Biomass Forest in Sweden and Carbon Emissions Balance

  • Tord JohanssonEmail author
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 34)


Biofuels have an important role to play in reducing the levels of greenhouse gases. Forestry can help reduce CO2 levels in several ways including: storing carbon in biomass, soil and wood products substituting biofuels for fossil fuels and replacing energy-intensive materials like cement, steel and plastics with wood products. In the relation between forest management and the carbon balance of the forest sector about 475 kg of CO2 emissions are avoided for each cubic meter of biomass harvested.

Increased emissions could be decreased by increasing the forest area through decreased harvests and through afforestation. For example, abandoned farmland could be used for establishing new forest stands.


Carbon Stock Rotation Period Mixed Stand Short Rotation Young Stand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alban DH, Perala DA (1992) Carbon storage in Lake States aspen ecosystems. Can J For Res 22:1107–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon (2015) Energy in Sweden. Facts and figures (Excel) Stockholm, Swedish National Energy Administration.Google Scholar
  3. Berry AB, Stiell WM (1978) Effect of rotation length on productivity of aspen sucker stands. For Chron 54:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braathe P (1988) Utvikligen av gjenvekst med ulilke blandingsforhold mellom bartrœr och løvtrœr II Summary: development of regeneration with different mixtures of conifers and broadleaves II Norwegian Forest Research Institute Report 8, 50 pp. In Norwegian.Google Scholar
  5. Børset O, Langhammer A (1966) Vekst og produksjon i bestand av gråor (Alnus incana). Summary: growth and yield in stands of grey alder (Alnus incana). Scientific Reports from the Agricultural College of Norway 45(24), 1–35.Google Scholar
  6. Cannell MGR (1982) World forest biomass and primary production data. Academic Press, London, 391 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherybini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Ströman RH, Hertwich E (2011) CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 3:413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper CF (1982) Carbon storage in managed forests. Can J For Res 13:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekström C, Amnell G, Anheden M, Eidensten L, Kierkegaard G (2001) Biobränsle från skogen. en studie av miljökonsekvenser och ekonomi för olika användningar. (Biofuel from the forest. A study of environmental impact and economy during different fields of application). Stockholm, Sweden. Report U 01:30. 117 p. (In Swedish.)Google Scholar
  10. Ericsson E (2003) Carbon accumulation and fossil fuel substitution during different rotation scenarios. Scand J For Res 18:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ericsson E, Johansson T (2006) Effects of rotation period on biomass production and atmospheric CO2 emissions from broadleaved stands growing on abandoned farmland. Silva Fennica 40(4):603–613Google Scholar
  12. Harmon ME, Marks B (2002) Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.: results from a simulation model. Can J For Res 32(5):863–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC. Special report – land use, land-use change, and forestry: summary for policymakers. (2000) ISBN: 92–9169–114-3. Available from: [Cited 10 Jan 2006]
  14. Jacobson S, Kukkola M, Mälkönen E, Tveite B (2000) Impact of whole-tree harvesting and compensatory fertilization on growth of coniferous thinning stands. For Ecol Manag 129:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johansson T (1999a) Dry matter amounts and increment in 21- to 91-year-old common alder and grey alder and some practical implications. Can J For Res 29:1679–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johansson T (1999b) Biomass production of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) growing on abandoned farmland. Silva Fennica 33(4):261–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johansson T (1999c) Förekomst av självföryngrade lövträd på nedlagd jordbruksmark. Summary: presence of self-regenerated broad-leaved trees growing on abandoned farmland. Department of Forest Management and Products, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Report 2, 1-83Google Scholar
  18. Johansson T (1999d) Biomass equations for determining fractions of pendula and pubescent birches growing on abandoned farmland and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 16:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson T (1999e) Biomass equations for determining fractions of European aspen growing on abandoned farmland and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 17:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson T (2000a) Är gran på åkermark en tänkbar biobränsleproducent? (Could Norway spruce on abandoned farmland produce biofuel?). Fakta skog 11/2000, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. 4 pp. (In Swedish)Google Scholar
