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