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.
Current Forestry ReportsAgricultural 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.