Table 5. Comparison of carbon storage per tree by diameter growth for study species (kg/tree)
| Method | Species | Diameter(cm) |
| 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 |
| Direct harvestinga | Camellia japonica | 0.6 | 2.2 | 5.5 | 11.2 | 20.0 | - | - | - |
| Lagerstroemia indica | 1.0 | 2.5 | 4.8 | 8.1 | 12.4 | 17.7 | 24.1 | - |
| Quercus myrsinaefolia | 2.5 | 6.8 | 13.9 | 24.0 | 37.6 | 54.9 | 76.2 | 101.8 |
| Biomass equationb | Quercus acuta | 4.9 | 11.1 | 19.9 | 31.6 | 46.5 | 64.9 | 86.9 | 113.0 |
| Quercus glauca | 2.9 | 7.2 | 13.9 | 23.2 | 35.5 | 50.9 | 69.8 | 92.3 |
Applying Regression models from open-grown landscape trees of this study
Applying biomass equations from southern forest-grown trees (KFRI, 2014)