  21. Johansson T (2000b) Biomass equations for determining fractions of common and grey alder growing on abandoned farmland and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 18:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson T (2002) Increment and biomass in 26- to 91-year-old European aspen and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 23:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johansson T (2013a) Biomass equations for hybrid larch growing on farmland. Biomass Bioenergy 49:152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johansson T (2013b) Biomass production of hybrid aspen growing on former farmland in Sweden. J For Res 24(2):237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johansson T (2014) Growth and yield in shelter stands of silver birch and Norway Spruce. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Energy and Technology. Report 68, 29 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Johansson T, Karacic A (2011) Increment and biomass in hybrid poplar and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1925–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaipainen T, Liski J, Pussinen A, Karjalainen T (2004) Managing carbon sinks by changing rotation length in European forests. Environ Sci Pol 7:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirschbaum MUF (2003a) Can trees bye time? An assessment of the role of vegetation sinks as part of the global carbon cycle. Climate Change 58:47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirschbaum MUF (2003b) To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 24:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kurz WA, Apps M, Banfield E, Stinson G (2002) Forest carbon accounting at the operational scale. For Chron 78(5):672–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kyoto Protocol (1997) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Available from: [Cited 10 Jan 2006]
  32. Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T (2001) Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Can J For Res 31:2004–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundmark T, Bergh J, Hofer P, Lundström A, Nordin A, Chandra Poudel B, Sathre R, Taverna R, Werner F (2014) Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests 5:557–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maclaren JP (2000) Trees in the greenhouse – the role of forestry in mitigating the enhanced greenhouse effect. Rotorua, New Zealand. Forest Research Bulletin 219, 72 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Meeuwissen TWM, Rottier H (1984) Development of alder (Alnus glutinosa) coppice. Neth J Agric Sci 32:240–242Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell CP Mattchews JD Proe MF, Macbrayne CG (1981) An experimental study of single stemmed trees as energy crops. biofuels Programme. Department of Forestry. Aberdeen University. Aberdeen. Scotland. Technical Report No. ETSU-B101aGoogle Scholar
  37. Myeni RB, Dong J, Tucker CJ, Kaufmann RK, Kauppi PE, Liski J, Zhou L, Alexejev V, Hughes MK (2001) A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of Northern forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(26):14784–14789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nurmi J 1993 Heating values of the above ground biomass of small-sized trees. Acta forestalia Fennica 236, 30 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Pastor J, Bockheim JG (1981) Biomass and production of an aspen – mixed hardwood – spodosol ecosystem in northern Wisconsin. Can J For Res 11:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK (2002) Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For Ecol Manag 168:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rytter L (1996) The potential of grey alder plantation forestry. In: Perttu K , Koppel A (Eds) Short rotation willow coppice for renewable energy and improved environment. Dept. of Short Rotation Forestry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Report 57, 89–94.Google Scholar
  42. Rytter L Johansson T, Karacic A , Weih M (2011) Investigation for a Swedish research program on the genus Populus. Forestry Research Institute of Sweden Report 733, 208 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1996) The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass Bioenergy 10:275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skovsgaard JP, Stupak I, Vesterdal L (2006) Distribution of biomass and carbon in even-aged stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.): A case study on spacing and thinning effects in northern Denmark. Scand J For Res 21:470–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tham Å 1988Yield prediction after heavy thinning of birch in mixed stands of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and birch (Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens Ehrh.) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Forest Yield Research. Report 33, 36 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Thornley JHM, Canell MGR (2000) Managing forests for wood yield and carbon storage: a theoretical study. Tree Physiol 20(7):477–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wihersaari M (2005) Aspects on bioenergy as a technical measure to reduce energy related greenhouse gas emissions. Espoo, Finland. VTT Publications 564, 93 p. + app. 71 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Energy and TechnologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations