Forests are of major importance to human society, contributing several crucial ecosystem services. Biodiversity is suggested to positively influence multiple services but evidence from natural systems at scales relevant to management is scarce. Here, across a scale of 400,000 km2, we report that tree species richness in production forests shows positive to positively hump-shaped relationships with multiple ecosystem services. These include production of tree biomass, soil carbon storage, berry production and game production potential. For example, biomass production was approximately 50% greater with five than with one tree species. In addition, we show positive relationships between tree species richness and proxies for other biodiversity components. Importantly, no single tree species was able to promote all services, and some services were negatively correlated to each other. Management of production forests will therefore benefit from considering multiple tree species to sustain the full range of benefits that the society obtains from forests.
The complex fluxes between standing and harvested carbon stocks, and the linkage between harvested biomass and fossil fuel substitution, call for a holistic, system-wide analysis in a life-cycle perspective to evaluate the impacts of forest management and forest product use on carbon balances. We have analysed the net carbon emission under alternative forest management strategies and product uses, considering the carbon fluxes and stocks associated with tree biomass, soils, and forest products. Simulations were made using three Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forest management regimes (traditional, intensive management, and intensive fertilization), three slash management practices (no removal, removal, and removal with stumps), two forest product uses (construction material and biofuel), and two reference fossil fuels (coal and natural gas). The greatest reduction of net carbon emission occurred when the forest was fertilized, slash and stumps were harvested, wood was used as construction material, and the reference fossil fuel was coal. The lowest reduction occurred with a traditional forest management, forest residues retained on site, and harvested biomass was used as biofuel to replace natural gas. Product use had the greatest impact on net carbon emission, whereas forest management regime, reference fossil fuel, and forest residue usage as biofuel were less significant.
El artículo seleccionado no se encuentra disponible por ahora a texto completo por no haber sido facilitado todavía por el investigador a cargo del archivo del mismo.
Boreal forest soils are important global carbon sinks, with significant storage in the organic topsoil. Decomposition of these stocks requires oxidative enzymes, uniquely produced by fungi. Across Swedish boreal forests, we found that local carbon storage in the organic topsoil was 33% lower in the presence of a group of closely related species of ectomycorrhizal fungi – Cortinarius acutus s.l.. This observation challenges the prevailing view that ectomycorrhizal fungi generally act to increase carbon storage in soils but supports the idea that certain ectomycorrhizal fungi can complement free‐living decomposers, maintaining organic matter turnover, nutrient cycling and tree productivity under nutrient‐poor conditions. The indication that a narrow group of fungi may exert a major influence on carbon cycling questions the prevailing dogma of functional redundancy among microbial decomposers. Cortinarius acutus s.l. responds negatively to stand‐replacing disturbance, and associated population declines are likely to increase soil carbon sequestration while impeding long‐term nutrient cycling.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.