Effects of management on biomass production in Norway spruce stands and carbon balance of bioenergy use

Abstract In this study, we analyzed the effects of management on the production of timber and energy biomass, and ecosystem carbon balance in Norway spruce (Picea abies) stands, with impacts on carbon neutrality of the use of biomass in energy production. In simulations, we employed the ecosystem model and life cycle analyses tool with varying management scenarios (thinning, nitrogen fertilization and rotation length) on medium fertile and fertile sites in central Finland. We found that the annual mean timber production could be increased by using longer rotation lengths of 60–80 years. This was opposite to energy biomass production, which was increased the most by using shorter rotations of 30–50 years. On the other hand, both of them could be increased by applying nitrogen fertilization and by maintaining higher stocking over the rotation compared to the current Finnish baseline management. This positively affected both the carbon storage and carbon balance in forestry, as well as the energy carbon balance which takes into account both carbon balance for forestry and the CO2 emissions from the burning of energy biomass. It also decreased the CO2 emissions per unit of energy by approx. 30% compared to baseline management, regardless of site fertility type. Similarly, the carbon neutrality of the bioenergy system could be increased in this way compared to the use of coal instead. To conclude, based on proper management it will be possible to increase simultaneously the production of timber and energy biomass, and carbon stock in the forest ecosystem and to improve the forest ecosystem carbon balance so that in the long-term the CO2 uptake will exceed concurrent emissions.

[1]  Rattan Lal,et al.  Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry , 2015 .

[2]  K. Korhonen,et al.  Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  S. Kellomäki,et al.  Impacts of thinning on growth, timber production and carbon stocks in Finland under changing climate , 2008 .

[4]  J. Spitzer,et al.  CARBON BALANCE OF BIOENERGY FROM LOGGING RESIDUES , 1995 .

[5]  Hans Petersson,et al.  Assessing carbon balance trade-offs between bioenergy and carbon sequestration of stumps at varying time scales and harvest intensities , 2010 .

[6]  Seppo Kellomäki,et al.  Life cycle assessment tool for estimating net CO2 exchange of forest production , 2011 .

[7]  Johanna Routa,et al.  Impacts of Intensive Management and Landscape Structure on Timber and Energy Wood Production and net CO2 Emissions from Energy Wood Use of Norway Spruce , 2011, BioEnergy Research.

[8]  K. Shine,et al.  Intergovernmental panel on Climate change (IPCC),in encyclopedia of Enviroment and society,Vol.3 , 2007 .

[9]  H. Peltola,et al.  Impacts of forest landscape structure and management on timber production and carbon stocks in the boreal forest ecosystem under changing climate , 2007 .

[10]  Johanna Routa,et al.  Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass , 2011 .

[11]  H. Peltola,et al.  Sensitivity of growth of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch to climate change and forest management in boreal conditions , 2006 .

[12]  M. Kukkola,et al.  Impact of whole-tree harvesting and compensatory fertilization on growth of coniferous thinning stands , 2000 .

[13]  K. Korhonen,et al.  Adaptation of forest ecosystems, forests and forestry to climate change. FINADAPT Working Paper 4 , 2005 .

[14]  Hannu Hökkä,et al.  Models for predicting stand development in MELA System , 2002 .

[15]  H. Peltola,et al.  Impacts of thinning and fertilization on timber and energy wood production in Norway spruce and Scots pine: scenario analyses based on ecosystem model simulations , 2011 .

[16]  Juha Nurmi,et al.  Heating values of mature trees. , 1997 .

[17]  J. Saramäki,et al.  Growth response in repeatedly fertilized pine and spruce stands on mineral soils. , 1983 .

[18]  Kim Pingoud,et al.  Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration , 2001 .

[19]  J. Melillo,et al.  Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important? , 2009, Science.

[20]  Lauri Valsta,et al.  Carbon credits and management of Scots pine and Norway spruce stands in Finland , 2007 .

[21]  S. Linder,et al.  Impact of long-term nitrogen addition on carbon stocks in trees and soils in northern Europe , 2008 .

[22]  Jari Liski,et al.  Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues , 2011 .

[23]  R. Sathre,et al.  Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution , 2010 .

[24]  Gregg Marland,et al.  Forests for Carbon Sequestration or Fossil Fuel Substitution? A Sensitivity Analysis , 1997 .

[25]  J. Stendahl,et al.  Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution , 2007 .

[26]  C. Tamm.  Nitrogen in Terrestrial Ecosystems: Questions of Productivity, Vegetational Changes, and Ecosystem Stability , 1991 .

[27]  Jacinto F. Fabiosa,et al.  Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change , 2008, Science.

[28]  Seppo Kellomäki,et al.  Impacts of initial stand density and thinning regimes on energy wood production and management-related CO2 emissions in boreal ecosystems , 2011, European Journal of Forest Research.