Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulating the rotation length of tree stands is an effective way to manage the carbon budget of forests. We analyzed, using models, how a 30-year change in rotation length from the recommended 90 years would change the carbon and energy budgets of typical wood-production and wood-use chains in Finland. Shortening the rotation length towards the culmination age of mean annual increment decreased the carbon stock of trees but increased the carbon stock of soil, because the production of litter and harvest residues increased. Changes in the carbon stock of wood products varied with tree species depending on volumes and timber sorts harvested, manufacturing processes and products manufactured. The Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) chain stored the largest total amount of carbon when applying the longest rotation length and the Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) chain, when applying the shortest rotation length. Fossil carbon emissions and energy use in harvesting and manufacture increased when the rotation length was shortened and pulpwood harvests increased, especially in the spruce chain. We concluded that longer rotation length at the sites of both tree species would be favourable to carbon sequestration. The costs of this would be decreased timber harvests and decreased revenues of landowners. Our results demonstrate the importance of accounting for the whole wood-production and wood-use chain, including fossil carbon emissions, when analysing the effects of rotation length on forest carbon sequestration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".