The carbon implications of large‐scale afforestation of agriculturally marginal land with short‐rotation willow in<scp>S</scp>askatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Afforestation with short‐rotation coppice (SRC) willow plantations for the purpose of producing bioenergy feedstock was contemplated as one potential climate change mitigation option. The objectives of this study were to assess the magnitude of this mitigation potential by addressing: (i) the land area potentially available forSRCsystems in the province ofSaskatchewan,Canada; (ii) the potential biomass yields ofSRCplantations; and (iii) the carbon implications from such a large‐scale afforestation program. Digital soils and land‐use data were used to identify, map, and group into clusters of similar polygons 2.12 million hectares (Mha) of agriculturally marginal land that was potentially suitable for willow in theBorealPlains andPrairies ecozones inSaskatchewan. ThePhysiologicalPrinciples inPredictingGrowth (3PG) model was calibrated with data fromSRCexperiments inSaskatchewan, to quantify potential willow biomass yields, and theCarbonBudgetModel of theCanadianForestSector (CBM‐CFS3), was used to simulate stand and landscape‐levelCfluxes and stocks. Short‐rotation willow plantations managed in 3 year rotations for seven consecutive harvests (21 years) after coppicing atYear 1 produced about 12 Mg ha−1 yr−1biomass. The more significant contribution to theCcycle was the cumulative harvest. After 44 years, the potential average cumulative harvested biomassCin thePrairies was 244 Mg C ha−1(5.5 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) about 20% higher than the average for theBorealPlains, 203 Mg C ha−1(4.6 Mg C ha−1 yr−1). This analysis did not consider afforestation costs, rate of establishment of willow plantations, and other constraints, such as drought and disease effects on biomass yield. The results must therefore be interpreted as a biophysical mitigation potential with the technical and economic potential being both lower than our estimates. Nevertheless, short‐rotation bioenergy plantations offer one potential mitigation option to reduce the rate ofCO2accumulation in the earth's atmosphere and further research is needed to operationalise such a mitigation effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".