Jianheng Zhao
Xinyuan Wei
Ling Li- 1School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME, United States
- 2Center for Research on Sustainable Forests, University of Maine, Orono, ME, United States
- 3Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge, TN, United States
Forest ecosystems are a critical component of the global carbon cycle, which stores carbon in both vegetation biomass and soil organic matter. Timber harvesting can laterally move the carbon stored in forest sectors to harvested wood products (HWPs) and thus create an HWPs carbon pool. The carbon stored in HWPs is allocated to end-use wood products (e.g., paper, furniture), landfills (e.g., waste wood materials), and charcoal (e.g., non-energy use biochar). Environmental change is predicted to have far-reaching effects on the carbon stored in HWPs by altering the timber supply. In addition, technological advancement in the wood industry accelerates the carbon inflow rate by promoting processing efficiency and reduces the outflow rate by creating innovative wood products with a longer service life. Socioeconomic factors such as population and household income also contribute to the carbon stock changes in wood products by expanding or reducing the demand. Given numerous factors that are correlated with the size of HWPs carbon pool, an advanced and comprehensive understanding of these factors on modifying the HWPs carbon storage is essential to modeling and predicting the carbon stored in HWPs, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and global warming; therefore, we reviewed, summarized, and discussed the function of these factors in regulating the carbon stored in HWPs.
Introduction
Forest ecosystems are a critical component of the global carbon cycle, which sequester atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis and release carbon by the total ecosystem respiration as well as wildfires (Wei and Larsen, 2018; Harris et al., 2021; Nolan et al., 2021). Pan et al. (2011) reported that the carbon stock in global forest ecosystems is 861 ± 66 Pg C with a sink rate of 2.4 ± 0.4 Pg C per year, which creates the largest carbon pool in the terrestrial biosphere. Disturbances including wildfire and harvesting can directly remove the carbon from forest ecosystems (Seidl et al., 2014). Global wildfire vertically releases the carbon to the atmosphere through biomass combustion with an average rate of 2.2 Pg C per year (Bowman et al., 2009; Van Der Werf et al., 2017). In addition, world’s timber harvesting laterally moves the carbon from forest ecosystems to HWPs, which has a mean of 1.04 Pg C per year (Brunet-Navarro et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020). The regrowth of trees following wildfires and timber harvesting is expected to be an important driver behind the large uptake of atmospheric CO2 (Pugh et al., 2019). Unlike wildfires, timber harvesting moves the carbon from forest sections to HWPs and creates a HWPs carbon pool, which can store the carbon for a long period and contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse effects (Gustavsson et al., 2006).
As a part of the lateral carbon export from forest ecosystems (Ciais et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2021), timber harvesting initially moves the carbon from forests to primary wood products (e.g., lumber, pulp, and plywood), which are used to make secondary or end-use wood products (e.g., furniture, floor, and building) (Skog and Nicholson, 2000). The carbon flows into the HWPs carbon pool with new wood products, but older wood products will be disposed of when they reach the end of their service lives (Figure 1). A part of the disposed wood products is recycled to make new products or reused as biofuel to generate energy, and the remainder is sent to landfills. Therefore, the HWPs carbon pool size can be accounted for by monitoring the carbon inflow and outflow rates (Donlan et al., 2012). In addition, the HWPs carbon pool involves the carbon stored in end-use products (e.g., building, home application, paper, and building), waste wood materials in landfills, and the charcoal (e.g., non-energy use biochar).
Figure 1. The carbon flux from forest sectors to the harvested wood products (HWPs) carbon pool and the predicted carbon accumulated in the global HWPs carbon pool from 1961 to 2100 (The carbon accumulated in HWPs carbon pool from 1961 to 2100 was estimated with the data and accounting framework provided by Daigneault et al. (2022) and Li et al. (2022), respectively).
