Productivity of forests in the Eurosiberian boreal region and their potential to act as a carbon sink –‐ a synthesis

Abstract

Summary Based on review and original data, this synthesis investigates carbon pools and fluxes of Siberian and European forests (600 and 300 million ha, respectively). We examine the productivity of ecosystems, expressed as positive rate when the amount of carbon in the ecosystem increases, while (following micrometeorological convention) downward fluxes from the atmosphere to the vegetation (NEE = Net Ecosystem Exchange) are expressed as negative numbers. Productivity parameters are Net Primary Productivity (NPP=whole plant growth), Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP = CO2 assimilation minus ecosystem respiration), and Net Biome Productivity (NBP = NEP minus carbon losses through disturbances bypassing respiration, e.g. by fire and logging). Based on chronosequence studies and national forestry statistics we estimate a low average NPP for boreal forests in Siberia: 123 gC m–2 y–1. This contrasts with a similar calculation for Europe which suggests a much higher average NPP of 460 gC m–2 y–1 for the forests there. Despite a smaller area, European forests have a higher total NPP than Siberia (1.2–1.6 vs. 0.6–0.9 × 1015 gC region–1 y–1). This arises as a consequence of differences in growing season length, climate and nutrition. For a chronosequence of Pinus sylvestris stands studied in central Siberia during summer, NEE was most negative in a 67‐y old stand regenerating after fire (– 192 mmol m–2 d–1) which is close to NEE in a cultivated forest of Germany (– 210 mmol m–2 d–1). Considerable net ecosystem CO2‐uptake was also measured in Siberia in 200‐ and 215‐y old stands (NEE:174 and – 63 mmol m–2 d–1) while NEP of 7‐ and 13‐y old logging areas were close to the ecosystem compensation point. Two Siberian bogs and a bog in European Russia were also significant carbon sinks (– 102 to – 104 mmol m–2 d–1). Integrated over a growing season (June to September) we measured a total growing season NEE of – 14 mol m–2 summer–1 (– 168 gC m–2 summer–1) in a 200‐y Siberian pine stand and – 5 mol m–2 summer–1 (– 60 gC m–2 summer–1) in Siberian and European Russian bogs. By contrast, over the same period, a spruce forest in European Russia was a carbon source to the atmosphere of (NEE: + 7 mol m–2 summer–1 = + 84 gC m–2 summer–1). Two years after a windthrow in European Russia, with all trees being uplifted and few successional species, lost 16 mol C m–2 to the atmosphere over a 3‐month in summer, compared to the cumulative NEE over a growing season in a German forest of – 15.5 mol m–2 summer–1 (– 186 gC m–2 summer–1; European flux network annual averaged – 205 gC m–2 y–1). Differences in CO2‐exchange rates coincided with differences in the Bowen ratio, with logging areas partitioning most incoming radiation into sensible heat whereas bogs partitioned most into evaporation (latent heat). Effects of these different surface energy exchanges on local climate (convective storms and fires) and comparisons with the Canadian BOREAS experiment are discussed. Following a classification of disturbances and their effects on ecosystem carb...

A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of Northern forests

“…Russia, improved silviculture in the Nordic countries, and woody encroachment and longer growing seasons from warming in the northern latitudes possibly explain some of the changes (18,22,(25)(26)(27)(28)(29). This implies uncertainty regarding the future of biomass sinks and therefore the need for monitoring.…”

Spatial and seasonal variations of CO2flux and photosynthetic and respiratory parameters of larch forests in East Asia

“…forests are characterized by their deciduous habit, a trait that allows them to endure the extremely cold and dry winters across high latitudes of Eurasia, including the Siberian taiga (Gower and Richards 1990). These forests are considered to have a strong influence on the terrestrial carbon and energy cycles, because of their vast area and the potentially large carbon stocks in their peat soils in the permafrost (Schulze et al 1999;Dolman et al 2004;Ueyama et al 2010). Siberian forests constitute 20% of the world's forested area (Dolman et al 2004), and larch forests cover 37% (Abaimov et al 1998), 70% (Gunin et al 1999) and 13.6% (Jiang and Zhou 2002) of forested areas in Russia, Mongolia and China, respectively.…”

Quantifying ecological drivers of ecosystem productivity of the early‐successional boreal Larix gmelinii forest

“…Larch (Larix spp.) is the most common tree species in Eurasian boreal forest ecosystems and constitutes one of major forest types on earth (Schulze et al 1999).Wildfire, being the primary natural disturbance agent, regulates ecosystem structure and function in larch forests (Gromtsev 2002, Akihiko 2005. Recent observations and modeling studies suggest that the frequency, extent, and severity of fires in boreal forests are increasing under a warming climate (Kasischke and Turetsky 2006, Duffy et al 2007, Liu et al 2012a.…”