Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:02:14.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - A System to Integrate Multiscaled Data Sources for Improving Terrestrial Carbon Balance Estimates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

By
Jordan Golinkoff  and
Steven Running
Edited by
Daniel G. Brown ,
Derek T. Robinson ,
Nancy H. F. French  and
Bradley C. Reed
Daniel G. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Derek T. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Nancy H. F. French
Affiliation:
Michigan Technological University
Bradley C. Reed
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey, California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Motivation and Applications

Between 6 and 17 percent of the total annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions come from terrestrial ecosystem degradation or loss, making up the second-largest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the world after fossil fuel emissions (van der Werf et al. 2009). Because of this, many policy makers have focused on reducing emissions from terrestrial ecosystems as one way to help mitigate climate change. The estimation of carbon (C) stocks and fluxes that result from land-use change and ecosystem management is critical for policies that attempt to incentivize increased ecosystem sequestration or reduced emissions of GHGs. Furthermore, estimates of potential sequestration rates in optimal conditions, as well as anticipated changes in growth rates due to climate change, are important in understanding how emissions reductions or sequestration fit within a broader understanding of terrestrial C exchange.

For more than a decade, decision makers have debated how to best include terrestrial ecosystems in policy approaches to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Recently, these discussions have focused on reducing emissions from deforestation or ecosystem degradation (REDD) at a country scale (see Chapters 8, 17, and 20 for more information on REDD). A REDD policy framework therefore requires credible estimates of the state of ecosystem C stocks and fluxes at a country scale as well as some understanding of how ecosystems have changed in the past and might change in the future at this scale. As policy makers in the international arena struggle to craft national REDD policies, the voluntary C market has rapidly evolved to fill the void left by the absence of international climate-change policy. The voluntary C offset market relies on a suite of different C offset standards (Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance [CCBA] 2008; Verified Carbon Standard [VCS] 2012; Climate Action Reserve [CAR] 2010) that provide guidance on how to monitor, report, and verify C sequestration activities at much smaller scales (e.g., project level vs. country scale). Given the state of REDD policy and the voluntary C market, the purpose of this chapter is to explore a technical approach that can be used to generate credible estimates of C stocks and fluxes and to constrain the claimed benefits of C projects or policies at multiple scales.

Type
Chapter
Information
Land Use and the Carbon Cycle
Advances in Integrated Science, Management, and Policy
 , pp. 259 - 286
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achard, F., Brown, S., DeFries, R., Grassi, G., Herold, M., Mollicone, D.,…Souza, C., eds. 2009. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries: A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring, measuring, and reporting. Alberta, Canada: GOFC-GOLD Project Office, hosted by Natural Resources Canada.Google Scholar
Albani, M., Medvigy, D., Hurtt, G., and Moorcroft, P. 2006. The contributions of land-use change, CO2 fertilization, and climate variability to the eastern US carbon sink. Global Change Biology, 12:2370–2390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrose, A., Sillett, S., and Dawson, T. 2009. Effects of tree height on branch hydraulics, leaf structure and gas exchange in California redwoods. Plant, Cell, and Environment, 32(7):743–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arney, J., Milner, K., and Klienhenz, B. 2007. Biometrics of forest inventory, forest growth, and forest planning. Missoula, MT: Forest Biometrics Research Institute.Google Scholar
Avery, T., and Burkhart, H. 2001. Forest measurements, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
Baccini, A., Laporte, N., Goetz, S., Sun, M., and Dong, H. 2008. A first map of tropical Africa's above-ground biomass derived from satellite imagery. Environmental Research Letters, 3(4):045011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtold, W., and Patterson, P. 2005. The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program – national sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. tech. rep. SRS-80. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
Berrill, J., and O’Hara, K. 2003. Predicting multi-aged coast redwood stand growth and yield using leaf area allocation. Report prepared for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.Google Scholar
Blackard, J., Finco, M., Helmer, E., Holden, G., Hoppus, M., Jacobs, D.,…Tymcio, R. 2008. Mapping U.S. forest biomass using nationwide forest inventory data and moderate resolution information. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(4):1658–1677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, S., and Dawson, T. 2004. The contribution of fog to the water relations of Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don): Foliar uptake and prevention of dehydration. Plant, Cell, and Environment, 27(8):1023–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busing, R., and Fujimori, T. 2005. Biomass, production and woody detritus in an old coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forest. Plant Ecology, 177:177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAR. 2010. Forest project protocol, version 3.2. Climate Action Reserve [online]. .Google Scholar
CCBA. 2008. Climate, community and biodiversity project design standards, 2d ed. [online]. .Google Scholar
