February 2025
·
71 Reads
·
1 Citation
Biological Conservation
Ad
This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.
February 2025
·
71 Reads
·
1 Citation
Biological Conservation
May 2024
·
791 Reads
·
8 Citations
Carbon accounting in the land sector requires a reference level from which to calculate past losses of carbon and potential for gains using a stock-based target. Carbon carrying capacity represented by the carbon stock in primary forests is an ecologically-based reference level that allows estimation of the mitigation potential derived from protecting and restoring forests to increase their carbon stocks. Here we measured and collated tree inventory data at primary forest sites including from research studies, literature and forest inventories (7982 sites, 288,262 trees, 27 countries) across boreal, temperate, and subtropical Global Ecological Zones within Europe. We calculated total biomass carbon stock per hectare (above- and below-ground, dead biomass) and found it was 1.6 times larger on average than modelled global maps for primary forests and 2.3 times for all forests. Large trees (diameter greater than 60 cm) accounted for 50% of biomass and are important carbon reservoirs. Carbon stock foregone by harvesting of 12–52% demonstrated the mitigation potential. Estimated carbon gain by protecting, restoring and ongoing growth of existing forests equated to 309 megatons carbon dioxide equivalents per year, additional to, and higher than, the current forest sink, and comparable to the Green Deal 2030 target for carbon dioxide removals.
February 2022
·
200 Reads
·
5 Citations
Forests are critical for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation: reducing emissions, increasing removals, and providing resilient ecosystems with stable long‐term carbon storage. However, evaluating the mitigation effectiveness of forests managed for conservation versus commodity production has been long debated. We assessed factors influencing evaluation of mitigation effectiveness––land area, time horizon, reference level, carbon stock longevity––and tested the outcomes using analyses of carbon dynamics from an Australian ecosystem. Results showed that landscape scale accounting using carbon carrying capacity as the reference level and assessed over a series of time horizons best enables explicit evaluation of mitigation benefits. Time horizons need to differentiate between near‐term emissions reduction targets (2030 and 2050), relative longevity of carbon stocks in different reservoirs, and long‐term impacts on atmospheric CO2 concentration. Greatest mitigation benefits derive from conservation through continued forest growth (52% gain in carbon stock by 2050) and accumulating carbon to attain carbon retention potential (70% gain). Cumulative emissions from harvesting result in permanent elevation of atmospheric CO2 concentration (32 times the annual emission by rotation end). We recommend these time horizons and landscape scales for evaluating forest management to better guide policies and investments for achieving climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation.
September 2021
·
307 Reads
Scientific Data
August 2021
·
2,779 Reads
·
62 Citations
Scientific Data
Primary forests, defined here as forests where the signs of human impacts, if any, are strongly blurred due to decades without forest management, are scarce in Europe and continue to disappear. Despite these losses, we know little about where these forests occur. Here, we present a comprehensive geodatabase and map of Europe’s known primary forests. Our geodatabase harmonizes 48 different, mostly field-based datasets of primary forests, and contains 18,411 individual patches (41.1 Mha) spread across 33 countries. When available, we provide information on each patch (name, location, naturalness, extent and dominant tree species) and the surrounding landscape (biogeographical regions, protection status, potential natural vegetation, current forest extent). Using Landsat satellite-image time series (1985–2018) we checked each patch for possible disturbance events since primary forests were identified, resulting in 94% of patches free of significant disturbances in the last 30 years. Although knowledge gaps remain, ours is the most comprehensive dataset on primary forests in Europe, and will be useful for ecological studies, and conservation planning to safeguard these unique forests.
July 2020
·
285 Reads
·
22 Citations
The carbon stock in Europe's forests is decreasing and the importance of protecting ‘unmanaged’ forests must be recognised in reversing this process. In order to keep carbon out of the atmosphere and to meet the Paris Agreement goals, the remaining primary forests must be protected and secondary forests should be allowed to continue growing to preserve existing carbon stocks and accumulate additional stocks. Scientific evidence suggests that ‘unmanaged’ forests have higher total biomass carbon stock than secondary forests being actively managed for commodity production or recently abandoned. image
June 2020
·
158 Reads
·
2 Citations
Ad
... For the purposes of this study, we define HCVF (see Areendran et al., 2020) as: (1) oldgrowth forests (Watson et al., 2018) that support critical habitat for threatened species (e.g. Lee, 2018;Lindenmayer et al., 2019); (2) primary forests of all seral stages (Mackey et al., 2015), including complex early seral forests dominated by an abundance of standing dead trees (snags), downed logs, fire-following shrubs, and naturally-regenerating trees (DellaSala and Swanson et al., 2011); (3) forests with high ecological integrity (DellaSala et al., 2025); (4) large intact areas (including those that are roadless) (Ibisch et al., 2016), and (5) forests classified as Endangered or Critically Endangered under the IUCN Red List Ecosystem approach (Keith et al., 2015). HCVF can also include localized biodiversity hotspots and/or areas that support many endemic taxa (Mittermeier et al., 1998). ...
February 2025
Biological Conservation
... In the last decade, a growing interest has focused on Mature and Old-Growth (MOG) forests to identify their potential for biodiversity conservation as well as climate change mitigation [63,64]. Besides primary forests, i.e., naturally-developing ecosystems representing undiscussed biodiversity sanctuaries [65], studying MOG naturalness-related attributes is crucial to better understand the long-term development of forests and highlight pathways to ecological restoration in the so-called proforestation approaches [66]. ...
May 2024
... However, the major problems identified above for Keith et al. (2014a) also apply to this paper. Unfortunately, this invalid C accounting model has also been used in subsequent work to promote the non-harvest approach in mountain ash forests (Keith et al. 2022). The analysis by Keith et al. (2015) is also limited because it covers the impact of only one harvest cycle. ...
February 2022
... The gradient consists of 14 mutually exclusive degrees of forest naturalness (Table 1). In Europe, the first three categories (n10 to n8) are confined to some patches in Northern Fennoscandia and areas of European Russia (Sabatini et al. 2018(Sabatini et al. , 2020. Therefore, in this study, we considered these categories as being covered by category n7: Near virgin forests. ...
August 2021
Scientific Data
... However, while forest management practices affect aboveground biomass carbon stocks in different ways, the precise impact of these practices remains poorly quantified. Evidence suggesting that unmanaged forests continue to function as effective carbon sinks, even into later stages of forest development, 30 highlights the need for better localization and protection of these ecosystems (Kun et al., 2020;Luyssaert et al., 2008;Mikolāš https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4094 Preprint. ...
July 2020