Participatory Forest Carbon Assessment and REDD+: Learning from Tanzania

Table 8

Stand parameters for three studied VLFR.

Forest name	Vegetation type	𝑁	𝐺 (M^2/ha)	𝑉 (M^3/ha)	Biomass (t/ha)	Carbon (t/ha)
Mihumo	Dry miombo	870±119; (14)	9.8±0.78; (7.99)	68.95±10.20; (14.79)	34.48±5.1; (14.79)	17.24±2.55; (14.79)
	Wet miombo	639±215; (34)	9.21±2.37; (25.77)	67±30.83; (46.02)	33.5±15.42; (46.02)	16.75±7.71; (46.02)
	Closed forest	2824±237; (8)	29.23±4.83; (16.5)	339.59±67.86; (19.98)	169.79±33.71; (19.98)	84.89±16.85; (19.98)
Ngongowele	Dry miombo	731±138; (19)	11.37±0.98; (8.58)	77.46±10.02; (12.93)	38.73±5.01; (12.93)	19.36±2.51; (12.93)
	Closed forest	3305±1402; (42)	16.17±5.24; (32.39)	166.94±88.69; (53.13)	83.47±44.35; (53.13)	41.73±22.17; (53.13)
	Encroached river basin	253±210; (83)	5.85±1.73; (29.59)	28.82±9.29; (32.25)	14.41±4.65; (32.25)	7.2±2.32; (32.25)
Ngunja	Lowland dry miombo	903±136; (15)	9.82±0.92; (9.42)	73.49±9.99; (13.59)	36.75±5; (13.59)	18.37±2.2.5; (13.59)
	Upland dry miombo	795±155; (19)	9.98±0.96; (9.67)	72.05±11.63; (16.13)	36.03±5.81; (16.13)	18.02±2.9; (16.13)

The figures in brackets indicate precision level of estimates, that is, confidence intervals as percentage of mean value.