Dr. Thomas Buchholz
Dr. William Keeton (Director CDL)
Sustainable Use of Renewable Energy (SURE):
Renewable Technologies and Carbon Cycling
Thursday November 4
Thursday,
4, 2010
State University of New York, College of Environmental
Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF), Syracuse NY
2007 Data
Source: NASA 2010
Global carbon cycle
• 750 metric Giga
g tons of carbon ((GtC)) in
atmosphere in 2007
• 7.1 GtC released by human activity in 2007, 3.2
G C remained
GtC
i d iin atmosphere.
h
• 23% (1.6 GtC) of those atmospheric carbon
emissions came from land
land-use
use changes such as
deforestation
of released
e eased CO
CO2 “disappeared”:
d sappea ed
• 55% o
• 2 GtC diffused in ocean, 1.9 GtC unaccounted
for
GWP = Gl
Global
b l Warming
W
i Potential
P
i l
How much carbon is stored in wood?
Example: Northern hardwood mix (0.57
(0 57 metric
t i ttons/m
/ 3)
Carbon
CO2
1 cord
1 m3
1 mt
0.67mt
0.27mt
0.47mt
2.45mt
0.78mt
1.72mt
Constants
independent of species
The biosphere
p
carbon cycle
y
Atmosphere
Wood Products
Trees
Other Vegetation
Above Ground
Litter & Deadwood
Landfill
Roots
Below Ground
Deadwood
Soil
Source: Schwaiger 2009
Accounting for carbon in forests:
T
Tree
carbon
b pools
l
Trees
Tops: 15%
Merchantable wood: 60%
Stump: 3%
Roots: 22%
Roots
Source: Evalidator 2010 (numbers for New York)
Accounting for carbon in forests:
F
Forest
carbon
b pools
l
Coarse woody debris
Fine woody debris
Climate Action Registry Forest Protocol:
Mandatory: live above ground tree biomass
standing
t di d
dead
d
Optional: all others
The role of US Forests in the national carbon cycle:
Storage and offsets
Source: USDA FS 2010
U.S. forests offset roughly 11 percent of industrial
greenhouse gas emissions annually (USDA FS 2010)
Source: USDA FS 2010
Tapping into the carbon market
/mt CO2
CER = Certified Emissions Reductions
NSW = New South Wales Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Scheme
RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
EUA = European emissions allowances
CCX = Chicago Climate Exchange
Source: ecosystems marketplace 2010
Accounting for carbon in forests:
Addi i
Additionality
li
Additi
Additionality
lit iin th
the F
Forestt P
Protocol
t
l off th
the Cli
Climate
t A
Action
ti R
Reserve
Source: CAR 2010
Accounting for carbon in forests:
L k
Leakage
Direct land use change
dLUC
Indirect land use change
dLUC
What is a good example of ILUC
In a forestry context in the Northeastern US?
iLUC
Source: Bird et al.2010
Forest Carbon Accounting: Scales of Analysis
Wood
products:
In-situ forest
carbon
dynamics
Life cycle
analysis
Energy inputs
Tertiary sinks
(e.g. landfills)
GHG
Emissions
offsets:
Woody
biomass fuel
Product
substitutions
Macroeconomic
analysis/
carbon
footprint:
e.g. GHG
emissions
from global
trade
Market
behavior
What is more effective?
• Passive management, favoring carbon storage
in reserves?
• Reduced harvesting intensity/frequency,
f
favoring
i carbon
b storage
t
iin managed
d fforests
t and
d
durable wood products?
• Intensified forest harvests, favoring fast rates of
uptake
p
and emissions offsets achieved through
g
substitution?
questered
Total caarbon Seq
Greatest level of carbon storage
Greatest rate of b
k
carbon uptake
Stand development over time
Competing view #1
Enhanced carbon storage through:
• C
Conservation
ti off remaining
i i hi
high-biomass,
h bi
late-successional/old-growth forests
• Redevelopment
p
of high-biomass
g
stand
structures on some portion of the
p
landscape
Aboveground Biomass vs. Stand Age
US Northeast
400
N=29
Total (Live + Dead Trees)
350
1400
Aboveground Biomass (Mg/ha)
A
Dead Trees
Total: r2 = 0.63
250
Live: r2 = 0.52
200
150
500
100
2
Dead: r = 0.36
China
450
50
1200
1100
1000
0
100
Total Bio
omass (Mg/ha)
400
0
200
R2 = 0.46
0 46
900
800
R2 = 0.44
700
600
500
400
300
200
N = 143
350
300
300
R2 = 0.21
100
400
0
500
2
R = 0.57
0
Stand Age (years)
100
200
Dead Trees
600
700
800
900
1000
Total (Live + Dead Trees)
0
0
50
N=31
400
500
Central Carpathians
50
500
400
600
1002
Total: R = 0.17
150
200
Abov
veground Biomass ((Mg/ha)
Live Trees
300
250
Total (Live + Dead Trees) 100
600
200
Stand Age (Years)
Tiera Del Fuego,
Chile
150
700
Live
Dead
Total
Log. (Total)
Log. (Live)
Poly. (Dead)
N=204
1300
Live Trees
300
Aboveground Biomass (M
Mg/ha)
Aboveground Biom
A
mass (Mg/ha)
US Pacific Northwest
1500
Live Trees
500
Dead Trees
Total: R2 = 0.63
400
250
300
N=18
350
Stand Age (years)
Live: R2 = 0.17
300
200
100
Live: R2 = 0.57
300
200
Dead: R2 = 0.47
100
Dead: R2 = 0.01
0
0
0
100
200
300
Stand Age (years)
400
500
0
50
100
150
200
Stand Age (years)
250
300
Direct
measurements
(F h ett al.
