Biomass Harvesting Guidelines affect downed woody debris retention

Fritts, Sarah R.; Moorman, Christopher E.; Hazel, Dennis W.; Jackson, Brian D.

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.08.010

Cited by 35 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Loggers spread retained harvest residues from retention areas evenly throughout the DISP treatments or in randomly placed piles throughout the CLUS treatments. Because we created treatments by distributing harvest residues with a grapple skidder, individual piles of harvest residues in the CLUS and NOBIOHARV treatments were approximately the size of one grapple load (volume = 36.19 m 3 /ha -1 ; [42]). Harvest residues from the non-retention areas and the entire NOBHG treatment were chipped at the logging deck during harvest.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shearing moved retained harvest residues into the 3-m space between pine beds (i.e., interbeds). Consequently, woody biomass was rearranged following shearing into long, linear rows in interbeds parallel to pine beds; however, volume of harvest residues was largely unaltered by shearing [42]. Blocks were treated with the following two post-harvest herbicide applications of Chopper (BASF, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA) for herbaceous weed control: (1) a broadcast application (applied by helicopter) one year after clearcut harvest; and (2) a banded application (applied only to pine trees in bedded rows) two years after clearcut harvest.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We measured scattered and piled downed wood in each treatment at the NC and GA blocks using the line-intersect sampling (LIS) technique [47] and a visual encounter method ( see [42] for detailed methods). In NC, we located each pile of downed wood in each treatment, measured its length, width, and height, and visually estimated its packing ratio (i.e., density of wood in pile; 0–100%).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Breeding, Early-Successional Bird Response to Forest Harvests for Bioenergy

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest regeneration following timber harvest is a principal source of habitat for early-successional birds and characterized by influxes of early-successional vegetation and residual downed woody material. Early-successional birds may use harvest residues for communication, cover, foraging, and nesting. Yet, increased market viability of woody biomass as bioenergy feedstock may intensify harvest residue removal. Our objectives were to: 1) evaluate effects of varying intensities of woody biomass harvest on the early-successional bird community; and (2) document early-successional bird use of harvest residues in regenerating stands. We spot-mapped birds from 15 April– 15 July, 2012–2014, in six woody biomass removal treatments within regenerating stands in North Carolina (n = 4) and Georgia (n = 4), USA. Treatments included clearcut harvest followed by: (1) traditional woody biomass harvest with no specific retention target; (2) 15% retention with harvest residues dispersed; (3) 15% retention with harvest residues clustered; (4) 30% retention with harvest residues dispersed; (5) 30% retention with harvest residues clustered; and (6) no woody biomass harvest (i.e., reference site). We tested for treatment-level effects on breeding bird species diversity and richness, early-successional focal species territory density (combined and individual species), counts of breeding birds detected near, in, or on branches of harvest piles/windrows, counts of breeding bird behaviors, and vegetation composition and structure. Pooled across three breeding seasons, we delineated 536 and 654 territories and detected 2,489 and 4,204 birds in the North Carolina and Georgia treatments, respectively. Woody biomass harvest had limited or short-lived effects on the early-successional, breeding bird community. The successional trajectory of vegetation structure, rather than availability of harvest residues, primarily drove avian use of regenerating stands. However, many breeding bird species used downed wood in addition to vegetation, indicating that harvest residues initially may provide food and cover resources for early-successional birds in regenerating stands prior to vegetation regrowth.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Breeding, Early-Successional Bird Response to Forest Harvests for Bioenergy

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The five profiles were: (a) "BHG Wildlife" ($6/ton; high quality wildlife habitat; 30% CWD remaining, spread out distribution), (b) "Reduced Costs" ($6/ton; low quality wildlife habitat; 10% left, piled distribution), (c) "Theoretical Wildlife" ($6/ton; high quality wildlife habitat; 30% CWD remaining, piled distribution), (d) "Balanced 1" ($6/ton; medium quality wildlife habitat; 20% CWD remaining, piled distribution), and (e) "Balanced 2" ($6/ton; medium quality wildlife habitat; 20% CWD remaining, rows distribution). The "BHG Wildlife" option was indicative of current BHGs that place a preference for a spread out distribution (Fritts, Moorman, Hazel, & Jackson, 2014). The "Reduced Costs" option reflected the least cost-intensive option for loggers.…”

Section: Policy Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The "Reduced Costs" option reflected the least cost-intensive option for loggers. "Theoretical Wildlife" was constructed from empirical data that indicated piles rather than a spread out distribution are best for achieving high quality habitat for wildlife that requires downed woody debris for cover (Fritts et al, 2014). The "Balanced 1" and "Balanced 2" options varied CWD distribution to represent a balance between the desire to minimize costs associated with harvesting (e.g., even distribution would mean higher costs and piles equate to lower costs because of the logistics involved) and simultaneously achieve ideal conditions for wildlife.…”

Section: Policy Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Choice Experiments to Determine Stakeholder Preferences for Woody Biomass Harvesting Guidelines

Serenari

Peterson

Moorman

et al. 2015

Journal of Sustainable Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass harvesting guidelines (BHGs) have been developed to address concerns about the sustainability of harvesting woody biomass. Assessing preferences among BHG stakeholders is important for designing operationally feasible and socially acceptable standards in different contexts. We used choice modeling to determine how foresters, loggers, and landowners perceived the relative importance of stumpage price, wildlife habitat quality, percentage of coarse woody debris (CWD) remaining, and distribution of CWD in their choices of BHG scenarios. Responses ( N = 718) indicated stumpage price was nearly double the importance of wildlife habitat quality, and three times more important than debris distribution and debris remaining.

show abstract

Use of linear programming to ‐optimize the social, −environmental, and economic impacts of using woody feedstocks for pellet and ‐torrefied pellet production

Radics

Dasmohapatra

Kelley

2016

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linear programming was used to optimize the economic, environmental, and social impacts of forest biomass used for bioenergy production. Sixteen scenarios (combinations of feedstocks, products, markets, and end use) were studied. Two feedstocks (roundwood and wood residues), two densifi ed bioenergy products (white pellet, torrefi ed pellet), two markets (domestic, international), and two end uses (power generation, district heating) were evaluated. The social, environmental, and economic sustainability attributes were quantifi ed and monetized using peer-reviewed literature to analyze the trade-offs. Using the economic criteria alone, the model showed that the best solution was use of 70% roundwood and 30% forest residue feedstock to produce torrefi ed pellets (TP) sold for district heating in the EU. The model predicts $5.4 million annual profi t which is driven by the use of lower cost forest residue feedstocks, and relatively higher prices for the heating market in the EU. Inclusion of all three sustainability attributes led to a different optimized solution. TP produced from roundwood and sold to the EU market for heating was the optimum, due to the social benefi ts derived from increased local income to landowners and reduced shipping costs. It also had added benefi ts of reductions in emissions across the transportation system on an energy basis. TP consistently had higher social benefi ts than WP due to the need for more biomass per unit of fi nal product, and providing more local jobs and income from feedstock production. The increasing costs of carbon emissions increased the environmental benefi ts of TP compared to WP or coal.

show abstract

Biomass Harvesting Guidelines affect downed woody debris retention

Cited by 35 publications

References 15 publications

Breeding, Early-Successional Bird Response to Forest Harvests for Bioenergy

Breeding, Early-Successional Bird Response to Forest Harvests for Bioenergy

Application of Choice Experiments to Determine Stakeholder Preferences for Woody Biomass Harvesting Guidelines

Use of linear programming to ‐optimize the social, −environmental, and economic impacts of using woody feedstocks for pellet and ‐torrefied pellet production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About