, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1189–1205 | Cite as

Dead Wood Necromass in a Moist Tropical Forest: Stocks, Fluxes, and Spatiotemporal Variability

  • Evan M. GoraEmail author
  • Riley C. Kneale
  • Markku Larjavaara
  • Helene C. Muller-Landau


Woody debris (WD) stocks and fluxes are important components of forest carbon budgets and yet remain understudied, particularly in tropical forests. Here we present the most comprehensive assessment of WD stocks and fluxes yet conducted in a tropical forest, including one of the first tropical estimates of suspended WD. We rely on data collected over 8 years in an old-growth moist tropical forest in Panama to quantify spatiotemporal variability and estimate minimum sample sizes for different components. Downed WD constituted the majority of total WD mass (78%), standing WD contributed a substantial minority (21%), and suspended WD was the smallest component (1%). However, when considering sections of downed WD that are elevated above the soil, the majority of WD inputs and approximately 50% of WD stocks were disconnected from the forest floor. Branchfall and liana wood accounted for 17 and 2% of downed WD, respectively. Residence times averaged 1.9 years for standing coarse WD (CWD; > 20 cm diameter) and 3.6 years for downed CWD. WD stocks and inputs were highly spatially variable, such that the sampling efforts necessary to estimate true values within 10% with 95% confidence were > 130 km of transects for downed CWD and > 550 ha area for standing CWD. The vast majority of studies involve much lower sampling efforts, suggesting that considerably more data are required to precisely quantify tropical forest WD pools and fluxes. The demonstrated importance of elevated WD in our study indicates a need to understand how elevation above the ground alters decomposition rates and incorporate this understanding into models of forest carbon cycling.


carbon cycling decomposition snag coarse woody debris suspended woody debris branchfall Panama liana 



We thank Oris Acevedo, Melissa Cano, and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for logistical support. We thank Pablo Ramos and Paulino Villarreal for field assistance. Comments from two anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript. This research was supported in part by the HSBC Climate Partnership and the Smithsonian ForestGEO Program through H.C. Muller-Landau, and a Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Fellowship and NSF Grant GRF-2015188266 to E.M. Gora.

Supplementary material

10021_2019_341_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (667 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 666 kb)


  1. Adair EC, Parton WJ, Del Grosso SJ, Silver WL, Harmon ME, Hall SA, Burke IC, Hart SC. 2008. Simple three-pool model accurately describes patterns of long-term litter decomposition in diverse climates. Global Change Biology 14:2636–60.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Davies SJ, Bennett AC, Gonzalez-Akre EB, Muller-Landau HC, Wright SJ, Salim KA, Zambrano AMA, Alonso A, Baltzer JL. 2015. CTFS-Forest GEO: A worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change. Global Change Biology 21:528–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Wang MM, McGarvey JC, LeBauer DS. 2016. Carbon dynamics of mature and regrowth tropical forests derived from a pantropical database (T rop F or C-db). Global Change Biology 22:1690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baas P, Ewers FW, Davis SD, Wheeler EA. 2004. Evolution of xylem physiology. In: Hemsley AR, Poole I, Eds. The evolution of plant physiology: from whole plants to ecosystems. London: Elsevier. p 273–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker TR, Coronado ENH, Phillips OL, Martin J, van der Heijden GM, Garcia M, Espejo JS. 2007. Low stocks of coarse woody debris in a southwest amazonian forest. Oecologia 152:495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boddy L. 2001. Fungal community ecology and wood decomposition processes in angiosperms: from standing tree to complete decay of coarse woody debris. Ecological Bulletins: 43–56.Google Scholar
  7. Boddy L, Hynes J, Bebber DP, Fricker MD. 2009. Saprotrophic cord systems: dispersal mechanisms in space and time. Mycoscience 50:9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boddy L, Owens EM, Chapela IH. 1989. Small scale variation in decay rate within logs one year after felling: Effect of fungal community structure and moisture content. FEMS Microbiology Letters 62:173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford MA, Warren RJII, Baldrian P, Crowther TW, Maynard DS, Oldfield EE, Wieder WR, Wood SA, King JR. 2014. Climate fails to predict wood decomposition at regional scales. Nature Climate Change 4:625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. Rome, Italy: Food & Agriculture Org. p 55p.Google Scholar
  11. Carlson BS, Koerner SE, Medjibe VP, White LJ, Poulsen JR. 2017. Deadwood stocks increase with selective logging and large tree frequency in Gabon. Global Change Biology 23:1648–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers JQ, Higuchi N, Schimel JP, Ferreira LV, Melack JM. 2000. Decomposition and carbon cycling of dead trees in tropical forests of the central Amazon. Oecologia 122:380–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chave J, Condit R, Lao S, Caspersen JP, Foster RB, Hubbell SP. 2003. Spatial and temporal variation of biomass in a tropical forest: results from a large census plot in Panama. Journal of Ecology 91:240–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chave J, Réjou-Méchain M, Búrquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan MS, Delitti WB, Duque A, Eid T, Fearnside PM, Goodman RC, Henry M, Martínez-Yrízar A, Mugasha WA, Muller-Landau HC, Mencuccini M, Nelson BW, Ngomanda A, Nogueira EM, Ortiz-Malavassi E, Pélissier R, Ploton P, Ryan CM, Saldarriaga JG, Vieilledent G. 2014. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Global Change Biology 20:3177–90.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen O. 1977. Estimation of standing crop and turnover of dead wood in a Danish oak forest. Oikos 28:177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter DW, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J. 2001. Measuring net primary production in forests: concepts and field methods. Ecological Applications 11:356–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark DB, Clark DA, Brown S, Oberbauer SF, Veldkamp E. 2002. Stocks and flows of coarse woody debris across a tropical rain forest nutrient and topography gradient. Forest Ecology and Management 164:237–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clay NA, Donoso DA, Kaspari M. 2015. Urine as an important source of sodium increases decomposition in an inland but not coastal tropical forest. Oecologia 177:571–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleveland CC, Taylor P, Chadwick KD, Dahlin K, Doughty CE, Malhi Y, Smith WK, Sullivan BW, Wieder WR, Townsend AR. 2015. A comparison of plot-based satellite and Earth system model estimates of tropical forest net primary production. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 29:626–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cornelissen JHC, Sass-Klaassen U, Poorter L, van Geffen K, van Logtestijn RSP, van Hal J, Goudzwaard L, Sterck FJ, Klaassen RKWM, Freschet GT, van der Wal A, Eshuis H, Zuo J, de Boer W, Lamers T, Weemstra M, Cretin V, Martin R, Ouden Jd, Berg MP, Aerts R, Mohren GMJ, Hefting MM. 2012. Controls on coarse wood decay in temperate tree species: birth of the LOGLIFE experiment. AMBIO 41:231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Allison SD, Bauhus J, Eggleton P, Preston CM, Scarff F, Weedon JT, Wirth C, Zanne AE. 2009. Plant traits and wood fates across the globe: rotted, burned, or consumed? Global Change Biology 15:2431–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cushman KC, Muller-Landau HC, Condit RS, Hubbell SP. 2014. Improving estimates of biomass change in buttressed trees using tree taper models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5:573–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delaney M, Brown S, Lugo AE, Torres-Lezama A, Quintero NB. 1998. The quantity and turnover of dead wood in permanent forest plots in six life zones of Venezuela. Biotropica 30:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Delignette-Muller ML, Dutang C. 2015. fitdistrplus: An R package for fitting distributions. Journal of Statistical Software 64:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doughty CE, Metcalfe DB, Girardin CAJ, Amézquita FF, Cabrera DG, Huasco WH, Silva-Espejo JE, Araujo-Murakami A, da Costa MC, Rocha W, Feldpausch TR, Mendoza ALM, da Costa ACL, Meir P, Phillips OL, Malhi Y. 2015. Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia. Nature 519:78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eaton JM, Lawrence D. 2006. Woody debris stocks and fluxes during succession in a dry tropical forest. Forest Ecology and Management 232:46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Falster DS, Duursma RA, Baltzer JL, Baraloto C, Battaglia M, Battles JJ, Bond-Lamberty B, van Breugel M, Camac J, Claveau Y. 2015. BAAD: a Biomass And Allometry Database for woody plants.Google Scholar
  28. Fasth BG, Harmon ME, Sexton J, White P. 2011. Decomposition of fine woody debris in a deciduous forest in North Carolina. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 138:192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gora EM, Battaglia LL, Schumacher HB, Carson WP. 2014. Patterns of coarse woody debris volume among 18 late-successional and mature forest stands in Pennsylvania1. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 141:151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gurdak DJ, Aragão LE, Rozas-Dávila A, Huasco WH, Cabrera KG, Doughty CE, Farfan-Rios W, Silva-Espejo JE, Metcalfe DB, Silman MR. 2014. Assessing above-ground woody debris dynamics along a gradient of elevation in Amazonian cloud forests in Peru: balancing above-ground inputs and respiration outputs. Plant Ecology & Diversity 7:143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K Jr, Cummins KW. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15:133–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harmon ME, Sexton J. 1996. Guidelines for measurements of woody detritus in forest ecosystems. Publication Number 20, US LTER Network Office, University of Washington, Washington, USA, p73.Google Scholar
  33. Harmon ME, Whigham DF, Sexton J, Olmsted I. 1995. Decomposition and mass of woody detritus in the dry tropical forests of the northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Biotropica: 305–316.Google Scholar
  34. Hubbell SP, Foster RB. 1983. Diversity of canopy trees in a neotropical forest and implications for conservation. In: Sutton SL, Whitmore TC, Chadwick AC, Eds. Tropical rain forest: ecology and management. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. p 25–41.Google Scholar
  35. Iwashita DK, Litton CM, Giardina CP. 2013. Coarse woody debris carbon storage across a mean annual temperature gradient in tropical montane wet forest. Forest Ecology and Management 291:336–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Janisch J, Harmon M. 2002. Successional changes in live and dead wood carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiology 22:77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnsson M, Stallard R. 1989. Physiographic controls on the composition of sediments derived from volcanic and sedimentary terrains on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Journal of Sedimentary Research 59:768–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaspari M, Yanoviak SP, Dudley R, Yuan M, Clay NA. 2009. Sodium shortage as a constraint on the carbon cycle in an inland tropical rainforest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:19405–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller M, Palace M, Asner GP, Pereira R, Silva JNM. 2004. Coarse woody debris in undisturbed and logged forests in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biology 10:784–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kissing LB, Powers JS. 2010. Coarse woody debris stocks as a function of forest type and stand age in Costa Rican tropical dry forest: long-lasting legacies of previous land use. Journal of Tropical Ecology 26:467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Král K, Janík D, Vrška T, Adam D, Hort L, Unar P, Šamonil P. 2010. Local variability of stand structural features in beech dominated natural forests of Central Europe: implications for sampling. Forest Ecology and Management 260:2196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lang GE, Knight DH. 1979. Decay rates for boles of tropical trees in Panama. Biotropica 11:316–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Larjavaara M, Muller-Landau HC. 2010. Comparison of decay classification, knife test, and two penetrometers for estimating wood density of coarse woody debris. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40:2313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larjavaara M, Muller-Landau HC. 2011. Cross-section mass: an improved basis for woody debris necromass inventory. Silva Fennica 45:291–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leigh EG Jr. 1999. Tropical Forest Ecology: A View from Barro Colorado Island. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Liski J, Palosuo T, Peltoniemi M, Sievänen R. 2005. Carbon and decomposition model Yasso for forest soils. Ecological Modelling 189:168–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maass JM, Martínez-Yrízar A, Patiño C, Sarukhán J. 2002. Distribution and annual net accumulation of above-ground dead phytomass and its influence on throughfall quality in a Mexican tropical deciduous forest ecosystem. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18:821–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mäkinen H, Hynynen J, Siitonen J, Sievänen R. 2006. Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecological Applications 16:1865–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malhi Y, Aragao LEO, Metcalfe DB, Paiva R, Quesada CA, Almeida S, Anderson L, Brando P, Chambers JQ, Da Costa AC. 2009. Comprehensive assessment of carbon productivity, allocation and storage in three Amazonian forests. Global Change Biology 15:1255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Malhi Y, Doughty C, Galbraith D. 2011. The allocation of ecosystem net primary productivity in tropical forests. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B 366:3225–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Malhi Y, Farfán Amézquita F, Doughty CE, Silva-Espejo JE, Girardin CA, Metcalfe DB, Aragão LE, Huaraca-Quispe LP, Alzamora-Taype I, Eguiluz-Mora L. 2014. The productivity, metabolism and carbon cycle of two lowland tropical forest plots in south-western Amazonia, Peru. Plant Ecology & Diversity 7:85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marvin DC, Asner GP. 2016. Branchfall dominates annual carbon flux across lowland Amazonian forests. Environmental Research Letters 11:094027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meakem V, Tepley AJ, Gonzalez-Akre EB, Herrmann V, Muller-Landau HC, Wright SJ, Hubbell SP, Condit R, Anderson-Teixeira KJ. 2017. Role of tree size in moist tropical forest carbon cycling and water deficit responses. New Phytologist.Google Scholar
  54. Metcalfe D, Meir P, Aragão LEOC, da Costa A, Almeida S, Braga A, Gonçalves P, Athaydes J, Malhi Y, Williams M. 2008. Sample sizes for estimating key ecosystem characteristics in a tropical terra firme rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:558–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oberle B, Covey KR, Dunham KM, Hernandez EJ, Walton ML, Young DF, Zanne AE. 2017. Dissecting the effects of diameter on wood decay emphasizes the importance of cross-stem conductivity in Fraxinus americana. Ecosystems: 1–13.Google Scholar
  56. Odum HT. 1970. Summary: an emerging view of the ecological system at El Verde. Odum HT, Pigeon RF editors. A tropical rain forest. A study of irradiation and ecology at El Verde, Puerto Rico. Oak Ridge: U.S. Atomic Commission.Google Scholar
  57. Ovington J, Madgwick H. 1959. Distribution of organic matter and plant nutrients in a plantation of Scots pine. Forest Science 5:344–55.Google Scholar
  58. Palace M, Keller M, Asner GP, Silva JNM, Passos C. 2007. Necromass in undisturbed and logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 238:309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Palace M, Keller M, Hurtt G, Frolking S. 2012. A review of above ground necromass in tropical forests. In: Sudarshana P, Nageswara-Rao M, Soneji JR, Eds. tropical forests. Rijeka, Croatia: Intech. p 215–52.Google Scholar
  60. Palace M, Keller M, Silva H. 2008. Necromass production: studies in undisturbed and logged Amazon forests. Ecological Applications 18:873–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, 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 333:988–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paton S. 2017. Report of the Physical Monitoring Program of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.
  63. Pfeifer M, Lefebvre V, Turner E, Cusack J, Khoo M, Chey VK, Peni M, Ewers RM. 2015. Deadwood biomass: An underestimated carbon stock in degraded tropical forests? Environmental Research Letters 10:044019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Přívětivý T, Janík D, Unar P, Adam D, Král K, Vrška T. 2016. How do environmental conditions affect the deadwood decomposition of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)? Forest Ecology and Management 381:177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  66. Rice AH, Pyle EH, Saleska SR, Hutyra L, Palace M, Keller M, de Camargo PB, Portilho K, Marques DF, Wofsy SC. 2004. Carbon balance and vegetation dynamics in an old-growth amazonian forest. Ecological Applications 14:55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schnitzer SA, Bongers F. 2011. Increasing liana abundance and biomass in tropical forests: emerging patterns and putative mechanisms. Ecology Letters 14:397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sierra CA, del Valle JI, Orrego SA, Moreno FH, Harmon ME, Zapata M, Colorado GJ, Herrera MA, Lara W, Restrepo DE, Berrouet LM, Loaiza LM, Benjumea JF. 2007. Total carbon stocks in a tropical forest landscape of the Porce region, Colombia. Forest Ecology and Management 243:299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Song Z, Dunn C, Lü X-T, Qiao L, Pang J-P, Tang J-W. 2017. Coarse woody decay rates vary by physical position in tropical seasonal rainforests of SW China. Forest Ecology and Management 385:206–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swift M, Healey I, Hibberd J, Sykes J, Bampoe V, Nesbitt M. 1976. The decomposition of branch-wood in the canopy and floor of a mixed deciduous woodland. Oecologia 26:139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thornton PE. 1998. Regional ecosystem simulation: combining surface-and satellite-based observations to study linkages between terrestrial energy and mass budgets. Missoula: University of Montana. p p280.Google Scholar
  72. van der Heijden GM, Schnitzer SA, Powers JS, Phillips OL. 2013. Liana impacts on carbon cycling, storage and sequestration in tropical forests. Biotropica 45:682–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van der Heijden GMF, Powers JS, Schnitzer SA. 2015. Lianas reduce carbon accumulation and storage in tropical forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:13267–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. van der Wal A, Ottosson E, de Boer W. 2015. Neglected role of fungal community composition in explaining variation in wood decay rates. Ecology 96:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. van Geffen KG, Poorter L, Sass-Klaassen U, van Logtestijn RSP, Cornelissen JHC. 2010. The trait contribution to wood decomposition rates of 15 Neotropical tree species. Ecology 91:3686–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Warren W, Olsen P. 1964. A line intersect technique for assessing logging waste. Forest Science 10:267–76.Google Scholar
  77. Weedon JT, Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JH, Zanne AE, Wirth C, Coomes DA. 2009. Global meta-analysis of wood decomposition rates: a role for trait variation among tree species? Ecology Letters 12:45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woldendorp G, Keenan RJ, Barry S, Spencer RD. 2004. Analysis of sampling methods for coarse woody debris. Forest Ecology and Management 198:133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wolf PR, Dewitt BA. 2000. Elements of photogrammetry: with applications in GIS. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  80. Zanne AE, Oberle B, Dunham KM, Milo AM, Walton ML, Young DF. 2015. A deteriorating state of affairs: How endogenous and exogenous factors determine plant decay rates. Journal of Ecology 103:1421–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evan M. Gora
    • 1
    Email author
  • Riley C. Kneale
    • 1
  • Markku Larjavaara
    • 2
  • Helene C. Muller-Landau
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Sciences, Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI)University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboa, AnconRepublic of Panama

Personalised recommendations