4.4 Editorial Material

Wood ash as a soil amendment in Canadian forests: what are the barriers to utilization?

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 442-450

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2017-0351

Keywords

bioenergy; wood ash; forest soil; biomass harvesting; waste management

Categories

Funding

  1. Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD) [2C03.003 BIO 026]
  2. Natural Resources Canada's Aboriginal Forestry Initiative
  3. Pic Mobert First Nation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The contribution of forest biomass to Canada's energy production is small but growing. As the forest bioenergy industry in Canada expands, there is growing interest in more sustainably managing the wood ash that is generated as a by-product. Despite being rich in nutrients, wood ash is usually landfilled in Canada. Soil applications of ash in Canadian forests could be used to mimic some of the effects of wildfire, to replace nutrients removed during harvesting, to counteract the negative effects of acid deposition, and to improve tree growth. At present, the provincial and territorial processes for obtaining regulatory approval to use wood ash as a forest soil amendment can be challenging to navigate. Furthermore, the costs for obtaining approval and transporting and applying wood ash to the soil can render landfilling a more cost-effective method of ash management. To ensure that wood ash applications in Canadian forests are conducted safely, effectively, and efficiently, experience from European countries could provide a useful starting point for developing best practices. The results of Canadian research trials will assist policy makers and forest managers in refining management guidelines that encourage soil applications of wood ash as a forest management tool while protecting the ecology, water quality, biodiversity, and productivity of Canadian forests.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available