Comparison of Carbon Stock and Sequestration Between Managed and Unmanaged Forests in Europe, and their Trade-off with other Ecosystem Services

IF 11.6 1区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY
Jonas Simons, Daniel Nadal-Sala, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Ben Somers, Aldemar Carabajo Hidalgo, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Cosmin Coșofreț, Yannick De Win, Saskia Dröge, Christophe Metsu, Laxmi Moktan, Kim Naudts, Ilié Storms, Celia Yagüe Hurtado, Bart Muys, Santi Sabaté
{"title":"Comparison of Carbon Stock and Sequestration Between Managed and Unmanaged Forests in Europe, and their Trade-off with other Ecosystem Services","authors":"Jonas Simons, Daniel Nadal-Sala, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Ben Somers, Aldemar Carabajo Hidalgo, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Cosmin Coșofreț, Yannick De Win, Saskia Dröge, Christophe Metsu, Laxmi Moktan, Kim Naudts, Ilié Storms, Celia Yagüe Hurtado, Bart Muys, Santi Sabaté","doi":"10.1007/s40725-026-00286-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose of Review Forests play a crucial role in carbon sequestration and storage, yet uncertainty remains about carbon stocks and sequestration differences between managed and unmanaged forests, which has resulted in considerable scientific and policy debate. This review synthesizes European evidence comparing managed and unmanaged forests addressing three questions: (1) what are the differences in carbon stock and sequestration for all carbon pools between managed and unmanaged forests, (2) what are trade-offs and synergies with other ecosystem services when managing for carbon, and (3) what are limitations of forest management research in identifying trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services? Recent Findings This review shows that unmanaged forests are important for long-term carbon storage, containing 34% more above-ground biomass carbon, and 246% more deadwood, though deadwood contribution to total carbon stock is small. Soil carbon stocks only differ marginally with forest management, emphasizing the importance of avoiding losses through intense disturbance. All carbon stocks show effects of time since management abandonment. Moreover, several knowledge gaps remain: (1) carbon flux measurements for comparable managed and unmanaged forests are less common compared to stocks, but would greatly enhance understanding of carbon dynamics, (2) below-ground (root) carbon stocks are overlooked, and (3) trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services are frequently reported, but their assessment still needs to be routinely integrated in comparative forest management research. Summary Unmanaged forests contain larger carbon stocks than managed forests, especially after long times since abandonment (>100 years). Carbon increases can be quick (deadwood), intermediate (above-ground biomass) or slow (soil). Below-ground biomass carbon and carbon fluxes in all pools remain important knowledge gaps, warranting further research.","PeriodicalId":48653,"journal":{"name":"Current Forestry Reports","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Forestry Reports","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-026-00286-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of Review Forests play a crucial role in carbon sequestration and storage, yet uncertainty remains about carbon stocks and sequestration differences between managed and unmanaged forests, which has resulted in considerable scientific and policy debate. This review synthesizes European evidence comparing managed and unmanaged forests addressing three questions: (1) what are the differences in carbon stock and sequestration for all carbon pools between managed and unmanaged forests, (2) what are trade-offs and synergies with other ecosystem services when managing for carbon, and (3) what are limitations of forest management research in identifying trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services? Recent Findings This review shows that unmanaged forests are important for long-term carbon storage, containing 34% more above-ground biomass carbon, and 246% more deadwood, though deadwood contribution to total carbon stock is small. Soil carbon stocks only differ marginally with forest management, emphasizing the importance of avoiding losses through intense disturbance. All carbon stocks show effects of time since management abandonment. Moreover, several knowledge gaps remain: (1) carbon flux measurements for comparable managed and unmanaged forests are less common compared to stocks, but would greatly enhance understanding of carbon dynamics, (2) below-ground (root) carbon stocks are overlooked, and (3) trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services are frequently reported, but their assessment still needs to be routinely integrated in comparative forest management research. Summary Unmanaged forests contain larger carbon stocks than managed forests, especially after long times since abandonment (>100 years). Carbon increases can be quick (deadwood), intermediate (above-ground biomass) or slow (soil). Below-ground biomass carbon and carbon fluxes in all pools remain important knowledge gaps, warranting further research.
欧洲有管理和无管理森林的碳储量和固存比较及其与其他生态系统服务的权衡
森林在固碳和封存方面发挥着至关重要的作用,然而,关于管理森林和非管理森林之间的碳储量和固碳差异仍然存在不确定性,这导致了相当大的科学和政策辩论。本综述综合了比较管理和非管理森林的欧洲证据,解决了三个问题:(1)管理和非管理森林在所有碳库的碳储量和固存方面存在什么差异;(2)在碳管理时与其他生态系统服务的权衡和协同作用是什么;(3)森林管理研究在确定生态系统服务之间的权衡和协同作用方面存在什么局限性?这篇综述表明,未管理的森林对长期碳储存很重要,其地上生物量碳含量高出34%,枯木含量高出246%,尽管枯木对总碳储量的贡献很小。土壤碳储量与森林管理方式的差异很小,强调了避免因强烈干扰而损失的重要性。所有碳储量均表现出自管理放弃以来的时间效应。此外,还存在一些知识空白:(1)与森林储量相比,对可比管理和非管理森林的碳通量测量不太常见,但可以大大提高对碳动态的理解;(2)地下(根)碳储量被忽视;(3)生态系统服务之间的权衡和协同作用经常被报道,但它们的评估仍然需要常规地纳入比较森林管理研究。非管理森林比管理森林含有更多的碳储量,特别是在废弃后很长一段时间(100年)。碳的增加可以是快速的(枯木),中间的(地上生物量)或缓慢的(土壤)。地下生物量碳和所有碳库的碳通量仍然是重要的知识空白,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Forestry Reports
Current Forestry Reports Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
2.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Current Forestry Reports features in-depth review articles written by global experts on significant advancements in forestry. Its goal is to provide clear, insightful, and balanced contributions that highlight and summarize important topics for forestry researchers and managers. To achieve this, the journal appoints international authorities as Section Editors in various key subject areas like physiological processes, tree genetics, forest management, remote sensing, and wood structure and function. These Section Editors select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that focus on new developments and recently published papers of great importance. Moreover, an international Editorial Board evaluates the yearly table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their specific country or region, and ensures that the topics are up-to-date and include emerging research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书