Advertisement

Ecosystem carbon stocks of Estonian premature and mature managed forests: effects of site conditions and overstorey tree species

  • Reimo LutterEmail author
  • Raimo Kõlli
  • Arvo Tullus
  • Hardi Tullus
Original Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

The crucial role of forests in terrestrial carbon (C) balance is well acknowledged, but nationwide C assessments still show some uncertainties. We estimated the effect of forest site type on various ecosystem C pools in premature- and mature-aged forests of hemiboreal Estonia. Furthermore, the effects of soil physico-chemical properties and the tree species on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks were analysed. The weighted mean SOC stock of Estonian forests was 77 Mg C ha−1 in humipedon layer and 118 Mg C ha−1 in solum. The mean ecosystem C stock of Estonian forests was 174 (confidence range: 141 to 214) Mg C ha−1, from which 111 Mg C ha−1 was distributed in the solum layer, 61 Mg C ha−1 in the overstorey tree layer, 0.5 Mg C ha−1 in the understorey tree layer and 1.7 Mg C ha−1 in the ground vegetation. Forest site type had a significant (p < 0.001) effect on all analysed C stocks. The variation of SOC stocks in the humipedon (R2 = 0.71) and in the solum (R2 = 0.79) was explained by the thickness of the layer, the total nitrogen stock, base saturation, hydrolytic acidity, soil trophic and moisture conditions. The higher quantity of deciduous tree species in a stand composition was in a positive correlation with the SOC stock in the humipedon of fertile site types. The accuracy of nationwide assessments of forest C reporting can be improved by using a site-specific approach, considering deeper soil layers and incorporating other structural forest layers.

Keywords

Nationwide carbon assessment Soil organic carbon Forest site type Forest soil Humipedon Subsoil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Institutional Research Funding IUT (grants IUT21-4 and IUT34-9) and the project P170053MIMK of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research and the projects No. 0170116AGML98 and ESF Grant No. 4991. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for valuable comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aavik T, Püssa K, Roosaluste E, Moora M (2009) Vegetation change in boreonemoral Forest during succession—trends in species composition, richness and differentiation diversity. Ann Bot Fenn 46:326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahti T, Hamet-Ahti L, Jalas J (1968) Vegetation zones and their sections in northwest Europe. Ann Bot 5:169–211Google Scholar
  3. Arinoushkina EV (1970) Instruction for chemical analysis of soil. University of Moscow, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. Arold I (2005) Eesti maastikud (Estonian landscapes). Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus, Tartu (in Estonian)Google Scholar
  5. Astover A, Reintam E, Leedu E, Kõlli R (2013) Muldade väliuurimine [Survey of soils]. Eesti Loodusfoto, Tartu (in Estonian)Google Scholar
  6. Barbier S, Gosselin F, Balandier P (2008) Influence of tree species on understory vegetation diversity and mechanisms involved-A critical review for temperate and boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 254:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bárcena TG, Kiaer LP, Vesterdal L, Stefansdottir HM, Gundersen P, Sigurdsson BD (2014) Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 20:2393–2405PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Baritz R, Seufert G, Montanarella L, Van Ranst E (2010) Carbon concentrations and stocks in forest soils of Europe. For Ecol Manag 260:262–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartels SF, Chen HYH (2013) Interactions between overstorey and understorey vegetation along an overstorey compositional gradient. J Veg Sci 24:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bona KA, Shaw CH, Fyles JW, Kurz WA (2016) Modelling moss-derived carbon in upland black spruce forests. Can J For Res 46:520–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booth MS, Stark JM, Rastetter E (2005) Controls on nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: a synthetic analysis of literature data. Ecol Monogr 75:139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Böttcher H, Kurz WA, Freibauer A (2008) Accounting of forest carbon sinks and sources under a future climate protocol-factoring out past disturbance and management effects on age-class structure. Environ Sci Policy 11:669–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brockett BFT, Prescott CE, Grayston SJ (2012) Soil moisture is the major factor influencing microbial community structure and enzyme activities across seven biogeoclimatic zones in western Canada. Soil Biol Biochem 44:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bronick CJ, Lal R (2005) Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cremer M, Kern