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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Global change biology. Bioenergy 2011-12, Vol.3 (6), p.483-497
Hauptverfasser: ROUTA, JOHANNA, KELLOMÄKI, SEPPO, KILPELÄINEN, ANTTI, PELTOLA, HELI, STRANDMAN, HARRI
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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