Logo
Login     Register     Shibboleth     Cart

pub-serv-ad

Advanced Search

Article

« Previous TOC Next »

Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution

Erik Eriksson,a Andrew R. Gillespie,b, Leif Gustavsson,c, Ola Langvall,d, Mats Olsson,e, Roger Sathre,f, Johan Stendahlg,

aDepartment of Bioenergy, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. 7060, SE 75007 Uppsala, Sweden.

bDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, Pfendler Hall, West Lafayette, IN, 47907 USA.

cEcotechnology, Mid Sweden University, SE 83125 Östersund, Sweden.

dUnit for Field-based Forest Research, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Asa Forest Research Station, SE 36030 Lammhult, Sweden.

eDepartment of Forest Soils, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. 7001, SE 75007 Uppsala, Sweden.

fEcotechnology, Mid Sweden University, 83125 Östersund, Sweden.

gDepartment of Forest Soils, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. 7001, SE 75007 Uppsala, Sweden.

Corresponding author

Published on the web 24 May 2007.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2007, 37:(3) 671-681, 10.1139/X06-257

Abstract

The complex fluxes between standing and harvested carbon stocks, and the linkage between harvested biomass and fossil fuel substitution, call for a holistic, system-wide analysis in a life-cycle perspective to evaluate the impacts of forest management and forest product use on carbon balances. We have analysed the net carbon emission under alternative forest management strategies and product uses, considering the carbon fluxes and stocks associated with tree biomass, soils, and forest products. Simulations were made using three Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forest management regimes (traditional, intensive management, and intensive fertilization), three slash management practices (no removal, removal, and removal with stumps), two forest product uses (construction material and biofuel), and two reference fossil fuels (coal and natural gas). The greatest reduction of net carbon emission occurred when the forest was fertilized, slash and stumps were harvested, wood was used as construction material, and the reference fossil fuel was coal. The lowest reduction occurred with a traditional forest management, forest residues retained on site, and harvested biomass was used as biofuel to replace natural gas. Product use had the greatest impact on net carbon emission, whereas forest management regime, reference fossil fuel, and forest residue usage as biofuel were less significant.

References

  • Ågren, G.I., and Bosatta, E. 1998. Theoretical ecosystem ecology—understanding element cycles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Ågren GI, Hyvönen R. 2003. Changes in carbon stores in Swedish forest soils due to increased biomass harvest and increased temperatures analysed with a semi-empirical model. For. Ecol. Manage. 174: 25-37 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Ågren GI, Bosatta E, Magill AH. 2001. Combining theory and experiment to understand effects of inorganic nitrogen on litter decomposition. Oecologia 128: 94-98 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Ågren GI, Hyvönen R, Nilsson T. 2007. Are Swedish forest soils sinks or sources for CO2 — model analysis based on forest inventory data. Biogeochemistry 82((3)): 217-227 ISI.
  • Berg S, Lindholm E-L. 2005. Energy use and environmental impacts of forest operations in Sweden. J. Cleaner Prod. 13: 33-42 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Bergh J, Linder S, Bergström J. 2005. The potential production for Norway spruce in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 204: 1-10 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Börjesson PII. 1996. Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation. Biomass Bioenergy 11: 305-318 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Börjesson P, Gustavsson L. 2000. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy 28: 575-588 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Cernold, Å. 1981. Utbytestabeller för rotstående skog, Södra Sverige. Centrala Sågverksföreningen, Falun, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
  • Chen W, Chen JM, Price DT, Cihlar J, Liu J. 2000. Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: a simulation study. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Global Change 5: 143-169 CrossRef.
  • Covington WW. 1981. Changes in the forest floor organic matter and nutrient content following clear cutting in northern hardwoods. Ecology 62: 41-48 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Davis, J., and Haglund, C. 1999. Life cycle inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production — fertiliser products used in Sweden and Western Europe. SIK Rep. No. 654. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Egnell, G., Nohrstedt, H.-Ö., Weslien, J., Westling, O., and Örlander, G. 1998. Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning (MKB) av skogsbränsleuttag, asktillförsel och övrig näringskompensation. Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping, Sweden. Rapport 1/1998. Available from http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/forlag/rapporter/1639.pdf. [Cited 8 September 2006]. [In Swedish.]
  • Ekö, P.M. 1985. A growth simulator for Swedish forests, based on data from the national forest survey. Department of Silviculture, Swedish University Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Rep. No. 16 (dissertation). [In Swedish with English summary.]
  • Fahlvik, N. 2005. Aspects of precommercial thinning in heterogeneous forests in Southern Sweden. [Dissertation.] Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Acta Univ. Agric. Suec. No. 2005:68.
  • Gustavsson L, Karlsson Å. 2006. CO2 mitigation: on methods and parameters for comparison of fossil-fuel and biofuel systems. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Global Change 11: 935-959 CrossRef.
  • Gustavsson L, Sathre R. 2006. Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build. Environ. 41: 940-951 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Gustavsson L, Börjesson P, Johansson B, Svenningsson P. 1995. Reducing CO2 emissions by substituting biomass for fossil fuels. Energy 20: 1097-1113 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Gustavsson L, Madlener R, Hoen H-F, Jungmeier G, Karjalainen T, Klöhn S, Mahapatra K, Pohjola J, Solberg B, Spelter H. 2006. The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Global Change 11: 1097-1127 a CrossRef.
  • Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R. 2006. Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Global Change 11: 667-691 b CrossRef.
  • Hägglund, B., and Lundmark, J.-E. 1981. Handledning i bonitering med Skogshögskolans boniteringssystem — definitioner och anvisningar. Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping, Sweden. 53 pp. [In Swedish.]
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York.
  • Jacobson S, Kukkola M, Mälkönen E, Tveite B. 2000. Impact of whole-tree harvesting and compensatory fertilization on growth of coniferous thinning stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 129: 41-51 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Johnson DW, Curtis PS. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. For. Ecol. Manage. 140: 203-211 .
  • Kaipainen T, Liski J, Pussinen A, Karjalainen T. 2004. Managing carbon sinks by changing rotation length in European forests. Environ. Sci. Policy 7: 205-219 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Kurz WA, Beukema SJ, Apps MJ. 1998. Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Global Change 2: 405-421 CrossRef.
  • Laasasenaho J. 1975. Dependence of the amount of harvestable timber upon the stump height and the top-logging diameter. Folia For. (Hels), 233: 1-20 [In Finnish with English summary.] .
  • Lehtonen A, Mäkipää R, Heikkinen J, Sievänen R, Liski J. 2004. Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 188: 211-224 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Lippke B, Wilson J, Perez-Garcia J, Boyer J, Meil J. 2004. CORRIM: life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials. For. Prod. J. 54: 8-19 ISI.
  • Liski J, Karjalainen T, Pussinen A, Nabuurs G-J, Kauppi P. 2000. Trees as carbon sinks and sources in the European Union. Environ. Sci. Policy 3: 91-97 CrossRef.
  • Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T. 2001. Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Can. J. For. Res. 31: 2004-2013 Abstract, ISI.
  • Marklund, L.G. 1988. Biomass functions for pine, spruce and birch in Sweden. Rep. No. 45. Department of Forest Survey, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary.]
  • Marland G, Schlamadinger B. 1995. Biomass fuels and forest-management strategies: how do we calculate the greenhouse gas emission benefits? Energy 20: 1131-1140 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Martikainen PJ, Aarnio T, Taavitsainen V-M, Päivinen L, Salonen K. 1989. Mineralization of carbon and nitrogen in soil samples taken from three fertilized pine stands: long-term effects. Plant Soil 114: 99-106 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Mead DJ, Pimentel D. 2006. Use of energy analysis in silvicultural decision-making. Biomass Bioenergy 30: 357-362 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Muukkonen P, Lehtonen A. 2004. Needle and branch biomass turnover rates of Norway spruce (Picea abies). Can. J. For. Res. 34: 2517-2527 Abstract, ISI.
  • Myneni RB, Dong J, Tucker CJ, Kaufmann RK, Kauppi PE, Liski J, Zhou L, Alexeyev V, Hughes MK. 2001. A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of northern forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98: 14784-14789 CrossRef, Medline, ISI.
  • Nabuurs G-J, Schelhaas M-J, Mohren GMJ, Field CB. 2003. Temporal evolution of the European forest sector carbon sink from 1950 to 1999. Global Change Biol. 9: 152-160 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Nohrstedt HO, Arnebrant K, Bååth E, Söderström B. 1989. Changes in carbon content, respiration rate, ATP content, and microbial biomass in nitrogen-fertilized pine forest soils in Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 19: 323-328 Abstract, ISI.
  • Peltoniemi M, Mäkipää R, Liski J, Tamminen P. 2004. Changes in soil carbon with stand age — an evaluation of a modelling method with empirical data. Global Change Biol. 10: 2078-2091 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Pettersson H, Ståhl G. 2006. Functions for belowground biomass of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula pendula and Betula pubescens in Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 21: 84-93 .
  • Schlamadinger B, Apps M, Bohlin F, Gustavsson L, Jungmeier G, Marland G, Pingoud K, Savolainen I. 1997. Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass Bioenergy 13: 359-375 CrossRef, ISI.
  • Valentini R, Matteucci G, Dolman AJ, Schulze E-D, Rebmann C, Moors EJ, Granier A, Gross P, Jensen NO, Pilegaard K, Lindroth A, Grelle A, Bernhofer C, Grünwald T, Aubinet M, Ceulemans R, Kowalski AS, Vesala T, Rannik Ü, Berbigier P, Loustau D, Gudmundsson J, Thorgeirsson H, Ibrom A, Morgenstern K, Clement R, Moncreiff J, Montagnani L, Minerbi S, Jarvis PG. 2000. Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature (London) 404: 861-865 CrossRef, Medline, ISI.
  • Wood, S., and Cowie, A. 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. Report for IEA Bioenergy Task 38. International Energy Agency, Paris. Available from http://www.joanneum.ac.at/ iea-bioenergy-task38/publications/ [Accessed 8 September 2006.]
  • Yanai RD, Currie WS, Goodale CL. 2003. Soil carbon dynamics after forest harvest: an ecosystem paradigm reconsideration. Ecosystems 6: 197-212 CrossRef, ISI.

Cited by

View all 42 citing articles