NV, Prietzel J (2016) Soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks under pure and mixed stands of European beech, Douglas fir and Norway spruce. For Ecol Manag 367:30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson EA, Belk E, Boone RD (1998) Soil water content and temperature as independent or confounded factors controlling soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Glob Chang Biol 4:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Vos B, Cools N, Ilvesniemi H, Vesterdal L, Vanguelova E, Carnicelli S (2015) Benchmark values for forest soil carbon stocks in European: results from a large scale forest survey. Geoderma 251–252:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Wit HA, Austnes K, Hylen G, Dalsgaard L (2015) A carbon balance of Norway: terrestrial and aquatic carbon fluxes. Biogeochemistry 123:147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler MC, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263:185–190PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. EEA (2017a) Estonian Environment Agency. Information on LULUCF actions in Estonia Progress report under LULUCF Decision 529/2013/EU Art 10, TallinnGoogle Scholar
  21. EEA (2017b) Estonian Environment Agency, TallinnGoogle Scholar
  22. ELB (2012) Estonian Land Board. Explanatory letter for the large scale digital soil map of EstoniaGoogle Scholar
  23. FAO (2006) Guidelines for soil description, 4th edn. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher R, Binkley D (2000) Ecology and management of forest soils. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gower ST, McMurtrie RE, Murty D (1996) Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: potential causes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:378–382PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Grüneberg E, Ziche D, Wellbrock N (2014) Organic carbon stocks and sequestration rates of forest soils of Germany. Glob Chang Biol 20:2644–2662PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 8:345–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurmesa GA, Schmidt IK, Gundersen P, Vesterdal L (2013) Soil carbon accumulation and nitrogen retention traits of four tree species grown in common gardens. For Ecol Manag 309:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hagemann U, Moroni MT (2015) Moss and lichen decomposition in old-growth and harvested high-boreal forests estimated using the litterbag and minicontainer methods. Soil Biol Biochem 87:10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansson K, Olsson BA, Olsson M, Johansson U, Kleja DB (2011) Differences in soil properties in adjacent stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce and silver birch in SW Sweden. For Ecol Manag 262:522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansson K, Fröberg M, Helmisaari HS, Kleja DB, Olsson BA, Olsson M, Persson T (2013) Carbon and nitrogen pools and fluxes above and below ground in spruce, pine and birch stands in southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 309:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Honkaniemi J, Lehtonen M, Väisänen H, Peltola H (2017) Effects of wood decay by Heterobasidion annosum on the vulnerability of Norway spruce stands to wind damage: a mechanistic modelling approach. Can J For Res 47:777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 134:415–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  35. Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, Johnson DW, Minkkinen K, Byrne KA (2007) How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jobbagy E, Jackson RB (2000) The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Appl 10:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jonard M, Nicolas M, Coomes DA, Caignet I, Saenger A, Ponette Q (2017) Forest soils in France are sequestering substantial amounts of carbon. Sci Total Environ 574:616–628PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Kachinsky N (1965) Fizica pochvy [Soil physics], vol I. University Press, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  39. Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A, Alam A (2013) Effects of bioenergy production on carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems. In: Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A, Ashraful A (eds) Forest bioenergy production: management, carbon sequestration and adaptation. Springer, New York, pp 125–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kiviste A (1997) Eesti riigimetsa puistute kõrguse, diameetri ja tagavara vanuseridade diferentsmudel 1984.–1993. aasta metsakorralduse andmeil. Trans Est Agric Univ 189:63–75 (in Estonian with English summery)Google Scholar
  41. Kõlli R (1992) Production and ecological characteristics of organic matter of forest soils. Eurasian Soil Sci 6:78–91Google Scholar
