (34) | (25.77) | (46.02) | (46.02) | (46.02) | Closed forest | (8) | (16.5) | (19.98) | (19.98) | (19.98) |
| Ngongowele | Dry miombo | (19) | (8.58) | (12.93) | (12.93) | (12.93) | Closed forest | (42) | (32.39) | (53.13) | (53.13) | (53.13) | Encroached river basin | (83) | (29.59) | (32.25) | (32.25) | (32.25) |
| Ngunja | Lowland dry miombo | (15) | (9.42) | (13.59) | (13.59) | (13.59) | Upland dry miombo | (19) | (9.67) | (16.13) | (16.13) | (16.13) |
|
|
The figures in brackets indicate precision level of estimates, that is, confidence intervals as percentage of mean value.
|