For Minnesota, estimated merchantable wood volume is expected to increase from 21.294 billion cubic-feet to 22.895 billion (a change of 7.5%), while estimated sawlog wood volume is expected to increase from 8.6814 billion cubic-feet to 9.529 billion (9.8%). Estimated merchantable bole biomass is expected to increase from 324.71 million tons to 354.33 million (9.1%), while estimated stump biomass is expected to increase from 19.231 million tons to 21.246 million (10.5%), and estimated tops and limbs biomass is expected to increase from 82.37 million tons to 149.78 million (81.8%). Finally, estimated aboveground biomass is expected to increase from 462.96 million tons to 573.54 million, a change of 23.9%.
Figure 1: Percent difference in volume and biomass for Minnesota
The top ten species in Minnesota in terms of standing biomass are quaking aspen, paper birch, bur oak, northern red oak, black ash, black spruce, sugar maple, red pine, American basswood, and balsam fir. These species account for 66.4% of the total aboveground biomass and 65.8% of the total merchantable volume. For merchantable wood volume, the species with the smallest percent change was bur oak -2.5%, while the largest percent change was with red pine 21.5%. For total aboveground biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was bur oak 0.1%, while the largest percent change was with balsam fir 44.7%. For sawlog wood volume, the species with the smallest percent change was paper birch -0.3%, while the largest percent change was with red pine 22.2%. For merchantable bole biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was northern red oak -0.4%, while the largest percent change was with quaking aspen 39.9%. For stump wood and bark biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was sugar maple -4.8%, while the largest percent change was with American basswood 37.9%. For top and limb biomass, the species with the smallest percent change was black ash 28%, while the largest percent change was with balsam fir 222.3%.
Figure 2: Percent difference in total aboveground biomass and merchantable volume for the top ten species in Minnesota
Figure 3: Percent difference in component biomass and volume for the top ten species in Minnesota