Carbon outcomes from fuels treatment and bioenergy production in a Sierra Nevada forest

Winford, Eric M.; Gaither, James C.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.025

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our LANDIS-II simulations did not include a full carbon life-cycle analysis in the sense that emissions from harvest, transport, and subsequent utilization of removed biomass were not considered. However, such an analysis for nearby Independence Lake, in a similar forest type within 30 km of our study area, found that emissions from mechanical treatments and transportation of woody biomass each constituted less than 1 % of total emissions (Winford and Gaither 2012). An additional caveat is that our scenarios assume that fuel treatments are effective and complete, incorporating appropriate slash disposal and management of understory vegetation (e.g., prescribed burning).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Bending the carbon curve: fire management for carbon resilience under climate change

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Forest landscapes are increasingly managed for fire resilience, particularly in the western US which has recently experienced drought and widespread, high-severity wildfires. Fuel reduction treatments have been effective where fires coincide with treated areas. Fuel treatments also have the potential to reduce drought-mortality if tree density is uncharacteristically high, and to increase long-term carbon storage by reducing high-severity fire probability. Objective Assess whether fuel treatments reduce fire intensity and spread and increase carbon storage under climate change. Methods We used a simulation modeling approach that couples a landscape model of forest disturbance and succession with an ecosystem model of carbon dynamics (Century), to quantify the interacting effects of climate change, fuel treatments and wildfire for carbon storage potential in a mixed-conifer forest in the western USA. Results Our results suggest that fuel treatments have the potential to 'bend the C curve', maintaining carbon resilience despite climate change and climate-related changes to the fire regime. Simulated fuel treatments resulted in reduced fire spread and severity. There was partial compensation of C lost during fuel treatments with increased growth of residual stock due to greater available soil water, as well as a shift in species composition to more drought-and fire-tolerant Pinus jeffreyi at the expense of shade-tolerant, fire-susceptible Abies concolor. Conclusions Forest resilience to global change can be achieved through management that reduces drought stress and supports the establishment and dominance of tree species that are more fire-and droughtresistant, however, achieving a net C gain from fuel treatments may take decades.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Bending the carbon curve: fire management for carbon resilience under climate change

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reforestation strategies that promote lower and variable densities can increase the potential for long-term carbon storage because retaining live tree biomass through multiple disturbance is an important carbon pool and long-lived sink (North and Hurteau, 2011;Winford and Gaither, 2012). Forests that are less dense but with more large trees not only hold more carbon than high-density stands comprised of many smaller trees (Hurteau and North, 2009;2010), their resilience to mortality from stress and disturbance increases the stability of the carbon reserve (North et al, 2009a;Soung-Ryoul et al, 2009;Earles et al, 2014;Hurteau et al, 2016).…”

Section: Potential Ecological Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tamm Review: Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests

North

Stevens

Greene

et al. 2019

Forest Ecology and Management

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…). Moreover, the outcome for carbon balance can be contingent on factors like the fire return interval (Winford and Gaither ), fire severity (Hurteau and Brooks 2001, Campbell et al. ), frequency of large fires (Chiono et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, others indicate that fuel reduction treatments may yield a net carbon gain compared to untreated stands due to a reduction in emissions and mortality associated with wildfire (Hurteau et al 2008, Hurteau and North 2009, Stephens et al 2009, 2012, Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010, Hudiburg et al 2011, North and Hurteau 2011, Carlson et al 2012, Dore et al 2016, Loudermilk et al 2016. Moreover, the outcome for carbon balance can be contingent on factors like the fire return interval (Winford and Gaither 2012), fire severity Brooks 2001, Campbell et al 2012), frequency of large fires (Chiono et al 2017), and interactions among different types of disturbances (Loehman et al 2014).…”

Section: Comparison Of Expert-elicitation Carbon Stock Estimates Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of long‐term trends in forest carbon stocks is challenged by interactions among climate change, wildfire and other disturbances, forest management actions, and heterogeneous vegetation responses. For such circumstances where complex interactions make it difficult to encompass the full range of processes in any one mode of analysis, expert elicitation is a well‐developed method for documenting judgments about uncertainty, based on available evidence, to inform ongoing decision‐making. Applying this method for the Sierra Nevada, we evaluate subjective probabilistic estimates of trends in aboveground forest carbon for different management scenarios toward the goal of maximizing carbon stored, while also considering implications for wildfire risk. The analysis examines the effects of four treatments in isolation (thinning, timber harvesting, prescribed burning, managed wildfire), as well as a user‐defined management portfolio allocating resources across five management practices (thinning, harvesting, prescribed burning, firefighting, and restoration). The expert elicitation suggests that aboveground forest carbon stocks will decline 8%, from 126 to 116 tC/ha, between 2030 and 2100 (median estimate across experts) assuming conventional forest management practices are continued. Out of all surveyed practices, the custom user‐defined management portfolio results in the highest carbon stock of 129 tC/ha which is 11% higher than conventional practice in 2100 at the 50th percentile. The expert elicitation indicates less beneficial carbon sequestration outcomes than recent modeling studies. Suggesting co‐benefits across objectives, 75 experts collectively estimate a 61% likelihood that managing for carbon also reduces wildfire risk. By contrast, decreases in carbon stocks are anticipated for large magnitudes of climate change or substantial decreases in forest management investments.

show abstract

Carbon outcomes from fuels treatment and bioenergy production in a Sierra Nevada forest

Cited by 14 publications

References 57 publications

Bending the carbon curve: fire management for carbon resilience under climate change

Bending the carbon curve: fire management for carbon resilience under climate change

Tamm Review: Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests

Forest management in the Sierra Nevada provides limited carbon storage potential: an expert elicitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About