William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources...
-
Upload
shauna-mckinney -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources...
William S. Keeton
University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
Towards a Unified Vision of Forest Carbon
Management
Pan et al. 2011. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science
• Deforestation ~15% of annual global GGH emissions
• World forests are a net C sink, sequestering 2.3 Pg/yr
• Can we enhance the strength of the global forest carbon sink?
From: Kuemmerle, T., P. Olofsson, O. Chaskovskyy, M. Baumann, K. Ostapowicz, C.E. Woodcok, R. Houghton, P. Hostert, W.S. Keeton, and V.C. Radeloff. 2011. Post-Soviet farmland abandonment, forest recovery, and carbon sequestration in western Ukraine. Global Change Biology 17:1335–1349.
What is more effective?
• Passive management, favoring carbon storage in reserves?
• Reduced harvesting intensity/frequency, favoring carbon storage in managed forests and durable wood products?
• Intensified forest harvests, favoring fast rates of uptake and emissions offsets achieved through substitution?
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Stand development over time
Tota
l car
bon
Sequ
este
red
Greatest rate of carbon
uptake
Stand development over time
Tota
l car
bon
Sequ
este
red Greatest level of
carbon storage
Competing view #1
Enhanced carbon storage through:
• Conservation of remaining high-biomass, late-successional/old-growth forests
• Redevelopment of high-biomass stand structures on some portion of the landscape
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Forest Age (yrs)
From: S. Luyssaert et al. (2008), Nature.
Old-growth forests are predominantly carbon sinks:
• Net Ecosystem Production > 0
• Ratio of heterotrophic respiration (Rh) to Net Primary Productivity (NPP) < 1
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
From: Burrascano, Keeton et al. 2013. Forest Ecology and Management
Global distribution of temperate forests by latitude
Global Analysis of Temperate Old-growth Forests
R2 = 0.46
R2 = 0.44
R2 = 0.21
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Stand Age (Years)
Ab
ov
egro
un
d B
iom
as
s (
Mg
/ha
)
Live
Dead
Total
Log. (Total)
Log. (Live)
Poly. (Dead)
Aboveground Biomass vs. Stand Age
N=204
Total: r2 = 0.63
Live: r2 = 0.52
Dead: r2 = 0.36
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400 500
Stand Age (years)
Ab
ove
gro
un
d B
iom
ass
(Mg
/ha)
Total (Live + Dead Trees)
Live Trees
Dead Trees
Log. (Total (Live + DeadTrees))Log. (Live Trees)
Log. (Dead Trees)
N=29
US Northeast US Pacific Northwest
Central Carpathians
Total: R2 = 0.63
Live: R2 = 0.57
Dead: R2 = 0.47
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Stand Age (years)
Ab
ove
gro
un
d B
iom
ass
(Mg
/ha)
Total (Live + Dead Trees)
Live Trees
Dead Trees
Log. (Total (Live + DeadTrees))Log. (Live Trees)
Linear (Dead Trees)
N=18Total: R2 = 0.17
Live: R2 = 0.17
Dead: R2 = 0.01
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100 200 300 400 500
Stand Age (years)
Ab
ove
gro
un
d B
iom
ass
(Mg
/ha)
Total (Live + Dead Trees)
Live Trees
Dead Trees
Linear (Total (Live + DeadTrees))Linear (Live Trees)
Linear (Dead Trees)
Tiera Del Fuego, Chile
N=31
R2 = 0.57
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Stand Age (years)
To
tal
Bio
mas
s (M
g/h
a)
China
N = 143
Competing view #2
Enhanced carbon storage through lower intensity management:
• Post-harvest structural retention
• Extended rotations
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Stratified random sample of FIA sites
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/ecomap/eco.shtm
32 stands from the Northern Forest
Region
15 stands from the Adirondack Region
3 stands from the Green Mountain Region
14 stands from the White Mountains and western Maine
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Modeled management scenarios
Clearcut Variants
Shelterwood Variants
Selection System Variants (4)
(2)
(2)
8 active management scenarios, varying harvesting intensity and frequency
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
ANOVA: P < 0.01Bonferroni multiple comparisons:
No management > all treatments
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Model Predictions
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Competing view #3
Reduced emissions (i.e. offsets) achieved through higher intensity management:
• Substitution of woody biomass for fossil fuels
• Substitution of wood products for energy intensive building materials
• Reduced leakage (geographic displacement of harvesting)
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
Perez-Garcia et al. 2005
Life-cycle approach to analyzing the problem (CORRIM, UW)CORRIM: Life-Cycle Analysis
No Mgt, age=160
From Malmheimer et al., JOF 2008
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
From: Eriksson et al 2007. Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can. J. For. Res. 37: 671–681.
Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)
• Substitution effects will vary.
• Assumption of 1:1 substitution
• How will markets respond in reality?
From: Keeton (2007). George Wright Forum
The Sustainable Forest Management Spectrum
From Keeton 2007. George Wright Forum
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Landscape-scale carbon modeling: must ensure net emissions reductions while meeting range of
management objectives
From Kurz et al. 2009. CBM-CFS3: A model of carbon-dynamics in forestry and land-use change implementing IPCC standards. Ecological Modeling
Acknowledgements
• United States Department of Agriculture, National Research Initiative
• Northeastern States Research Cooperative
• USDA McIntire-Stennis Forest Research Program
• Vermont Monitoring Cooperative
• U.S. Fulbright Program