Effects of Improved Forest Management and Loblolly Pine Genotypes on Carbon Sequestration and Profitability in the Southeastern United States

Ömer F. Ince, Jacek P. Siry, Rafael De La Torre

Abstract


Since 1880, the average global temperature has risen by more than 1◦C (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2021). Global climate change remains at the center of today’s environmental debates and continues to impact global ecosystems. To prevent global climate change from reaching an irreversible level, scientific studies developed solutions that would decelerate the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, adapt natural or human systems, and raise societal awareness. Forests, which are an important natural carbon sink, are considered as one of the potential solutions addressing global climate change. This study evaluated the profitability of joint timber-carbon production and estimated the value of carbon sequestration with improved forest management and improved loblolly pine (Pinus taedaL.) genotypes in the southeastern U.S. using the American Carbon Registry’s methodology. It was observed that joint timber-carbon production could generate a larger profit than traditional timber-only production, benefiting the environment and forest landowners.

Keywords


Pinus taeda; carbon offset; American Carbon Registry; joint timber-carbon production

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahtikoski, A., R. Ahtikoski, M. Haapanen, J. Hynynen, and K. Kärkkäinen. 2020. Economic performance of genetically improved reforestation material in joint production of timber and carbon sequestration: a case study from Finland. Forests 11(8), 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080847

Alabama Forestry Commission. 2009. Guidelines to measure carbon sequestration in Alabama forests. Alabama Forestry Commission, Montgomery, AL. https://forestry.alabama.gov/Pages/Management/Forms/Carbon_Baseline_Inventory_Procedures.pdf

American Carbon Registry. n.d. ACR fee schedule. http://americancarbonregistry.org/how-it-works/membership/acr-fee-schedule.pdf

American Carbon Registry. 2018. Improved forest management methodology for quantifying GHG removals and emission reductions through increased forest carbon sequestration on non-federal U.S. forestlands. https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/improved-forest-management-ifm-methodology-for-non-federal-u-s-forestlands. Accessed 11 May 2021.

American Carbon Registry. 2020. The American Carbon Registry standard: requirements and specifications for the quantification, monitoring, reporting, verification, and registration of project-based GHG emissions reduction and removals. https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/american-carbon-registry-standard/acr-standard-v7-0_final_dec2020.pdf

American Forest and Paper Association. 2020. Our economic impact. https://www.afandpa.org/statistics-resources/our-economic-impact. Accessed 11 May 2021.

Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., and E. P. Belair. 2022. Effective forest-based climate change mitigation requires our best science. Glob. Change Biol. 28(4), 1200–1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16008

Blaufelder, C., C. Levy, P. Mannion, and D. Pinner. 2021. A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the climate challenge. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-meet-the-climate-challenge. Accessed 7 September 2021.

Cairns, M. A., S. Brown, E. H. Helmer, and G. A. Baumgardner. 1997. Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland forests. Oecologia 111(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050201

Chojnacky, D. C., L. S. Heath, and J. C. Jenkins. 2014. Updated generalized biomass equations for North American tree species. Forestry 87(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpt053

Cunningham, M. 2021. Tree Lines, 2021, November 18. ArborGen. https://www.arborgen.com/treelines-february-2021-1st-edition

Ecosystem Marketplace. 2021. Ecosystem Marketplace insights report: market in motion. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2021. Forest Trends Association. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/publications/state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-markets-2021/. Accessed 21 September 2021.

EPA. 2024. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-24-004. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2022

Field, C. B., V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G. K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P. M. Midgley. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (pp. 25–231).

Faustmann, M. 1849. Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry. Allg. F. u. J. Ztg. 15, 441–455.

Forest Tech International. 2003. SiMS_2003 Simulator for Managed Stands, getting started guide. http://www.forestech.us

Fox, T. R., E. J. Jokela, and H. L. Allen. 2007. The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J. For. 105(7), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/105.7.337

Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, P. Smith, P. Woodbury, et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114(44), 11645–11650. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Henderson, J. E., S. D. Roberts, D. L. Grebner, and I. A. Munn. 2013. A graphical comparison of loblolly pine growth-and-yield models. South. J. Appl. For. 37(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.5849/sjaf.10-013

Howard, J. L., and K. C. Jones. 2016. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics, 1965–2013. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-679. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.2737/FPL-RP-679

Hsiang, S., R. Kopp, A. Jina, J. Rising, M. Delgado, S. Mohan, D. J. Rasmussen, R. Muir-Wood, P. Wilson, M. Oppenheimer, K. Larsen, and T. Houser. 2017. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356(6345), 1362–1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4369

IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hayama, Japan.

Jokela, E. J., T. A. Martin, and J. G. Vogel. 2010. Twenty-five years of intensive forest management with southern pines: important lessons learned. J. For. 108(7), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/108.7.338

Karsenty, A., C. Blanco, and T. Dufour. 2003. Forest and climate change: instruments related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and their potential for sustainable forest management in Africa. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ac836e/ac836e.pdf

Maggard, A. 2021. Costs and trends of southern forestry practices. https://www.aces.edu/blog/topics/forestry/costs-trends-of-southern-forestry-practices-2020/. Accessed 17 February 2021.

Meyers, S. 1999. Additionality of emissions reductions from clean development mechanism projects: issues and options for project-level assessments. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/202243xq. Accessed 10 November 2021.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2021. NASA: climate change and global warming. https://climate.nasa.gov. Accessed 28 December 2021.

Oswalt, S. N., and W. B. Smith. 2014. U.S. forest resource facts and historical trends. USDA Forest Service. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf

Oswalt, S. N., W. B. Smith, P. D. Miles, and S. A. Pugh. 2019. Forest resources of the United States, 2017: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-97. USDA Forest Service. https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-97

Parajuli, R., M. Megalos, T. Ruseva, S. Chizmar, and M. Fisher. 2021. An introduction to forest carbon offset markets. NC State Extension Publication. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/an-introduction-to-forest-carbon-offset-markets. Accessed 15 December 2021.

Pörtner, H. O., D. C. Roberts, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama (Eds.). 2022. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (pp. 121–197).

Prestemon, J. P., D. N. Wear, and M. O. Foster. 2015. The global position of the U.S. forest products industry. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-204

Rousseau, R. J. 2008. Carbon credits: a non-traditional source of revenue for Mississippi forest landowners. Mississippi State University Extension Service.

Smith, M. R., and S. S. Myers. 2018. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 834–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0253-3

Susaeta, A., and C. Demers. 2019. Determining the net present value of timber investments and comparing investments of different rotations. EDIS 2019(6). https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-fr421-2019

TimberMart-South. 2021. 3rd quarter 2021 south-wide average stumpage prices. http://www.timbermart-south.com/prices.html. Accessed 12 January 2022.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide, Volume I: field data collection procedures for phase 2 plots. USDA Forest Service.

Woodhams, F., D. Southwell, S. Bruce, B. Barnes, H. Appleton, J. Rickards, and H. Ahammad. 2012. The carbon farming initiative: a proposed common practice framework for assessing additionality. ABARES. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3611.4084

Yin, R., and R. A. Sedjo. 2001. Is this the age of intensive management? A study of loblolly pine on Georgia’s Piedmont. J. For. 99(12), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.12.10

Zhao, D., B. P. Bullock, C. R. Montes, M. Wang, D. Greene, and L. Sutter. 2019. Loblolly pine outperforms slash pine in the southeastern United States—a long-term experimental comparison study. For. Ecol. Manag. 450, 117532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117532


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


   

© 2008 Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences