Quantifying the impact of key factors on the carbon mitigation potential of managed temperate forests

Background

Forests mitigate climate change by reducing atmospheric \(\mathrm {CO_2}\)-concentrations through the carbon sink in the forest and in wood products, and substitution effects when wood products replace carbon-intensive materials and fuels. Quantifying the carbon mitigation potential of forests is highly challenging due to the influence of multiple important factors such as forest age and type, climate change and associated natural disturbances, harvest intensities, wood usage patterns, salvage logging practices, and the carbon-intensity of substituted products. Here, we developed a framework to quantify the impact of these factors through factorial simulation experiments with an ecosystem model at the example of central European (Bavarian) forests.

Results

Our simulations showed higher mitigation potentials of young forests compared to mature forests, and similar ones in broad-leaved and needle-leaved forests. Long-lived wood products significantly contributed to mitigation, particularly in needle-leaved forests due to their wood product portfolio, and increased material usage of wood showed considerable climate benefits. Consequently, the ongoing conversion of needle-leaved to more broad-leaved forests should be accompanied by the promotion of long-lived products from broad-leaved species to maintain the product sink. Climate change (especially increasing disturbances) and decarbonization were among the most critical factors influencing mitigation potentials and introduced substantial uncertainty. Nevertheless, until 2050 this uncertainty was narrow enough to derive robust findings. For instance, reducing harvest intensities enhanced the carbon sink in our simulations, but diminished substitution effects, leading to a decreased total mitigation potential until 2050. However, when considering longer time horizons (i.e. until 2100), substitution effects became low enough in our simulations due to expected decarbonization such that decreasing harvests often seemed the more favorable solution.

Conclusion

Our results underscore the need to tailor mitigation strategies to the specific conditions of different forest sites. Furthermore, considering substitution effects, and thoroughly assessing the amount of avoided emissions by using wood products, is critical to determine mitigation potentials. While short-term recommendations are possible, we suggest risk diversification and methodologies like robust optimization to address increasing uncertainties from climate change and decarbonization paces past 2050. Finally, curbing emissions reduces the threat of climate change on forests, safeguarding their carbon sink and ecosystem services.