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

By M. Harmon, Barbara L. Marks. 2002

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/26b9cb6b92a6994ccc692d33b91709d7c085148b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Fine-scale variability in growth-climate relationships of Douglas-fir, North Cascade Range, Washington. (2005, unknown): “Additionally, Douglas-fir forests managed on long rotations (100+ years) may serve as substantial carbon sinks as global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue to rise (Harmon et al. 1990; Harmon and Marks 2002).”
Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. (2007, background): “…diverse, and include avoiding deforestation, promoting afforestation and reforestation, manipulating vegetation to favor rapid growth and long-term site retention, and sequestering carbon after harvest in wood products (Harmon and Marks 2002, Kobziar and Stephens 2006, Krankina and Harmon 2006).”
Effects of Partial Harvest on the Carbon Stores in Douglas-fir/Western Hemlock Forests: A Simulation Study (2009, methodology): “The following section describes the modifications relative to version 1.0 of the model (Harmon and Marks 2002).”
Genetic maladaptation of coastal Douglas‐fir seedlings to future climates (2007, background): “Therefore, maintaining the adaptability and productivity of Douglas-fir forests is important for enhancing carbon sequestration, reducing atmospheric CO2, and mitigating the effects of climate change (Schulze et al., 2000; Harmon & Marks, 2002; Smithwick et al., 2002).”
Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production (2012, methodology): “In accordance with a prior framework for harvested C decomposition, we assumed that 60% of the harvested C would go directly into long-term C storage mediums (i.e., houses, buildings) that decayed at the rate of 1% per year (Harmon & Marks, 2002).”