评估和比较德国集约和粗放林业对气候影响所需的位移因子

IF 3.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Buschbeck Christian, Pauliuk Stefan
{"title":"评估和比较德国集约和粗放林业对气候影响所需的位移因子","authors":"Buschbeck Christian,&nbsp;Pauliuk Stefan","doi":"10.1186/s13021-022-00216-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Forestry plays a major role in climate change mitigation. However, which intensity of logging is best suited for that task remains controversial. We contribute to the debate by quantitatively analyzing three different forest management scenarios in Germany—a baseline scenario which represents a continuation of current forest management practice as well as an intensive and an extensive logging scenario. We assess whether increased carbon storage in wood products and substitution of other emission-intensive materials can offset reduced carbon stocks in the forest due to increased harvesting. For that, we calculate annual required displacement factors (RDF)—a dimensionless quantity that indicates the minimal displacement factor (DF) so that intensive forestry outperforms extensive forestry from a climate perspective.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>If the intensive forest management scenario is included in the comparison, the RDF starts off with relatively high values (1 to 1.5) but declines over time and eventually even reaches negative values. Comparing the extensive scenario to a baseline yields RDF values between 0.1 and 0.9 with a slightly increasing trend. Compared to RDFs, expected future DFs are too low to favour the intensive forestry scenario and too high to favour the extensive forestry scenario, during the first 25 years of the modeling period. However, towards the end of the modeling period, the relationship between DFs and RDF is turned around in both comparisons. In the comparison between intensive and extensive forest management RDF values are very similar to future DF trajectories.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>RDFs are a useful tool for comparing annual climate impacts of forest growth scenarios and can be used to benchmark material and energy substitution effects of wood. Our results indicate that the baseline scenario reflects an effective compromise between carbon stocks in the forest and carbon displacement by wood use. For a longer modeling period, however, this might not be the case. Which of the alternative scenarios would be best suited for climate change mitigation is heavily dependent on future DF trajectory. Hence, our findings highlight the necessity of robust projections of forest dynamics and industry decarbonization pathways.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":505,"journal":{"name":"Carbon Balance and Management","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9526925/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Required displacement factors for evaluating and comparing climate impacts of intensive and extensive forestry in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Buschbeck Christian,&nbsp;Pauliuk Stefan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13021-022-00216-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Forestry plays a major role in climate change mitigation. However, which intensity of logging is best suited for that task remains controversial. We contribute to the debate by quantitatively analyzing three different forest management scenarios in Germany—a baseline scenario which represents a continuation of current forest management practice as well as an intensive and an extensive logging scenario. We assess whether increased carbon storage in wood products and substitution of other emission-intensive materials can offset reduced carbon stocks in the forest due to increased harvesting. For that, we calculate annual required displacement factors (RDF)—a dimensionless quantity that indicates the minimal displacement factor (DF) so that intensive forestry outperforms extensive forestry from a climate perspective.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>If the intensive forest management scenario is included in the comparison, the RDF starts off with relatively high values (1 to 1.5) but declines over time and eventually even reaches negative values. Comparing the extensive scenario to a baseline yields RDF values between 0.1 and 0.9 with a slightly increasing trend. Compared to RDFs, expected future DFs are too low to favour the intensive forestry scenario and too high to favour the extensive forestry scenario, during the first 25 years of the modeling period. However, towards the end of the modeling period, the relationship between DFs and RDF is turned around in both comparisons. In the comparison between intensive and extensive forest management RDF values are very similar to future DF trajectories.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>RDFs are a useful tool for comparing annual climate impacts of forest growth scenarios and can be used to benchmark material and energy substitution effects of wood. Our results indicate that the baseline scenario reflects an effective compromise between carbon stocks in the forest and carbon displacement by wood use. For a longer modeling period, however, this might not be the case. Which of the alternative scenarios would be best suited for climate change mitigation is heavily dependent on future DF trajectory. Hence, our findings highlight the necessity of robust projections of forest dynamics and industry decarbonization pathways.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Carbon Balance and Management\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9526925/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Carbon Balance and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13021-022-00216-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Carbon Balance and Management","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13021-022-00216-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

