Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 115–137 | Cite as

The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration

  • L. E. NaveEmail author
  • B. F. Walters
  • K. L. Hofmeister
  • C. H. Perry
  • U. Mishra
  • G. M. Domke
  • C. W. Swanston
Article

Abstract

In the United States (U.S.), the maintenance of forest cover is a legal mandate for federally managed forest lands. More broadly, reforestation following harvesting, recent or historic disturbances can enhance numerous carbon (C)-based ecosystem services and functions. These include production of woody biomass for forest products, and mitigation of atmospheric CO2 pollution and climate change by sequestering C into ecosystem pools where it can be stored for long timescales. Nonetheless, a range of assessments and analyses indicate that reforestation in the U.S. lags behind its potential, with the continuation of ecosystem services and functions at risk if reforestation is not increased. In this context, there is need for multiple independent analyses that quantify the role of reforestation in C sequestration, from ecosystems up to regional and national levels. Here, we describe the methods and report the findings of a large-scale data synthesis aimed at four objectives: (1) estimate C storage in major ecosystem pools in forest and other land cover types; (2) quantify sources of variation in ecosystem C pools; (3) compare the impacts of reforestation and afforestation on C pools; (4) assess whether these results hold or diverge across ecoregions. The results of our synthesis support four overarching inferences regarding reforestation and other land use impacts on C sequestration. First, in the bigger picture, soils are the dominant C pool in all ecosystems and land cover types in the U.S., and soil C pool sizes vary less by land cover than by other factors, such as spatial variation or soil wetness. Second, where historically cultivated lands are being reforested, topsoils are sequestering significant amounts of C, with the majority of reforested lands yet to reach their capacity relative to the potential indicated by natural forest soils. Third, the establishment of woody vegetation delivers immediate to multi-decadal C sequestration benefits in aboveground woody biomass and coarse woody debris pools, with two- to three-fold C sequestration benefits in biomass during the first several decades following planting. Fourth, opportunities to enhance C sequestration through reforestation vary among the ecoregions, according to current levels of planting, typical forest growth rates, and past land uses (especially cultivation). Altogether, our results suggest that an immediate, but phased and spatially targeted approach to reforestation can enhance C sequestration in forest biomass and soils in the U.S. for decades to centuries to come.

Keywords

Forest ecosystem Land cover Land use Soil Biomass ECOMAP 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank organizers Kasten Dumroese, Nicole Balloffet, and Jim Vose, and the participants of the Reforestation Matters workshop in Portland, OR, 12–13 April 2017, for the opportunity to contribute this synthesis to the reforestation science effort in the U.S. We are grateful to the USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station (Agreements No. 13-CR112306-077, 16-CR-112306-071, and 17-CR-11242306-028) and the National Science Foundation (Award No. EF-1340681) for the financial support to conduct this analysis. Lastly, we are grateful for the reviews provided by two anonymous referees and the Guest Associate Editor, who have helped to improve this work.

