Dataset Information

On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives.

ABSTRACT: A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259-262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

SUBMITTER: Grassi G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7227057 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives.

Grassi Giacomo G Cescatti Alessandro A Matthews Robert R Duveiller Gregory G Camia Andrea A Federici Sandro S House Jo J de Noblet-Ducoudré Nathalie N Pilli Roberto R Vizzarri Matteo M

Carbon balance and management 20190614 1

A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259-262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most ...[more]

PMID: 31201580

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Paris Agreement promotes forest management as a pathway towards halting climate warming through the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions1. However, the climate benefits from carbon sequestration through forest management may be reinforced, counteracted or even offset by concurrent management-induced changes in surface albedo, land-surface roughness, emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, transpiration and sensible heat flux2-4. Consequently, forest management could offset CO2 emissions without halting global temperature rise. It therefore remains to be confirmed whether commonly proposed sustainable European forest-management portfolios would comply with the Paris Agreement-that is, whether they can reduce the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, reduce the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and neither increase the near-surface air temperature nor decrease precipitation by the end of the twenty-first century. Here we show that the portfolio made up of management systems that locally maximize the carbon sink through carbon sequestration, wood use and product and energy substitution reduces the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, but does not meet any of the other criteria. The portfolios that maximize the carbon sink or forest albedo pass only one-different in each case-criterion. Managing the European forests with the objective of reducing near-surface air temperature, on the other hand, will also reduce the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, thus meeting two of the four criteria. Trade-off are thus unavoidable when using European forests to meet climate objectives. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that if present-day forest cover is sustained, the additional climate benefits achieved through forest management would be modest and local, rather than global. On the basis of these findings, we argue that Europe should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change. The modest climate effects from changes in forest management imply, however, that if adaptation to future climate were to require large-scale changes in species composition and silvicultural systems over Europe5,6, the forests could be adapted to climate change with neither positive nor negative climate effects.

Project description:European beech forests growing on marginal calcareous soils have been proposed to be vulnerable to decreased soil water availability. This could result in a large-scale loss of ecological services and economical value in a changing climate. In order to evaluate the potential consequences of this drought-sensitivity, we investigated potential species range shifts for European beech forests on calcareous soil in the 21st century by statistical species range distribution modelling for present day and projected future climate conditions. We found a dramatic decline by 78% until 2080. Still the physiological or biogeochemical mechanisms underlying the drought sensitivity of European beech are largely unknown. Drought sensitivity of beech is commonly attributed to plant physiological constraints. Furthermore, it has also been proposed that reduced soil water availability could promote nitrogen (N) limitation of European beech due to impaired microbial N cycling in soil, but this hypothesis has not yet been tested. Hence we investigated the influence of simulated climate change (increased temperatures, reduced soil water availability) on soil gross microbial N turnover and plant N uptake in the beech-soil interface of a typical mountainous beech forest stocking on calcareous soil in SW Germany. For this purpose, triple 15N isotope labelling of intact beech seedling-soil-microbe systems was combined with a space-for-time climate change experiment. We found that nitrate was the dominant N source for beech natural regeneration. Reduced soil water content caused a persistent decline of ammonia oxidizing bacteria and therefore, a massive attenuation of gross nitrification rates and nitrate availability in the soil. Consequently, nitrate and total N uptake of beech seedlings were strongly reduced so that impaired growth of beech seedlings was observed already after one year of exposure to simulated climatic change. We conclude that the N cycle in this ecosystem and here specifically nitrification is vulnerable to reduced water availability, which can directly lead to nutritional limitations of beech seedlings. This tight link between reduced water availability, drought stress for nitrifiers, decreased gross nitrification rates and nitrate availability and finally nitrate uptake by beech seedlings could represent the Achilles' heel for beech under climate change stresses.

Dataset Information

On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives.

Publications

On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets