Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intensive Utilization of Harvest Residues in Southern Pine Plantations: Quantities Available and Implications for Nutrient Budgets and Sustainable Site Productivity

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rising costs and social concerns over fossil fuels have resulted in increased interest in and opportunities for biofuels. Biomass in the form of coarse woody residues remaining after traditional timber harvest in the southeastern USA is a potentially significant source of biomass for bioenergy. Questions remain regarding whether the removal of this material would constitute a sustainable silvicultural practice given the potential impact on soil nutrient cycling and other ecosystem functions. Our objective is to review existing studies to estimate quantities of residual materials on southern pine forests that may be available, potential nutrient removals, and potential replacement with fertilizer. Regionally, it is estimated that 32 million Mg year−1 of dry harvest residues may be available as a feedstock. At the stand level, between 50 and 85 Mg ha−1 of material is left on site after typical stem-only harvests, of which half could be removed using chippers at the landing. Based on these estimates, increase in midrotation fertilization rates of 45% to 60% may be needed on some sites to fully replace the nutrients from harvesting residues removed for bioenergy. Field experiments suggest that residue removals do not degrade forest productivity in many cases, but more data are needed to assess the effects of frequent removals (i.e., from short-rotation systems) over longer periods and identify sites that may be particularly sensitive to the practice. A benefit of developing markets for previously nonmerchantable materials may create incentives for improved forest management by landowners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LTSP:

Long-Term Soil Productivity program

References

  1. Barber BL, VanLear DH (1984) Weight loss and nutrient dynamics in decomposing woody loblolly pine logging slash. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:906–910

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Belleau A, Brais S, Pare D (2006) Soil nutrient dynamics after harvesting and slash treatments in boreal aspen stands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1189–1199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Borjesson P (2000) Economic valuation of the environmental impact of logging residue recovery and nutrient compensation. Biomass Bioenergy 31:40–45

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burger JA (2002) Soil and long-term site productivity values. In: Richardson J et al (eds) Bioenergy from sustainable forestry—guiding principles and practice. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  5. Burger JA, Scott DA (2002) Soil interpretations for sustainable forest management in the southeastern United States. In: Boruvka L (ed) Soil science: past, present, and future. Czech University of Agriculture, Prague

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carlyle JC, Bligh MW, Nambiar EKS (1998) Woody residue management to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus leaching from sandy soil after clear-felling Pinus radiata plantations. Can J For Res 28:1222–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter MC, Dean TJ, Zhou M, Messina MG, Wang Z (2002) Short-term changes in soil C, N, and biota following harvesting and regeneration of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). For Ecol Manag 164:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chapin FSI (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Conner WH, Hartsell AJ (2002) Forest area and conditions. In: Wear DN, Greis JG (eds) The southern forest resource assessment. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, p 357

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ebermayer E (1876) Die gesamte Lehre der Waldstreu mit Rücksicht auf die chemische Statik des Waldbaues. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eisenbies MH, Burger JA, Aust WM, Patterson SC (2004) Loblolly pine response to wet-weather harvesting on wet flats after 5 years. Water Air Soil Poll Focus 4:217–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eisenbies MH, Burger JA, Aust WM, Patterson SC (2005) Soil physical disturbance and logging residue effects on changes in soil productivity in five-year-old pine plantations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1833–1843

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eisenbies MH, Burger JA, Aust WM, Patterson SC, Fox TR (2006) Assessing change in soil-site productivity of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:130–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisenbies MH, Burger JA, Xu YJ, Patterson SC (2002) Distribution of slash and litter after wet and dry site harvesting of loblolly pine plantations. In: Outcalt KW (ed) Proceedings of the eleventh biennial southern silvicultural research conference. General Technical Report SRS-48. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, p 510

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eriksson HM, Hall JP, Helynen S (2002) Rationale for forest energy production. In: Richardson J et al (eds) Bioenergy from sustainable forestry—guiding principles and practice. Kluwer, Boston, p 1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fox TR (2000) Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations. For Ecol Manag 138:187–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fox TR, Allen HL, Albaugh RJ, Rubilar R, Carlson CA (2007) Tree nutrition and forest fertilization of pine plantations in the southern United States. S J Appl For 31:5–11

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fox TR, Morris LA, Maimone RA (1989) The impact of windrowing on the productivity of a rotation age loblolly pine plantation. In: Miller JH (ed) Proceedings of the fifth biennial southern silvicultural research conference. GTR-SO-74. USDA Forest Service, New Orleans

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fung PYH, Kirschbaum MUF, Raison RJ, Stucley C (2002) The potential for bioenergy production from Australian forests, its contribution to national greenhouse targets and recent developments in conversion processes. Biomass Bioenergy 22:223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gan J, Smith CT (2006) Availability of logging residues and potential for electricity production and carbon displacement in the USA. Biomass Bioenergy 30:1011–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grigal DF, Vance ED (2000) Influence of soil organic matter on forest productivity. N Z J For Sci 30:169–205

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Guo LB, Bek E, Gifford RM (2006) Woody debris in a 16-yr old Pinus radiata plantation in Australia: mass, carbon and nitrogen stocks, and turnover. For Ecol Manag 228:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hakkila P, Parikka M (2002) Fuel resources from the forest. In: Richardson J et al (eds) Bioenergy from sustainable forestry—guiding principles and practice. Kluwer, Boston, p 19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Heilman P, Norby RJ (1998) Nutrient cycling and fertility management in temperate short rotation forest systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14:361–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Helsel ZR (1992) Energy and alternatives for fertilizer and pesticide use. In: Fluck RC (ed) Energy in world agriculture—energy in farm production, vol 6. Elsevier, New York, p 177

    Google Scholar 

  27. Heninger RL, Terry TA, Dobkowski A, Scott W (1997) Managing for sustainable site productivity: Weyerhaeuser’s forestry perspective. Biomass Bioenergy 13:255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hewett CE, High CJ, Marshall N, Widermuth R (1981) Wood energy in the United States. Annu Rev Energy 6:139–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoover C, Stout S (2007) The carbon consequences of thinning techniques: stand structure makes a difference. J Forest 105:266–270

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jacobson S, Kukkola M, Malkonen E, Tveite B (2000) Impact of whole-tree harvesting and compensatory fertilization on growth of coniferous thinning stands. For Ecol Manag 129:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson DW, Curtis PS (2001) Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. For Ecol Manag 140:227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson DW, Knoepp JD et al (2002) Effects of forest management on soil carbon: results of some long-term resampling studies. Environ Pollut 116:S201–S208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson DW, Todd D, Tolbert VR (2003) Changes in ecosystem carbon and nitrogen in a loblolly pine plantation over the first 18 years. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1594–1601

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jokela EJ, Martin TA (2000) Effect of ontogeny and soil nutrient supply on production, allocation, and leaf area efficiency in loblolly and slash pine stands. Can J For Res 30:1511–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. King NT, Seiler JR, Fox TR, Johnsen KH (2008) Post-fertilization loblolly pine clone physiology and growth performance. Tree Phys 28:703–711

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kirschbaum MUF (2003) To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 24:297–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Koch P (1980) Harvesting energy chips from forest residues—some concepts for the southern pine region. General technical report SO-33. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, New Orleans

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kopp RF, Abrahamson LP, White EH, Volk TA, Nowak CA, Fillhart RC (2001) Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenergy 20:1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lal R (2007) There is no such thing as a free biofuel from crop residues. Crop, Soils, Agronomy News 52:12–13

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mann LK, Johnson DW et al (1988) Effect of whole-tree and stem-only clear cutting on postharvest hydrologic losses, nutrient capital, and regrowth. For Sci 34:412–428

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mayfield CA, Foster CD, Smith CT, Gan J, Fox S (2007) Opportunities, barriers, and strategies for forest bioenergy and bio-based product development in the Southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy 31:631–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McCarthy BC, Bailey RR (1994) Distribution and abundance of coarse woody debris in a regenerating, clear-cut forest in the Southern Appalachians. Can J For Res 17:712–721

    Google Scholar 

  43. McKeand SE, Jokela EJ et al (2006) Performance of improved genotypes of loblolly pine across different soils, climates, and silvicultural inputs. For Ecol Manag 227:178–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Milbrandt A (2005) A geographic perspective on the current biomass resource availability in the United States. Technical report NREL/TP-560–39181. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mitchell S (2007) The market: fertilizer news and analysis. International Raw Materials, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  46. Morris LA, Pritchet WL, Swindel BF (1983) Displacement of nutrients into windrows during site preparation of a flatwood forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:591–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mudahar MS, Hignett TP (1987) Energy requirements, technology, and resources in the fertilizer sector. In: Helsel ZR (ed) Energy in world agriculture—energy in plant nutrition and pest control, vol 2. Elsevier, New York, p 25

    Google Scholar 

  48. Neary DG, Morris LA, Swindel BF (1984) Site preparation and nutrient management in southern pine forests. In: Stone EL (ed) Forest soils and treated impacts. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, p 121

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nilsson U, Allen HL (2003) Short- and long-term effects of site preparation, fertilization and vegetation control on growth and stand development of planted loblolly pine. For Ecol Manag 175:367–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. NNEC (2007) Rush to ethanol—not all biofuels are created equal. Network for New Energy Choices, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nord-Larsen T (2002) Stand and site productivity response following whole-tree harvesting in early thinnings of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.). Biomass Bioenergy 23:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Parikka M (2004) Global biomass fuel resources. Biomass Bioenergy 27:613–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Peng C, Jiang H, Apps MJ, Zhang Y (2002) Effects of harvesting regimes on carbon and nitrogen dynamics of boreal forests in central Canada: a process model simulation. Ecol Model 155:177–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Phillips DR, Van Lear DH (1984) Biomass removal and nutrient drain as affected by total-tree harvest in southern pine and hardwood stands. J Forest 82:547–550

    Google Scholar 

  55. Piatek KB, Allen HL (1999) Nitrogen mineralization in a pine plantation fifteen years after harvesting and site preparation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:990–998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Powers RF, Scott DA et al (2005) The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: findings from the first decade of research. For Ecol Manag 220:31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pritchet WL, Fisher RF (1987) Properties and management of forest soils, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pye JM, Vitousek PM (1985) Soil and nutrient removals by erosion and windrowing at a southeastern U.S. Piedmont site. For Ecol Manag 11:145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rudolphi J, Gustagsson L (2005) Effects of forest-fuel harvesting on the amount of deadwood on clear-cuts. Scand J For Res 20:235–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sample VA (2007) Bioenergy markets: new capital infusion for sustainable forest management. Tree Farmer 26:16–19

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sanchez FG, Scott DA, Ludovici KH (2006) Negligible effects of severe organic matter removal and soil compaction on loblolly pine growth over 10 years. For Ecol Manag 227:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sawin J (2003) Charting a new energy future. State of the world 2003. The Worldwatch Institute, Norton, New York, p 85

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1996) The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass Bioenergy 10:275–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Scott DA, Dean TJ (2006) Energy trade-offs between intensive biomass utilization, site productivity loss, and ameliorative treatments in loblolly pine plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 30:1001–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Simpson JA, Osborne DO, Xu ZH (1999) Pine plantations on the coastal lowlands of subtropical Queensland, Australia. In: Nambiar EKS et al (eds) Site management and productivity in tropical plantation forests, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, p 61

    Google Scholar 

  66. Smethurst PJ, Nambiar EKS (1990) Distribution of carbon and nutrients and fluxes of mineral nitrogen after clear-felling a Pinus radiata plantation. Can J For Res 20:1490–1497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Smethurst PJ, Nambiar EKS (1990) Effects of slash and litter management on fluxes of nitrogen and tree growth in a young Pinus radiata plantation. Can J For Res 20:1498–1507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Smith CT (1995) Environmental consequences of intensive harvesting. Biomass Bioenergy 9:161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Smith CT, Lowe AT, Skinner MF, Beets PN, Schoenholtz SH, Fang S (2000) Response of radiata pine forests to residue management and fertilisation across a fertility gradient in New Zealand. For Ecol Manag 138:203–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sverdrup H, Rosen K (1998) Long-term base cation mass balances for Swedish forests and the concept of sustainability. For Ecol Manag 110:221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. USDA-FS (2001) RPA assessment of forest and range lands. USDA Forest Service. Report FS-687

  72. Vance ED (2000) Agricultural site productivity—principles derived from long-term experiments and their implications for intensively managed forests. For Ecol Manag 138:369–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Westbrook MDJ, Greene WD (2007) Adding a chipper to a tree-length system for biomass collection. Technical release 07-R-3. Forest Resources Association, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wilkstrom F (2007) The potential of energy utilization from logging residues with regard to the availability of ashes. Biomass Bioenergy 31:40–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Worrell R, Hampson A (1997) The influence of some forest operations on the sustainable management of forest soils—a review. Forestry 70:61–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Xiao Y, Jokela EJ, White TL (2003) Growth and leaf nutrient responses of loblolly and slash pine families to intensive silvicultural management. For Ecol Manag 183:281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Forest Service, Box 9681, Starkville, MS, 39759, USA

    M. H. Eisenbies

  2. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Incorporated, P.O. Box 13318, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    E. D. Vance

  3. Virginia Tech Department of Forestry, 228 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA

    W. M. Aust & J. R. Seiler

Authors
  1. M. H. Eisenbies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. D. Vance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. M. Aust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. R. Seiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. H. Eisenbies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eisenbies, M.H., Vance, E.D., Aust, W.M. et al. Intensive Utilization of Harvest Residues in Southern Pine Plantations: Quantities Available and Implications for Nutrient Budgets and Sustainable Site Productivity. Bioenerg. Res. 2, 90–98 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-009-9036-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-009-9036-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation