Climate Benefit of Different Tree Species on Former Agricultural Land in Northern Europe
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Tree Species
2.2. Modeling of Site Index Curves, Production and Rotation Cycle
2.3. Carbon Stocks and Substitution
2.4. Afforestation Scenario
3. Results
3.1. Overview about the Production
3.2. C Sequestration and Substitution in a Hectare Scale
3.3. C Sequestration and Substitution at the Landscape Scale
4. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eriksson, E.; Gillespie, A.; Gustavsson, L.; Langvall, O.; Olsson, M.; Sathre, R.; Stendahl, J. Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathre, R.; O’Connor, J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sántha, E.; Bentsen, N.S. Ecosystem Service Benefits and Trade-Offs—Selecting Tree Species in Denmark for Bioenergy Production. Forests 2020, 11, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lundmark, T.; Bergh, J.; Hofer, P.; Lundström, A.; Nordin, A.; Poudel, B.C.; Sathre, R.; Taverna, R.; Werner, F. Potential Roles of Swedish Forestry in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation. Forests 2014, 5, 557–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundmark, T.; Bergh, J.; Nordin, A.; Fahlvik, N.; Poudel, B.C. Comparison of carbon balances between continuous-cover and clear-cut forestry in Sweden. Ambio 2016, 45, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petersson, H.; Ellison, D.; Appiah Mensah, A.; Berndes, G.; Egnell, G.; Lundblad, M.; Lundmark, T.; Lundström, A.; Stendahl, J.; Wikberg, P.E. On the role of forests and the forest sector for climate change mitigation in Sweden. Zenodo 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormick, K.; Kautto, N. The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2589–2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haapala, A.; Härkönen, J.; Leviäkangas, P.; Kess, P.; Häggman, H.; Arvola, J.; Stoor, T.; Ämmäla, A.; Karppinen, K.; Leppilampi, M.; et al. Bioeconomy potential—Focus on Northern Finland. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2014, 7, 66–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berndes, G.; Abt, B.; Asikainen, A.; Cowie, A.; Dale, V.; Egnell, G.; Lindner, M.; Paré, D.; Pingoud, K.; Yeh, S. Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. Sci. Policy Eur. For. Inst. 2016, 3, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Innovating for Sustainable Growth. A Bioeconomy for Europe; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2012; 59p, Available online: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f0d8515-8dc0-4435-ba53-9570e47dbd51 (accessed on 16 November 2021).
- The European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission, Brussels 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2021).
- Proskurina, S.; Sikkema, R.; Heinimö, J.; Vakkilainen, E. Five years left—How are the EU member states contributing to the 20% target for EU’s renewable energy consumption; the role of woody biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 95, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, L.; Ingerslev, M.; Kilpeläinen, A.; Torssonen, P.; Lazdina, D.; Löf, M.; Madsen, P.; Muiste, P.; Stener, L.-G. Increased forest biomass production in the Nordic and Baltic countries—A review on current and future opportunities. Silva Fenn. 2016, 50, id1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ollikainen, M. Forestry in bioeconomy—Smart green growth for the humankind. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014, 29, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Naumov, V.; Elbakidze, M.; Manton, M.; Priednieks, J.; Rendenieks, Z. Wood production and biodiversity conservation are rival forestry objectives in Europe’s Baltic Sea Region. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eyvindson, K.; Repo, A.; Monkkonen, M. Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio- based economy. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 92, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paris Agreement. 2015. 25p. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2021).
- Tullus, H.; Tullus, A.; Rytter, L. Short-rotation forestry for supplying biomass for energy production. In Forest BioEnergy Production: Management, Carbon Sequestration and Adaptation; Kellomäki, S., Kilpeläinen, A., Ashraful, A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA; Heidelberg, Germany; Dordercht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 39–56. [Google Scholar]
- Bastin, J.-F.; Finegold, Y.; Garcia, C.; Mollicone, D.; Rezende, M.; Routh, D.; Zohner, C.M.; Crowther, T.W. The global tree restoration potential. Science 2019, 365, 76–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The 3 Billion Tree Planting Pledge for 2030. 2021. 53p. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/forests/swd_3bn_trees.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2021).
- Weih, M. Intensive short rotation forestry in boreal climates: Present and future perspectives. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 369–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lankoski, J.; Ollikainen, M. Biofuel policies and the environment: Do climate benefits warrant increased production from biofuel feedstocks? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 676–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutter, R.; Tullus, A.; Kanal, A.; Tullus, T.; Tullus, H. The impact of former land-use type to above- and below-ground C and N pools in short-rotation hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L. × P. tremuloides Michx.) plantations in hemiboreal conditions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 378, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randlane, T.; Tullus, T.; Saag, A.; Lutter, R.; Tullus, A.; Helm, A.; Tullus, H.; Pärtel, M. Diversity of lichens and bryophytes in hybrid aspen plantations in Estonia depends on landscape structure. Can. J. For. Res. 2017, 47, 1202–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Englund, O.; Börjesson, P.; Berndes, G.; Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.F.; Grizzetti, B.; Dimitriou, I.; Mola-Yudego, B.; Fahl, F. Beneficial land use change: Strategic expansion of new biomass plantations can reduce environmental impacts from EU agriculture. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 60, 101990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nord-Larsen, T.; Sevel, L.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Commercially Grown Short Rotation Coppice Willow in Denmark: Biomass Production and Factors Affecting Production. BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, R.M.; Rytter, L.; Högbom, L. Carbon sequestration in Willow (Salix spp.) plantations on former areable land estimated by repeated field sampling and C budget calculations. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 83, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, L.; Rytter, R.M. Growth and carbon capture of grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench.) under north European conditions—Estimates based on reported research. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 373, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uri, V.; Kukumägi, M.; Aosaar, J.; Varik, M.; Becker, H.; Soosaar, K.; Morozov, G.; Ligi, K.; Padari, A.; Ostonen, I.; et al. Carbon budgets in fertile grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench.) stands of different ages. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 396, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, T. Biomass production and allometric above- and below-ground relations for young birch stands planted at four spacings on abandoned farmland. Forestry 2006, 80, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lutter, R.; Tullus, A.; Kanal, A.; Tullus, T.; Vares, A.; Tullus, H. Growth development and plant-soil relations in mid-term silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) plantations on previous agricultural lands in hemiboreal Estonia. Eur. J. For. Res. 2015, 134, 653–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, L.; Stener, L.G. Growth and thinning effects during a rotation period of hybrid aspen in southern Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014, 29, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutter, R.; Tullus, A.; Kanal, A.; Tullus, T.; Tullus, H. Above-ground growth and temporal plant-soil relations in midterm hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L. × P. tremuloides Michx.) plantations on former arable lands in hemiboreal Estonia. Scand. J. Forest Res. 2017, 8, 688–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, T.; Karacic, A. Increment and biomass in hybrid poplar and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1925–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, U.B.; Madsen, P.; Hansen, J.K.; Nord-Larsen, T.; Nielsen, A.Y. Production potential of 36 poplar clones grown at medium length rotation in Denmark. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 64, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgiadis, P.; Vesterdal, L.; Stupak, I.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Accumulation of soil organic carbon after cropland conversion to short-rotation willow and poplar. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 1390–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, T. Biomass Production of Norway Spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) Growing on Abandoned Farmland. Silva Fenn. 1999, 33, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johansson, T. Total Stem and Merchantable Volume Equations of Norway Spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) Growing on Former Farmland in Sweden. Forests 2014, 5, 2037–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johansson, T. Biomass equations for hybrid larch growing on farmland. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 49, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, L.; Lutter, R. Early growth of different tree species on agricultural land along a latitudinal transect in Sweden. Forestry 2020, 93, 376–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Favero, A.; Mendelsohn, R.; Sohngen, B. Using forests for climate mitigation: Sequester carbon or produce woody biomass? Clim. Chang. 2017, 144, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staples, M.D.; Malina, R.; Suresh, P.; Hileman, J.I.; Barrett, S.R.H. Aviation CO2 emissions reductions from the use of alternative jet fuels. Energy Policy 2017, 114, 342–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalt, G.; Mayer, A.; Theurl, M.C.; Lauk, C.; Erb, K.H.; Haberl, H. Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice? GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 1283–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gustavsson, I.; Pingoud, K.; Sathre, R. Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: Comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2006, 11, 667–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taeroe, A.; Mustapha, W.F.; Stupak, I.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Do forests best mitigate CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by setting them aside for maximization of carbon storage or by management for fossil fuel substitution? J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, L.; Lundmark, T. Trädslagsförsök Med Inriktning på Biomassaproduktion [Tree Species Trial with Emphasis on Biomass Production—Stage 2]; Arbetsrapport no. 837; Skogforsk: Uppsala, Sweden, 2014; 24p. [Google Scholar]
- Rytter, L.; Lundmark, T. Trädslagsförsök Med Inriktning på Biomassaproduktion—Etapp 2 [Tree Species Trial with Emphasis on Biomass Production]; Arbetsrapport no. 724; Skogforsk: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010; 20p. [Google Scholar]
- Johansson, U.; Ekö, P.M.; Elfving, B.; Johansson, T.; Nilsson, U. Nya höjdutvecklingskurvor för bonitering. Fakta Skog 2013, 14, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Elfving, B.; Kiviste, A. Construction of site index equations for Pinus sylvestris L. using permanent plot data in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 98, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiviste, A. An algebraic difference model for the forest growth simulation in Estonia. Trans. Est. Agric. Univ. 1997, 189, 63–75. [Google Scholar]
- Kiviste, A.; Kiviste, K. Algebraic difference equations for stand height, diameter, and volume depending on stand age and site factors for Estonian state forests. Math. Comput. For. Nat.-Resour. Sci. 2009, 1, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
- Ozolinš, R. Forest stand assortment structure analysis using mathematical modelling. For. Stud. 2002, 37, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Uri, V.; Varik, M.; Aosaar, J.; Kanal, A.; Kukumägi, M.; Lõhmus, K. Biomass production and carbon sequestration in a fertile silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) forest chronosequence. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 267, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortier, J.; Truax, B.; Gagnon, D.; Lambert, F. Plastic Allometry in Coarse Root Biomass of Mature Hybrid Poplar Plantations. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 1691–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Addo-Danso, S.; Prescott, C.E.; Smith, A.R. Methods for estimating root biomass and production in forest and woodland ecosystem carbon studies: A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 359, 332–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacaldo, R.S.; Volk, T.A.; Briggs, R.D. Greenhouse Gas Potentials of Shrub Willow Biomass Crops Based on Below- and Aboveground Biomass Inventory Along a 19-Year Chronosequence. Bioenergy Res. 2013, 6, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Repola, J. Models for vertical wood density of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch stems, and their application to determine average wood density. Silva Fenn. 2006, 40, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dimitriou, I.; Rosenqvist, H.; Berndes, G. Slow expansion and low yields of willow short rotation coppice in Sweden; implications for future strategies. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 4613–4618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordborg, M.; Berndesm, G.; Dimitriou, I.; Henriksson, A.; Mola-Yudego, B.; Rosenqvist, H. Energy analysis of willow production for bioenergy in Sweden. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M.; Bárcena, T.G.; Vesterdal, L. Tree species and time since afforestation drive soil C and N mineralization on former cropland. Geoderma 2017, 305, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rytter, R.M.; Rytter, L. Carbon sequestration at land use conversion—Early changes in total carbon stocks for six tree species grown on former agricultural land. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vesterdal, L.; Clarke, N.; Sigurdsson, B.; Gundersen, P. Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests? For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 309, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bárcena, T.G.; Kiær, L.P.; Vesterdal, L.; Stefánsdóttir, H.M.; Gundersen, P.; Sigurdsson, B.D. Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 2393–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leskinen, P.; Cardellini, G.; González-García, S.; Hurmekoski, E.; Sathre, R.; Seppälä, J.; Smyth, C.; Stern, T.; Verkerk, P.J. Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation. In Science to Policy 7; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2018; Volume 7, 27p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wihersaari, M. Greenhouse gas emissions from final harvest fuel chip production in Finland. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 28, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, C.; Rampley, G.; Lemprière, T.C.; Schwab, O.; Kruz, W.A. Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for Canada. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 1071–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mola-Yudego, B.; Arevalo, J.; Díaz-Yáñez, O.; Dimitriou, I.; Haapala, A.; Carlos Ferraz Filho, A.; Selkimäki, M.; Valbuena, R. Wood biomass potentials for energy in northern Europe: Forest or plantations? Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 106, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundmark, T.; Poudel, B.C.; Stål, G.; Nordin, A.; Sonesson, J. Carbon balance in production forestry in relation to rotation length. Can. J. For. Res. 2018, 48, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hepner, H.; Lukason, O.; Lutter, R.; Padari, A.; Tullus, A.; Tullus, H. The Value of Hybrid Aspen Coppice Investment under Different Discount Rate, Price and Management Scenarios: A Case Study of Estonia. Forests 2021, 12, 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seidl, R.; Vigl, F.; Rössler, G.; Neumann, M.; Rammer, W. Assessing the resilience of Norway spruce forests through a model-based reanalysis of thinning trials. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 388, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jakoby, O.; Lischke, H.; Wermelinger, B. Climate change alters elevational phenology patterns of the European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus). Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 4048–4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felton, A.; Nilsson, U.; Sonesson, J.; Felton, A.M.; Roberge, J.M.; Ranius, T.; Ahlström, M.; Bergh, J.; Björkman, C.; Boberg, J.; et al. Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio 2016, 45, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dyderski, M.K.; Paz, S.; Frelich, L.E.; Jagodzinski, A.M. How much does climate change threaten European forest tree species distributions? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 24, 1150–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puchalka, R.; Dyderski, M.K.; Vítková, M.; Sádlo, J.; Klisz, M.; Netsvetov, M.; Prokopuk, Y.; Matisons, R.; Mionskowski, M.; Wojda, T.; et al. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) range contraction and expansion in Europe under changing climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 27, 1587–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lindner, M.; Fitzgerald, J.B.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Reyer, C.; Delzon, S.; van der Maaten, E.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Lasch, P.; Eggers, J.; van der Maaten-Theunissen, M.; et al. Climate change and European forests: What do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Forest Planning Guidance. 2009. Accepted on 16 January 2009. RTL 2009, 9, 104. Available online: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/131082018008?leiaKehtiv (accessed on 16 December 2021). (In Estonian).
- Padari, A. Mathematical analysis and modification possibilities of Ozolinš taper curve on the example of Hiiumaa pines. For. Stud. 2020, 72, 34–53. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lutter, R.; Stål, G.; Arnesson Ceder, L.; Lim, H.; Padari, A.; Tullus, H.; Nordin, A.; Lundmark, T. Climate Benefit of Different Tree Species on Former Agricultural Land in Northern Europe. Forests 2021, 12, 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121810
Lutter R, Stål G, Arnesson Ceder L, Lim H, Padari A, Tullus H, Nordin A, Lundmark T. Climate Benefit of Different Tree Species on Former Agricultural Land in Northern Europe. Forests. 2021; 12(12):1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121810
Chicago/Turabian StyleLutter, Reimo, Gustav Stål, Lina Arnesson Ceder, Hyungwoo Lim, Allar Padari, Hardi Tullus, Annika Nordin, and Tomas Lundmark. 2021. "Climate Benefit of Different Tree Species on Former Agricultural Land in Northern Europe" Forests 12, no. 12: 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121810