Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

An analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the production of commercial fertilizers, in relation to.. Dolejsi, Douglas 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
DolejsiDouglas_FRST_497_Graduating_Essay_2009.pdf [ 483.51kB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0103515.json
JSON-LD: 1.0103515+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0103515.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0103515+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0103515+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0103515+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0103515 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0103515.txt
Citation
1.0103515.ris

Full Text

An analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the production of commercial fertilizers, in relation to their use in carbon-sequestration reforestation projects.  Doug Dolejsi FRST 497 2010 Dr. Gary Bull  ABSTRACT This paper aims to analyze the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the production of commercial fertilizers, in relation to their use in carbonsequestration reforestation projects. It will look at the emissions related to the production and application of fertilizers. It will also analyze the benefits of the use of fertilizers for seedlings and near-end of rotation stands. Finally, the results will be discussed in terms of net carbon storage effects, and any possible implications for landowners looking to make decisions regarding carbon sequestration projects.  Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….4 Benefits of Fertilizer Use …………………………………………………………………5 Emissions from Production and Practice …………………………………………………8 Upstream vs. Downstream Emissions …………………………………………….8 Upstream Emissions from Production…………………………………………….8 Nitrogen Fertilizer Production ……………………………………………9 Phosphate Fertilizer Production …………………………………………13 Downstream Emissions from Application and Practice ………………………...14 Emissions as part of Carbon Storage ……………………………………………19 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………….22 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………29 Appendix 1: Results from Seedling Response Test ……………………………………..30 Appendix 2: Fertilizer Production Emissions Results …………………………………..32 Appendix 3: Ministry response charts for fertilization ………………………………….35 Appendix 4: Building Block Structure ………………………………………………….36 References ……………………………………………………………………………….38  Introduction The Kyoto Protocol currently recognize seven land-use, land use change, and forestry activities, including forest management, afforestation, reforestation, and (avoided) deforestation. As a result, many landowners are seeing carbon sequestration projects as a viable source of capital and investment for the managing of their lands. These various plantations and forest land vary significantly in the management practices, maintenance and implementation practices, and natural productivity, and thus each require different management strategies to maximize future benefits for yields, carbon storage, or whatever the long-term goals and values may be.  For those interested in carbon sequestration projects, enhanced forest management practices, include fertilization, are recommended in cases where such actions can make forest ecosystems more resilient to climate-induced stresses (T. Andrew Black et al., Carbon Sequestration in British Columbia’s Forests and Management Options, November 2008).  In the past, forest carbon assessments have focused primarily on changes in biomass carbon as a result of management activities, while assuming that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect forestry activities themselves are minimal (Edie Sonne, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Forestry Operations: A Life Cycle Assessment, July 2006). This assumption can not only result in the omission of potentially significant emission factors during the accounting process, but also inhibits the decision making process for landowners evaluating alternative land management practices (Sonne, 2006). Because of this, it is essential to quantify the direct and indirect carbon costs of various forest management practices in consideration of their effect on other ecosystem goods and services (Black et al., 2008).  Fertilization can be an effective means of increasing the merchantable yield and value of established forests. On nutrient-limited sites, fertilizers can improve the growth of individual stands (MOF, Forest Fertilization Guidebook, September 1995). In addition, fertilization can be effective in improving select nursery stock. Particularly in the early stages of tree improvement work, the select nursery stocks will be much more valuable than bed-run or run-of-the-woods seedlings (T.E. Maki, The Place of Fertilizers in Forest Tree Improvement, 1959).  Fertilizers are used commonly in agriculture, and with the growing population of the earth demanding more and more food every day, fertilizers are among the most important element to secure sufficient food production (Tore K. Jenssen, Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fertilizer Production, Amendment, April 2003). However, this does not mean that neither the industry nor the user to discount the unintended consequences and effects of its production or use (IFA, 2010).  Benefits and Usage of Fertilizer  Fertilizers are commonly used to accelerate stand development, but are equally useful to facilitate the rehabilitation of previously disturbed sites (MOF, 1995). The use of slow release fertilizers can be useful in establishing stands at the time of planting, particularly on sites where nutrient availability is a limiting factor. In addition, fertilizing can greatly aid in management objectives where rapid early growth is needed to either meet forest level objectives, or to allow the seedlings to establish themselves above surrounding vegetative competition (MOF, 1995). For example, in seed orchard establishment, there is a desire to grow clones to seed-bearing size as efficiently as possible, in order to produce a vigorous growth of understock in advance of the grafting program (Maki, 1959).  An additional benefit both practical and economic, to the application of a fertilizer to seedlings at the time of planting is the potential elimination of visits to the planting site in the future (MOF, 1995). This, however, may be less relevant for carbon-based forest management projects, where there is a constant need for auditing and verification due to the large values at stake.  According to a study presented by Gunnar Kongshaug at the IFA Technical Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco 1998, fertilizer production consumes approximately 1.2% of the world’s energy and is responsible for 1.2% of the total Greenhouse gas emissions (Gunnar Kongshaug, Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fertilizer Production, 1998).  Case Study: Seedling response of three agroforestry tree species to phosphorous fertilizer application in Bangladesh  The Journal of Forestry Research (2009) published a study of seedling response to phosphorous fertilizer application to three agroforestry tree species, conducted in Bangladesh to determine the effect on growth and nodulation capabilities (Uddin 2009). In the study, triple super phosphate (TSP) fertilizer [Ca(H2PO4)2; containing 48% of P2O5] was applied @ 80kg/ha to 6-month old seedlings of Albizia chinensis, Albizia saman, and Pongamia pinnta in nursery beds in Bangladesh. These fertilized seedlings were compared to seedlings in unfertilized beds, and it was revealed that seedling growth was enhanced significantly with the application of P-fertilizer. The study also suggested that in terms of nodule number and size there was a significant increase as a result of the P-fertilization (Uddin 2009).  *The results for the study can be found in tables 1 and 2 in appendix 1.  The results of the experiment showed that the application of P-fertilizer to the seedlings significantly enhanced the seedling growth of select species in nursery conditions (Uddin 2009). The overall growth rates of the selected species were increased in most cases, and the study concluded that growth was more as P-fertilizer was applied.  Result is unsurprising, as low soil fertility is one of the greatest biophysical constraints to agroforestry production (Ajayi 2007). This is particularly true in tropical areas where phosphorous can be the most common limiting nutrient, as it plays an essential role in plant nutrition and energy transfer (Ackerson 1985).  Emissions from Production and Practice Upstream vs. Downstream Emissions The Greenhouse Gas Protocol separates emissions into direct (―emissions from sources that are controlled by the company‖) and indirect (―emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the company but occur at sources owned or controlled by another company (World Resources Institute, 2004). As an example, during fertilization, N20 is emitted due to nitrogen fertilization (direct) and CO2 is emitted during combustion of diesel or jet fuel (indirect), depending on the application process.  Theses direct and indirect emissions are example of downstream emissions, as oppose to upstream emissions from the production and transport of the fertilizers. While a landowner is likely to be only responsible and/or get credit for on-site direct changes in emissions, it is still important to understand the complete ramifications of the landowner’s decision (Sonne 2006).  Upstream Emissions from Production  The most common types of fertilizers in commercial production are Nitrogencontaining and Phosphate Fertilizers. For emissions associated with nitrogen-containing fertilizer production, carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from natural gas combustion during ammonia synthesis, and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from nitric acid production (Wood and Cowie, 2004) are the key components. In addition, the production of methane (CH4) is also of great concern in terms of climate change perspectives.  In production, emissions may arise during the extraction, transport, and fertilizer production phase. In addition, the production phase requires a great deal of energy, and the GHG emissions from production are closely associated with energy consumption  (Wood and Cowie, 2004). Kongshaug (1998) estimates that fertilizer production consumes approximately 1.2% of the world’s energy.  The main energy requirement for production of fertilizers is linked to the nitrogen component; 94% for N, 3% for P2O5, and 3% for the K2o component on a global basis (Tore, 2003). Early oil and coal based ammonia plants could consume in the order of 5060 GJ/tonne N. In 2003, a common ammonia plant consumed approximately 34.5GJ / tonne N, and produced 1.97 tonnes CO2/ tonne N (Tore, 2003).  Nitrogen Fertilizer Production  Emissions factors for the following key nitrogen fertilizers and their intermediate products are of concern:  1. Ammonia (intermediate) 2. Nitric Acid (intermediate) 3. Ammonium Nitrate (AN), Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN), and ―Mean Nitrogen Fertilizer‖ (Wood and Cowie, 2004) 4. Urea and Urea Ammonium Nitrate (UAN)  1. Ammonia  Ammonia (NH3) is the primary input for the majority of worldwide nitrogen fertilizer production (DOE 2000; EFMA 2000a, Wood and Cowie 2004). The CO2 emissions from the production of ammonia account for the majority of emission resulting from nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing (Wood and Cowie, 2004).  Production Overview  NH3 is synthesized from a hydrogen and nitrogen mixture at an elevated temperature and pressure. Nitrogen is obtained from the air, Hydrogen from either steam reforming of natural gas (or other light hydrocarbons) or partial oxidation of heavy fuel oil or coal (Wood and Cowie, 2004). About 85% of the world’s ammonia production is based on steam reform (EFMA 2000a). About 80% of the world’s ammonia production uses natural gas for steam reforming (EFMA 2000a). Ammonia synthesis consumes around 25-35 GJ/tonnes of ammonia through steam reforming (Wood and Cowie 2004; Kongshaug 1998; DOE 2000). As a result of the energy required, CO2 emissions are the major component of GHG budgets for ammonia manufacturing (Wood and Cowie 2004).  *Table 3 in appendix 2 summarizes greenhouse gas emission factors for Ammonia Production.  2. Nitric Acid  Nitric Acid is an intermediate product in fertilizer manufacturing used in the production of Ammonium nitrate, Calcium nitrate, and Potassium Nitrate, which can be used as independent or compound fertilizers (Wood and Cowie 2004).  Production Overview  Most Nitric Acid is produced by catalytic oxidation of ammonia at high pressures and temperature (Wood and Cowie, 2004). This produced Nitrous Oxide (NO2), which undergoes oxidation to nitrogen dioxide.  The Nitrogen dioxide is then absorbed in water yielding a nitric acid solution (EFMA 200b). Nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen monoxide (NO, nitric oxide), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are all produced as by-products from the oxidation of ammonia (EFMA 2000b). The exothermic reaction from ammonia to nitric acid contributes a net steam export (Wood and Cowie 2004).**  Nitrous oxide (N2O) is the most significant GHG emitted from nitric acid production. It is deemed a highly ―effective‖ greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential 310 times greater than CO2 (IPCC 1996a).  *Table 4 in appendix 2 summarizes greenhouse gas emission factors for Nitric Acid production.  **Steam Credits  Many reactions along the production cycle of these fertilizers produce exothermic reactions and thus can create a net export of steam. This net export can be used to warrant emissions credits for the manufacturing process, or in-fact replace the combustion of fossil fuels elsewhere in the life cycle (Wood and Cowie 2004).  3. Ammonium Nitrate (AN), Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) and ―Mean Nitrogen Fertilizer‖ (N fertilizer)  Ammonium Nitrate is used commonly as a nitrogenous fertilizer across the world (EFMA 2000c, DOE 2000, Wood and Cowie 2004). Calcium ammonium nitrate is a derivative of ammonium nitrate and is a particularly important fertilizer in Europe (Wood and Cowie 2004). ―Mean Nitrogen Fertilizer‖ refers to a range of different common  fertilizer types (Wood and Cowie 2004).  Production Overview  Gaseous ammonia is neutralized with aqueous nitric acid. The solution is evaporated and formed into solid fertilizer in a granulation phase (EFMA 2000c) to produce Ammonium Nitrate. Mixing AN with dolomite or limestone produces CAN (EFMA 2000c).  N2O emissions from nitric acid production account for 60-78% of AN/CAN production CO2e emissions, and 52-61% of Mean Fertilizer production CO2e emissions (Wood and Cowie 2004).  *Table 5 in appendix 2 summarizes greenhouse gas emission factors for Ammonium Nitrate, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate, and ―Mean Nitrogen Fertilizer‖ production.  4. Urea and Urea-Ammonium Nitrate  Urea accounts for nearly 50% of world nitrogen fertilizer production (UNEP 1996).  Production Overview  Ammonia and Carbon dioxide are combined at high pressure to form ammonium carbonate (Wood and Cowie 2004). The Ammonium carbonate is heated and dehydrated to from urea and water (EFMA 2000d). Liquid UAN is formed by mixing and cooling urea and ammonium nitrate solutions (EFMA 2000d).  CO2 emissions during ammonia synthesis contribute to the majority of emissions from urea production. N2O emissions from nitric acid as an intermediate product of ammonium nitrate syntheses also accounts for a significant proportion of emissions from UAN production (Wood and Cowie 2004).  Phosphate Fertilizer Production  Emissions factors for the following key phosphate fertilizers are of concern:  1. Single Superphosphate (SSP) 2. Triple Superphosphate (TSP) 3. Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) 4. Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP) 5. ―Mean Phophate Fertilizer‖  Phosphate fertilizers are based on phosphoric acid (Kongshaug 1998), and are produced from various combinations of phosphate rock, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, and ammonia (Wood and Cowie 2004): Production Overview  SSP = phosphate rock and sulphuric acid TSP = phosphate rock and phosphoric acid DAP/MAP = phosphoric acid and ammonia Phosphoric acid is produced when sulphuric acid is reacted with naturally occurring phosphate rock (EFMA 2000f, DOE 2000).  More sulphuric acid is produced than any other chemical in the world, with the largest single user being the fertilizer industry (EFMA 2000e).  Sulphuric acid is required for production of phosphoric acid. It is a key chemical for the production of 80% of the world’s phosphate fertilizers (Torre, 2003). Emissions estimates relating to the consumption of fossil fuels as an energy source for the various production processes are largely dominated by CO2. The net emissions are largely determined by the method of sulphuric acid production (Wood and Cowie 2004).  Figure 1 and Tables 8 in Appendix 4 show a summary of fertilizer building blocks, their associated nutrient contents, and their accumulated energy consumption (from Torre 2003 and Kongshaug 1998).  Downstream Emissions from Application and Practice  As stated at near the beginning of this paper, forest carbon assessments have focused primarily on changes in biomass carbon as a result of management activities, while assuming that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect forestry activities themselves are minimal. In the following Case study, Edie Sonne (2006) conducted a study of forest activities to confirm or deny the claim that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forest activities are minimal in regards to forest carbon assessments. Sonne used the building block method adopted from Kongshaug (1998) to calculate emissions from fertilizer production, based on nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents and forms, and estimated data for pesticides, fertilizers, and transportation to storage from Ecoinvent Data Version 1.1 (Frischknecht and Jungbluth, 2004). Edie Sonne’s study constructed gas emissions budgets for 408 ―management regimes‖ regarding the direct and indirect emissions from Pacific Northwest (PNW) Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The management regimes were constructed using 3 seedling types, 2 site preparation methods, and 17 combinations of management intensity including  fertilization, herbicide application, precommercial and commercial thinning, and no treatment, as well as 4 different rotation ages (30, 40, 50, and 60yrs) (Sonne 2006).  The functional unit of the study was 1ha of forestland managed for 50yrs (Sonne 2006). The results are quantified into Greenhouse gas emissions per 100m3 of harvested timber volume, as well as on a per-hectare basis. Both a volume and area based approach are used in the study to avoid a discrepancy occurring as a result of the regimes with larger GHG emissions (i.e. more intensive forest management practices) yielding more volume (Sonne 2006).  Summary of data collections and analyses (Sonne 2006):  The direct and indirect emissions from various life cycle stages of managed forest stand rotation in individual components as determined by Sonne’s study were:  Table 8: Direct and Indirect Emission sources from forest activities (Sonne 2006) Emission Input  Direct  Indirect  Seedling Production Fertilizer  N2O, NOx, NH3  CO2, NOx, CO  Herbicide  CO2, NOx, CO  Fungicide  CO2, NOx, CO  Electricity  CO2, CH4, NOx, CO  Site Prep Herbicide Dead wood + fuel  CO2, CH4, NOx, CO CH4, NOx, CO  CO2, CH4, NOx, CO  CO2, NOx, CO  CO2, NOx, CO  CO, N2O, NOx, CO2  CO2, NOx, CO  Transportation to field Fuel Growth Enhancements Fertilizer application  Herbicide  CO2, NOx, CO  Fuel for harvesting  CH4, CO, N2O, NOx, CO2  CO2, CH4, NOx, CO  CO2, CH4, N2O, NOx, CO  CO2, CH4, NOx, COs  (thinning) Harvesting Fuel  From Sonne (2006)  The direct emissions from fertilization in seedling production were N2O, NOx, and NH3; the indirect emissions were CO2, NOx, CO. The direct emissions from fertilizer application during the rotation were CO, N2O, NOx, and CO2; the indirect emissions were CO2, NOx, and CO (table 8).  In the study, Carbon dioxide was the largest contributor of GHG emissions from management practices at two-thirds or 67%, N2O at 23%, and CH4 at 10% (table 9).  Table 9: Contributions of each GHG to total impact from Sonne 2006 Total emissions Rotation  CO2  N2O  CH4  Direct emissions only CO2  N2O  CH4  age Yr  %  30  57  31  12  51  36  13  40  66  24  10  62  28  10  50  72  19  8  74  20  6  60  73  19  8  70  23  8  Average  67  23  10  64  27  9  From Sonne (2006)  For the direct emissions, we see that the nitrous oxide emissions increased to 27% of the total GEG contribution. This increase is attributed to the anthropogenic N2O emissions resulting from nitrogen fertilization (Sonne 2006). This implies that the biggest  emissions factor during the application process is due to the release of N2O emissions onsite during the first year after fertilization.  Direct emissions for the study, normalized to 50yrs, averaged 8.6 megagrams (Mg) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) /ha, which accounted for 84% of the total GHG emissions from the average of the 408 regimes.  Harvesting contributed to the most emissions, (5.9MG per 700m3 harvested), followed by pile and burn site prep (4.0Mg CO2e /ha or 32%), and then thirdly fertilization (1.9Mg CO2e / ha or 15%) (Sonne 2006) (table 10).  Table 10: Contribution of each forest activity to overall GHG emissions (Sonne 2006) GHG emissions  Percent Contribution  Mg CO2e /ha /yr  %  Seedlings  0.05  <1  Pile and burn  4.0  32  Chemical site prep  0.12  1  Transportation (seedlings)  0.05  <1  Trans (large plug  0.15  1  Fertilization  1.9  15  Herbicide Treatment  0.15  1  Harvesting  5.9  51  seedlings)  From Sonne (2006)  Table 10 reveals that seedling production and transportation contributed less than 1% of the total GHG emissions when assessed on a per-hectare basis (Sonne 2006).  On average, the stands that were fertilized emitted 2.5 Mg CO2e / ha more over their rotation age (figure 2). The discrepancy of the contribution of fertilizer production and application (1.9MG CO2e/ha) and the average normalized difference in the rotations in figure 2 may be a result of an increase in yield, which may lead to higher fuel emissions to run the harvesting machinery (Johnson et al., 2002).  Figure 2: Normalization of GHG impact on fertilized stands by rotation normalized to 50 yr (per ha) (From Sonne 2006)  Figure 2 above shows normalized results from the study revealing the emissions of the fertilized and non-fertilized stands, when analyzed on a per-hectare basis (Sonne 2006). This appears to be a much larger discrepancy than previously seen, however it is important to remember that many of the fertilized stands produce greater volumes of timber, and thus the difference in CO2e (Mg /100m3) is significantly less.  30% of the 1.9Mg CO2e/ha for the fertilization Greenhouse gas emissions are upstream emissions resulting from production and transport. Fertilizer production is  highly energy intensive and can generate considerable Greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from CO2 from ammonia production, and NO2 from nitric acid production (Wood and Cowie, 2004). Thus:  1900kg CO2e * .30 = 570kg CO2e /ha /yr from production 1900 kg CO2e *.70 = 1330kg CO2e /ha /yr from application.  Emissions as part of Carbon Storage  Seedlings  The average Carbon Storage for the Sonne 2006 analysis is defined as the average amount of carbon stored per acre for each management regime, calculated by averaging the carbon storage in 5-yr increments. By comparing the results with the determined average carbon storage of each of the 408 regimes, Sonne calculated that the GHG emissions from forest activities accounted for an average of 4.5% of on-site average carbon storage (Sonne 2006). This varied with rotation age, with the earlier rotation ages producing a higher percentage of emissions to sequestration and the later rotations producing a lesser amount. This result is likely due to additional C storage occurring in the form of woody growth in later years. Table 11 summarized Sonne’s results in terms of GHG emissions to average carbon storage by rotation age (Sonne 2006):  Table 11: Percent of GHG emissions to average carbon storage (Sonne 2006) Rotation age  GHG emissions as % of  GHG emissions (incl.  Carbon storage  transportation) as % of average carbon storage  Yr 30  % 6.8  12.5  40  4.7  10.6  50  3.8  8.6  60  2.5  6.0 From Sonne (2006)  We can see that as the rotation age is increased, the amount of emissions as a % of Carbon storage decreases. This is due to the large amount of N2O emissions released on site during the first year of fertilization. Fertilization of a near-end-of-rotation coastal Fd stand with 200 kg N/ha had resulted an increase in NEP from 3.3 to 5.3 tonne C/ha/yr, yet, these results also revealed that ~5% of the applied N was lost in the form of highly potent N2O in the first year after fertilization (Jassal et al., 2008b). Thus, after accounting for NO2 and CO2 emissions from manufacturing, transport and application, the Greenhouse Gas global warming potential resulted in a decreased net change over the first year (Jassal et al., 2008b).  Analysis of the second year produced a similar increase in NEP as in the first year after fertilization; however there were no N2O emissions during the second year (Jassal et al., 2008b). Thus, these results suggest that N fertilization may in fact be viable in increasing C sequestration over the long run, when applied to near-end-of-rotation stands.  A report from the Pacific institute for Climate Solutions shows that recent research shows that net C sequestration in temperate and boreal forests has increased in response to elevated N deposition (Black et al., 2008).  Canary et al. (2000) observed that fertilization of 40 year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Washington at 1000 kg N/ha over 16 years resulted in an increase in C sequestration averaging 1 tonne C /ha/yr over 24 years (Black et al., 2008). N fertilization of these coastal Douglas-fir stands at a cost of $300/ha (including fertilizer and its aerial application) resulted in an additional sequestration of 7.3 Mg CO2 ha-1 y-1 (~7.5 m3 wood /ha/yr) in the first two years ( Jassal et al., 2008d).  A carbon balance study of containerized Larix gmelinii seedlings in the Russian Far East from 1998-2000 determined that carbon levels emitted to the atmosphere resulting from the inputs required in the seedling growing process exceeded the seedling’s sequestration rate by a ratio of 1:40 (Schlosser et al., 2002). The Assessment used mass spectrometry to determine the amount of carbon being sequestered by carbon growth, and determined that over a one year production cycle, the carbon content of the seedlings was ~0.516g per seedling, while the emissions averaged the equivalent of 20.8g of carbon per seedling. This results in a net deficit of 20.28g of carbon per seedling. The study determined the seedling would be in carbon deficit until they were an estimated 74.68cm tall (Schlosser et al., 2002).  Discussion  The following table is the source of the ministry standard response relationships for fertilizing of Coastal Douglas-fir (TIPSY 2007). The numbers, which represent the calculated fertilizer response used by Tipsy v. 4.1c, were originally generated by TASS, representing stands planted with 1200 trees/ha.  A range of site index potentials and varying application ages for the stands are included (Tipsy 4.1 2007). However, there is no clear account to how much or what type of fertilizer is used. Nonetheless, the results still clearly show the potential for accelerated stand development with the application of fertilizers.  The gain over 10 years is calculated as (From Tipsy 2007): Total volume gain (m3/ha) = fertilized growth – untreated growth Total volume gain (%) = 100 x fertilized growth/untreated growth Coastal Douglas-fir Site index  Application Gain in total volume  (m)  Height(m)  Age(yrs since planting)  (m3/ha)  (%)  10  5  22  3  21  10  10  56  4  31  10  15  137  3  50  15  5  16  6  19  15  10  32  13  33  15  20  96  9  53  15  25  182  4  44  20  5  13  11  21  20  10  29  23  36  20  20  55  25  56  20  25  82  18  53  20  30  129  11  46  25  5  12  18  23  25  10  20  35  33  25  20  40  40  50  25  30  74  25  43  30  5  10  18  17  30  10  17  32  23  30  20  32  39  32  30  30  54  30  29  30  40  90  19  30  35  5  9  2  1  35  10  15  4  2  35  20  27  4  2  35  30  43  3  2  35  40  66  3  3  35  45  83  2  3  Ministry Recommended Fertilization Response (from TIPSY 4.1 2007 incl. Ministry Standard Database, 2006)  The following table represents the ministry standard response for fertilizer treatment of Coastal Douglas-fir with a site index of 25m: Site  Application  index  Gain in total volume  (m)  Height(m)  Age(yrs  (m3/ha)  (%)  since planting) 25  5  12  18  23  25  10  20  35  33  25  20  40  40  50  25  30  74  25  43  Average  16.25  36.5  29.5  37.25  Table 12: ministry standard response for fertilizer treatment of coastal Fd with a SI 25.  As we can see there is a significant increase in the amount of growth over the unfertilized stands. Figure 3 below shows the relationship between the age of the stand being fertilized, and the response in volume.  % Volume Gain of SI25 Fd Fertilizer Application (By Age) 60  % Volume Gain  50  50 43  40 33  30 23  20 10 0 0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  Age of Application  Figure 3: Application age vs. % volume increase for fertilized coastal Fd stands  After approximately 40 years, there is a decrease in the effectiveness of fertilization, although the overall response still yields additional growth. This is likely due to increased mortality and crown cover, as a response to advanced stand development (Ministry Standard Database, 2006). This can be seen in figure 4 representing the m3/ha response of fertilization to the SI25 Fd:  Volume gain (m3/ha) of SI25 Fd Fertilizer Application (By Age) 45  Volume Gain (m3/ha)  40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  Age of Application  Figure 4: Application age vs. volume gain (m3/ha) for fertilized coastal Fd stands.  Additionally, the ministry recommends that for aerial fertilization, and reduction of 20% is recommended. The ministry used hand fertilization in their study to ensure 100% coverage (Ministry Standard Database, 2006). Thus, Example (Ministry Standard Database, 2006) Species and Density:  Coastal Fd, 1600 trees/ha  Planting Site:  SI 25  Application age:  40yrs  Ministry default response (from table 12):  50% gain  Effectiveness (from aerial distribution):  80%  Net Response (.50 * .80):  40%  *The response of the 40 year old coastal Douglas-fir stands can be seen in figures 5 and 6 in Appendix 3. Or, if we are to use the average numbers derived from table 12:  Species and Density:  Coastal Fd, 1600 trees/ha  Planting Site:  SI 25  Application age:  36.5 yrs  Ministry default response (from table 12):  37.25% gain  Effectiveness (from aerial distribution):  80%  Net Response (.3725 * .80):  29.8%  For this example, we can assume a fertilized response in volume gain of 30%. Tipsy’s sourced yield table derived from TASS v2.05.24b 97-oct-09 (using site curves from *Bruce (1981) represent an average stand volume from 247m3/ha for natural stands, to 383m3/ha in planted stands of Coastal Douglas-fir. If we are to apply the average net response of 29.8% over 10 years we get the following: Stand Volume (m3/ha) Stand Type  Volume Response Factor Fertilized Volume Gain  Natural  247  1.298  320.61  73.61  Planted  383  1.298  497.13  114.13  Thus, we can estimate that for a 1 decade fertilization response, we receive a gain of 114m3/ha in our stand. The following is a shorthanded estimation of tree volume to CO2e from the Feasibility Assessment of Afforestation for Carbon Sequestration (FAACS) Appendix B:  Tree Part  Main Stem  Volume (m3) Conversion factors Metric Tonnes  1.000 m3  Kg of CO2e  for tonnes CO2e  CO2e  (per 1m3)  1.0m3 x .37 x .5 x  .678 tonnes  678  .308 tonnes  454  (merchantable)  3.667  Non-merch top .454 m3  1.0m3 x .454 x .37  x .5 x .3667  and branches Below Ground  .396 m3  .0269 tonnes  396  1.255 tonnes  1850  x .5 x .3667  Root Mass 1.850 m3  Total  1.0m3 x .396 x .37  1.850m3 x .37 x .5 x .3667  Applied to our fertilized stand volume gain we get: CO2e Gain (Kg of CO2e) Stand Type  Gain (m3/ha)  Conversion Factor  Total CO2e storage  to CO2e  gained / ha  Natural  73.61  1850  136178.5kg CO2e  Planted  114.13  1850  211140.5kg CO2e  Sonne (2006) determined that roughly 1.9Mg CO2e /ha /yr was emitted due to fertilizing a stands rotation. However, 30% of this was indirect costs from production and transport (Sonne 2006): 1900kg CO2e * .30 = 570kg CO2e /ha /yr from production 1900 kg CO2e *.70 = 1330kg CO2e /ha /yr from application.  Over 10 years, these numbers become:  Emissions from production  5700 kg CO2e /ha  Emissions from application  13300 kg CO2e /ha  Total Emissions  19000 kg CO2e /ha  Thus, our emissions from the production, transport and application of fertilizers to the stands account for 9% - 14% of the on site storage of a 36 year old stand of Coastal Douglas-fir with a site index of 25. While these results may appear somewhat higher than Sonne’s in table 11, the numbers make reasonable sense: the fertilization in this example is occurring at ~ 35 years, and only takes into account the initial decade after fertilizing. The figures more reasonably represent the results from a 10 year rotation age. As seen from Jassal et al., 2008b, the majority of the application emissions occur in the initial year of application, thus  these emissions would realistically be spread out over the previous few decades.  Conclusion The Ministry of Forests and Range guidebook to fertilization suggests that a forest stands’ response to fertilization is best to be considered as a reduction in rotation length, i.e. an acceleration in stand development (MOF 1995). They also suggest that a fertilized crop will not generally differ significantly from a non-fertilized crop that is grown over a longer period of time (MOF 1995).  This, however, does fulfill the general goal of landowners who intend to use their forests for carbon sequestration practices: it provides an advantage for establishing seedlings, and allows for quicker establishment of the stand and thus quicker on-site storage.  Part of the objections commonly raised against the use of fertilizers at the time of planting is based on biological bases. It is suggested that during this time the critical need for the seedling is for moisture, not nutrients (Maki, 1966). In addition, it may be possible that fertilizing at the time of planting may stimulate vigorous growth of adjacent grass and vegetative competition (Maki 1966).  However, it is clear that in a nutrient deficient environment, the benefits of using fertilizers at the seedling stage can promote the health and vigor of the individuals (Uddin 2009). In addition, fertilization of near-end-of rotation stands can produce significant increased storage at more advance stages of the stand’s development (Black et al. 2008, Jassal et al., 2008b).  While the short term emissions and their related impact on carbon sequestration vary with the species, site productivity, and intensity of the practice, the long term benefits of the seedling establishment and reduction in rotation length make fertilization a viable option for landowners undertaking carbon sequestration projects.  Appendix 1: Results from Seedling Response Test to Fertilizers in Bangladesh (Uddin, 2009). The following controls (C) and treatments (T) were used: C20 – Seedlings of unfertilized plants harvested after 20 days C40 – Seedlings of unfertilized plants harvested after 40 days C60 – Seedlings of unfertilized plants harvested after 60 days C80 – Seedlings of unfertilized plants harvested after 80 days T20 – Seedlings of fertilized plants harvested after 20 days T40 – Seedlings of fertilized plants harvested after 40 days T60 – Seedlings of fertilized plants harvested after 60 days T80 – Seedlings of fertilized plants harvested after 80 days  Appendix 2: Fertilizer Production Emissions Results (Wood and Cowie 2004) Product Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia  Country  Composition g CO2e N:P:K Per kg N Per kg Product Norway 82:0:0 1829 1500 Netherlands 82:0:0 2637 2163 Europe 82:0:0 2087 1711 Europe Average 82:0:0 2329 1910 Europe Modern Tech 82:0:0 2024 1660 West Europe 82:0:0 1402-1585 1150-1300 Canada 82:0:0 1951 1600 USA (ammonia plant) 82:0:0 1536 1260 USA 82:0:0 1491 1223 Australia 82:0:0 1524-2195 1250-1800 From Wood and Cowie 2004  Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions factors for Ammonia Production (from Wood and Cowie 2004)  Product  Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid  Country  Composition N:P:K  g CO2e Per kg Product 2818-12681 620-2790 2818 <620 5636-7045 1240-1550 8454-10568 1860-2325 3100 682-1767 11977 2635 28188 <620 13384 2945 2818 620 10244 2253 12710 2796 9000 1980 2500 550 Per kg N  USA 22.2:0:0 Norway 22.2:0:0 Norway 22.2:0:0 Norway 22.2:0:0 Japan 22.2:0:0 Canada 22.2:0:0 Canada 22.2:0:0 USA 22.2:0:0 USA 22.2:0:0 Sweden 22.2:0:0 Sweden 22.2:0:0 Europe Ave 22.2:0:0 Europe 22.2:0:0 (modern) Netherlands 22.2:0:0 10851 Europe 22.2:0:0 9035 From Wood and Cowie 2004  2387 1987  Table 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions factors for Nitric Acid Production (from Wood and Cowie 2004)  Product  Country  AAN AN AN AN AN AN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN Mean N Fert Mean N Fert Mean N Fert Mean N Fert  Composition g CO2e N:P:K Per kg N Per kg Product Europe Ave 35:0:0 7030 246 Europe Ave 33.5:0:0 6806 2280 Europe Modern 33.5:0:0 2985 1000 Netherlands 33.5:0:0 7108 2381 UK 33.5:0:0 6536 2189 Europe 33.5:0:0 6726 2253 Sweden 27.6:0:0 8467 2336 Sweden 27.6:0:0 9562 2639 Sweden 27.6:0:0 9562 2601 Europe Ave 26.5:0:0 7481 1982 Europe Ave 26.5:0:0 6867 1820 Europe Modern 26.5:0:0 3018 800 Netherlands 27.9:0:0 6810 1900 Germany 28.6 7615 2178 Germany 27.7 5339 1479 Germany 27.7 5644 1563 USA 857 From Wood and Cowie 2004  Table 5: GHG emission factors for AN, CAN, and Mean N Fertilizers (from Wood and Cowie 2004)  Product Country Urea Urea Urea Urea UAN UAN UAN UAN  Composition g CO2e N:P:K Per kg N Per kg Product Europe Ave 46:0:0 4018 1848 Europe Ave 46:0:0 1326 610 Europe Modern 46:0:0 913 420 Europe 46:0:0 1703 785 Europe 32:0:0 3668 1173 Europe Ave 32:0:0 5762 1844 Europe Ave 32:0:0 4093 1310 Europe Modern 32:0:0 2000 640 From Wood and Cowie 2004  Table 6: GHG emissions factors for Urea and UAN production (from Wood and Cowie 2004)  Product SSP SSP SSP TSP  Country Europe Ave Europe Ave Europe Modern Europe Ave  Composition N:P:K:S 0:21:0:23 0:21:0:23 0:21:0:23 0:48:0:0  Per kg N -  g CO2e Per kg P2O5 1051 95 -238 1083  TSP TSP MAP MAP MAP DAP DAP DAP Mean P Fert Mean P Fert Mean P Fert P Fertilizer  Europe Ave 0:48:0:0 Europe Modern 0:48:0:0 Europe Ave 11:52:0:0 6392 Europe Ave 11:52:0:0 2818 Europe Modern 11:52:0:0 -2454 Europe Ave 18:46:0:0 4812 Europe Ave 18:46:0:0 2555 Europe Modern 18:46:0:0 -388 Germany 0:32.2:0:0 Germany 0:38.5:0:0 Germany 0:35.5:0:0 US From Wood and Cowie 2004  354 -416 1352 596 -519 1883 1000 -152 817 458 700 165  Table 7: GHG emission factors for phosphate fertilizers (from Wood and Cowie 2004)  Appendix 3: Ministry response charts for fertilization of 40 year old Coastal Fd with SI 25.  Figure 5: Fertilization response of 40yr old Coastal Fd (Total Volume Gain)  Figure 6: Fertilization response of 40yr old Coastal Fd (Total Volume of stands)  Appendix 4: Building Block Structure and associated energy use of different Fertilizer grades (From Kongshaug 1998) R a w m a t e r i a l I n t e r m e d i a t e B u i l d i n g b l o c k A m m o n i a  U r e a  N i t r i c a c i d  A N C N K N  P h o s p h a t e o r e  P h o s . a c i d  M A P D A P T S P S S P  S u l p h u r  S u l p h . a c i d  N a t u r a l g a s  A S  S a l t s , A d d i t i v e s B u i l d i n g b l o c k  F e r t i l i s e r g r a d e  B u i l d i n g b l o c k  Figure 1: Fertilizers broken into product building blocks (from Kongshaug 1998)  Table 8 - Accumulated Energy Consumption for Building Blocks and Some Fertilizer Grades (From Kongshaug 1998, and Torre 2003)  Product building blocks NH4 82-0-0 AP 11-49-0 NITRO AP 8.4-52-0 Urea 46-0-0 AN 35-0-0 AS 21-0-0-23 CN 15.5-0-0 KN 14-0-44 MAP 11-52-0 DAP 18-46-0 TSP 0-48-0 SSP 0-21-0-23 MOP 0-0-60 SOP 0-0-50-46 Liq. UAN 32-0-0 Derived products CAN 26.5  "Old" tech. GJ/t 41.0 9.0 7.5 27.6 19.1 9.8 12.1 19.1 9.2 12.3 4.2 1.0 4.0 2.0 28.8  Av. Europe GJ/t 32.0 5.0 7.2 22.1 13.5 6.0 6.4 11.3 5.0 7.7 2.5 0.3 3.0 1.4 21.9  Modern tech. GJ/t 28.3 -3.1 5.1 19.2 10.7 2.9 4.9 9.6 -3.5 -0.3 -2.9 -0.8 1.5 -0.7 18.2  "Old" tech. t CO2/t* 2.51 0.57 0.48 0.98 2.58 0.60 1.93 2.36 0.59 0.77 0.28 0.07 0.27 0.13 1.53  Av. Europe t CO2/t* 1.91 0.30 0.45 0.61 2.38 0.34 1.69 1.97 0.31 0.46 0.17 0.02 0.20 0.10 1.31  Modern tech. t CO2/t* 1.66 -0.24 0.31 0.42 1.05 0.14 0.65 0.95 -0.27 -0.07 -0.20 -0.05 0.10 -0.04 0.64  Feed energy GJ/t 23.37 3.14 2.57 13.11 10.28 5.99 4.55 4.24 3.14 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.12  Feed CO2 t CO2/t 1.33 0.18 0.15 0.75 0.59 0.34 0.26 0.24 0.18 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52  14.8  10.6  8.4  2.0  1.82  0.80  7.87  0.45  AN PK NPK NPK NPK NPK ANS UREAS NS  33.5 22-22-0 15-15-15 Phosph. acid 15-15-15 Nitrophosphate 15-15-15 AS/TSP/MOP 15-15-15 Urea/TSP/MOP 26-0-0-35 AN+AS 40-0-0-14 Urea + AS 24-0-0-12, AN + gypsum  18.3 3.5 10.2  13.0 2.4 6.9  10.2 -0.7 3.1  2.5 0.23 1.10  2.28 0.15 0.93  1.00 -0.05 0.30  9.84 0.00 4.37  0.56 0.00 0.25  8.5  6.7  4.9  0.87  0.80  0.40  3.45  0.20  9.4  6.0  1.2  0.59  0.36  0.04  4.13  0.24  11.4  8.8  5.8  0.48  0.30  0.10  4.27  0.24  13.2  8.8  5.9  1.3  1.12  0.49  7.53  0.43  23.3  18.2  15.3  0.9  0.55  0.35  11.40  0.65  13.4  9.5  7.6  1.8  1.64  0.72  7.10  0.40  References Ackerson RC. 1985. Osmoregulation in cotton in response to water stress. III. Effects of phosphorous fertility. Plant Physiology, 77. Ajayi OC. 2007. User acceptability of sustainable soil fertility technologies: lessons from farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice in Southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 30 T. Andrew Black et al., Carbon Sequestration in British Columbia’s Forests and Management Options, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. November 2008 Canary JD, Harrison RB, Compton JE, Chappel HN. 2000. Additional carbon sequestration following repeated urea fertilization of second-growth Douglasfir stands in western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 138, 225-232. European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Association (EFMA) 2000a. Production of Ammonia. Booklet No. 1 of 8: Best Available Techniques for Pollution Control in the European Fertilizer Industry. Ave. E van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium. European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Association (EFMA) 2000b. Production of Nitric Acid. Booklet No. 2 of 8: Best Available Techniques for Pollution Control in the European Fertilizer Industry. Ave. E van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium. European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Association (EFMA) 2000c. Production of Ammonium Nitrate and Calcium Ammonium Nitrate. Booklet No. 6 of 8: Best Available Techniques for Pollution Control in the European Fertilizer Industry. Ave. E van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium. European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Association (EFMA) 2000d. Production of Urea and Urea Ammonium Nitrate. Booklet No. 5 of 8: Best Available Techniques for Pollution Control in the European Fertilizer Industry. Ave. E van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B1160 Brussels, Belgium. European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Association (EFMA) 2000f. Production of Phosphoric Acid. Booklet No. 4 of 8: Best Available Techniques for Pollution Control in the European Fertilizer Industry. Ave. E van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium. European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Association (EFMA) 2000e. Production of Sulphuric Acid. Booklet No. 3 of 8: Best Available Techniques for Pollution Control in the European Fertilizer Industry. Ave. E van Nieuwenhuyse 4, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium.  Feasibility Assessment of Afforestation for Carbon Sequestration (FAACS). Appendix B: Conversion Factors and Formulas. Forest Fertilization Guidebook, http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/fert/ferttoc.htm. September 1995 Frischknecht, R., and N. Jungbluth (ed.) 2004. Overview and methodology. Rep. 1. Ecoinvent, Dubendorf, Switzerland. C. A. Hodge and Neculai N. Popovici, Pollution control in fertilizer production, 1994. http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VM5DFwntcJYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=r elated:-9EnDC3IRpAJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=_xViRTMjgO&sig=7t-hBDZAybUvT_rbirdB7dHPlc#v=onepage&q&f=false IFA: International Fertilizer Association. http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/HomePage/STATISTICS. Accessed April 1010. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996a. Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual, London, U.K. Jassal RS, Black TA, Chen B, Real R, Nesic Z, Spittlehouse D, Trofymow, AJ. 2008b. N2O emissions and carbon sequestration in a nitrogen-fertilized Douglas-fir stand. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, doi:10.1029/2008JG000764. Jassal RS, Black TA, Chen B, Bruemmer C, Spittlehouse DL, Nesic Z. 2008d. Enhancement of carbon sequestration in west coast Douglas-fir forests with nitrogen fertilization. AGU Fall Meeting, Paper # B31G-0383. Johnson, L.R., B. Lippke, and J.D. Marshall. 2002. Forest resources— Pacific Northwest and Southeast. Appendix A. In J. Bowers, D. Briggs, B. Lippke, J. Perez-Garcia, and J. Wilson (ed.) Life cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential building construction. Phase I Interim Research Report. Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), Seattle. Kongshaug, Gunnar. Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fertilizer Production, 1998 Sonne, Edie. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Forestry Operations: A Life Cycle Assessment, July 2006 T.E. Maki, The Place of Fertilizers in Forest Tree Improvement, 1959 T.E. Maki, Need for fertilizers in wood production, 1966. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/44279E/44279E04.HTM  Ministry Standard Database, 2006. Accessed through Tipsy 4.1 Help. MOF, Forest Fertilization Guidebook, http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/fert/ferttoc.htm. September 1995  Schlosser, William E., John H. Bassman, Philip R. Wandschneider and Richard L. Everett, A carbon balance assessment for containerized Larix gmelinii seedlings in the Russian Far East, March 2002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6X-459J5601&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F03%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_s ort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_useri d=10&md5=5988e8de1dac9df2e90f06106908bffe Tipsy Help. Tipsy v 4.1c Feb 2007 Tore K. Jenssen, Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fertilizer Production, Amendment, April 2003 Uddin, Mohammad Belal et al. Seedling response of three agroforestry tree species to phosphorous fertilizer application in Bangladesh: growth and nodulation capabilities, 2009 UNEP 1996. Mineral Fertilizer Production and the Environment, A Guide to Reducing the Environmental Impact of Fertilizer Production. Technical report No. 26. United Nations Environment Programme Industry and the Environment, Paris. US Department of Energy (DOE) 2000. Agricultural Chemicals: Fertilizers. Chapter 5 in Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Chemical Industry. Wood, Sam and Annette Cowie. A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors For Fertilizer Production, June 2004  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United Kingdom 3 3
United States 2 0
Norway 1 1
India 1 0
China 1 0
City Views Downloads
Harpenden 3 3
Shenzhen 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Oslo 1 1
Bangalore 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0103515/manifest

Comment

Related Items