Advertisement

Growth-mortality attributes and species composition determine carbon sequestration and dynamics of old stand types in the Acadian Forest of New Brunswick, Canada

  • Altamash BashirEmail author
  • David A. MacLean
  • Chris R. Hennigar
Research Paper

Abstract

Key message

We used 20 years of plot data to analyze the influence of tree growth-mortality balance and species mix on the potential of old stands to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and store carbon. The study indicated that carbon in hardwood-dominated stands increased with age, without any sign of decline in carbon sequestration. In contrast, balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) dominated softwood stands showed a negative C change with a decline at 80 years of age.

Context

Variation in species stand development, carbon (C) storage, and sequestration is fundamental to ascertain the role of old forests as sources and sinks in global C.

Aims

To analyze the effect of the balance between growth and mortality of species and hardwood-softwood mix on the C source and sink budget of old forest types in New Brunswick, Canada.

Methods

A set of 602 plots, representing 12 stand types, were grouped into softwood (SW), mixedwood (MW), and hardwood (HW) categories. Net C change per year, including growth, recruitment of trees, and mortality, was calculated, and plots were categorized into three classes, of carbon sinks, sources, or neutral.

Results

Over the period from 1987 to 2007, 68% of plots were C sinks, 25% were sources, and 7% were neutral. Balsam fir-spruce (Picea sp.) was the only stand type with negative mean C change at − 0.2 t C ha−1 yr−1. Long-term C projection using OSM (open stand model) determined that shade-tolerant hardwood and mixed stand types showed increases of 26–30% of total C over a 100-year simulation, whereas other stand types ranged between 7 and 21% increases.

Conclusion

Balsam fir-dominated stands incur high mortality rates due to shorter longevity (stand decline) and high susceptibility to insect and wind disturbances, and therefore, HW and non-balsam fir-dominated MW should have priority in management for longer rotations to maximize C onsite.

Keywords

Permanent sample plot Biomass Species mix Mortality Net carbon change Open stand model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank New Brunswick Department of Energy and Resource Development (formerly named Department of  Natural Resources) for PSP database access and support.

Author contributions

DAM and AB conceived and designed the study; AB performed research; AB, DAM, and CRH analyzed data; and AB, DAM, and CRH wrote and revised the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from a Community University Research Alliance project led by Dr. Don Floyd, with industry support from J.D. Irving, Limited.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Albrektsson A (1988) Needle litterfall in stands of Pinus sylvestris L. in Sweden, in relation to site quality, stand age and latitude. Scand J For Res 3:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker TR, Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Almeida S, Arroyo L, Di Fiore A, Erwin T, Killeen TJ, Laurance SG, Laurance WF, Lewis SL, Lloyd J, Monteagudo A, Neill DA, Patino S, Pitman NCA, Silva JNM, Martinez MV (2004) Variation in wood density determines spatial patterns in Amazonian forest biomass. Glob Change Biol 10:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bashir A, MacLean DA (2015) Effects of species and hardwood-softwood mix on the balance of growth and mortality in old stands in New Brunswick, Canada. For Ecol Manag 358:192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berbigier P, Bonnefond JM, Mellmann P (2001) CO2 and water vapour fluxes for 2 years above Euroflux forest site. Agric For Meteorol 108:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergh J, Linder S, Lundmark T, Elfving B (1999) The effect of water and nutrient availability on the productivity of Norway spruce in northern and southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 119:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Stape JL, Ryan MG, Barnard HR, Fownes J (2002) Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: an individual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems 5:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown S (2002) Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. Environ Pollut 116:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown SL, Schroeder PE (1999) Spatial patterns of aboveground production and mortality of woody biomass for eastern US forests. Ecol Appl 9:968–980Google Scholar
  9. Bunker DE, DeClerk F, Bradford JC, Colwell RK, Perfecto Y, Phillips OL, Sankaran M, Naeem S (2005) Species loss and above-ground carbon storage in a tropical forest. Science 310:1029–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai H, Di X, Chang SX, Wang C, Shi B, Geng P, Jin G (2015) Carbon storage, net primary production and net ecosystem production in four major temperate forest types in northeast China. Can J For Res 46:1–9Google Scholar
  11. Chapin FS, Woodwell GM, Randerson JT, Rastetter EB, Lovett GM, Baldocchi DD, Clark DA, Harmon ME, Schimel DS, Valentini R, Wirth C, Aber JD, Cole JJ, Goulden ML, Harden JW, Heimann M, Howarth RW, Matson PA, McGuire AD, Melillo JM, Mooney HA, Neff JC, Houghton RA, Pace ML, Ryan MG, Running SW, Sala OE, Schlesinger WH, Schulze ED (2006) Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems 9:1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clement RJ, Moncrieff JB, Jarvis PG (2003) Net carbon productivity of Sitka spruce forest in Scotland. Scott For 57:5–10Google Scholar
  13. Colford-Gilks AK, MacLean DA, Kershaw JA, Beland M (2012) Growth and mortality of balsam fir-and spruce-tolerant hardwood stands as influenced by stand characteristics and spruce budworm defoliation. For Ecol Manag 280:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dymond CC, Neilson ET, Stinson G, Porter K, MacLean DA, Gray DR, Campagna M, Kurz WA (2010) Future spruce budworm outbreak may create a carbon source in eastern Canadian forests. Ecosystems 13:917–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahey TJ, Woodbury PB, Battles JJ, Goodale CL, Hamburg SP, Ollinger SV, Woodall CW (2009) Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Front Ecol Environ 8:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freedman B (1984) The relationship between the aboveground dry weight and diameter for a wide size range of erect land plants. Can J Bot 62:2370–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goulden ML, Mcmillan AMS, Winston GC, Ro Cha AV, Manies KL, Harden JW, Bond-Lamberty BP (2011) Patterns of NPP, GPP, respiration, and NEP during boreal forest succession. Glob Chang Biol 17:855–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gower ST, Krankina O, Olson RJ, Apps M, Linder S, Wang C (2001) Net primary production and carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 11:1395–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunn JS, Mark JD, Whitman AA (2014) Late-successional and old-growth forest carbon temporal dynamics in the Northern Forest (Northeastern USA). For Ecol Manag 312:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harmon ME, Bible K, Ryan MG, Shaw DC, Chen H, Klopatek J, Li X (2004) Production, respiration, and overall carbon balance in an old-growth Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forest ecosystem. Ecosystems 7:498–512Google Scholar
  21. Hennigar CR (2011) Open stand model, user guide, FORUS research. Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada (http://www.forusresearch.com/index/). Accessed 20 June 2016
  22. Hennigar C, Weiskittel A, Allen HL, MacLean DA (2017) Development and evaluation of a biomass increment based index for site productivity. Can J For Res 47:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hlasny T, Barcza Z, Barka I, Merganicova K, Sedmak R, Kern A, Pajtík J, Balazs B, Fabrika M, Churkina G (2014) Future carbon cycle in mountain spruce forests of Central Europe: modeling framework and ecological inferences. For Ecol Manag 32:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honer TG, Ker MF, Alemdag IS (1983) Metric timber tables for the commercial tree species of central and eastern Canada. Canadian Forest Service, Maritimes Forest Research Centre, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. Information Report M-X-140, pp 1–139Google Scholar
  25. Hurtt GC, Pacala SW, Moorcroft PR, Caspersen J, Shevliakova E, Houghton RA, Moore B (2002) Projecting the future of the US carbon sink. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:1389–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jansson PE, Svensson M, Kleja DB, Gustafsson D (2008) Simulated climate change impacts on fluxes of carbon in Norway spruce ecosystems along a climatic transect in Sweden. Biogeochemistry 89:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins JC, Birdsey RA, Pan Y (2001) Biomass and NPP estimation for the mid-Atlantic region (USA) using plot-level forest inventory data. Ecol Appl 11:1174–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenkins J, Chojnacky D, Heath L, Birdsey R (2003) National scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49:12–35Google Scholar