To quantify the carbon stored in HWPs, numerous approaches have been developed and they are different in their bulking allocation, industrial processes, carbon pools, and product removal (Brunet-Navarro et al., 2016). Johnston and Radeloff (2019) used historical records together with the IPCC guidance and concluded that the carbon sequestered into global end-use HWPs served as a net sink of 91 Tg C in 2015. In addition, Zhang et al. (2020) found that the carbon sink in global end-use HWPs had an average of 122 Tg C per year during the period of 1992–2015. Across the entire forestry sector and wood products, carbon stored in HWPs is 13% in Australia (Eggers, 2002), 33% in the UK (Dewar and Cannell, 1992), 10% in the USA (Smith and Heath, 2008), and 10% in Europe (Eggers, 2002). Therefore, including the carbon stored in HWPs is required to estimate the land-atmospheric carbon exchange by using the bottom-up approach (stock change approach).
Existing studies suggest that various factors including environmental change, technological advancement in the wood industry, and plenty of socioeconomic factors can affect the size of HWPs carbon pool by regulating the wood products supply and demand as well as the residential time of wood products in the carbon pool; therefore, an advanced and comprehensive review of their influence is essential to modeling and predicting the potential of this carbon storage and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In this study, we reviewed and summarized these factors, and discussed the function of these factors on regulating the carbon stored in HWPs carbon pool.
Environmental change
The changing environment such as climate, atmospheric CO2 concentration, forest disturbances, atmospheric nitrogen and phosphorus depositions can threaten or accelerate the productivity of forest ecosystems and thus affect the size of HWPs carbon pool by altering the timber supply. For example, the higher temperature may restrict photosynthesis and reduce timber yield in tropical forest ecosystems (Smith et al., 2020); however, in boreal forest ecosystems, the warmer temperature favors not only photosynthesis but also extends the growing season, which can promote timber production (Kirilenko and Sedjo, 2007). In water-deficient forest ecosystems, more precipitation bolsters timber production, but the wetter climate restricts photosynthesis and reduces tree growth rate in water-sufficient forest ecosystems (Husen et al., 2017). In addition, increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are likely to drive modifications in forest ecosystems and boost the rate of tree growth through the carbon fertilization effect (Beedlow et al., 2004). Existing experiments demonstrate that CO2 fertilization can induce tree growth enhancement (Gea-Izquierdo et al., 2017). It is, however, unknown how this response would interact with other changed climate conditions. Besides the influence on individual tree growth, climate change can alter the entire forest ecosystems such as tree species composition, forest structure, competition among trees and thus reduce or increase merchantable trees (Lines et al., 2010). Therefore, the response of timber production to climate change is varied in different forest ecosystems.
In addition, climate change reduces timber production by introducing frequent wildfires, outbreaks of insects, and extreme events such as storms and hurricanes, which are more important than the direct impact of higher temperature, less precipitation, and elevated CO2 concentration. Forest fires directly burn trees and release carbon into the atmosphere, which destroy the entire forest ecosystem and threaten timber production (Cary et al., 2021). Insect outbreaks increase the forest defoliation and tree mortality rate, which reduces the rate of tree growth and substantially decreases timber yield (Chen et al., 2019). Storms and hurricanes can directly destroy trees and result in less timber production (Sun, 2016). In addition, they cause a lower rate of tree growth by reducing the available soil nutrients and changing the soil texture (Sun et al., 2022); therefore, the reduction of timber production continues for several years.
The supply of nitrogen limits the timber production in most boreal and temperate forest ecosystems (Högberg et al., 2017); therefore, more nitrogen deposition accelerates the tree growth and provides more timber yield. Tropical forests are commonly on the old and highly weathered soils, which have been experiencing a long-term phosphorus depletion and ultimately enter a phase of phosphorus limitation (Turner et al., 2018). Thus, additional supply of phosphorus from atmospheric deposition can enhance forest productivity.
Technological advancement
Technological improvement in the wood industry can promote the utilization of low-quality and small diameter logs, advance the wood products processing efficiency, develop innovative wood products with longer service life, and increase the recycling rate, which potentially expands the size of HWPs carbon pool (Li et al., 2022). For instance, the technological advancement in the wood industry has promoted the lumber yield as much as 70% for logs with small-end diameter (Shmulsky and Jones, 2019). In addition, with the invention and prevalent use of wood composite products, sawmills distribute their processing residues to the downstream wood product manufacturers, leaving nearly zero waste (Bowyer et al., 2012). Other than burning to generate energy, using small-diameter trees and processing residues to produce lumber and wood composite products can store the carbon for a longer period.
Innovative wood products, such as mass timber panel and rigid low-density wood fiber insulation panels, have been widely used in building systems to substitute for high embodied carbon materials of steel, concrete, brick, and petroleum-based insulation, which can expand the application of timber and reduce the embodied carbon (Cetiner and Shea, 2018; Cabeza et al., 2021). Meanwhile, these innovative wood products can stimulate the harvesting of mass timber favorite tree species and exploit the market of wood products. Although traditional wood building materials such as dimension lumber and oriented strand board still dominate the residential housing market, mass timber buildings are becoming more and more popular in mid-rise and high-rise building systems (Pierobon et al., 2019). Ganguly et al. (2017) reported that the cumulative demand for Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) panels in the Pacific Northwest is estimated to be 56 million cubic feet between 2016 and 2035. The global market for CLT exceeded $660 million in 2018 and the annual demand is projected to grow by over 13% into the mid-2020s (IMARC Group, 2022). This high demand expands the carbon stored in HWPs.
Compared to traditional wood materials, these innovative products used in buildings and home applications can store carbon for a longer period. In addition, advanced wood processing technology such as pressure- and thermal- treated lumber can extend the service life of wood products for exterior use up to 50 years (Brischke et al., 2006). Because pressure- and thermal- treated lumber are widely used in decking and the global wood decking market has a size of more than $15 billion (Global Market Insights Research [GMIRR], 2022), it can store substantial amounts of carbon and contribute to the mitigation of the greenhouse effect. Since the 2000s, non-energy use biochar has become a popular bioproduct to amend the soil in agricultural land (Lal et al., 2001). Currently, the annual non-energy use biochar production is small; however, due to the resistant property biochar can be accumulated to a relatively significant stock (Wei et al., 2018). Currently, the biochar market is mainly in North America and Europe, taking approximately 70% of the global market. The global biochar market is $2 billion and predicted to have an annual increasing rate of over 10% (Prescient and Strategic Intel Market Research Reports [PSI-MRR], 2022). This increasing demand of biochar will create a substantial long-term carbon sink.
Recyclable wood products, including paper products, wood building materials, and wood pallets, can be used to reproduce new products, which minimizes the waste wood materials that are sent to landfills and extends the residential time of carbon in end-use wood products (Mallo and Espinoza, 2015). Technological improvement greatly increases the percentage of recyclable waste wood materials. For example, in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that 1% of the waste solid wood materials was recycled to make new products, and this rate was increased to 17% in 2018. In addition, the EPA reported that 17% of the paper and paperboard were made by recycled wood materials in the United States in the 1960s, and this fraction was increased to 68% in 2018.
Socioeconomic factors
The rapid development of the global economy in parallel with the boom of the population over the past four decades accelerates the demand of wood products including furniture, constructions, and paper products, which has substantially expanded the size of HWPs carbon pool (Zhang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022). Residential construction has been boosted to meet the increasing housing demand for the growing population, meanwhile, the demand of wood products for home decor has been steadily growing along with the rising residential space (Zhao et al., 2020). Urbanization is another critical factor that positively correlated with the demand of wood products (Zhao et al., 2013). Urbanization rate is increasing globally, 10% of the population lived in urban areas in 1900, and it was increased to 57% in 2021 (World Bank, 2022). According to the estimation reported by the United Nations, 66% of the world’s population will reside in the urban area by 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [DESA UN], 2014), and this percentage will be increased to 85% by the end of the twenty-first century (OECD, 2015). Thus, with the urbanization process, we will see a rise in wood products used for home applications and constructions. Mishra et al. (2022) found that if 90% of the new urban people build their houses with wooden materials, 106 Pg of CO2 will be sequestered by 2100.
Skjerstad et al. (2021) suggested that the sawn wood consumption will continue increasing in line with the future economic growth. Besides, a higher household income is typically associated with high demand for timber products especially those used in constructing buildings and making furniture. Brack (2018) found that the quality of consumed wood products is positively correlated with the household income, which reduces the carbon outflow rate by extending the residential time of wood products. Besides, the rising household income can change the consumers’ preference and they will purchase more eco-friendly or sustainable products, which is a guarantee of the high demand for durable wood products. Although paper products, such as packaging or graphical paper are generally of shorter service life, the high demand for paper products can form a large quick-turnover carbon pool and store substantial carbon (Skog and Nicholson, 2000). Therefore, incorporating these socioeconomic influences is essential to predicting the potential carbon storage in HWPs.
Discussion
Besides environmental change, technological improvement in the wood industry, and socioeconomic changes, forest management strategies also contribute to the carbon storage in HWPs. Climate change is expected to increase forest vulnerability through extreme weather and severe disturbances; however, forest managers are therefore investigating management strategies to increase forest resistance and resilience including promoting the complexity of forest structure and reducing the proportion of large trees (Barreto et al., 1998; Birdsey et al., 2006; Diao et al., 2022). For example, silvicultural strategies such as weed suppression, initial spacing, respacing before canopy closure, thinning after canopy closure, and rotation length are efficient approaches to control the timber yield (Macdonald and Hubert, 2002). Fertilization is also a useful way to promote the tree growth rate, especially by fertilizing more nitrogen and phosphorus (Routa et al., 2011). Soil amendment with biochar is another important approach to accelerate timber yield by improving soil porosity, decreasing tensile strength, and increasing soil pH (Knowles et al., 2011). In addition, genetic improvement advances timber quality and increases timber yield by promoting the growth rate and forest resistance to the disease, insect, as well as extreme weather (Ahtikoski et al., 2018; Mckenna and Coggeshall, 2018).
Policy is a critical factor that regulates the carbon stored in the HWPs carbon pool, which can promote timber production, facilitate the development of wood industry, and increase the demand (Moiseyev et al., 2010). For example, in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States was announced and allocated $30 billion through U.S. Forest Service for nature-based climate solutions, which can provide incentives to protect forested land and adopt climate-smart forestry practices. Because HWPs can offset carbon emissions, policies related to the carbon credit market can make the carbon sequestration in wood products traded in voluntary or regulatory carbon markets (Blanc et al., 2019). Biomass fuel, especially wood pellets, is a renewable energy, policies related to enhancing sustainable development can expand and regulate the use of biomass fuel, such as tax credits for biomass facilities and subsidy for the power purchase agreements (Lynd, 1996). In the United States, the Energy Policy Act (2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) provides incentives for the wide use of biomass fuel. Moreover, the Inflation Reduction Act provides a 30% tax credit for those who use efficient pellet stoves or larger residential biomass heating systems. Similar regulations have been enacted around the world such as Sweden, Finland, and Austria (Howard et al., 2021). These policies can greatly promote the demand for wood products. The decomposition of waste wood materials in landfills has been recognized as a significant methane emission (Pingoud and Wagner, 2006); therefore, policy approaches such as promoting the recycling rate of waste wood materials have been applied in the United States to reduce the methane emission and combat climate change (Powell et al., 2016).
Given that plenty of factors are correlated with the carbon stored in the HWPs carbon pool by modifying the carbon inflow, residential time, and the outflow rate, it is a challenge to predict the size of HWPs carbon pool. Johnston and Radeloff (2019) used plausible futures of wood products outlined by the shared socioeconomic pathways to predict the world’s carbon storage in end-use HWPs and concluded that the total storage will be accumulated to as much as 2 Pg C by 2065. While this prediction is highly dependent on the economic development and the timber production is not well represented in their estimates. We incorporated the global consumption of wood products predicted by Daigneault et al. (2022) together with the HWPs carbon storage accounting framework developed by Li et al. (2022) to roughly estimate the carbon accumulated in HWPs carbon pool from 1961 to 2100 and concluded a storage of 48 Pg C by 2100 (Figure 1). Assuming there is no change of the carbon stock in global forest ecosystems, the size of HWPs carbon pool is 5.5% of the carbon stored in the entire forestry sector and wood products. However, the prediction performed by Daigneault et al. (2022) excludes the environmental change on timber supply and the influence caused by technological improvement. To model and predict timber production, the earth system model is a powerful approach to predict the merchantable trees, which can incorporate climate change, forest structure change, and available nutrients (Koven et al., 2020).
As an important carbon pool, wood products contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas effects, and it should be considered when using the bottom-up approach to estimate the land-atmospheric carbon exchange. The HWPs carbon pool can be regulated by various factors; therefore, it is a challenge to incorporate all these factors in a prediction. To accurately predict the carbon storage in HWPs, it is necessary to conduct an analysis and identify key factors that strongly correlate with the target HWPs carbon pool.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Funding
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (58-0204-1-180 and 58-0204-9-166), the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), McIntire-Stennis Project (ME041825 and ME042205), and through the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ahtikoski, A., Haapanen, M., Hynynen, J., Karhu, J., and Kärkkäinen, K. (2018). Genetically improved reforestation stock provides simultaneous benefits for growers and a sawmill, a case study in Finland. Scand. J. For. Res. 33, 484–492. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2018.1433229
Barreto, P., Amaral, P., Vidal, E., and Uhl, C. (1998). Costs and benefits of forest management for timber production in eastern Amazonia. For. Ecol. Manag. 108, 9–26. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00251-X
Beedlow, P. A., Tingey, D. T., Phillips, D. L., Hogsett, W. E., and Olszyk, D. M. (2004). Rising atmospheric CO2 and carbon sequestration in forests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2:315–322. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0315:RACACS]2.0.CO;2
Birdsey, R., Pregitzer, K., and Lucier, A. (2006). Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600–2100. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 1461–1469. doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0162
Blanc, S., Accastello, C., Bianchi, E., Lingua, F., Vacchiano, G., Mosso, A., et al. (2019). An integrated approach to assess carbon credit from improved forest management. J. Sustain. For. 38, 31–45. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2018.1494002
Bowman, D. M., Balch, J. K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Carlson, J. M., Cochrane, M. A., et al. (2009). Fire in the Earth system. Science 324, 481–484. doi: 10.1126/science.1163886
Bowyer, J. L., Bratkovich, D. S., and Fernholz, K. (2012). Utilization of harvested wood by the North American forest products industry Dovetail Partners Outlook. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312137029 (accessed on 28 Oct, 2022).
Brack, D. (2018). “Sustainable consumption and production of forest products,” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests, (New York, NY: United Nations Forum on Forests), 7–11.
Brischke, C., Bayerbach, R., and Otto Rapp, A. (2006). Decay-influencing factors: A basis for service life prediction of wood and wood-based products. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 1, 91–107. doi: 10.1080/17480270601019658
Brunet-Navarro, P., Jochheim, H., and Muys, B. (2016). Modelling carbon stocks and fluxes in the wood product sector: A comparative review. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2555–2569. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13235
Brunet-Navarro, P., Jochheim, H., and Muys, B. (2017). The effect of increasing lifespan and recycling rate on carbon storage in wood products from theoretical model to application for the European wood sector. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 22, 1193–1205. doi: 10.1007/s11027-016-9722-z
Cabeza, L. F., Boquera, L., Chàfer, M., and Vérez, D. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through literature map analysis. Energy Build. 231:110612. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612
Cary, G. J., Blanchard, W., Foster, C. N., and Lindenmayer, D. B. (2021). Effects of altered fire intervals on critical timber production and conservation values. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 30, 322–328. doi: 10.1071/WF20129
Cetiner, I., and Shea, A. D. (2018). Wood waste as an alternative thermal insulation for buildings. Energy Build. 168, 374–384. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.019
Chen, C., Wei, X., Weiskittel, A., and Hayes, D. J. (2019). Above-ground carbon stock in merchantable trees not reduced between cycles of spruce budworm outbreaks due to changing species composition in spruce-fir forests of Maine, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 453:117590. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117590
Ciais, P., Borges, A., Abril, G., Meybeck, M., Folberth, G., Hauglustaine, D., et al. (2008). The impact of lateral carbon fluxes on the European carbon balance. Biogeosciences 5, 1259–1271. doi: 10.5194/bg-5-1259-2008
Daigneault, A., Baker, J. S., Guo, J., Lauri, P., Favero, A., Forsell, N., et al. (2022). How the future of the global forest sink depends on timber demand, forest management, and carbon policies. Glob. Environ. Change 76:102582. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102582
Dewar, R. C., and Cannell, M. G. (1992). Carbon sequestration in the trees, products and soils of forest plantations: An analysis using UK examples. Tree Physiol. 11, 49–71. doi: 10.1093/treephys/11.1.49
Diao, J., Liu, J., Zhu, Z., Wei, X., and Li, M. (2022). Active forest management accelerates carbon storage in plantation forests in Lishui, southern China. For. Ecosyst. 9:100004. doi: 10.1016/j.fecs.2022.100004
Donlan, J., Skog, K., and Byrne, K. A. (2012). Carbon storage in harvested wood products for Ireland 1961–2009. Biomass Bioenergy 46, 731–738. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.018
Eggers, T. (2002). The impacts of manufacturing and utilisation of wood products on the European carbon budget in Internal Report 9. Joensuu, FI: European Forest Institute.
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007). A summary of major provisions. Library of congress Washington DC congressional research service. Available online at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA475228.pdf (accessed October 28, 2022).
Ganguly, I., Beyreuther, T., Hoffman, M., Swenson, S., and Eastin, I. (2017). Forecasting the demand for cross laminated timber (CLT) in the Pacific Northwest. CINTRAFOR News: Center for International Trade in Forest Products. Available online at: https://www.cintrafor.org/publications/forecasting-thedemand-for-cross-laminated-timber-clt-in-the-pacific-northwest (accessed October 28, 2022).
Gea-Izquierdo, G., Nicault, A., Battipaglia, G., Dorado-Liñán, I., Gutiérrez, E., Ribas, M., et al. (2017). Risky future for Mediterranean forests unless they undergo extreme carbon fertilization. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2915–2927. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13597
Global Market Insights Research [GMIRR] (2022). Global Market Insights Research Reports, Industry Trends Wooden Decking Market. Available online at: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/wooden-decking-market (accessed on 28 Oct, 2022).
Gustavsson, L., Madlener, R., Hoen, H. F., Jungmeier, G., Karjalainen, T., Klöhn, S., et al. (2006). The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 11, 1097–1127. doi: 10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8
Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., De Bruin, S., Farina, M., et al. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 234–240. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6
Högberg, P., Näsholm, T., Franklin, O., and Högberg, M. N. (2017). Tamm Review: On the nature of the nitrogen limitation to plant growth in Fennoscandian boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 403, 161–185. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.04.045
Howard, C., Dymond, C. C., Griess, V. C., Tolkien-Spurr, D., and Van Kooten, G. C. (2021). Wood product carbon substitution benefits: A critical review of assumptions. Carbon Balance Manag. 16, 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13021-021-00171-w
Husen, A., Iqbal, M., and Aref, I. (2017). Plant growth and foliar characteristics of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) as affected by indole-acetic acid under water-sufficient and water-deficient conditions. J. Environ. Biol. 38:179. doi: 10.22438/jeb/38/2/MS-247
IMARC Group (2022). Cross-Laminated Timber Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2022-2027. Available online at: https://www.imarcgroup.com/cross-laminated-timber-manufacturing-plant (accessed on 28 Oct, 2022).
Johnston, C. M., and Radeloff, V. C. (2019). Global mitigation potential of carbon stored in harvested wood products. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 14526–14531. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1904231116
Kirilenko, A. P., and Sedjo, R. A. (2007). Climate change impacts on forestry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 19697–19702. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701424104
Knowles, O., Robinson, B., Contangelo, A., and Clucas, L. (2011). Biochar for the mitigation of nitrate leaching from soil amended with biosolids. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3206–3210. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.011
Koven, C. D., Knox, R. G., Fisher, R. A., Chambers, J. Q., Christoffersen, B. O., Davies, S. J., et al. (2020). Benchmarking and parameter sensitivity of physiological and vegetation dynamics using the Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES) at Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Biogeosciences 17, 3017–3044. doi: 10.5194/bg-17-3017-2020
Lal, C., Annapurna, C., Raghubanshi, A., and Singh, J. (2001). Effect of leaf habit and soil type on nutrient resorption and conservation in woody species of a dry tropical environment. Can. J. Bot. 79, 1066–1075. doi: 10.1139/b01-077
Li, L., Wei, X., Zhao, J., Hayes, D., Daigneault, A., Weiskittel, A., et al. (2022). Technological advancement expands carbon storage in harvested wood products in Maine, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 161:106457. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106457
Lines, E. R., Coomes, D. A., and Purves, D. W. (2010). Influences of forest structure, climate and species composition on tree mortality across the eastern US. PLoS One 5:e13212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013212
Lynd, L. R. (1996). Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass: Technology, economics, the environment, and policy. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 21, 403–465. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.21.1.403
Macdonald, E., and Hubert, J. (2002). A review of the effects of silviculture on timber quality of Sitka spruce. Forestry 75, 107–138. doi: 10.1093/forestry/75.2.107
Mallo, M. F. L., and Espinoza, O. (2015). Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 198–210. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090
Mckenna, J. R., and Coggeshall, M. V. (2018). The genetic improvement of black walnut for timber production. Plant Breed. Rev. 41, 263–289. doi: 10.1002/9781119414735.ch6
Mishra, A., Humpenöder, F., Churkina, G., Reyer, C. P., Beier, F., Bodirsky, B. L., et al. (2022). Land use change and carbon emissions of a transformation to timber cities. Nat. Commun. 13, 1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32244-w
Moiseyev, A., Solberg, B., Michie, B., and Kallio, A. M. I. (2010). Modeling the impacts of policy measures to prevent import of illegal wood and wood products. For. Policy Econ. 12, 24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.015
Nolan, C. J., Field, C. B., and Mach, K. J. (2021). Constraints and enablers for increasing carbon storage in the terrestrial biosphere. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 436–446. doi: 10.1038/s43017-021-00166-8
OECD (2015). The metropolitan century: Understanding urbanisation and its consequences. Washington, DC: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264228733-en
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., et al. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993. doi: 10.1126/science.1201609
Pierobon, F., Huang, M., Simonen, K., and Ganguly, I. (2019). Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the US Pacific Northwest. J. Build. Eng. 26:100862. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862
Pingoud, K., and Wagner, F. (2006). Methane emissions from landfills and carbon dynamics of harvested wood products: The first-order decay revisited. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 11, 961–978. doi: 10.1007/s11027-006-9029-6
Powell, J. T., Townsend, T. G., and Zimmerman, J. B. (2016). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 162–165. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2804
Prescient and Strategic Intel Market Research Reports [PSI-MRR] (2022). Biochar Market - Latest Trends, Growth Drivers, Strategic Developments, and Revenue Estimation, 2021-2030. Available online at: https://www.psmarketresearch.com/market-analysis/biochar-market (accessed on 28 Oct, 2022).
Pugh, T. A., Lindeskog, M., Smith, B., Poulter, B., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., et al. (2019). Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 4382–4387. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810512116
Routa, J., Kellomäki, S., Peltola, H., and Asikainen, A. (2011). Impacts of thinning and fertilization on timber and energy wood production in Norway spruce and Scots pine: Scenario analyses based on ecosystem model simulations. Forestry 84, 159–175. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpr003
Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M. J., Rammer, W., and Verkerk, P. J. (2014). Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 806–810. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2318
Shmulsky, R., and Jones, P. D. (2019). Forest products and wood science: An introduction. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781119426400
Skjerstad, S. H., Kallio, A. M. I., Bergland, O., and Solberg, B. (2021). New elasticities and projections of global demand for coniferous sawnwood. For. Policy Econ. 122:102336. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102336
Skog, K. E., and Nicholson, G. A. (2000). “Carbon sequestration in wood and paper products,” in The impact of climate change on America”s forests: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59, eds L. A. Joyce and R. Birdsey (Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service), 79–88.
Smith, J. E., and Heath, L. S. (2008). Carbon stocks and stock changes in US forests. In: US Department of Agriculture. US Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990-2005. Technical Bulletin No. 1921. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief Economis.
Smith, M. N., Taylor, T. C., Van Haren, J., Rosolem, R., Restrepo-Coupe, N., Adams, J., et al. (2020). Empirical evidence for resilience of tropical forest photosynthesis in a warmer world. Nat. Plants 6, 1225–1230. doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-00780-2
Sun, C. (2016). Timber market recovery after a hurricane. For. Sci. 62, 600–612. doi: 10.5849/forsci.15-123
Sun, J., Wei, X., Zhou, Y., Chan, C., and Diao, J. (2022). Hurricanes Substantially Reduce the Nutrients in Tropical Forested Watersheds in Puerto Rico. Forests 13:71. doi: 10.3390/f13010071
Turner, B. L., Brenes-Arguedas, T., and Condit, R. (2018). Pervasive phosphorus limitation of tree species but not communities in tropical forests. Nature 555, 367–370. doi: 10.1038/nature25789
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [DESA UN] (2014). World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision. Available online at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/WUP2011_Report.pdf (accessed on 28 Oct, 2022).
United States, the Energy Policy Act (2005). In the senate of the United States. Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109hr6eas/pdf/BILLS-109hr6eas.pdf (accessed October 28, 2022).
Van Der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Van Leeuwen, T. T., Chen, Y., Rogers, B. M., et al. (2017). Global fire emissions estimates during 1997-2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 697–720. doi: 10.5194/essd-9-697-2017
Wei, X., Hayes, D. J., Fernandez, I., Fraver, S., Zhao, J., and Weiskittel, A. (2021). Climate and atmospheric deposition drive the inter-annual variability and long-term trend of dissolved organic carbon flux in the conterminous United States. Sci. Total Environ. 771:145448. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145448
Wei, X., Hayes, D. J., Fraver, S., and Chen, G. (2018). Global Pyrogenic Carbon Production During Recent Decades Has Created the Potential for a Large, Long-Term Sink of Atmospheric CO2. J. Geophys. Res. 123, 3682–3696. doi: 10.1029/2018JG004490
Wei, X., and Larsen, C. (2018). Assessing the Minimum Number of Time Since Last Fire Sample-Points Required to Estimate the Fire Cycle: Influences of Fire Rotation Length and Study Area Scale. Forests 9:708. doi: 10.3390/f9110708
World Bank (2022). United Nations Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects. United Nations Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects. Available: https://population.un.org/wup/ (accessed on 28 Oct, 2022).
Zhang, X., Chen, J., Dias, A. C., and Yang, H. (2020). Improving Carbon Stock Estimates for In-Use Harvested Wood Products by Linking Production and Consumption—A Global Case Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 2565–2574. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b05721
Zhao, J., Daigneault, A., and Weiskittel, A. (2020). Forest landowner harvest decisions in a new era of conservation stewardship and changing markets in Maine. USA. For. Policy Econ. 118:102251. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102251
Zhao, J., Daigneault, A., and Weiskittel, A. (2022). Estimating regional timber supply and forest carbon sequestration under shared socioeconomic pathways: A case study of Maine, USA. PLoS Clim. 1:e0000018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000018
Keywords: carbon storage, environmental change, harvested wood products, prediction, socioeconomic factors, technological advancement
Citation: Zhao J, Wei X and Li L (2022) The potential for storing carbon by harvested wood products. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:1055410. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.1055410
Received: 27 September 2022; Accepted: 31 October 2022;
Published: 16 November 2022.
Edited by:
Jiaxin Chen, Ontario Forest Research Institute, CanadaReviewed by:
Robert Beauregard, Laval University, CanadaCopyright © 2022 Zhao, Wei and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Xinyuan Wei, eHdlaTRAYnVmZmFsby5lZHU=; Ling Li, bGluZy5saUBtYWluZS5lZHU=
†These authors have contributed equally to this work