Chapin, F. III, Woodwell, G., Randerson, J., Rastetter, E., Lovett, G., Baldocchi, D.,…Schulze, E. 2006. Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems, 9:1041–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, W., Kicklighter, D.W., Bondeau, A., Moore, B. III, Churkina, G., Nemry, B.,…Schloss, A.L. 1999. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): Overview and key results. Global Change Biology, 5(Suppl. 1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K., Bakwin, P., Yi, C., Berger, B., Zhao, C., Teclaw, R., and Isebrands, J. 2003. The annual cycles of CO2 and H2O exchange over a northern mixed forest as observed from a very tall tower. Global Change Biology, 9(9):1278–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, T. 1998. Fog in the California redwood forest: Ecosystem inputs and use by plants. Oecologia, 117(4):476–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Pury, D., and Farquhar, G. 1997. Simple scaling of photosynthesis from leaves to canopies without the errors of big-leaf models. Plant, Cell, and Environment, 20:537–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, G.E. 2010. Essential FVS: A user's guide to the forest vegetation simulator. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Management Service Center.Google Scholar
Evensen, G. 2003. The ensemble Kalman filter: Theoretical formulation and practical implementation. Ocean Dynamics, 53(4):343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewers, R.M., Laurence, W.F., and Souza, C.M. 2008. Temporal fluctuations in Amazonian deforestation rates. Environmental Conservation, 35(4):303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, H., Weathers, K., Templer, P., Dawson, T., Firestone, M., Elliott, A., and Boukili, V. 2009. Fog water and ecosystem function: Heterogeneity in a California redwood forest. Ecosystems, 12(3):417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, A., Williams, M., Richardson, A., Cameron, D., Gove, J., Quaife, T.,…Van Wijk, M. 2009. The reflex project: Comparing different algorithms and implementations for the inversion of a terrestrial ecosystem model against eddy covariance data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(10):1597–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillis, M. 2001. Canada's national forest inventory (responding to current information needs). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 67(1–2):121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, S., Baccini, A., Laporte, N., Johns, T., Walker, W., Kellndorfer, J.,…Sun, M. 2009. Mapping and monitoring carbon stocks with satellite observations: A comparison of methods. Carbon Balance and Management, 4:2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, J. 2010. Biome-BGC version 4.2: The theoretical framework. Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana [online]. .
Hart, J., and Martinez, K. 2006. Environmental sensor networks: A revolution in the earth system science?Earth-Science Reviews, 78(3–4):177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenauer, H., Merganicova, K., Petritsch, R., Pietsch, S., and Thornton, P. 2003. Validating daily climate interpolations over complex terrain in Austria. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 119(1–2):87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinsch, F., Zhao, M., Running, S., Kimball, J., Nemani, R., Davis, K.,…Flanagan, L. 2006. Evaluation of remote sensing based terrestrial productivity from MODIS using regional eddy flux network observations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44(7):1908–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, R., Butman, D., Bunn, A., Krankina, O., Schlesinger, P., and Stone, T. 2007. Mapping Russian forest biomass with data from satellites and forest inventories. Environmental Research Letters, 2(4):045032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R., and Wichern, D. 2002. Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J., and Dawson, T. 2010. Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(10):4533–4538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, J. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser Forestry paper no. 8, Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center, Centralia, Washington.
Kitahara, F., Mizoue, N., and Yoshida, S. 2009. Evaluation of data quality in Japanese national forest inventory. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 159(1):331–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knorr, W., and Kattge, J. 2005. Inversion of terrestrial ecosystem model parameter values against eddy covariance measurements by Monte Carlo sampling. Global Change Biology, 11(8):1333–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, G., Sillett, S., Jennings, G., and Davis, S. 2004. The limits to tree height. Nature, 428(6985):851–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambers, H., Chapin, F., and Pons, T. 2008. Plant physiological ecology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, J., and Waring, R. 1997. A generalized model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. Forest Ecology and Management, 95(3):209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, J., Waring, R., and Coops, N. 2003. Performance of the forest productivity model 3-PG applied to a wide range of forest types. Forest Ecology and Management, 172(2–3):199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larcher, W. 2003. Physiological plant ecology: Ecophysiology and stress physiology of functional groups. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, B., Arkebauer, T., Campbell, J., Chen, J., Sun, O., Schwartz, M.,…Verma, S. 2008. TCO: Terrestrial carbon observations: Protocols for vegetation sampling and data submissions. Ottawa, Canada: Global Terrestrial Carbon Observing System.Google Scholar
Maselli, F., Chiesi, M., Fibbi, L., and Moriondo, M. 2008. Integration of remote sensing and ecosystem modelling techniques to estimate forest net carbon uptake. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(8):2437–2443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, P., and O’Neill, A. 2008. Data assimilation: From photon counts to Earth system forecasts. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(4):1258–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, J., and Loescher, H. 2006. Guidelines for making eddy covariance flux measurements. Ameriflux. .
Muukkonen, P., and Heiskanen, J. 2007. Biomass estimation over a large area based on stand-wise forest inventory data and aster and MODIS satellite data: A possibility to verify carbon inventories. Remote Sensing of Environment, 107(4):617–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemani, R.R., Keeling, C.D., Hashimoto, H., Jolly, W.M., Piper, S.C., Tucker, C.J.,…Running, S.W. 2003. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science, 300(5625):1560–1563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paivinen, R., Van Brusselen, J., and Schuck, A. 2009. The growing stock of European forests using remote sensing and forest inventory data. Forestry, 82(5):479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, S., Hasenauer, H., and Thornton, P. 2005. BGC-model parameters for tree species growing in central European forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(3):264–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porté, A., and Bartelink, H. 2002. Modelling mixed forest growth: A review of models for forest management. Ecological Modelling, 150(1–2):141–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C., Gross, P., Klooster, S., Fladeland, M., and Genovese, V. 2008. Storage of carbon in U.S. forests predicted from satellite data, ecosystem modeling, and inventory summaries. Climatic Change, 90(3):269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C., Klooster, S., Hiatt, S., Fladeland, M., Genovese, V., and Gross, P. 2007. Satellite-derived estimates of potential carbon sequestration through afforestation of agricultural lands in the United States. Climatic Change, 80:323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C., Klooster, S., Myneni, R., Genovese, V., Tan, P., and Kumar, V. 2003. Continental-scale comparisons of terrestrial carbon sinks estimated from satellite data and ecosystem modeling 1982–1998. Global and Planetary Change, 39(3–4):201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C., Randerson, J., Field, C., Matson, P., Vitousek, P., Mooney, H., and Klooster, S. 1993. Terrestrial ecosystem production: A process model based on global satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 7(4):811–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, S., Cohen, W., Healey, S., Kennedy, R., Moisen, G., Pierce, K., and Ohmann, J. 2010. Quantification of live aboveground forest biomass dynamics with Landsat time-series and field inventory data: A comparison of empirical modeling approaches. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(5):1053–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randerson, J., Hoffman, F., Thornton, P., Mahowald, N., Lindsay, K., Lee, Y.,…Fung, I. 2009. Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled climate-carbon models. Global Change Biology, 15(10):1462–2484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M., Rayner, P., Barrett, D., DeFries, R., Heimann, M., Ojima, D.,…Schmullius, C. 2005. Model data synthesis in terrestrial carbon observation: Methods, data requirements and data uncertainty specifications. Global Change Biology, 11(3):378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, R. 2008. Data assimilation methods in the earth sciences. Advances in Water Resources, 31(11):1411–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundel, P., Graham, E., Allen, M., Fisher, J., and Harmon, T. 2009. Environmental sensor networks in ecological research. New Phytologist, 182(3):589–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Running, S., Baldocchi, D., Turner, D., Gower, S., Bakwin, P., and Hibbard, K. 1999. A global terrestrial monitoring network integrating tower fluxes, flask sampling, ecosystem modeling and EOS satellite data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 70(1):108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Running, S., Nemani, R., Heinsch, F., Zhao, M., Reeves, M., and Hashimoto, H. 2004. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. BioScience, 54(6):547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Running, S.W., Nemani, R.R., Peterson, D.L., Band, L.E., Potts, D.F., Pierce, L.L., and Spanner, M.A. 1989. Mapping regional forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis by coupling satellite data with ecosystem simulation. Ecology, 70(4):1090–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatchi, S., Houghton, R., Alvalá, R., Soares, J., and Yu, Y. 2007. Distribution of aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin. Global Change Biology, 13(4):816–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, P., and Landsberg, J. 2002. Parameterisation of 3-PG for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus. Forest Ecology and Management, 163(1–3):273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiver, B., and Borders, B. 1996. Sampling techniques for forest resource inventory. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Shoch, D., Kaster, G., Hohl, A., and Souter, R. 2009. Carbon storage of bottomland hardwood afforestation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, USA. Wetlands, 29(2):535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonin, K., Santiago, L., and Dawson, T. 2009. Fog interception by Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) crowns decouples physiology from soil water deficit. Plant, Cell, and Environment, 32(7):882–892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tague, C.L., and Band, L.E. 2004. RHESSYS: Regional hydro-ecologic simulation system – an object-oriented approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water, and nutrient cycling. Earth Interactions, 8(19):1–42.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. 1998. Regional ecosystem simulation: Combining surface- and satellite-based observations to study linkages between terrestrial energy and mass budgets. PhD diss., University of Montana, College of Forestry.
