Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources Towards a Unified Vision of Forest Carbon Management.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources Towards a Unified Vision of Forest Carbon Management."— Presentation transcript:

1 William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources Towards a Unified Vision of Forest Carbon Management

2 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?

3 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.

4 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)

5 Stand development over time Total carbon Sequestered Greatest rate of carbon uptake

6 Stand development over time Total carbon Sequestered Greatest level of carbon storage

7 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)

8 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)

9 From: Burrascano, Keeton et al. 2013. Forest Ecology and Management Global distribution of temperate forests by latitude Global Analysis of Temperate Old-growth Forests

10 Aboveground Biomass vs. Stand Age N=204 N=29 US Northeast US Pacific Northwest Central Carpathians N=18 Tiera Del Fuego, Chile N=31 China N = 143

11 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)

12 Stratified random sample of FIA sites http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/ecomap/eco.sh tm 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)

13 Modeled management scenarios Clearcut Variants Shelterwood Variants Selection System Variants (4) (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)

14 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

15 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

16 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

17 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

18 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

19 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

20 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

21 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

22 Model Predictions ANOVA: P < 0.01 Bonferroni multiple comparisons: No management > all treatments Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

23 Model Predictions Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

24 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)

25 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)

26 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?

27 From: Keeton (2007). George Wright Forum The Sustainable Forest Management Spectrum From Keeton 2007. George Wright Forum Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

28 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

29 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


Download ppt "William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources Towards a Unified Vision of Forest Carbon Management."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google