4.7 Article

Using Silviculture to Influence Carbon Sequestration in Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forests

期刊

FORESTS
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 300-316

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f3020300

关键词

additionality; carbon sequestration; fire and fuels extension; forest carbon accounting; Forest Vegetation Simulator; silviculture; spruce-fir

类别

资金

  1. USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program [97-35101-4314]
  2. USGS Biological Research Division [1434 HQ97-RV-01555 RWO27, RWO34]
  3. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University
  4. Tennessee Valley Authority's Public Power Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhancement of forest growth through silvicultural modification of stand density is one strategy for increasing carbon (C) sequestration. Using the Fire and Fuels Extension of the Forest Vegetation Simulator, the effects of even-aged, uneven-aged and no-action management scenarios on C sequestration in a southern Appalachian red spruce-Fraser fir forest were modeled. We explicitly considered C stored in standing forest stocks and the fate of forest products derived from harvesting. Over a 100-year simulation period the even-aged scenario (250 Mg C ha(-1)) outperformed the no-action scenario (241 Mg C ha(-1)) in total carbon (TC) sequestered. The uneven-aged scenario approached 220 Mg C ha(-1), but did not outperform the no-action scenario within the simulation period. While the average annual change in C (AAC) of the no-action scenario approached zero, or carbon neutral, during the simulation, both the even-aged and uneven-aged scenarios surpassed the no-action by year 30 and maintained positive AAC throughout the 100-year simulation. This study demonstrates that silvicultural treatment of forest stands can increase potential C storage, but that careful consideration of: (1) accounting method (i.e., TC versus AAC); (2) fate of harvested products and; (3) length of the planning horizon (e. g., 100 years) will strongly influence the evaluation of C sequestration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据