Journal of Forest and Environmental Science

Institute of Forest Science, kangwon National University (강원대학교 산림과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Three-year Effect of Thinning Intensity on Biomass in Larix kaempferi and Pinus koraiensis Plantation

  • Chhorn, Vireak (Department of Forest Management, College of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Seo, Yeongwan (Institute of Forest Science, College of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, Daesung (Institute of Forest Science, College of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Choi, Jungkee (Department of Forest Management, College of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2019.03.15
  • Accepted : 2020.02.03
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to figure out and compare the increment of biomass by thinning intensity focused on the plantation of the two major coniferous species (Larix kaempferi and Pinus koraiensis) of South Korea. The inventory interval was three years under the effects of three types of thinning treatments; control (no thinning), light (20% thinning) and heavy (40% thinning). The results showed standing biomass increment of both species decreased as thinning intensity increased (heavylight>control). Meanwhile, the lowest of on-site biomass changes occurred in the control plot, and the greatest was in the heavy thinning plot because thinning was involved with leaving the felling residual biomass (leaves, branches and roots) on the site. According to the results from this short-term study, unthinned stands is preferable for maximizing standing biomass as well as carbon sequestration. However long-term investigation should be considered in order to see more clear results.

Keywords

References

  1. Abbas D, Current D, Phillips M, Rossman R, Hoganson H, Brooks KN. 2011. Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: a synthesis of environmental considerations. Biomass Bioenerg 35: 4538-4546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.029
  2. Campbell J, Alberti G, Martin J, Law BE. 2009. Carbon dynamics of a ponderosa pine plantation following a thinning treatment in the northern Sierra Nevada. For Ecol Manag 257: 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.021
  3. Choi J, Lee B, Lee D, Choi I. 2014. Growth monitoring of Korean white pine (Pinus koraiensis) plantation by thinning intensity. J Korean For Soc 103: 422-430. https://doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.3.422
  4. D'Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ. 2011. Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: insights from long-term silviculture experiments. For Ecol Manag 262: 803-816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.014
  5. Dixon RK, Solomon AM, Brown S, Houghton RA, Trexier MC, Wisniewski J. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263: 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5144.185
  6. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K. Ngara T, Tanabe K. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: volume 4 agriculture, forestry and other land use. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama.
  7. Eriksson E. 2006. Thinning operations and their impact on biomass production in stands of Norway spruce and Scots pine. Biomass Bioenerg 30: 848-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.04.001
  8. Evans AM, Perschel RT, Kittler BA. 2010. Revised assessment of biomass harvesting and retention guidelines. Forest Guild, Santa Fe.
  9. Fang S, Xue J, Tang L. 2007. Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential in poplar plantations with different management patterns. J Environ Manag 85: 672-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.014
  10. Finkral AJ, Evans AM. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. For Ecol Manag 255: 2743-2750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.041
  11. Fujimori T. 2001. Ecological and silvicultural strategies for sustainable forest management. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  12. Harmon ME, Moreno A, Domingo JB. 2009. Effects of partial harvest on the carbon stores in Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests: a simulation study. Ecosystems 12: 777-791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9256-2
  13. Hoover C, Stout S. 2007. The carbon consequences of thinning techniques: stand structure makes a difference. J For 105: 266-270.
  14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, summary for policy makers: contribution of Working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  15. Jhariya MK, Yadav DK. 2018. Biomass and carbon storage pattern in natural and plantation forest ecosystem of Chhattisgarh, India. J For Environ Sci 34: 1-11.
  16. Kim M, Lee WK, Kim YS, Lim CH, Song C, Park T, Son Y, Son YM. 2016. Impact of thinning intensity on the diameter and height growth of Larix kaempferi stands in central Korea. For Sci Tech 12: 77-87.
  17. Kirschbaum MUF. 2003. To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass Bioenerg 24: 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00171-X
  18. Korea Forest Research Institute (KFRI). 2012. Stem volume, biomass, yield table. Korea Forest Research Institute, Seoul.
  19. Korean Forest Service. 2017 Statistical yearbook of forestry. Korea Forest Service, Daejeon.
  20. Krankina ON, Harmon ME. 2006. Forest management strategies for carbon storage. In: Forests, carbon and climate change: a synthesis of science findings (Oregon Forest Resources Institute; Oregon State University, College of Forestry; Oregon Department of Forestry, eds). Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, pp 79-92.
  21. Magruder M, Chhin S, Palik B, Bradford JB. 2013. Thinning increases climatic resilience of red pine. Can J For Res 43: 878-889. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0088
  22. Makinen H, Isomaki A. 2004a. Thinning intensity and growth of Scots pine stands in Finland. For Ecol Manag 201: 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.016
  23. Makinen H, Isomaki A. 2004b. Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Norway spruce trees. For Ecol Manag 201: 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.017
  24. Makinen H, Isomaki A. 2004c. Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Scots pine trees. For Ecol Manag 203: 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.028
  25. Nishizono T, Tanaka K, Hosoda K, Awaya Y, Oishi Y. 2008. Effects of thinning and site productivity on culmination of stand growth: results from long-term monitoring experiments in Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) forests in northeastern Japan. J For Res 13: 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-008-0082-8
  26. Oliver CD, Larson BC. 1996. Forest stand dynamics, update edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
  27. Palviainen M, Finér L, Kurka AM, Mannerkoski H, Piirainen S, Starr M. 2004. Decomposition and nutrient release from logging residues after clear-cutting of mixed boreal forest. Plant Soil 263: 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PLSO.0000047718.34805.fb
  28. Pelletier G, Pitt DG. 2008. Silvicultural responses of two spruce plantations to midrotation commercial thinning in New Brunswick. Can J For Res 38: 851-867. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-173
  29. Pfister O, Wallentin C, Nilsson U, Eko PM. 2007. Effects of wide spacing and thinning strategies on wood quality in Norway spruce (Picea abies) stands in Southern Sweden. Scand J For Res 22: 333-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701504951
  30. Profft I, Mund M, Weber GE, Weller E, Schulze ED. 2009. Forest management and carbon sequestration in wood products. Euro J For Res 128: 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-009-0283-5
  31. Ryan MG, Harmon ME, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, McKinley DC, Morrison JF, Murray BC, Pataki DE, Skog KE. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Issues Ecol 13: 1-16.
  32. Simpson J, Martin W. 2008. Forest biomass harvesting for energy: recommendations for Nova Scotia. Ecology Action Centre.
  33. Smith DM. 1986. The practice of silviculture. 8th ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
  34. Smithwick EAH, Harmon ME, Domingo JB. 2007. Changing temporal patterns of forest carbon stores and net ecosystem carbon balance: the stand to landscape transformation. Landsc Ecol 22: 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9006-1
  35. Thornley JH, Cannell MG. 2000. Managing forests for wood yield and carbon storage: a theoretical study. Tree Physiol 20: 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/20.7.477
  36. Wallentin C, Nilsson U. 2011. Initial effect of thinning on stand gross stem-volume production in a 33-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand in Southern Sweden. Scan J For Res 26: 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.564395
  37. Yan Y. 2018. Integrate carbon dynamic models in analyzing carbon sequestration impact of forest biomass harvest. Sci Total Environ 615: 581-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.326