  29. Ker M (1980) Tree biomass equations for ten major species in Cumberland County, Nova Scotia. Environment Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Maritimes Forest Research Centre, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. Information Report M-X-108, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  30. Kurz WA, Apps MJ (1999) A 70-year retrospective analysis of carbon fluxes in the Canadian forest sector. Ecol Appl 9:526–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kurz WA, Beukema SJ, Apps MJ (1996) Estimation of root biomass and dynamics for the carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector. Can J For Res 26:1973–1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lambert MC, Ung CH, Raulier F (2005) Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations. Can J For Res 35:1996–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leith H (1975) Modeling the primary productivity of the world. In: Leith H, Whittaker RH (eds) Primary productivity of the biosphere. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luyssaert S, Sebastiaan L, Schulze ED, Borner A, Knohl A, Hessenmoller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malmsheimer RW, Heffernan P, Brink S, Crandall D, Deneke F, Galik C, Gee E, Helms JA, Mcclure N, Mortimer M, Ruddell S, Smith M, Stewart J (2008) Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States. J For 106:115–171Google Scholar
  36. Mosseler A, Thompson I, Pendrel B (2003) Overview of old-growth forests in Canada from a science perspective. Environ Rev 11:S1–S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NBDNR (2003) Our landscape heritage: the story of ecological land classification in New Brunswick. The ecosystem classification working group. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, FrederictonGoogle Scholar
  38. Neilson ET, MacLean DA, Meng FR, Arp PA (2007) Spatial distribution of carbon in natural and managed stands in an industrial forest in New Brunswick. Canada For Ecol Manage 253:148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neilson ET, MacLean DA, Meng FR, Hennigar CR, Arp PA (2008) Optimal on and off site forest carbon sequestration under existing timber supply constraints in northern New Brunswick. Can J For Res 38:2784–2796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pare D, Bergeron Y (1995) Above-ground biomass accumulation along a 230-year chronosequence in the southern portion of the Canadian boreal forest. J Ecol 83:1001–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paw UKT, Falk M, Suchanek TH, Ustin SL, Chen J, Park YS, Winner WE, Thomas SC, Hsiao TC, Shaw RH, King TS, Pyles RD, Schroeder M, Matista AA (2004) Carbon dioxide exchange between an old-growth forest and the atmosphere. Ecosystems 7:513–524Google Scholar
  42. Porter KB, MacLean DA, Beaton KP, Upshall J (2001) New Brunswick permanent sample plot database (PSPDB v1. 0): user’s guide and analysis. Canadian Forest Service, Atlantic Forestry Centre, Fredericton, NB, Canada, Information Report M-X-209, pp 1–65Google Scholar
  43. Pregitzer KS, Euskirchen ES (2004) Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Glob Chang Biol 10:2052–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pukkala T (2014) Does biofuel harvesting and continuous cover management increase carbon sequestration? For Policy Econ 43:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruel JC (2000) Factors influencing windthrow in balsam fir forests: from landscape studies to individual tree studies. For Ecol Manag 135:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan M, Binkley D, Fownes JH, Giardina CP, Senock RS (2004) An experimental test of the causes of forest growth decline with stand age. Ecol Monogr 74:393–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schroeder P, Brown S, Mo J, Birdsey R, Cieszewski C (1997) Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the United States using inventory data. For Sci 43:424–434Google Scholar
  49. Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA (2006) Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA, General Technical Report NE-323, pp 1–216Google Scholar
  50. Tatarinov FA, Cienciala E (2009) Long-term simulation of the effect of climate changes on the growth of main Central European forest tree species. Ecol Model 220:308–3088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor SL, MacLean DA (2005) Rate and causes of decline of mature and overmature balsam fir and spruce stands in New Brunswick, Canada. Can J For Res 35:2479–2490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor SL, MacLean DA (2009) Legacy of insect defoliators: increased wind-related mortality two decades after a spruce budworm outbreak. For Sci 55:256–267Google Scholar
  53. Taylor AR, Wang JR, Kurz WA (2008) Effects of harvesting intensity on carbon stocks in eastern Canadian red spruce (Picea rubens) forests: an exploratory analysis using the CBM-CFS3 simulation model. For Ecol Manag 255:3632–3641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor AR, Seedre M, Brassard BW, Chen HYH (2014) Decline in net ecosystem productivity following canopy transition to late-succession forests. Ecosystems 17:778–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tian H, Chen G, Zhang C, Liu M, Sun G, Chappelka A, Ren W, Xu X, Lu C, Pan S, Chen H, Hui D, McNulty S, Lockaby G, Vance E (2012) Century-scale responses of ecosystem carbon storage and flux to multiple environmental changes in the southern United States. Ecosystems 15:674–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner DP, Koerper GJ, Harmon ME, Jeffrey JL (1995) A carbon budget for forests of the conterminous United States. Ecol Appl 5:421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang CK, Bond-Lamberty B, Gower ST (2003) Carbon distribution of a well- and poorly-drained black spruce fire chronosequence. Glob Chang Biol 9:1066–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson EW, MacLean DA (2015) Windthrow and growth response following a spruce budworm inspired, variable retention harvest in New Brunswick, Canada. Can J For Res 45:659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhou X, Peng C, Dang QL, Chen J, Parton S (2004) Simulating forest growth and carbon dynamics of the Lake Abitibi Model Forest in northeastern Ontario. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada, Ontario Forest Research Institute, (OFRI-REP) 163Google Scholar
  60. Zierl B, Bugmann H (2007) Sensitivity of carbon cycling in the European Alps to changes of climate and land cover. Clim Chang 85:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Altamash Bashir
    • 1
    Email author
  • David A. MacLean
    • 2
  • Chris R. Hennigar
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and BiotechnologyInland Norway University of Applied SciencesEvenstadNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Forestry and Environmental ManagementUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations