2017
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ec
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

More diverse benefits from timber versus dedicated bioenergy plantations for terrestrial carbon dioxide removal

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While high yield production with few management inputs is important for a bioenergy crop, yields alone do not fully represent the climate mitigation potential of the crop because they do not represent the full carbon balance of the bioenergy ecosystem (O'Halloran & Bright, 2017). In addition to yields, the net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) of a bioenergy feedstock includes the nongrowing season carbon fluxes and the carbon stored belowground.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While high yield production with few management inputs is important for a bioenergy crop, yields alone do not fully represent the climate mitigation potential of the crop because they do not represent the full carbon balance of the bioenergy ecosystem (O'Halloran & Bright, 2017). In addition to yields, the net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) of a bioenergy feedstock includes the nongrowing season carbon fluxes and the carbon stored belowground.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results may not extend to a decision to establish a deciduous forest that has a higher average albedo than a pine plantation. Furthermore, forests and timber production have other indirect benefits that we did not account for here such as the substitution of timber-based building materials for emissionintensive products (O'Halloran and Bright, 2017;Kalliokoski et al, 2020). These indirect climate and ecosystem services may take higher precedence, given the small differences in the direct climate mitigation potential between the two ecosystems illustrated here.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%