Harvesting Carbon from Eastern US Forests: Opportunities and: Impacts of an Expanding Bioenergy Industry

Forests

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 370-397

  Davis, Sarah C ^a   Dietze, Michael ^a   DeLucia, Evan ^a   Field, Chris ^b   Loarie, Scott ^b   Hamburg, Steven P ^c   Parton, William ^d   Potts, Matthew ^e,f   Ramage, Benjamin ^e   Wang, Dan ^a   Youngs, Heather ^f   Long, Stephen P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b Carnegie Institute for Science   (United States)

^c ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND   (United States)

^d Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biofuel; Carbon dioxide emission; Carbon sequestration; Chp; Forest management; Greenhouse gas reduction; Logging; Residue; Sustainability; Temperate forest; Woody biomass

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CHP; GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS; RESIDUE; TEMPERATE FORESTS; WOODY BIOMASS;

BIOFUELS; BIOMASS; CARBON; CARBON DIOXIDE; ETHANOL; FOSSIL FUELS; GLOBAL WARMING; GREENHOUSE GASES; HARVESTING; LOGGING (FORESTRY); SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

FORESTRY;

BIOENERGY; BIOMASS; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CARBON SINK; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; FOSSIL FUEL; GREENHOUSE GAS; LOGGING (TIMBER); POWER GENERATION; TEMPERATE FOREST; WOOD;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84869240822     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19994907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/f3020370     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. EPA. Regulation of fuels and fuel additives: 2011 Renewable fuel standards. Fed. Regist. 2011, 75, 76790-76830.
2. USDA. Notice of funds availability for the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material. Fed. Regist. 2009, 74, 27767-27772.
3. Houghton, R.A. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus 2003, 55, 378-390.
4. Heath, L.S.; Maltby, V.; Miner, R.; Skog, K.E.; Smith, J.E.; Unwin, J.; Upton, B. Greenhouse gas and carbon profile of the U.S. forest products industry value chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 3999-4005.
5. Butler, B.; Ma, Z.; Kittredge, D.; Catanzaro, P. Social versus biophysical availability of wood in the northern United States. North J. Appl. For. 2010, 27, 151-159.
6. Nave, L.E.; Vance, E.D.; Swanston, C.W.; Curtis, P.S. Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 857-866.
7. Turner, D.P.; Koerper, G.J. Carbon sequestration by forests of the United States. Current status and projections to the year 2040. Tellus 1995, 47, 232-239.
8. Zan, C.S.; Fyles, J.W.; Girouard, P.; Samson, R.A. Carbon sequestration in perennial bioenergy, annual corn and uncultivated systems in southern Quebec. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 86, 135-144.
9. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004, 304, 1623-1627.
10. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Davis, S.C.; Masters, M.D.; DeLucia, E.H. Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2009, 1, 75-96.
11. Richter, D.D.; Markewitz, D.; Trumbore, S.E.; Wells, C.G. Rapid accumulation and turnover of soil carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 1999, 400, 56-58.
12. Schlesinger, W.H. Evidence from chronosequence studies for a low carbon-storage potential of soils. Nature 1990, 348, 232-234.
13. 2. Nature 2001, 411, 466-469.
14. Davis, S.C.; Hessl, A.E.; Scott, C.J.; Adams, M.B.; Thomas, R.B. Forest carbon sequestration changes in response to timber harvest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 2101-2109.
15. Nunery, J.S.; Keeton, W.S. Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1363-1375.
16. Sartori, F.; Lal, R.; Ebinger, M.H.; Parrish, D.J. Potential soil carbon sequestration and CO2 offset by dedicated energy crops in the USA. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2006, 25, 441-472.
17. Malmsheimer, R.W.; Heffernan, P.; Brink, S.; Crandall, D.; Deneke, F.; Galik, C.; Gee, E.; Helms, J.A.; McClure, N.; Mortimer, M.; Ruddell, S.; Smith, M.; Stewart, J. Preventing GHG emissions through biomass substitution. J. For. 2008, 106, 136-140.
18. Seidl, R.; Rammer, W.; Jager, D.; Currie, W.; Lexer, M. Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 248, 64-79.
19. Van Deusen, P. Carbon sequestration potential of forest land: Management for products and bioenergy versus preservation. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 1687-1694.
20. Evans, A.M.; Perschel, R.T.; Kittler, B.A. Revised Assessment of Biomass Harvesting and Retention Guidelines; Forest Guild: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2010.
21. Janowiak, M.K.; Webster, C.R. Promoting ecological sustainability in woody biomass harvesting. J. For. 2010, 108, 16-23.
22. Campbell, J.E.; Lobell, D.B.; Genova, R.C.; Field, C.B. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5791-5794.
23. Garten, C.T.; Wullschleger, S.D. Soil carbon inventories under a bioenergy crop (switchgrass): Measurement limitations. J. Environ. Qual. 1999, 28, 1359-1365.
