Abstract
European forests have been acting as a significant carbon sink for the last few decades. However, there are significant distinctions among the forest carbon sinks in different parts of Europe due to differences in the area and structure of the forests, and the harvesting intensity of these. In many European countries, the forest area has increased through natural forest expansion and the afforestation of low-productivity agricultural lands. Changing environmental conditions and improved forest management practices have also increased the carbon sequestration and storage in forests in different regions. The future development of carbon sequestration and storage in European forests will be affected both by the intensity of forest management and harvesting (related to future wood demand) and the severity of climate change and the associated increase in natural forest disturbances. Climate change may also affect the carbon dynamics of forests in different ways, depending on geographical region. Therefore, many uncertainties exist in the future development of carbon sequestration and storage in European forests, and their contribution to climate change mitigation. The demand for multiple ecosystem services, and differences in national and international strategies and policies (e.g. the European Green Deal, climate and biodiversity policies), may also affect the future development of carbon sinks in European forests.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Carbon balance
- Carbon sink
- Carbon source
- Carbon stock
- Climate change
- Forest ecosystem
- Forest management
- Growth
- Net ecosystem CO2 exchange
- Mitigation
6.1 Current Carbon Storage and Sink
Forests can contribute significantly to the global carbon cycle and climate change mitigation by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in forests (forest biomass and soil) and in wood-based products (with long life-cycles), and also through the use of forest biomass to substitute for fossil-fuel-intensive materials, products and fossil energy (Nabuurs et al. 2017; Leskinen et al. 2018). This is also the case in Europe, where the majority of forests are managed. Forest management has largely influenced the present tree species composition (Spiecker 2003) and wood production potential (Rytter et al. 2016; Verkerk et al. 2019) of forests, and will continue to do so for the coming decades (e.g. Koehl et al. 2010; Lindner et al. 2014).
In Europe, the forest area and carbon storage have both increased since the 1950s for several reasons. The forest area has increased by about 30% between 1950 and 2000, and by 9% since 1990 up to the present (Forest Europe 2020). This has occurred through natural forest expansion and the afforestation of low-productivity agricultural lands (e.g. Gold et al. 2006; Forest Europe 2015; Vilén et al. 2016). The ratio of annual harvested timber to the total annual increment of forests is below 80% across Europe, remaining relatively stable for most countries for the last few decades (European Environmental Agency [EEA] 2017). Additionally, improved forest management practices and changing environmental conditions (e.g. nitrogen deposition, climate warming and the elevation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations) have increased the carbon sequestration and storage in European forests (e.g. Pretzsch et al. 2014; Etzold et al. 2020). However, the growing (carbon) stock of European forests has clearly increased more rapidly over the last few decades than the forest area (e.g. 17.5 million ha between 1990 and 2015), as the average volume per hectare has been increasing.
However, there are significant distinctions among the forest carbon sinks in different parts of Europe due to large differences in the forest area and structure (age and tree species composition). These are related to differences in the prevailing climatic and site conditions, the intensity of past and current forest management activities, and the level of socioeconomic development (EEA 2016). In Northern Europe, where the share of forest area is higher than in other parts of Europe, the forest landscapes are dominated by mainly coniferous, (very often) single-species and even-aged forests. In Central and Southern Europe, broadleaved deciduous and mixed evergreen forests are more common (Forest Europe 2020). Overall, the forests are more productive and have higher volumes of growing stock in Central Europe than in other parts of Europe. Forest productivity is, nowadays, limited by the length of the growing season and the relatively low summer temperatures in Northern Europe, whereas in Southern Europe, it is limited by water availability, with many forests also being located on sites with low potential for wood production.
The prevailing environmental conditions, current forest structure, management traditions and different socioeconomic factors have also affected the intensity of forest management. Management intensity varies from fully protective for biodiversity conservation, to uneven- and even-aged rotation forestry, which affects forest carbon sequestration and storage. Forest ownership structures, and targets set for forest management and its possible constraints, have also, together, affected the intensity of forest management and harvesting, affecting the development of carbon sinks and storage and the wood production potential of European forests (Rytter et al. 2016; Verkerk et al. 2019). Currently, ca. 50% of forests in the EU are privately owned, with about 16 million private forest owners (Nabuurs et al. 2015). In forest management, different ecosystem services may also be emphasised to a greater degree, depending on set targets and constraints in different regions (Hengeveld et al. 2012; EEA 2016; Forest Europe 2020).
The growing (carbon) stock of European forests is currently double what it was in the 1990s (Forest Europe 2020). The carbon-stock increases in forests and wood products, and the average annual sequestration of carbon in the forest biomass, was 155 million t in 2020 (Forest Europe 2020). Currently, EU forests sequester ca. 10% of Europe’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Forest Europe 2020). When considering the carbon storage in wood products (an additional ca. 12 Tg C year-1) and the substitution effects of the forest sector, ca. 3% of the total GHG emissions in the EU28 are avoided (Nabuurs et al. 2015). Furthermore, woody biomass provides ca. 6% of the energy consumed in the EU (Eurostat 2020). On the other hand, the first signs of saturation in the European forest carbon sink were recognised in the 2010s (Nabuurs et al. 2013). Despite this, the European forest carbon sink is still projected to last for decades. However, there may be a need to adapt forest management and utilisation strategies to promote the sequestration of carbon in forest sinks under the changing climatic conditions. Whether the carbon sink contained in European forests (and the broader forest sector) will remain at the same level as today, or increase/decrease in the future, will strongly depend on changes in the forest area and structure, the intensity of management and harvesting, and the severity of climate change and the associated increase in natural disturbances in different parts of Europe.
6.2 Dynamics of Carbon Sequestration and Storage in a Forest Ecosystem
6.2.1 Basic Concepts of Carbon Dynamics in a Forest Ecosystem
The carbon dynamics in a forest ecosystem comprise the carbon uptake by trees (and ground vegetation) in the above- and belowground forest biomass, and carbon release through the autotrophic (metabolism of organic matter by plants) and heterotrophic (metabolism of organic matter by bacteria, fungi and animals) respiration. The forest ecosystem is a carbon sink if it absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits, resulting in an increase in the carbon storage of the forest (forest biomass and soil). The carbon dynamics of a forest ecosystem are controlled by environmental (climate, site) conditions, and the structure (age, stocking, tree species composition, etc.) and functioning of the forest ecosystem.
The carbon sequestration and stock of forest biomass may vary greatly in a forest ecosystem over time, these are controlled by the initial stand characteristics, the type and intensity of management (e.g. forest regeneration material, thinning and fertilisation) (Routa et al. 2019) and the length of the rotation period (Lundmark et al. 2018) or other time period being considered. The carbon stock in soil is generally relatively stable, although it is affected by carbon inputs from litter fall and carbon outputs from the decay of litter and humus, the latter representing earlier litter input of unrecognisable origin (Kellomäki et al. 2008). The decomposition of old humus and litter contributes significantly to soil carbon emissions at the beginning of the rotation period, but in the later stages of stand development, the decay of new litter contributes more (e.g. Kilpeläinen et al. 2011). Generally, for most of the duration of stand development, the stands act as carbon sinks (Table 6.1).
6.2.2 Management Effects on the Carbon Dynamics of a Forest Ecosystem
Management intensity affects the carbon sequestration and stocks in forest ecosystems through changing the structure and functioning of an ecosystem. A managed forest ecosystem sequesters carbon as trees grow, but loses carbon in harvesting. By comparison, in unmanaged forest ecosystems (e.g. old-growth forests), the carbon dynamics are affected by the age structure, the mortality of mature trees, natural regeneration and the ingrowth of seedlings in canopy gaps (Luyssaert et al. 2008). The annual growth rate of trees can be higher in managed than in unmanaged (intact) forest ecosystems, but the carbon sink is lower due to harvesting (Kellomäki 2017; Moomaw et al. 2020). Older forest stands can store more carbon, but the rate at which they remove additional carbon from the atmosphere is substantially lower, and can even become negative as the mortality increases and exceeds the regrowth (Gundersen et al. 2021). On the other hand, devastating abiotic (e.g. wind storms and forest fires) and biotic (e.g. insect outbreaks) disturbances may cause a sudden decrease in carbon sequestration and storage in forest ecosystems.
The use of appropriate, site-specific regeneration methods and materials (e.g. improved regeneration materials with better growth rates and survival), the proper timing and intensity of pre-commercial and commercial thinnings, and forest fertilisation on sites with limited nutrient availability, have been proposed as ways of increasing carbon sequestration (and timber production) over one rotation in boreal forests (e.g. Nilsen 2001; Saarsalmi and Mälkönen 2001; Bergh et al. 2014; Haapanen et al. 2015; Hynynen et al. 2015). According to Olsson et al. (2005), in addition to forest productivity, nitrogen fertilisation may also increase the sink and storage of carbon in upland (mineral) soils in Norway spruce stands due to the simultaneous increase in litter production and decrease in the decomposition of soil organic matter and heterotrophic respiration in the soil. However, there have been contradictory findings on the effects of nitrogen fertilisation on the decomposition of soil organic matter and soil respiration (e.g. Magill et al. 2004; Frey et al. 2014; Högberg et al. 2017). The maintenance of higher stocking in thinnings, together with longer rotations, may also increase the annual mean carbon sequestration and carbon stock in forest ecosystems over a rotation period (Liski et al. 2001; Routa et al. 2019). Overall, carbon sequestration and storage may be increased in forests in different ways by modifying current forest management practices. However, the same measures may affect forests differently, as outlined in Table 6.2. Also, management effects on the economic profitability of forest production should be considered in practical forestry.
Figure 6.1 provides an example of the development of the net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) of a boreal, even- aged Norway spruce stand on a medium-fertility upland site over an 80-year rotation period, based on gap-type forest-ecosystem model SIMA (Kellomäki et al. 2008) simulations (Kilpeläinen et al. 2011). Seedling stands (2000 seedlings ha-1) act as a carbon source over the first 20 years after a clearcut because the carbon sequestration is lower in young seedling stands than the carbon emissions from decaying humus and litter in the soil. As carbon sequestration increases, a stand becomes a carbon sink. The mean annual carbon uptake over 80 years is 11.4 t CO2 ha-2 year-1, with the carbon emissions being 7.3 t CO2 ha-2 year-1. The thinnings at ages 40 and 60 years produce peaks in the carbon emissions due to harvesting and the decay of logging residuals.
In Fig. 6.2, a simulated example of the development of NEE (Fig. 6.2a) and carbon stocks (Fig. 6.2b) in a forest ecosystem is demonstrated under business-as-usual (baseline) thinning, 20% higher and lower tree stocking compared to the baseline, and an unmanaged (unthinned) boreal Norway spruce stand (Alam et al. 2017) over two rotation periods (i.e. 160 years). Over the whole 160-year period, the stands sequestered more carbon than they released (Fig. 6.2a). The NEE was the highest under higher stocking and the lowest under lower stocking. The increased carbon sequestration led to a 17% larger mean carbon stock (in the trees and soil) than in the baseline thinning, while decreased stocking led to a 21% lower carbon stock than in the baseline thinning. The mean carbon stock over the simulation period was the largest under the unmanaged regime (445 and 197 t CO2 ha-1in the trees and soil, respectively), while the mean carbon stock in the trees in the baseline thinning was 191 t CO2 ha-1, and in the soil, 111 t CO2 ha-1 (Fig. 6.2b).
Figure 6.3 shows an example of how alternative forest management regimes (use of better-growing seedlings, nitrogen fertilisation, higher stocking in thinning) might increase the simulated NEE of a forest ecosystem under even-aged management in a boreal upland Norway spruce stand with (BT, basic thinning) and without (BT-NO BIO, no bioenergy harvesting) harvesting logging residues from a clearcut. The highest increases, compared to BT-NO BIO, were observed with the use of improved seedlings in regeneration (i.e. 20% better growth than seedlings of forest-seed origin) and nitrogen fertilisation (2–4 times during a rotation period at the same time as thinning, depending on the management regime), along with the maintenance of (30%) higher stocking in thinnings over a rotation compared to the baseline management. The increases in NEE in these regimes, compared to BT-NO BIO, varied between 22 and 200%. Maintaining a higher growing stock over the rotation also increased the carbon benefits when compared to BT.
6.3 Impacts of Management and Harvesting Intensity on Carbon Storage in Forests
Forest resources comprise mosaics of single stands with varying climatic and site conditions and forest structures (age, tree species composition and stocking), which together affect the future of carbon sinks and storage in forests, and the forest harvesting potential, in different regions (Hudiburg et al. 2009; Kilpeläinen et al. 2017; Thom et al. 2018). At the regional level, the development of carbon sequestration and carbon storage in forests is strongly affected by the initial age structure of the forests, which also affects possible management measures over time (Baul et al. 2020). Therefore, differences in past forest management regimes in European countries will also reflect the future potential of increased carbon sequestration, wood production and carbon stocks in forests.
Heinonen et al. (2017) showed that, with around 73 million m3 of annual timber harvesting, the carbon storage of Finnish forests (forest biomass and soil), excluding forest conservation areas, may remain quite stable over the 90-year simulation period, compared to a situation with the initial growing stock (Fig. 6.4). However, with a lower even-flow timber harvest, the 40–60 million m3 levels may increase significantly. On the other hand, despite the harvesting level, the forest carbon stock starts to decrease after the first 40 years of the simulation period due to the changing forest age structure. This decline is also relatively greater at a lower harvesting intensity, which is associated with a larger share of unmanaged forests with decreasing growth and increasing mortality over time. Heinonen et al. (2017) did not consider either the effects of intensified forest management or climate change on the forest growth, or natural disturbances. By intensifying forest management, for example, by using improved regeneration materials and nitrogen fertilisation on upland forest sites, both the growing (carbon) stock and wood production could increase under boreal conditions with minor climate change (e.g. the RCP2.6 forcing scenario) in the coming decades (Heinonen et al. 2018a, b).
In European forests, the carbon storage (and sink) could be increased by modifying current forest management practices and harvesting intensities. However, same measures may affect the carbon sequestration and storage in different ways, especially over different time periods (Table 6.3).
When seeking to enhance the carbon storage in forests, it is important to bear in mind that forest disturbances are likely to increase in the future, with changing climate (Seidl et al. 2014; Venäläinen et al. 2020). Given this, the risk of decreasing forest carbon storage might increase, and therefore appropriate adaptation measures would be required to minimise the harmful effects (see also Chap. 5). The severity of climate change will also affect the carbon dynamics of forests through its effects on forest regeneration, growth and mortality processes, as controlled by management. These effects may also be contradictory, depending on the region.
Forests also contribute to climate through the absorption or reflection of solar radiation, cooling as a result of evapotranspiration, and the production of cloud-forming aerosols (Kalliokoski et al. 2020). These will affect the role of forests in climate change mitigation. An increase in the aboveground forest biomass and carbon stock, and the proportion of coniferous tree species in the growing stock, may decrease the planet’s surface albedo (i.e. the reflection of solar radiation). This may result in enhanced climate warming in opposition to a lower carbon stock and greater proportion of broadleaf tree species (e.g. Lukeš et al. 2013). On the other hand, in managed, even- and uneven-aged boreal Norway spruce stands with relatively low average stocking over a management cycle, for example, the opposing effects on radiative forcing of changes in the albedo and carbon stocks may largely cancel each other out, providing few remaining net climate remediation benefits (Kellomäki et al. 2021). Alternatively, the maintenance of higher ecosystem carbon stocks in managed forests, or with no management, clearly implies greater net cooling benefits. This is despite the lower albedo enhancing radiative absorption, and thus enhancing warming. However, increasing the use of the no-management option may require compensation for forest owners for lost harvest income (Kellomäki et al. 2021).
Under sustainable forest management, the impacts of that management on ecosystem services other than carbon sequestration and its storage in forests, such as the production of timber and non-wood products, the maintenance of biodiversity and recreational value, should also be considered. This is important because carbon storage in forests and the amount of deadwood (an indicator of biodiversity), for example, correlate positively with each other, but negatively with harvested timber volume and the economic profitability of forestry (Diaz et al. 2021). Lower management and harvesting intensities will also lead to forest structures in which there are more older trees, a larger share of broadleaves and a greater amount of deadwood compared to forests under higher management and harvesting intensities (Heinonen et al. 2017).
6.4 Uncertainties Associated with Future Carbon Storage and Sinks
The future development of the carbon storage and sinks in European forests will be affected by the intensity of forest management and harvesting (and thus wood demand), the severity of the climate change (Kindermann et al. 2013) and the associated increase in natural forest disturbances (Seidl et al. 2014) in the different regions. In addition, the demand for multiple ecosystem services and different national and international strategies and policies (e.g. European Green Deal, climate and biodiversity policies) will affect the intensity of forest management and harvesting in those different regions. Thus, due to the complexity of the issue, there are many uncertainties in the future development of carbon sequestration and storage in European forests, and their ability to contribute to climate change mitigation.
In the EU Reference Scenario (EC 2016), forest harvests are projected to increase by 9% between 2005 (516 million m3) and 2030 (565 million m3) due to a growing demand for energy biomass and material use (Fig. 6.5). Consequently, forest growth is projected to decrease by 3%, and the carbon sink in forests by 32%, by 2030. This may be partially compensated for by increasing the carbon sink through afforestation and decreasing emissions from deforestation. In 2050, total forest growth is, however, clearly predicted to be higher than the wood harvests in this Reference Scenario (Fig. 6.5). Assuming a constant harvest scenario (e.g. Pilli et al. 2017), the carbon sinks in the forest pools of the EU-28 are estimated to decrease by 6% in 2030 compared to the average of the historical period 2000–2029. On the other hand, based on projections for forest resources under alternative management and policy assumptions, the increased carbon storage in the EU-28 forests could provide additional sequestration benefits of approximately up to 172 Mt CO2 year-1 by 2050 (Nabuurs et al. 2017).
With the right set of incentives in place at the EU and Member States levels, the EU has the potential to achieve an additional mitigation impact of 441 Mt CO2 year-1 by 2050 (Nabuurs et al. 2017). The measures to achieve this would include improving forest management, expanding the forested area (afforestation), substituting for fossil- based materials and energy by wood, and setting aside forest reserves for short-term carbon sequestration. In addition to mitigating GHG emissions, the suggested measures could also adapt and build forest resilience, sustainably increase forest productivity and incomes, and tackle multiple policy goals set for the future (see also Chap. 9).
6.5 Research Implications
Changes in the intensity of forest management and harvesting will affect the carbon sequestration potential of forests and the carbon storage in forests. Using different forest management measures could help to increase these. However, it should be noted that enhancing the carbon storage in forests through management may also increase the effects of natural forest disturbances, such as wind storms, fires, drought and pests. Therefore, it is crucial to consider how to increase forest resilience in the EU through forest management. Adapting thinning regimes, shortening rotation periods and using improved regeneration materials may help to decrease the vulnerability of forests to various natural disturbances, as well as providing the means for maintaining and enhancing forest carbon sinks. It should also be considered how and under what conditions various silvicultural methods, such as stand density control, fertilisation and mixed-species forests, could help to maintain and improve the adaptation capacity, resilience and mitigation potential of forests in parallel.
Besides forest carbon sequestration and storage, wood-based products can provide significant carbon storage. Wood products may also be used to substitute for fossil-fuel-intensive materials, products and energy (Nabuurs et al. 2017; Leskinen et al. 2018). However, regional conditions vary significantly across the EU. This partly explains the difficulties involved in quantifying the mitigation impacts of the EU-level forests and the forest-based sector. Moreover, the large diversity of abiotic and biotic circumstances and management practices also makes it challenging to generalise the results of individual studies to the EU level. On the other hand, variations in the growth potential and forest utilisation rates in the various value chains create a wide range of options for adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change in the EU, depending on regional conditions. Beyond adaptation and mitigation, the simultaneous provisioning of multiple ecosystem services for society should also be ensured, in a sustainable way, while increasing forest resilience to natural disturbances. This requires thought to be given to the uncertainties associated with climate change and the risks in forest-management decision-making, which are still understudied topics, requiring further input.
6.6 Key Messages
-
European forests have acted as carbon sinks for the last few decades due to increases in the forest area, improved forest management and changing environmental conditions.
-
The future development of carbon sequestration and storage in European forests will be affected both by the intensity of forest management and harvesting (associated with future wood demand) and the severity of climate change and the related increase in natural disturbances.
-
The great diversity of abiotic and biotic circumstances, management practices and forest utilisation levels in the different regions of the EU creates both a wide range of options, but also challenges, for the adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change in different regions.
References
Alam A, Strandman H, Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A (2017) Estimating net climate impacts of forest biomass production and utilization in fossil-intensive material and energy substitution. Can J For Res 47:1010–1020
Baul TK, Alam A, Strandman H, Seppälä J, Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A (2020) Radiative forcing of forest biomass production and use under different thinning regimes and initial age structures of a Norway spruce forest landscape. Can J For Res 50(6):523–532. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2019-0286
Bergh J, Nilsson U, Allen HL, Johansson U, Fahlvik N (2014) Long-term responses of Scots pine and Norway spruce stands in Sweden to repeated fertilization and thinning. For Ecol Manag 320:118–158
DĂaz-Yáñez O, Pukkala T, Packalen P, Lexer M, Peltola H (2021) Multi-objective forestry increases the production of ecosystem services. Forestry 94(3):386–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpaa041
Etzold S, Ferretti M, Reinds GJ, Solberg S, Gessler A, Waldner P, Schaub M, Simpson D, Benham S, Hansen K, Ingerslev M, Jonard M, Karlsson PE, Lindroos A-J, Marchetto A, Manninger M, Meesenburg H, Merilä P, Nöjd P, Rautio P, Sanders TGM, Seidling W, Skudnik M, Thimonier A, Verstraeten A, Vesterdal L, Vejpustkova M, de Vries W (2020) Nitrogen deposition is the most important environmental driver of growth of pure, even-aged and managed European forests. For Ecol Manag 458:117762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117762
European Commission (2016) EU reference scenario 2016. Energy, transport and GHG emissions. Trends to 2050. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, Directorate-General for Climate Action and Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20160713%20draft_publication_REF2016_v13.pdf. Accessed 4th Jan 2021
European Environment Agency (2016). European forest ecosystems, state and trends. EEA Report 5/2016. https://doi.org/10.2800/964893
European Environment Agency (2017) Forest: growing stock, increment and fellings. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-growing-stock-increment-and-fellings-3/assessment. Accessed 9 Jun 2020
Eurostat (2020) Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics – 2019th edn. https://doi.org/10.2785/798761
Forest Europe (2015) State of Europe’s forests 2015 report. Forest Europe, Bonn
Forest Europe (2020) State of Europe’s forests 2020. Forest Europe, Bratislava
Frey SD, Ollinger S, Nadelhoffer K, Bowden R, Brzostek E, Burton A, Caldwell BA, Crow S, Goodale CL, Grandy AS, Finzi A, Kramer MG, Lajtha K, LeMoine J, Martin M, McDowell WH, Minocha R, Sadowsky JJ, Templer PH, Wickings K (2014) Chronic nitrogen additions suppress decomposition and sequester soil carbon in temperate forests. Biogeochemistry 121(2):305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-014-0004-0
Gold S, Korotkov A, Sasse V (2006) The development of European forest resources, 1950 to 2000. For Policy Econ 8:183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.07.002
Gundersen P, Thybring EE, Nord-Larsen T, Vesterdal L, Nadelhoffer KJ, Johannsen VK (2021) Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature 591:E21–E23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03266-z
Haapanen M, Janson G, Nielsen UB, Steffenrem A, Stener LG (2015) The status of tree breeding and its potential for improving biomass production – a review of breeding activities and genetic gains in Scandinavia and Finland. Skogsforsk, Uppsala
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Mehtätalo L, Asikainen A, Kangas J, Peltola H (2017) Scenario analyses for the effects of harvesting intensity on development of forest resources, timber supply, carbon balance and biodiversity of Finnish forestry. For Policy Econ 80:80–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.011
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Asikainen A, Peltola H (2018a) Scenario analyses on the effects of fertilization, improved regeneration material, and ditch network maintenance on timber production of Finnish forests. Eur J For Res 137:93–107
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kellomäki S, Strandman H, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2018b) Effects of forest management and harvesting intensity on the timber supply from Finnish forests in a changing climate. Can J For Res 48:1124–1134
Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs G-J, Didion M, van den Wyngaert I, Clerkx APPM, Schelhaas M-J (2012) A forest management map of European forests. Ecol Soc 17(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/26269226
Högberg P, Näsholm T, Franklin O, Högberg MN (2017) Tamm review: on the nature of the nitrogen limitation to plant growth in Fennos candian boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 403:161–185
Hudiburg T, Law B, Turner DP, Campbell J, Donato D, Duane M (2009) Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecol Appl 19:163–180. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2006.1
Hynynen J, Salminen H, Ahtikoski A, Huuskonen S, Ojansuu R, Siipilehto J, Lehtonen M, Eerikäinen K (2015) Long-term impacts of forest management on biomass supply and forest resource development: a scenario analysis for Finland. Eur J For Res 134:415–431
Kalliokoski T, Bäck J, Boy M, Kulmala M, Kuusinen N, Mäkelä A, Minkkinen K, Minunno F, Paasonen P, Peltoniemi M, Taipale D, Valsta L, Vanhatalo A, Zhou L, Zhou P, Berninger F (2020) Mitigation impact of different harvest scenarios of Finnish forests that account for albedo, aerosols, and trade-offs of carbon sequestration and avoided emissions. Front For Glob Change 3:1–112. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.562044
Kellomäki S (2017) Managing boreal forests in the context of climate change. In: Impacts, adaptation and climate change mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT, Strandman H (2008) Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Phil Trans R Soc B 363:2339–2349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2204
Kellomäki S, Väisänen H, Kirschbaum MUF, Kirsikka-Aho S, Peltola H (2021) Effects of different management options of Norway spruce on radiative forcing through changes in carbon stocks and albedo. Forestry cpab010. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpab010
Kilpeläinen A, Strandman H, Alam A, Kellomäki S (2011) Life cycle assessment tool for estimating net CO2 exchange of forest production. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 3(6):461–471
Kilpeläinen A, Alam A, Torssonen P, Ruusuvuori H, Kellomäki S, Peltola H (2016) Effects of intensive forest management on net climate impact of energy biomass utilisation from final felling of Norway spruce. Biomass Bioenergy 87:1–8
Kilpeläinen A, Strandman H, Grönholm T, Ikonen V-P, Torssonen P, Kellomäki S, Peltola H (2017) Effects of initial age structure of managed Norway spruce forest area on net climate impact of using forest biomass for energy. Bioenergy Res 10:499–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9821-z
Kindermann GE, Schörghuber S, Linkosalo T, Sanchez A, Rammer W, Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013) Potential stocks and increments of woody biomass in the European Union under different management and climate scenarios. Carbon Balance Manag 8:2
Koehl M, Hildebrandt R, Olschofsky K, Köhler R, Rötzer T, Mette T, Pretzsch H, Köthke M, Dieter M, Abiy M, Makeschin F, Kenter B (2010) Combating the effects of climatic change on forests by mitigation strategies. Carbon Balance Manag 5:8
Leskinen P, Cardellini G, González-Garcia S, Hurmekoski E, Sathre R, Seppälä J, Smyth C, Stern T, Verkerk PJ (2018) Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation. From science to policy 7. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van der Maaten E, Schelhaas M-J, Lasch P, Eggers J, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Suckow F, Psomas A, Poulter B, Hanewinkel M (2014) Climate change and European forests: what do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manag 146:69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.030
Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T (2001) Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Can J For Res 31:2004–2013. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-140
Lukeš P, Stenberg P, Rautiainen M (2013) Relationship between forest density and albedo in the boreal zone. Ecol Model 261–262:74–79
Lundmark T, Poudel BC, Stål G, Nordin A, Sonesson J (2018) Carbon balance in production forestry in relation to rotation length. Can J For Res 48(6):672–678
Luyssaert S, Schulze E-D, Börner A, Knohl A, Hessenmöller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215
Magill AH, Aber JD, Currie WS, Nadelhoffer KJ, Martin ME, McDowell WH, Melillo JM, Steudler P (2004) Ecosystem response to 15 years of chronic nitrogen additions at the Harvard Forest LTER, Massachusetts, USA. For Ecol Manag 196(1):7–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.033
Moomaw WR, Law BE, Goetz SJ (2020) Focus on the role of forests and soils in meeting climate change mitigation goals: summary. Environ Res Lett 15(4):045009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b38
Nabuurs G-J, Lindner M, Verkerk PJ, Gunia K, Deda P, Michalak R, Grassi G (2013) First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat. Clim Chang 3(9). https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1853
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Lindner M, Nesbit M, Ollikainen M, Savaresi A (2015) A new role for forests and the forest sector in the EU post-2020 climate targets. From science to policy. European Forest Institute. doi:https://doi.org/10.36333/fs02
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M (2017) By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests 8:484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Nilsen P (2001) Fertilization experiments on forest mineral soils: a review of the Norwegian results. Scand J For Res 16:541–554
Olsson P, Linder S, Giesler R, Högberg P (2005) Fertilization of boreal forest reduces both autotrophic and heterotrophic soil respiration. Glob Change Biol 11(10):1745–1753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001033.x
Pilli R, Grassi G, Kurz WA, Fiorese G, Cescatti A (2017) The European forest sector: past and future carbon budget and fluxes under different management scenarios. Biogeosciences 14:2387–2405. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2387-2017
Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G, Uhl E, Rötzer T (2014) Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun 5:4967. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5967
Routa J, Kilpeläinen A, Ikonen V-P, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2019) Effects of intensified silviculture on timber production and its economic profitability in boreal Norway spruce and Scots pine stands under changing climatic conditions. Forestry 92(3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz043
Rytter L, Ingerslev M, Kilpeläinen A, Torssonen P, Lazdina D, Löf M, Madsen P, Muiste P, Stener L-G (2016) Increased forest biomass production in the Nordic and Baltic countries – a review on current and future opportunities. Silva Fenn 50(5):1660
Saarsalmi A, Mälkönen E (2001) Forest fertilization research in Finland: a literature review. Scand J For Res 16:514–535
Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer V, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4(9):806–810
Spiecker H (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe—temperate zone. J Environ Manag 67(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00188-3
Thom D, Rammer W, Garstenauer R, Seidl R (2018) Legacies of past land use have a stronger effect on forest carbon exchange than future climate change in a temperate forest landscape. Biogeosciences 15:5699–5713
Venäläinen A, Lehtonen I, Laapas M, Ruosteenoja K, Tikkanen O-P, Viiri H, Ikonen V-P, Peltola H (2020) Climate change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: a literature review. Glob Change Biol 26:4178–4196. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15183
Verkerk P-J, Fitzgerald JB, Datta P, Dees M, Hengeveld GM, Lindner M, Zudin S (2019) Spatial distribution of the potential forest biomass availability in Europe. For Ecosyst 6:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0163-5
Vilén T, Cienciala E, Schelhaas MJ, Verkerk PJ, Lindner M, Peltola H (2016) Increasing carbon sinks in European forests: effects of afforestation and changes in mean growing stock volume. Forestry 89:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv034
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kilpeläinen, A., Peltola, H. (2022). Carbon Sequestration and Storage in European Forests. In: Hetemäki, L., Kangas, J., Peltola, H. (eds) Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change . Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99205-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99206-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)