Effects of forest management on biomass stocks in Romanian beech forests

O. Bouriaud; A. Don; I. A. Janssens; G. Marin; E.-D. Schulze

doi:10.1186/s40663-019-0180-4

Forest Ecosystems 2019, 6(3): 19 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0180-4

Research |

Open Access | Issue | Published: 04 April 2019

Effects of forest management on biomass stocks in Romanian beech forests

Show Author's Information Hide Author's Information O. Bouriaud^{¹^,²}

(

), A. Don^³, I. A. Janssens^⁴, G. Marin^{²^,⁵}, E.-D. Schulze^⁶

Integrated Center for Research, Development and Innovation in Advanced Materials, Nanotechnologies, and Distributed Systems for Fabrication and Control, Stefan cel Mare University, 720229 Suceava, Romania

National Forest Inventory, National Research Development Institute for Silviculture, Voluntari, Romania

vTI, Braunschweig, Germany

Department of Biology, University of Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium

Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, Str. Sirul Beethoven, nr. 1, 500123 Brasov, Romania

Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, PO Box 100164, 07701 Jena, Germany

Keywords:

Forest management, National forest inventory, Forest productivity, Biomass stocks

Cite this article:

Bouriaud O, Don A, Janssens IA, et al. Effects of forest management on biomass stocks in Romanian beech forests. Forest Ecosystems, 2019, 6(3): 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0180-4

Download citation

EndNote(RIS)

BibTeX

354

Views

Downloads

Citations

Crossref

N/A

WoS

Scopus

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Abstract

Background

Forest management aims at obtaining a sustainable production of wood to be harvested to generate products or energy. However, the quantitative influence of forest management and of removals by harvest on biomass stocks has rarely been analysed on a large scale based on measurements. Two hypotheses prevail: management induces a reduction of wood stocks due to cuttings, versus no impact because of increased growth of the remaining trees.

Using data collected for 2840 permanent plots across Romania from the National Forest Inventory representing ~ 2.5 Mha, we have tested to what extent different management types and treatments can influence the biomass stock and productivity of beech forests, and attempt to quantify these effects both on the short and long terms.

Three main types of beech forest management are implemented in Romania with specific objectives: intensive wood production in production forests, protection of ecosystem services (e.g. watersheds, avalanche protection) in protection forests, and protection of the forest and its biodiversity in protected forests. Production forests encompass two treatments differing according to the stand regeneration method: the age class rotation management and the group shelterwood management.

Results

We show that forest management had little influence on the biomass stocks at a given stand age. The highest stocks at stand age 100 were observed in production forests (the most intensively managed forests). Consequences of early cuttings were very short-termed because the increase in tree growth rapidly compensated for tree cuttings. The cumulated biomass of production forests exceeded that of protected and protection forests. Regarding the treatment, the group shelterwood forests had a markedly higher production over a full rotation period.

The total amount of deadwood was primarily driven by the amount of standing deadwood, and no management effect was detected.

Conclusions

Given the relatively low-intensity management in Romania, forest management had no negative impact on wood stocks in beech forests biomass stocks at large scale. Stand productivity was very similar among management types or treatments. However cumulated biomass in production forests was higher than in protection or protected forests, and differed markedly according to treatments with a higher cumulated biomass in shelterwood forests.

Full text

Abstract

Full text

Outline

About this article

Effects of forest management on biomass stocks in Romanian beech forests

Show Author's information Hide Author's Information O. Bouriaud^{¹^,²}

(

), A. Don^³, I. A. Janssens^⁴, G. Marin^{²^,⁵}, E.-D. Schulze^⁶

National Forest Inventory, National Research Development Institute for Silviculture, Voluntari, Romania

vTI, Braunschweig, Germany

Department of Biology, University of Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium

Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, Str. Sirul Beethoven, nr. 1, 500123 Brasov, Romania

Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, PO Box 100164, 07701 Jena, Germany

Abstract

Background

Results

The total amount of deadwood was primarily driven by the amount of standing deadwood, and no management effect was detected.

Conclusions

Keywords: Forest management, National forest inventory, Forest productivity, Biomass stocks

References(80)

Aertsen W, Janssen E, Kint V, Bontemps J-D, Van Orshoven J, Muys B (2014) Long-term growth changes of common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) are less pronounced on highly productive sites. Forest Ecol Manag 312:252-259.

DOI Google Scholar

Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study, vol 45. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 160-163 pp.

Augusto L, Meredieu C, Bert D, Trichet P, Porté A, Bosc A, Lagane F, Loustau D, Pellerin S, Danjon F, Ranger J (2008) Improving models of forest nutrient export with equations that predict the nutrient concentration of tree compartments. Ann For Sci 65:808.

DOI Google Scholar

Babst F, Bouriaud O, Alexander R, Trouet V, Frank D (2014) Toward consistent measurements of carbon accumulation: a multi-site assessment of biomass and basal area increment across Europe. Dendrochronologia 32(2):153-161.

DOI Google Scholar

Bakker JD (2005) A new, proportional method for reconstructing historical tree diameters. Can J For Res 35(10):2515-2520.

DOI Google Scholar

Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1:1-7.

Google Scholar

Birdsey R, Pan Y (2015) Trends in management of the world's forests and impacts on carbon stocks. Forest Ecol Manag 355:83-90.

DOI Google Scholar

Bontemps J-D, Hervé J-C, Dhôte J-F (2010) Dominant radial and height growth reveal comparable historical variations for common beech in North-Eastern France. Forest Ecol Manag 259(8):1455-1463.

DOI Google Scholar

Bouriaud L, Marzano M, Lexer M, Nichiforel L, Reyer C, Temperli C, Peltola H, Elkin C, Duduman G, Taylor P, Bathgate S, Borges G, Clerkx S, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Gracia C, Hengeveld G, Kellomäki S, Kostov G, Maroschek M, Muys B, Nabuurs G-J, Nicoll B, Palahí M, Rammer W, Ray D, Schelhaas M-J, Sing L, Tomé M, Zell J, Hanewinkel M (2015) Institutional factors and opportunities for adapting European forest management to climate change. Region Environ Change 15(8):1595-1609.

DOI Google Scholar

Bouriaud O (2003) Analyse fonctionnelle de la productivité du hêtre: influences des conditions de milieu, de la structure du peuplement et du couvert, effets de l'éclaircie. Thèse de Doct. en Sciences forestière, ENGREF, p 240.

Bouriaud O, Marin G, Bouriaud L, Hessenmöller D, Schulze E-D (2016) Romanian legal management rules limit wood production in Norway spruce and beech forests. Forest Ecosyst 3:20.

DOI Google Scholar

Charru M, Seynave I, Morneau F, Rivoire M, Bontemps J-D (2012) Significant differences and curvilinearity in the self-thinning relationships of 11 temperate tree species assessed from forest inventory data. Ann For Sci 69(2):195-205.

DOI Google Scholar

Ciais P, Schelhaas M-J, Zaehle S, Piao SL, Cescatti A, Liski J, Luyssaert S, Le-Maire G, Schulze E-D, Bouriaud O, Freibauer A, Valentini R, Nabuurs G-J (2008) Carbon accumulation in European forests. Nat Geosci 1:425-429. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo233.

DOI Google Scholar

Collet C, Lanter O, Pardos M (2001) Effects of canopy opening on height and diameter growth in naturally regenerated beech seedlings. Ann For Sci 58(2):127-134.

DOI Google Scholar

D'Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ (2011) Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: insights from long-term silviculture experiments. Forest Ecol Manag 262(5):803-816.

DOI Google Scholar

De Simon G, Alberti G, Delle Vedove G, Zerbi G, Peressotti A (2012) Carbon stocks and net ecosystem production changes with time in two Italian forest chronosequences. Eur J Forest Res 131(5):1297-1311.

DOI Google Scholar

de Vries W, Reinds GJ, Gundersen P, Sterba H (2006) The impact of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration in European forests and forest soils. Global Change Biology 12(7):1151-1173.

DOI Google Scholar

Development Core Team R (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

Dittmar C, Zech W, Elling W (2003) Growth variations of common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under different climatic and environmental conditions in Europe-a dendroecological study. Forest Ecol Manag 173(1-3):63-78.

DOI Google Scholar

Duncker PS, Barreiro SM, Hengeveld GM, Lind T, Mason WL, Ambrozy S, Spiecker H (2012) Classification of Forest Management Approaches: A New Conceptual Framework and Its Applicability to European Forestry. Ecology and Society 17(4).

DOI Google Scholar

Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002) Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 295(5559):1517-1520.

DOI Google Scholar

Erb KH, Kastner T, Plutzar C, Bais ALS, Carvalhais N, Fetzel T, Gingrich S, Haberl H, Lauk C, Niedertscheider M, Pongratz J, Thurner M, Luysaaert S (2018) Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553(7686):73-76.

DOI Google Scholar

Fahey TJ, Woodbury PB, Battles JJ, Goodale CL, Hamburg SP, Ollinger SV, Woodall CW (2010) Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Front Ecol Environ 8(5):245-252.

DOI Google Scholar

Fichtner A, Sturm K, Rickert C, Härdtle W, Schrautzer J (2012) Competition response of European beech Fagus sylvatica L. varies with tree size and abiotic stress: minimizing anthropogenic disturbances in forests. J Appl Ecol 49(6):1306-1315.

DOI Google Scholar

Garcia-Gonzalo J, Peltola H, Briceno-Elizondo E, Kellomäki S (2007) Changed thinning regimes may increase carbon stock under climate change: a case study from a Finnish boreal forest. Clim Chang 81(3):431-454.

DOI Google Scholar

Granier A, Breda N, Longdoz B, Gross P, Ngao J (2008) Ten years of fluxes and stand growth in a young beech forest at Hesse, North-Eastern France. Ann For Sci 65(7):704-716.

DOI Google Scholar

Goodale CL, Apps MJ, Birdsey RA, Field CB, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jenkins JC, Kohlmaier GH, Kurz W, Liu S, Nabuurs GJ, Nilsson S, Shvidenko AZ (2002) FOREST CARBON SINKS IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. Ecological Applications 12(3):891-899.

DOI Google Scholar

Hall GMJ, Wiser SK, Allen RB, Beets PN, Goulding CJ (2001) Strategies to estimate national forest carbon stocks from inventory data: the 1990 New Zealand baseline. Global Change Biology 7(4):389-403.

DOI Google Scholar

Hemery GE (2008) Forest management and silvicultural responses to projected climate change impacts on European broadleaved trees and forests. Int For Rev 10(4):591-607.

DOI Google Scholar

Herbst M, Mund M, Tamrakar R, Knohl A (2015) Differences in carbon uptake and water use between a managed and an unmanaged beech forest in Central Germany. Forest Ecol Manag 355:101-108.

DOI Google Scholar

Hessenmöller D, Bouriaud O, Fritzlar D, Elsenhans AS, Schulze E-D (2018) A silvicultural strategy for managing uneven-aged beech-dominated forests in Thuringia, Germany: a new approach to an old problem. Scand J Forest Res 33(7):668-680.

DOI Google Scholar

Jucker T, Avǎcǎriței D, Bǎrnoaiea I, Duduman G, Bouriaud O, Coomes DA (2015) Climate modulates the effects of tree diversity on forest productivity. J Ecol 104(2):388-398.

DOI Google Scholar

Jucker T, Bouriaud O, Avacaritei D, Dǎnilǎ I, Duduman G, Valladares F, Coomes DA (2014) Competition for light and water play contrasting roles in driving diversity-productivity relationships in Iberian forests. J Ecol 102(5):1202-1213.

DOI Google Scholar

Juodvalkis A, Kairiukstis L, Vasiliauskas R (2005) Effects of thinning on growth of six tree species in north-temperate forests of Lithuania. Eur J Forest Res 124:187-192.

DOI Google Scholar

Kahl T, Arnstadt T, Aber K, Bässler C, Bauhus J, Borken W, Buscot F, Floren A, Heigl C, Hessenmöller D, Hofrichter M, Hoppe B, Kellner H, Krüger D, Linsenmair K, Mazner E, Otto P, Purahng W, Seilwinder C, Schulze E-D, Wende B, Weisser W, Gossner W (2017) Wood decay rates of 13 temperate tree species in relation to wood properties, enzyme activities and organismic diversities. Forest Ecol Manag 391:86-95.

DOI Google Scholar

Keeling HC, Phillips OL (2007) The global relationship between forest productivity and biomass. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16(5):618-631.

DOI Google Scholar

Koenker R (2017) quantreg: Quantile regression. R package version 5.21. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=quantreg.https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.cem.2017.3617

DOI

Kunstler G, Albert CH, Courbaud B, Lavergne S, Thuiller W, Vieilledent G, Zimmermann N, Coomes DA (2011) Effects of competition on tree radial-growth vary in importance but not in intensity along climatic gradients. J Ecol 99(1):300-312.

DOI Google Scholar

Lafond V, Lagarrigues G, Cordonnier T, Courbaud B (2014) Uneven-aged management options to promote forest resilience for climate change adaptation: effects of group selection and harvesting intensity. Ann For Sci 71(2):173-186.

DOI Google Scholar

Le Goff N, Ottorini J-M (1999) Effects of thinning on beech growth. Interaction with climatic factors. Rev Forest Fr 51:355-364.

Google Scholar

Luyssaert S, Hessenmöller D, von Lüpke N, Kaiser S, Schulze E-D (2011) Quantifying land-use and disturbance intensity in forestry, based on the self-thinning relationship. Ecol Appl 21:3272-3284.

DOI Google Scholar

Matthews JD (1989) Silvicultural systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 284.

McKinley DC, Ryan MG, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Harmon ME, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, Morrison JF (2011) A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol Appl 21(6):1902-1924.

DOI Google Scholar

Mund M (2004) Carbon pools of European beech forests (Fagus sylvatica) under different silvicultural management. Dissertation, Berichte des Forschungszentrums Waldö kosysteme. Forschungs-zentrum Waldökosysteme, Göttingen.

Mund M, Schulze E-D (2006) Impacts of forest management on the carbon budget of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forests. Allg Forst Jagdztg 177:47-63.

Google Scholar

Nabuurs GJ, Päivinen R, & Schanz H (2001) Sustainable management regimes for Europe's forests-a projection with EFISCEN until 2050. Forest Policy and Economics 3(3-4):155-173.

DOI Google Scholar

Naudts K, Chen Y, McGrath MJ, Ryder J, Valade A, Otto J, Luyssaert S (2016) Europe's forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351(6273):597-600.

DOI Google Scholar

Nave LE, Vance ED, Swanston CW, Curtis PS (2010) Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests. Forest Ecol Manag 259(5):857-866.

DOI Google Scholar

Netzer F, Schmid C, Herschbach C, Rennenberg H (2017) Phosphorus-nutrition of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) during annual growth depends on tree age and P-availability in the soil. Environ Exp Bot 137:194-207.

DOI Google Scholar

Noormets A, Epron D, Domec JC, McNulty SG, Fox T, Sun G, King JS (2015) Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: a review and hypothesis. Forest Ecol Manag 355:124-140.

DOI Google Scholar

Nunery JS, Keeton WS (2010) Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. Forest Ecol Manag 259(8):1363-1375.

DOI Google Scholar

Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell GJ, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao S, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World's Forests. Science 333(6045):988-993.

DOI Google Scholar

Peters R (1997) Beech forests. Geobotany, vol 24. Kluwer, Dordrecht. 169 pp.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8794-5

DOI

Petrițan AM, Bouriaud O, Frank DC, Petrițan IC (2017) Dendroecological reconstruction of disturbance history of an old-growth mixed sessile oak-beech forest. J Veg Sci 28(1):117-127.

DOI Google Scholar

Pilegaard K, Ibrom A, Courtney MS, Hummelshøj P, Jensen NO (2011) Increasing net CO₂ uptake by a Danish beech forest during the period from 1996 to 2009. Agric For Meteorol 151(7):934-946.

DOI Google Scholar

Pouderoux S, Deleuze C, Dhôte J-F (2001) Analyse du rendement des houppiers dans un essai d'éclaircie de hêtre grâce à un modèle a base écophysiologique. Ann For Sci 58(3):261-275.

DOI Google Scholar

Pretzsch H (2005) Stand density and growth of Norway spruces (Picea abies (L.) karst) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): evidence from long-term experimental plots. Eur J Forest Res 124:193-205.

DOI Google Scholar

Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield: from measurement to model. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

DOI

Pretzsch H (2014) Canopy space filling and tree crown morphology in mixed-species stands compared with monocultures. Forest Ecol Manag 327:251-264.

DOI Google Scholar

Purahong W, Hoppe B, Kahl T, Schloter M, Schulze E-D, Bauhus J, Buscot F, Krüger D (2014) Changes within a single land-use category alter microbial diversity and community structure: molecular evidence from wood-inhabiting fungi in forest ecosystems. J Environ Manag 139:109-119.

DOI Google Scholar

Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46:627-638.

Google Scholar

Reyer C, Lasch-Born P, Suckow F, Gutsch M, Murawski A, Pilz T (2014) Projections of regional changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Europe driven by climate change and carbon dioxide. Ann For Sci 71:211-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0306-8.

DOI Google Scholar

Schaedel MS, Larson AJ, Affleck DL, Belote RT, Goodburn JM, Page-Dumroese DS (2017) Early forest thinning changes aboveground carbon distribution among pools, but not total amount. Forest Ecol Manag 389:187-198.

DOI Google Scholar

Schall P, Ammer C (2013) RETRACTED ARTICLE: Quantifying forest stand management intensity in Central European forests. European Journal of Forest Research 132(2):397-397.

DOI Google Scholar

Scharnweber T, Manthey M, Criegee C, Bauwe A, Schröder C, Wilmking M (2011) Drought matters-declining precipitation influences growth of Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus robur L. in North-Eastern Germany. Forest Ecol Manag 262(6):947-961.

DOI Google Scholar

Schlamadinger B, Apps M, Bohlin F, Gustavsson L, Jungmeier G, Marland G, Pingoud K, Savolainen I (1997) Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass and Bioenergy 13(6):359-375.

DOI Google Scholar

Schulze E-D, Bouriaud L, Bussler H, Gossner M, Walentowski H, Hessenmöller D, Bouriaud O, Gadow KV (2014) Opinion paper: Forest management and biodiversity. Web Ecology 14(1):3.

DOI Google Scholar

Schulze ED (2018) Effects of forest management on biodiversity in temperate deciduous forests: An overview based on Central European beech forests. Journal for Nature Conservation 43:213-226.

DOI Google Scholar

Schulze E-D, Bouriaud O, Weber U, Roscher C, Hessenmöller D (2018a) Management beaks the natural productivity-biodiversity relationship in forests and grassland: an opinion. Forest Ecosyst 5:3.

DOI Google Scholar

Schulze E-D, Körner C, Law BE, Haberl H, Luyssaert S (2012) Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. GCB Bioenergy 4(6):611-616.

DOI Google Scholar

Skovsgaard JP, Vanclay JK (2008) Forest site productivity: a review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands. Forestry 81(1):13-32.

DOI Google Scholar

Sousa-Silva R, Verbist B, Lomba Â, Valent P, Suškevičs M, Picard O, Hoogstra-Klein MA, Cosofret VC, Bouriaud L, Ponette Q, Verheyen K (2018) Adapting forest management to climate change in Europe: linking perceptions to adaptive responses. Forest Policy Econ 90:22-30.

DOI Google Scholar

Thornley JHM, Cannell MGR (2000) Managing forests for wood yield and carbon storage: a theoretical study. Tree Physiol 20(7):477-484.

DOI Google Scholar

van der Maaten E (2013) Thinning prolongs growth duration of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) across a valley in southwestern Germany. Forest Ecol Manag 306(15):135-141.

DOI Google Scholar

Wallentin C, Nilsson U (2011) Initial effect of thinning on stand gross stem-volume production in a 33-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) karst.) stand in southern Sweden. Scand J Forest Res 26(S11):21-35.

DOI Google Scholar

Woodall CW, Walters BF, Oswalt SN, Domke GM, Toney C, Gray AN (2013) Biomass and carbon attributes of downed woody materials in forests of the United States. Forest Ecology and Management 305:48-59.

DOI Google Scholar

Wutzler T, Wirth C, Schumacher J (2008) Generic biomass functions for common beech (Fagus sylvatica) in Central Europe: predictions and components of uncertainty. Can J For Res 38(6):1661-1675.

DOI Google Scholar

Zeide B (2001) Resolving contradictions in forestry: back to science. Forestry Chron 77(6):973-981.

DOI Google Scholar

Zeide B (2005) How to measure stand density. Trees 19:1-14.

DOI Google Scholar

Zhou D, Zhao SQ, Liu S, Oeding J (2013) A meta-analysis on the impacts of partial cutting on forest structure and carbon storage. Biogeosciences 10:3691-3703.

DOI Google Scholar

About this article

Publication history

Acknowledgements

Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 08 December 2018

Accepted: 22 March 2019

Published: 04 April 2019

Issue date: September 2019

Copyright

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gheorghe Ştefan for his invaluable technical support, the editor and anonymous reviewers who helped improving sensibly this article.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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.