Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Janowiak Webster 2010 Bioenergy Ecological Sustainability
Janowiak Webster 2010 Bioenergy Ecological Sustainability
bioenergy technologies, justifiable concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of using forest-based the United States (Energy Information Ad-
energy feedstocks have emerged. In this article, we review the state of our knowledge regarding the ministration 2007). However, wood sources
impacts of intensive forestry with respect to issues relevant to bioenergy production, including soil and are expected to contribute a greater portion
site productivity, hydrologic quality, and biodiversity. We then present guiding principles intended to aid of energy in the future. For example, na-
with sustainable forest management decisions. tional efforts to increase alternative energy
use, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Keywords: bioenergy, biomass harvesting, forest productivity, forest residues, sustainable forest and the Energy Independence and Security
management Act of 2007, aim to boost woody biomass
use for energy, particularly in regard to cel-
lulosic ethanol production. Recently, the US
Departments of Energy and Agriculture de-
R
ecent concerns regarding climate to have a significant role in the development
termined that US forestlands have the po-
change and rising energy costs have and use of bioenergy technologies. In the
tential to sustainably produce enough bio-
dramatically increased interest in context of climate change and greenhouse
the use of renewable and alternative ener- gas mitigation, wood-based bioenergy often mass in 2030 to supply energy and products
gies. Biomass—material derived from plants compares favorably with fossil fuels and sev- equivalent to 10% of the nation’s current
and animals— has long been used as an en- eral renewable energies because of a rela- level of petroleum consumption (Figure 2;
ergy source but is undergoing widespread re- tively low amount of fossil fuel inputs and a Perlack et al. 2005). This analysis suggests
evaluation as a viable resource for the large- smaller “carbon footprint” (Hill et al. 2006, that much of the feedstock would come
scale production of bioenergy. The creation Malmsheimer et al. 2008). In a broader con- from the improved use of woody materials
of electricity, heat, and transportation fuel text, this energy can effectively complement remaining in the forest after harvest (e.g.,
from biomass has great potential to yield en- efforts to reduce overall energy consumption tops, woody debris, stumps, and other log-
vironmental and social benefits, including and diversify energy resource portfolios. ging residues), nonmerchantable biomass
reduced greenhouse gas emissions (Volk et Although energy consumption from (e.g., small trees and noncommercial spe-
al. 2004, Malmsheimer et al. 2008), a wood sources in the United States is cur- cies), and waste from the creation or disposal
greater supply of energy from domestic rently greater than it was during much of the of wood products (e.g., mill residues and
sources (Perlack et al. 2005), and strength- 20th century (Figure 1), the overall contri- municipal wood waste). Additional material
ened rural and local economies (Domac et bution of wood to the nation’s energy port- may also come from short-rotation woody
al. 2005). The opportunity exists for forests folio is small. In 2006, wood and wood-de- crops of trees grown specifically for bioenergy.
Forest floor High The forest floor retains organic matter, nutrients, and moisture required for tree growth and habitat
for soil organisms vital for nutrient cycling. Maintaining the forest floor reduces soil erosion,
compaction, and other impacts associated with harvest.
Dead down wood High Dead down wood provides habitat and structure necessary for biodiversity and provides substrate for
growth of some tree and plant species.
Standing dead trees Low when management Bioenergy harvest may be appropriate and sustainable when used as a part of a silvicultural plan or
component to mitigate the impacts of a disturbance, such as severe blow down or pest outbreak; a minimum
number of standing dead trees should be retained (number varies by forest type and management)
for habitat, regeneration, or other purposes.
Live trees (stem) Low Long-term research on harvesting of the merchantable tree bole shows minimal environmental
impact when part of a sustainable forest management system.
Live trees Medium There is little evidence of whole-tree use removing enough nutrients to reduce tree growth, although
(branches and foliage) some sites may be at greater risk. Sites that are nutrient poor or managed intensively on short
rotations may require fertilization or may not be sustainable if whole-tree harvest is performed. A
portion of crown material should be retained for value as down deadwood.
Live trees High Extracting the stump and coarse roots of trees will disturb the soil, likely leading to greater amounts
(stump and roots) of soil erosion and sedimentation, and may remove structure and substrate necessary for
biodiversity.
Stump removal may be possible when part of site preparation in some silvicultural systems.
within the first year after harvest and prompt management objectives and activities need lines should be used to better understand
longer-term shifts toward generalist nonfor- to be matched to existing site conditions, the the challenges of biomass harvesting specific
est species (Gunnarsson et al. 2004, Nitterus probable intensification of harvesting to ob- to a geographic location, as well as actions
et al. 2007). Consequently, provisions will tain woody biomass for energy underscores that can be taken to promote sustainability
be needed for the creation, retention, and this fundamental adage. For example, old (Evans and Perschel 2009).
preservation of deadwood in forests inten- forests and areas of high conservation prior- • Retain organic legacies for soil produc-
sively managed for bioenergy. ity have inherent value because they pro- tivity. Long-term impacts on site productiv-
vide essential services for biodiversity, eco- ity will be largely reduced by keeping a por-
Guiding Principles system health, and carbon sequestration. tion of forest biomass on site. Preserving
Similar to any other forest manage- Biomass harvesting is not suitable for many existing sources of organic matter, such as
ment practice, ensuring the sustainability of of these sites because the benefits that would deadwood and the forest floor, and retaining
biomass harvesting for energy will require be obtained from woody feedstocks are some slash from harvesting will help to
attention to individual site conditions and dwarfed by the ecological and social needs to maintain adequate levels of organic matter
consideration of multiple management ob- manage for other ecosystem functions and and nutrients in the soil and to minimize
jectives. Based on our review of the litera-
services. In areas where biomass harvest is a compaction, rutting, and erosion (see Table
ture, we offer the following guiding princi-
possible management objective, the occur- 1). For example, deciduous trees can be
ples that can be incorporated into biomass
rence and intensity of biomass removal harvested during leaf-off to allow for greater
management activities:
should consider and address potential limi- cycling of nutrients and organic matter into
• Increase extent of forested land where
tations due to site productivity, soil physical the forest floor. Transpiration drying—a
feasible. Afforestation of agricultural, aban-
properties (e.g., potential for compaction process where trees are cut and left on site
doned, and degraded lands can produce
many ecological benefits while also pro- and/or erosion), presence of valuable habi- for several months to dry— can be used to
viding more forestland for production of tat, or conflicts with other management keep needles of coniferous trees and small
wood products and/or energy. The bene- goals. branches on site after harvesting but needs to
fits derived from the establishment of both • Use management guidelines. A multi- be balanced with threats to forest health
conventionally planted forests and short- tude of guidelines have been developed for from fire or pests (Hakkila 2002). Piling
rotation woody crops will likely vary as a specific aspects of forest management, such slash in windrows can also decrease produc-
result of prior land use, landscape context, as BMPs for water quality, which contain tivity by concentrating the forest floor and
species composition of the planting, and ro- information to prevent or minimize the ef- nutrient-rich, surface mineral soil layer on a
tation length. Short-rotation woody crops in fects of most harvesting activities on water small portion of the site (Morris and Miller
particular may help to shift intensive forest resources. Recognizing the value of BMPs, 1994). Dispersed slash will redistribute or-
management away from natural forests additional guidelines specific to biomass ganic matter and nutrients and provide
while enhancing biodiversity and soil and harvest have been created (e.g., MFRC more uniform productivity.
water quality relative to past land uses (Cook 2007, PA DCNR 2008) or are in the process • Retain deadwood and structural hetero-
and Beyea 2000, Volk et al. 2004) of being written in many states to comple- geneity for biodiversity. Objectives for biodi-
• Adapt management to site conditions. ment existing recommendations for forest versity can be included in management and
Although it is widely recognized that forest management. Where available, these guide- harvest planning to minimize adverse im-