Washington's forests will lose stored carbon as area burned by wildfire increases

Jul 24, 2012
A July 2012 PNW Research Station study explored how carbon dynamics in Washington State may be altered by more-frequent wildfires, triggered by a warming climate. The study looked at the effects of greater area burned on both live biomass and nonliving biomass, such as the dead standing trees and downed wood shown here. Credit: Tom Iraci, US Forest Service

Forests in the Pacific Northwest store more carbon than any other region in the United States, but our warming climate may undermine their storage potential.

A new study conducted by the U.S. 's and the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington has found that, by 2040, parts of Washington State could lose as much as a third of their stores, as an increasing area of the state's forests is projected to be burned by wildfire. The study—published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Ecological Applications—is the first to use statistical models and publicly available Inventory and Analysis data to estimate the effects of a warming climate on carbon storage and fluxes on Washington's forests.

"When considering the use of forests to store carbon, it will be critical to consider the increasing risk of wildfire," said Crystal Raymond, a research biologist based at the station's Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory and lead author of the study. "Especially in the West, where climate-induced changes in fire are expected to be a key agent of change."

Trees remove and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, in the form of carbon dioxide, acting as important stores, or "sinks," of carbon that help to offset its accumulation in the atmosphere. When trees and other woody material in the forest are burned by fire, they release carbon back to the atmosphere, mostly as carbon dioxide, where it may once again act as a greenhouse gas that promotes warming. This land-atmosphere exchange of carbon is increasingly of interest to land managers seeking ways to actively manage forests to store carbon and help mitigate greenhouse gases.

To explore what effect climate-driven changes in wildfire might have on the ability of Washington's forests to act as carbon sinks, Raymond and station research ecologist Don McKenzie used a novel approach. They combined published forest-inventory data, fire-history data, and statistical models of area burned to estimate historical and future carbon carrying capacity of three regions in Washington—the Western Cascades, the Eastern Cascades, and the Okanogan Highlands—based on potential forest productivity and projections of 21st century area burned.

"Forests on both the eastern and western slopes of the Cascade Range will lose carbon stored in live biomass because area burned across the state is expected to increase," Raymond said. "Even small increases in area burned can have large consequences for carbon stored in living and dead biomass."

The researchers looked at live biomass, which includes living trees and vegetation, as well as nonliving biomass in the form of coarse woody debris, which includes dead standing trees and downed logs. Both contribute to the carbon cycle, but in different ways—living biomass removes carbon from the atmosphere as vegetation grows, and coarse woody debris releases carbon over time as the material decomposes.

Raymond and McKenzie projected forests of the Western Cascades to be most sensitive to climate-driven increases in fire, losing anywhere from 24 to 37 percent of their live biomass and from 15 to 25 percent of their coarse woody debris biomass by 2040. These forests store significant carbon and typically burn with high severity, killing many trees and consuming coarse woody debris.

On the other side of the mountains, the researchers also projected a decrease in live biomass by 2040—of anywhere between 17 and 26 percent in the Eastern Cascades and in the Okanogan Highlands—but no change in coarse woody debris biomass, or possibly even an increase, because coarse biomass increases as trees are killed by fire and subsequent low-severity fires burn only a small portion of it.

"Changes in fire regimes in a warming climate can limit our potential to use forests in the to store additional carbon and to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide," Raymond said.

Understanding the possible effects of more area burned by fire can help managers decide whether forests need to be actively managed for their fire potential to minimize carbon loss.

Explore further: Diverting a river from ecological disaster in northwestern China could provide new sustainable model

More information: To read more about the study, visit www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/11-1851.1

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

World's forests' role in carbon storage immense, profound

Jul 18, 2011

Until now, scientists were uncertain about how much and where in the world terrestrial carbon is being stored. In the July 14 issue of Science Express, scientists report that, between 1990 and 2007, the world's forests stored ...

Recommended for you

Toolkit for ocean health

2 hours ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

Tool kit for ocean health

5 hours ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

Researcher studies interactions between land and water

5 hours ago

Early one morning last January, MIT undergraduate Theresa Oehmke was eating breakfast at the Kilauea Military Camp on Hawaii's Big Island when a colleague burst into the room, yelling, "Oh my god, the plume, ...

Geoengineering our climate is not a 'quick fix'

7 hours ago

The deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system is not a "quick fix" for global warming, according to the findings of the UK's first publicly funded studies on geoengineering.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2012
Especially in the West, where climate-induced changes in fire are expected to be a key agent of change


That's a big 'if', and the rest of what they said is meaningless unless that one big assumption is true. Even if that assumption is correct, the rest of their conclusions aren't very good, since they are qualitative but not quantitative. Without the 'when, where, and how much' it's not very usefull.

Besides, if you consider carbon in a tree (dead or alive) to be sequestered, then that's a matter of opinion. I only call that carbon temporarily stored, since it's still very much part of the active carbon cycle. After a big fire, you actually get some carbon sequestered in the form of char in the soil, which can then mineralize to form bi and poly carbonates. That's what I call sequestered carbon, since it's actually removed from the carbon cycle.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2012
I've said this before, but I think its a shame to tie forest preservation and management to carbon dioxide management. That's probably (though opinions differ) the least of all the reasons I think forests should be cared for. If good forest management also happens to help with the co2 situation, then that's fine with me too, but I really don't give a damn about that.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.