Correction to “On the role of forests and the forest sector for climate change mitigation in Sweden”

Abstract

Petersson, H., Ellison, D., Appiah Mensah, A., Berndes, G., Egnell, G., Lundblad, M., Lundmark, T., Lundström, A., Stendahl, J., Wikberg, P-E (2022). On the role of forests and the forest sector for climate change mitigation in Sweden. GCB Bioenergy, 14, 793–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12943

We wish to inform you that we have come across an error in the stated total amount of fertilized forest land area. In the fertilization scenario (scenario “Increased Fertilization,” Table 1), this area was not approximately 0.2 Mha per year, but rather approximately 1 Mha per year.

Although this error does not affect the main message of the article, the reader should be informed. We propose the following errata text and apologize for our mistake:

The current text reads as follows:

“To study the consequences of increased investments in forestry on net removals in carbon pools and substitution of fossil fuel-based alternatives, we simulate the increased fertilization scenario. This model specification represents a moderate fertilization scenario approximating established fertilization practices on a larger area, but within the legal fertilization guidelines. Established fertilization mainly targets, older, middle-aged Scots pine stands after thinning, around 10 years before final felling (Högberg et al., 2014; Jacobson & Pettersson, 2010). The simulated fertilized area is thus about 200 kha per year or approximately 1% of productive MFL, roughly seven times more fertilization than assumed in the other scenarios. The simulated fertilization thus considers the effect of a one-time addition of 150 kg N/ha (ammonium nitrate). Apart from fertilization, all other parameter settings are identical with the maximum potential harvest scenario.”

The actual amount assessed was the following:

“To study the consequences of increased investments in forestry on net removals in carbon pools and the substitution of fossil fuel-based alternatives, we simulate the increased fertilization scenario. The method used to increase production was to simulate the effect of fertilization. Fertilization was allowed to take place on all types of productive forest land. Default prioritization functions (Lämås et al., 2023) were used to select which stands were to be fertilized in the simulations, with the following exceptions: fertilization was allowed on the same land every 5 instead of every 10 years, fertilization was also allowed on land with Site Index (at 100 years) higher than 32, and fertilization was also permitted if site productivity was greater than 12 m³/ha/year. The amount of fertilized area each year was approximately 4% of the total productive forest area or around 1 million/ha/year. The simulated fertilization thus considers the effect of 150 kg N/ha (ammonium nitrate) for each year of fertilization. Apart from fertilization, all other parameter settings are identical with the maximum potential harvest scenario.”

The total fertilized area was therefore about 1 million/ha/year and not about 0.2 million/ha/year.

All references to fertilization in the article refer to this revised/updated specification.

We apologize for this error.