<%BANNER%>

Life Cycle Impact of Loblolly Pine ( Pinus taeda) Management on Carbon Sequestration in the Southeastern United States

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044770/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Impact of Loblolly Pine ( Pinus taeda) Management on Carbon Sequestration in the Southeastern United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (97 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chapagain, Binod Prashad
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: assessment -- carbon -- cycle -- environmental -- impact -- life -- loblolly -- pine -- sequestration
Forest Resources and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Global warming is primarily due to increasing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One strategy to slow down the concentration of carbon dioxide is to store carbon in forests but carbon emissions and other environmental impacts occur during forest management. Diesels, fertilizers and other inputs have been the sources of emissions during silvicultural operations. This study analyzed cradle to gate LCA approach to assess the environmental impact of loblolly management and hybrid growth and yield to calculate the C production from the plantation. Diesel use in transportation and silvicultural practices consumed the highest amount of energy. Environmental impact and carbon emissions from the transportation and diesel use in harvesting machinery were higher. Use of the fertilizer had a significant effect on environmental categories in high intensity management. It was found that fertilizer’s contribution on environmental impact increases when the management shifts from lower to higher intensity of management. Among the three macro nutrient used, nitrogen has the highest impact on the highest number of environmental categories. It was found that the carbon cost from silvicultural practices is minimal compare to in situ carbon production at the end of the rotation. Seed orchard and nursery management had an insignificant effect on carbon emission and other environmental impacts. The total C cost due to silviculture activities was found to be 1.24% and 0.43% of the total in situ in high and low intensity management and the contribution is increased to 2.5% and 1.38% while considering transportation. The C cost of high intensity was three times higher than low intensity management. Forest management practices with the better application rate and efficient use of fertilizers could reduce the fertilizers’ effect. Increasing the fuel efficiency of trucks and harvesting machine and using the size and power capacity of the harvesters with the tree size to be harvested decreases the fuel use. Proper route planning during the transportation could increase the loading factor which eventually reduces diesel consumption during the transportation. Also, use of the biofuel and other renewable source of energy could reduce the emissions from diesel consumption.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Binod Prashad Chapagain.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Carter, Douglas R.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044770:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044770/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Impact of Loblolly Pine ( Pinus taeda) Management on Carbon Sequestration in the Southeastern United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (97 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chapagain, Binod Prashad
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: assessment -- carbon -- cycle -- environmental -- impact -- life -- loblolly -- pine -- sequestration
Forest Resources and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Global warming is primarily due to increasing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One strategy to slow down the concentration of carbon dioxide is to store carbon in forests but carbon emissions and other environmental impacts occur during forest management. Diesels, fertilizers and other inputs have been the sources of emissions during silvicultural operations. This study analyzed cradle to gate LCA approach to assess the environmental impact of loblolly management and hybrid growth and yield to calculate the C production from the plantation. Diesel use in transportation and silvicultural practices consumed the highest amount of energy. Environmental impact and carbon emissions from the transportation and diesel use in harvesting machinery were higher. Use of the fertilizer had a significant effect on environmental categories in high intensity management. It was found that fertilizer’s contribution on environmental impact increases when the management shifts from lower to higher intensity of management. Among the three macro nutrient used, nitrogen has the highest impact on the highest number of environmental categories. It was found that the carbon cost from silvicultural practices is minimal compare to in situ carbon production at the end of the rotation. Seed orchard and nursery management had an insignificant effect on carbon emission and other environmental impacts. The total C cost due to silviculture activities was found to be 1.24% and 0.43% of the total in situ in high and low intensity management and the contribution is increased to 2.5% and 1.38% while considering transportation. The C cost of high intensity was three times higher than low intensity management. Forest management practices with the better application rate and efficient use of fertilizers could reduce the fertilizers’ effect. Increasing the fuel efficiency of trucks and harvesting machine and using the size and power capacity of the harvesters with the tree size to be harvested decreases the fuel use. Proper route planning during the transportation could increase the loading factor which eventually reduces diesel consumption during the transportation. Also, use of the biofuel and other renewable source of energy could reduce the emissions from diesel consumption.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Binod Prashad Chapagain.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Carter, Douglas R.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044770:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 LIFE CYCLE IMPACT OF LOBLOLLY PINE ( Pinus taeda ) MANAGEMENT ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES By BINOD PRASHAD CHAPAGAIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PA RTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Binod Prashad Chapagain

PAGE 3

3 To my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS resear ch and study at University of Florida. First and foremost, I would like to thank committee chair Dr. Douglas R. Carter for his constant support and encouragement. My education endeavor in the US would not be possible without his help. I would also like to thank my Committee: Dr Gary F. Peter, Dr. Damian C. Adams, and Dr. Carlos A. Gonzalez for their guidance and valuable suggestions throughout the development of my research. I appreciate Dr Gonzalez for helping in understanding carbon model and Dr. Adams for his motivation and encouragement when I needed most. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Tom Starkey for sharing the data related to nursery management. I also extend my acknowledgements to Puneet Dwivedi, Binod Neupane, and Andres Susaeta for their help during data analysis. I would also like to thank my lab members Shelly Johnson and Jose Soto for wonderful time and friendship. My thank also goes to Praveen Subedi, Mitra Khadka, Subodh Acharya, Shweta Sharma, Bijay Tamang Nilesh Timilsina, a nd Wei Jiang for making my stay at Gainesville smooth and memorable. My grandparents, my parents and brother are great source of inspiration emotional support, and encouragement throughout my career They deserve credit for what I have achieved so far and they mean everything to me Last but not least, I express my gratitude to my family, friends from Institute of Forestry and Department of Forest Research and Survey Nepal and well wishers for their encouragement, wishes and love

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS pa ge ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12 Objective ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Forest Management and Climate Change ................................ .............................. 17 Forest Management in the Southern United States ................................ ................ 18 Forest Carbon Sequestration ................................ ................................ .................. 20 Forest Carbon Management in the United States ................................ ................... 21 Silvicultural Practices and Environmental Impacts ................................ .................. 23 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 28 Environmental Impact Assessment of Forest Activities ................................ .......... 28 Life Cycle Assessment ................................ ................................ ..................... 29 Goal Definition and Scoping ................................ ................................ ............. 30 Functional Unit ................................ ................................ ................................ 30 System Boun dary ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 Life Cycle Inventory ................................ ................................ .......................... 32 Life Cycle Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ......... 32 Interpretation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 33 Plantation Area ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 Nursery Management ................................ ................................ ....................... 33 Seed Orchard Management and Seed Processing ................................ .......... 34 Direct and Indirect Energy Use ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Emissions and Environmental Impact Calculation ................................ ............ 36 Machinery and Materials Used ................................ ................................ ......... 37 Chemicals, Fuels, and Water Use ................................ ................................ .... 38 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 39 Growth and Yield of Loblolly Pine Plantation ................................ .......................... 40

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................ ................................ ............. 45 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 45 Seed Orchard ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45 Fuel use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 45 Equipment use ................................ ................................ ........................... 45 Chemicals and water use ................................ ................................ ........... 45 Nursery Management ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 Fuel use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 46 Equipment use ................................ ................................ ........................... 46 Chemicals and water use ................................ ................................ ........... 46 Plantation Management ................................ ................................ .................... 47 Fuel use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47 Equipment use ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 Chemicals and water use ................................ ................................ ........... 48 Materials and Diesel Use in Transportation ................................ ...................... 48 Seed orchard to the nursery ................................ ................................ ....... 48 Nursery to plantation site ................................ ................................ ........... 48 Low intensity plantation site to sawmill ................................ ...................... 49 High intensity plantati on site to sawmill ................................ ...................... 49 Energy Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49 Material Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 50 Environmenta l Impact ................................ ................................ ....................... 51 Global Warming Impact and Carbon Cost of Forest Management Activities .... 52 Stem Volume and Carbon Yield from the Loblo lly Pine Plantation ................... 53 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 54 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ............ 76 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 78 Limitation of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 APPENDIX A LOBLOLLY PINE MANAGEMENT STEPS IN SOUTHERN UNITED STATES ...... 80 Seed Orchard Management and Seed Collection ................................ ................... 80 Transportation from Seed Orchard to Nursery ................................ ........................ 81 Nursery Management ................................ ................................ ............................. 81 Transportation of Seedling from Nursery to Plantation Site ................................ .... 83 Plantation Management ................................ ................................ .......................... 83 Site Preparation ................................ ................................ ................................ 83 Fertilization and Herbicides ................................ ................................ .............. 83 Thinning ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 84 Final Harvesting ................................ ................................ ............................... 84 Transportation of Wood from Plantation to Saw Mill ................................ ......... 84

PAGE 7

7 B LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORY ................................ ........ 85 Global Warming Potential ................................ ................................ ....................... 85 Acidification ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 85 Eutrophication ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 86 Ozone Depletion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 86 Human Health Respirator Effects ................................ ................................ ........... 87 Human Health Cancer and Non cancer Effect ................................ ........................ 87 Smog Formation ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 88 Eco toxicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 89 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 97

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 The estimated amount farming system for Southeastern pine ................................ ................................ 27 3 1 Management scenario and assumptions use in low and high intensity loblolly pine ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 43 4 1 Total weight (kg) of equipment used ................................ ................................ ...... 61 4 2 Material use (kg) of each of forest management activities in 1 hectare loblolly pine planta tion ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 62 4 3 Environmental impacts of life cycle of 1 hectare high intensity loblolly pine plantation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 65 4 5 Global warming Ind ex and carbon emissions from high intensity plantation .......... 69 4 6 Global warming index and carbon emissions from low intensity plantation ............ 70 4 7 Global warming Index and carbon emissions during transportation ....................... 70

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 System boundary of the analysis ................................ ................................ ........... 44 4 1 Direct energy use in 1 hectare low and high intensity management of loblolly pine plantation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 63 4 2 Indirect energy use in 1 hectare low and high intensity management of loblolly pine plantation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 64 4 3 Environmental impacts by sources in the life cycle of 1 ha high intensity loblolly pine plantation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 67 4 4 Environmental impacts by sources for the life cycle of 1 ha low intensity loblolly pine plantation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 68 4 6 Trees per ha and stan d volume for loblolly pine plantation under low intensity management for 22 years ................................ ................................ ................... 72 4 7 Carbon stock for loblolly pine plantation under low intensity management for 22 years ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 73 4 8 Trees per ha and stand volume for loblolly pine plantation under high intensity management for 25 years ................................ ................................ ................... 74 4 9 Carbon stock for loblolly pine plantation under high intensity management for 25 years ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 75

PAGE 10

10 Abstract o f Thesis Presented to t he Graduate School of t he University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree o f Master of Science LIFE CYLE IMPACT OF LOBLOLLY PINE (Pin us Taeda ) MANAGEMENT ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES By Binod Prashad Chapagain D e c e m b e r 2012 Chair: Douglas R. Carter Major: Forest Resources and Conservation Global warmi ng is primarily due to increasing greenhouse gases mainly c arbon dioxide in the atmosphere One strategy to slow down the concentration of carbon dioxide is to store carbon in forests but carbon emissions and other environmental impacts occur during fores t management. Diesels, fertilizers and other inputs have been the sources of emissions during silvicultural operations This study analyzed cradle to gate LCA approach to assess the environmental impact of loblolly management a nd carbon balance model t o c alculate the C production from the plantation. Diesel use in transportation and silvicultural practices consumed the highest amount of energy. Environmental impact and carbon emissions from the transportation and diesel use in harvesting machinery were hi gher. Use of the fertilizer had a significant effect on environmental categories in high intensity management. It was on environmental impact increases when the management shifts from lower to higher intensity of manage ment. Among the three macro nutrient used, nitrogen has the highest impact on the highest number of environmental categories.

PAGE 11

11 It was found that the carbon cost from silvicultural practices is minimal compare to in situ carbon production at the end of the rotation Seed orchard and nursery management had an insignificant effect on carbon emission and other environmental impact s The total C cost due to silvicultural activities was found to be 1.2% and 0.4% of the total in situ in high and low intensity ma n agement and the contribution is increased to 2.5 % and 1.4 % w hile considering transportation The C cost of high intensity was three times higher than low intensity management. Forest management practices with the better application rate and efficient use o f fertilizers could effect. Increasing the fuel efficiency of trucks and harvesting machine and using the size and power capacity of the harvesters with the tree size to be harvested decreases the fuel use Proper route planning dur ing the transportation could increase the loading factor which eventually reduces diesel consumption during the transportation. Also, use of the biofuel and other renewable source of energy coul d reduce the emissions from diesel consumption

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 IN TRODUCTION Background The earth is warming up, and there is scientific consensus that people are the primary actors to the results of the climate change. There is a compelling case adopting policies to mitigate the adverse effect of global warming and clim ate change (McCarthy, 2001) Impact of climate change can primarily be categorized into three types namely ecological, social, and economic. The ecological impacts include shift in vegetation types and correspondin g biodiversity (Elliott and Baker, 2004), change in forest density (Smith et al., 2007), and increased incidence of wildfires diseases, and pests (Gan, 2004). Social impacts are comprised of changes in risk distribution, declines in human health, and relo cation of the population (Karl et al., 2009). Similarly, increased risk and uncertainty of agriculture production (Smith et al., 2007), and changes in the supply of ecosystem goods and services (Scott and Huang, 2007) are major economic impacts. Global wa rming, a major challenge to the 21 st century, is primarily attributed due to the increase the concentration of greenhouse gas es (GHG ) mainly carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. The main contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect is CO 2 Globally it accounts for over 60 percent of the enhanced GHG effect and in the industrialized countries it makes up more than 80 percent of the total emissions The CO 2 emissions due to fossil fuel use increased the concentration of atmosp heric CO 2 to 377 ppm (parts per million) in 2006 from 280 ppm in 1750 (Blasing and Smith, 2006) The continued increase of CO 2 along with other GHGs has al infrared radiation.

PAGE 13

13 Further addition of gases in the next 65 years could cause the earth temperature to rise up to 5 o C or at least 1 o C (Cox et al., 2000) One strategy to slow down the increasing GHGs concentration in the atmosphere is to increase the storage of the carbon ( C) in forests (Gorte, 2009) which might be able to reduce the deposition rate of atmospheric C ( Sedjo 1989) The recognition that CO 2 is increasing i n the atmosphere has increased recognition that C sequestration is an important forest function (Nair et al., 2009) along with other ta ngible benefits from the trees. C storage in the forest includes numerous compone nts including biomass and soil C Above ground biomass, detritus material, and terrestrial C stocks are forest biomass C whereas below ground C includes both organic and inorganic C (Lal, 2005) Reforestation of abandoned and bare land and management of existing forest and soil can serve as important mechanisms to sequester C (Markewitz, 2006) The C sequestration function of the forests is primarily related to the net primary produ ction of forests. Forest floor and the mineral soil also sequester C (Yanai et al., 2003; Markewitz, 2006) Old growth forests with no timber yield may have high biomass, and thus, stores large amounts of C (Harmon et al., 1990) Plantation forest with regular timber yield often contains relatively low C compared to undisturbed forest (Cannell and Thornley, 2000) Alt hough forest management activities are less intense than cropland management, they affect the soil C as well. The potential role of forest conservation and management to reduce the GHGs through carbon sequestration is likely to exceed that of agriculture ( Nair, 2009). Forest management systems which mimic the regular natural forest disturbance with a continuous canopy cover increase C storage (Cannell and

PAGE 14

14 Thornley, 2000). Forest management activities that might impact the soil C include site preparation, ha rvesting, soil drainage, fertilization and liming (Hoover et al., 2002) Forest fire reduces aboveground C in the short period where as its early effect on soils are quite variable (Markewitz, 2006). Similarly, fertili zation commonly increases both above and belowground C storage in the short period while herbicides responses are generally positive on adding aboveground but negative on belowground C but the long term impact of burning and fertilization on the net C bala nce in forests is uncertain (Markewitz, 2006). Out of 0.93 billion ha of land area in the U.S., 33 percent is forest Out of 302 million ha forest areas in the United States, the southeastern region co ntains approximately 82 million (ha ) of timberlands wh ich has annual productivity higher than 1.41 m 3 /ha/yr (Smith et al., 2004) Nearly 61 percent of the softwood and 53 percent of the hardwood timber harvested in the United States comes from the Southern region and pro duction is expected to increase in the future (Haynes, 2002) It produces 18 percent of the global industrial round wood, 25 percent of the global pulpwood. The 15 million ha of southern pine makes up approximately plantations (Spatari et al., 2005) About 70 percent of 57 million ha regional timberland is in nonindustrial private forest landowners (Smi th et al., 2004) Approximately 57.8 billion tons of C is present in forest ecosystems both above and below the ground in the U.S., which is nearly 4 percent of the entire C southeast region contains 10 percent of the total forest C in the U.S (Birdsey, 1992) Southern pine forest s with be st forest management practices and well established tree improvement programs ha ve produced pulp, wood chip and saw timber along with

PAGE 15

15 bioen ergy and broad range of ecological services. The wide geographic distributions of many pine species show their adaptability to various climate zones and soil types. However, four southern pine species, namely loblolly ( Pinus taeda ), shortleaf ( P. echinata ) longleaf ( P. palustris ) and slash ( P. elliottii ), are the most important due to their broad natural ranges. In addition, only loblolly and slash pine were planted in 15 million ha of timberlands (Peter, 2008) Silv icultural management of the southern forest plantation has gone through a series of advancements over the last six decades resulting the productivity (Jokela et al., 2004) Coastal plain pine forests in the south are among the most intensively managed (Johnsen et al., 2004) and productive forest in the world (Fox et al., 2004) The southern forest produces more timber than any country in the w orld (Prestemon and Abt, 2002) A wide range of silvicultural activities has been applied from seed production up to the harvesting of the forest products. Various silviculture activities such as burning, fertiliz ation, and herbicide application affect the C budget of the forest (Knoepp and Swank, 1997; Johnson and Curtis, 2001; Echeverra et al., 2004) Thus, the assessment of the GHG emissions from the forest management activities in order to identify the net C balance of the forest system is important in the context of burning global warming scenario. Loblolly pine is the most widely planted species for plantation in the s outh (Samuelson et al., 2004) In plantations, loblolly pine grows fast providing a great potential opportunity to sequester C (Johnsen et al., 2004). However, loblolly pine is usually, on average, maintained for short rotations, so there is less C in the trees in comparison to Spruce fir and Douglas fir which are usually maintained for longer

PAGE 16

16 rotation (Birdsey, 1992) It is necessary to assess the environmental impact of fo rest management activities and explore the possible options for improvement in the forest management (Seppala et al. 1998). In the s outheastern United States, the impact assessment of loblolly pine forest management activities will be significant at the r egional and national scale. The assessment of net C production from the forest is necessary to quantify the incentive that could be gained from sequestering C in the forest. Objective The study aims to assess the life cycle impact of loblolly pine ( P tae da) management systems on C sequestration in the southeastern United States. In particular, the study is expected to answer the following questions. What are the life environmental impacts from forest activities? What is the global warming impact associa ted with silvicultural practices of the loblolly plantation? Which forest activities produce high the greenhouse gas emissions? How much energy is used in the management of the loblolly pine forest considering the inputs throughout the life cy cle from see d orchard management to transportation of harvested forest products to sawmill ? What is the net carbon sequestration from the different management intensities of the loblolly plantation?

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Forest Management and Climate Change Fo rests are shaped by the climate and the climate is also shaped by the forests. The effects of climate change on forest are numerous. Climate determines what will grow properly in the specific site as changes in the temperature and precipitation regimes wil l affect the growth of the trees (Malmsheimer et al., 2008) Climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration and timing of fire, drought, invasive species, insects and pathogen o utbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides (Dale et al., 2001; Lal et al. 2011) There are direct effects of temperature, precipitation, and increasi ng atmospheric carbon dioxide on tree g rowth and water use and indirect cumulative effects of the aforementioned climatic parameter on fire severity and pest outbreaks. Moreover, it has the potential to change entire forest systems by shifting distribution and composition (Malmsheimer et al., 2008; Lal et al., 2011) On the other hand, forests can contribute to climate change protection through carbon sequestration coupled with offering environmental, social, cultural, and economic advantages (Canadel l and Raupach 2008 ). The terrestrial biosphere which includes forest can slow down the CO 2 increase ( IPCC 2000 ) and some activities increases the emissions where as some activities decrease the emissions (Schlamadinger et al. 2000). Wild fires are also a major contributor to GHG emissions globally (Flannigan and Van Wagner, 1991, Malmsheimer et al., 2008) GHG emissions can be prevented or reduced by wood substitution, biomass modificatio n, controlling the wildfire behavior, and regulating land use change (Malmsheimer et al., 2008) The use of

PAGE 18

18 wood instead of fossil fuel intensive products can deal with climate change to some extent. The use of t he lumber, wood panels and other forest products can store C for a long time and emit less C in comparison to fossil fuel intensive construction materials like concrete, brick, or vinyl (Malmsheimer et al., 2008) Similarly the use of biomass fuels and bio based products can also reduce oil and gas imports and improves environmental quality (Malmsheimer et al., 2008, Dwivedi et al., 2009) Forest Management in the Southern United States Forest resources in the U.S. shows constant improvement in general condition and quality with 33% of the 2.3 billion acres of land area is forest (Smith 2004). Smith et al. (2004) stated that 94 % of the southeastern forests equivalent to 82 million hectares are timberland. Deforested and degraded forest land and degraded agricultural land was widespread in the 1950s in the south. The southern pine plantations were less than 2 million acres and a large area of land w as abandoned due to widespread deforestation and unproductive land due to disorganized agriculture practices at the end of world war (Fox et al. 2004). The tree planting was extensively increased after the war (USDA Forest Service, 1988). To meet the dema nd for timber from the rapid expansion of the paper and pulp industry in the 1930s, the pine plantation was augmented in the south (Fox et al., 2004). Also, the south has been a source of timber since colonial times (Williams 1989) and timber harvesting is widespread in the whole southern region but mainly concentrated on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (Wear and Greis 2002). Management practices in pine plantation has been drastically improved as plantations produced less than 90 cubic ft 3 / acre/ y ear during 1950s and 1960s but the plantation in the 1990s produced more than 400 ft 3 /acre / year ( Fox et al. 2004). Because of the

PAGE 19

19 unprecedented success of the plantation southern pine plantation is considered as a wood basket in the world (Schultz 1997 Fox et al. 2004) Southern pine plantation in the U.S. is one of the success stories in the world for forest management (Fox et al. 2007) and the most intensive managed ( Johsen et al rial wood (Sir y et al. 2006). It produced 310 million tons of wood annually (Smith et al. 2004) Eighteen percent of global industrial round wood and 25 % of global wood pulp production comes from the southern U.S. (FAO 2004). Southern forests have gone thr ough drastic changes in the ownership and use as well (Allen et al. 2005). With 88% forest owned by private landowner s intensively managed pine plantation growth rate is as much as 7 tons per acre per year (Siry et al. 2006) and plantation has biological ly possible rate of 10 tons per acre per year ( Allen et al. 2005) Though loblolly, longleaf, shortleaf, and slash pine are the important species in the south, loblolly and slash pine covers the majority of planted timberland in the southeastern with an approximate are a of 15 million hectares (Peter 2005). The success of pine industry is well supported by research conducted with the cooperative efforts between forest industries, universities, state and federal agencies and disseminated and implemented wid ely (Peter 2008, Fox et al. 2004) The improvement in the productivity is expected in the future due to refined management regimes and clonal forestry has promising capability to dramatically increase the productivity in southern pine plantation (Fox et al 2004). There are still lots of challenges to be resolved in order to get the best possible output from plantation in the most economic and environmentally sustainable manner (Allen et al. 2005).

PAGE 20

20 Forest Carbon Sequestration Between the geological and biol ogical potentiality of C sequestration, geological potentiality has not been demonstrated enough to mitigate CO 2 emissions even though it has higher potential (Hale et al. 2008). The storage of atmospheric into plant tissue is one of the most effective met hods to offset CO 2 emissions as biological C sequestration ( Sedjo 1989, Sedjo et al. 1997) and forest is considered as a potential source to reduce atmospheric CO 2 by sequestrating C in above ground stems, leaves, branches and below ground roots and soil ( Sedjo and Sohngen 2000).Forests act as important actor as most efficient natural terrestrial C sink in terms of global C cycle (Malmsheimer et al., 2008). Forest C sequestration is the process of absorbing the atmospheric CO 2 and storing as C in the bi omass and soil. During the photosynthesis, plants use sunlight, nutrient, and water to convert into CO 2 which accumulate on leaves, twigs, steams and roots; and releases oxygen and incorporate the C atoms in the plant cell (Sedjo 2001). Plant releases it s stored C to the atmosphere after dying or release into the soil to decompose slowly which eventually enhance the C level in the soil (Gorte 2009). The composition of C sequestrat ion in each part of tree varies upon the regions, forest type, age, quality of site, and land use history (Hale et al. 2008). S oil C presents in humus, decomposers, and roots and dead vegetation parts (Gorte 2007). Forest is the prime terrestrial C sink which stores more than two thirds of terrestrial source (Dixon et al. 1994; Se djo et al. 1997). The above ground of trees and soil sequestrate approximately 30% and 60% of the total C and remaining C stores mainly on forest liter and understory (Birdsey 1992). Unlike agricultural crops, C cycle in forest operates for many centuries or even decades (Sedjo 2001) Young trees can capture faster because of their growth rate

PAGE 21

21 whereas old vegetation stores large amount C But, C absorption rate of plants changes during the development due to the difference between gross primary production a nd ecosystem respiration (Domke et al. 2008). Forest can only be considered as C sink when the total photosynthetic rate is higher than ecosystem respiratory rate (Dixon et al. 1994). Your stands act as C source because of having a higher respiratory rate in comparison to photosynthesis whereas middle aged and old aged stands normally act as a sink due to higher photosynthetic rate (Domke et al. 2008). C seq uestration potential of forest types varies and moist tropical, temperate, and boreal forest approxim ately contain approximately 110 70, 180 tons per acre (Gorte 2007). Forest C sequestration assists in preventing global warming by increasing C storage in forest plants and soil, preserving present tree and soil C and controlling CO 2 emissions ( EPA 2012) Four major forest activities could mitigate C emissions: 1) reforestation to increase the forested area, 2) increasing the C density and C stock in the stand and landscape, 3) replace the fossil fuel CO 2 emissions by expanding the use of forest products, and 4) avoiding deforestation and degradation (Canadell and Raupach 2008). Forest Carbon Management in the United States Forestry is widely recognized as a potential GHG mitigation option ( EPA 2005) Forest presently absorbs billions of tons of CO 2 every year which equivalent an economic subsidy worth hundreds of billions of dollars if it has to be done by other ways of C sink (Canadell and Raupach 2008). In the US atmospheric absorption by the forest exceeds CO 2 emissions from forest land use (Haile et a l 2008 ). Forest and agricultural land comprise a net C sink of 830 million tonnes CO 2 per year in the United States (EPA 2005) which is equivalent to 14.8% of CO 2 emissions and 12.5% of GHG emissions in

PAGE 22

22 the U.S. and out of which forest holds 84% of total s ink (Haile et al. 2008) Woodbury et al. (2007) estimated 149 330 Tg C per year is sequestered within the United States and forests, urban trees and wood products accounts for 65 91 % of the total sequestration. Forests including wood products sequestered an average of 162 Tg C per year between 1990 to 2005 in the United States (Woodbury et al. 2007). Similarly, Brown et al. (1996) estimated that between 1995 2050 a large amount of C could potentially be conserved and sequestered by reducing deforestation and degradation (138 million ha) and managing natural forest (217 million ha) land in the tropics and establishing 345 million ha of plantation and agroforestry These efforts could conserve 11 15 percent of the projected fossil fuel emissions during the same period (Brown et al., 1996) Forests are an important part of the global C cycle in mainly two ways. Firstly, the terrestrial ecosystem absorbs nearly three billion tons of C every year through net growth which is 30 percent of the C emission s from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. In addition, forest area which is almost 30 percent of the world land area holds more than double the amount of C present in the atmosphere (Canadell and Raupach, 2008) However, the level of C sink mainly depends upon a succession development stage and management intensities and activities in the forest (Phillips et al., 1998) Primeval forest w ith no timber yield has high biomass thus, stores large amount of C (Harmon et al., 1990) and plantation forest with regular timber yield, contains relatively low C C compared to undisturbed fores t (Cannell and Thornley, 2000) But, increase in forest biomass may not necessarily increase the soil C Soil C can be increased by appropriate site preparation, adequate soil drainage, species with

PAGE 23

23 high net primary productivity (NPP ), applying fertilizers, and adequate fire management (Lal 2005). There are mainly three types of sound forest management practices to increase C sequestration is conserving the existing C pool through slowing deforestation, increasing C storage by expand ing areas of forest, and transferring the forest biomass into biofuel so that use of fossil fuel based products can be reduced (Johnsen et al., 2001) The C sequestration function of the southern pine is high due to high productivity and industrial infrastructure. C sequestration is not only valuable for regional and national level but also has importance in the global scale. Moreover, C sequestration might be b eneficial to the nation in terms of global policy com mitments in the future (Johnsen et al., 2001) It will ultimately be useful to effectively implement C based international programs like the Kyoto protocol. It is necessary to assess the dynamics of C fluxes and sto rage under different management practices in forest ecosystems. However, it is complicated to quantify the C sequestration potentiality of forest with various stocks and fluxes under different management regime ranges. C can not only present in above groun d biomass, soil and dead wood but also in manufactured wood products (Masera et al., 2003) Silvicultural Practices and Environmental Impacts The southern pines are one of the most intensively and extensively manag ement forest in the world (Fox et al., 2004, Stantrf et al., 2003) and loblolly is most widely planted ( Johnsen et al. 2001) Intensity of silvicultural practices for loblolly pine varies depending upon the objective and the investment available (Peter 2008). Site preparation, planting of seedlings, fertilization, thinning, tending operations, and finally

PAGE 24

24 harvesting are the activities required for f orest stand establishment and timber harvesting (Jokela et al. 2009 Johnson et al., 2005) The underlying reason for the success of the southern forest management is the application of forest research in tree impro vement, nursery management, site preparation, weed control, and fertilization to plantation forestry in the south which increases productivity significantly (Fox et al., 2004) Forest operations are highly mechanized and need external energy, thus, sources of GHG emissions (Berg and Karjalainen, 2003) Use of the machinery, material, and fuel during silviculture practices causes GHG emissions. Markewitz (2006) concluded that 2.64 Me ga gram ( Mg ) C per hectare ( ha) emission over a 25 year rotation in an intensively managed loblolly pine plantation in southeastern United States. The increase of C in the soil and the woody biomass due to forest plantation outweighs the emission due to silviculture activities. The details about the C emissions from each management practices are shown in the Table 2 1. Management of forest resources has a big impact on the environment (Seppala et al. 1998). Forest fertilization increases the nutrient co ncentrations in the water body and degrades the water quality (Binkley 1998). Nitrogen is considered as a major pollutant from agriculture in water (Gundersen et al. 2006). Even though the water draining through the forest has nine times less concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus ( Omernik 1977), forest road and harvesting operation add sediments; and harvesting and fertilization further increase the concentration of nutrients in the water ( Binkley and Brown 1993). Nitrogen leaching may happen even fro m unfertilized and less intensively managed forest because of the huge amount of Nitrogen from air pollution (Gundersen

PAGE 25

25 et al. 2006). Except fertilization, site preparation, road construction, and forest harvesting may cause to mobilization and leaching of nitrogen (Worrel and Hampson 1997). Timber harvesting can affect the physical, chemical, and biological condition of stream by changing in water temperature, water turbidity, sedimentation and nutrient concentration in the water body (Corbett et al. 1978) Loss of biodiversity is the major environmental problem due to forestry operation (Seppala et al. 1998). Oneil et al. (2010) had done a life cycle assessment of wood products to assess the economic and environmenta l impact of forest management activities in inland Northwest and Northeast forest. Johnson et al. (2005 ) assessed the environmental impacts associated with the life cycle of forest resource activities for the Southe astern and Pacific Northwest region. Life cycle inventory was done of different compounds released from forest operations. It was found that transportation related activities and use of diesel fuel created the highest emissions. White et al. (2005) conduct ed a life cycle inventory on the round wood production in Northern Wisconsin. They found C budgets in the harvesting process of different forest in the range of 0.1 to 0.18 Mg C per ha. Diesel used in the harvesting operation and transportation is the majo r contributor in the environmental impacts (Neupanen 2010, Johnson 2005, Michelson 2008, Berg and Lindholm 2003). Acidification oc curs due to emissions of sulfur oxides (So x ) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) from the fuel combustion. NO x produced during combusti on process of fuel is the main reason for eutrophication (Berg and Lindholm 2003).Logging and silviculture activities produce highest levels of certain emissions such as CO 2 So x NO x and hydrocarbons (Berg and Lindholm 2003).

PAGE 26

26 Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been developed as a tool to assess the environmental impact of products and processes (Richter 1995; Curran 1996) which can also be used to quantify the C emissions from forestry activities. Complete LCA mainly consists of defining the goal and scope of any study, life cycle inventory of the pro ducts or process, assigning the inventory data into different impact categories (classification), finding impact category indicators using characterization factors (characterization), normalization of the to th e characterized results, weighting of the results, and finally data quality analysis (Pennington et al. 2004). In the forestry sector, it is used to find environmental benefit cost analysis (Ueda et al. 2003), to quantify the energy use and emissions from silvicultural activities (Athanassiadis et al. 2002), and to identify which forest product development state has to be improved to reduce environmental impact (Forsberg 2000).

PAGE 27

27 Table 2 1 The estimated amount of carbon utilized in a hypotheti farming system for Southeastern pine Time Forest activities C use ( kg C/ha) Site preparation Raking, herbicides application, plowing etc 95 Year 1 to year 20 Machine planting, aerial fertilizer application ( 3 times) and herbicides app lication, commercial thinning ( 2 times) 2068 Year 25 Harvest 465 Total 2644

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Environmental Impact Assessment of Forest Activities A cradle to gate life cycle approach was used to assess the environmental impacts from forest management activities. Literatures were reviewed from published journal articles, US LCI database, Ecoinvent reports and database, Franklin USA 98 database, Additionally, p ersonal communication with researchers an d faculty members was also done to collect the data. The LCA software SimaPro 7.1 ( Pre Consultants 2011) was used to assess the C emission from forest management inputs from seedling planting to tr ansportation to the forest mill The software which inclu des different database to carry out impact assessment was used to perform the LCA The database includes information about natural resources, raw materials, and emissions from products, processes, constructi ons, operations, maintenance, conversions, transp ortation, and disposal processes. It allows to model products and system in a systematic and transparent way for life cycle assessment It can also be used in the C footprint calculation product design and eco design, environmental product declaration, en vironmental impact of products or services, environmental reporting, and determining of key performance indicator (Pre Consultants, 2012). Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI), a midpoint oriented LCIA ( Life Cycle Impact Assessment), was used as a life cycle impact assessment method. The TRACI 2 V3.00 available on SimaPro 7.1 was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency specifically for the US using input parameters consistent with US locatio ns. The characterization factors provided by the TRACI were used to estimate the total

PAGE 29

29 emissions from the output s of the inventory results. Although assessing global warming impact was a major objective of the study, other environmen tal impacts were also estimated and discussed. Life Cycle Assessment to and assessing environmental impacts of the whole life of any products, processes, or to grave ap proach, all the inputs and outputs including energy and material used and released during raw material acquisition, manufacture, use, and maintenance are compil ed, evaluated, and interpreted to estimate the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from a ll the stages of the life. It is also used along with other environmental assessment tools such as risk assessment and environmental impact assessment. Since it gives a broad view of environmental aspects of any products and processes, it can also be used a tool to assess trade offs between different products or different method of productions. International Organization of Standardization (ISO) classifies LCA into 4 stages namely goal definition and scoping, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and in terpretation. Goal definition and scoping includes the defining purpose of the study, setting the boundaries of the analysis, describing the intended application and target audience, and establishing the functional unit. Life cycle inventory (LCI) identifi es and quantifies energy, water, and material usages and environmental releases based on functional unit and system boundary of the analysis. Similarly, i mpact assessment stage assesses the results of the LCA in order to understand the potential effects of energy, material, and water usage and the environmental releases during the life cycle.

PAGE 30

30 Interpretation evaluates the results of inventory analysis as well as impact assessment to conclude and present the results Goal Definition and Scoping The main goal of this life cycle analysis is to identify inputs and outputs and emissions from the loblolly pine management activities from orchard management to transportation of the logs to the sawmill to assess the impact of silviculture activities on C sequestrati on after the end of multiple rotations. In addition, this study quantifies the energy use to produce loblolly pine timber and assesses the environmental impact from resource use and emissions. The result of the study is expected to be useful for forest ind ustries, fore st landowners, and researchers. Functional Unit The functional unit of the analysis was the one hectare of loblolly pine st and. All the inputs and outputs within one hectare of loblolly pine stand were considered for the analysis. Similarly, t he area of land for nursery management and seed orchard was calculated based on the total quantity of seedling required to produce for one hectare plantation and seeds required to produce seedling in the nursery. System Boundary System boundary of the anal ysis includes seed orchard management, nursery management, site p reparation activities, planting, weed control, fertilization, thinning and felling, delimbing and loading logs. It also includes transportation of seed from seed orchard to nursery, transport ation of seedling from nursery to the planting site, and transportation of logs from the felling site to a nearby sawmill The inputs of the system include fuels, fertilizers, electricity, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, propane, and water whereas outp uts include timber, and emissions to air, soil and water. Both direct

PAGE 31

31 and embodied energy used throughout the life cycle of the plantation was considered. Direct energy includes ele ctricity, diesel, and gasoline consumed in the process of operating machin eries and transportation. Embodied energy is the amount of energy necessary to produce fertilizers, diesel, materials, propane, herbicides, and pesticides. Two types of intensity of loblolly pine management were considered in the analysis. Low intensity w ith rotation length 22 years without thinning High intensity with rotation length 25 years with thinning at age 12 and 18 Low intensity of management was considered with mechanical site preparation, no thinning, and no fertilization for the rotation age of 22 years. High intensity of management was considered with mechanical and chemical site preparation, fertilization, thinning at 12 and 18 years for the rotation age of 25 years. T hese two management intensities were considered as common loblolly managem ent practices for non industrial private forest and industrial forest in the southeastern United States following ( Johnson et al. 2004, Gonzalez Benecke et al. 2011 ) Table 3 1 shows the details about the management prescription for two intensities of lo blolly pine management. The schematic diagram of system boundary is presented in the Figure 3 1. Two way transportation from the harvesting site to the sawmill was assumed 193 km. Similarly, two way distances between seed orchard to nursery and nursery to plantation sit e was assumed to be 160 km. Two way transportation was considered for the life cycle analysis with the 50% loading factor for the trucks. System boundary considered only the timber as an output of the loblolly management during thinning and f inal harvesting. Production process of machinery was not included, but production of material, herbicides, and fertilizers were included. Transportation of labor, machinery,

PAGE 32

32 and supplies to working sites were not included and production of machine, the bui lding is also not included in the analysis. Life Cycle Inventory Life cycle inventory considers all the process from seed orchard management up to the harvesting of the trees and its transportation to the mills. Thus, the inventory also encompasses transpo rtation of seeds from orchard to nursery, nursery management, and transportation of seedlings from nursery to the plantation site including various management activities during orchard, nursery, and plantation management. Life C ycle Impact Assessment EPA h as developed TRACI to assist the impact assessment in life cycle assessment where impact categories are selected, then, categorized based on the reviewed methodology. TRACI quantifies the stressors having an effect on global warming, ozone depletion, acid ification, eutrophication, smog formation, Eco toxicity, human health cancer and human health no cancer (Bare 2011). Many of the impact assessment impact within TRACI methods are mainly based on midpoint characterization approach and the impact assessment model shows the strength of the stressors at a common midpoint within the cause effect chain (Bare et al. 2000). Among the impact assessment phase defined in the LCA methodology (ISO 2006), only classification and characterization were considered for this study. Normalization and evaluation were excluded because they are optional method and they did not give extra information for the given goal and scope of the study. The details about the environmental impact categories are provided on appendix B.

PAGE 33

33 Interpr etation Interpretation is the last stage of the life cycle assessment which involves identifying the importance of environmental issues. An evaluation is done on these issues and finally suggestions and recommendations are made to improve the life cycle o f any products or services to eliminate or reduce these issues. Plantation Area The functional unit of the analysis was one hectare of land. Planting density of 1500 trees per hectare was assumed following (Gonzalez Benecke et al. 2011) as a commonly used plantation density of the industrial plantation and non industrial private plantation. Nursery Management Plantation density of loblolly pine plantation for both intensities was considered as 1500 seedlings per ha It was considered that 12% seedling is da maged due to transportation and mortality. About 1704 seedlings per hectare were required to produce from the nursery after considering mortality. Then, total area required for seedling production was determined on the basis of seedling density of 28 seed lings per square foot and 12 beds per acre in the nursery. Total number of seedlings required was divided by seedling density to estimate the total nursery area required for the seedling production. Total bedding area required to produce 1704 seedlings was 5.67E 04 hectares Considering the spacing between the seed bed, 756196 per acre seedlings can be produced and the total nursery was found to be 9.11E 04 hectares to produce 1704 seedlings.

PAGE 34

34 Seed Orchard Management and Seed Processing It was assumed that 1 704 seedling i s required after considering 12 % mortality during the transportation. Germination percent of lob lolly pine was considered as 90 % whereas 20 % seed damage was assumed during seed collection and transportation. Considering seed damage during tr ansportation and collection and germination percent, total numbers of 2366 seeds were required to produce in the seedling. Productivity of loblolly pine seed orchard was assumed to be 48 trees per acre and average production of 55,000 seeds was assumed fro m one acre of seed orchard. Thus, about 1.74E 02 hectares i s required to produce 2366 seedlings. Direct and Indirect Energy Use The total energy included both direct and indirec t energy use to produce one hectare of loblolly pine plantation. Direct energy inputs include electricity, diesel, propane, and gasoline used in the process of running various machineries and equipments. Total quantity of direct energy was calculated per functional unit for each equipment. Indirect energy inputs include the amount of energy necessary to produce machinery and materials per functional unit at each stage. The indirect energy required for producing the component of machinery, fertilizers, and chemicals were used from the literature (Hill et al. 2006). Similarly, total en ergy necessary to produce a liter of diesel and gasoline was used following Furuholt (1995). The composition of each equipment was calculated b y following the values give in Burnham et al. ( 2006). A scaling factor was used to allocate the embodied energy f or each functional unit. The scaling factor was calculated by taking the ratio of hours of machine used per functional unit for the lifetime of the equipment. Finally, total embodied energy to produce each

PAGE 35

35 component was multiplied by scaling factor to get the embodied energy used during the forest management activities. The following formula shows the calculation of embodied energy for each component. Material Use = Where W is the total weight of the equipment use, T is the total ti me (hrs) of the use of machinery and equipment, L is the lifetime of each machinery (hrs). After calculating the total material use for each forest activities total embodied energy of the material is calculated by total material use of any forest activiti es multiplied by embodied energy required to produce per unit of the material. Where EE is the embodied energy (MJ) required producing of each component (Kg) of each machinery, d irect energy from the various inputs such as diesel, propane, electricity, gas oline was estimated by multiplying the total quantity by their calorific values. Calorific values of diesel, propane, and gasoline were found 38.6, 26 .0 and 34.8 MJ per liter respectively. Similarly, the embodied energy of the materials, fuels, fertilizer s, and chemicals were calculated. It was found that embodied energy from diesel and gasoline was 2.1 and 4.12 MJ per liter. Similarly, total energy needed to produce nitrogen, p hosphorus, and potassium was found to be 51.47, 9.17, and 5.96 MJ per kg where as embodied energy for herbicide, insecticides, and pesticides were found to be 319, 325, and 475 MJ per kg. It was assumed each piece of machinery consists entirely of steel in order to calculate its embodied energy. It was found that it requires 25 MJ en ergy to produce 1 kg of steel and additional 50% energy for the assembly. Total em bodied energy of materials, chemicals, and fuel used was calculated by multiplying the total quantity by the energy required to produce per unit quantity.

PAGE 36

36 Direct energy was m ainly used for plantation activities and transportation of logs to the sawmill in both silvicultural management scenarios. Direct energy was mainly used for diesel combustion during the machinery operation and truck transportation while embodied energy was mainly estimated from diesel use, fertilizer application, herbicide application, and material used during the management and transportation. However, there was no embodied energy for fertilizer and herbicides in low intensity management and only embodied energy was calculated from the materials and diesel use for mechanical site preparation and final harvest of the wood. Emissions and Environmental Impact Calculation Emissions in the silvicultural practices result from the different forest management act ivities. The amount of emissions mainly depends on the intensity and frequency of the silvicutur al treatment (Markewitz, 2006). To calculate the total emissions from silviculture activities, total use of various materials and energy inputs were calculated for plantation management, seed orchard, nursery, and corresponding transportation. Total quantity of emissions related to equipment use was calculated within the system boundary. Fuel consumption rate per hour and total number of hours used by a machine per unit functional area were ascertained to calculate the emissions from machinery operation. Rate of application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, frequency of application, method of application, and amount of application was calculated to quan tify the emissions from the chemical treatment. Emissions associated with the productions of diesel, fertilizers and materials were also considered for the analysis. In order to calculate total emissions from machinery, energy, fertilizer, and herbicides, total emissions of various chemicals from each activity was multiplied by their respective characterization factors from TRACI to convert into CO 2 equivalent.

PAGE 37

37 Summing up the total characterized value gives the total CO 2 equivalent emissions from different forest activities and total emissions from the complete life cycle of the loblolly pine management. Similarly, different impact categories available in TRACI 2 version 3 were considered for the environmental impact assessment of silviculture activities. Af ter adding all the inputs as a process in SimaPro, it gave the inventory results about the total emissions from the process into the air, water, and soil. Then, the inventory results were multiplied by a characterization factor to get the total environment al impacts. TRACI provides environmental impact categories in unit of different chemical equivalent. It includes global warming ( kg CO 2 eq 1 ), acidification ( H+ moles eq ), carcinogenics ( benzene eq ), non carcinogenics ( toluene eq ), and respiratory effects ( kg PM2.5 eq ), eutrophication ( kg N eq ), ozone depletion ( kg CFC 11 eq ), ecotoxicity ( kg 2, 4 D eq ), and smog ( kg NOx eq ). Appendix B provides the detail of individual impact category. Machinery and Materials Used Different types of machinery were used for seed orchard management to harvesting of timber. Available literatures were reviewed to collect the data for machinery and materials used for the loblolly pine management. In addition, consultation with researchers and experts was done to collect the info rmation related to machinery and materials for the management. Machinery use for each forest activity was considered for materials calculati on. The use rate (hours per hectare ) of machines and fuel use rate (liters per hour) was determined following (Dwive di et al. 2012) and 1 eq = Equivalent

PAGE 38

38 other available literature and total diesel consumption of each activit y was calculated and added to get the total diesel use during the whole management activities. Company catalogue and available literature was followed to find the to tal weight of the equipments. Nemecek et al. (2007) and Berg and Lindholm (2002 ) were followed to estimate the lifetime and the utilization rate per year and approximate lifetime of forestry machinery was assumed from the agriculture machinery. Burnham et al. (2006) was followed to divide composition of the each machinery into steel (61.7%), plastic ( 11.2%), iron ( 11.1%), aluminum (6.9%), glass ( 2.9%), rubber ( 2.4%), and copper ( 1.9%) Total use of materials for each activity was estimated using the following formula. The total lifetime of each machinery was calculated by multiplying the total life by utilization rate of the machine in a year Individual material use of each machine per functional area was summed to get the total material use for the management activities. Total material use was again divided into different composition using Burnham et al. (2006) Chemicals, Fuels, and Water Use W ater use was calculate d based on its uses in diluting herbicides and irrigation in nur sery and seed orchard per functional unit. The machine use rate (hours per hectare ) and fuel economy (liters per hour) w ere determined following Dwivedi et al. ( 2012) and other available literature and total diesel consumption of each activit y was calculat ed and added to get the total diesel use during the whole management activities. It was found that propane is used in the seed drying process. Gasoline was assumed to be

PAGE 39

39 used for manually burning the forest residues by drip torch. Urea, diammonium phosph ate, and potassium chloride were used as proxy chemicals in SimaPro as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium Atrazine and 2, 4 D were used as proxy insecticides and herbicides. Methyl chloride and nitro compound were considered as a proxy for methyl bromid e and chloropicrin. Similarly, fertilizer a nd insecticide application was estimated by following US LCI database, Fox et al. (2007) Carey (2001), South and Zwolinski (1996) and Markewitz (2006 ). The application rate per hectare of each chemical was multipl ied by the conversion factor to get the application for each functional unit. Transportation Two way hauling distance, with load and without load was considered in the transportation. Total fuel consumed in the transportation was calculated by using the following formula. Similarly, the total life of a semi trailer was assumed as 50 0000 miles for the calculation of material. Material composition of semi truck was calculated following Burnham et al. (2006).The quantity of each ma terial used was calculated using the following formula

PAGE 40

40 Here, total materials that can be transported for the lifetime can be calculated by multiplying the total loading capacity of truck by number of trips during the lifetime of t he truck. The number of trips in the lifetime of the truck can be determined by dividing the total life of a semi truck by the total distance travelled in each trip. Similarly, an average fuel economy of 0.62 liter/miles was assumed for the calculation of diesel use per functional unit. Growth and Yield of Loblolly Pine Plantation The growth and yield assessment was done to calculate total volume production at the end of rotati on and its corresponding C content. Various studies had done about the growth a nd yield prediction of the loblolly pine in the southeastern United States ( Gonzalez Benecke et al. 2011 Boarders et al. 1990, Harrison et al. 1996, Matney and Farrar 1992, Sullivan et al. 1972, Clutter 1963) The hybrid growth and yield model developed b y Gonzalez Benecke et al. (2011) was used to cal culate total biomass and C in the loblolly pine plantation. The model gives the stem, root, branches, and understory C except C presents in the soil. This model integrated the mostly used growth and yield mo del s of loblolly pine that could be applied to lower coastal plain, upper coastal plain and piedmont regions in the United States. In addition, published allometric and biometric equations are considered in the model in order to develop a new model to simu late in situ C pools. Similarly, this model used forest product conversion efficiencies and forest product decay rates to calculate ex situ C pools. However, the ex situ C pools were not considered in the analysis because only in situ C pools is necessary to assess the C sequestration by the plantation for this study. The hybrid model assumed that C storage in soil is not affected by any forest management activities (Gonzalez Benecke et al. 2011). The study found that average net C stocks

PAGE 41

41 are 35% lower on l ow productivity sites in comparison to average productivity stands where as high quality site has 38% greater net C stocks than average sites. In addition, thinning has net C positive effect due to deposition of larger amount of ex situ C in comparison to smaller reduction on in situ C storage and e ffect of silvicultural management has insignificant effect on net C stock as it contributes only 1.6 % of the gross C stock (Gonzalez Benecke et al. 2011) The study further added that e x situ C storage has huge contribution on net C stock as it accounts nearly 34% of the average net C stock. Extending rotation length higher than biological rotation length increases stand C stock density as 18 year rotation has 7% lower net C density and 35 year rotation has 4% m ore C in comparison to stand at rotation age 22 (Gonzalez Benecke et al. 2011). The inputs of the model include number of trees planted per ha, site index (m) at a reference age of 25 years method of site preparation, method of weed control and fertiliza tion treatment, and time and intensity of thinning and outputs include survival, basal area (m 2 ha 1 ), dominant height (m), quadratic mean diameter (cm), total stem volume (outside and inside bark, m 3 ha 1 ), as well as C contains in the trees understory ve getation, forest floor and dead trees. Gonzalez Benecke et al. (2011) used the following formula to calculate the net C stock: Net C stock (Mg ha 1)= Total C in situ (C stored in loblolly pine trees, understory, forest floor, coarse woody debris, and stan ding dead trees + Total C ex situ (C stored in wood products such as sawn timber, chip n saw, and pulp wood) (Total C from silvicultural activities including transportation of forest products).

PAGE 42

42 However, only total C in situ was considered for the analys is. The following formula was used for the analysis in order to calculate the C stock from the loblolly pine plantation as follows: Total C stocks= Total C in situ (C stored in loblolly pine trees, understory, forest floor, coarse woody debris, and standin g dead trees). Initial site index was assumed to be 22 m at the age of 25 years for both planting intensity. Organic matter and forest floor decay rate was considered as 15%. Thinning intensity was assumed to be 33% percent of basal area of the plantation for the high intensity plantation but no thinning prescription was assumed for low intensity plantation. Table 3 1 provides the detail about the planting scenario and the assumption for both intensity of management.

PAGE 43

43 Table 3 1. Management scenario and ass umptions use in low and high intensity loblolly pine Management prescription Low intensity nonindustrial private landowners High intensity private land owner/industrial plantation Site index at 25 years (m) 22 2 2 Plantation density (Trees per ha) 1500 p er ha 1500 per ha Site preparation Chopping, Piling, Disking, Bedding, Plantation Chopping, Pilling, Burning, Disking, Bedding, Herbicide application, planting Herbaceous weed control No Banded treatment at 1 and 2 year Fertilization ( Years) No 1,5, 12,18 First thinning (Y ears) No 12 Second thinning (Y ears) No 18 Rotation ag e (Y ears) 22 25

PAGE 44

44 Figure 3 1. System boundary of the analysis

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ONS Results Seed Orchard Fuel use Diesel is used for operating machineries for different management activities such as fertilizer applicat ion, herbicide application etc. Total diesel use for the required nursery area was found to be 8.5 liter s Equipment use Total material was found to be 1.14E 01 kg for required area of seed orchard Composition of materials was found to be 7.06E 02, 1.27E 02, 1.28E 02, 7.89E 03, 3.32E 03, 2.74E 03, and 2.17E 03 kg for steel, iron, plastic, alum inum, glass, rubber, and copper, respectively. Chemicals and water use Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are used with the total application rate of 713.5, 215.4, and 323.1 kg per hectare The total amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium was found to be 1, 0.29, and 5 kg respectively per functional unit area of the orchard. Herbicides application of Go al and Fusilade, with the rate of 0.6 and 0.2 kg per hectare respectively Total use of Goal and Fusillade was found to be 1.03E 02 and 1.26E 02 kg per required area of seed orchard respectively. Similarly, pesticide application of Asana and Chlorpyrifos was a ssumed with the rate of 0.1 and 0.3 kg per hectare As a na and Chlorpyrifos are applied 1 times with total application of 1.01E 03 and 4.89E 03 kg in the required area respectively Water is used for mixing herbicides and total water application was f ound to be 13 liters. Electricity is used for operating

PAGE 46

46 equipment during seed processing. Total electricity for seed processing was found to be 5.21E 03 MJ. Nursery Management Fuel use Diesel is used for operating machineries for differen t management activ ities such as site preparation, fertilizer application, herbicide application etc. Total diesel use for the required nursery area was found to be 0.1 liter s Equipment use Total material was found to be 9.52E 03 kg for hectare of plantation. Composition of materials used was found to be 5.87E 03, 1.06E 03, 1.07E 03, 6.57E 04, 2.76E 04, 2.29E 04, and 1.81E 04 kg of steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. Chemicals and water use Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are used with the total application rate of 329, 55,181 kg per ha The total amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium was found to be 7.53E 02 1.26E 02 and 2.57E 02 kg respectively per functional unit area of the nursery. Herbicides application of Goal, Fusilade and Cobra with the rate of 33.4, 1.4, 1.1 kg per ha respectively Total use of Goal, Fusillade, and cobra with 8, 1 and 3 times was found to be 7.41E 03 3.14E 04 and 2.57E 02 kg per required area of nursery respectively. Similarly, pesticide applicatio n of Asana and Chlorpyrifos was assumed with the rate of 1.7 and 1.1 per ha A a sna and Chlorpyrifos are applied 5 and 1 times with total application of 1.67 and 1.11 kg for the required nursery area. Baytleton, Methylebromide, and Chloropicrin fungicides a re applied with 3, 1 and 1 times with the application rate of 2, 976, and 175.7 kg per hectare Baytleton is used

PAGE 47

47 both as a seed treatment as well as foliar spray. Approximately, 4.72E 04 is used as a foliar spray whereas 7.85E 06 kg was applied for seed t reatment. Methyl bromide and chloropicrin are applied with the rate of 395 and 71.1 kg per hectare and the total amount was found to be 2.24E 01 and 4.03E 02 kg for the required nursery area. Water is used for irrigation and for mixing herbicides for applic ation. Total water used was found to be 904.6 liters during the management of the nursery. Plantation Management Fuel use Diesel is use d to operate the machineries from site preparation to harvesting. In the low intensity management, total use of diesel wa s found to be 562.3 liters for site preparation and harvesting of the trees at the end of the rotation. In the high intensity management, total use of diesel was found to be 1279.5 liters. Also, gasoline is used for drip torch during the manual burning of the forest residues during site preparation. Total use of the gasoline was found to be 1.1 liters. Equipment use Various type of equipments such as tractors (Ford 3910 and Ford 7610) with necessary attachment, drip torch feller buncher, skidder, delimber, and loader etc. Total materials used in the plantation included the attachment used for different activities like fertilizer application, planting etc. In the low intensity plantation, Total material was found to be 3.14E01 kg for one hectare of plantation Composition of materials used was found to be 1.94E01, 3.49, 3.5, 2.2, 9.12E 01, 7.55E01, and 5.97E01 of steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper. In the high intensity plantation, total material was found to be 5.48E01 kg for one hectar e of plantation. Composition of materials used was found to

PAGE 48

48 be 3.38E01, 6, 6.13, 3.8, 1.6, 1.3, and1 of steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. Chemicals and water use Fertilizers and herbicides were assumed to be applied in high intensity management. The chemical inputs in the plantation include nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium as fertilizers; and velar and glyphosate as herbicides. Nitrogen is applied at the rate of 44.9, 145.8, 224.3, and 224.3 kg/ha at the age of 1, 5, 12, and 18 respectively with the total amount of 639.2 kg/ ha Phosphorus is applied at the rate of 45, 28, 28, and 28 kg/ha at the age of 1, 5, 12, 18 respectively with the total amount 134.6 kg/ ha Potassium is applied at the rate of 56.1 kg/ha at the ag e 5. Velpar ULW is applied for site preparation with the rate of 6.7 kg/ ha and it is also applied as herbicides at the age of 1 with the rate of 2.7kg/ ha In addition, banded application of glyphosate is applied with the rate of 11.1 kg ai/ ha at the age of 2. Water used was found to be 561.7 liters per hectare for herbicide mixture. Materials and Diesel Use in Transportation Seed orchard to the nursery The total weight of the seeds per functional unit of the plantation was 0.06 kg. Total material used per f unctional unit was found to be 6.31E 06, 1.14E 06, 1.15E 06, 7.06E 07, 2.97E 07, 2.45E 07, and 1.94E 07 kg for steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, r ubber, and copper respectively. Total diesel use was found to be 1.20E 04 liters with a round trip dista nce of 80.5 km with an average fuel economy of 2.6km/liters. Nursery to plantation site The total weight of the seedlings per functional unit of the plantation was 61.2 kg Total material used to transport 61.2 kg of seedling was found to be 6.55E 03, 1.1 8E

PAGE 49

49 03, 1.19E 03, 7.32E 04, 3.08E 04, 2.55E 05, and 2.02E 04 kg for steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. Total diesel use was found 0.15 liters with a round trip distance of 80.5 km with an average fuel economy of 2.6km/li ters. Low intensity plantation site to sawmill The total weight of the logs per functional unit of the plantation was 278712.3 kg and semi truck was assumed for the transportation of timber. Total material used to transport 278712.3 kg of wood was found t o be 3.58E01, 6.43, 6.49, 4, 1.68, 1.39, and 1.1 kg of steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. Total diesel use was found 682 liters with a round trip distance of 193.2 km with an average fuel economy of 2.6km/liters. The to tal diesel used was found to be 26327.8 MJ High intensity plantation site to sawmill The total weight of the logs per functional unit of the plantation was 493464 kg and semi truck was assumed for the transportation of timber. Total material used to tran sport 493464 kg of wood was found to be 6.33E01, 1.14E01, 1.15E01, 7, 2.9, 2.5, and 1.9 kg for steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. Total diesel use was found 1207.6 liters with a round trip distance of 193.2 km with an av erage fuel economy of 2.6km/liters. The total diesel used was found to be 46613.6 MJ. Energy Use Both transportation and plantation management had a higher contribution to the total energy used in both management scenarios Diesel use in forest operation m achineries and truck transportation had the major contribution. Total direct energy for low intensity plantation and transportation was found to be 21085 and 26327.7 MJ respectively. Similarly, total energy for high intensity of the plantation and transpor tation

PAGE 50

50 was found to be 49377.8 and 46613.6 MJ respectively. Energy use for the nursery and seed orchard management was insignificant in both scenarios. Figure 4 1 provides the details about the direct energy use for low and high management scenarios of lo blolly pine plantation Both transportation and plantation management had a higher contribution to the total embodied energy for both management scenarios The embodied energy of fertilizers, diesels, materials, herbicides, insecticides, and other inputs w ere considered for the analysis. Diesel use in forest operation machineries and diesel use for transporting harvested timber had a major contribution in embodied energy. Total embodied energy for low intensity plantation and transportation was found to be 1721 and 9911.6 MJ respectively. Similarly, total embodied energy for high intensity plantation and transportation was found to be 40495.9 and 17548.8 MJ respectively. Embodied energy use for the nursery and seed orchard management was insignificant in bo th scenarios. Figure 4 2 provides the details about the embodied energy use for low and high management scenarios Considering both direct and embodied energy use for the complete management from seed orchard to the transportation to sawmill, low intensity management intensity needed 59454.4 MJ energy in comparison to high intensity plantation with total energy of 154444.7 MJ. Material Use Different equipments were used from seed orchard management to final harvesting and transportation of the timber into t he mills. T otal weight of different type of equipment used is shown in Table 4 1. Total use of the material for the complete management cycle including transportation for low and high intensity management

PAGE 51

51 scenarios was found to be 87.9 and 154.6 kg respect ively. The total amount of materials used in plantation and transportation of timber to the sawmill was found to be 30.9 and 56.9 kg for low intensity plantation whereas 53.7 and 100.7 kg for high intensity plantation. M ost of the material used ( 61.7%) was steel (Burnham et al. 2006) In low intensity plantations, composition of used materials used was found to be 7.46E01, 1.34E01, 1.36E01, 8.35, 3.51, 2.9, and 2.3 kg of steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. In high intens ity plantations, composition of used materials was found to be 9.72E01, 1.75E01, 1.76E01, 1.09E01, 4.57, 3.78, and 2.99 kg of steel, iron, plastic, aluminum, glass, rubber, and copper respectively. Table 4 2 provides the detail about the total materials us ed and their composition during the different stages of the life cycle of low and high intensity plantation. Environmental Impact In the high intensity plantation, fertilizers, diesel use d in forest operations equipment, and transportation were the factors with higher environmental impact. Fertilizers had the highest impact on carcinogenics, non carcinogenics, eutrophication, ozone depletions, and ecotoxicity impact categories. Figure 4 3 and Figure 4 4 provides the details about the environmental impact by sources in the high and low intensity of management. Transportation, diesel use d in forest operations equipment, and fertilizers were major sources of environmental impact in the low intensity management scenario Transportation was the major contributor to global warming, acidification, carcinogenics, non carcinogenics, respiratory effects, eutrophication, and smog formation. Fertilize was t he major sources of ecotoxicity whereas fumigant had a major impact on ozone depletion The detail about the environ mental impact by sources for low intensity

PAGE 52

52 management is shown in Figure 4 4. The total environmental impact on each of the stages of the life cycle of low and high intensity loblolly pine management is shown in Table 4 4 and Table 4 3 respectively. Global Warming Impact and Carbon Cost of Forest Management Activities For high intensity of management scenario sources of C emissions were mainly diesel use in the forest operation machinery, transportation and fertilizers. C emissions for site preparation, he rbicides application, fertilization, thinning, and fina l harvesting was found to be 0.23 0.05, 0.74, o.47, and 0.23 Mg ha 1 respectively. C emissions from seed orchard and nursery management were 9.29E 03 and 1.17E 03 Mg ha 1 respectively Total C emissio ns from high intensity management were found to be 1.79 Mg ha 1 Transportation from seed orchard to nursery and nursery to plantation area had negligible impact Transportation from the harvesting site to saw mill for high intensity plantation produced 1. 94 Mg ha 1 C Considering the transportation throughout the life cycle between seed orchard to transportation to saw mill, total C emission from high intensity management was found to be 3.73 Mg ha 1 Table 4 5 provides the detail about global warming index of each activity and C emissions from each of the forest management operations in the high intensity management plantation. Table 4 7 provides the detail about the global warming impact and corresponding C emissions of transportation during the life cycle of the pine plantation Most important source of C emissions for low intensity plantation was diesel fueled equipments during site preparation and final harvesting. Total C for site preparation and fina l harvesting was found to be 0. 26 and 0.23 Mg ha 1 wi th total C of 0.51 Mg ha 1 for complete plantation management from seed orchard to final harvesting. Transportation from seed orchard to nursery and nursery to plantation area had

PAGE 53

53 negligible value Transportation from the harvesting site to saw mill for lo w in tensity plantation produced 1.1 Mg ha 1 C The detail about the global warming impact of forest management activities and corresponding C emissions in the low intensity management is shown in Table 4 6. Total C produced for the complete system boundary i.e. from seed orchard management to transportation of harvesting timber was found to be 1.61 Mg ha 1. Table 4 7 provides the detail about the global warming index and corresponding C emissions of transportation during the life cycle of the pine plantatio n. Stem Volume and Carbon Yield from the Loblolly Pine Plantation Total stand volume (over bark) from the low intensity management stand was found to be 328. 4 m 3 per ha from 1035 trees at the end of the rotation In order to consider the C present in a dea d tree and forest floor, an average of 5 rotations was considered for each of the scenario s Total vegetation C and C present in forest floor and dead trees were calculated separately. In situ C includes the understory C along with C present in loblolly p ine, forest floor, and dead trees. Similarly, the total C content on vegetation and forest floor and dead trees was found to be 89.3 and 26.2 Mg ha 1 respectively with total in situ C of 116.4 Mg ha 1 at the end of 22 year s The annual in situ C production from the low inte nsity management scenario was 5 Mg ha 1 Figure 4 6 provides the details about volume production and Figure 4 7 provides the details about the C present in vegetation, C in floor and dead trees, and total C throughout the rotation Two thi nning were assumed for the high intensity management scenario at the age of 12 and 18. In each thinning 33 percent of tree basal area was assumed to be removed. Total stem volume ( over bark) remove d at the first and second thinning was about 64.9 and 95. 4 m3 ha 1 respectively and total stem volume ( over bark) extracted

PAGE 54

54 at final harvest was found to be 421. 1 m 3 per ha from 510 surviving trees. The total C content of living vegetation and forest floor and dead trees was found to be 109.26 and 33. 8 Mg ha 1 respectively with total in situ C of 143. 9 Mg ha 1 at the end of 25 years The carbon removed during the thinning at age 12 and 18 was found to be 8.2 and 15.7 Mgha 1 The annual in situ C production from the high intensity management scenario was 5.8 Mg ha 1 Figure 4 8 provides the details about volume production and Figure 4 9 provides the details about the C present in vegetation, C in floor and dead trees, and total C throughout the rotation. Discussion It was found that diesel use in forest operation equipments, fertilizers, and transportation are the major sources of environmental impact. Most of the environmental impact was due to the transportation between harvesting site to mill in low intensity management. However, silvicultural management activi ties had a higher impact on respiratory, ozone depletion, and ecotoxicity. Fertilizer application had the highest percentage effect on most of the environmental impact categories in high intensity management except global warming, acidification, and smog Fertilizers are a major source of impact on carcinogenic, non carcinogenic, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, ozone depletions, and respiratory effect. But, effect of fertilizer on the low intensity management is less compare to high intensity management. In th e low intensity management, most of the environmental effects were due to transportation and diesel use during forest harvesting and site preparation stage. Even though transportation and diesel use in machinery had higher effect, the contribution of ferti lizers incr eases when the management shifted to higher intensity management scenarios. Johnson et al. (2005) also fo und the same conclusions on a similar study done for the life cycle impact

PAGE 55

55 assessment o f forest activities. Other studies (Neupane et al. 20 10, Kendall and Chang 2009 Garcia et al. 2009, Dwivedi 2012) concluded that the use of fertilizer has significant impacts on the environment Nitrogen has a higher impact on environmental categories than phosphorus and potassium Nitrogen has the highest i mpact on global warming impact, non carcinogenic, carcinogenics, respiratory effect, ecotoxicity, and smog formation whereas phosphorus had the highest impact on carcinogens and eutrophication effects. Nitrogen has a strong influence on environmental impa ct (Heller et al. 2002, Dwivedi et al. 2012). The use of the fertilizer in the high intensity plantation is responsible for considerable emissions of N 2 O The total CO 2 equivalent emissions from fertilizer application were found to be 41.7 % of the total CO 2 equivalent emissions. This can be reduced by using better techniques such as mixing as a nitrification inhibitor with the fertilizer which helps in controlling the release of N 2 O (Freney 1997). In the low intensity management, diesel use on transportatio n and forest operation had the highest impact on mos t of the impact categories except ecotoxicity, ozone depletion, and non carcinogenic s There should be better application rate of fertilizer in forest management to reduce its adverse effect on human heal th and effect on soil and water ( Dwivedi 2011). Goyne et al. (2008) suggested efficient use of fertilizers to mitigate environmental nitrogen contamination. Nitrogen use efficiency can be improved by adopting fertilizer, soil, water and crop management pra ctices which will enhance nitrogen uptake, minimize nitrogen losses, and optimize indigenous soil nitrogen supply. Availability of phosphorus is reduced by reaction with calcium a nd magnesium in high p H soil s and iron and

PAGE 56

56 aluminum in low p H soils and ferti lizer use efficiency may be enhanced by products that reduce these phosphorus reactions (Grant and Wu 2008). Diesel use during transportation, and silvicultural practices were major sources of environmental impact. The total global warming impact of diesel use for tran s porta t ion and forestry operation was found to be more than 80% for high intensity management and almost 100% in the case of low intensity management. This result is consistent with other LCA studies for forest activities (Johnson et al. 2005, Machelson 2008, Neupane 2010, Berg and Lindholm 2003) Using Ecoinvent and Franklin database and TRACI characterization factors, it was found that about 28 and 14.2 Kg CO 2 equivalent of GHG s were emitted into the atmospheres for each m 3 of timber in high and low intensity management respectively. The emission s were increased to 58.7 and 44.9 kg CO 2 equivalent per m 3 when considering the transportation to the mill in high and low intensity management respectively It implied that a large part of GHG emissio ns was mainly released during transportation. T otal emissions of transportation from seed orchard to nursery and from nursery to plantation site were minimal due to the weight of the seeds and seedling required to produce plants for 1 hectare plantation T he C cost from the silvicultural activities was found to be 2.03 and 1.55 kgm 3 ha 1 for high and low intensity management scenarios. While considering transportation, C cost for high and low intensity management scenarios was found to be 4.9 and 6.43 kgm 3 ha 1 Transportation and required diesel fuel used for operating tractor and harvesting machine ry have the highest emissions ( Aldentun 2001, Johnson et al. 2005). Neupaen (2011) and Berg and Lindholm (2005) also found that transportation accounts the highe st GHGs emissions.

PAGE 57

57 Michelsen et al. (2008) found that logging, transporting by a forwarder and truck transportation have highest impact on emissions. The LCA study of pulp production from eucalyptus had found the diesel consumption as main source of envi ronmental impact (Garcia et al. 2009). Logging and silviculture generate the highest level of emissions either related to fuel related (CO 2 So x ) or engine related (hydrocarbons, NO x ) (Berg and Lindholm, 2003). Transportation contributed with 52.2 % and 69. 2 % of the total GHGs emissions on the high and low intensity management scenarios, respectively However, the distance between harvesting site to the mill ( Johnson 2005, Neupane 2011, Michelsen et al. 2008) loading factor, and loading size of timber a ffect the total environmental impact of transpo rtation (Michelsen et al. 2008). The emissions due to the use of diesel can be reduced by using forest harvesting and operating equipments with better fuel efficiencies ( Dwevidi 2011) or use of renewable f uels, improvement in engine design and better adjustment of engines to forest operations ( Berg and Lindholm 2003). Also, s during the transportation. It was found that ener gy use of high intensity plantation was about 271.9 MJ per m 3 and 158.2 MJ per m 3 with and without considering transportation respectively Energy use of low intensity management scenario was found to be 181.1 MJ per m 3 and 69.4 MJ per m3 with and without considering transportation respectively Considering the direct energy only, total energy used for the plantation and transportation was found to be about 144.3 and 168.9 MJ per m 3 for low and high intensity management scenarios respectively. Energy use for silvicultural activities and transportation from the

PAGE 58

58 harvesting site to the mill was 38% and 61 % of low intensity and 58 % and 42 % of high intensity respectively. Berg and Lindholm (2003) study found that energy use of 150 200 MJ per m3 in the differen t Swedish forest comprises all operations including seedling production, silviculture logging, and secondary transport to forest industries. Even though their study includes transportation of labor, machinery and supplies to the most of the embodied energy including energy use for production of pesticides and production of machinery. The correct application of machine operation by using larger harvesters for harvesting larger trees as larger harvesters consume more energy than a smaller harvester ( Berg and Lindholm 2003) Smaller machines can be used for thinning smaller trees. Another factor can also help in increasing the loading factor of trucks which eventually reduce the emissions and energy use during transportation. Comm only, return trips of trucks are unloaded which means loading factor of 50%. In order to get higher loading fac t or, the use of better route planning could be an effective option (Berg and Lindholm 2003). Total C cost due to silviculture activities was foun d to be 1.24 % and 0.43 % of the in situ C produced during the respective rotation age of high and low intensity management. Sonne (2006 ) stated that there are 4.7 % CO 2 equivalent GHG emissions of average C storage for Pacific Northwest coastal Douglas fir p lantation for 40 years. Similarly, t his study found that the percent of emissions vary between 2.5% for 60 yr rotation ages and 6.8% for 30 year rotation ages While considering transportat ion, C cost was found to be 2.5 % and 1.38 % of the total in situ C in the high and low intensity management respectively Markewitz (2006) estimated 2.6 Mg C ha 1 emissions from

PAGE 59

59 silviculture activities for an intensive fiber farming operation of southern pine on a 25 year rotation from plantation to harvesting However forest harvesting machi ne rates are 3 times higher than this study but Markewitz (2006) found the low C use due to fertilization. Gonzalez Benecke et al. ( 2011) stated that C cost due to silvicultural and harvest activities is about 1.6% of the total stand C stock in the loblolly pine Similarly, C emissions due to silvicultural activities on the stand and transportation of log to the mill is about 2.2 to 2.3% of the gross C stock in the slash pine (Gonzalez Benecke et al.2010). Dwivedi et al. (2012) found 1.76 Mg ha 1 C use from site preparation to harvesting of slash pine stand which is similar to the C cost for high intensity management to this study. Thinning operation had excluded in his study and emissions of nitrous oxide were calculated separat ely following (Bouwman 1996). In contrast, GWI calculation was completely based on characterization factor provided by TRACI on this research. The comparison of C cost of silvicultural activities from different studies is shown in the Figure 4 5. Increasin g the fuel efficiency of equipments used in the silvicultural activities and transportation could be the effective solution to reduce the GHGs emissions. Also, using the size and power capacity of the harvester with the tree size to be harvested decreases the fuel use consumption. Establishment of saw mill near to the bigger plantation size could reduce the emissions due to the transportation. Proper route planning during the transportation could increase the loading factor which eventually reduces the dies el consumption per m 3 timber during the transportation. Also use of the biofuel and other renewable source of energy during transportation, silvicultural

PAGE 60

60 practices, and production of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides could reduce the total emissions.

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 1. Total weight (kg) of equipment used Total weight Feller buncher 12315.0 Skidder 16895.0 Delimber/load 14850.0 Ford 3910 2020.0 Ford 7610 2692.0 Tree shaker 2692.0 Dryer 350.0 Dewiner 270.0 Cleaner 1870.0 Size sorter 300.0 Weight so rter 300.0 Semi truck trailer 13000.0 Drip Torch 2.4

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 2 Material use (kg ) of each of forest management activities in 1 hectare loblolly pine plantation Steel Iron Plastic Aluminum Glass Rubber Copper Total Seed orchard 7.06E 02 1.27E 02 1 .28E 02 7.89E 03 3.32E 03 2.74E 03 2.17E 03 1.12E 01 TR 2 _orchard to nursery 6.31E 06 1.14E 06 1.15E 06 7.06E 07 2.97E 07 2.45E 07 1.94E 07 1.00E 05 Nursery 5.87E 03 1.06E 03 1.07E 03 6.57E 04 2.76E 04 2.29E 04 1.81E 04 9.34E 03 TR_nursery to plantation 6.55E 03 1.18E 03 1.19E 03 7.32E 04 3.08E 04 2.55E 04 2.02E 04 1.04E 02 Low intensity plantation 1.94E+01 3.49E+00 3.52E+00 2.17E+00 9.12E 01 7.55E 01 5.97E 01 3.08E+01 TR_plantation to mill 3.58E+01 6.43E+00 6.49E+00 4.00E+00 1.68E+00 1.39E+00 1.10E+00 5.69E+01 High intensity plantation 3.38E+01 6.08E+00 6.13E+00 3.78E+00 1.59E+00 1.31E+00 1.04E+00 5.37E+01 TR_plantation to mill 6.33E+01 1.14E+01 1.15E+01 7.08E+00 2.98E+00 2.46E+00 1.95E+00 1.01E+02 Total for low intensity 7.46E+01 1.34E+01 1.36E+01 8 .35E+00 3.51E+00 2.90E+00 2.30E+00 1.19E+02 Total for high intensity 9.72E+01 1.75E+01 1.76E+01 1.09E+01 4.57E+00 3.78E+00 2.99E+00 1.55E+02 2 TR= Transportation

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 1. Direct e nergy use in 1 hectare low and high intensity management of loblolly pine planta tion TR = Transportation

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 2 Indirect energy use in 1 hectare low and high intensity management of loblolly pine plantation TR = Transportation

PAGE 65

65 Table 4 3. Environmental impacts of life cycle of 1 hectare high intensity loblolly pine plantation Impact Factors Equivalent Seed Orc hard TR 3 to Nursery Nursery TR to Plantation Plantation TR to Mill Total Global Warming Index kg CO 2 eq 3.41E+01 1.26E 02 4.30E+00 2.09E+00 6.52E+03 7.16E+03 1.38E+04 Relative contribution 4 0. 25 0.00 0.0 3 0.0 2 47.51 52.19 100.00 Acidification H+ mole s eq 2.48E+01 7.77E 03 2.25E+00 1.29E+00 4.39E+03 1.25E+04 1.70E+04 Relative contribution 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 25.88 73.95 100.00 Carcinogenics benzene eq 3.39E 02 3.42E 07 3.36E 03 5.68E 05 1.41E+01 5.53E 01 1.47E+01 Relative contribution 0.23 0.00 0. 02 0.00 95.98 3.77 100.00 Non Carcenogenics toluene eq 2.63E+02 1.67E 03 2.18E+01 2.77E 01 1.17E+05 2.69E+03 1.20E+05 Relative contribution 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.00 97.51 2.25 100.00 Respiratory effects kg PM2.5 eq 3.23E 02 6.46E 06 9.68E 02 1.07E 03 8.58E+ 00 1.04E+01 1.91E+01 Relative contribution 0.17 0.00 0.51 0.01 44.79 54.53 100.00 Eutrophication kg N eq 1.05E 01 6.93E 06 4.50E 03 1.15E 03 4.10E+01 1.12E+01 5.23E+01 Relative contribution 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.00 78.39 21.39 100.00 Ozone Depletion kg CF C 11 eq 6.41E 07 6.74E 12 2.79E 06 1.12E 09 3.54E 04 1.09E 05 3.68E 04 Relative contribution 0.17 0.00 0.76 0.00 96.11 2.96 100.00 Ecotoxicity kg 2,4 D eq 4.52E+00 7.77E 06 7.20E 01 1.29E 03 1.98E+03 1.26E+01 2.00E+03 Relative contribution 0.23 0.00 0 .04 0.00 99.11 0.63 100.00 Smog kg NOx eq 5.16E 01 1.58E 04 4.92E 02 2.62E 02 7.95E+01 2.55E+02 3.35E+02 Relative contribution 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.74 76.08 100.00 3 TR= Transportation 4 Relative contribution = Percentage contribution of each of the manag ement steps in each impact categories

PAGE 66

66 T able 4 4. Environmental impacts of life cycle of 1 hectare low intensity loblolly pi ne plantation Impact Factors Equivalent Seed Orchard TR 5 to Nursery Nursery TR to Plantation Plantation TR to Mill Total Global Warming Index kg CO 2 eq 3.41E+01 1.26E 02 4.30E+00 2.09E+00 6.52E+03 7.16E+03 1.38E+04 Relative contribution 6 0.58 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.04 29.81 86.55 100.00 Acidification H+ moles eq 2.48E+01 7.77E 03 2.25E+00 1.29E+00 4.39E+03 1.25E+04 1.70E+04 Relative contribution 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.01 17.25 82.42 100.00 Carcinogenics benzene eq 3.39E 02 3.42E 07 3.36E 03 5.68E 05 1.41E+01 5. 53E 01 1.47E+01 Relative contribution 8.50 0.00 0.84 0.01 12.33 78.31 100.00 Non Carcenogenics toluene eq 2.63E+02 1.67E 03 2.18E+01 2.77E 01 1.17E+05 2.69E+03 1.20E+05 Relative contribution 12.89 0.00 1.07 0.01 11.45 74.57 100.00 Respiratory effec ts kg PM2.5 eq 3.23E 02 6.46E 06 9.68E 02 1.07E 03 8.58E+00 1.04E+01 1.91E+01 Relative contribution 0.44 0.00 1.31 0.01 18.14 80.10 100.00 Eutrophication kg N eq 1.05E 01 6.93E 06 4.50E 03 1.15E 03 4.10E+01 1.12E+01 5.23E+01 Relative contribution 1. 34 0.00 0.06 0.01 18.18 80.41 100.00 Ozone Depletion kg CFC 11 eq 6.41E 07 6.74E 12 2.79E 06 1.12E 09 3.54E 04 1.09E 05 3.68E 04 Relative contribution 6.09 0.00 26.56 0.01 8.88 58.45 100.00 Ecotoxicity kg 2,4 D eq 4.52E+00 7.77E 06 7.20E 01 1.29E 03 1 .98E+03 1.26E+01 2.00E+03 Relative contribution 33.67 0.00 5.36 0.01 8.20 52.77 100.00 Smog kg NOx eq 5.16E 01 1.58E 04 4.92E 02 2.62E 02 7.95E+01 2.55E+02 3.35E+02 Relative contribution 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.01 18.65 81.02 100.00 5 TR= Transportation 6 Relative contribution = Percentage contribution of each of the management step s in each impact category

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 3 Environ mental impact s by sources in the life cycle of 1 ha high intensity loblolly pine plantation

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 4. Environmental impact s by sources for the life cycle of 1 ha low intensity loblolly pine plantation

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 5. Global war ming Index and carbon emissions from high intensity plantation Global warming index ( Kg CO 2 eq) in 1 ha Carbon (Mg ha 1) Carbon cost K g m 3 ha 1 Seed orchard 34.43 0.01 0.01 Nursery 4.35 0.00 0.00 Plantation Site Preparation Choppin g 88.40 0.02 0.03 Piling 476.39 0.13 0.15 Burning 62.61 0.02 0.02 Disking 116.66 0.03 0.04 Bedding 116.66 0.03 0.04 Planting 184.16 0.05 0.06 Herbicides 174.36 0.05 0.05 Fertilization Nitrogen 2213.64 0.60 0.68 Phosphorus 453.57 0.12 0.14 Pota ssium 87.41 0.02 0.03 First thinning Felling 235.39 0.06 0.07 Skidding 314.85 0.09 0.10 Delimbing /loading 311.99 0.08 0.10 Second thinning Felling 235.39 0.06 0.07 Skidding 314.85 0.09 0.10 Delimbing /loading 311.99 0.08 0.10 Final harvesti ng Felling 235.39 0.06 0.07 Skidding 314.85 0.09 0.10 Delimbing /loading 311.99 0.08 0.10 Total 6599.25 1.79 2.03

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 6 Global warming index and carbon emissions from low intensity plantation Global warming index ( Kg CO 2 eq) in 1 ha C arbon (Mg ha 1) Carbon cost K g m 3 ha 1 Seed orchard 34.43 0.01 0.03 Nursery 4.35 0.00 1 0.00 Plantation Site Preparation Chopping 88.40 0.02 0.07 Piling 476.39 0.13 0.39 Disking 116.66 0.03 0.10 B edding 116.66 0.03 0.10 Pla nting 184.16 0.05 0.15 Final harvest Felling 235.39 0.06 0.19 Skidding 314.85 0.09 0.26 Delimbing /loading 311.99 0.08 0.26 Total 1883.25 0.51 1.55 Table 4 7 Global warming Index and carbon emissions during transportation Transport ation Global warming index ( Kg CO 2 eq) in 1 ha Carbon (Mg ha 1) Carbon cost K g m 3 ha 1 Orchard to nursery 0.02 0.00 0.00 Nursery to plantation 2.12 0.00 0.00 Low intensity plantation to mill 4067.79 1.10 3.35 High intensity plantation to mill 7202.52 1.94 3.35

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 5 Comparison of C cost of silvicultural activities in different study

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 6. Trees per ha and stand volume for loblolly pine plantation under low intensity management for 22 years

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 7 Carbon stock for loblolly pine plantation under low intensity management for 22 years

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 8. Trees per ha and stand volume for loblolly pine plantation under high intensity management for 25 years

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 9 Carbon stock for loblolly pine pla ntation under high intensity management for 25 years

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ON This study analyzed the life cycle impact on in situ C sequestration of low and high intensity loblolly pine management in the southern United States. It used cradle to g ate LCA approach to assess the environmental impact of loblolly management from seed orchard management to transportation of timber to the mill. A hybrid carbon balance model was used to calculate the total stem volume (OB) production and total in situ C p roduction from the two scenarios of loblolly pine management. Ecoinvent and Franklin database available in SimaPro 7.1 LCA software were used and TRACI was used to characterize the inventory results into the impact category. Even though few studies has bee n done on LCA on forest activities in the United States, this study has importance among researcher because it specifically assesses the C emissions and environmental impact of loblolly pine, the most important planted species in the southern united states and one of the most widely planted species in forest plantation. It was found that C emission from silvicultural practices is minimal in comparison to in situ C production during the rotation age. Diesel use in transportation and silvicultural practices c onsumed the highest amount of direct and indirect energy both intensity of management. Energy use from seed orchard and nursery management was insignificant. Energy use per m3 volume of timber for high intensity management was 2.3 times higher than low int ensity management. Using the correct application of bigger harvesters for larger trees and smaller for thinning in the small trees could be an appropriate method to reduce energy use. An adjustment in the loading factor by using better route planning is a nother option

PAGE 77

77 as it will reduce the energy use in the transportation. Most of the materials consumed were steel as equipments were assumed to be mainly composed of steel. Fertilizers and diesel use in silviculture practice and transportation had highest en vironmental impact. Fertilizers had significant impact on carcinogenics, non carcinogenics, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and ecotoxicity impact categories. It was found that increases when the management shifts from lower to higher intensity of management. Among the three macro nutrient used, nitrogen has the highest impact on the highest number of environmental categories. Fertilizers contri bute 41.7 % of GHGs emission from silvicultural activities. The effect of nitrogen c an be reduced by mixing as a nitrification inhibitor with fertilizer which helps in controlling the release of N2O. Forest management practices with the better application the envir onment Major sources of GHG emissions are mainly diesel use in silvicultural activi ties and transportation to the mill. Seed orchard nursery management had minimal emissions. C cost for high intensity management was three times higher than low intensity management. Silvicultural activities had low impact on net C balance in the loblolly pine management. The total C cost due to silviculture activities was found to be 1.2 % and 0.4 % of the total in situ in high and low intensity management. When transportati on from the harvesting site to the mill was taken into consideration, the contribution was found to be 2.5 % and 1.38 % of high and low intensity management Increasing the fuel efficiency of equipments used in the silvicultural activities and transportation and using the size and power capacity of the harvesters with the tree size to be harvested decreases the fuel use consumption in the forest management

PAGE 78

78 activities. If volume is only the objectives of management, low intensity of management should be done as it significantly reduces the CO 2 emission s coupled with maintaining the production relatively same. Proper route planning during the transportation could increase the loading factor which eventually reduce the per m3 diesel consumption during the transpor tation. Also, use of the biofuel and other renewable source of energy during transportation, silvicultural practices, and production of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides could reduce the total emissions. Conclusions Loblolly pine, the most important forest species in the southern United States (Baker and Balmer 1983 ), management could be vital as forest in southeast and south central stores 13% and could have potential to capture C0 2 equivalent of 23% of the regional GHG emissions ( Han et al. 2007 ). The study found that silviculture has low impact on net C balance in the loblolly pine management. However, C cost for highest intensity management has three times higher than low intensity management. Total volume for low and high intensity do not dif fer significantly for the same rotation age, thus, carbon emissions from transportation between low and high intensity does not have difference. If the volume production is the objective of forest management with less environmental impacts low intensity management should be done to get lower CO2 emission from. Diesel use in transportation and harvesting machinery has highest GHG emissions. Fertilization also has significant environmental effect. As fertilization also has contributed to CO2 emissions, the rate of application should be properly applied based on the expected quality and quantity of product Efficient use of harvesting

PAGE 79

79 machinery and truck to reduce the diesel consumption could reduce the diesel consumption and emissions due to forest manage ment. Limitation of the Study accuracy. Even though Franklin database is based on U S, Ecoinvent database was used which is mainly based on European condition due to unavailabili ty of the database that completely represents US. Some of the data were approximated which might have process based LCA of various equipments used in the various forest act ivities. Even though loss of biodiversity is one of the major environmental impacts by forest included to get the holistic idea of forest management impact on biodiversit y. The study in situ C assessment. Soil C should have been included as it constitutes the larger amount of C within the forest. This study only analyzed the life cycle of loblolly pine management from seed orchard t o transportation of harvested logs to the saw mills. The completely cradle to grave life cycle of the woods including the waste wood treatment in landfills could give the real picture of net C balance of the management of the loblolly pine It would be better to include the production process of forest products their use and the decomposition in the landfill in order to find out the net C balance of loblolly pine management. Studying LCA analysis of natural forest management could be fruitful to compare between the C cost and net C balance between intensive management and natural forest management

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX A LOBLOLLY PINE MANAGE MENT STEPS IN SOUTHE RN UNITED STATES Seed Orchard Management and Seed Collection Different forest management activities are ne cessary in the seed orchard before the seed collection. Sub soiling to the depths of 30 to 90 cm is necessary to reduce compaction by continuous use of machines and to enhance tree vigor. Subsoiling in the established stand should be done on one or two sid es of the trees and precaution should be taken as it might damage the root of the seed tree. Subsoiling should be preceded by a rolling cutter to cut the rooms to prevent the surface roots from tearing away. Mowing is a common treatment in the seed orchard which helps in developing the healthy sod and increasing the benefits of fertilizers and water. Disking is also helpful to maintain the understory and to promote the rapid orchard growth. Disking should follow along the contour in the contour in order to reduce erosion. Fertilization application of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium i s done with the use of diesel tractor. Diesel tractor is also used for the application of herbicides and pesticides. Goal and Fusilade are the commonly used herbicides in the p ine orchard whereas Asana and chlorpyrifos are used as pesticides. Necessary equipment is attached to the diesel tractor for the application of herbicides and pesticides. Seed fall starts in October but mainly releases in November and early December. Ti me of collection and seed storage period affect yield and germination. The number of seeds releases from the cone increase with longer collection time and delayed in seed collection Seed year is generally between 3 to 6 years however seed production vari es with physiographic region, climatic condition, and stand condition. Seed is produced at the rate of 80,000 per acre from the good seed crop. Mechanical shaker attached with

PAGE 81

81 diesel tractor is used to shake the loose cones in order to collect the seeds. After that, the seeds go through various processes before seeding it in the nursery. Seeds are extracted from cones in forced draft kilns with temperature of 35 o C to 40.5 o C as soon as cones open to release the seeds. To overcome the dormancy of the seed, s tratification is done by putting seeds inside the burlap bags and layered in drums with sphagnum moss. After extracting seeds from cones, they are dewinged, cleaned, and dried (Barnett and Varela, 2003). Wings are removed by brushing and tumbling by mecha nical dewingers. Empty seeds are removed before putting it into the store by using mechanical cleaning equipment or soaking into the water is an alternative method to seed sorting. As the seed size has important effects on germination even than seedling de velopment sizing of the seeds is done to get the uniform rate of seed germination. Size and weight sorting should be done because smaller seeds have a slower rate of germination in comparison to larger seeds. The seeds are stored either in a burlap bag or crate storage with open conditions. It is recommended to store the seeds below 10% moisture and at subfreezing temperature (Barnett and McLemore 1970). Transportation from Seed Orchard to Nursery It was assumed that diesel fueled refrigerated semi box trai ler is used to transport seeds from seed orchard to the nursery for seedling production. The average two ways haul distance between plantation sites and saw mill was considered as 100 Miles (161 Kilometers). Nursery Management Seeds can be stored for a lon g time at subfreezing temperature with a high germination rate. Seeds can be stored between 17 to 21 o C up to 20 years. The seeds

PAGE 82

82 should be removed from freezer at least 60 to 90 days before the average date of the last spring freeze. Then, it is soaked in water in a zip the jut bags and drain completely without completely making dry for 2 3 hours. Again, the seeds are put in the cooler at 7 o C for 7 days. In nursery, seeds are passed through stratification in which seeds are pretreated to simulate winte r condition which is necessary for germination. Stratification by moist chilling at 1 to 5 o C is essential to break seed dormancy stage. Seedling in the south is generally done in the spring. Nursery bed is fumigated with methyl bromide and chloropicrin to control soil borne pathogenic fungi, insects, nematodes, and weeds. Removing the contamination of fungus improves seed germination and seedling establishment in the nursery. However, loblolly pine has a lower level of fungi contamination in comparison to o ther pine species. Seedbed formation is the last steps before sowing seeds and. Vacuum seeder is used for seed sowing. Chopped or partially rotten pine needles, sawdust, bark is spread over the seed bed to prevent the displacement of seeds from wind, rai n or irrigated water. Mowing and plowing are done before the planting by a diesel powered tractor with additional equipment. Similarly, fertilization with N, P, K; bed shaping, and herbicide application is done by using diesel tractor with necessary equipm ent attachment. Commonly used herbicides are Goal, Fusillade, and Cobra whereas Asana and chlorpyrifos are used as insecticides. Bayleton fungicides are used for seed treatment as well as a foliar spray whereas methyl bromide and chloropicrin are also used as fungicides.

PAGE 83

83 Transportation of Seedling from Nursery to Plantation Site Transportation of seedling from nursery to planting sites in a refrigerated can with temperatures maintained between 1 o C to 7 o C. The average two ways haul distance between nursery and plantation was considered as 100 Miles (161 Kilometers). Plantation Management Mainly, chopping, pilling, burning, disking, bedding, herbicide application, and fertilizer application were identified as site preparation and management activities. Durin g thinning and final harvesting, felling, skidding, delimbing, and loading to trucks were necessary management activities. Site Preparation The site should be prepared before the seedling establishment. The objectives of the site preparation are clearing t he debris from the site, reducing the vegetation competition, and preparing the soil favorable for planting. Site preparation includes both mechanical and chemical treatments. Site preparation starts with chopping and piling of the logging debris a nd resid ual tree s by using followed by burning. Burning is done with mechanical equipment attached to the diesel tractor as well as manual by a drip torch which is followed by disking and bedding. Disking is required to control competition while bedding increases the palantability as well as improves the soil tilth in the bed. Finally machine planting is done with the use of necessary equipment attached to diesel tractor. Fertilization and Herbicides Generally N, P, and K are applied for the loblolly pine plantati on whereas boron (B), copper ( Cu), and manganese (Mn ) micronutrients are also used if necessary in problematic sites. There macro nutrients are applied during the rotation starting from the

PAGE 84

84 year of plantation. In addition, fertilization is applied between 4 to 6 years, between 12 to 15 years after the first thinning, between 18 to 20 years after second thinning. Herbicide application is done using Velpar ULW and glyphosate. Velpar is used for site preparation as well as in the first year while glyphosate is applied during the first year of the plantation. Thinning The first thinning generally takes place between the years 12 to 15 with additional thinning after 5 to 8 year interval. Thinning includes cutting of targeted trees, dragging to the loading area, r emoving the branches, and loading to the trucks with the use of feller buncher, wheeled skidder, delimber, and loader respectively. Final Harvesting Forest harvesting normally includes five major steps: felling the standing, removing non merchantable limbs and tops and cutting trees into logs, skidding of the logs or trees from harvesting sites to the loading area, loading to the trucks and transportation to the nearby saw mill. Each activity requires larger feller buncher skidder delimber and loader Tr ansportation of Wood from Plantation to Saw Mill Forest logs or timbers are transported from the harvesting site in a diesel fueled semi truck to the saw mill. The average two way haul distance between plantation sites and saw mill was considered as 120 Mi les (193 Kilometers).

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX B LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONME NTAL IMPACT CATEGORY Global Warming Potential It is the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere due to both natural and human induced causes. Mainly, it is due to increase co ncentration of GHG s in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone from human activities. Combustion of fossil fuel along with other industrial emission is considered as a major source of global warming, which is r egarded as a major reason to change climate in these days. Global warming potential (GWP) is used by TRACI to calculate the potency of GHG s relative to CO 2 (IPCC 1996). The GWP is expressed in terms of CO 2 for the time of 100 years as recommended by the IP CC. It is expressed in global warming index which is calculated as : Where, e i is the emission in kilograms of the i substance and GWP i is the global warming potential of the substance i. Acidification It is the process of increasing the concentration of hydrogen ion ( H +) due to the addition of acids or other substances which increase the acidity in the environment Various chemical reactions due to natural processes in the soil and biological activities cause the increment in the soil acidity. Acid rai n, fog, dust, and smoke are common causes of acidification deposition in air and water which are being transported from long distance. In fractures, lakes, streams, and rivers including all the living beings are damaged due to acidification. The acidificat ion factors are expressed in H + mole

PAGE 86

86 equivalent deposition per kilogram of emission. Factors for acidification are available for each step as characterization factors have different value based on the expected differences in total deposition in the differe nce location (Bare et al. 2003). Eutrophication Eutrophication is the process of increasing nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates in the aquatic ecosystem which results the increment of biological productivity and quantity of algae and weeds. Excessi ve use of nitrogen and phosphorus is the common cause of eutrophication in the United States (Bare et al 2003). Nitrogen mainly damages the coastal ecosystem whereas excessive use of phosphorus affects freshwater lakes and streams. In addition, foul odor o r taste, death or poisoning of fish; and production of toxic chemicals to humans, marine mammals, and livestock. The characterization factors are the products of nutrient factor and transport factor which estimate the eutrophication potential for air or water per kilogram of chemicals released, relative to 1 kg nitrogen released to surface freshwater. Ozone Depletion Ozone depletion is the reduction of the protective ozone within the stratosphere due to the emissions of ozone depleting substances. Chloro fluorocarbons (CFCs) and other contributory substances used as refrigerants, foal blowing agents, solvents, and halons are major ozone depleting substances. Ozone layer in the atmosphere prevents from skin cancer, and cataract which is due to the effect of harmful ultraviolet rays passing through the atmosphere. A steady decline in volume of ozone and creation of the ozone hole is the two phenomena that cause the threat to the earth. The ozone depletion potential is used to calculate the relative importance of CFSs, hydrochloroflucarbons (HFCs), and halons which contributes to the depletion of ozone.

PAGE 87

87 Chemicals are characterized relative to CFC 11 in order to calculate ozone depletion potential of a chemical. Ozone depletion Index, final sum of ozone depletio n potential shows the contribution of any chemical to ozone depletion Where e i is the emission in kilograms of substance i ODP i is the ozone depletion potential of substance i. Human Health Respirator Effects Chronic and acute respiratory symptoms are related to ambient concentrations of particulate matter which are measured as total suspended particulates. In this impact category, different human health effects that are related to exposures to ambient particulates are aggregated (Bare et al. 2003). Hum an Health Cancer and Non c ancer Effect The relative toxicological concern of an emission in the context of human health is calculated based on human toxicity potentials (HTP) based on the inherent toxicity of a compound and its potential dose, which is a c alculated index that reflects the potential harm of a unit of chemical released into the environment (Hertwich et al. 2000). In addition to respirator effects, TRACI has categorized human health impact into cancer and non cancer human health impact which m easure the potential of chemical released during the process into the environment to cause human cancer and non cancer effects (Bare et al. 2003). HTP is used to weight emissions and aggregate in terms of a reference compound and total emissions can be eva luated in terms of benzene equivalents for carcinogenic impact and toluene equivalents for non carcinogenic impact (Hertwich et al. 2002).

PAGE 88

88 Smog Formation Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere form a complex network o f photochemical reactions induced by ultraviolet light. The final product s of this reaction such as ozone, proxy acetyle nitrate (PAN), per Oxy benzoyl nitrate (PBN) are harmful to biotic community and it degrades the materials as well. In TRACI, character ization factors evaluate the smog formation impact category in terms of release of N O x The characterization for VOC s and No x includes the relative influence of individual VOC s on smog formation, and relative influence of Nox concentrations versus an avera ge VOC mixture of smog formation. Eco toxicity Eco toxicity is expressed in ecological toxicity potential (ETP) which is expressed as the potential ecological harm of a unit quantity of chemical released into the environment. ETP establishes a rank of meas ure of potential ecosystem of harm for a large set of toxic industrial and agriculture chemicals. ETP is designed to capture the direct impacts of chemical emissions from industrial systems on the health of plant and animal species (Bare et al. 2003). It q uantifies the combination of source of concentration and toxicity and includes two components namely, generic concentration to source ration for pollutant emissions and an impact to c oncentration. Generally, 2, 4 Di chlorophenoxyacetic acid is used as a ref erence substance to calculate ETP for characterization.

PAGE 89

89 LIST OF REFERENCES Aldentun, Y., 2002. Life cycle inventor y of forest seedling production from seed to regeneration site. J. Clean. Prod.10, 47 55. Allen, H.L., Fox, T.R., Campbell, R.G., 2005. What is ahead for intensive pine plantation silviculture in the South? South. J. Appl. For.29, 62 69 Athanassiadis, D., Lidestav, G., Nordfjell, T., 2002. Energy use and emissions due to the manufacture of a forwarder. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 34, 149 160. Baker J.B., Balmer, W.E., 1983. Loblolly pine. Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States.Agric.Handb445, 148 152. Bare, J., 2011. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy13, 687 696. Bare, J., Norris, G., Pennington, D., and McKone, T. 2003. The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology.6(3 4): 49 78. Bare, J .C., Hofstetter, P., Pennington, D.W., de Haes, H.A.U., 2000. Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment5, 319 326. Barnett, J., Varela, S., 2003. Producing high quality slash pine seeds. Ri ley LE, Dumroese RK, Landis TL, technical coordinators.Proceedings of the national forest and conservation nursery associations 2002.Ogden (UT): USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re search Station.Proceedings RMRS P 28.p 52 56. Barnett, J., McLemore, B. 1970. Storing southern pine seeds. J. For.68, 24 27. Battle, M., Bender, M., Tans, P., White, J., Ellis, J., Conway, T., Francey, R., 2000. Global carbon si Science 287, 2467. Berg, S., Karjalainen, T., 2003. Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from forest operations in Finland and Sweden. Forestry76, 271. Binkley, D., Brown, T.C., 1993. FOR EST PRACTICES AS NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION IN NORTH AMERICA1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association29, 729 740. Birdsey, R.A., 1992. Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. Notes. Blasing, T., Smith, K., 2006. Recent greenhouse gas concentrations. Updated July.

PAGE 90

90 Borders, B.E., Harrison, W.M., Adams, D.E., Bailey, R.L., Pienaar, L.V., 1990. Yield prediction and growth projection for site prepared loblolly pine plantations in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florid a, and Alabama. Univ.of Georgia PMRC Tech.Rep2,. Bouwman, A., 1996. Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst.46, 53 70. Brown, S., Sathaye, J., Cannell, M., Kauppi, P., 1996. Mitigation of carbon emissions to t he atmosphere by forest management. Burnham, A., Wang, M., and Wu, Y. 2006. Development and applications of GREET 2.7 the transportation vehicle cycle model. Argonne National Laboratory,Chicago, IL. Canadell, J.G., Raupach, M.R., 2008. Managing forests fo r climate change mitigation. Science320, 1456. Cannell, M., Thornley, J., 2000. Modelling the components of plant respiration: some guiding principles. Annals of Botany85, 45. Carey, B. 2001. Important pesticides and their uses for the production of sout hern pine seedlings. Summary for the auburn nursery cooperative survey 2001. Southern forest nursery management cooperative. Technical note 02 01. Clutter, J.L., 1963. Compatible growth and yield models for loblolly pine. For. Sci.9, 354 371. Corbett, E. S., Lynch, J.A., Sopper, W.E., 1978. Timber harvesting practices and water quality in the eastern United States. J. For.76, 484 488. Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Jones, C.D., Spall, S.A., Totterdell, I.J., 2000. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon cycl e feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature408, 184 187. Curran, M.A., 1996. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. McGraw Hill, NY Dale, V.H., Joyce, L.A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R.P., Ayres, M.P., Flannigan, M.D., Hanson, P.J., Irland, L.C., Lugo, A.E., Peterson, C.J., 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience51, 723 734. S., Kilgore, M.A., Current, D.A., Hoganson, H.M., 2008. Assessment of carbon flows associated with forest management and biomass procurement for the Laskin Biomass Facility. University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN. Dwivedi, P., Bailis, R., Stainback, A., Carter, D.R., 2012. Impact of payments for carbon sequestered in wood products and avoi ded carbon emissions on the profitability of NIPF landowners in the US South. Ecol. Econ.

PAGE 91

91 Dwivedi, P., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Lal, P., 2009. Cellulosic ethanol production in the United States: Conversion technologies, current production status, economics, a nd emerging developments. Energy for Sustainable Development13, 174 182. Dwivedi, P., Nesbit, T.S., Lindner, A.S., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2008. Life cycle and cost beneifit analyses of ethanol production from slash pine ( Pinus Elliottii) plantations.SOFEWS 193. Echeverra, M.E.M., Morris, D., Hendrick, L.A., Ronald, L., 2004. Soil organic matter fractions under managed pine plantations of the southeastern USA. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.68, 950. Elliott GP, Baker WL 2004. Quaking aspen (Populustremuloides Michx. ) at treeline: a century of change in the San Juan Mountains, C olorado, USA. J Biogeogr 31:733 745 Forsberg, G., 2000. Biomass energy transport analysis of bioenergy transport chains using life cycle inventory metho d. Biomass Bioenergy 19 (1), 17 30. Fox, T.R., Jokela, E.J., Allen, H.L., 2004. The evolution of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. Notes. Freney, J., 1997. Emission of nitrous oxide from soils used for agriculture. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 49, 1 6. Freppaz, D., Minci ardi, R., Robba, M., Rovatti, M., Sacile, R., Taramasso, A., 2004. Optimizing forest biomass exploitation for energy supply at a regional level. Biomass Bioenergy 26, 15 25. Gan J 2004 Risk and damage of southern pine beetle outbreaks under global climate chan ge. For Ecol Manage 191(1 3):61 71 Gonzalez Benecke, C Martin T Jokela E De La Torre R ., model of life cycle carbon balance forloblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) manag ement systems. Forests 2(3):749 776. Gonzalez Benecke, C.A ., Martin, T.A., Cropper Jr, W.P., Bracho, R., 2010. Forest management effects on in situ and ex situ slash pine forest carbon balance. For. Ecol. Manage.260, 795 805. Gonzlez Garca, S., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Romero, J., Feijoo, G., 2009. Environme ntal impact assessment of total chlorine free pulp from Eucalyptus globulus in Spain. J. Clean. Prod.17, 1010 1016. Gorte, R.W., 2009. Carbon Sequestration in Forests. DIANE Publishing,

PAGE 92

92 Gundersen, P., Schmidt, I.K., Raulund Rasmussen, K., 2006. Leaching of nitrate from temperate forests effects of air pollution and forest management. Env. Rev.14, 1 57. Han, F.X., Plodinec, M.J., Su, Y., Monts, D.L., Li, Z., 2007. Terrestrial carbon pools in southeast and south central United States. Clim. Change84, 191 2 02. Harmon, M.E., Ferrell, W.K., Franklin, J.F., 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old growth forests to young forests. Science 247, 699. Harmon, M.E., Ferrell, W.K., Franklin, J.F., 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old grow th forests to young forests. Science 247, 699. Harrison, W., Borders, B., 1996. Yield prediction and growth projection for site prepared loblolly pine plantations in the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and Florida. Plantation Manage.Res.Coop.Tech.Report1,. H aynes, R.W., 2002. Forest management in the 21st century: changing numbers, changing context. J. For.100, 38 43. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., Volk, T.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenergy25, 147 165. He rtwich, E.G., Mateles, S.F., Pease, W.S., McKone, T.E., 2001. Human toxicity potentials for life cycle assessment and toxics release inventory risk screening. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry20, 928 939. Houghton, J.T., 1996. Climate Change 1995: Th e Science of Climate Change. Cambridge Univ Pr, Hoover, C., Magrini, K., Evans, R., 2002. Soil carbon content and character in an old growth forest in northwestern Pennsylvania: a case study introducing pyrolysis molecular beam mass spectrometry (py MBM S). Environmental Pollution116, S269 S275. Houghton, J.T., 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge Univ Pr, Johnsen, K., Teskey, B., Samuelson, L., Butnor, J., Sampson, D., Sanchez, F., Maier, C., McKeand, S., 2004. Carbon S equestration in loblolly pine plantations: Methods, limitations, and research needs for estimating storage pools. Notes. Johnsen, K.H., Wear, D., Oren, R., Teskey, R.O., Sanchez, F., Will, R., Butnor, J., Markewitz, D., Richter, D., Rials, T., 2001. Meeti ng global policy commitments: carbon sequestration and southern pine forests. J. For.99, 14 21. Johnson, D.W., Curtis, P.S., 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. For. Ecol. Manage.140, 227 238.

PAGE 93

93 Johnson, L.R., Lippke, B., Marshall, J.D., Comnick, J., 2005. Life cycle impacts of forest resource activities in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast United States. Wood Fiber Sci.37, 30 46. Jokela, E.J., Dougherty, P.M., Martin, T.A., 2004. Production dynamics of intensively managed loblolly pine stands in the southern United States: a synthesis of seven long term experiments. For. Ecol. Manage.192, 117 130. Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (eds) 2009 Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Knoepp, J.D., Swank, W.T., 1997. Forest management effects on surface soil carbon and nitrogen. Forest61,. Ladha, J.K., Pathak, H., J Krupnik, T., Six, J., van Kessel, C., 2005. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: retr ospects and prospects. Adv. Agron.87, 85 156. Lal, P., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Mercer, E.D., Socio economic impacts of climate change on rural United States. Mitigation Adapt. Strat. Global Change 1 26. Lal, R., 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. For. Ecol. Manage.220, 242 258. Lippke, B., Marshall, J.D., Comnick, J., Contributors, T.F., 2010. FOREST RESOURCES PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST. Liski, J., Pussinen, A., Pingoud, K., Makipaa, R., Karjalainen, T., 2001. Which rotation length is favour able to carbon sequestration? Canadian Journal of Forest Research31, 2004 2013. Matney, T.G., Farrar, R.M., 1992. A thinned/unthinned loblolly pine growth and yield simulator for planted cutover site prepared land in the Mid Gulf South. South. J. Appl. Fo r.16, 70 75. Malmsheimer, R.W., Heffernan, P., Brink, S., Crandall, D., Deneke, F., Galik, C., Gee, E., Helms, J.A., McClure, N., Mortimer, M., 2008. Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States. J. For.106, 115 118. Mar kewitz, D., 2006. Fossil fuel carbon emissions from silviculture: Impacts on net carbon sequestration in forests. For. Ecol. Manage.236, 153 161. Masera, O.R., Garza Caligaris, J., Kanninen, M., Karjalainen, T., Liski, J., Nabuurs, G., Pussinen, A., De Jo ng, B., Mohren, G., 2003. Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V. 2 approach. Ecol. Model.164, 177 199.

PAGE 94

94 McCarthy, J.J., 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: C ontribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ Pr, Michelsen, O., Solli, C., Strmman, A.H., 2008. Environmental impact and added value in forestry operations in Norway. J. Ind. Ecol.12, 69 81. Motavalli P. P., Goyne, K. W., and Udawatta, R. P. 2008. Environmental impacts of enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers. Online. Crop Management doi: 10.1094/CM 2008 0730 02 RV. Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agrofore stry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science172, 10 23. Neupane, B., Halog, A., Dhungel, S., 2011. Attributional life cycle assessment of woodchips for bioethanol production. J. Clean. Prod.19, 733 741. Oneil, E.E., Johnson, L.R., Lippke, B.R., McCarter, J.B., McDill, M.E., Roth, P.A., Finley, J.C., 2010. Life cycle impacts of inland northwest and northeast/north central forest resources. Wood Fiber Sci.42, 29 51. Pennington, D.W., Potting J., Finnveden, G., Lin deijer, E., Jolliet, O., Rydberg, T., Rebitzer, G, 2004. Life cycle assessment part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environmental International Vol. 30 Issue 5, 721 739. Peter, G.F., 2008. Southern Pines: A Resource for Bioenergy. Genetic Improveme nt of Bioenergy Crops 421 449. Phillips, O.L., Malhi, Y., Higuchi, N., Laurance, W.F., Nnez, P.V., Vsquez, R.M., Laurance, S.G., Ferreira, L.V., Stern, M., Brown, S., 1998. Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: evidence from long term plots Science282, 439. 2011 SimaPro software available at http://www.pre sustainability.com/content/simapro lca software accessed on July 15 2011. Prestemon, J.P ., Abt, R.C., 2002. TIMBR 1: Timber products supply and demand. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. 625. Richter, K., 1995. Life cycle analysis of wood products. LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS 69. Samuelson, L.J., Johnsen, K., Stokes, T., 2004. Production, allocati on, and stemwood growth efficiency of Pinus taeda L. stands in response to 6 years of intensive management. For. Ecol. Manage.192, 59 70. Scott MJ, Huang YJ (2007) Effects of climate change on energy use in the United States. In: Wilbanks TJ, Bhatt V, Bil ello DE et al (eds) Effects of climate change on energy production and use in the United States. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.5. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, pp 8 44

PAGE 95

95 Schultz, R.P., 1997. Loblolly pine: the ecology and culture of l oblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Agriculture Handbook (Washington). Sedjo, R., Sohngen, B., 2000. Forestry Sequestration of CO2 and markets for timber. Resources for the Future 00 35. Sedjo, R.A., 1989. Forests to offset the greenhouse effect. Journal of For estry;(USA)87,. Sedjo, R.A., 2001. Forest carbon sequestration: some issues for forest investments. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 01 34. Sedjo, R.A., Sampson, R.N., Wisniewski, J., 1997. Economics of Carbon Sequestration in Forestry. CRC, Sep pl, J., Melanen, M., Jouttijrvi, T., Kauppi, L., Leikola, N., 1998. Forest industry and the environment: a life cycle assessment study from Finland. Resour. Conserv. Recycling23, 87 105. Siry, J.P., Greene, W.D., Harris, T., Izlar, R.L., Hamsley, A.K., Eason, K., Tye, T., Baldwin, S.S., Hyldahl, C., 2006. Wood Supply Chain Efficiency and Fiber Cost: What Can We Do Better? For. Prod. J.56, 4. Sonne, E., 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations. J. Environ. Qual.35, 1439 1450. Smith P, Mart ino D, Cai Z et al 2007 Agriculture. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Pr ess, Cambridge Smith, W.B., Miles, P.D., Vissage, J.S., Pugh, S.A., 2004. Forest Resources of the United States, 2002. North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture, Spatari, S., Zhang, Y., MacLean, H.L., 2005. Life cycle assessment of switchgrass and corn stover derived ethanol fueled automobiles. Environ. Sci. Technol.39, 9750 9758. South, D.B., Zwolinksi, J.B., 1996. Chemicals used in southern forest nurseries. South. J. Appl. For.20, 127 135. Sullivan, A.D., Clu tter, J.L., 1972. A simultaneous growth and yield model for loblolly pine. For. Sci.18, 76 86. Stanturf, J.A., Kellison, R.C., Broerman, F., Jones, S.B., 2003. Productivity of southern pine plantations: where are we and how did we get here? J. For.101, 26 31.

PAGE 96

96 Sullivan, A.D., Clutter, J.L., 1972. A simultaneous growth and yield model for loblolly pine. For. Sci.18, 76 86. Ueda, H., Miyauchi, T., Tsujimura, T., 2003. Application of lifecycle assessment to Shinkansen vehicles and cross ties in Japan. J. Rai l Rapid Transit 217, 271 278 USDA Forest Service., 1988. The South's fourth forest: alternatives for the future. Wakeley, P.C., 1954. Planting the southern pines. Agric.Monogr18,. Wear, D.N., Greis, J.G., 2002. Southern forest resource assessment: summ ary of findings. J. For.100, 6 14. White, M.K., Gower, S.T., Ahl, D.E., 2005. Life cycle inventories of roundwood production in northern Wisconsin: Inputs into an industrial forest carbon budget. For. Ecol. Manage.219, 13 28. Williams, M., 1989. American s and their Forests. Cambridge University Press, Woodbury, P.B., Smith, J.E., Heath, L.S., 2007. Carbon sequestration in the US forest sector from 1990 to 2010. For. Ecol. Manage.241, 14 27 Worrell, R., Hampson, A., 1997. The influence of some forest op erations on the sustainable management of forest soils a review. Forestry70, 61 85. Yanai, R.D., Currie, W.S., Goodale, C.L., 2003. Soil carbon dynamics after forest harvest: an ecosystem paradigm reconsidered. Ecosystems6, 197 212.

PAGE 97

97 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Binod Prashad Chapagain was born in Dhading, Nepal in 1982 and grew up in Kathmandu. He r eceived Bachelor of Science in f orestry from Tribhuvan University in 2007. He has been working as an assistant research officer at Department of Forest Research and Su rvey, Nepal since 2009. He plans to continue working in the field of natural resource management after completing his study