Carbon Assets

https://www.globalforestresources.com

Keywords - Forest carbon, Soils carbon, Carbon, Carbon asset management, carbon farming

Through the process of photosynthesis, individual trees and forest communities around this planet remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and through a chemical process science refers to as the Calvin Cycle, combine it with water, and build a 6-carbon sugar compound called glucose. During this process, the tree releases oxygen back into the general atmosphere through gas exchange valves, called stomata, which are usually located on the underside of the leaves and needles. Thus, trees are referred to as ‘the lungs of the planet’. A portion of these sugars are stored as cellulose (i.e. wood fibres) in the woody portion of the tree. The remainder of the sugar compounds are broken down into energy compounds through what science calls the Krebs Cycle. These energy compounds- ATP, NADP, NADPH are translocated throughout the plant. Carbon in the cellulose is stored throughout the tree- from roots to buds.

 Is carbon additionally stored in forest soils?

Sure, and agricultural soils as well. Carbon stored within the different soil horizons is essential.  Carbon plays a critical role in soil health. It increases water holding capacity and infiltration rates. It reduces invasive weeds and disease incidence. Soil carbon increases biodiversity as well as improves the plants’ ability to uptake and utilize micro- and macro-nutrients. It decreases potential erosion and soil loss to overland flow.  It also holds on to water like a sponge, thus reducing the amount of water needed for irrigation. When we calculate how much carbon a wooded area can sequester and hold as a reservoir, we consider the complete ecosystem: the standing dead, the shrub layer, the soils, and the dead woody material on the forest floor. Imagine a temperate forest of maples and ash trees, where their leaves fall to the ground every autumn. Some of that forest carbon in the leaves is returned to the soil as they decay, ensuring a stable soils carbon flux over time.  However, a portion of it also returns to the atmosphere. When trees die and fall to the forest floor, tons of that woody material also decompose over time and return to the atmosphere as part of the global carbon cycle or percolate into the soils as a long-term soils carbon component.

 Soil carbon comprises 50 -70% of the total carbon assets in temperate and in the cooler boreal forests. Hence, small changes in soil carbon can have significant impact on ecosystem carbon storage. Soils constitute the largest terrestrial carbon pool, containing as much as 2,344,000,000,000 (2.344 gtonnes) tonnes of basic carbon (C) to a depth of 3 meters.  Forest soils, especially, contain more than double the amount of carbon than above ground biomass. Most carbon registries assume that management activities have little or no effect on soil carbon stocks if site preparation activities do not include mechanical site disturbance of more than 25% of the area. However, research has shown significant sequestration rates for temperate forest soils with rates ranging as high as 4.8 tonnes of CO2e /acre/year. (1.3 tonnes of carbon). Although soils carbon stocks accounted for nearly 48% of all forest carbon, they contributed only 2% of the total sequestration. This suggests that soil carbon stocks are relatively stable, and this apparent lack of change may be the result of losses (from management activities) and gains (from increased growth). 

 Carbon assets (nonfungible or intangible assets) comprise:

●       Above-ground ecosystems that are assets that generate offset value (CO2e)

●       Offsets (carbon credits)

●       Below-ground ecosystems are assets that generate offset value, also.

Intangible assets are non-fungible assets that are not visible, can’t be physically measured  or held and that create value over time simply by their existence.

 The de-carbonization transformation will be an extended and complex process. It requires a value to be placed on carbon. Whether that value be a government mandated value (e.g., a tax on carbon) or a market driven value (e.g., a market-based trading system), it requires societies and cultures- individuals and corporations to evolve from ‘excessive investment in high emissions’ to ‘high investments in low emissions’ processes. Without effective pricing or a valuing mechanism, it will be difficult to manage carbon emissions. Carbon asset management is the key to regulating carbon emissions. It measures, verifies, and appraises carbon assets throughout the chain of ownership. However, global investment in carbon asset management is lagging behind what is needed to adequately portray forest carbon sequestration as a viable climate solution.

Global Forest Resources facilitates the transaction of carbon assets, working with national and international markets and various network of worldwide buyers to offset their emissions. We help our customers obtain a fair market price for their offset credits, structure portfolio transactions, construct modern financing solutions, and retire credits.

 Our offerings for carbon buyers consist of :

●       Due diligence on sellers and processing transactions.

●       Risk-free analysis and transparent trades.

●       Evaluation of sustainable development contribution of carbon offset projects.

●       Structuring portfolios of voluntary and regulatory carbon offsets from developing countries.

●       Developing appropriate Emissions Reductions Purchase Agreements (ERPA’s).

 Our offerings for carbon sellers encompass :

●       Spot and forward transactions of multiple year offset vintages.

●       Market appraisals for offsets through auctions and competitive bidding.

●   Developing Emissions Reductions Payment Agreements (ERPA’s), contracting, offset transfer, and facilitating payments.

Soils Carbon

Keywords: carbon, soil, soil carbon, carbon assets, water holding capacity, soil water management, prescribed fire, charcoal carbon, fire, soil organic matter

Soil carbon comprises 50 -70% of the total carbon assets in temperate and the cooler boreal forests. Hence, small changes in soil carbon can have significant impact on ecosystem carbon storage. Soils constitute the largest terrestrial carbon pool, containing as much as 2,344,000,000,000 tonnes (2.344 gtonnes) of basic carbon (C) to a depth of 3 meters.  Forest soils, especially, contain more than double the amount of carbon than above ground biomass. Most carbon registries assume that management activities have little or no effect on soil carbon stocks if site preparation activities do not include mechanical site disturbance of more than 25% of the area. However, research has shown significant sequestration rates for temperate forest soils with rates ranging as high as 4.8 tonnes of CO2e /acre/year. (1.3 tonnes of carbon). Although soils carbon stocks accounted for nearly 48% of all forest carbon, they contributed only 2% of the total sequestration. This suggests that soil carbon stocks are relatively stable and this apparent lack of change may be the result of losses (from management activities) and gains (from increased growth).  Several factors influence the interaction of soil carbon stocks and management activities:

Firstly, soil carbon dynamics vary with the dominant tree species, harvest type and silviculture system, soil type, site preparation techniques, time after disturbance, climate, and a multitude of other factors, known and unknown. There is a high amount of uncertainty compounded by studies that indicate different results. The end result being our knowledge of below ground activities is weaker than our understanding of aboveground processes.

Secondly, there are forest treatments that increase carbon stocks. Precommercial and commercial thinning treatments that leave organic material on the site have the potential to increase soil carbon 20-40%, especially on poor soils. Added carbon resources increases plant productivity as well as below ground carbon transport. These positive results are dependent upon leaving the needles, branches, and stems on the site. Removal in these biomass stocks causes changes in the microclimate and stimulates organic matter decomposition. Leaving these stocks on site has a positive effect on soil carbon pools in conifer dominated ecosystems and actually results in carbon losses in broadleaf ecosystems due to the higher content of labile (short-term) versus recalcitrant (longer term) carbon stocks in these broadleaf forests. Another important treatment recognized by Global Forest resources is prescribed fire. Carbon from charcoal following a prescribed fire (typically after a harvest) provides a significant input of charcoal carbon. Charcoal is created by the incomplete combustion of organic material and is resistant to microbial decomposition. As this charcoal is incorporated into the soil, it provides a long-term soil carbon pool as well as improved soil quality. 

Thirdly, treatments that create significant soil disturbance, such as plowing, deep ripping and contour site preparation will have negative effects on soil carbon pools with potential losses of 30% or more.

Fourthly, the harvest system and type of harvest plays a significant role in soil carbon dynamics. Whole tree harvests reduce soil carbon by as much as 20%. Stem only harvests that leave organic material- needles, branches, bark, unmerchantable stems on site can result in gains of as much as 40%. Whole tree harvesting will result in significant soil carbon losses relative to the total carbon sequestered by the same forest carbon project.

Fifthly, Rotation length as well as cutting cycle is an important contributing factor to soil carbon gains and losses. Research indicates that time between entries may be a more important factor than the aforementioned harvest intensity. Research also shows that soil carbon lost due to harvest activities may be recovered in certain ecosystems and soil types within 50 years. However, the interval is longer in the cooler boreal forests.

Sixthly, precommercial and commercial thinning are both approved treatments in the Global Forest Resources Protocols. Thinning can change the soil microclimate and stimulate soil organic matter decomposition when the biomass is left on the site. Any negative effects caused by tree thinning treatments are typically offset by increased tree growth in the short to near term (10-20 years) of the residual forest.

And lastly, methods and established techniques to measure and monitor soil carbon losses and gains are not precise.   

Soil carbon is not anticipated to change significantly as a result of Forest Project activities. However, soil carbon inventory must be updated if the following occur:

1. Site preparation activities involve the use of prescribed fire.

2. Wildfire burns through the Project Area.

3. Addition of carbon resources occurs. These added carbon resources include organic material added to the environment through precommercial thinning; branches and needles added from the commercial thinning operation and carbon added with the application of biochar-charcoal carbon.

Forests & Climate

All plant species exist in an envelope, a niche of climate conditions. These sets of climate conditions unique to each species are often referred to as ecosystems, vegetation communities, and/ or habitat types, depending upon location and scale. They represent a way to order and rank ecotypes based on these several variables and there are at least seventeen climate variablesthat actively contribute to these various plant communities. They include:

• Mean annual temperature

• Mean annual precipitation

• Growing season precipitation

• Mean cold month temperature

• Minimum cold month temperature

• Mean warm month temperature

• Maximum warm month temperature

• Annual moisture index

• Summer moisture index

• Degree-days > 5 °C

• Degree-days < 0 °C

• Frost-free period

• Last spring frost

• First fall frost

• Growing season degree-days > 5 °C

• Summer-winter temperature differential

• Date degree-days > 5 °C reaches 100

• Minimum degree-days <0 °C

• Light quality- amount and intensity of  radiation striking the earth.

And all green plants convert carbon from the atmosphere into carbon-based energy compounds through the process of photosynthesis.

Once synthesized, these carbon-based energy compounds may be allocated to seed production (regeneration), leaf production (photosynthetic capacity), root production (water and nutrient up-take), radial growth (storing of water and carbon), or respiration (the intake of CO2 and the respiring of oxygen (O). Allocation of scarce carbon resources to any one active plant process reduces available carbon resources for these other essential growth functions.

The priority carbon allocation for most plants and trees, including conifers is respiration- the opening and closing of the stomata or gas exchange valves. These microscopic valves are typically found on the underside of leaves and needles, although some conifer species (e.g., true firs) may have them on both sides. These exchange valves enable the active process of assimilating carbon dioxide (C02) from the atmosphereand building the carbon-based energy compounds critical for all plant functions. This respiration function is a priority because only through the opening of these valves can trees uptake the essential carbon. However, there is a risk and a loss of essential water when these valves are open. Some species, (e.g., the pines) are more sensitive to water loss and  will often actively close these valves  to prevent damaging water loss. Closing the stomata to reduce water loss also has a cost. It reduces the all-important uptake of carbon. Other factors influence stomatal function. Solar radiation- amount and intensity also influence stomatal function. Research has shown that short wave radiation (i.e., UV light) causes early and premature stomatal closure, especially in the pine species. This closure reduces the water pressure within the tree causing the tree to emit a pheromone that attracts bark beetles. Scale this phenomena up to an ecosystem and it becomes more apparent why we lost the lodgepole pine forest from the Mexican border to the Arctic Circle. And indeed, Figure 3 indicates an upward trend in the amount and intensity of short-wave radiation striking the earth’s surface.

Carbon allocation in conifers under drought stress may force the tree to prioritize more carbon resources to be allocated to mere survival and defense at the expense of reproduction. However, the more carbon resources allocated to reproduction, the greater the likelihood of successful regeneration.

Only two things kill trees: lack of carbon intake (e.g. carbon starvation) and/ or hydraulic failure. Conifers often exhibit both- carbon intake failure and hydraulic failure, whereas deciduous trees often exhibit hydraulic failure only.  Hydraulic failure occurs when water losses through transpiration exceed water intake. Carbon starvation is the depletion or even partial depletion of non-structural carbon resources in response to exchange valve closure, limited carbon assimilation and long-term carbon storage dependency. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. Carbon pool depletion and reduced assimilation could have a direct impact on tree hydraulics and thus hydraulic failure.

Trees respond to stress in two ways: ‘fight’ or ‘flight’. They may ‘fight’ climate stress by allocating more carbon resources to survival functions like growth and defense mechanisms at the cost of reproduction. Because perennials reproduce over many years and any one year is typically not a reproduce or die situation, this is the path most trees are expected to take. Early seral species- like lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch tend to fight climate stress with these mechanisms.

Alternatively, increasing reproduction increases the probability that the seeds will fall and successfully germinate on favorable sites nearby or acceptable sites in a suitable environment- flight. Climax species like red cedar, true firs, and hemlock apparently use this ‘flight’ technique in response to stress, in this case climate related stress (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: grand fir (left photo) and red cedar (right photo) produced an unusually large crop of cones in the very droughty year of 2022 in the inland northwest region of the US in what may well be an effort to adapt to climate change through ‘flight’.

Figure 2. It is very likely that the Earth will experience a faster sustained rate of climate change in the 21st century than has occurred in the previous 10,000 years. High-resolution proxy data, surface temperature records, and climate models have been used to establish the structure and magnitude of large-scale natural climate variability over the past 1,000 years. However, since the mid-20th century, surface temperatures have warmed significantly—with the greatest warming occurring since the 1970s. Evaluating all observational records and using climate models for testing various processes, this recent change in global climate temperature can only be explained by including the effects of changing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. (Image courtesy of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.)

Figure 3. Climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) beginning in the mid 1990’s indicate an ever-increasing component of short-wave radiation (UV light) making it past the earth’s protective layers and striking the earth’s surface.

References 

Hartmann, H. (2015). Carbon starvation during drought-induced tree mortality – are we chasing a myth?. Journal of Plant Hydraulics, 2, e005. https://doi.org/10.20870/jph.2015.e005 

Jeffrey D., Emily V. Moran, and Stephen C. Hart. Fight or flight? Potential tradeoffs between drought defense and reproduction in conifers. 2019. Tree Physiology 39, 1071–1085. 

Nagel, Linda Marie, "Even-aged and multiaged ponderosa pine: A physiological comparison of stand structure and productivity" (2000). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 10602 

Lacointe, André, Carbon allocation among tree organs: A review of basic processes and representation in functional-structural tree models. Annals of Forest Science.  57 (2000) 521–533.

Forests & Fire

URL: https://www.globalforestresources.com/forests & fire

https://www.globalforestresources.com/fire 

Forests & Fire

There is bad fire in the forest…

Fire has, throughout history, always played a significant role in forests and the management of forest ecosystems. None more so than our temperate forests here in the western United States. Pre-European settlement, Natives across this continent used fire extensively to accomplish a variety of goals, from controlling shrubs and brush to improve travel, hunting, and gathering; to manage habitat for big game, to cool waters in salmon bearing rivers to promote the migration of salmon upriver- in practice, to “call the salmon home”. The use of fire as a management tool was crucial to their survival and existence. After European settlement, statutes and laws were enacted that banned the natives cultural burning and even imprisoned those who continued to implement it.

Along with European settlement came a fear of fire and a lack of understanding of the critical role of fire in native forest ecosystems. So much so that the founder of the United States Forest Service labelled fire the “greatest threat to our western forests”. And so began a legacy of fire suppression and exclusion- a Smokey Bear fire management policy that effected and changed forests throughout the west dramatically. Fire exclusion created overstocked forests of shade tolerant species more susceptible to diseases and insects. Fire exclusion also created forests of fuels easily ignitable and more prone to stand replacement crown fires. The effects of 140 years of fire exclusion are still influencing fire and forest management policies yet today.

The Smokey Bear fire management policy gave rise to a successful and long-term fire prevention and suppression effort. Indeed, the national policy for decades was “all fires out before 10:00 AM”.  However, all forests are in a continual state of flux and change. They regenerate, grow, mature, deteriorate, collapse, and become fuels. A telling result of the Smokey Bear paradigm has been the accumulation of fuels in the forests to the point where what historically would be a ground fire now becomes a massive conflagration and a stand replacing, crowning wildfire over vast acres. Failure to implement prescribed fire across all landscapes- grasslands, sagelands, and forestlands has caused wildfires to burn out of control and consume vast acres and cause exponentially increasing property damage and losses, and not just locally and nationally, but globally as well.

It takes three components to make a fire: fuels, ignition, and weather. Fuels are defined by four different classes: 1 hr; 10 hour; 100 hour, and 1,000-hour categories.  One-hour fuels are needles and small twigs up to ¼ inch in diameter; 10-hour fuels are ¼” to 1 inch diameter’; 100-hour fuels are 1” to 3” diameter, and 1,000-hour fuels are 3” to 8” diameter.

 The 1-hour fuels  fluctuate dramatically and diurnally due to air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and cloud cover. The 10-hour fuel moisture characteristics may fluctuate daily, but less so. These fuels offer a more stable planning component for prescription fire. Moisture content in this fuels category is critical for managing good fire. A 9% moisture content in these fuels produces  a darker smoke because oils and resins are being volatized. Whereas even a slight increase to 12% moisture produces more white smoke and steam. The 1,000-hour fuels burn hotter and longer and provide a significant energy release component. More of these larger fuels are burning in recent fires due to a warming and drying climate.

 Ignition sources vary and include lightning; arson; campfires; young people; trash burning; equipment use; railroads; smoking, and other unexplained sources. Most (85%) of wildfires in the United States are caused by human ignitions.

Weather is critical to wildfire extent and intensity, influencing both losses and gains. A fire that burns with too much intensity can destroy soil structure, roots, and rhizomes. A fire that burns too hot can also set vegetation succession patterns back to bare soil.  A hot burning fire can also volatize nitrogen, an important nutrient element. However, planet earth’s atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen and nitrogen is cycled back into the forest environment through bacteria and fungi within three years to the pre-burn levels. Phosphorous, calcium, and potassium are more important elements for early plant growth. They promote root development. And they are released in abundance after a moderately hot fire…typical conditions after a prescribed fire. However, there are more positive effects of fire in the forest.

Indeed, there are at minimum 17 positive attributes of fire in the forest: 1) to dispose of logging slash; 2) to increase and improve tree planting sites; 3) to reduce fuel loadings by removing excessive fuels build-up often created by fire exclusion policies; 4) to help in controlling wildfires with backburns and back-firing; 5) to prepare seedbeds for natural or planted regeneration; 6) to reduce shrubbery and grass competition for more fire tolerant, desired species (e.g. huckleberry plants); 7) to recycle nutrients to maintain and manage site productivity; 8) to sanitize sites against diseases and insects; 9) to eliminate less desirable plants; 10) to maintain early seral species on a site that would be taken over by less desirable, climax species; 11) to imitate a natural fire regime; 12) to maintain grasslands by killing invasive trees and shrubs; 13) to thin dense stands of trees to reduce moisture and nutrient stress; 14) to rejuvenate sprouting to improve deer and elk forage, and 16) to restore natural conditions and return the area to within its  historic range of variability (HRV), and last, but not least (17) soil carbon recharge.                    

And there is good fire in the forest…

Large wildfires followed European settlement from the Maine forests to the coastal Pacific forests. Logging slash accumulations and lack of forest management policies and appropriate silviculture typically fuelled these early fires. The Miramichi fire in Maine and New Brunswick in 1825 burned 2,800,00 acres. As logging moved west, so did large wildfires. The Peshtigo Fire in Michigan and Wisconsin burned 4,000,000 acres in 1871, not long after the heavy logging in the red pine forests of the lake states. In 1902, the Yacolt fire in Washington state burned 1,000,000 acres. Fuelled by logging slash and high winds, the Big Burn of 1910 consumed 3,000,000 acres in Idaho and Montana. In the intermountain west, 1988 was a dry year and large wildfires burned over 2,000,000 acres in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Fire exclusion and a warming and drying climate provide the ingredients for the catastrophic wildfires we are witnessing now.  Longer, droughtier summers are producing more bark beetles. Where historically we had two hatches of Ips pini per year, we can now have three in many areas. Moisture stress during these longer, dryer summers creates water stress in  all species and especially the pine species. These species tend to fight climate stress by closing their gas exchange valves, reducing their carbon intake and thus their capacity to appropriate carbon resources where they are needed most- respiration and defense mechanisms. Increasing mortality increases the fuel loading and resulting fire intensity. It also increases the need for prescribed fire and active fuels management.

The solution and perhaps the only solution to these damaging and catastrophic wildfires is to re-introduce good fire- prescribed fire into these ecosystems. Though a mechanical pre-treatment before prescribed fire may be necessary on many sites to prevent tree mortality, mulching, chipping, and slashing fuels increases the organic and litter layer and creates a hot enough fire when burned near the root collar to scorch the cambial layer and kill the tree. It does not necessarily require a crown fire to kill a forest. Periodic prescribed fire at a landscape level is the only tool scalable and is an effective natural process to manage accumulated fuels. Like all forest treatments, long term, repetitive use of prescribed fire requires training, adequate staffing, the will, and the greater social commitment. After all, this is a recurring effort to manage the human environment and must be passed from one generation to the next. The Indians knew this.

Forests & Planning

URL: https://www.globalforestresources.com/conservation-plans

https://www.globalforestresources.com/gis-mapping

 Keywords: Conservation Plans, GIS, mapping

 All You Need to Know About Conservation Plans and GIS Mapping

 Webster’s dictionary defines “conservation” as “the wise use and management of” and is not limited to natural resources. It could just as well refer to human resources. However, our use of the term ‘conservation’ refers to our natural resources and how we manage them. Thus, a Conservation Plan is a planning document and as such, it contains a variety of information necessary and vital to make short term and strategic (long term) resource management decisions. For a variety of reasons, global forests are being logged and stripped at an ever-increasing rate for human ‘development’, agriculture, food production, and  fuelwood. And even more, the increasing effects of climate change are taking a devastating toll on global forests.  Conservation plans are developed as a planning tool to address these issues and offer solutions and adaptations to problems identified in the planning process. These plans are an integrated effort to manage the human environment.

 There are several critical components of a Conservation Plan. The first being an appropriate and adequate inventory. An appropriate inventory includes forest metrics as well as wildlife species and habitat, water, and carbon resources. An adequate inventory models and predicts how they will change and evolve with the prescribed treatments. Which leads us to the second critical asset of a Plan, the actual documented management prescriptions- how each resource is going to be managed to improve/ increase their viability. The third critical asset in a Conservation Plan is the modelling, or projecting and predicting how the prescribed treatments will influence the forest’s growth, yield, and diversity not only in terms of timber, carbon, wildlife, and water resources, but also to predict the forest’s resilience, or ability and capacity to adapt to change.  

 The technical management of forest resources frequently makes use of a potent technology known as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Data about forests, species distribution, wildlife habitat, soils, water resources, rare and threatened flora and fauna and other assets can be stored in tabular form, analysed, and visualized using GIS and mapping procedures. It can also be used to examine the effects of proposed projects and alternatives, track changes in forest health, structure, and age class distribution over time given the different management prescriptions and offer valuable insights into resource management alternatives and options. We use GIS mapping to monitor the health of forests and fuels accumulations, follow the spread of wildfires, and even anticipate and plan for the direction of potential forest fires. This allows us to make better-informed decisions about how to protect and manage forest resources and allocate scarce resources where they will be most effective. GIS is a valuable tool for the sustainable management of forests in innumerable ways.

 The number of applications for GIS technology of forest management is expected to increase as its utility expands. Users of GIS mapping can better understand context, linkages, and patterns. Globally, hundreds of thousands of businesses use GIS to communicate information, analyse data, and produce intricate maps essential for solving problems. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a map is priceless. In our case, a map offers straightforward, visual information about the earth and its resources. By illustrating the size and shape of the land, the locations of its assets, and their juxtaposition,  maps describe the earth in intricate detail. Maps can display the global distribution of many types of resources, including human resources and infrastructure.

 Conservation plans are critical to landowners and resource managers. And GIS is critical to Conservation Plans and the planning process. Both are essential in the process of integrating and managing all natural resources and related environmental concerns. Both serve to increase public awareness, also. Both offer a range of strategies for protecting forests and educating the public, and both are crucial for maintaining the natural forest environments. For these reasons and many more, we need to believe in and promote this concept of developing planning documents that will greatly aid in our efforts to manage the global human environment.

 The following thematic display, or map was developed from GIS data and mapping software:

(Source: NASA). 

Please visit our website today to get more information related to Conservation Plans and GIS mapping.

Forests & Management

https://www.globalforestresources.com/

 Keywords - Forestry, Forest inventory, Forest management, climate change, climate adaptation, carbon farming, GIS, GPS

 Forest Management - A Necessity in the 21st Century

 Forest Management is the interactive process of making plans and implementing practices for the conservation (i.e., wise use and management) of forests to meet specific environmental, financial, social, and cultural goals. It is a broad field of administrative, monetary, social and technical factors relative to creating, growing, and tending groups of trees- ‘stands’. Forest management may involve varying degrees of deliberate human intervention in global forest ecosystems. These deliberate and planned interventions may include preservation (i.e., actions to sustain an ecosystem in a permanent and static state), and conservation (i.e., efforts to apply science and manipulate the forest environment in ways that perpetuate not only the forest ecosystem but the human environment as well). All forests on this planet can be managed sustainably by harvesting no more than can be grown in perpetuity. Indeed, ‘sustainable forest management’ is defined globally as a dynamic and evolving concept. The goal of which is to maintain and enhance the economic, social, and environmental values of all types of forests for the benefit of present and future generations. Contemplating the importance of forests, Global Forest Resources promotes sustainable forestry with a variety of management practices. We also believe the key to adapting forests to climate change is to build complexity into their species composition and structure. Our practices offer a holistic approach to management of global forest ecosystems for the welfare of present and future generations.

 Forest inventory evaluates the forests’ assets and provides qualitative and quantitative information critical for the planning and implementation of prescriptive treatments necessary for near-term and long-term management. These assets include commodity products- timber for lumber and pulp for paper products, carbon reservoirs in the above and below ground live biomass in the trees and roots, soils, and carbon stored in the standing dead. Quantifying and managing soils carbon, or carbon farming’ is a significant component of carbon asset management. We believe forest inventory must also measure non-commodity forest assets like filtered, fresh water, carbon- above and below ground, wildlife habitat and primary vs. net ecosystem productivity.

 Forests cover nearly one-third of the earth’s land mass and play a vital role in balancing global gases, stabilizing global climatic, greatly influencing the water cycle and the carbon cycle, protect soils, provide habitat for flora and fauna, produce food, and provide oxygen through their own respiration. Without sustainable global forestry, these non-commodity assets may be lost. They cannot be replaced or rebuilt even with our best efforts in the brief amount of time we have.

 Meanwhile, forest managers must maintain or improve the health, condition, and esthetics of the landscape, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and maintain canopy structure and diversity to fulfill various forest practices goals and objectives. To meet these demands, we often use technology and software tools. Computer technology has revolutionized land management decision analyses. Global Position System (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), relational databases, mapping technologies, visualization software, and growth and yield simulators are among the many tools currently available, and other software products are being rapidly developed. The USDA Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is one of the products currently available to aid forest managers in making sound biological and economical management decisions with its projection and planning capabilities. Software allows forest managers to model climate change and develop dynamic forest adaptations to it as we move through this era of increased climate risk.

Accounting for Nutrients in a Forest Environment

Keywords: forest management, forest nutrition, nutrient cycling, soil, soil pH, flushing, flushing mechanism, macro-nutrients, micro-nutrients, tree health, CEC, macro, micro

Accounting for nutrients in a forest environment

There are at least 17 nutrient elements, both macro and micro, important for tree and plant health, vigor, and growth. The nutrients important and most in demand by conifers- the macro nutrients include calcium (Ca), nitrogen (N), phosphorous, (P), and potassium (K), carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). The micro-nutrients are required in smaller amounts and include boron (B), chlorine (Cl), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), sodium (Na) and zinc (Zn).

All forests undergo a complex and extensive nutrient cycling system. Tropical forests tend to participate in a ‘direct’ system where the nutrient elements are stored in the foliage of the  tree species and the many layers of epiphytes. Due to the heavy rainfall typical of these areas, most nutrients are leached out of tropical soils leaving a relatively inert soil environment. Hence it is critical that plants store the very nutrients essential for their survival, growth and reproduction. These nutrients are stored and recycled within the plant community. Temperate forests, including the cooler boreal forests employ an ‘indirect nutrient’ cycling system. In this system, nutrients are accumulated in especially the foliage and small branches (<3 inches diameter) as the tree grows and matures. When the trees die, these nutrients are ‘returned’ to the soil environment to be stored on exchange sites in the soil. These exchange sites are often referred to as the ‘cation exchange capacity’(CEC) of the soil. And typically, the higher the organic content of the soil, the higher the CEC. A cation is a positively charged ion. An anion is a negatively charged element. Plants can typically uptake only positively charged cations through their root structures.  However, nutrients available in the soil are greatly influenced and dependent upon the soil pH, or hydrogen ion concentration in the soil.

Soil pH and the hydrogen (H) ion concentration in the soil environment is an inverse relationship. A pH of 4 has a much higher H concentration ( 1 in 10-4 sites= 1/10,000) versus a pH of 7 (1 in 10-7 =1/10,000,000 sites). The higher concentration of H ions (e.g., a lower pH) implies there are fewer available sites on the CEC for important nutrient elements, both micro and macro. Plants cannot take up these important nutrient elements until they are a positively charged ion on the exchange sites. A significant problem with the H ion is in the nature of the ion itself. Its chemical energy allows it to hold to the exchange sites with more energy than the nutrient element can exert to displace it. Hence, important nutrient elements are flushed from the root zone over time leaving a less fertile soil, simply because H ions occupy a greater number of the exchange sites. A periodic ‘flushing’ mechanism is essential to remove the H ions from the exchange sites and return important and critical nutrient elements back to the soil. Prescribed fire ( and historically wildland fire) in these forests provide this flushing mechanism. Fire oxidizes organic material, freeing up the nutrient elements stored in the foliage, small branches, and to a lesser extent the larger branches and woody stems. Thus, the ash that is left after a fire provides an overwhelming number of critical nutrient elements to remove or flush the H ions from the sites and attach themselves to these same exchange sites as they infiltrate and percolate into the soil environment.  Hence, the notion that wood ash is a natural fertilizer.

The following Table 1 is a summary of nutrient flux in various forest cover types in a northwest United States  temperate forest. Early seral forests (ponderosa pine, western larch, lodgepole pine and even Douglas-fir)  tend to concentrate fewer nutrients in their smaller branches(<3 inches in diameter) and needles. However, Table 3 indicates a significant amount of critical nutrient elements and especially Ca (calcium) and K (potassium) are extracted from the soil environment and stored.

 Table 1: nutrient concentrations by species in forest fuels < 3 inches diameter.  

Table 2 indicates how hydrogen ion concentrations (pH) change as cation nutrient elements are concentrated and stored in the branches less than 3 inches in diameter as forests transition from early seral to climax.  

Early seral Climax

Table 2: Soil pH by forest cover type.

Table 3 displays nutrient data from a forest inventory. This data analysis summarizes only 8 of the 17 critical nutrient elements. These data represent fuels 3 inches and smaller in diameter. It is measured in lbs/ acre and is relative to basal area of each tree species. 

Table 3. displays nutrient data from a forest inventory for each species by basal area. 

Table 4 assigns a current dollar replacement value to the nutrients stripped from the forest environment and concentrated in large and small piles and generally lost to the over-all forest ecosystem. Chelated minerals were chosen to replace stripped forest nutrients because they are immediately available for plant uptake and use, much like the lost nutrients would be available promptly if managed appropriately.

Table 4. Replacement Costs.

Analysis assumes 40% of the fuels are left in the forest due to logging damage, breakage, and trampling and the remaining 60% are concentrated in small and large piles of logging slash. Given this assumption, replacement costs alone for the nutrients stripped from the site with a ‘whole tree’ logging system would total approximately $31,488/ acre. The calcium and potassium nutrients appear to suffer significant losses.

NOTE: This estimate does not include the application costs- whether it be a land-based spreader or aerial application.

We don’t know the effects of this magnitude of nutrient stripping and loss on the health, growth, productivity, and vigor of future forests, but it is reasonable to assume that if nothing else, we have reduced the forest’s ability and capacity to adapt to change ( e.g., climate change) and have negatively impacted its resiliency.

Also, much like underground carbon sequestration rates, we know little about weathering amounts from rocks and parent material. This natural recharge rate would offset a portion of these lost plant nutrients. Still, it is a reasonable assumption that weathering rates would offset only a small fraction of these lost critical nutrients.

NOTE: for these reasons, our Global Forest Resources Carbon Registry does not recognize ‘whole tree’ logging as a viable nor sustainable harvest system. Fuels <3 inches diameter are to be left on the forest floor and managed.

 References:

Brown, James K., J. A. Kendall Snell, and David L. Bunnell 1977. Handbook for predicting slash weight of western conifers. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-37, 35 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah 84401.

Brown, James K. 1978. Weight and density of crowns of Rocky Mountain conifers. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-197, 56 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden Utah 84401.

Cooper, Stephen V., Kenneth E. Niema, David W. Roberts 1991. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho- a second approximation. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-236, 152 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden Utah 84401.

Faurot, James L. 1977. Estimating merchantable volume and stem residue volume in four northwest timber species: ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch, Douglas-fir. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-196, 55 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah 84401.

Pfister, Robert D., Bernard Kovalchik, Stephen F. Arno, Richard C. Presby 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34, 174 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden Utah 84401

Stark, N. 1979. Nutrient losses from harvest in a larch/ Douglas-fir forest. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-231. 11 p. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah 84401.

Stark, N. & H. Zuuring 1981. Predicting the nutrient retention capabilities of soils. Soil Science Vol. 131 No. 1. 10 p. School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812.I