  42. Kõlli R (2002) Productivity and humus status of forest soils in Estonia. For Ecol Manag 171:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kõlli R, Kanal A (2010) The management and protection of soil cover: an ecosystem approach. For Stud 53:25–34Google Scholar
  44. Kõlli R, Köster T (2018) Interrelationships of humus cover (pro humus form) with soil cover and plant cover: humus form as transitional space between soil and plant. Appl Soil Ecol 123:451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kõlli R, Rannik K (2018) Matching Estonian humus cover types’ (pro humus forms’) and soils’ classifications. Appl Soil Ecol 123:627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kõlli R, Asi E, Köster T (2004) Organic carbon pools in Estonian forest soils. Balt For 10:19–26Google Scholar
  47. Kõlli R, Ellermäe O, Köster T, Lemetti I, Asi E, Kauer K (2009a) Stocks of organic carbon in Estonian soils. Est J Earth Sci 58:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kõlli R, Astover A, Noormets M, Tõnutare T, Szajdak L (2009b) Histosol as an ecologically active constituent of peatland: a case study from Estonia. Plant Soil 315:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laganiere J, Pare D, Bradley RL (2010a) How does a tree species influence litter decomposition? Separating the relative contribution of litter quality, litter mixing, and forest floor conditions. Can J For Res 40:465–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Laganiere J, Angers DA, Pare D (2010b) Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 16:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Law BE, Sun OJ, Campell J, Van Tuyl S, Thornton PE (2003) Changes in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Chang Biol 9:510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li D, Niu S, Luo Y (2012) Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 195:172–181PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidi R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer MJ, Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 259:698–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lõhmus E (1974) Eesti metsade ordineerimisest ja klassifitseerimisest (ordination and classification of Estonian forests). For Stud 11:162–194 (in Estonian)Google Scholar
  55. Lõhmus E (2004) Eesti metsakasvukohatüübid (Estonian forest site types). Eesti Loodusfoto, Tartu (in Estonian)Google Scholar
  56. Lundström US, van Breemen N, Bain D (2000) The podzolization process. A review. Geoderma 94:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lutter R, Tullus A, Kanal A, Tullus T, Tullus H (2016) The impact of former land-use type to above- and below-ground C and N pools in short-rotation hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L. × P. tremuloides Michx.) plantations in hemiboreal conditions. For Ecol Manag 378:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Börner A, Knohl A, Hessenmöller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Metsaranta JM, Shaw CH, Kurz WA, Boisvenue C, Morken S (2017) Uncertainty of inventory-based estimates of the carbon dynamics of Canada`s managed forest (1990–2014). Can J For Res 47:1082–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MoE (2018) Ministry of Environment. Greenhouse gas emissions in Estonia 1990–2016 National Inventory Report. Submission to the European Commission. Common Reporting Formats. Ministry of the Environment, Tallinn, p 638Google Scholar
  61. Olsson MT, Erlandsson M, Lundin L, Nilsson T, Nilsson A, Stendahl J (2009) Organic carbon stocks in Swedish Podzol soils in relation to soil hydrology and other site characteristics. Silva Fenn 43:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 333:988–993PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Peltoniemi M, Palosuo T, Monni S, Mäkipää R (2006) Factors affecting the uncertainty of sinks and stocks of carbon in Finnish forests soils and vegetation. For Ecol Manag 232:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peterson U, Aunap R (1998) Changes in agricultural land use in Estonia in the 1990s detected with multitemporal Landsat MSS imagery. Landsc Urban Plan 41:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Poeplau C, Don A (2013) Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions to different land-use changes across Europe. Geoderma 192:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prescott CE, Grayston SJ (2013) Tree species influence on microbial communities in litter and soil: current knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manag 309:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Puri B, Murari K (1964) Studies in surface-area measurements of soils. 2. Surface area from a single point on the water isoterm. Soil Sci 97:341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (http://www.R-project.org)
  69. Raukas A, Teedumäe A (1997) Geology and mineral resources of Estonia. Estonian Academy Publishers, TallinnGoogle Scholar
  70. Rousk K, Jones DL, Deluca TH (2013) Moss-cyanobacteria associations as biogenic sources of nitrogen in boreal forest ecosystems. Front Microbiol 4:150.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00150 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I (2011) Deep soil organic matter-a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Saarman E, Veibri U (2006) Puiduteadus. Estonian society of foresters. Vali Press, EstonianGoogle Scholar
  73. Salome C, Nunan N, Pouteau V, Lerch TZ, Chenu C (2009) Carbon dynamics in topsoil and in subsoil may be controlled by different regulatory mechanisms. Glob Chang Biol 16:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shanin V, Komarov A, Makipaa R (2014) Tree species composition affects productivity and carbon dynamics of different site types in boreal forests. Eur J For Res 133:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shaw CH, Bona KA, Kurz WA, Fyles JW (2015) The importance of tree species and soil taxonomy to modeling forest soil carbon stocks in Canada. Geoderma Reg 4:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th edn. USDA, NRCS, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  77. Stark H, Nothdurft A, Block J, Bauhus J (2015) Forest restoration with Betula ssp. and Populus ssp. nurse crops increases productivity and soil fertility. For Ecol Manag 339:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stefańska-Krzaczek E, Szymura TH (2015) Species diversity of forest floor vegetation in age gradient of managed scots pine stands. Balt For 21:233–243Google Scholar
  79. Stinson G, Kurz WA, Smyth CE, Neilson ET, Dymond CC, Metsaranta JM, Boisvenue C, Rampley GJ, Li Q, White TM, Blain D (2011) An inventory-based analysis of Canada`s managed forest carbon dynamics, 1990 to 2008. Glob Chang Biol 17:2227–2244PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Strand LT, Callesen I, Dalsgaard L, de Wit HA (2016) Carbon and nitrogen stocks in Norwegian forest soils—the importance of soil formation, climate, and vegetation type for organic matter accumulation. Can J For Res 46:1459–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tarand A, Jaagus J, Kallis A (2013) Eesti kliima minevikus ja tänapäeval. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu in Estonian Google Scholar
  82. Torssonen P, Strandman H, Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A, Jylhä K, Asikainen A, Peltola H (2015) Do we need to adapt the choice of main boreal tree species in forest regeneration under the projected climate change? Forestry 88:564–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Turetsky M, Mack MC, Hollingsworth TN, Harden JW (2010) The role of mosses in ecosystem succession and function in Alaska`s boreal forest. Can J For Res 40:1237–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tyurin IV (1937) Soil organic matter and its role in pedogenesis and soil productivity. Study of soil humus. Moskva, Sel’skozgiz, p 314 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  85. UNFCCC (1997) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted at COP3 in Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  86. UNFCCC (2006) Updated UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories following incorporation of the provisions of decision 14/CP.11Google Scholar
  87. UNFCCC (2015) Paris Agreement, Adaption of the Paris Agreement, decision 1/CP.17Google Scholar
  88. Uri V, Varik M, Aosaar J, Kanal A, Kukumägi M, Lõhmus K (2012) Biomass production and carbon sequestration in a fertile silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) forest chronosequence. For Ecol Manag 267:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vesterdal L, Ritter E, Gundersen P (2002) Change in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former arable land. For Ecol Manag 169:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vesterdal L, Clarke N, Sigurdsson BD, Gundersen P (2013) Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests? For Ecol Manag 309:4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vilen T, Gunia K, Verkerk PJ, Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Lindner M, Bellassen V (2012) Reconstructed forest age structure in Europe 1950–2010. For Ecol Manag 286:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yang Y, Luo Y, Finzi AC (2011) Carbon and nitrogen dynamics during forest stand development: a global synthesis. New Phytol 190:977–989PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Zanella A, Jabiol B, Ponge J-F, Sartori G, DeWaal R, Van Delft B, Graefe U, Cools N, Katzensteiner K, Hager H, Englisch M (2011) A European morpho-functional classification of humus forms. Geoderma 164:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zanella A, Ponge J-F, Gobat J-M, Juilleret J, Blouin M, Aubert M, Chertov O, Rubio JL (2018) Humusica 1, article1: essential bases—vocabulary. Appl Soil Ecol 122:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forestry and Rural EngineeringEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations