Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2024
Authors
Alice Budai Daniel Rasse Thomas Cottis Erik J. Joner Vegard Martinsen Adam O'Toole Hugh Riley Synnøve Rivedal Ievina Sturite Gunnhild Søgaard Simon Weldon Samson ØpstadAbstract
Carbon content is a key property of soils with importance for all ecosystem functions. Measures to increase soil carbon storage are suggested with the aim to compensate for agricultural emissions. In Norway, where soils have relatively high carbon content because of the cold climate, adapting management practices that prevent the loss of carbon to the atmosphere in response to climate change is also important. This work presents an overview of the potential for carbon sequestration in Norway from a wide range of agricultural management practices and provides recommendations based on certainty in the reported potential, availability of the technology, and likelihood for implementation by farmers. In light of the high priority assigned to increased food production and degree of self-sufficiency in Norway, the following measures were considered: (1) utilization of organic resources, (2) use of biochar, (3) crop diversification and the use of cover crops, (4) use of plants with larger and deeper root systems, (5) improved management of meadows, (6) adaptive grazing of productive grasslands (7) managing grazing in extensive grasslands, (8) altered tillage practices, and (9) inversion of cultivated peat with mineral soil. From the options assessed, the use of cover crops scored well on all criteria evaluated, with a higher sequestration potential than previously estimated (0.2 Mt CO2-equivalents annually). Biochar has the largest potential in Norway (0.9 Mt CO2-equivalents annually, corresponding to 20% of Norwegian agricultural emissions and 2% of total national emissions), but its readiness level is not yet achieved despite interest from industry to apply this technology at large scale. Extensive grazing and the use of deep-rooted plants also have the potential for increasing carbon storage, but there is uncertainty regarding their implementation and the quantification of effects from adapting these measures. Based on the complexities of implementation and the expected impacts within a Norwegian context, promising options with substantial payoff are few. This work sheds light on the knowledge gaps remaining before the presented measures can be implemented.
2023
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
An expert workshop on C and N interactions was held online 6 – 7/11 2023, within project Kvävebegränsningar för kolbindning i skandinaviska skogar/Nitrogen constraints to carbon sequestration in Scandinavian forests, financed by the Nordic Working Group for Climate and Air (NKL). The workshop was organized in two half-day sessions. Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark were represented by experts involved in national reporting to the UNECE Air Convention (CLRTAP) and to the UN Climate convention (UNFCCC). This workshop report was prepared by the workshop organizers at IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, with contributions from all workshop participants.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Belachew Gizachew ZelekeAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Mireia Pecurul-Botines Laura Secco Laura Bouriaud Alex Giurca Maria Brockhaus Vilis Brukas Marjanke Hoogstra-Klein Agata Konczal Lenka Marcinekova Krzysztof Niedzialkowski Knut Øistad Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh Niina Pietarinen Jeanne-Lazya Roux Bernhard Wolfslehner Georg WinkelAbstract
What is at stake? The new Forest Strategy for 2030 for the European Union (EU) was adopted in July 2021, creating a new drive for forest policymaking on an EU level. Its main reference is the European Green Deal that puts forests in the light of a decarbonised society until 2050, and emphasises carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, and forest restoration. The strategy aims to improve the quality and quantity of EU forests, enhance their multifunctionality and resilience, and address challenges linked to the increasing strain on forests through human activities and natural processes, including climate change. The Strategy’s priorities include: 1. supporting the socio-economic forest functions and boosting bioeconomy within its sustainability boundaries; 2. protecting, restoring and enlarging forests in the EU; 3. ensuring a strategic forest monitoring, reporting and data collection and 4. encouraging dialogue and stakeholder engagement. Compared to earlier versions, the new EU Forest Strategy has become more concrete and comprehensive in its vision and tries to tie in different objectives of the plethora of EU forest-related policies (such as e.g., bioeconomy enhancement, biodiversity protection, climate mitigation and adaptation etc.). The implementation of the new EU Forest Strategy and meeting its goals has therefore potentially larger implications for national authorities than earlier ones, through its stronger embedding in the overall political framework of the EU, although the Strategy as such is not legally binding. What are the study’s aims? This study assesses whether and to what extent national and regional policy developments meet the EU Forest Strategy goals. It analyses those policies in 15 countries in and outside the EU, as well as in three regions in Spain. The countries are: Austria (AT), Czech Republic (CZ), Finland (FI), Germany (DE), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Poland (PL), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), and Sweden (SE). Although not a member of the EU, Norway was included into this study as it is closely related through the EEA agreement and a bilateral agreement on cooperation with the EU to fulfil the 2030 climate target. What patterns emerge? There is a striking diversity of socio-economic, environmental and political settings for forests and forestry in Europe and even within countries, which affect the impact of the Forest Strategy. Differences related to both ecological site conditions (determining the type of forest), basic socioeconomic factors (such as ownership), societal demands and needs as well as private sector interests, and urban or rural forest settings determine past and current forest governance and management practices in European countries. At the same time, there are common issues for forest governance and management across Europe, relating to: • a considerable divide of forestry and conservation interests found in all studied countries; • the increasing impact of climate change and related forest disturbances (with regionally different consequences for forests and forestry); and • the embeddedness of European forest governance and markets within larger structures, for example related to (global) energy and resource trade and investment patterns. Other patterns relate to ‘silences’ in member states’ policies, e.g., missing references to forest-sector specific internal threats to biodiversity, as well as to the risk (and reality) of conversion of old growth forests, or missing action and strategies to collect data that is not (yet) part of ‘traditional’ monitoring and reporting activities and systems. ...........................
Authors
Kjersti Holt Hanssen Viktor J. Bruckman Michael Gundale Aigars Indriksons Morten Ingerslev Marju Kaivapalu Dagnija Lazdina Kristaps Makovskis Adam O’Toole Katri Ots Marjo Palviainen Jogeir N. Stokland Iveta Varnagiryte-KabasinskieneAbstract
This report summarizes the status of biochar in forestry in the Nordic-Baltic countries today. Biochar is charred material formed by pyrolysis of organic materials. In addition to improving soil physical and chemical properties and plant growth, biochar is a promising negative emission technology for storing carbon (C) in soils. The report gives an overview of current and potential uses, production methods and facilities, legislation, current and future research as well as biochar properties and effects. Forests are both a source of feedstock for biochar production and a potential beneficiary for biochar use. Production is still limited in the Nordic-Baltic countries, but commercial production is on the rise and several enterprises are in the planning or start-up phase. In this report different biochar production technologies are described. As the (modern) use of biochar for agricultural and especially forestry purposes is relatively new, in many countries there are no specific legislation regulating its use. Sometimes the use of biochar is regulated through more general laws and regulations on e.g. fertilizers or soil amendment. However, both inside and outside EU several documents and standards exist, listing recommended physical and chemical limit values for biochar. So far, most biochar studies have been conducted on agricultural soils, though research in the forestry sector is starting to emerge. The first biochar field experiments in boreal forests support that wood biochar promotes tree growth. Also, studies on the use of biochar as an additive to the growing medium in tree nurseries show promising results. Because biochar C content is high, it is recalcitrant to decomposition, and application rates to soil can be high, biochar is a promising tool to enhance the C sequestration in boreal forests. However, available biomass and production costs may be barriers for the climate change mitigation potential of biochar. When it comes to effects on biodiversity, few field-based studies have been carried out. Some studies from the Nordic region show that biochar addition may affect microbial soil communities and vegetation, at least on a short time scale. There is clearly a need for more research on the effects of biochar in forestry in the Nordic-Baltic region. Long-term effects of biochar on e.g., forest growth, biodiversity, soil carbon and climate change mitigation potential should be studied in existing and new field experiments.
Abstract
Purpose: Laser diffraction (LD) for determination of particle size distribution (PSD) of the fine earth fraction appeared in the 1990s, partly substituting the Sieving and Sedimentation Method (SSM). Whereas previous comparison between the two methods predominantly encompasses agricultural soils, less attention has been given to forest soils, including pre-treatment requirements related to their highly variable contents of carbon and Alox+ Feox. In this small collaborative learning study we compared (1) national SSM results with one type/protocol of LD analysis (Coulter), (2) LD measurements performed on three different LD instruments / laboratories, and (3) the replication error for LD Coulter analysis of predominantly sandy and loamy forest soils. Methods: We used forest soil samples from Denmark, Norway and Lithuania and their respective national SSM protocols / results. LD analyses were performed on Malvern Mastersizer 2000, Sympatec HELOS version 1999, and Coulter LS230, located at University of Copenhagen, Aarhus University and Helsinki University, respectively. The protocols differed between laboratories, including the use of external ultrasonication prior to LD analysis. Results: The clay and silt fractions content (<20 μm) from the LD analysis were not comparable with SSM results, with differences ranging from −0.5 to 22.3 percentage points (pp) for clay. Preliminary results from loamy samples with spodic material suggested inconsistent effects of external ultrasonication to disperse aggregates. The comparison between the three LD instruments showed a range in the clay and silt fractions content of 1.9–5.3 and 6.2–8.1 pp, respectively. Differences may be related to the instruments, protocols, and content of a given particle size fraction. The replication error of the Coulter LD protocol was found to be <3 pp in sandy soils, but up to 10 pp in loamy soils. Conclusion: Differences in the clay fraction results partly affected the classification of soil types. The fast replication of the LD analysis enables more quality control of results. The pedological evaluation of non-silicate constituents and optional pre-treatment steps (e.g., soil organic matter or sesquioxides) remains the same for LD and SSM. For comparison of results, detailed descriptions of the analytical protocol including pre-treatments are needed irrespective of instrument and theoretical approach.