Carbon balance in production forestry in relation to rotation length
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of a rotation length is an integral part of even-aged forest management regimes. In this study, we simulated stand development and carbon pools in four even-aged stands representing the two most common tree species in Fennoscandia, Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), growing on high- and low-productivity sites. We hypothesized that increased rotation lengths (+10, +20, and +30 years) in comparison with today’s practice would increase forests’ average carbon stock during a rotation cycle but decrease the average yield. The results showed that for spruce, a moderate increase in rotation length (+10 years) increased both average standing carbon stock and average yield. For the longer alternatives (+20 and +30 years) for spruce and for all pine alternatives, prolonging rotation lengths resulted in increased average standing carbon stocks but decreased average yield, resulting in decreased carbon storage in forest products and decreased substitution effects. Decreasing the rotation lengths (–10 years) always resulted in both decreased average standing carbon stocks and decreased yields. We conclude that a moderate increase of rotation lengths may slightly increase forests’ climate benefits for spruce sites, but for all other alternatives, there was a trade-off between the temporary gain of increasing carbon stocks and the permanent loss in productivity and, consequently, substitution potential.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".