Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass
The aim of this work was to study the sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wood energy to different forest management regimes when aiming at an integrated production of timber and energy biomass. For this purpose, the production of timber and energy biomass in Norway spruce [Picea abie...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global change biology. Bioenergy 2011-12, Vol.3 (6), p.483-497 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 497 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 483 |
container_title | Global change biology. Bioenergy |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | ROUTA, JOHANNA KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI PELTOLA, HELI STRANDMAN, HARRI |
description | The aim of this work was to study the sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wood energy to different forest management regimes when aiming at an integrated production of timber and energy biomass. For this purpose, the production of timber and energy biomass in Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst] and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands was simulated using an ecosystem model (SIMA) on sites of varying fertility under different management regimes, including various thinning and fertilization treatments over a fixed simulation period of 80 years. The simulations included timber (sawlogs, pulp), energy biomass (small‐sized stem wood) and/or logging residues (top part of stem, branches and needles) from first thinning, and logging residues and stumps from final felling for energy production. In this context, a life cycle analysis/emission calculation tool was used to assess the CO2 emissions per unit of energy (kg CO2 MWh−1) which was produced based on the use of wood energy. The energy balance (GJ ha−1) of the supply chain was also calculated. The evaluation of CO2 emissions and energy balance of the supply chain considered the whole forest bioenergy production chain, representing all operations needed to grow and harvest biomass and transport it to a power plant for energy production. Fertilization and high precommercial stand density clearly increased stem wood production (i.e. sawlogs, pulp and small‐sized stem wood), but also the amount of logging residues, stump wood and roots for energy use. Similarly, the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of energy were obtained, regardless of tree species and site fertility, when applying extremely or very dense precommercial stand density, as well as fertilization three times during the rotation. For Norway spruce such management also provided a high energy balance (GJ ha−1). On the other hand, the highest energy balance for Scots pine was obtained concurrently with extremely dense precommercial stands without fertilization on the medium‐fertility site, while on the low‐fertility site fertilization three times during the rotation was needed to attain this balance. Thus, clear differences existed between species and sites. In general, the forest bioenergy supply chain seemed to be effective; i.e. the fossil fuel energy consumption varied between 2.2% and 2.8% of the energy produced based on the forest biomass. To conclude, the primary energy use and CO2 emissions related to the forest operations, includ |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01106.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3067270490</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3067270490</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3816-8c447f36bdefeea90343ed602dfd64794b666afdf2e2a2b62f1ec507816018153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kFFPwyAUhYnRRJ3-BxKfW6G0sL6YuEWniVETNT4SWi6TaYsCy7ZH_7nU6cglnIRzPy4HIUxJTtM6X-RUVCKjgoi8IJTmaROer_fQ0e5i_1_zmh2i4xAWhPCK0_oIfV8ZA20M2BlsnIcQcad6NYcO-ohdj-Mb4Fb5Jklt3dpqwNDZEKzrf5tWzmkMPfj5Bts-VYS5VxE0_vROL9uYjIMv2q4Bj1W_czfWdSqEE3Rg1EeA079zhF6ur56nN9ndw-x2enmXtWxMeTZuy1IYxhsNBkDVhJUMNCeFNpqXoi4bzrky2hRQqKLhhaHQVkSkXkLHtGIjdLblprm-lumjcuGWvk9PSka4KAQpE3SELraulf2Ajfz0tlN-IymRQ9pyIYcg5RCqHNKWv2nLtZxNJ5NBJkC2BdgQYb0DKP8uuWCikq_3M_k4eaofhSDymv0Ae62Grw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3067270490</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</source><creator>ROUTA, JOHANNA ; KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO ; KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI ; PELTOLA, HELI ; STRANDMAN, HARRI</creator><creatorcontrib>ROUTA, JOHANNA ; KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO ; KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI ; PELTOLA, HELI ; STRANDMAN, HARRI</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this work was to study the sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wood energy to different forest management regimes when aiming at an integrated production of timber and energy biomass. For this purpose, the production of timber and energy biomass in Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst] and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands was simulated using an ecosystem model (SIMA) on sites of varying fertility under different management regimes, including various thinning and fertilization treatments over a fixed simulation period of 80 years. The simulations included timber (sawlogs, pulp), energy biomass (small‐sized stem wood) and/or logging residues (top part of stem, branches and needles) from first thinning, and logging residues and stumps from final felling for energy production. In