Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “HARVESTING”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

Harvesting effects on wild bee communities in bioenergy grasslands depend on nesting guild

Conversion of annual crops to native perennial grasslands for bioenergy production may help conserve wild bees by enhancing nest and food resources. However, bee response to the disturbance of biomass harvesting may depend on their nesting location, thus their vulnerability to nest destruction, and the response of the forb community on which they forage. Moreover, because bees have long foraging ranges, effects of local harvesting may depend on the amount of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape. We performed a large-scale one- and two-year experiment in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA, respectively, to examine how grassland harvesting, landscape context, and study year affect the forb community, above- and belowground-nesting bee species richness, community composition, trap nest emergence, and visitation rate. In Wisconsin, harvesting increased forb richness, cover, and evenness compared to unharvested control sites. Harvesting negatively affected aboveground-nesting bee richness and emergence from trap nests, possibly because of nest destruction during the previous harvest. By contrast, harvesting positively affected belowground-nesting bee richness, possibly because of the greater food resource availability and reduced thatch allowing greater access to nesting sites in the soil. Harvesting also affected bee community composition, reflecting the increase in belowground-nesting species at harvested sites. Despite harvesting effects on forb and bee communities, there was no effect on flower visitation rate, indicating little effect on pollination function. We did not find a harvest by landscape context interaction, which, in combination with the negative harvesting effect on trap nest emergence, suggests that harvesting can affect local population growth rather than simply affecting forager aggregation in different resource environments. For bees, there was no harvest by study year interaction, indicating a consistent response over a short timescale. Similarly, in Michigan, belowground-nesting species also responded positively to harvesting, which was more pronounced in sandier soils that are preferred for nesting. However, other components of the Michigan bee and forb communities were not significantly affected by biomass harvesting. Overall, our study demonstrates that harvesting grasslands can positively affect the ~80% of bee species that nest belowground by enhancing nest and/or forage resources, but that conserving aboveground nesters may require leaving some area unharvested.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Data from: Harvesting effects on wild bee communities in bioenergy grasslands depend on nesting guild

Conversion of annual crops to native perennial grasslands for bioenergy production may help conserve wild bees by enhancing nest and food resources. However, bee response to the disturbance of biomass harvesting may depend on their nesting location, thus their vulnerability to nest destruction, and the response of the forb community on which they forage. Moreover, because bees have long foraging ranges, effects of local harvesting may depend on the amount of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape. We performed a large-scale one- and two-year experiment in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA, respectively, to examine how grassland harvesting, landscape context, and study year affect the forb community, above- and belowground-nesting bee species richness, community composition, trap nest emergence, and visitation rate. In Wisconsin, harvesting increased forb richness, cover, and evenness compared to unharvested control sites. Harvesting negatively affected aboveground-nesting bee richness and emergence from trap nests, possibly because of nest destruction during the previous harvest. By contrast, harvesting positively affected belowground-nesting bee richness, possibly because of the greater food resource availability and reduced thatch allowing greater access to nesting sites in the soil. Harvesting also affected bee community composition, reflecting the increase in belowground-nesting species at harvested sites. Despite harvesting effects on forb and bee communities, there was no effect on flower visitation rate, indicating little effect on pollination function. We did not find a harvest by landscape context interaction, which, in combination with the negative harvesting effect on trap nest emergence, suggests that harvesting can affect local population growth rather than simply affecting forager aggregation in different resource environments. For bees, there was no harvest by study year interaction, indicating a consistent response over a short timescale. Similarly, in Michigan, belowground-nesting species also responded positively to harvesting, which was more pronounced in sandier soils that are preferred for nesting. However, other components of the Michigan bee and forb communities were not significantly affected by biomass harvesting. Overall, our study demonstrates that harvesting grasslands can positively affect the 80% of bee species that nest belowground by enhancing nest and/or forage resources, but that conserving aboveground-nesters may require leaving some area unharvested.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Renewal of Collaborative Research: Economically Viable Forest Harvesting Practices That Increase Carbon Sequestration

Forests provide wildlife habitat, water and air purification, climate moderation, and timber and nontimber products. Concern about climate change has put forests in the limelight as sinks of atmospheric carbon. The C stored in the global vegetation, mostly in forests, is nearly equivalent to the amount present in atmospheric CO 2 . Both voluntary and government-mandated carbon trading markets are being developed and debated, some of which include C sequestration resulting from forest management as a possible tradeable commodity. However, uncertainties regarding sources of variation in sequestration rates, validation, and leakage remain significant challenges for devising strategies to include forest management in C markets. Hence, the need for scientifically-based information on C sequestration by forest management has never been greater. The consequences of forest management on the US carbon budget are large, because about two-thirds of the ≈300 million hectare US forest resource is classified as 'commercial forest.' In most C accounting budgets, forest harvesting is usually considered to cause a net release of C from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere. However, forest management practices could be designed to meet the multiple goals of providing wood and paper products, creating economic returns from natural resources, while sequestering C from the atmosphere. The shelterwood harvest strategy, which removes about 30% of the basal area of the overstory trees in each of three successive harvests spread out over thirty years as part of a stand rotation of 60-100 years, may improve net C sequestration compared to clear-cutting because: (1) the average C stored on the land surface over a rotation increases, (2) harvesting only overstory trees means that a larger fraction of the harvested logs can be used for long-lived sawtimber products, compared to more pulp resulting from clearcutting, (3) the shelterwood cut encourages growth of subcanopy trees by opening up the forest canopy to increasing light penetration. Decomposition of onsite harvest slash and of wastes created during timber processing releases CO 2 to the atmosphere, thus offsetting some of the C sequestered in vegetation. Decomposition of soil C and dead roots may also be temporarily stimulated by increased light penetration and warming of the forest floor. Quantification of these processes and their net effect is needed. We began studying C sequestration in a planned shelterwood harvest at the Howland Forest in central Maine in 2000. The harvest took place in 2002 by the International Paper Corporation, who assisted us to track the fates of harvest products (Scott et al., 2004, Environmental Management 33: S9-S22). Here we present the results of intensive on-site studies of the decay of harvest slash, soil respiration, growth of the remaining trees, and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2 during the first six years following the harvest. These results are combined with calculations of C in persisting off-site harvest products to estimate the net C consequences to date of this commercial shelterwood harvest operation. Tower-based eddy covariance is an ideal method for this study, as it integrates all C fluxes in and out of the forest over a large 'footprint' area and can reveal how the net C flux, as well as gross primary productivity and respiration, change following harvest. Because the size of this experiment precludes large-scale replication, we are use a paired-airshed approach, similar to classic large-scale paired watershed experiments. Measurements of biomass and C fluxes in control and treatment stands were compared during a pre-treatment calibration period, and then divergence from pre-treatment relationships between the two sites measured after the harvest treatment. Forests store carbon (C) as they accumulate biomass. Many forests are also commercial sources of timber and wood fiber. In most C accounting budgets, forest harvesting is usually considered to cause a net release of C from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere. However, it might also be possible for commercial use of forests to contribute to terrestrial sequestration of C. The objective of the our research project is to determine whether shelterwood cutting regimes now being adopted in the commercial forests of Maine and other areas of the country can achieve these multiple goals.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geographic Information System Mapping Tool for Rainwater Harvesting in the United States

The Rainwater Harvesting Tool is a publicly available web-based geographic information system tool developed using geospatial analysis in combination with historic ZIP Code level monthly average precipitation and evapotranspiration data across the United States to help select potential locations for harvesting rainwater. Rainwater harvesting can provide a key source of alternative water for a variety of uses including landscape irrigation, vehicle wash, cooling tower makeup, dust suppression, and toilet flushing. Rainwater harvesting can help support institutional, commercial, and residential buildings in diversifying water sources and offset the use of freshwater. This tool aims to help organizations strategically target locations to implement rainwater harvesting systems. The metric used in the tool is called the rainwater harvesting potential, which is a normalized metric, measured in inches per year. The rainwater harvesting potential describes the amount of rainwater that can be reasonably collected and stored at a specific location. This metric was used to rank areas delineated by ZIP Codes across the US, from lowest to highest to show the relative availability of rainwater for harvesting. Two mapping layers are included in the tool that show the general rainwater harvesting potential for all applications and a layer that specifically shows the potential for harvesting rainwater to supply irrigation The Rainwater Harvesting Tool allows users to view overall trends across the United States, while also allowing the user to zoom in to a scale where ZIP Code boundaries are clearly delineated. The tool can be used to help organizations with buildings located in multiple regions to strategically identify where to install rainwater harvesting systems and prioritize locations that may be optimal for rainwater harvesting.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2013

Economic Impact of Harvesting Corn Stover under Time Constraint: The Case of North Dakota

This study examines the impact of stochastic harvest field time on profit maximizing potential of corn cob/stover collection in North Dakota. Three harvest options are analyzed using mathematical programming models. Our findings show that under the first corn grain only harvest option, farmers are able to complete harvesting corn grain and achieve maximum net income in a fairly short amount of time with existing combine technology. However, under the second simultaneous corn grain and cob (one-pass) harvest option, farmers generate lower net income compared to the net income of the first option. This is due to the slowdown in combine harvest capacity as a consequence of harvesting corn cobs. Under the third option of separate corn grain and stover (two-pass) harvest option, time allocation is the main challenge and our evidence shows that with limited harvest field time available, farmers find it optimal to allocate most of their time harvesting grain and then proceed to harvest and bale stover if time permits at the end of harvest season. The overall findings suggest is that it would be more economically efficient to allow a firm that is specialized in collecting biomass feedstock to participate in cob/stover harvest business.

Maung, Thein A.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Harvest Intensity Effects on Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity Are Dependent on Regional Climate in Douglas-Fir Forests of British Columbia

Temperate forests provide crucial ecosystems services as living sinks for atmospheric carbon (C) and repositories of biodiversity. Applying harvesting at intensities that minimize losses offers one means for mitigating global change. However, little is known of overstory retention levels that best conserve ecosystem services in different regional climates, and likewise as climate changes. To quantify the effect of harvest intensity on C stocks and biodiversity, we compared five harvesting intensities (clearcutting, seedtree retention, 30% patch retention, 60% patch retention, and uncut controls) across a climatic aridity gradient that ranged from humid to semi-arid in the Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests of British Columbia. We found that increased harvesting intensity reduced total ecosystem, above ground, and live tree C stocks 1 year post-harvest, and the magnitude of these losses were negatively correlated with climatic aridity. In humid forests, total ecosystem C ranged from 50% loss following clearcut harvest, to 30% loss following large patch retention harvest. In arid forests this range was 60 to 8% loss, respectively. Where lower retention harvests are sought, the small patch retention treatment protected both C stocks and biodiversity in the arid forests, whereas the seedtree method performed as well or better in the humid forests. Below ground C stocks declined by an average of 29% after harvesting, with almost all of the loss from the forest floor and none from the mineral soil. Of the secondary pools, standing and coarse deadwood declined in all harvesting treatments regardless of cutting intensity or aridity, while C stocks in fine fuels and stumps increased. The understory plant C pool declined across all harvesting intensities in the humid forests, but increased in arid forests. Shannon’s diversity and richness of tree and bryoid species declined with harvesting intensity, where tree species losses were greatest in the humid forests and bryoid losses greatest in arid forests. Shrub and herb species were unaffected. This study showed that the highest retention level was best at reducing losses in C stocks and biodiversity, and clearcutting the poorest, and while partial retention of canopy trees can reduce losses in these ecosystem services, outcomes will vary with climatic aridity.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