A flexible parametric model for a balanced account of forest carbon fluxes in LCA

  • Michele De Rosa
  • Jannick Schmidt
  • Miguel Brandão
  • Massimo Pizzol



Despite a mature debate on the importance of a time-dependent account of carbon fluxes in life cycle assessments (LCA) of forestry products, static accounts of fluxes are still common. Time-explicit inventory of carbon fluxes is not available to LCA practitioners, since the most commonly used life cycle inventory (LCI) databases use a static approach. Existing forest models are typically applied to specific study fields for which the detailed input parameters required are available. This paper presents a simplified parametric model to obtain a time-explicit balanced account of the carbon fluxes in a forest for use in LCA. The model was applied to the case of spruce as an example.


The model calculated endogenous and exogenous carbon fluxes in tons of carbon per hectare. It was designed to allow users to choose (a) the carbon pools to be included in the analysis (aboveground and belowground carbon pools, only aboveground carbon or only carbon in stem); (b) a linear or sigmoidal dynamic function describing biomass growth; (c) a sigmoidal, negative exponential or linear dynamic function describing independently the decomposition of aboveground and belowground biomass; and (d) the forest management features such as stand type, rotation time, thinning frequency and intensity.

Results and discussion

The parametric model provides a time-dependent LCI of forest carbon fluxes per unit of product, taking into account the typically limited data available to LCA practitioners, while providing consistent and robust outcomes. The results obtained for the case study were validated with the more complex CO2FIX. The model ensures carbon balance within spatial and time delimitation defined by the user by accounting for the annual biomass degradation and production in each carbon pool. The inventory can be used in LCA studies and coupled with classic indicators (e.g. global warming potential) to accurately determine the climate impacts over time. The model is applicable globally and to any forest management practice.


This paper proposes a simplified and flexible forest model, which facilitates the implementation in LCA of time-dependent assessments of bio-based products.


Carbon balance Forest carbon cycle Life cycle inventory Life cycle assessment 



This work was funded by Aarhus University through the project ‘Environmental and socioeconomic potential of new concepts and business models for increased production and utilization of biomass from agricultural land in Denmark (ECO-ECO)’. Massimo Pizzol’s contribution to this work was funded by the research grant no. 1305-00030B of the Danish Strategic Research Council. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their contributions.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1148_MOESM1_ESM.xlsb (793 kb)
Appendix (xlsb 793 KB)


  1. Abrahamsen P, Hansen S (2000) Daisy: an open soil-crop-atmosphere system model. Environ Model Softw 15(3):313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Davis SC, Masters MD, Delucia EH (2009) Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. Glob Change Biol 1(1):75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babaizadeh H, Haghighi N, Asadi S, Broun R, Riley D (2015) Life cycle assessment of exterior window shadings in residential buildings in different climate zones. Build Environ 90:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Jørgensen SV, Hauschild MZ, Pennington DW, Chomkhamsri K (2013) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadmeadow M, Matthews R (2003) Forests, carbon and climate change: the UK contribution. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. In: Information note. UK Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers JQ, Higuchi N, Schimel JP, Ferreira LV, Melack JM (2000) Decomposition and carbon cycling of dead trees in tropical forests of the central Amazon. Oecologia 122(3):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Stromman AH, Hertwich E (2011) CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. Glob Change Biol 3(5):413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciais P, Sabine CL, Bala G, Bopp L, Brovkin V, Canadell JG, Chhabra A, DeFries R, Galloway J, Heimann M, Jones C, Le Quéré C, Myneni RB, Piao S, Thornton P (2013) Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis., Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS (1996) RothC-26.3: a model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: Evaluation of soil organic matter models, using existing long-term datasets. Springer, Berlin, p 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman L, Jenkinson DS (2008) ROTHC-26.3: a model for the turnover of carbon in soil. Model description and Windows user guide. Rothamsted Research, HarpendenGoogle Scholar
  11. Don A, Osborne B, Hastings A, Skiba U, Carter MS, Drewer J, Flessa H, Freibauer A, Hyvönen N, Jones MB, Lanigan GJ, Mander U, Monti A, Djomo SN, Valentine J, Walter K, Zegada-Lizarazu W, Zenone T (2012) Land-use change to bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. Glob Change Biol 4(4):372–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ecoinvent (2016) Ecoinvent. ZurichGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksson E, Karlsson PE, Hallberg L, Jelse K (2010) Carbon footprint of cartons in Europe—carbon footprint methodology and biogenic carbon sequestration. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO/JRC (2012) Global forest land-use change 1990–2005. In: FAO forestry paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and European Commission Joint Research Centre, RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. Freschet GT, Weedon JT, Aerts R, van Hal JR, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Interspecific differences in wood decay rates: insights from a new short-term method to study long-term wood decomposition. J Ecol 100(1):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. GaBi (2016) GaBi. Thinkstep, Leinfelden-EchterdingenGoogle Scholar
  17. Harmon ME, Krankina ON, Sexton J (2000) Decomposition vectors: a new approach to estimating woody detritus decomposition dynamics. Can J Forest Res 30(1):76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T (2013) Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment—a review. Glob Change Biol 5(5):475–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holtsmark B (2012) Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Climatic Change 112(2):415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Published: IGES, Japan.
  21. Iritani DR, Silva DAL, Saavedra YMB, Grael PFF, Ometto AR (2015) Sustainable strategies analysis through life cycle assessment: a case study in a furniture industry. J Clean Prod 96:308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonker JGG, Junginger M, Faaij A (2014) Carbon payback period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in the South-eastern United States. Glob Change Biol 6(4):371–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim S, Dale BE (2008) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol derived from corn grain via dry milling. Bioresource Technol 99(12):5250–5260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kindermann GE, McCallum I, Fritz S, Obersteiner M (2008) A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fenn 42(3):387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschbaum MUF (1999) CenW, a forest growth model with linked carbon, energy, nutrient and water cycles. Ecol Model 118(1):17–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirschbaum MUF (2000) CenW: a generic forest growth model. New Zeal J For Sci 45(1):15–19Google Scholar
  27. KjøNaas OJ, Aalde H, Dalen LS, de Wit HA, Eldhuset T, Øyen BH (2000) Carbon stocks in Norwegian forested systems. Preliminary data. Biotechnol Agron Soc Envir 4(4):311–314Google Scholar
  28. Klein D, Wolf C, Schulz C, Weber-Blaschke G (2015) 20 years of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the forestry sector: state of the art and a methodical proposal for the LCA of forest production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(4):556–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laiho R, Prescott CE (2004) Decay and nutrient dynamics of coarse woody debris in northern coniferous forests: a synthesis. Can J Forest Res 34(4):763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschenes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liski J, Lehtonen A, Palosuo T, Peltoniemi M, Eggers T, Muukkonen P, Makipaa R (2006) Carbon accumulation in Finland’s forests 1922–2004—an estimate obtained by combination of forest inventory data with modelling of biomass, litter and soil. Ann For Sci 63(7):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mäkinen H, Isomäki A (2004) Thinning intensity and growth of Scots pine stands in Finland. Forest Ecol Manag 201(2–3):311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Masera OR, Garza-Caligaris JF, Kanninen M, Karjalainen T, Liski J, Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, de Jong BHJ, Mohren GMJ (2003) Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V. 2 approach. Ecol Model 164(2–3):177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mckechnie J, Colombo S, Chen JX, Mabee W, Maclean HL (2011) Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(2):789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Means JE, Macmillan PC, Cromack K Jr (1992) Biomass and nutrient content of Douglas-fir logs and other detrital pools in an old-growth forest, Oregon, USA. Can J Forest Res 22(10):1536–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milne E, Adamat RA, Batjes NH, Bernoux M, Bhattacharyya T, Cerri CC, Cerri CEP, Coleman K, Easter M, Falloon P, Feller C, Gicheru P, Kamoni P, Killian K, Pal DK, Paustian K, Powlson DS, Rawajfih Z, Sessay M, Williams S, Wokabi S (2007) National and sub-national assessments of soil organic carbon stocks and changes: the GEFSOC modelling system. Agr Ecosyst Environ 122(1):3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mirabella N, Castellani V, Sala S (2014) LCA for assessing environmental benefit of eco-design strategies and forest wood short supply chain: a furniture case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1536–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muller-Wenk R, Brandao M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA-carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nilsen P, Abrahamsen G (2003) Scots pine and Norway spruce stands responses to annual N, P and Mg fertilization. Forest Ecol Manag 174(1–3):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ÖKOBAUDAT (2016) ÖKOBAUDAT. Nature Conservation Federal Ministry for the Environment, Building and Nuclear Safety, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  41. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44(2):322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parton WJ, Schimel DS, Cole CV, Ojima DS (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in great plains grasslands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51(5):1173–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parton WJ, Stewart JWB, Cole CV (1988) Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: a model. Biogeochemistry 5(1):109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Comnick J, Manriquez C (2005) An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood Fiber Sci 37:140–148Google Scholar
  45. Petersen BM, Trydeman Knudsen M, Hermansen JE, Halberg N (2013) An approach to include soil carbon changes in life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 52:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinsonnault A, Lesage P, Levasseur A, Samson R (2014) Temporal differentiation of background systems in LCA: relevance of adding temporal information in LCI databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(11):1843–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sayer EJ, Heard MS, Grant HK, Marthews TR, Tanner EVJ (2011) Soil carbon release enhanced by increased tropical forest litterfall. Nature Clim Change 1(6):304–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1996) The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass Bioenerg 10(5–6):275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shevliakova E, Pacala SW, Malyshev S, Hurtt GC, Milly PCD, Caspersen JP, Sentman LT, Fisk JP, Wirth C, Crevoisier C (2009) Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: importance of the secondary vegetation sink. Global Biogeochem Cy 23(2). doi: 10.1029/2007GB003176
  50. Statistic Sweden (2013) Forest statistics from the Swedish national forest inventoryGoogle Scholar
  51. Stephenson NL, Das AJ, Condit R, Russo SE, Baker PJ, Beckman NG, Coomes DA, Lines ER, Morris WK, Ruger N, Alvarez E, Blundo C, Bunyavejchewin S, Chuyong G, Davies SJ, Duque A, Ewango CN, Flores O, Franklin JF, Grau HR, Hao Z, Harmon ME, Hubbell SP, Kenfack D, Lin A, Makana JR, Malizia A, Malizia LR, Pabst RJ, Pongpattananurak N, Su SH, Sun IF, Tan S, Thomas D, van Mantgem PJ, Wang X, Wiser SK, Zavala MA (2014) Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature 507(7490):90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Storaunet K, Rolstad J (2002) Time since death and fall of Norway spruce logs in old-growth and selectively cut boreal forest. Can J Forest Res 32(10):1801–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tuomi M, Laiho R, Repo A, Liski J (2011) Wood decomposition model for boreal forests. Ecol Model 222(3):709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valsta L (1992) Acta for Fenn 232. The Society of Forestry in Finland—The Finnish Forest Research Institute, TampereGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Der Voet E, Lifset RJ, Luo L (2010) Life-cycle assessment of biofuels, convergence and divergence. Biofuels 1(3):435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vieilledent G, Vaudry R, Andriamanohisoa SFD, Rakotonarivo OS, Randrianasolo HZ, Razafindrabe HN, Bidaud Rakotoarivony C, Ebeling J, Rasamoelina M (2012) A universal approach to estimate biomass and carbon stock in tropical forests using generic allometric models. Ecol Appl 22(2):572–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Woodward FI, Smith TM, Emanuel WR (1995) A global land primary productivity and phytogeography model. Global Biogeochem Cy 9(4):471–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoshimoto A, Marušák R (2007) Evaluation of carbon sequestration and thinning regimes within the optimization framework for forest stand management. Eur J For Res 126(2):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AgroecologyAarhus UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Development and PlanningAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  3. 3.New Zealand Life Cycle Management Centre, Institute of Agriculture and EnvironmentMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations