Estimating the carbon budget and maximizing future carbon uptake for a temperate forest region in the U.S.

Carbon Balance and Management

Joseph Buongiorno²  Stith T Gower²  Scott D Peckham¹ 

[1]Present address: Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

[2]Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

关键词: Forest products;    Life cycle inventory;    Carbon sequestration;    Forest harvest;    Temperate forest;    Biome-BGC;    Carbon budget;   

Others  :  792412
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-0680-7-6

 received in 2012-02-23, accepted in 2012-05-09,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Forests of the Midwest U.S. provide numerous ecosystem services. Two of these, carbon sequestration and wood production, are often portrayed as conflicting. Currently, carbon management and biofuel policies are being developed to reduce atmospheric CO₂ and national dependence on foreign oil, and increase carbon storage in ecosystems. However, the biological and industrial forest carbon cycles are rarely studied in a whole-system structure. The forest system carbon balance is the difference between the biological (net ecosystem production) and industrial (net emissions from forest industry) forest carbon cycles, but to date this critical whole system analysis is lacking. This study presents a model of the forest system, uses it to compute the carbon balance, and outlines a methodology to maximize future carbon uptake in a managed forest region.

Results

We used a coupled forest ecosystem process and forest products life cycle inventory model for a regional temperate forest in the Midwestern U.S., and found the net system carbon balance for this 615,000 ha forest was positive (2.29 t C ha^-1 yr^-1). The industrial carbon budget was typically less than 10% of the biological system annually, and averaged averaged 0.082 t C ha^-1 yr^-1. Net C uptake over the next 100-years increased by 22% or 0.33 t C ha^-1 yr^-1 relative to the current harvest rate in the study region under the optized harvest regime.

Conclusions

The forest’s biological ecosystem current and future carbon uptake capacity is largely determined by forest harvest practices that occurred over a century ago, but we show an optimized harvesting strategy would increase future carbon sequestration, or wood production, by 20-30%, reduce long transportation chain emissions, and maintain many desirable stand structural attributes that are correlated to biodiversity. Our results for this forest region suggest that increasing harvest over the next 100 years increases the strength of the carbon sink, and that carbon sequestration and wood production are not conflicting for this particular forest ecosystem. The optimal harvest strategy found here may not be the same for all forests, but the methodology is applicable anywhere sufficient forest inventory data exist.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Peckham et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Odum EP: Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science 1969, 164:262.
• [2]Gower ST: Patterns and mechanisms of the forest carbon cycle. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2003, 28:169-204.
• [3]Goodale CL, Apps MJ, Birdsey RA, Field CB, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jenkins JC, Kohlmaier GH, Kurz W, Liu SR, et al.: Forest carbon sinks in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecol Appl 2002, 12:891-899.
• [4]Crevoisier C, Sweeney C, Gloor M, Sarmiento JL, Tans PP: Regional US carbon sinks from three-dimensional atmospheric CO2 sampling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010, 107:18348-18353.
• [5]Ryan MG, Harmon ME, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, McKinley DC, Morrison JF, Murray BC, et al.: A Synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in Ecology 2010, 13:1-16.
• [6]Running SW, Coughlan JC: A General-Model of Forest Ecosystem Processes for Regional Applications .1. Hydrologic Balance, Canopy Gas-Exchange and Primary Production Processes. Ecol Model 1988, 42:125-154.
• [7]Bond-Lamberty B, Gower ST, Ahl DE, Thornton PE: Reimplementation of the Biome-BGC model to simulate successional change. Tree Physiol 2005, 25:413-424.
• [8]Running SW, Gower ST: Forest-Bgc, a General-Model of Forest Ecosystem Processes for Regional Applications .2. Dynamic Carbon Allocation and Nitrogen Budgets. Tree Physiol 1991, 9:147-160.
• [9]Gower ST, McKeon-Ruediger A, Reitter A, Bradley M, Refkin DJ, Tollefson T, Souba FJ, Taup A, Embury-Williams L, Schiavone S, Weinbauer J, Janetos AC, Jarvis R: Book Following the paper trail: The impacts of magazine and dimensional lumber production on greenhouse gas emissions: A case study. In Following the paper trail: The impacts of magazine and dimensional lumber production on greenhouse gas emissions: A case study. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Washington D.C; 2006:102.
• [10]White MK, Gower ST, Ahl DE: Life cycle inventories of roundwood production in northern Wisconsin: Inputs into an industrial forest carbon budget. For Ecol Manage 2005, 219:13-28.
• [11]Bergman RD, Bowe SA: Environmental Impact of Manufacturing Softwood Lumber in Northeastern and North Central United States. Wood and Fiber Science 2010, 42:67-78.
• [12]United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: United States Timber Industry—An Assessment of Timber Product Output and Use, 1996. Edited by Johnson TG. Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC; 2001. published
• [13]Buongiorno J, Gilless JK: Decision methods for forest resource management. Academic, New York; 2003.
• [14]Book Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes Handbook In Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes Handbook. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, ; . http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/handbook.html webcite (accessed 5/13.2012)
• [15]Rhemtulla JM, Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK: Legacies of historical land use on regional forest composition and structure in Wisconsin, USA (mid-1800 s-1930s-2000s). Ecol Appl 2009, 19:1061-1078.
• [16]Gower ST, McMurtrie RE, Murty D: Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: Potential causes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1996, 11:378-382.
• [17]Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH: Age-Related Decline in Forest Productivity: Pattern and Process. In Adv Ecol Res. Volume Volume 27. Edited by Begon M, Fitter AH. Academic Press, ; 1997:213-262.
• [18]United States Department of Agriculture FS: Book Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Record of Decision. In Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Record of Decision. , Washington, D.C; 2004. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/cnnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5117606 webcite
• [19]Amiro BD, Barr AG, Barr JG, Black TA, Bracho R, Brown M, Chen J, Clark KL, Davis KJ, Desai AR, et al.: Ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes after disturbance in forests of North America. J Geophys Res-Biogeosci 2010, 115:G00K02.
• [20]Peckham SD, Gower ST: Simulated long-term effects of harvest and biomass residue removal on soil carbon and nitrogen content and productivity for two Upper Great Lakes forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 2011, 3:135-147.
• [21]Thornton PE, Law BE, Gholz HL, Clark KL, Falge E, Ellsworth DS, Golstein AH, Monson RK, Hollinger D, Falk M, et al.: Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests. Agric For Meteorol 2002, 113:185-222.
• [22]Bond-Lamberty B, Peckham SD, Ahl DE, Gower ST: Fire as the dominant driver of central Canadian boreal forest carbon balance. Nature 2007, 450:89.
• [23]Desai AR, Noormets A, Bolstad PV, Chen JQ, Cook BD, Davis KJ, Euskirchen ES, Gough CM, Martin JG, Ricciuto DM, et al.: Influence of vegetation and seasonal forcing on carbon dioxide fluxes across the Upper Midwest, USA: Implications for regional scaling. Agric For Meteorol 2008, 148:288-308.
• [24]Noormets A, Chen J, Crow TR: Age-dependent changes in ecosystem carbon fluxes in managed forests in northern wisconsin, USA. Ecosystems 2007, 10:187-203.
• [25]Gough CM, Vogel CS, Schmid HP, Curtis PS: Controls on annual forest carbon storage: Lessons from the past and predictions for the future. Bioscience 2008, 58:609-622.
• [26]Rhemtulla JM, Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK: Historical forest baselines reveal potential for continued carbon sequestration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:6082-6087.
• [27]Lorimer CG, Frelich LE: Natural Disturbance Regimes in Old-Growth Northern Hardwoods - Implications for Restoration Efforts. J For 1994, 92:33-38.
• [28]United States Timber Industry: Book United States Timber Industry - An Assessment of Timber Product Output and Use, 1996. In An Assessment of Timber Product Output and Use, 1996. Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture; 2001:154. vol. SRS-045
• [29]Eriksson E, Gillespie AR, Gustavsson L, Langvall O, Olsson M, Sathre R, Stendahl J: Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For 2007, 37:671-681.
• [30]Birdsey RA, Plantinga AJ, Heath LS: Past and Prospective Carbon Storage in United-States Forests. For Ecol Manage 1993, 58:33-40.
• [31]Barford CC, Wofsy SC, Goulden ML, Munger JW, Pyle EH, Urbanski SP, Hutyra L, Saleska SR, Fitzjarrald D, Moore K: Factors controlling long- and short-term sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in a mid-latitude forest. Science 2001, 294:1688-1691.
• [32]Kauppi PE, Mielikainen K, Kuusela K: Biomass and Carbon Budget of European Forests, 1971 to 1990. Science 1992, 256:70-74.
• [33]Mortimer MJ, Stern MJ, Malmsheimer RW, Blahna DJ, Cerveny LK, Seesholtz DN: Environmental and Social Risks: Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the US Forest Service. J For 2011, 109:27-33.
• [34]Straka TJ, Wisdom HW, Moak JE: Size of Forest Holding and Investment Behavior of Nonindustrial Private Owners. J For 1984, 82:495-496.
• [35]Kendra A, Hull RB: Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 2005, 51:142-154.
• [36]Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC: Book Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. In Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply, U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2005.
• [37]Verschuyl J, Riffell S, Miller D, Wigley TB: Biodiversity response to intensive biomass production from forest thinning in North American forests - A meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage 2011, 261:221-232.
• [38]Summerville KS: Managing the forest for more than the trees: effects of experimental timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera. Ecol Appl 2011, 21:806-816.
• [39]Summerville KS, Crist TO: Effects of timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera: Community, guild, and species responses. Ecol Appl 2002, 12:820-835.
• [40]DeGraaf RM, Hestbeck JB, Yamasaki M: Associations between breeding bird abundance and stand structure in the White Mountains, New Hampshire and Maine, USA. For Ecol Manage 1998, 103:217-233.
• [41]Robinson WD, Robinson SK: Effects of selective logging on forest bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Conserv Biol 1999, 13:58-66.
• [42]Bond-Lamberty B, Peckham SD, Gower ST, Ewers BE: Effects of fire on regional evapotranspiration in the central Canadian boreal forest. Glob Change Biol 2009, 15:1242-1254.
• [43]Wilson BT, Lister AJ, Riemann RI, Griffith DM: Book A moderate resolution nearest-neighbor imputation dataset of the continental United States for large area mapping of forest characteristics using field sampled data. In A moderate resolution nearest-neighbor imputation dataset of the continental United States for large area mapping of forest characteristics using field sampled data. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota; 2009. ongoing
• [44]White MA, Thornton PE, Running SW, Nemani RR: Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the Biome-BGC terrestrial ecosystem process model: net primary production controls. Earth Interactions 2000, 4:1-85.
• [45]Lorimer CG, Dahir SE, Nordheim EV: Tree mortality rates and longevity in mature and old-growth hemlock-hardwood forests. J Ecol 2001, 89:960-971.
• [46]Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. U.S: . General Soil Map (STATSGO2), ; 2012. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov webcite
• [47]Stueve KM, Housman IW, Zimmerman PL, Nelson MD, Webb JB, Perry CH, Chastain RA, Gormanson DD, Huang C, Healey SP, Cohen WB: Snow-covered Landsat time series stacks improve automated disturbance mapping accuracy in forested landscapes. Remote Sens Environ 2011, 115:3203-3219.