Thornton, P., Hasenauer, H., and White, M. 2000. Simultaneous estimation of daily solar radiation and humidity from observed temperature and precipitation: An application over complex terrain in Austria. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 104(4):255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P., Law, B., Gholz, H., Clark, K., Falge, E., Ellsworth, D.,…Sparks, J. 2002. Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 113:185–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P., and Rosenbloom, N. 2005. Ecosystem model spin-up: Estimating steady state conditions in a coupled terrestrial carbon and nitrogen cycle model. Ecological Modelling, 189(1–2):25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P., and Running, S. 1999. An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity, and precipitation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 93(4):211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P., and Running, S. 2002. User's guide for Biome-BGC, version 4.1.2. Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group [online]. .
Thornton, P., Running, S., and White, M. 1997. Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. Journal of Hydrology, 190(3–4):214–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P., and Zimmermann, N. 2007. An improved canopy integration scheme for a land surface model with prognostic canopy structure. Journal of Climate, 20(15):3902–3923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thum, T., Aalto, T., Laurila, T., Aurela, M., Kolari, P., and Hari, P. 2007. Parametrization of two photosynthesis models at the canopy scale in a northern boreal Scots-pine forest. Tellus B, 59(5):874–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, D., Ollinger, S., and Kimball, J. 2004. Integrating remote sensing and ecosystem process models for landscape- to regional-scale analysis of the carbon cycle. BioScience, 54(6):573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, D., Ritts, W., Law, B., Cohen, W., Yang, Z., Hudiburg, T.,…Duane, M. 2007. Scaling net ecosystem production and net biome production over a heterogeneous region in the western United States. Biogeosciences, 4(4):597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanclay, J. 1994. Modelling forest growth and yield: Applications to mixed tropical forests. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, G., Morton, D., DeFries, R., Olivier, J., Kasibhatla, P., Jackson, R.,…Randerson, J. 2009. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience, 2(11):737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Pelt, R., and Franklin, J.F. 2000. Influence of canopy structure on the understory environment in tall, old-growth, conifer forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30(8):1231–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VCS. 2012. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements. Verified Carbon Standard [online]. .
Wang, Y., Baldocchi, D., Leuning, R., Falge, E., and Vesala, T. 2007. Estimating parameters in a land-surface model by applying nonlinear inversion to eddy covariance flux measurements from eight Fluxnet sites. Global Change Biology, 13(3):652–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Trudinger, C., and Enting, I. 2009. A review of applications of model-data fusion to studies of terrestrial carbon fluxes at different scales. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(11):1829–1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waring, R., and Running, S. 2007. Forest ecosystems: Analysis at multiple scales. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weathers, K. 1999. The importance of cloud and fog in the maintenance of ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14(6):214–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, M., Thornton, P., and Running, S. 1997. A continental phenology model for monitoring vegetation responses to interannual climatic variability. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 11(2):217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M., Thornton, P., Running, S., and Nemani, R. 2000. Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the Biome-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: Net primary production controls. Earth Interactions, 4:1–85.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulder, M., White, J., Fournier, R., Luther, J., and Magnussen, S. 2008. Spatially explicit large area biomass estimation: Three approaches using forest inventory and remotely sensed imagery in a GIS. Sensors, 8(1):529–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J., Zhang, C., Li, X., Huang, Y., Fu, S., and Acevedo, M. 2009. Integration of wireless sensor networks in environmental monitoring cyber infrastructure. Wireless Networks, 16(4):1091–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., and Kondragunta, S. 2006. Estimating forest biomass in the USA using generalized allometric models and MODIS land products. Geophysical Research Letters, 33:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, L., Chen, J., Qin, Q., Li, J., and Wang, L. 2009. Optimization of ecosystem model parameters using spatio-temporal soil moisture information. Ecological Modelling, 220(18):2121–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinke, P., and Crocker, R. 1962. The influence of giant sequoia on soil properties. Forest Science, 8(1):2–11.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×