Cited by 275Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementForest Management and PolicyForest ecology and management

Stump Harvesting for Bioenergy - A Review of the Environmental Impacts

Walmsley, J. D., Godbold, D. L.·2010·Forestry

Abstract

Stump harvesting signifies an intensification of forest management compared with conventional stem-only or above-ground biomass-only harvesting. There are many practical and perceived benefits of stump harvesting. These include (1) the production of woodfuel; (2) fossil fuel substitution; (3) additional revenue for forest owners; (4) improved site preparation and (5) potential reduction of Heterobasidion . However, evidence suggests that, in the absence of appropriate precautionary measures, stump harvesting will lead to many undesirable environmental impacts. These include (1) removal of soil organic matter inputs; (2) adverse impacts on forest soil carbon stores and greenhouse gas emissions; (3) increased soil erosion; (4) increased soil compaction; (5) depletion of soil nutrient stocks and changes in nutrient cycling; (6) unknown impacts on future productivity; (7) loss of valuable habitat for fungi, mosses, bryophytes and insects and (8) increase in non-forest vegetation and additional herbicide requirements. To minimize environmental impacts, best practice guidelines should be developed and communicated. Research to date has focussed on the impact of stump removal on the incidence of root diseases and has limited applicability to healthy uninfected stands. Additional research is required to understand fully the environmental impacts, particularly how stump harvesting influences the forest soil carbon balance and forest nutrient stocks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/forestry/cpp028

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walmsley, J. D., & Godbold, D. L.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Venue
Forestry
Published
2009-12-03
Volume
83
Issue
1
Pages
17-38
ISSN
  • 0015-752X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3626
OpenAlex
W2098767243
Cited by
275
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 42
FWCI
35.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Forestry An International Journal of Forest Research (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
stump harvesting, bioenergy, fuelwood, environmental impact, soil organic matter, soil carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, soil erosion, soil compaction, soil nutrient cycling, Heterobasidion, root diseases, soil preparation, forest management intensification, non-forest vegetation, herbicides, forest biodiversity, fossil fuel substitution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review