Incorrect data sustain the claim of forest‐based bioenergy being more effective in climate change mitigation than forest conservation

Accurate use of forest inventories shows that unmanaged forests have a higher climate protection effect than managed forests: A response to the letter by Bolte et al.

“…In our reply to Schulze et al (2020a), we questioned why only data from HNP were chosen for the calculation despite providing additional data from other managed and unmanaged forests (ibid, table 1). In their response (Schulze et al, 2020b) to our letter (Welle et al, 2020), the authors preferred not to clarify this point, a fact to which Bolte et al (2020) do not refer to either. In another response to earlier critiques by Kun et al (2020) and Booth et al (2020), Schulze et al (2020c) introduced further increment data based on the German national forest inventory provided by the Thünen Institute.…”

“…The reply by Bolte et al (2020) that claims to evaluate objectively the debate between Schulze et al (2020a) and Welle et al (2020) goes astray. They conclude that we failed “in revealing both formal citation and methodological failures of Schulze et al (2020a)” and argue that “the low representativity of the Hainich National Park for set‐aside forests in Germany limits its general significance in comparisons of managed and unmanaged forests.” Actually, we have never stated a citation error by Schulze et al (2020a), but uncovered their methodological mistake, which led to seriously flawed results and conclusions.…”

Forest management contributes to climate mitigation by reducing fossil fuel consumption: A response to the letter by Welle et al.

“…In a letter to Global Change Biology Bioenergy, Welle et al (2020) accuse us of severe errors in using and interpreting data in our publication on "Climate mitigation by sustainably managed forests in Central Europe." Welle et al (2020) also refer to earlier letters by Kun et al (2020) and Both et al (2020) on which we responded already (Schulze et al, 2020a). We showed that spatial and temporal scales led to misunderstandings about carbon benefits of bioenergy which we clarified.…”

“…The difference is 3.97 m 3 /ha over 10 years, corresponding to 0.4 m 3 ha −1 year −1 , the figure used in our publication. Welle et al (2020) claim that the evaluation of the inventory should only be based on the 1,200 plots of the first inventory. In this case, they claim that the average standing stocks are 453 m 3 /ha in 2010, as also published by the National Park (Nationalparkverwaltung Hainich, 2012), with increase of about 90 m 3 /ha since 2000, corresponding to 9 m 3 ha −1 year −1 .…”

“…In a letter to Global Change Biology Bioenergy, Welle et al. (2020) accuse us of severe errors in using and interpreting data in our publication on “Climate mitigation by sustainably managed forests in Central Europe.”…”