## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensitivity Analyses
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Scenarios} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CanSM2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MMROC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MPI**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Semanions} & \(r=25\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=25\)(\(\%\)) & \(47\) & \(r=4\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=8\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=25\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=4\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=8\)(\(\%\)) & \((5)\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NW} & 1276 & 430 & 108 & 1285 & 424 & 109 & 1000 & 341 & 90 \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NE} & 800 & 305 & 81 & 800 & 304 & 81 & 887 & 306 & 82 \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{S} & 1631 & 522 & 122 & 1662 & 529 & 125 & 1518 & 485 & 115 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Semanions} & \(C=50\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=520\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5500\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5000\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5200\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5500\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5500\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5500\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5500\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5100\)(\(\%\)) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NV} & 865 & 811 & 430 & \(-177\) & 868 & 812 & 424 & \(-175\) & 789 & 723 & 341 & \(-251\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NE} & 748 & 662 & 305 & \(-285\) & 748 & 697 & 304 & \(-266\) & 755 & 686 & 306 & \(-280\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{S} & 955 & 896 & 522 & \(-80\) & 969 & 909 & 529 & \(-68\) & 943 & 858 & 485 & \(-111\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Semanions} & \(P=520\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) & \(P=500\)(\(\%\)) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NW} & 305 & 851 & & 304 & 871 & 306 & 892 & & & \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{S} & 532 & 1391 & & 1424 & & 485 & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Semanions} & \(P_{0}=55\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=50\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=55\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=55\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=5\)(\(\%\)) & \(P_{0}=5\)(\(\%\)) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NW} & 430 & 504 & 675 & 424 & 502 & 600 & 341 & 420 & 624 \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NE} & 305 & 379 & 573 & 304 & 384 & 589 & 306 & 307 & 601 \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{S} & 522 & 596 & 773 & 529 & 608 & 783 & 485 & 565 & 745 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values in parentheses represent optimal harvest age. For the analysis, each variable was varied while the remaining variables were held at baseline values of \(r=4\%\), \(C=5500\) ha\({}^{-1}\), and \(P=520\) m\({}^{-3}\), and \(P_{\text{S}}=58\) ton\({}^{-1}\)CO\({}_{2}\)  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Sensitivity analyses of wood plus carbon scenario, showing variation in NPV (5-ha\({}^{-1}\)) with varying discount rate (\(r\)), establishment cost (C), atmosphere value (\(P\)), and carbon price (\(P_{\text{S}}\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CanSM2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MMROC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MPI**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Semanions} & \(r=25\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=4\)(\(\%\)) & \((\%\)) & \(r=8\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=25\)(\(\%\)) & \(r=8\)(\(\%\)) & \((5)\) & \(r=25\)(\(\%\)) & \((46)\) & \(r=8\)(\(\%\)) & \((58)\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NW} & 666 & \(-136\) & \(-430\) & 661 & \(-137\) & \(-424\) & 391 & \(-226\) & \(-444\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{NE} & 267 & \(-285\) & \(-46\) & 261 & \(-269\) & \(-454\) & 277 & \(-203\) & \(-453\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{S} & 1012 & \(-51\) & \(-416\) & 1047 & \(-39\) & \(-409\) & 900 & \(-90\) & \(-419\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Semanions} & \(C=50\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=520\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5500\)(\(\%\)) & \(C=5000\)(\The optimal harvest age and related NPVs increased with increasing carbon price. In comparison to the wood-only results, the positive NPVs associated with the range of \(P_{\rm cs}\) values, indicate the significance of including \(C\) uptake benefits in this investment. These results also provide some evidence for the potential cost-effectiveness of black spruce regeneration efforts, as these values could be compared to other possible carbon sequestration activities.