this context, a life cycle analysis/emission calculation tool was used to assess the CO2 emissions per unit of energy (kg CO2 MWh−1) which was produced based on the use of wood energy. The energy balance (GJ ha−1) of the supply chain was also calculated. The evaluation of CO2 emissions and energy balance of the supply chain considered the whole forest bioenergy production chain, representing all operations needed to grow and harvest biomass and transport it to a power plant for energy production. Fertilization and high precommercial stand density clearly increased stem wood production (i.e. sawlogs, pulp and small‐sized stem wood), but also the amount of logging residues, stump wood and roots for energy use. Similarly, the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of energy were obtained, regardless of tree species and site fertility, when applying extremely or very dense precommercial stand density, as well as fertilization three times during the rotation. For Norway spruce such management also provided a high energy balance (GJ ha−1). On the other hand, the highest energy balance for Scots pine was obtained concurrently with extremely dense precommercial stands without fertilization on the medium‐fertility site, while on the low‐fertility site fertilization three times during the rotation was needed to attain this balance. Thus, clear differences existed between species and sites. In general, the forest bioenergy supply chain seemed to be effective; i.e. the fossil fuel energy consumption varied between 2.2% and 2.8% of the energy produced based on the forest biomass. To conclude, the primary energy use and CO2 emissions related to the forest operations, including the production and application of fertilizer, were small in relation to the increased potential of energy biomass.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1757-1693</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1757-1707</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01106.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biodiesel fuels ; Biofuels ; Biogeochemistry ; Biomass ; Biomass energy production ; Branches ; Carbon dioxide ; Carbon dioxide emissions ; Climate change ; CO2 emissions ; Density ; Ecology ; Ecosystem models ; Ecosystems ; Electricity generation ; Emission analysis ; Emissions ; Energy balance ; energy biomass ; Energy consumption ; Energy economics ; Energy policy ; Environmental economics ; Evergreen trees ; Fertility ; Fertilization ; Fertilizer application ; Forest biomass ; Forest management ; Forest soils ; Forestry ; Forests ; Fossil fuels ; Greenhouse gases ; Life cycle analysis ; Logging ; Nitrogen ; Payback periods ; Picea abies ; Pine ; Pine needles ; Pine trees ; Pinus sylvestris ; Plant species ; Power plants ; Pulp ; Renewable energy ; Residues ; Rotation ; Soil sciences ; Stems ; Supply chains ; Thinning ; Timber ; Trees ; Wood ; wood energy</subject><ispartof>Global change biology. Bioenergy, 2011-12, Vol.3 (6), p.483-497</ispartof><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2011. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3816-8c447f36bdefeea90343ed602dfd64794b666afdf2e2a2b62f1ec507816018153</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1757-1707.2011.01106.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1757-1707.2011.01106.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,11560,27922,27923,45572,45573,46050,46474</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fj.1757-1707.2011.01106.x$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>ROUTA, JOHANNA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PELTOLA, HELI</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STRANDMAN, HARRI</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass</title><title>Global change biology. Bioenergy</title><description>The aim of this work was to study the sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wood energy to different forest management regimes when aiming at an integrated production of timber and energy biomass. For this purpose, the production of timber and energy biomass in Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst] and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands was simulated using an ecosystem model (SIMA) on sites of varying fertility under different management regimes, including various thinning and fertilization treatments over a fixed simulation period of 80 years. The simulations included timber (sawlogs, pulp), energy biomass (small‐sized stem wood) and/or logging residues (top part of stem, branches and needles) from first thinning, and logging residues and stumps from final felling for energy production. In this context, a life cycle analysis/emission calculation tool was used to assess the CO2 emissions per unit of energy (kg CO2 MWh−1) which was produced based on the use of wood energy. The energy balance (GJ ha−1) of the supply chain was also calculated. The evaluation of CO2 emissions and energy balance of the supply chain considered the whole forest bioenergy production chain, representing all operations needed to grow and harvest biomass and transport it to a power plant for energy production. Fertilization and high precommercial stand density clearly increased stem wood production (i.e. sawlogs, pulp and small‐sized stem wood), but also the amount of logging residues, stump wood and roots for energy use. Similarly, the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of energy were obtained, regardless of tree species and site fertility, when applying extremely or very dense precommercial stand density, as well as fertilization three times during the rotation. For Norway spruce such management also provided a high energy balance (GJ ha−1). On the other hand, the highest energy balance for Scots pine was obtained concurrently with extremely dense precommercial stands without fertilization on the medium‐fertility site, while on the low‐fertility site fertilization three times during the rotation was needed to attain this balance. Thus, clear differences existed between species and sites. In general, the forest bioenergy supply chain seemed to be effective; i.e. the fossil fuel energy consumption varied between 2.2% and 2.8% of the energy produced based on the forest biomass. To conclude, the primary energy use and CO2 emissions related to the forest operations, including the production and application of fertilizer, were small in relation to the increased potential of energy biomass.</description><subject>Biodiesel fuels</subject><subject>Biofuels</subject><subject>Biogeochemistry</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biomass energy production</subject><subject>Branches</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide emissions</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>CO2 emissions</subject><subject>Density</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem models</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Electricity generation</subject><subject>Emission analysis</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Energy balance</subject><subject>energy biomass</subject><subject>Energy consumption</subject><subject>Energy economics</subject><subject>Energy policy</subject><subject>Environmental economics</subject><subject>Evergreen trees</subject><subject>Fertility</subject><subject>Fertilization</subject><subject>Fertilizer application</subject><subject>Forest biomass</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forest soils</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Fossil fuels</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Logging</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>Payback periods</subject><subject>Picea abies</subject><subject>Pine</subject><subject>Pine needles</subject><subject>Pine trees</subject><subject>Pinus sylvestris</subject><subject>Plant species</subject><subject>Power plants</subject><subject>Pulp</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><subject>Residues</subject><subject>Rotation</subject><subject>Soil sciences</subject><subject>Stems</subject><subject>Supply chains</subject><subject>Thinning</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Trees</subject><subject>Wood</subject><subject>wood energy</subject><issn>1757-1693</issn><issn>1757-1707</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kFFPwyAUhYnRRJ3-BxKfW6G0sL6YuEWniVETNT4SWi6TaYsCy7ZH_7nU6cglnIRzPy4HIUxJTtM6X-RUVCKjgoi8IJTmaROer_fQ0e5i_1_zmh2i4xAWhPCK0_oIfV8ZA20M2BlsnIcQcad6NYcO-ohdj-Mb4Fb5Jklt3dpqwNDZEKzrf5tWzmkMPfj5Bts-VYS5VxE0_vROL9uYjIMv2q4Bj1W_czfWdSqEE3Rg1EeA079zhF6ur56nN9ndw-x2enmXtWxMeTZuy1IYxhsNBkDVhJUMNCeFNpqXoi4bzrky2hRQqKLhhaHQVkSkXkLHtGIjdLblprm-lumjcuGWvk9PSka4KAQpE3SELraulf2Ajfz0tlN-IymRQ9pyIYcg5RCqHNKWv2nLtZxNJ5NBJkC2BdgQYb0DKP8uuWCikq_3M_k4eaofhSDymv0Ae62Grw</recordid><startdate>201112</startdate><enddate>201112</enddate><creator>ROUTA, JOHANNA</creator><creator>KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO</creator><creator>KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI</creator><creator>PELTOLA, HELI</creator><creator>STRANDMAN, HARRI</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201112</creationdate><title>Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass</title><author>ROUTA, JOHANNA ; KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO ; KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI ; PELTOLA, HELI ; STRANDMAN, HARRI</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3816-8c447f36bdefeea90343ed602dfd64794b666afdf2e2a2b62f1ec507816018153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Biodiesel fuels</topic><topic>Biofuels</topic><topic>Biogeochemistry</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biomass energy production</topic><topic>Branches</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide emissions</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>CO2 emissions</topic><topic>Density</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem models</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Electricity generation</topic><topic>Emission analysis</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Energy balance</topic><topic>energy biomass</topic><topic>Energy consumption</topic><topic>Energy economics</topic><topic>Energy policy</topic><topic>Environmental economics</topic><topic>Evergreen trees</topic><topic>Fertility</topic><topic>Fertilization</topic><topic>Fertilizer application</topic><topic>Forest biomass</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forest soils</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Fossil fuels</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Logging</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>Payback periods</topic><topic>Picea abies</topic><topic>Pine</topic><topic>Pine needles</topic><topic>Pine trees</topic><topic>Pinus sylvestris</topic><topic>Plant species</topic><topic>Power plants</topic><topic>Pulp</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><topic>Residues</topic><topic>Rotation</topic><topic>Soil sciences</topic><topic>Stems</topic><topic>Supply chains</topic><topic>Thinning</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Trees</topic><topic>Wood</topic><topic>wood energy</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ROUTA, JOHANNA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PELTOLA, HELI</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STRANDMAN, HARRI</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Global change biology. Bioenergy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ROUTA, JOHANNA</au><au>KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO</au><au>KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI</au><au>PELTOLA, HELI</au><au>STRANDMAN, HARRI</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass</atitle><jtitle>Global change biology. Bioenergy</jtitle><date>2011-12</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>483</spage><epage>497</epage><pages>483-497</pages><issn>1757-1693</issn><eissn>1757-1707</eissn><abstract>The aim of this work was to study the sensitivity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wood energy to different forest management regimes when aiming at an integrated production of timber and energy biomass. For this purpose, the production of timber and energy biomass in Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst] and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands was simulated using an ecosystem model (SIMA) on sites of varying fertility under different management regimes, including various thinning and fertilization treatments over a fixed simulation period of 80 years. The simulations included timber (sawlogs, pulp), energy biomass (small‐sized stem wood) and/or logging residues (top part of stem, branches and needles) from first thinning, and logging residues and stumps from final felling for energy production. In this context, a life cycle analysis/emission calculation tool was used to assess the CO2 emissions per unit of energy (kg CO2 MWh−1) which was produced based on the use of wood energy. The energy balance (GJ ha−1) of the supply chain was also calculated. The evaluation of CO2 emissions and energy balance of the supply chain considered the whole forest bioenergy production chain, representing all operations needed to grow and harvest biomass and transport it to a power plant for energy production. Fertilization and high precommercial stand density clearly increased stem wood production (i.e. sawlogs, pulp and small‐sized stem wood), but also the amount of logging residues, stump wood and roots for energy use. Similarly, the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of energy were obtained, regardless of tree species and site fertility, when applying extremely or very dense precommercial stand density, as well as fertilization three times during the rotation. For Norway spruce such management also provided a high energy balance (GJ ha−1). On the other hand, the highest energy balance for Scots pine was obtained concurrently with extremely dense precommercial stands without fertilization on the medium‐fertility site, while on the low‐fertility site fertilization three times during the rotation was needed to attain this balance. Thus, clear differences existed between species and sites. In general, the forest bioenergy supply chain seemed to be effective; i.e. the fossil fuel energy consumption varied between 2.2% and 2.8% of the energy produced based on the forest biomass. To conclude, the primary energy use and CO2 emissions related to the forest operations, including the production and application of fertilizer, were small in relation to the increased potential of energy biomass.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01106.x</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 1757-1693 |
ispartof | Global change biology. Bioenergy, 2011-12, Vol.3 (6), p.483-497 |
issn | 1757-1693 1757-1707 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3067270490 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles |
subjects | Biodiesel fuels Biofuels Biogeochemistry Biomass Biomass energy production Branches Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide emissions Climate change CO2 emissions Density Ecology Ecosystem models Ecosystems Electricity generation Emission analysis Emissions Energy balance energy biomass Energy consumption Energy economics Energy policy Environmental economics Evergreen trees Fertility Fertilization Fertilizer application Forest biomass Forest management Forest soils Forestry Forests Fossil fuels Greenhouse gases Life cycle analysis Logging Nitrogen Payback periods Picea abies Pine Pine needles Pine trees Pinus sylvestris Plant species Power plants Pulp Renewable energy Residues Rotation Soil sciences Stems Supply chains Thinning Timber Trees Wood wood energy |
title | Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T16%3A29%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20forest%20management%20on%20the%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions%20of%20wood%20energy%20in%20integrated%20production%20of%20timber%20and%20energy%20biomass&rft.jtitle=Global%20change%20biology.%20Bioenergy&rft.au=ROUTA,%20JOHANNA&rft.date=2011-12&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=483&rft.epage=497&rft.pages=483-497&rft.issn=1757-1693&rft.eissn=1757-1707&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01106.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E3067270490%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3067270490&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |