BioEnergy Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 507–517 | Cite as

Wood Bioenergy and Soil Productivity Research

  • D. Andrew ScottEmail author
  • Deborah S. Page-Dumroese


Timber harvesting can cause both short- and long-term changes in forest ecosystem functions, and scientists from USDA Forest Service (USDA FS) have been studying these processes for many years. Biomass and bioenergy markets alter the amount, type, and frequency at which material is harvested, which in turn has similar yet specific impacts on sustainable productivity. The nature of some biomass energy operations provides opportunities to ameliorate or amend forest soils to sustain or improve their productive capacity, and USDA FS scientists are leading the research into these applications. Research efforts to sustain productive soils need to be verified at regional, national, and international scope, and USDA FS scientists work to advance methods for soil quality monitoring and to inform international criteria and indicators. Current and future USDA FS research ranges from detailed soil process studies to regionally important applied research and to broad scale indicator monitoring and trend analysis, all of which will enable the USA to lead in the sustainable production of woody biomass for bioenergy.


Woody biomass Soil productivity Biochar 



The authors benefited greatly from conversations with Marilyn Buford, who also reviewed earlier drafts of this manuscript. Partial funding was provided by The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Biomass Research and Development Initiative, Competitive Grant no. 2010–05325 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and by the Department of Energy, Biomass and Research and Development Initiative, Competitive Grant no. DE-EE000629.


  1. 1.
    Page-Dumroese DS, Jurgensen M, Terry TA (2010) Maintaining soil productivity during forest or biomass-to-energy thinning harvests in the western United States. West J Appl For 25:5–11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S, Neilson RP, Ayres MP, Flannigan MD, Hanson PJ, Irland LC, Lugo AE, Peterson CJ, Simberloff D, Swanson FJ, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723–734. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD]2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Millar CI, Stephenson NL (2015) Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science 349:823–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    USDA Forest Service (2005) A Strategic Assessment of Forest Biomass and Fuel Reduction Treatments in Western States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-149., Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    James SR, Dennell RW, Gilbert AS, Lewis HT, Gowlett JAJ, Lynch TF, McGrew WC, Peters CR, Pope GG, Stahl AB, James SR (1989) Hominid use of fire in the lower and middle Pleistocene: a review of the evidence. Curr Anthropol 30:1–26. doi: 10.1086/203705 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration (2010) Annual Energy Review 2009. DOE/EIA-0384(2009) Washington, DC 408.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones G, Loeffler D, Calkin D, Chung W (2010) Forest treatment residues for thermal energy compared with disposal by onsite burning: emissions and energy return. Biomass Bioenergy 34:737–746. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.016 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Department of Energy (2011) U.S. Billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. ORNL/TM-2011/224 227.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adams MB, Loughry LH, Plaugher LL (2004) Experimental forests and ranges of the USDA Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-321, Newtown Square, PAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Page-Dumroese DS, Jurgensen MF, Curran MP (2010) Cumulative effects of fuel treatments on soil productivity. In: Elliot WJ, Miller IS, Audin L (eds) Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the Western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231., Fort Collins, CO, pp 164–174Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Callaham MA, Scott DA, O’Brien JJ, Stanturf JA (2012) Cumulative effects of fuel management on the soils of eastern US. In: LaFayette R, Brooks MT, Potyondy JP, Audin L, Krieger SL, Trettin CC (eds) Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the Eastern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-161, Asheville, NC, pp 202–228Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greacen E, Sands R (1980) Compaction of forest soils. A review. Aust J Soil Res 18:163–189. doi: 10.1071/SR9800163 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson CE, Johnson AH, Huntington TG, Siccama TG (1991) Whole-tree clear-cutting effects on soil horizons and organic-matter pools. Soil Sci Soc Am J 55:497–502Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marion GM (1979) Biomass and nutrient removal in long-rotation stands. In: Leaf AL (ed) Proceedings: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, School of Forestry, SUNY-Syracuse, Syracuse, NY, pp 98–110Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alban DH, Perala DA, Schlaegel BE, Perala DA (1978) Biomass and nutrient distribution in aspen, pine, and spruce stands on the same soil type in Minnesota. Can J For Res 8:290–299. doi: 10.1139/x78-044 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson DW, West DC, Todd DE, Mann LK (1982) Effects of sawlog vs. whole-tree harvesting on the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium budgets of an upland mixed oak forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:1304–1309Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phillips DR, Van Lear DH (1984) Biomass removal and nutrient drain as affected by total-tree harvest in southern pine and hardwood stands. J For 82:547–550Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powers RF, Scott DA, Sanchez FG, Voldseth RA, Page-Dumroese DS, Elioff JD, Stone DM (2005) The North American long-term soil productivity experiment : findings from the first decade of research. For Ecol Manage 220:31–50. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.003 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Han H-S, Page-Dumroese DS, Han S-K (2006) Effects of slash, machine passes, and soil moisture on penetration resistance in a cut-to-length harvesting. Int J For Eng 17:11–24. doi: 10.1080/14942119.2006.10702532 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Han S-K, Han H-S, Page-Dumroese DS, Johnson LR (2009) Soil compaction associated with cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting of a coniferous forest. Can J For Res 39:976–989. doi: 10.1139/X09-027 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Craigg TL, Howes SW (2007) Assessing quality in volcanic ash soils. In: Page-Dumroese DS, Miller RE, Mital J, Mcdaniel P, Miller D (eds) Volcanic-Ash-derived forest soils of the Inland Northwest: properties and implications for management and restoration. 9–10 Nov. 2005; Coeur d’Alene, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-44. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 47–66Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ice G (2004) History of innovative best management practice development and its role in addressing water quality limited waterbodies. J Environ Eng 130:684–689. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:6(684) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ice G, McBroom M, Schweitzer P (2011) A review of best management practices for forest watershed biomass harvests with an emphasis on recommendations for leaving residual wood onsite. Center for Bioenergy Sustainability, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biomass Research and Development Board (2011) Bioenergy feedstock best management practices: summary and research needs. Feedstock Production Interagency Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry : the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE/GO-102995-2135 ORNL/TM-2005/66.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ralevic P, Ryans M, Cormier D (2010) Assessing forest biomass for bioenergy: operational challenges and cost considerations. For Chron 86:43–50. doi: 10.5558/tfc86043-1 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oneil E, Lippke B (2009) Eastern Washington biomass accessibility. Report to the Washington State Legislature and Washington Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Korb JE, Johnson NC, Covington WW (2004) Slash pile burning effects on soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendations for amelioration. Restor Ecol 12:52–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00304.x Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oswald BP, Davenport D, Neuenschwander LF (1998) Effects of slash pile burning on the physical and chemical soil properties of Vassar soils. J Sustain For 8:75–86. doi: 10.1300/J091v08n01_06 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tew DT, Morris LA, Allen HL, Wells CG (1986) Estimates of nutrient removal, displacement and loss resulting from harvest and site preparation of a Pinus taeda plantation in the Piedmont of north Carolina. For Ecol Manage 15:257–267Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jang W, Keyes CR, Page-Dumroese DS (2015) Impact of biomass harvesting on forest soil productivity in the northern Rocky Mountains. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-GTR-341., Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keeves A (1966) Some evidence of loss of productivity with successive rotations of Pinus radiata in the south-east of South Australia. Aust For 30:51–63Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bormann FH, Likens GE, Fisher DW, Pierce RS (1968) Nutrient loss accelerated by clear-cutting of a forest ecosystem. Science 159:882–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    U.S. Laws, Statutes E. (1976) Public Law 94–588 National Forest Management Act. of 1976. (NFMA). Act of Ctt. 22, 1976. U.S.C. 1600.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture FS (2015) Cut and Sold Reports. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  36. 36.
    Thomas JW (2011) The future of the national forests : who will answer an uncertain trumpet? Fair Chase 26:16–23Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leaf AL (1979) Proceedings: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling. College of Environmental Science and Forestry. SUNY, Syracuse, NYGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ballard R, Gessel SP (1983) IUFRO Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous Productivity. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-163., Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kimmins JP (1977) Evaluation of the consequences for future tree productivity of the loss of nutrients in whole-tree harvesting. For Ecol Manage 1:169–183Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Hook RI, Johnson DW, West DC, Mann LK (1982) Environmental effects of harvesting forests for energy. For Ecol Manage 4:79–94Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McMinn JW, Nutter WL (1981) Energy wood harvesting: a study of promises and pitfalls. Georgia Forest Research Report 17Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smith CT (1995) Environmental consequences of intensive harvesting. Biomass Bioenergy 9:161–179Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stone EL (1979) Nutrient removals by intensive harvest—some research gaps and opportunities. In: Leaf AL (ed) Proceedings: Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY, Syracuse, NY, pp 366–382Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gessel SP, Lacate DS, Weetman GF, Powers RF (1990) Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils. Proceedings of the 7th North American Forest Soils Conference. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Powers RF, Alban DH, Miller RE, Tiarks AE, Wells CG, Avers PE, Cline RG, Fitzgerald RO, Loftus Jr. NS (1990) Sustaining site productivity in North American forests: problems and prospects. In: Gessell SP, Lacate DS, Weetman GF, Powers RF (eds) Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils. Proceedings of the 7th North American Forest Soils Conference. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Vancouver, BC, pp 49–79Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dyck WJ, Mees CA (1989) Research Strategies for Long-Term Site Productivity. Proceedings, IEA/BE A3 Workshop, Seattle, WA. Forest Research Institute, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tiarks AE, Powers RF, Alban DH, Ruark GA, Page-Dumroese DS (1993) USFS Long-term Soil Productivity National Research Project: a USFS Cooperative Research Program. In: Kimble JM (ed) Proceedings of the Eighth International Soil Management Workshop. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE, pp 236–241Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ponder F Jr, Fleming RL, Berch SM, Busse MD, Elioff JD, Hazlett PW, Kabzems RD, Kranabetter JM, Morris DM, Page-Dumroese DS, Palik BJ, Powers RF, Sanchez FG, Scott DA, Stagg RH, Stone DM, Young DH, Zhang J, Ludovici KH, McKenney DW, Mossa DS, Sanborn PT, Voldseth RA (2012) Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction and vegetation control on 10th year biomass and foliar nutrition: LTSP continent-wide comparisons. For Ecol Manage 278:35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.04.014 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Scott DA, Eaton RJ, Foote JA, Vierra B, Boutton TW, Blank GB, Johnsen KH (2014) Soil ecosystem services in loblolly pine plantations 15 years after harvest, compaction, and vegetation control. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:2032–2040. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2014.02.0086 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fleming RL, Leblanc J, Hazlett PW, Weldon T, Irwin R, Mossa DS (2014) Effects of biomass harvest intensity and soil disturbance on jack pine stand productivity: 15-year results. Can J For Res 44:1566–1574Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gomez AG, Powers RF, Singer MJ, Horwath WR (2002) Soil compaction effects on growth of young Ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1334–1343. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.1334 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Haywood JD (1994) Early growth reductions in short rotation loblolly and slash pine in Louisiana. South J Appl For 18:35–39Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stagg RH, Scott DA (2006) Understory growth and composition resulting from soil disturbances on the long-term soil productivity study sites in Mississippi. In: Connor KF (ed) Proceedings of the 13th biennial southern silvicultural research conference, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-92, Asheville, NC, pp 52–56Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Scott DA, Stagg RH (2013) Plant community responses to soil disturbance and herbicide treatments over 10 years on the Texas LTSP study. In: Guldin JM (ed) Proceedings of the 15th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-175, Asheville, NC, pp 21–27Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kershaw HM, Morris DM, Fleming RL, Luckai NJ (2015) Reconciling harvest intensity and plant diversity in boreal ecosystems: does intensification influence understory plant diversity? Environ Manage. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0551-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reschke C, Host GE (2011) Effects of soil compaction and organic matter removal on ground-flora diversity : seventeen-year results from the Chippewa National Forest Long-term Soil Productivity Project. Technical Report NRRI/TR-2011/31. Natural Resources Research Institute, Duluth, MNGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kimmins JP (1989) Projecting our experience of the past to give us a vision of the future: the need for an appropriate research strategy. In: Dyck WJ, Mees CA (eds) Research Strategies for Long-Term Site Productivity. Proceedings, IEA/BE A3 Workshop, Seattle, WA. Forest Research Institute, New Zealand, pp 237–249Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ponder F Jr, Tadros M (2002) Phospholipid fatty acids in forest soil four years after organic matter removal and Soil compaction. Appl Soil Ecol 19:173–182. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(01)00182-2 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Axelrood PE, Chow ML, Radomski CC, McDermott JM, Davies J (2002) Molecular characterization of bacterial diversity from British Columbia forest soils subjected to disturbance. Can J Microbiol 48:655–674. doi: 10.1139/w02-059 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Axelrood PE, Chow ML, Arnold CS, Lu K, McDermott JM, Davies J (2002) Cultivation-dependent characterization of bacterial diversity from British Columbia forest soils subjected to disturbance. Can J Microbiol 48:643–654. doi: 10.1139/w02-058 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chow ML, Radomski CC, McDermott JM, Davies J, Axelrood PE (2002) Molecular characterization of bacterial diversity in Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) rhizosphere soils from British Columbia forest soils differing in disturbance and geographic source. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42:347–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb01024.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shestak C, Busse MD (2005) Compaction alters physical but not biological indices of soil health. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:236–246Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Busse MD, Beattie SE, Powers RF, Sanchez FG, Tiarks AE (2006) Microbial community responses in forest mineral soil to compaction, organic matter removal, and vegetation control. Can J For Res 36:577–588. doi: 10.1139/X05-294 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hassett J, Zak D (2005) Aspen harvest intensity decreases microbial biomass, extracellular enzyme activity, and soil nitrogen cycling. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:227–235Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hartmann M, Howes CG, VanInsberghe D, Yu H, Bachar D, Christen R, Henrik Nilsson R, Hallam SJ, Mohn WW (2012) Significant and persistent impact of timber harvesting on soil microbial communities in Northern coniferous forests. ISME J 6:2199–218. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.84 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cardenas E, Kranabetter JM, Hope G, Maas KR, Hallam S, Mohn WW (2015) Forest harvesting reduces the soil metagenomic potential for biomass decomposition. ISME J 1–12. doi:  10.1038/ismej.2015.57 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jordan D, Li F, Ponder F Jr, Berry EC, Hubbard VC, Kim KY (1999) The effects of forest practices on earthworm populations and soil microbial biomass in a hardwood forest in Missouri. Appl Soil Ecol 13:31–38Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    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 Manage 164:67–88. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00590-4 Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ponder F (2005) Effect of soil compaction and biomass removal on soil CO2 efflux in a Missouri forest. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 36:1301–1311. doi: 10.1081/CSS-200056935 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tan X, Chang SX, Kabzems RD (2005) Effects of soil compaction and forest floor removal on soil microbial properties and N transformations in a boreal forest long-term soil productivity study. For Ecol Manage 217:158–170. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.061 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tan X, Chang SX, Kabzems RD (2007) Soil compaction and forest floor removal reduced microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a boreal aspen forest soil. Biol Fertil Soils 44:471–479. doi: 10.1007/s00374-007-0229-3 Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mariani L, Chang SX, Kabzems RD (2006) Effects of tree harvesting, forest floor removal, and compaction on soil microbial biomass, microbial respiration, and N availability in a boreal aspen forest in British Columbia. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1734–1744. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.11.029 Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Butnor JR, Johnsen KH, Sanchez FG (2006) Whole-tree and forest floor removal from a loblolly pine plantation have no effect on forest floor CO2 efflux 10 years after harvest. For Ecol Manage 227:89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.018 Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Foote JA, Boutton TW, Scott DA (2015) Soil C and N storage and microbial biomass in US southern pine forests: influence of forest management. For Ecol Manage 355:48–57. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.036 Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Eaton RJ, Barbercheck M, Buford M, Smith W (2004) Effects of organic matter removal, soil compaction, and vegetation control on Collembolan populations. Pedobiologia 48:121–128. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2003.10.001 Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Battigelli JP, Spence JR, Langor DW, Berch SM (2004) Short-term impact of forest soil compaction and organic matter removal on soil mesofauna density and oribatid mite diversity. Can J For Res 34:1136–1149. doi: 10.1139/x03-267 Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bird SB, Coulson RN, Fisher RF (2004) Changes in soil and litter arthropod abundance following tree harvesting and site preparation in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation. For Ecol Manage 202:195–208. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.023 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Jordan D, Ponder F Jr, Hubbard VC (2003) Effects of soil compaction, forest leaf litter and nitrogen fertilizer on two oak species and microbial activity. Appl Soil Ecol 23:33–41. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00003-9 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jordan D, Hubbard VC, Ponder F Jr, Berry EC (1999) Effect of soil compaction and organic matter removal on two earthworm populations and some soil properties in a hardwood forest. Pedobiologia (Jena) 43:802–807Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jordan D, Hubbard VC, Ponder F Jr, Berry EC (2000) The influence of soil compaction and the removal of organic matter on two native earthworms and soil properties in an oak-hickory forest. Biol Fertil Soil 31:323–328Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ponder F Jr, Li F, Jordan D, Berry EC (2000) Assessing the impact of Diplocardia ornata on physical and chemical properties of compacted forest soil in microcosms. Biol Fertil Soils 32:166–172. doi: 10.1007/s003740000232 Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Gomez AG, Singer MJ, Powers RF, Horwath WR (2002) Soil compaction effects on water status of ponderosa pine assessed through 13C/12C composition. Tree Physiol 22:459–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Siegel-Issem CM, Burger JA, Powers RF, Ponder F Jr, Patterson SC (2002) Seedling root growth as a function of soil density and water content. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:215–226Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Da_Silva AP, Kay BD, Perfect E (1994) Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1775–1781Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Blouin V, Schmidt M, Bulmer C, Krzic M (2004) Soil compaction and water content effects on lodgepole pine seedling growth in British Columbia. Proceedings of the 3rd Australian New Zealand Soils Conference, 5–9 December 2004, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Scott DA, Burger JA (2014) Longleaf and loblolly pine seedlings respond differently to soil compaction, water content, and fertilization. Plant Soil 375:255–265. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1929-0 Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ludovici KH (2008) Compacting coastal plain soils changes midrotation loblolly pine allometry by reducing root biomass. Can J For Res 38:2169–2176. doi: 10.1139/X08-060 Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Buford MA, Neary DG (2010) Sustainable Biofuels from Forests: Meeting the Challenge. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports. Ecol. Soc. Am, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Desrochers L, Puttock D, Ryans M (1993) The economics of chipping logging residues at roadside: a study of three systems. Biomass Bioenergy 5:401–411. doi: 10.1016/0961-9534(93)90035-3 Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zamora-Cristales R, Sessions J, Boston K, Murphy G (2015) Economic optimization of forest biomass processing and transport in the Pacific Northwest USA. For Sci 61:220–234Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Harrill H, Han H-S (2010) Application of hook-lift trucks in centralized logging slash grinding operations. Biofuels 1:399–408. doi: 10.4155/bfs.10.16 Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Anderson N, Jones JG, Page-Dumroese D, McCollum D, Baker S, Loeffler D, Chung W (2013) A comparison of producer gas, biochar, and activated carbon from two distributed scale thermochemical conversion systems used to process forest biomass. Energies 6:164–183. doi: 10.3390/en6010164 Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Dymond CC, Titus BD, Stinson G, Kurz WA (2010) Future quantities and spatial distribution of harvesting residue and dead wood from natural disturbances in Canada. For Ecol Manage 260:181–192. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.04.015 Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Coleman M, Page-Dumroese D, Archuleta J, Badger P, Chung W, Venn T, Loeffler D, Jones G, McElligott K (2010) Can portable pyrolysis units make biomass utilization affordable while using bio-char to enhance soil productivity and sequester carbon? In: Jain TB, Graham RT, Sandquist J (eds) Integrated management of carbon sequestration and biomass utilization opportunities in a changing climate. Proc. of the 2009 National Silviculture Workshop, June 15–18 2009, Boise, ID. Proc RMRS-P-61. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 159–168Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lehmann J, Joseph S (2015) Biochar for Environmental Management: an introduction. Biochar for Environmental Management - Science and Technology. Earthscan Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    DeLuca TH, Aplet GH (2008) Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Mountain West. Front Ecol Environ 6:18–24. doi: 10.1890/070070 Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Liu X, Zhang A, Ji C, Joseph S, Bian R, Li L, Pan G, Paz-Ferreiro J (2013) Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions-a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 373:583–594. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1806-x Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Thomas SC, Gale N (2015) Biochar and forest restoration: a review and meta-analysis of tree growth responses. New For 46:931–946. doi: 10.1007/s11056-015-9491-7 Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mukherjee A, Lal R (2013) Biochar impacts on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions. Agronomy 3:313–339. doi: 10.3390/agronomy3020313 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5 Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Abbas D, Current D, Phillips M, Rossman R, Brooks KN, Hoganson H (2011) Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: a synthesis of environmental considerations. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4538–4546. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.029 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Homagain K, Shahi C, Luckai N, Sharma M (2014) Biochar-based bioenergy and its environmental impact in Northwestern Ontario Canada: a review. J For Res 25:737–748. doi: 10.1007/s11676-014-0522-6 Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Sims R, Taylor M, Saddler J, Mabee W (2008) From 1st to 2nd Generation Bio Fuel Technologies: an overview of current industry and RD&D activities. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and. Development/International Energy Agency, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organism: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Lattimore B, Smith CT, Titus BD, Stupak I, Egnell G (2009) Environmental factors in woodfuel production: opportunities, risks, and criteria and indicators for sustainable practices. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1321–1342. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.06.005 Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Wood S, Layzell D (2003) A Canadian Biomass Inventory: Feedstocks for a Bio-based Economy. BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lamers P, Thiffault E, Paré D, Junginger M (2013) Feedstock specific environmental risk levels related to biomass extraction for energy from boreal and temperate forests. Biomass Bioenergy 55:212–226. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.002 Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Page-Dumroese DS, Abbott AM, Rice TM (2009) Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol Volume II : Supplementary. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Tech Report GTR-82b, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Jarvis JM, Page-Dumroese DS, Anderson NM, Corilo Y, Rodgers RP (2014) Characterization of fast pyrolysis products generated from several western USA woody species. Energy Fuels 28:6438–6446. doi: 10.1021/efS01714j Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Certini G (2005) Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Harvey AE, Larsen MJ, Jurgensen MF (1979) Comparative distribution of ectomycorrhiza in soils of three western Montana forest habitat types. For Sci 25:350–358Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Matovic D (2011) Biochar as a viable carbon sequestration option: global and Canadian perspective. Energy 36:2011–2016. doi: 10.1016/ Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Brown R (2009) Biochar production technology. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for Environmental Management - Science and Technology. Earthscan Press, London, pp 127–146Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Garcia-Perez M, Lewis T, Kruger CE (2010) Methods for producing biochar and advanced biofuels in Washington State Part 1 : Literature review of pyrolysis reactors. Department of Biological Systems Engineering and the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. Washington State University, Pullman, WAGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kinney TJ, Masiello CA, Dugan B, Hockaday WC, Dean MR, Zygourakis K, Barnes RT (2012) Hydrologic properties of biochars produced at different temperatures. Biomass Bioenergy 41:34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.033 Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Page-Dumroese DS, Robichaud PR, Brown RE, Tirocke JM (2015) Water repellency of two forest soils after biochar addition. Trans ASABE 58:335–342. doi: 10.13031/trans.58.10586Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Archer DW, Ippolito JA, Collins HP, Boateng AA, Lima IM, Lamb MC, McAloon AJ, Lentz RD, Nichols KA (2012) Biochar: a synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J Environ Qual 41:973. doi: 10.2134/jeq2011.0069 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    McElligott K, Page-Dumroese DS, Coleman M (2011) Bioenergy production systems and biochar application in forests: potential for renewable energy, soil enhancement, and carbon sequestration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Note RMRS-RN-46, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Page-Dumroese DS, Coleman M, Thomas SC (2015) Opportunities and uses of biochar on forest sites in North America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Lehmann J (2007) A handful of carbon. Nature 447:143–144. doi: 10.1038/447143a PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Alabama A&M UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations