4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations: A life cycle assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 1439-1450

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0159

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most forest carbon assessments focus only on biomass carbon and assume that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forestry activities are minimal. This study took an in-depth look at the direct and indirect emissions from Pacific Northwest (PNW) Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco] forestry activities to support or deny this claim. Greenhouse gas budgets for 408 management regimes were calculated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. These management regimes were comprised of different combinations of three types of seedlings (P + 1, 1 + 1, and large plug), two types of site preparation (pile and burn, and chemical), 17 combinations of management intensity including fertilization, herbicide treatment, precommercial thinning (PCT), commercial thinning (CT), and nothing, and four different rotation ages (30, 40, 50, and 60 yr). Normalized to 50 yr, average direct GHG emissions were 8.6 megagrams (Mg) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e) ha(-1), which accounted for 84% of total GHG emissions from the average of 408 management regimes. Harvesting (PCT, CT, and clear cuffing) contributed the most to total GHG emissions (5.9 Mg CO(2)e per 700 m(3) harvested timber), followed by pile and burn site preparation (4.0 Mg CO(2)e ha(-1) or 32% of total GHG emissions) and then fertilization (1.9 Mg CO(2)e, ha(-1) or 15% of total GHG emissions). Seedling production, seedling transportation, chemical site preparation, and herbicide treatment each contributed less than 1% of total GHG emissions when assessed per hectare of planted timberland. Total emissions per 100 m(3) averaged 1.6 Mg CO(2)e ha(-1) over all 408 management regimes. An uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo simulations revealed that there are significant differences between most alternative management regimes.

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

4.4
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