1 / 29

William S. Keeton

Towards a Unified Vision of Forest Carbon Management. William S. Keeton University of Vermont, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources. Pan et al. 2011. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World ’ s Forests. Science.

nedaa
Télécharger la présentation

William S. Keeton

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

  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. 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 Forest Age (yrs) Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves) Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

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

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

  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 32 stands from the Northern Forest 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.shtm Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves)Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

  13. Modeled management scenarios (2) Clearcut Variants (2) Shelterwood Variants 8 active management scenarios, varying harvesting intensity and frequency Selection System Variants (4) 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. No Mgt, age=160 CORRIM: Life-Cycle Analysis Life-cycle approach to analyzing the problem (CORRIM, UW) From Malmheimer et al., JOF 2008 Perez-Garcia et al. 2005 Viewpoint #1 (old forest reserves)Viewpoint # 2 (decreased harvesting intensity) Viewpoint #3 (increased harvesting intensity)

  26. Substitution effects will vary. • Assumption of 1:1 substitution • How will markets respond in reality? 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)

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

  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

More Related