| Title |
Comparison of carbon balances between continuous-cover and clear-cut forestry in Sweden
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-015-0756-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| URN |
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-50898
|
| Authors |
Tomas Lundmark, Johan Bergh, Annika Nordin, Nils Fahlvik, Bishnu Chandra Poudel |
| Abstract |
Continuous-cover forestry (CCF) has been recognized for the production of multiple ecosystem services, and is seen as an alternative to clear-cut forestry (CF). Despite the increasing interest, it is still not well described how CCF would affect the carbon balance and the resulting climate benefit from the forest in relation to CF. This study compares carbon balances of CF and CCF, applied as two alternative land-use strategies for a heterogeneous Norway spruce (Picea abies) stand. We use a set of models to analyze the long-term effects of different forest management and wood use strategies in Sweden on carbon dioxide emissions and carbon stock changes. The results show that biomass growth and yield is more important than the choice of silvicultural system per se. When comparing CF and CCF assuming similar growth, extraction and product use, only minor differences in long-term climate benefit were found between the two principally different silvicultural systems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 7 | 33% |
| Finland | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 86% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 140 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Researcher | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 43 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 22% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 42 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,297,291
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#211
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,020
of 403,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.