Effects of harvesting regimes on carbon and nitrogen dynamics of boreal forests in central Canada: a process model simulation

Peng, Changhui; Jiang, Hong; Apps, Michael J.; Zhang, Yanli

doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(02)00134-5

Cited by 74 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such models are typically developed from, and tested most thoroughly against, classic primary-and secondarysuccession scenarios featuring stand-replacing or at least gap-size disturbances (Peters et al, 2013;Weng et al, 2012;Wang et al, 2014). Most model experiments using moderate (non-catastrophic) disturbance intensities have been performed in the context of timber management, e.g., assessing the sustainability of harvesting for a particular ecosystem or region (e.g., Peng et al, 2002;Rolff and Ågren, 1999). As a result, it is unclear whether most ecosystem models will be able to correctly simulate naturally occurring disturbances in mature forests, which may be spatially more heterogeneous and generally do not involve biomass removals.…”

Section: B Bond-lamberty Et Al: Moderate Forest Disturbance As a Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moderate forest disturbance as a stringent test for gap and big-leaf models

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Disturbance-induced tree mortality is a key factor regulating the carbon balance of a forest, but tree mortality and its subsequent effects are poorly represented processes in terrestrial ecosystem models. It is thus unclear whether models can robustly simulate moderate (non-catastrophic) disturbances, which tend to increase biological and structural complexity and are increasingly common in aging US forests. We tested whether three forest ecosystem models -Biome-BGC (BioGeochemical Cycles), a classic big-leaf model, and the ZELIG and ED (Ecosystem Demography) gap-oriented models -could reproduce the resilience to moderate disturbance observed in an experimentally manipulated forest (the Forest Accelerated Succession Experiment in northern Michigan, USA, in which 38 % of canopy dominants were stem girdled and compared to control plots). Each model was parameterized, spun up, and disturbed following similar protocols and run for 5 years post-disturbance. The models replicated observed declines in aboveground biomass well. Biome-BGC captured the timing and rebound of observed leaf area index (LAI), while ZELIG and ED correctly estimated the magnitude of LAI decline. None of the models fully captured the observed post-disturbance C fluxes, in particular gross primary production or net primary production (NPP). Biome-BGC NPP was correctly resilient but for the wrong reasons, and could not match the absolute observational values. ZELIG and ED, in contrast, exhibited large, unobserved drops in NPP and net ecosystem production. The biological mechanisms proposed to explain the observed rapid resilience of the C cycle are typically not incorporated by these or other models. It is thus an open question whether most ecosystem models will simulate correctly the gradual and less extensive tree mortality characteristic of moderate disturbances.

show abstract

Section: B Bond-lamberty Et Al: Moderate Forest Disturbance As a Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moderate forest disturbance as a stringent test for gap and big-leaf models

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are huge differences in climate variables and modeling results among these studies, indicating that the relationship between forest site productivity and climate is still uncertain to some extent. Process-based or hybrid representations of the relationship between climate and productivity are needed (Peng et al 2002, Coops et al 2010, Bravo-Oviedo et al 2010. Using spatial and climatic variables, our empirical model could explain 72.9% of the site index variation.…”

Section: Climate-sensitive Site Index Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential impacts of regional climate change on site productivity of Larix olgensis plantations in northeast China

Shen¹,

Lei²,

Liu³

et al. 2015

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

© iForest -Biogeosciences and Forestry IntroductionUnderstanding how climate change affects forest site productivity is of great importance for adaptive forest management under climate change conditions. Forest site productivity, as a quantitative estimate of the potential for producing plant biomass at a site, is a significant indicator of forest quality, as well as an important variable of forest growth models in forest management (Skovsgaard & Vanclay 2008). However, site productivity presents great spatial and temporal variability (Skovsgaard & Vanclay 2013). Climate change directly or indirectly affects forest productivity due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperatures, changes in the amount and timing of precipitation and the interactions of forest ecosystems (Kirilenko & Sedjo 2007, Medlyn et al. 2011. Experiments, observations and models indicate that the forest productivity changes with climate change, but the direction and magnitude of the effects are still uncertain (Medlyn et al. 2011). Using dominant height as a measure of site productivity, Bontemps et al. (2009) reported an increase of more than 50% in common beech at the end of the 20 th century in north-eastern France, whereas Badeau et al. (1995) found an increase of 27%. Charru et al. (2010) found an increase of 27.8% in stand basal area increment between 1977 and 1987, and a decrease of approximately 5% between 1987 and 2004. Both positive and negative estimated impacts on forest growth have been reported depending on the climate scenarios employed (Lutz et al. 2013).One of the most widely used indicators of forest site productivity in forest management is the site index (SI), which is the mean height of the dominant trees growing on a site at a reference age (Carmean 1975, Skovsgaard & Vanclay 2008. The site index is assumed to be constant over time, and thus included as a driving variable in forest growth and yield models. In reality, the site index often varies greatly due to changes in the genetic make-up of stands, climatic conditions and management practices (Monserud & Rehfeldt 1990, Valentine 1997, Weiskittel et al. 2011). Empirical models have been developed to estimate the site index from climate, soil and vegetation information, thus allowing the possibility of predicting changes in the site index, forest growth and forest yield under climate change (McKenney & Pedlar 2003, Nigh et al. 2004, Monserud et al. 2006, 2008, Albert & Schmidt 2009, Aertsen et al. 2011, Nothdurft et al. 2012. The climate variables that influence the site index vary with species and sites, as do the magnitude of these variables (Messaoud & Chen 2011). Nigh et al. (2004 developed climate-sensitive site index models of three species (spruce, lodgepole pine and Douglas fir) in the interior of British Columbia, Canada. They found that the site index for all species increased as the temperature rose, and that site index increased with precipitation for the two latter species. Monserud et al. (2006) found that the strongest linear predictors of site...

show abstract

“…Jiang et al (2002) suggested that, for the boreal forest in China, FTH with a 100-year rotation would result in an 81% reduction in biomass and 49% reduction in litter relative to a no-harvest reference. With respect to soil C in a central Canadian boreal context, Peng et al (2002) report an additional 32% loss of soil C when FTH is employed versus stem-only harvesting. With net C differentials of these magnitudes, the use of carbon-inefficient logging choices must be carefully evaluated in an increasingly carbon-conscious world.…”

Section: Carbon Logging Impacts the Carbon Cyclementioning

confidence: 98%

Increasing pressures to use forest biomass: A conservation viewpoint

Hesselink¹

2010

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various policy, economic, and social drivers are pushing us towards utilizing our forests for a changing mix of products that include returning to them for biomass as a fuel source. While this is a use with some limited merit, it must be considered prudently and with the ecological limits of our forests clearly identified and understood before substantially investing our public resources towards this purpose. There is enough scientific evidence to suggest that caution and restraint is needed so that we can identify key ecological impacts and define sites on which increased fibre harvesting is not appropriate before biomass policies are put in place. Information is needed on monitoring methods, and effects on site productivity, biodiversity, and carbon cycling; full economic analyses and life-cycle carbon accounting is needed. Perverse incentives need to be avoided. A precautionary path is therefore required that makes ecosystem sustainability a priority, that builds confidence in application of current practices, that includes environmental assessment and pilot programs, and that operates under a clear regulatory regime that integrates bioenergy removals within clear forest management plans. The pervasive impacts of climate change are converging with an economic opportunity to set the groundwork for our next forest economy, and biomass utilization policy will play a key role in how well we choose to manage our forest resources in this unique context. To proceed with maximization of use as the dominant management priority is to ignore the critical obligation that managers must appreciate: that our forest resources have limits to their exploitation from which, once exceeded, they do not easily recover. On the evidence available, this is a time for government policy makers to take the precautionary path in allocating our forest biomass, and to ensure that we are comfortably living on the interest from our forest ecosystems but not tapping into its capital.Key words: biomass, sustainability, policy, conservation, full-tree harvesting, environmental impacts, intensity, carbon, utilization pressures RÉSUMÉ Plusieurs forces politiques, économiques et sociales nous poussent à utiliser nos forêts pour en tirer des produits différents ce qui comprend aussi un retour vers la biomasse en tant que source de carburant. Même s'il s'agit d'une utilisation ayant quelques mérites, elle se doit d' être considérée prudemment et dans les limites écologiques clairement identifiées de nos forêts et comprises avant d'investir substantiellement nos ressources publiques dans cette direction. Il existe suffisamment de preuves scientifiques laissant entendre que des précautions et de la retenue doivent être exercées pour nous permettre d'identifier les impacts écologiques et définir les sites sur lesquels l' exploitation plus poussée de la matière ligneuse n' est pas appropriée avant que les politiques portant sur la biomasse ne soient mises en place. Il nous faut plus d'information sur les méthodes de suivi et les effets sur la pr...

show abstract

Effects of harvesting regimes on carbon and nitrogen dynamics of boreal forests in central Canada: a process model simulation

Cited by 74 publications

References 41 publications

Moderate forest disturbance as a stringent test for gap and big-leaf models

Moderate forest disturbance as a stringent test for gap and big-leaf models

Potential impacts of regional climate change on site productivity of Larix olgensis plantations in northeast China

Increasing pressures to use forest biomass: A conservation viewpoint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About