Neither wood ash application nor phosphorus-fertilisation mitigated the negative effects of whole-tree harvesting on a temperate oligotrophic forest.
Background and AimsConcerns about climate change and carbon economy have prompted the promotion of alternative energy sources, including forest-based bioenergy. An evaluation of the environmental consequences of intensive harvests (stumps and roots, and also branches and foliage) for energy wood supply, and use of wood-ash recycling as a compensatory practice, helps in the evaluation of the use of forest biomass for energy production. MethodsWe made use of records from a split-plot experimental site crossing four different intensities of biomass harvesting (Stem-Only Harvest [SOH], Aboveground Additional Harvest [AAH], Belowground Additional Harvest [BAH], and Whole-Tree Harvest [WTH]) and three compensation methods (control [C], wood ash application [A] and phosphorus fertilisation [P]) to evaluate, in the 11-years-old stand (maritime pine: Pinus pinaster) that followed the biomass exports of the former stand, their effects on nutrient budgets, tree growth, soil fertility, chemical properties and soil carbon. This site is located in a forest on a poor soil, under a warm temperate climate (SW France). Key resultsDespite their low additional biomass exports (+10% for AAH to +34% for WTH), the non-conventional harvest practices exported much higher quantities of nutrients than the conventional SOH technique (for example +145% for N and K in WTH). Consequently, these treatments had negative effects on the soil nutritive status. Additional biomass harvests impacted the soil organic matter content, with negative effects on P-organic, soil cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca, and most extractible nutrients. However, data suggested that tree growth and foliage nutrient content had not yet been significantly impacted by harvest treatments, whereas tree nutritional status was improved by P-fertiliser or wood ash. As expected, we observed a positive effect of wood ash application on soil pH and nutrient content but, like additional harvests, wood ash application decreased the pool of soil organic carbon (~10% of the initial stock with ~7% of N-total losses). ConclusionsOverall, this factorial experiment showed that exporting more forest biomass due to the additional harvesting of tree canopies, stumps and roots had negative consequences on the ecosystem biogeochemistry. Additional harvests have aggravated the poverty of the already oligotrophic soil, and decreased the soil organic carbon content. Importantly, applying nutrients as fertiliser or wood ash did not compensate for all the negative impacts of biomass exports and the method of wood ash recycling in forests could even decrease the soil organic carbon.