24. Garten, C.T.; Wullschleger, S.D. Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as indicated by stable isotope analysis. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 645-653.
25. Hansen, E.A. Soil carbon sequestration beneath hybrid poplar plantations in the north central United States. Biomass. Bioenerg. 1993, 5, 431-436.
26. Buchholz, T.; Canham, C.D.; Hamburg, S.P. Forest Biomass and Bioenergy: Opportunites and Constraints in the Northeastern United States; Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies: Millbrook, NY, USA, 2011.
27. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. In Natural Capital Initiative at Manomet Report; Walker, T., Ed.; Report NCI-2010-03; Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences: Brunswick, ME, USA, 2010.
28. Xiao, J.; Zhuang, Q.; Law, B.E.; Baldocchi, D.D.; Chen, J. Assessing net ecosystem carbon exchange of U.S. terrestrial ecosystems by integrating eddy covariance flux measurements and satellite observations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2011, 151, 60-69.
29. Schuler, T.M. Fifty years of partial harvesting in a mixed mesophytic forest: Composition and productivity. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 985-997.
30. McNulty, S.G.; Vose, J.M.; Swank, W.T. Loblolly pine hydrology and productivity across the southern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 1996, 86, 241-251.
31. Conner, R.C.; Johnson, T.G. Estimates of Biomass in Logging Residue and Standing Residual Inventory Following Tree-Harvest Activity on Timberland Acres in the Southern Region; Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2011; p. 25.
32. Gan, J.; Smith, C. Availability of logging residues and potential for electricity production and carbon displacement in the USA. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 1011-1020.
33. McKeever, D.B. Inventories of Woody Residues and Solid Wood Waste in the United States, 2002. In Proceeding of The Ninth International Conference on Inorganic-Bonded Composite Materials Conference, Vancouver, BC, USA, 10-13 October 2004; University of Idaho: Moscow, ID, USA, 2004.
34. Drake, J.E.; Davis, S.C.; Raetz, L.M.; DeLucia, E.H. Mechanisms of age-related changes in forest production: The influence of physiological and successional changes. Glob. Change Biol. 2010, 17, 1522-1535.
35. Aber, J.D.; Federer, C.A. A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Oecologia 1992, 92, 463-474.
36. Aber, J.D.; Ollinger, S.V.; Driscall, C.T. Modeling nitrogen saturation in forest ecosystems in response to land use and atmospheric deposition. Ecol. Model. 1997, 101, 61-78.
37. Davis, S.C.; Hessl, A.E.; Thomas, R.B. A modified nitrogen budget for temperate deciduous forests in an advanced stage of nitrogen saturation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle 2008, 22, doi:10.1029/2008GB003187.
38. Ollinger, S.V.; Aber, J.D.; Reich, P.B. Simulating ozone effects on forest productivity: Interactions among leaf-, canopy-, and stand-level processes. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7, 1237-1251.
39. Ollinger, S.V.; Aber, J.D.; Reich, P.B.; Freuder, R.J. Interactive effects of nitrogen deposition, tropospheric ozone, elevated CO2 and land use history on the carbon dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Glob. Change Biol. 2002, 8, 545-562.
40. Albani, M.; Moore, D.; Hurtt, G.C.; Moorcroft, P.R. The contributions of land-use change, CO2 fertilization, and climate variability to the Eastern US carbon sink. Glob. Change Biol. 2006, 12, 2370-2390.
41. Medvigy, D.; Wofsy, S.C.; Munger, J.W.; Hollinger, D.Y.; Moorcroft, P.R. Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: The Ecosystem Demography model version 2. J. Geophys. Res. 2009, 114, doi:10.1029/2008JG000812.
42. Moorcroft, P.R.; Hurtt, G.C.; Pacala, S.W. A method for scaling vegetation dynamics: The ecosystem demography model (ED). Ecol. Monogr. 2001, 74, 557-586.
43. McNulty, S.G.; Vose, J.M.; Swank, W.T. Regional hydrologic response of loblolly pine to air temperature and precipitation changes. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1997, 33, 1011-1022.
44. Wang, D.; LeBauer, D.S.; Dietze, M.C. Predicted Yields of Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar (Populus spp.) for the Contiguous US; Working Paper; Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinois: Urbana, IL, USA, 2011.
45. Strong, T.; Hansen, E.A. Hybrid poplar spacing/productivity relations in short rotation intensive culture plantations. Biomass. Bioenerg. 1993, 4, 255-261.
46. DeBell, D.S.; Harrington, C.A. Productivity of Populus in monoclonal and polyclonal blocks at three spacings. Can. J. For. Res. 1997, 27, 978-985.
47. Netzer, D.A.; Tolsted, D.N.; Ostry, M.E.; Isebrands, J.G.; Riemenschneider, D.E.; Ward, K.T. Growth, Yield, and Disease Resistance of 7- to 12-year-old Poplar Clones in the North Central United States; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2002; p. 31.
48. Goldewijk, K. Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: The HYDE database. Glob. Biogeochem.Cycle 2001, 15, 417-433.
49. Goldewijk, K.; Van Deusen, P.; Bouwman, A.F. Mapping contemporary global cropland and grassland distributions on a 5 × 5 minute resolution. J. Land Use Sci. 2007, 2, 167-190.
50. Olson, D.M.; Dinerstein, E. The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 502-515.
51. Balboa-Murias, M.A.; Rodriguez-Soalleiro, R.; Merino, A.; Alvarez-Gonzalez, J.G. Temporal variations and distribution of carbon stocks in aboveground biomass of radiata pine and maritime pine pure stands under different silvicultural alternatives. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 237, 29-38.
52. Ericksson, E.; Gillespie, A.R.; Gustavsson, L.; Langvall, O.; Olsson, M.; Sathre, R.; Stendahl, J. Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 671-681.
53. Adegbidi, H.G.; Jokela, E.J.; Comerforn, N.B. Factors influencing production efficiency of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations in a 1- to 4-year-old chronosequence. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 218, 245-258.
54. Albaugh, T.J.; Allen, L.H.; Dougherty, P.M.; Johnsen, K.H. Long term growth responses of loblolly pine to optimal nutrient and water resource availability. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 192, 3-19.
55. Borders, B.E.; Will, R.E.; Marewitz, D.; Clark, A.; Hendrick, R.; Teskey, R.O.; Zhang, Y. Effect of complete competition control and annual fertilization on stem growth and canopy relations for a chronosequence of loblolly pine plantations in the lower coastal plain of Georgia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 192, 21-37.
56. Cobb, W.R.; Will, R.E.; Daniels, R.F.; Jacobson, M.A. Aboveground biomass and nitrogen in four short-rotation woody crop species growing with different water and nutrient availabilities. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 4032-4039.
57. Coyle, C.R.; Coleman, M.D.; Aubrey, D.P. Above- and below-ground biomass accumulation, production, and distribution of sweetgum and loblolly pine grown with irrigation and fertilization. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38, 1335-1348.
58. Ewers, B.E.; Oren, R.; Sperry, J.S. Influence of nutrient versus water supply on hydraulic architecture and water balance in Pinus taeda. Plant Cell Environ. 2000, 23, 1055-1066.
59. Gresham, C.A.; William, T.M. Biomass, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Accumulation in 4-year-old Intensively Managed Loblolly Pine and Sweetgum Plantations. In General Technical Report SRS48; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2002; pp. 3-6.
60. Jokela, E.J.; Martin, T.A. Effects of ontogeny and soil nutrient supply on production, allocation, and leaf area effiency in loblolly and slash pine stands. Can. J. For. Res. 2000, 30, 1511-1524.
61. King, J.S.; Albaugh, T.J.; Allen, H.L.; Kress, W. Stand-level allometry in Pinus taeda as affected by irrigation and fertilization. Tree Phys. 1999, 19, 769-778.
62. Samuelson, L.J.; Johnsen, K.H.; Stokes, T. Production, allocation, and stemwood growth efficiency of Pinus taeda L. stands in response to 6 years of intensive management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 192, 59-70.
63. Sartori, F.; Markewitz, D.; Borders, B. Soil carbon storage and nitrogen and phosphorus availability in loblolly pine plantations over 4 to 16 years of herbicide and fertilizer treatments. Biochemistry 2007, 84, 13-30.
64. Will, R.E.; Munger, G.T.; Zhang, Y.; Borders, B.E. Effects of annual fertilization and complete competition control on current annual increment, foliar development, and growth efficiency of different aged Pinus taeda stands. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 1728-1740.
65. Makeschin, F. Short rotation forestry in Central and Northern Europe-introduction and conclusions. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 121, 1-7.
66. Mitchell, C.P. Ecophysiology of short rotation forest crops. Biomass Bioenergy 1992, 2, 25-37.
67. Weih, M. Intensive short rotation forestry in boreal climates: Present and future perspectives. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 1369-1378.
68. BETY-db, Urbana, IL, USA, 2011. Available online: www.ebi-forecast.igb.uiuc.edu (accessed on 10 March 2011).
69. Heilman, P.E.; Ekuan, G.; Fogle, D. Above- and below-ground biomass and fine roots of 4-year-old hybrids of Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides and parental species in short-rotation culture. Can. J. For. Res. 1994, 24, 1186-1192.
70. Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.E.; Ceulemans, R; Heilman, P.E.; Isebrands, J.G.; Stettler, R.F.; Hinckley, T.M. Production physiology and morphology of Populus species and their hydrids grown under short rotation II: Biomass components and harvest index of hybrid and parental species clones. Can. J. For. Res. 1997, 27, 285-294.
71. Dowell, R.C.; Gibbins, D.; Rhoads, J.L.; Pallardy, S.G. Biomass production physiology and soil carbon dynamics in short-rotation-grown Populus deltoides and P. deltoides × P. nigra hybrids. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 134-142.
72. Aylott, M.J.; Casella, E.; Tubby, I.; Street, N.R.; Smith, P.; Taylor, G. Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New Phytol. 2008, 178, 258-270.
73. DOE. Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: A joint research agenda. Report from the December 2005 Workshop; US Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2006.
74. Mitchell, C.P.; Stevens, E.A.; Watters, M.P. Short-rotation forestry-Operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 121, 123-136.
75. Kopp, R.F.; Abrahamson, L.P.; White, E.H.; Volk, T.A.; Nowak, C.A.; Fillhart, R.C. Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20, 1-7.
76. Randall, G.; Johnson, G.; Vetch, J.; Bickell, M. Willow Biomass Production as Affected by Time and Rate of N; College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2010.
77. Serapiglia, M.J.; Cameron, K.D.; Stipanovic, A.J.; Smart, L.B. Analysis of biomass composition using high-resolution thermogravimetric analysis and percent bark content for the selection of shrub willow bioenergy crop varieties. Bioenerg. Res. 2009, 2, 1-9.
78. Milbrandt, A. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States; Technical Report NREL/TP 560-39181; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2005.
79. Ralevic, P.; Ryans, M.; Cormier, D. Assessing forest biomass for bioenergy: Operational challenges and cost considerations. For. Chron. 2010, 86, 43-50.
80. DOE. US Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. Perlack, R.D., Stokes, B.J., Leads; U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2011; p. 227.
81. Perlack, R.D.; Wright, L.L.; Turhollow, A.F.; Graham, R.L. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply; US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2005.
82. Gan, J.; Smith, C. Co-benefits of utilizing logging residues for bioenergy production: The case for East Texas, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 623-630.
83. Ackom, E.K.; Mabee, W.E.; Saddler, J.N. Industrial sustainability of competing wood energy options in Canada. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2010, 162, 2259-2272.
84. Galik, C.S.; Abt, R.C.; Wu, Y. Forest biomass supply in the Southeastern Unitied States- Implications for inudstrial roundwood and bioenergy production. J. For. 2009, 107, 69-77.
85. Lattimore, B.; Smith, C.T.; Titus, B.D.; Stupak, I.; Egnell, G. Environmental factors in woodfuel production: Opportunities, risks, and criteria and indicators for sustainable practices. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 1321-1342.
86. Powers, R.F.; Andrew, S.D.; Sanchez, F.G.; Voldseth, R.A.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Elioff, J.D.; Stone, D.M. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 220, 31-50.
87. Johnson, D.W.; Knoepp, J.D.; Swank, W.T.; Shan, J.; Morris, L.A.; van Lear, D.H.; Kapeluck, P.R. Effects of forest management on soil carbon: Results of some long-term resampling studies. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, S201-S208.
88. Laiho, R.; Sanchez, F.; Tiarks, A.; Dougherty, P.; Trettin, C. Impacts of intensive forestry on early rotation trends in site carbon pools in the southeastern US. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 174, 177-189.
89. DOE. Agricultural Chemicals: Fertilizers. In Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Chemical Industry; US Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2000.
90. West, T.O.; Marland, G. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions and net carbon fluxes in agriculture: Comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 1312, 1-16.
91. Kluender, R.; Lortz, D.; McCoy, W.; Stokes, B.; Klepac, J. Removal intensity and tree size effects on harvesting cost and profitability. For. Prod. J. 1998, 48, 54-59.
92. EIA State Energy Data System. US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html (accessed on 19 August 2011).
93. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; DeLucia, E.H. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 2011, 17, 425-438.
94. Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008, 319, 1235-1238.
95. Davis, S.C.; Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; DeLucia, E.H. Life-cycle analysis and the ecology of biofuels. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14, 140-146.
96. Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, R.A.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, A.; Tokgoz, S.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T.-H. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008, 319, 1238-1240.
97. Farrell, A.E.; Plevin, R.J.; Turner, B.T.; Jones, A.D.; O'Hare, M.; Kammen, D.M. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 2006, 311, 506-508.
98. Davis, S.C.; House, J.I.; Diaz-Chavez, R.A.; Molnar, A.; Valin, H.; DeLucia, E.H. How can land-use modelling tools inform bioenergy policies? Interface Focus 2011, 1, 212-223.