BackgroundAt the 15th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen, 2009, harvested wood products were identified as an additional carbon pool. This modification eliminates inconsistencies in greenhouse gas reporting by recognizing the role of the forest and timber sector in the global carbon cycle. Any additional CO2-effects related to wood usage are not considered by this modification. This results in a downward bias when the contribution of the forest and timber sector to climate change mitigation is assessed. The following article analyses the overall contribution to climate protection made by the forest management and wood utilization through CO2-emissions reduction using an example from the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Based on long term study periods (2011 to 2050 and 2100, respectively). Various alternative scenarios for forest management and wood usage are presented.ResultsIn the mid- to long-term (2050 and 2100, respectively) the net climate protection function of scenarios with varying levels of wood usage is higher than in scenarios without any wood usage. This is not observed for all scenarios on short and mid term evaluations.The advantages of wood usage are evident although the simulations resulted in high values for forest storage in the C pools. Even the carbon sink effect due to temporal accumulation of deadwood during the period from 2011 to 2100 is outbalanced by the potential of wood usage effects.ConclusionsA full assessment of the CO2-effects of the forest management requires an assessment of the forest supplemented with an assessment of the effects of wood usage. CO2-emission reductions through both fuel and material substitution as well as CO2 sink in wood products need to be considered.An integrated assessment of the climate protection function based on the analysis of the study’s scenarios provides decision parameters for a strategic approach to climate protection with regard to forest management and wood use at regional and national levels.The short-term evaluation of subsystems can be misleading, rendering long-term evaluations (until 2100, or even longer) more effective. This is also consistent with the inherently long-term perspective of forest management decisions and measures.
The world’s forests play a pivotal role in the mitigation of global climate change. By photosynthesis they remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store carbon in their biomass. While old trees are generally acknowledged for a long carbon residence time, there is no consensus on their contribution to carbon accumulation due to a lack of long-term individual tree data. Tree ring analyses, which use anatomical differences in the annual formation of wood for dating growth zones, are a retrospective approach that provides growth patterns of individual trees over their entire lifetime. We developed time series of diameter growth and related annual carbon accumulation for 61 trees of the species Cedrela odorata L. (Meliacea), Hymenaea courbaril L. (Fabacea) and Goupia glabra Aubl. (Goupiacea). The trees grew in unmanaged tropical wet-forests of Suriname and reached ages from 84 to 255 years. Most of the trees show positive trends of diameter growth and carbon accumulation over time. For some trees we observed fluctuating growth—periods of lower growth alternate with periods of increased growth. In the last quarter of their lifetime trees accumulate on average between 39 percent (C. odorata) and 50 percent (G. glabra) of their final carbon stock. This suggests that old-growth trees in tropical forests do not only contribute to carbon stocks by long carbon resistance times, but maintain high rates of carbon accumulation at later stages of their life time.
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.