References

  1. Bechtold WA, Patterson PL (eds) (2005) The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program—national sampling design and estimation procedures. General technical report SRS-80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 85 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentz BJ, Regniere J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes JL, Hicke JA, Kelsey RG, Negron JF, Seybold SJ (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60:602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birdsey R, Pregitzer K, Lucier A (2006) Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600–2100. J Environ Qual 35:1461–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond-Lamberty B, Wang CK, Gower ST (2004) Net primary production and net ecosystem production of a boreal black spruce wildfire chronosequence. Glob Change Biol 10:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunet-Navarro P, Jochheim H, Muys B (2016) Modelling carbon stocks and fluxes in the wood product sector: a comparative review. Glob Change Biol 22:2555–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buell GR, Markewich HW (2004) Data compilation, synthesis, and calculations used for organic-carbon storage and inventory estimates for mineral soils of the Mississippi River basin. US geological survey professional paper 1686-A, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  7. Caspersen JP, Pacala SW, Jenkins JC, Hurtt GC, Moorcroft PR, Birdsey RA (2000) Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in US forests. Science 290:1148–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleland DT, Avers PE, McNab WH, Jensen ME, Bailey RG, King T, Russell WE (1997) National hierarchical framework of ecological units. In: Boyce MS, Haney A (eds) Ecosystem management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 181–200Google Scholar
  9. Cole JA, Johnson KD, Birdsey RA, Pan Y, Wayson CA, McCollough K, Hoover CM, Hollinger DY, Bradford JB, Ryan MG, Kolka RK, Weishampel P, Clark KL, Skowronski NS, Hom J, Ollinger SV, McNulty SG, Gavazzi MJ (2013) Database for landscape-scale carbon monitoring sites. General technical report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. GTR-NRS-119Google Scholar
  10. Compton JE, Boone RD (2000) Long-term impacts of agriculture on soil carbon and nitrogen in New England Forests. Ecology 81:2314–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coulston JW, Reams GA, Wear DN, Brewer CK (2014) An analysis of forest land use, forest land cover and change at policy-relevant scales. Forestry 87:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulston JW, Wear DN, Vose JM (2015) Complex forest dynamics indicate potential for slowing carbon accumulation in the southeastern United States. Scientific reports 5Google Scholar
  13. Creutzburg MK, Scheller RM, Lucash MS, LeDuc SD, Johnson MG (2017) Forest management scenarios in a changing climate: trade-offs between carbon, timber, and old forest. Ecol Appl 27:503–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dumroese RK, Williams MI, Stanturf JA, St. Clair JB (2015) Considerations for restoring temperate forests of tomorrow: forest restoration, assisted migration, and bioengineering. New Forest 46:947–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fry J, Xian G, Jin S, Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L, Barnes C, Herold N, Wickham J (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 77:858–864Google Scholar
  16. Gough CM, Vogel CS, Harrold KH, George K, Curtis PS (2007) The legacy of harvest and fire on ecosystem carbon storage in a north temperate forest. Glob Change Biol 13:1935–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gower ST, McMurtrie RE, Murty D (1996) Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: potential causes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob Change Biol 8:345–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heath LS, Smith JE, Skog KE, Nowak DJ, Woodall CW (2011) Managed Forest Carbon Estimates for the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2008. J Forest 109:167–173Google Scholar
  20. Heckman K, Welty-Bernard A, Rasmussen C, Schwartz E (2009) Geologic controls of soil carbon cycling and microbial dynamics in temperate forests. Chem Geol 267:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckman KA, Campbell JL, Powers H, Law B, Swanston C (2013) The influence of fire on the radiocarbon signature and character of soil organic matter in the Siskiyou Forest, Oregon. Fire Ecol 9:40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heckman K, Throckmorton H, Clingensmith C, Vila FJG, Horwath WR, Knicker H, Rasmussen C (2014) Factors affecting the molecular structure and mean residence time of occluded organics in a lithosequence of soils under ponderosa pine. Soil Biol Biochem 77:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hicke JA, Allen CD, Desai AR, Dietze MC, Hall RJ, Hogg EH, Kashian DM, Moore D, Raffa KF, Sturrock RN, Vogelmann J (2012) Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Glob Change Biol 18:7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Homer CC, Huang L, Yang B Wylie, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 70:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold ND, Wickham JD, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 81:345–354Google Scholar
  26. Jin WC, He HS, Thompson FR, Wang WJ, Fraser JS, Shifley SR, Hanberry BB, Dijak WD (2017) Future forest aboveground carbon dynamics in the central United States: the importance of forest demographic processes. Scientific reports 7Google Scholar
  27. Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB, Turner MG, Ryan MG (2006) Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience 56:598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellndorfer J, Walker W, Kirsch K, Fiske G, Bishop J, LaPoint L, Hoppus M, Westfall J (2013) NACP aboveground biomass and carbon baseline data, V. 2 (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000. Data set. http://daac.ornl.gov from ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
  29. Kurz WA, Dymond CC, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Neilson ET, Carroll AL, Ebata T, Safranyik L (2008) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452:987–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laganiere J, Angers DA, Pare D (2010) Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol 16:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Law BE, Sun OJ, Campbell J, Van Tuyl S, Thornton PE (2003) Changes in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Change Biol 9:510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liang S, Hurteau MD, Westerling AL (2017) Response of Sierra Nevada forests to projected climate-wildfire interactions. Glob Change Biol 23:2016–2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu JG, Li SX, Ouyang ZY, Tam C, Chen XD (2008) Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9477–9482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacDonald SE, Landhausser SM, Skousen J, Franklin J, Frouz J, Hall S, Jacobs DF, Quideau S (2015) Forest restoration following surface mining disturbance: challenges and solutions. New Forest 46:703–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNab WH, Cleland DT, Freeouf JA, Keys JE, Nowacki GJ, Carpenter CA (2007) Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, p 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mishra U, Riley WJ (2015) Scaling impacts on environmental controls and spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon stocks. Biogeosciences 12:3993–4004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mobley ML, Lajtha K, Kramer MG, Bacon AR, Heine PR, Richter DD (2015) Surficial gains and subsoil losses of soil carbon and nitrogen during secondary forest development. Glob Change Biol 21:986–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nave LE, Swanston CW, Mishra U, Nadelhoffer KJ (2013) Afforestation effects on soil carbon storage in the United States: a synthesis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1035–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nave L, Johnson K, van Ingen C, Agarwal D, Humphrey M, Beekwilder N (2017) International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) Database, International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) Database, Version 3. International Soil Carbon Network.  https://doi.org/10.17040/ISCN/1305039 Google Scholar
  40. Nave LE, Domke GM, Hofmeister KL, Mishra U, Perry CH, Walters BF, Swanston CW (2018) Reforestation can sequester two petagrams of carbon in U.S. topsoils in a century. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719685115
  41. Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Miles PD, Pugh SA (2014) Forest resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2015 update of the RPA assessment. General technical report GTR WO-91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 218 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Glob Change Biol 6:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Puhlick J, Woodall C, Weiskittel A (2017) Implications of land-use change on forest carbon stocks in the eastern United States. Environ Res Lett 12:024011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richter DD, Markewitz D, Trumbore SE, Wells CG (1999) Rapid accumulation and turnover of soil carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 400:56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH (1997) Age-related decline in forest productivity: pattern and process. In: Begon M, Fitter AH (eds) Advances in ecological research, vol 27. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp 213–262Google Scholar
  46. Sample VA (2017) Potential for additional carbon sequestration through regeneration of nonstocked forest land in the United States. J Forest 115:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoennagel T, Balch JK, Brenkert-Smith H, Dennison PE, Harvey BJ, Krawchuk MA, Mietkiewicz N, Morgan P, Moritz MA, Rasker R, Turner MG, Whitlock C (2017) Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:4582–4590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schrumpf M, Kaiser K, Guggenberger G, Persson T, Kogel-Knabner I, Schulze ED (2013) Storage and stability of organic carbon in soils as related to depth, occlusion within aggregates, and attachment to minerals. Biogeosciences 10(3):1675–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sequeira CH, Wills SA, Seybold CA, West LT (2014) Predicting soil bulk density for incomplete databases. Geoderma 213:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smyth CE, Stinson G, Neilson E, Lempriere TC, Hafer M, Rampley GJ, Kurz WA (2014) Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences 11:3515–3529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. USDA Forest Service (2016) Future of America’s forests and rangelands: update to the 2010 resources planning act assessment. General technical report WO-GTR-94, Washington, DC, 250 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel JN (2001) Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 67:650–662Google Scholar
  53. von Lutzow M, Kogel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Matzner E, Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Flessa H (2006) Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur J Soil Sci 57(4):426–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Watrud E, Zensen F, Darbyshire R (2012) Laws affecting reforestation on USDA Forest Service lands. Tree Plant Notes 55:39–42Google Scholar
  55. Wear DN, Coulston JW (2015) From sink to source: regional variation in US forest carbon futures. Scientific reports 5Google Scholar
  56. Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Goward SN (2012) Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochem Cycles 26:GB1005Google Scholar
  57. Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Huang CQ, Goward SN (2014) Impacts of disturbance history on forest carbon stocks and fluxes: merging satellite disturbance mapping with forest inventory data in a carbon cycle model framework. Remote Sens Environ 151:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woodall CW, Walters BF, Coulston JW, D’Amato AW, Domke GM, Russell MB, Sowers PA (2015) Monitoring network confirms land use change is a substantial component of the forest carbon sink in the eastern United States. Scientific reports 5Google Scholar
  59. Woodall CW, Walters BF, Russell MB, Coulston JW, Domke GM, D’Amato AW, Sowers PA (2016) A tale of two forest carbon assessments in the eastern United States: forest use versus cover as a metric of change. Ecosystems 19:1401–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang S, Mountrakis G (2017) Forest dynamics in the US indicate disproportionate attrition in western forests, rural areas and public lands. PLoS ONE 12:e0171383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang F, Chen JM, Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Shen S, Ju W, He L (2012) Attributing carbon changes in conterminous U.S. forests to disturbance and non-disturbance factors from 1901–2010. J Geophys Res 117:G02021Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Michigan, Biological StationPellstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research StationSt. PaulUSA
  4. 4.Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  5. 5.Argonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA
  6. 6.USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research StationHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations