CO2 fluxes before and after partial deforestation of a Central European spruce forest

Ney, Patrizia; Graf, Alexander; Bogena, Heye; Diekkrüger, Bernd; Drüe, Clemens; Esser, Odilia; Heinemann, Günther; Klosterhalfen, Anne; Pick, Katharina; Pütz, Thomas; Schmidt, Marius; Valler, Veronika; Vereecken, Harry

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.04.009

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taking only the snow free period into account, Payeur-Poirier et al [47] found C-sink status by an 8-year-old spruce stand. Nevertheless, stands in other locations take longer to become C-sinks, up to 10 to 20 years in other boreal ecosystems [7,16,46,48,49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Carbon Sequestration in a Young Forest Ecosystem after Clear-Cutting

Rebane

Jõgiste

Kiviste

et al. 2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large area of Estonian hemiboreal forest is recovering from clear-cut harvesting and changing carbon (C) balance of the stands. However, there is a lack of information about C- source/sink relationships during recovery of such stands. The eddy covariance technique was used to estimate C-status through net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 in two stands of different development stages located in southeast Estonia in 2014. Measured summertime (June–September) mean CO2 concentration was 337.75 ppm with mean NEE −1.72 µmol m−2 s−1. June NEE was −4.60 µmol m−2 s−1; July, August, and September NEE was −1.17, −0.77, and −0.25 µmol m−2 s−1, respectively. The two stands had similar patterns of CO2 exchange; measurement period temperature drove NEE. Our results show that after clear-cutting a 6-year-old forest ecosystem was a light C-sink and 8-year-old young stand demonstrated a stronger C-sink status during the measurement period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Carbon Sequestration in a Young Forest Ecosystem after Clear-Cutting

Rebane

Jõgiste

Kiviste

et al. 2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…NEE1,2 data are derived from measurement of gaseous molecular CO 2 vertical fluxes (Baldocchi, Chu & Reichstein, 2018; Baldocchi & Penuelas, 2019) and are based on globally applied and standardized eddy covariance methods (Baldocchi, 2003; Baldocchi, 2014) to quantify NEE (Chapin et al, 2006; Luyssaert et al, 2009) as tCO 2 e or gC m −2 yr −1 . NEE data, available from the Fluxnet database (Fluxnet, 2019), are routinely employed to test significance of trends for forest growth (Ney et al, 2019), soil and ecosystem respiration (Bond-Lamberty & Thomson, 2010; Göckede et al, 2019), fire disturbance (Rocha & Shaver, 2011) and effects of climate change on diverse ecosystems (Yu et al, 2019), similar to the analytical approach employed in this report. Additional information for NEE projects is described in the endnotes 4…”

Section: Literature Survey Data Sources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets

Marino

Mincheva

Doucett

2019

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The commercial asset value of sequestered forest carbon is based on protocols employed globally; however, their scientific basis has not been validated. We review and analyze commercial forest carbon protocols, claimed to have reduced net greenhouse gas emissions, issued by the California Air Resources Board and validated by the Climate Action Reserve (CARB-CAR). CARB-CAR forest carbon offsets, based on forest mensuration and model simulation, are compared to a global database of directly measured forest carbon sequestration, or net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of forest CO2. NEE is a meteorologically based method integrating CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere, forest and soils and is independent of the CARB-CAR methodology. Annual carbon accounting results for CAR681 are compared with NEE for the Ameriflux site, Howland Forest Maine, USA, (Ho-1), the only site where both methods were applied contemporaneously, invalidating CARB-CAR protocol offsets. We then test the null hypothesis that CARB-CAR project population data fall within global NEE population values for natural and managed forests measured in the field; net annual gC m−2yr−1 are compared for both protocols. Irrespective of geography, biome and project type, the CARB-CAR population mean is significantly different from the NEE population mean at the 95% confidence interval, rejecting the null hypothesis. The CARB-CAR population exhibits standard deviation ∼5× that of known interannual NEE ranges, is overcrediting biased, incapable of detecting forest transition to net positive CO2 emissions, and exceeds the 5% CARB compliance limit for invalidation. Exclusion of CO2 efflux via soil and ecosystem respiration precludes a valid net carbon accounting result for CARB-CAR and related protocols, consistent with our findings. Protocol invalidation risk extends to vendors and policy platforms such as the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and the Paris Agreement. We suggest that CARB-CAR and related protocols include NEE methodology for commercial forest carbon offsets to standardize methods, ensure in situ molecular specificity, verify claims of carbon emission reduction and harmonize carbon protocols for voluntary and compliance markets worldwide.

show abstract

“…Eddy covariance monitors carbon dynamics following high severity fires that destroy forest landscapes, in some cases approximating 100% deforestation. For example, [66] reports a switch to positive emissions following deforestation and clear cut with gradual annual increases in net forest carbon sequestration towards a switch back to negative emissions, a pattern reported by similar studies [65]- [69], a scenario precluded from detection and quantification employing CFCPs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Commercial Forest Carbon Protocol Over-credit Bias Delimited by Zero-threshold Carbon Accounting

Marino¹,

Bautista²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the use of commercial forest carbon protocols (CFCPs) for more than two decades, claiming ~566 MMtCO2e and a market value of ~USD $15.7 billion, comparative analysis of CFCP methodology and offset results is limited. In this study, five widely used biometric-based CFCPs are characterized, and common characteristics and differences are identified. CFCP claims of net forest carbon sequestration are compared with results of directly measured CO2 by eddy covariance, a meteorological method integrating gross vertical fluxes of forest and soil carbon, and the only alternative non-biometric source of net forest carbon sequestration data available. We show here that CFCPs share a structural feature delimiting forest carbon values by zero-threshold carbon accounting (gC m-2 ≤ 0), a pattern opposite to natural emissions of forest CO2 exchange based on direct measurement and a fundamental biological constraint on net forest carbon storage (i.e., soil efflux, ecosystem respiration). Exclusion of forest CO2 sources to the atmosphere precludes net carbon accounting, resulting in unavoidable over-crediting of CFCP project offsets. CFCP carbon results are significantly different from global forest CO2 net ecosystem exchange population results (FluxNet2015 gC m-2) at the 95% to 99.99% confidence levels, inferring an annual median error of ~247% (gC m-2), consistent with over-crediting. Direct CO2 measurement provides an urgently needed alternative method for commercial forest carbon products that has the potential to harmonize global markets and catalyze the role of forests in managing climate change through nature-based solutions.

show abstract

CO2 fluxes before and after partial deforestation of a Central European spruce forest

Cited by 32 publications

References 83 publications

Patterns of Carbon Sequestration in a Young Forest Ecosystem after Clear-Cutting

Patterns of Carbon Sequestration in a Young Forest Ecosystem after Clear-Cutting

California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets

Commercial Forest Carbon Protocol Over-credit Bias Delimited by Zero-threshold Carbon Accounting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About