Carbon forestry is surprising

Background Forestry offers possibilities to sequestrate carbon in living biomass, deadwood and forest soil, as well as in products prepared of wood. In addition, the use of wood may reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. However, harvesting decreases the carbon stocks of forests and increases em...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forest Ecosystems
Main Authors: Pukkala, Timo
Other Authors: School of Forest Sciences, activities
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Springer Nature 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/6261
id ftuniveasternfin:oai:erepo.uef.fi:123456789/6261
record_format openpolar
spelling ftuniveasternfin:oai:erepo.uef.fi:123456789/6261 2023-05-15T16:13:04+02:00 Carbon forestry is surprising Pukkala Timo School of Forest Sciences, activities 2018-04-10T06:09:04Z https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/6261 EN eng Springer Nature Forest Ecosystems http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5 10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5 11 2197-5620 5 https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/6261 CC BY 4.0 openAccess © Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CC-BY carbon balance carbon sequestration decomposition model wood product modelBoreal forest Tieteelliset aikakauslehtiartikkelit A1 article artikkeli 2018 ftuniveasternfin https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5 2023-01-25T23:58:24Z Background Forestry offers possibilities to sequestrate carbon in living biomass, deadwood and forest soil, as well as in products prepared of wood. In addition, the use of wood may reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. However, harvesting decreases the carbon stocks of forests and increases emissions from decomposing harvest residues. Methods This study used simulation and optimization to maximize carbon sequestration in a boreal forest estate consisting of nearly 600 stands. A reference management plan maximized net present value and the other plans maximized the total carbon balance of a 100-, 200- or 300-year planning horizon, taking into account the carbon balances of living forest biomass, dead organic matter, and wood-based products Results Maximizing carbon balance led to low cutting level with all three planning horizons. Depending on the time span, the carbon balance of these schedules was 2 to 3.5 times higher than in the plan that maximized net present value. It was not optimal to commence cuttings when the carbon pool of living biomass and dead organic matter stopped increasing after 150–200 years. Conclusions Letting many mature trees to die was a better strategy than harvesting them when the aim was to maximize the long-term carbon balance of boreal Fennoscandian forest. The reason for this conclusion was that large dead trees are better carbon stores than harvested trees. To alter this outcome, a higher proportion of harvested trees should be used for products in which carbon is stored for long time. published version peerReviewed Article in Journal/Newspaper Fennoscandian UEF eRepository (University of Eastern Finland) Deadwood ENVELOPE(-117.453,-117.453,56.733,56.733) Forest Ecosystems 5 1
institution Open Polar
collection UEF eRepository (University of Eastern Finland)
op_collection_id ftuniveasternfin
language English
topic carbon balance
carbon sequestration
decomposition model
wood product modelBoreal forest
spellingShingle carbon balance
carbon sequestration
decomposition model
wood product modelBoreal forest
Pukkala
Timo
Carbon forestry is surprising
topic_facet carbon balance
carbon sequestration
decomposition model
wood product modelBoreal forest
description Background Forestry offers possibilities to sequestrate carbon in living biomass, deadwood and forest soil, as well as in products prepared of wood. In addition, the use of wood may reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. However, harvesting decreases the carbon stocks of forests and increases emissions from decomposing harvest residues. Methods This study used simulation and optimization to maximize carbon sequestration in a boreal forest estate consisting of nearly 600 stands. A reference management plan maximized net present value and the other plans maximized the total carbon balance of a 100-, 200- or 300-year planning horizon, taking into account the carbon balances of living forest biomass, dead organic matter, and wood-based products Results Maximizing carbon balance led to low cutting level with all three planning horizons. Depending on the time span, the carbon balance of these schedules was 2 to 3.5 times higher than in the plan that maximized net present value. It was not optimal to commence cuttings when the carbon pool of living biomass and dead organic matter stopped increasing after 150–200 years. Conclusions Letting many mature trees to die was a better strategy than harvesting them when the aim was to maximize the long-term carbon balance of boreal Fennoscandian forest. The reason for this conclusion was that large dead trees are better carbon stores than harvested trees. To alter this outcome, a higher proportion of harvested trees should be used for products in which carbon is stored for long time. published version peerReviewed
author2 School of Forest Sciences, activities
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Pukkala
Timo
author_facet Pukkala
Timo
author_sort Pukkala
title Carbon forestry is surprising
title_short Carbon forestry is surprising
title_full Carbon forestry is surprising
title_fullStr Carbon forestry is surprising
title_full_unstemmed Carbon forestry is surprising
title_sort carbon forestry is surprising
publisher Springer Nature
publishDate 2018
url https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/6261
long_lat ENVELOPE(-117.453,-117.453,56.733,56.733)
geographic Deadwood
geographic_facet Deadwood
genre Fennoscandian
genre_facet Fennoscandian
op_relation Forest Ecosystems
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5
10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5
11
2197-5620
5
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/6261
op_rights CC BY 4.0
openAccess
© Authors
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5
container_title Forest Ecosystems
container_volume 5
container_issue 1
_version_ 1765998673242619904