Zoltan Kun’s research while affiliated with Frankfurt Zoological Society and other places


Ad

What is this page?


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.

Publications (7)


Measuring forest degradation via ecological-integrity indicators at multiple spatial scales
  • Article

February 2025

·

71 Reads

·

1 Citation

Biological Conservation

Dominick A. DellaSala

·

Brendan Mackey

·

·

[...]

·


Primary forest sites in relation to forest cover in Europe
Primary forest sites included (i) research sites and (ii) sites reported in the literature that were selected by observation of ecological characteristics, and (iii) forest inventory sites described as primary forest or as natural forest >100 years old and under some protection status. Forest cover was defined by area of CORINE forest types⁹⁴ and forest canopy cover ≥30% (S1.7) (See Methods: Identification of primary forest sites).
of carbon stocks in biomass components from primary forest sites by country and forest type
Coloured bars are the mean value and lines are standard deviations for the total biomass. Countries ordered approximately by latitude. Numbers for each column refer to the numbered rows in Supplementary Table S2. Forest types classified by the European CORINE Land Cover⁹⁴ and then by dominant species according to national systems. Data from national forest inventories (NFIs) were used for Sweden (1, 2, 3), Germany (8), and Romania (25) (no dead biomass data) and so do not have the same level of strict definition of primary forest (see S1.2).
Carbon stocks in aboveground biomass in primary forests within Global Ecological Zones
Within GEZs, forest types are classified by the European CORINE Land Cover⁹⁴ (conifer, broadleaf, mixed forest). Coloured bars are mean value from the primary forest site data, lines are standard deviations, and the numbers in each column are the number of sites per class.
Location of primary forest sites within environmental space of current forest cover
Environmental space defined by elevation, mean annual temperature and water availability index (S1.5) for each GEZ. The environmental space is shown by 2000 random points within the current forest cover that occurs within each GEZ. Primary forest sites distinguished as research sites, literature sites and forest inventory sites.
Frequency distribution of aboveground living biomass carbon density (MgC ha⁻¹)
Distribution of carbon densities compared for the site data and global modelled data from GlobBiomass⁹⁷ and GeoCarbon⁹⁸ for the primary forest site locations, for a all forest types, b conifer species, c broadleaf species, d mixed species. The dataset for all forest types included sites of unidentified forest types and thus was larger than the combined broadleaf plus conifer plus mixed datasets. Results for paired two sample t-test one-tail for the site level data are presented for each forest category to show the statistical differences. All forests: Site data and GlobBiomass t = 59.47, P < 0.0001, n = 5942. All forests: Site data and GeoCarbon t = 53.16, P < 0.0001, n = 3778. Conifer: Site data and GlobBiomass t = 20.70, P < 0.0001, n = 720. Conifer: Site data and GeoCarbon t = 19.80, P < 0.0001, n = 597. Broadleaf: Site data and GlobBiomass t = 29.55, P < 0.0001, n = 1176. Broadleaf: Site data and GeoCarbon t = 38.21, P < 0.0001, n = 774. Mixed forest: Site data and GlobBiomass t = 24.24, P < 0.0001, n = 182. Mixed forest: Site data and GeoCarbon t = 33.61, P < 0.0001, n = 178.

+2

Carbon carrying capacity in primary forests shows potential for mitigation achieving the European Green Deal 2030 target
  • Article
  • Full-text available

May 2024

·

791 Reads

·

8 Citations

Communications Earth & Environment

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.

Download

(a) Forest growth stages shown pictorially corresponding to age classes along the time series. Forest stand‐level carbon dynamics for (b) naturally regenerated forest managed for commodity production by clearcut logging on an 80‐year rotation, and (c) primary forest managed for conservation, including natural disturbances of wildfire. (Graphs for other production forest silvicultural systems in Figure S2)
Diagrammatic representation of the growth stages and corresponding age class distribution (using the legend in Figure 1) and resulting carbon stocks at the landscape scale for the Central Highland study area. The area of the matrix represents the land area for each forest management type in the study area. The number of grids in each age class within the matrix is proportional to their area in the forest management type. The distribution of carbon stock densities in living biomass is shown for the corresponding areas of (a) the current carbon stock in naturally regenerated forest in the area managed for commodity production and logged previously, and (b) the carbon carrying capacity in primary forest in the area managed for conservation. (c) Potential change in carbon stock distribution for the regenerated forest area through protection and continued growth that would result in the distribution of age classes derived from the proportions in the primary forest. The difference in the carbon stock distribution between the current carbon stock and the carbon carrying capacity is the potential gain or the carbon retention potential.
Current carbon stock calculated from the age distribution and carbon stock densities in the Central Highlands forest region from 1990 to 2015 in the area that has been logged. Projections in carbon stock from 2016 to 2070 are based on modeled carbon dynamics, including gains from growth, losses from logging and fire, storage in wood products and landfill, and substitution using bioenergy and wood products. The carbon retention potential is predicted as the potential gain in carbon stock if logging ceased and the forest continued growing. Potential gains in carbon stock by 2030 and 2050 are predicted under the management scenarios of logging and maximum utilization of wood products (blue) plus substitution (yellow), and forest conservation and continued growth to attain the carbon retention potential (green). The carbon stocks counted under conservation management included the substitution of wood products foregone by protecting the native forest and derived instead from existing areas of plantations. (Graphs for other production forest silvicultural systems in Figure S3)
(a) The fraction of atmospheric CO2 emissions remaining after a single annual pulse based on the following scenarios: (1) from deforestation as a permanent carbon stock loss (gray dashed), where removals occur through land and ocean sinks in the global carbon cycle, (2) from a harvested forest system as a temporary carbon stock loss with removals over a rotation of 80 years (brown), where removals occur through regrowth of the forest plus land and ocean sinks in the global carbon cycle converging to an asymptote of zero, (3) from continued growth of the forest after 80 years when there is no harvest (yellow), and (4) from the net effect of harvesting derived from the emissions due to harvesting plus the foregone removals from continued growth of the forest (dark green). Elevated CO2 persists in the atmosphere throughout the rotation of harvested forest thus impacting the climate. (b) Pulses of emissions occur every year (1 unit each year and the subsequent fraction remaining in following years) due to harvesting starting in 1940 on an 80‐year rotation, here shown as curves only for each decade (green lines). By 2020, at the end of the rotation (dark green thick line), the aggregated fractions remaining from the previous 80 years of emissions are shown as the vertical summation along the red dashed line. (c) The cumulative effect of the annual emissions from each year of harvesting. From the commencement of harvesting, the fraction remaining in the atmosphere reaches a maximum at approximately the end of the first rotation at 80 years. With continued harvesting at the same rate over the same land area, the fraction declines over subsequent rotations and approaches an asymptote that is positive, this means a permanent elevation of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Evaluating the mitigation effectiveness of forests managed for conservation versus commodity production using an Australian example

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.



European primary forest database v2.0

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.


Recognising the importance of unmanaged forests to mitigate climate change

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


Ad

Citations (5)


... 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). ...

Reference:

When Active Management of high conservation value forests may erode biodiversity and damage ecosystems
Measuring forest degradation via ecological-integrity indicators at multiple spatial scales
  • Citing Article
  • 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]. ...

Carbon carrying capacity in primary forests shows potential for mitigation achieving the European Green Deal 2030 target

... 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. ...

Evaluating the mitigation effectiveness of forests managed for conservation versus commodity production using an Australian example

... 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. ...

European primary forest database v2.0

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. ...

Recognising the importance of unmanaged forests to mitigate climate change