林业在减缓气候变化方面发挥着重要作用。然而,哪种记录强度最适合这项任务仍然存在争议。我们通过定量分析德国三种不同的森林管理情景,即延续当前森林管理实践的基线情景以及密集采伐和广泛采伐情景,为辩论做出贡献。我们评估了木材产品中碳储量的增加和其他排放密集型材料的替代是否可以抵消由于采伐增加而导致的森林碳储量的减少。为此,我们计算了年度所需位移因子(RDF)——一个表明最小位移因子(DF)的无因次量,因此从气候角度来看,集约化林业优于粗放化林业。结果在森林集约经营情景下,RDF开始时具有较高的值(1 ~ 1.5),但随着时间的推移逐渐下降,最终达到负值。将扩展场景与基线进行比较,得到的RDF值在0.1到0.9之间,并有略微增加的趋势。与RDFs相比,在模拟期的前25年,预期的未来df过低,不利于集约林业情景,过高,不利于粗放型林业情景。然而,在建模阶段接近尾声时,df和RDF之间的关系在两种比较中都发生了变化。在集约和粗放森林管理的比较中,森林资源RDF值与未来森林资源DF轨迹非常相似。结论rdf是比较不同森林生长情景的年气候影响的有效工具,可用于衡量木材的材料和能源替代效应。我们的研究结果表明,基线情景反映了森林碳储量和木材利用造成的碳置换之间的有效折衷。然而,对于较长的建模周期,情况可能并非如此。哪种备选情景最适合减缓气候变化在很大程度上取决于未来的发展趋势轨迹。因此,我们的研究结果强调了对森林动态和工业脱碳途径进行稳健预测的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Required displacement factors for evaluating and comparing climate impacts of intensive and extensive forestry in Germany

Required displacement factors for evaluating and comparing climate impacts of intensive and extensive forestry in Germany

Required displacement factors for evaluating and comparing climate impacts of intensive and extensive forestry in Germany

Required displacement factors for evaluating and comparing climate impacts of intensive and extensive forestry in Germany

Background

Forestry plays a major role in climate change mitigation. However, which intensity of logging is best suited for that task remains controversial. We contribute to the debate by quantitatively analyzing three different forest management scenarios in Germany—a baseline scenario which represents a continuation of current forest management practice as well as an intensive and an extensive logging scenario. We assess whether increased carbon storage in wood products and substitution of other emission-intensive materials can offset reduced carbon stocks in the forest due to increased harvesting. For that, we calculate annual required displacement factors (RDF)—a dimensionless quantity that indicates the minimal displacement factor (DF) so that intensive forestry outperforms extensive forestry from a climate perspective.

Results

If the intensive forest management scenario is included in the comparison, the RDF starts off with relatively high values (1 to 1.5) but declines over time and eventually even reaches negative values. Comparing the extensive scenario to a baseline yields RDF values between 0.1 and 0.9 with a slightly increasing trend. Compared to RDFs, expected future DFs are too low to favour the intensive forestry scenario and too high to favour the extensive forestry scenario, during the first 25 years of the modeling period. However, towards the end of the modeling period, the relationship between DFs and RDF is turned around in both comparisons. In the comparison between intensive and extensive forest management RDF values are very similar to future DF trajectories.

Conclusion

RDFs are a useful tool for comparing annual climate impacts of forest growth scenarios and can be used to benchmark material and energy substitution effects of wood. Our results indicate that the baseline scenario reflects an effective compromise between carbon stocks in the forest and carbon displacement by wood use. For a longer modeling period, however, this might not be the case. Which of the alternative scenarios would be best suited for climate change mitigation is heavily dependent on future DF trajectory. Hence, our findings highlight the necessity of robust projections of forest dynamics and industry decarbonization pathways.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Carbon Balance and Management
Carbon Balance and Management Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Carbon Balance and Management is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of research aimed at developing a comprehensive policy relevant to the understanding of the global carbon cycle. The global carbon cycle involves important couplings between climate, atmospheric CO2 and the terrestrial and oceanic biospheres. The current transformation of the carbon cycle due to changes in climate and atmospheric composition is widely recognized as potentially dangerous for the biosphere and for the well-being of humankind, and therefore monitoring, understanding and predicting the evolution of the carbon cycle in the context of the whole biosphere (both terrestrial and marine) is a challenge to the scientific community. This demands interdisciplinary research and new approaches for studying geographical and temporal distributions of carbon pools and fluxes, control and feedback mechanisms of the carbon-climate system, points of intervention and windows of opportunity for managing the carbon-climate-human system. Carbon Balance and Management is a medium for researchers in the field to convey the results of their research across disciplinary boundaries. Through this dissemination of research, the journal aims to support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and to provide governmental and non-governmental organizations with instantaneous access to continually emerging knowledge, including paradigm shifts and consensual views.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信