Nikola Smith, Karen Bennett, and Tom DeMeo In cooperation with Beverly Law and students, College of Forestry, Oregon State University.

Nikola Smith, Karen Bennett, and Tom DeMeo

In cooperation with Beverly Law and students, College of Forestry, Oregon State University

Agencies are charged with responding to climate change

Consistently hearing from the field folks want practical guidance on addressing adaptation

We felt the first step was to look at the magnitude of carbon stored by major ecoregions, as a way to understand priorities

What are the consequences of removing XX mmbf of timber on forest carbon storage?

How do alternatives compare from a carbon perspective?

How do prescribed burning and thinning alter fire severity, insect attacks and long-term carbon storage?

What are the impacts of grazing on carbon pools?

Project ObjectivesProvide regional guidance for responding to public

comments on the impact of individual unit projects on carbon sequestration

Identification of:• The relevant magnitude of carbon by ecosystem• How this carbon is distributed in the ecosystem• The effects of different management techniques on

carbon?• Where the greatest benefits will occur if the objective is

to sequester carbon• What this mean for management strategies across the

region?

Globally forest ecosystems store more than 80% of all terrestrial aboveground C and more than 70% of all soil organic C. (Jandl et al 2007)

Globally, soils sequester 2-3 times the carbon of aboveground vegetation

Forest carbon sequestration has been recognized as an immediate strategy for reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The IPCC estimates that 12-15% of global fossil fuel emissions could be offset by improved management of terrestrial ecosystems. (IPCC 2001)

In the US >90% of the net carbon sink occurs on forest lands (EPA 2005)

Forests in the U.S. sequester approximately 10% of U.S. net GHG emissions annually. (Birdsey et al 2006)

In US 31-33% of C is in trees and 50-59% is in soil

Potential to increase carbon storage 40% in the next 40 years with altered forest management regimes in the US

Public forests hold 30% of the total US forest volume

Hypothetical undisturbed forest biomass carbon (USGS open file report 2009))

Soil propertiesClimate (temperature & precipitation)Tree SpeciesDisturbance

stand ageFireHarvestManagement Actions

• Live• Trees/shrub/forb/grass

• Dead• Trees/shrub/forb/grass

• Detritus• LWD• Litterfall

• Animals

• Duff• Animal decomposition• Microbes• Fine and coarse roots• Soil organic matter• Soil water• Charcoal• Rock (e.g. limestone)

Below Ground

5 - 7 times as much potential carbon per unit area fixed on the westside versus the eastside forests

Data from Beverly Law and students, College of Forestry, Oregon State University

Large potential to sequester more carbon than is currently there

The C density in PNW OG forests is equivalent to tropical rainforest levels

•OR coastal soils stored 10X more C than eastern Oregon

•Soils with higher total SOC stored more C deeper in the profile than soils with lower total SOC

Almost all pools were consistent between provinces in % TEC

Above Ground

41-52% TEC

Below ground

14.4-18.4% TEC

Soil 15-32% TEC

Total below ground29.4-50.4 % of TEC (lower than global averagea)

Component % of Total Ecosystem Carbon

Stem wood 33.8% +-1.7%

Live and dead coarse roots

13.4% +- 0.2%

Live branch 5.9 +-0.4%

Stem bark 5.1% +-1.4%

Forest floor 2.7 +- 0.6%

Fine woody debris 2.0 +- 0.6

Rotten wood 1.8% +- 0.7%

Fine root 1.0 +- 0.1%

Dead branch and foliage

0.9 +-0.1%

Smithwick et. al 2001Mean SOC values varied widely between provinces highlighting the large biogeoclimatic variability

Wildfires = ~ 2.5% of the amount of fossil fuel emissions in Oregon per year (Miegs et al. 2009)

Thinning - depends on the type and location of treatment. Some thinning on the east side reduces C more than

fires associated with not thinning (Boerner 2008)Mechanical treatment leads to more carbon fixation

over time than prescribed fire or fire plus mechanical treatments (Stephens et al 2009). Beneficial effects are ecosystem-specific.

Thinning on westside – C is quickly replaced by rapid growth (Harmon 20007).

Protect wildland-urban interface and firefighter safety

Improve landscape resiliency (improve fire regime condition class)

Improve wildlife habitat (e.g., spotted owl habitat in dry forests)

Improve soil moisture availability on the driest sites

Perception•Young stands west of the Cascade Crest sequester more C than old growth forests because they are growing so rapidly.

•This considers only tree and forest products accounting. With full carbon accounting there is a large cost to C with initial conversion of a landscape dominated by old forests – decomposition and storage matters.

The relative magnitude of carbon sequestration varies significantly across ecosystems

Westside a huge carbon sink of national significance and there is potential to add to it

Total above ground C in Coast Range, West Cascades, and Klamath Mountains is 5-7 times as much as in East Cascades or Blue Mountains – similar in WA

Oregon forests contain more C than Washington forests

More than other US forested systems PNW able to store more C through management and conservation due to the larger component of C above ground

Existing carbon storage per hectare could double between 2000-2050 (Alig et al) on the west side.

Soil carbon storage is 10X higher in the Oregon Coast Range than in eastern Oregon

Carbon is more evenly distributed through the entire soil profile in western OR than in eastside soils

Dead wood in Klamath Province about 50-60% less than in Coast Range or West CascadesDue to warmer temps and more fire

• Long-term landscape scale is the correct scale to examine forest carbon. NOT project level.

• If disturbance regimes become less severe or less frequent, landscapes will store more C.

• If disturbances become more severe or the mean interval decreases, the landscape will store less C.

Assessments of “leakage” requires one to move beyond the landscape scale to assess unintended negative consequences of sequestration efforts

Develop into a Regional white paper/GTR for guidance

Continue research synthesis of effects of various management activities on various carbon pools

Continually seek feedback and questions from the field