We present a new approach to maximize carbon (C) storage in both forest and wood products using optimization within a forest management model (Remsoft Spatial Planning System). This method was used to evaluate four alternative objective functions, to maximize: (a) volume harvested, (b) wood product C storage, (c) forest C storage, and (d) C storage in the forest and products, over 300 years for a 30,000 ha hypothetical forest in New Brunswick, Canada. Effects of three initial forest age-structures and a range of product substitution rates were tested. Results showed that in many cases, C storage in product pools (especially in landfills) plus on-site forest C was equivalent to forest C storage resulting from reduced harvest. In other words, accounting for only forest, and not products and landfill C, underestimates true forest contributions to C sequestration, and may result in spurious C maximization strategies. The scenario to maximize harvest resulted in mean harvest for years 1–200 of 3.16 m3 ha−1 yr−1 and total C sequestration of 0.126 t ha−1 yr−1, versus 0.98 m3 ha−1 yr−1 and 0.228 t ha−1 yr−1 for a scenario to maximize forest C. When maximizing total (forest + products) C, mean harvest and total C storage for years 1–200 was 173% and 5% higher, respectively, than when maximizing forest C; and 218% and 6% higher, respectively, when maximizing substitution benefits (0.25 t of avoided C emissions per m3 of lumber used) in addition to total C. Initial forest age-structure affected harvest in years 1–50 < 34% among the four alternative management objective scenarios, and resulted in mean C sequestration rates of 0.31, 0.10, and −0.14 t ha−1 yr−1 when maximizing total C storage for young, even-aged, and old forests, respectively. Our results reinforce the importance of including products in forest-sector C budgets, and demonstrate how including product C in management can maximize forest contributions toward reduced atmospheric CO2 at operational scales.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hennigar et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: