2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118575
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thinned northern German Scots pine forests have a low carbon storage and uptake potential in comparison to naturally developing beech forests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
9
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
2
9
1
Order By: Relevance
“…First, mature beech forests produce substantially more aboveground litter than pine plantations. Litter bucket measurements of leaf litter production in the stands of this study gave for the years 2015 and 2016 by 25 to 48% higher annual litter amounts in the beech stands than the pine stands (Förster et al 2021). Moreover, fine root biomass is much higher in beech than pine stands, indicating a higher C transfer from the beech root system to the SOC pool (A.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…First, mature beech forests produce substantially more aboveground litter than pine plantations. Litter bucket measurements of leaf litter production in the stands of this study gave for the years 2015 and 2016 by 25 to 48% higher annual litter amounts in the beech stands than the pine stands (Förster et al 2021). Moreover, fine root biomass is much higher in beech than pine stands, indicating a higher C transfer from the beech root system to the SOC pool (A.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…It has been found that the net accumulation of new tree-derived C can be greater under a low-productive stand on loamy soil than under a high-productive stand on fertile sandy soil (Hagedorn et al 2004). According to biomass inventories in our stands, the pine forests stored only half of the aboveground biomass C that was recorded in the beech forests (Förster et al 2021). Summing up the C pools in aboveground biomass and in the soil (without roots) gives on average an about 15% higher ecosystem C storage in the beech than the pine forests (246 Mg C•ha − 1 vs. 213 Mg C•ha − 1 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Generally, the C storage in German forests is reported to be 120-190 Mg ha −1 , depending on age class and tree species [48]. Quercus petraea forests in Northern Germany have an estimated C stock of 107.82 ± 7.27 Mg ha −1 in aboveground live tree biomass and 9.35 ± 6.51 Mg ha −1 in deadwood [49]. We estimated a C stock in aboveground tree biomass of 33 ± 17.9 SE Mg ha −1 for young plantations, 83.6 ± 15.1 SE Mg ha −1 for old dense forests, and 107.6 ± 25.5 SE Mg ha −1 for old sparse forests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, a major setback in making accurate comparisons between studies reporting on C stocks of forests is the absence of a universally applied field inventory and C calculation method. There are proposed guidelines, such as the UNFCCC methods [37]; however, there are various national inventories [51] as well as research papers [17,[48][49][50]52,53], which use different field measurements and computational methods to estimate C stocks. Various allometric equations are available, and the choice of the equations can greatly impact the estimated C stock values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%