(Fahey
l
2005, Hubbard
Brook W6)
Biomass (Mg/ha)
B
300
Empirical Data
from Keeton et
al. (2007, 2010)
and others
Theoretical
(JABOWA)
Projections from
Bormann and
Likens (1979)
Empirical Data
from Bormann
and Likens
(1979)
0
0
100
200
Stand Age (years)
300
400
Competing view #2
Enhanced carbon storage through lower
intensity management:
• Post-harvest structural retention
• Extended rotations
Stratified random sample of FIA sites
32 stands from the
Northern Forest
R i
Region
14 stands from the
White Mountains and
western Maine
3 stands from the
Green Mountain
Region
15 stands from the
Adirondack Region
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/ecomap/eco.sh
tm
Even-aged Silvicultural
Prescriptions
Low
Residual
Structure
Rotation Length
Short (80 years)
Long (120 years)
1) Commercial thin: implement 1) Commercial thin: implement
when stand reaches stocking
when stand reaches stocking
density above normal.
density above normal.
2) Clearcut: 2005 and 2085
-No legacy trees
2) Clearcut: 2005 and 2125
-No legacy trees.
*Whole tree harvest
*Whole tree harvest
1) Commercial thin: implement 1) Commercial thin: implement
when
h stand
d reaches
h stocking
ki
when
h stand
d reaches
h stocking
ki
density above normal.
density above normal.
High
2) Shelterwood:
Shelter ood: 2005 and 2085 2) Shelterwood:
Shelter ood: 2005 and 2125
-residual BA 60ft2/ac
-residual BA 60ft2/ac
-15 legacy TPA, smallest
-15 legacy TPA, smallest
diameter in removal cut 6 in
diameter in removal cut 6 in.
in
*Slash left on site
*Slash left on site
Uneven-aged
Silvicultural
Prescriptions
Low
Residual
Structure
High
Entry Cycle Length
Short (15 years)
Long (30 years)
Entry Cycle Length: 15 yrs
Q-value: 1.3
Residual BA: 65 ft2/ac
Min DBH Class: 2 in
Max DBH Class: 20 in
DBH Cl
Class Width
Width: 2 iin
Number of Legacy TPA: 0
Entry Cycle Length: 30 yrs
Q-value: 1.3
Residual BA: 65 ft2/ac
Min DBH Class: 2 in
Max DBH Class: 20 in
DBH Cl
Class Width
Width: 2 iin
Number of Legacy TPA: 0
Entry Cycle Length: 15 yrs
Q-value: 1.3
Residual BA: 85 ft2/ac
Mi DBH Class:
Min
Cl
2 in
i
Max DBH Class: 24 in
DBH Class Width: 2 in
Number of Legacy TPA: 5
Average legacy tree diameter:
16 in
Entry Cycle Length: 30 yrs
Q-value: 1.3
Residual BA: 85 ft2/ac
Mi DBH Class:
Min
Cl
2 in
i
Max DBH Class: 24 in
DBH Class Width: 2 in
Number of Legacy TPA: 5
Average legacy tree diameter: 16
in
Model Predictions
200
Ab
boveground C
Carbon with W
Wood Products
(me
etric tons C/ha
a)
180
160
140
120
100
No Management
No management
80
60
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
120
100
No Management
No management
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
80
often
60
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
120
100
No Management
No management
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
often
ClearcutLow
Clearcut less often
Clearcut,
80
60
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
120
No Management
No management
100
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
often
ClearcutLow
Clearcut, less often
Shelterwood, often
ShelterwoodHigh
80
60
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
120
No Management
No management
100
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
often
less often
ShelterwoodHigh
Shelterwood often
Shelterwood,
Shelterwood, less often
ShelterwoodLow
ClearcutLow
Clearcut,
80
60
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
120
No Management
No management
often
ClearcutLow
Clearcut, less often
ShelterwoodHigh
Shelterwood, often
ShelterwoodLow
Shelterwood, less often
ITS, intensive & often
ITS_LowHigh
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
100
80
60
ITS Individual tree selection
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
No Management
No management
120
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
often
ClearcutLow
Clearcut, less often
ShelterwoodHigh
Shelterwood, often
ShelterwoodLow
Shelterwood less often
Shelterwood,
ITS, intensive & often
ITS_LowHigh
ITS, intensive & less often
ITS_LowLow
100
80
60
ITS Individual tree selection
40
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
No Management
N managementt
No
often
ClearcutLow
Clearcut, less often
ShelterwoodHigh
Shelterwood, often
ShelterwoodLow
Shelterwood, less often
ITS_LowHigh
ITS, intensive & often
ITS, intensive & less often
ITS_LowLow
ITS, extensive & often
ITS_HighHigh
120
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
100
80
60
40
ITS Individual tree selection
20
0
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
200
Abovegro
ound Carbon w
with Wood Pro
oducts (metric
c
ton
ns C/ha)
180
160
140
No Management
No management
g
ClearcutHigh
Clearcut,
120
often
ClearcutLow
Clearcut, less often
ShelterwoodHigh
Shelterwood, often
ShelterwoodLow
Shelterwood, less often
ITS
intensive & often
ITS ITS,
ITS_LowHigh
LowHigh
ITS, intensive & less often
ITS_LowLow
ITS, extensive & often
ITS_HighHigh
ITS, extensive & less often
ITS_HighLow
100
80
60
40
20
0
ANOVA: P < 0.01
Bonferroni multiple comparisons:
No management > all treatments
ITS Individual tree selection
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 2125 2135 2145 2155 2164
Year
Source: Nunery and Keeton 2010
Model Predictions
Carbon (m
C
metric tons
s per hecttare)
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
C storage in harvested wood
products
p
C
Coarse
woody
d d
debris
bi
Standing dead
100.0
80.0
60 0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
High…….Intensity
gradient…...Low
Management scenario
What other site-specific variables are important?
CART model: Mean total carbon ~ f (Scenario, Ecoregion, Site Index,
Aspect, Percent Conifer, Basal Area, Quadratic Mean Diameter,
Structure Class, Number of strata, Slope, Stand age). N = 288
Active Mgt
Mgt.
High intensity
Passive Mgt
Mgt.
Low intensity
From: Nunery and Keeton. 2010. For. Ecol. and Mgt.
Competing view #3
Reduced emissions ((i.e. offsets)) achieved through
g
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)
Life-cycle approach to forest carbon accounting (CORRIM, UW)
No Mgt, age=160
From Malmheimer et
al JOF 2008
al.,
Perez-Garcia et al. 2005
Forest stand and forest products carbon accounting:
Newlyy established stands vs. mature forest
(A) A project that reestablishes
forests with periodic harvests.
(B) Harvesting a high-biomass old
growth forest. This scenario shows
carbon losses, even under the best
possible scenario, for several
harvests.
harvests
Ryan et al. 2010
Competing view #4?
Considering time lags in carbon storage Carbon dept and dividend:
• Time scale is important in forest carbon
assessments
• Assessments are made on a stand-level
Source: MANOMET 2010
Main reason for differences:
Conversion efficiencies
Carbon emissions from fossil fuels
Source: MANOMET 2010
Stand ca
arbon com
mpared to
o BAU scenario (m
mt)
Years
Source: MANOMET 2010
Scales of accounting: Stand-level
Cut
Growth
Sta
and carbo
on storage
e
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Stand
1
How long does stand 1 need to
catch up with a ‘no cut’
Stand
Stand
Stand
reference scenario?
2
3
4
Year 4
Competing view #5?
Considering time lags in carbon storage Carbon dept and dividend:
• Time scale is important in forest carbon
assessments
• Assessments are made on a landscapep
or forest-level
Stand-level
Stand
level vs
vs. forest-level
forest level accounting approach of carbon
Source: Ryan et al. 2010
Scales
Sca
es o
of accou
accounting:
t g Forest-level
o est e e
Cut
Growth
Sta
and carbo
on storage
e
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Stand
1
Stand
2
Stand
3
Stand
4
Year 4
Scales
Sca
es o
of accou
accounting:
t g Sta
Stand-level
d e e
Carbon released from
burning fossil fuel for
equivalent energy
150
Carbon storage in mt
C
100
Cange in stored carbon:
biomass stand carbon
minus BAU stand carbon
50
Stand-level
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-50
-100
Time of equal cumulative
carbon flux (carbon payback
period)
-150
Tim e in years
35
40
Forest-level
Scales
Sca
es o
of accou
accounting:
t g Forest-level
o est e e
Carbon released from
burning fossil fuel for
equivalent energy
C
Carbon
orage in m
mt
Carbon st
C
sttorage
150
100
Cange in stored carbon:
biomass stand carbon
minus BAU stand carbon
50
Stand-level
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
25 30
30
-50
-100
100
-150
Tim
Tim ee in
in years
years
35
35
40
40
Forest-level
Scales
Sca
es o
of accou
accounting:
t g Forest-level
o est e e
Carbon released from
burning fossil fuel for
equivalent energy
C
Carbon
sttorage in mt
150
100
Cange in stored carbon:
biomass stand carbon
minus BAU stand carbon
50
Stand-level
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
-50
100
-100
-150
Tim e in years
30
35
40
Forest-level
Not addressed in this talk: What will happen to the
Northeastern forests when the climate changes?
Free download:
http://www.forestguild.org/publications/research/2007/ForestGuild_climate_carbon_forests.pdf
Thank you for your attention!
Thomas Buchholz
William Keeton
tbuchhol@uvm.edu
wkeeton@uvm.edu
Carbon Dynamics Lab:
http://www.uvm.edu/~cdl
54