Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production


Strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions include substitution of fossil fuel with bioenergy from forests1, where carbon emitted is expected to be recaptured in the growth of new biomass to achieve zero net emissions2, and forest thinning to reduce wildfire emissions3. Here, we use forest inventory data to show that fire prevention measures and large-scale bioenergy harvest in US West Coast forests lead to 2–14% (46–405 Tg C) higher emissions compared with current management practices over the next 20 years. We studied 80 forest types in 19 ecoregions, and found that the current carbon sink in 16 of these ecoregions is sufficiently strong that it cannot be matched or exceeded through substitution of fossil fuels by forest bioenergy. If the sink in these ecoregions weakens below its current level by 30–60 g C m−2 yr−1 owing to insect infestations, increased fire emissions or reduced primary production, management schemes including bioenergy production may succeed in jointly reducing fire risk and carbon emissions. In the remaining three ecoregions, immediate implementation of fire prevention and biofuel policies may yield net emission savings. Hence, forest policy should consider current forest carbon balance, local forest conditions and ecosystem sustainability in establishing how to decrease emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Maps of US West Coast NBP and uncertainty for current and threshold conditions.
Figure 2: Life-cycle assessment carbon emission trends by ecoregion under various management scenarios.
Figure 3: Total US West Coast forest sector carbon sinks, sources and added emissions relative to BAU under various management scenarios.


  1. Buyx, A. & Tait, J. Ethical framework for biofuels. Science 332, 540–541 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gustavsson, L., Börjesson, P., Johansson, B. & Svenningsson, P. Reducing CO2 emissions by substituting biomass for fossil fuels. Energy 20, 1097–1113 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hurteau, M. D. & North, M. Carbon recovery rates following different wildfire risk mitigation treatments. Forest Ecol. Manag. 260, 930–937 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 1235–1238 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Richter, D. Jr et al. Resource policy: Wood energy in America. Science 323, 1432–1433 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Law, B. E. & Harmon, M. E. Forest sector carbon management, measurement and verification, and discussion of policy related to climate change. Carbon Manag. 2, 73–84 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harmon, M. E. & Marks, B. Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir—western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA: Results from a simulation model. Can. J. Forest Res./Rev. Can. Rech. Forest 32, 863–877 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Searchinger, T. D. et al. Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326, 527–528 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Evans, A. & Finkral, A. From renewable energy to fire risk reduction: A synthesis of biomass harvesting and utilization case studies in US forests. GCB Bioenergy 1, 211–219 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Huggett, R. J. Jr, Abt, K. L. & Shepperd, W. Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard. Forest Policy Econ. 10, 408–414 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Omernik, J. M. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 77, 118–125 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Luyssaert, S. et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213–215 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hudiburg, T. et al. Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecol. Appl. 19, 163–180 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Birdsey, R. A. et al. in North American Forests in the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle (eds King, A. W. et al.) (US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Luyssaert, S. et al. The European carbon balance: part 3: Forests. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1429–1450 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Battles, J. et al. Climate change impacts on forest growth and tree mortality: A data-driven modeling study in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada, California. Climatic Change 87, 193–213 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ryan, M. G. Temperature and tree growth. Tree Physiol. 30, 667–668 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitchell, S. R., Harmon, M. E. & O’Connel, K. E. B. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 19, 643–655 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rogers, B. et al. Impacts of climate change on fire regimes and carbon stocks of the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G03037 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Harmon, M. E., Ferrell, W. K. & Franklin, J. F. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science 247, 699–702 (1990).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nunery, J. S. & Keeton, W. S. Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. Forest Ecol. Manag. 259, 1363–1375 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marland, G. & Schlamadinger, B. Forests for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution? A sensitivity analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 13, 389–397 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Evangelista, P. H., Kumar, S., Stohlgren, T. J. & Young, N. E. Assessing forest vulnerability and the potential distribution of pine beetles under current and future climate scenarios in the Interior West of the US. Forest Ecol. Manag. 262, 307–316 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. van Mantgem, P. J. et al. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the Western United States. Science 323, 521–524 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stinson, G. et al. An inventory-based analysis of Canada’s managed forest carbon dynamics, 1990 to 2008. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2227–2244 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. LANDFIRE Data Distribution Site, (US Department of Interior, Geological Survey, 2009); available at

  27. Wiedinmyer, C. & Hurteau, M. D. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon emissions in the western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1926–1932 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Campbell, J., Donato, D., Azuma, D. & Law, B. Pyrogenic carbon emission from a large wildfire in Oregon, United States. J. Geophys. Res. 112, G04014 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Meigs, G., Donato, D., Campbell, J., Martin, J. & Law, B. Forest fire impacts on carbon uptake, storage, and emission: The role of burn severity in the Eastern Cascades, Oregon. Ecosystems 12, 1246–1267 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ottmar, R. D., Pritchard, S. J., Vihnanek, R. E. & Sandberg, D. V. 14 Final Report JFSP Project 98-1-9-06 (Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 2006).

Download references


This research was supported by the Office of Science (BER), US Department of Energy (DOE, Grant no. DE-FG02-07ER64361), for the North American Carbon Program study, ‘Integrating Remote Sensing, Field Observations, and Models to Understand Disturbance and Climate Effects on the Carbon Balance of the West Coast US’. We further thank M. Harmon for discussions of wood product life-cycle assessment. T.W.H. is funded by a DOE global change education program PhD fellowship (GREF). S.L. is funded by ERC Starting Grant 242564.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



T.W.H. designed and implemented the study with guidance from B.E.L. and S.L. T.W.H., S.L. and B.E.L. co-wrote the paper and S.L. contributed to parts of the analysis. C.W. provided essential data and methods for the analysis and valuable comments on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tara W. Hudiburg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hudiburg, T., Law, B., Wirth, C. et al. Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production. Nature Clim Change 1, 419–423 (2011).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing