, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 1262–1272 | Cite as

Woody Debris Volume Depletion Through Decay: Implications for Biomass and Carbon Accounting

  • Shawn Fraver
  • Amy M. Milo
  • John B. Bradford
  • Anthony W. D’Amato
  • Laura Kenefic
  • Brian J. Palik
  • Christopher W. Woodall
  • John Brissette


Woody debris decay rates have recently received much attention because of the need to quantify temporal changes in forest carbon stocks. Published decay rates, available for many species, are commonly used to characterize deadwood biomass and carbon depletion. However, decay rates are often derived from reductions in wood density through time, which when used to model biomass and carbon depletion are known to underestimate rate loss because they fail to account for volume reduction (changes in log shape) as decay progresses. We present a method for estimating changes in log volume through time and illustrate the method using a chronosequence approach. The method is based on the observation, confirmed herein, that decaying logs have a collapse ratio (cross-sectional height/width) that can serve as a surrogate for the volume remaining. Combining the resulting volume loss with concurrent changes in wood density from the same logs then allowed us to quantify biomass and carbon depletion for three study species. Results show that volume, density, and biomass follow distinct depletion curves during decomposition. Volume showed an initial lag period (log dimensions remained unchanged), even while wood density was being reduced. However, once volume depletion began, biomass loss (the product of density and volume depletion) occurred much more rapidly than density alone. At the temporal limit of our data, the proportion of the biomass remaining was roughly half that of the density remaining. Accounting for log volume depletion, as demonstrated in this study, provides a comprehensive characterization of deadwood decomposition, thereby improving biomass-loss and carbon-accounting models.


carbon cycle coarse woody debris deadwood decay constant decay rate decomposition forest dynamics forest biomass forest fuels habitat structure 



We thank J. Elioff, A. Elling, D. Kastendick, T. O’Brien, R. Severs, T. Burk, H. Hutchins, and G. Mehmel for alerting us to sites with known tree mortality dates and J. Elioff for assistance in the field. Comments from B.G. Jonsson, M. Russell, two anonymous reviewers, and the subject-matter editor substantially improved the manuscript. Support was provided by the US Forest Service Northern Research Station, and the Joint Fire Science Program (Project 08-1-5-04). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10021_2013_9682_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)
10021_2013_9682_MOESM2_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 12 kb)


  1. Aakala T. 2010. Coarse woody debris in late-successional Picea abies forests in northern Europe: variability in quantities and models of decay class dynamics. For Ecol Manage 260:770–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aaseng N, Almendinger J, Rusterholz K, Wovcha D, Klein TR. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. St Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 252 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Beets PN, Hood IA, Kimberley MO, Oliver GR, Pearce SH, Gardner JF. 2008. Coarse woody debris decay rates for seven indigenous tree species in the central North Island of New Zealand. For Ecol Manage 256:548–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchette RA. 1980. Wood decay—a sub-microscopic view. J Forest 78:734–7.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchette RA, Obst JR, Timell TE. 1994. Biodegradation of compression wood and tension wood by white and brown rot fungi. Holzforschung 48:34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boddy L. 2001. Fungal community ecology and wood decomposition processes in angiosperms: from standing tree to complete decay of coarse woody debris. Ecol Bull 49:43–56.Google Scholar
  7. Boddy L, Watkinson SC. 1995. Wood decomposition, higher fungi, and their role in nutrient redistribution. Can J Bot 73(Suppl. 1):S1377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradford J, Weishampel P, Smith M-L, Kolka R, Birdsey RA, Ollinger SV, Ryan MG. 2009. Detrital carbon pools in temperate forests: magnitude and potential for landscape-scale assessment. Can J For Res 39:802–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JK. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. GTR-INT-16. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture. 24 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Brown PM, Shepperd W, Mata SA, McClain DL. 1998. Longevity of windthrown logs in a subalpine forest of central Colorado. Can J For Res 24:932–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 488 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Chambers JQ, Higuchi N, Schimel JP, Ferreir LV, Melack JM. 2000. Decomposition and carbon cycling of dead trees in tropical forests of the central Amazon. Oecologia 122:380–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clinton PW, Buchanan PK, Wilkie JP, Smaill SJ, Kimberley MO. 2009. Decomposition of Nothofagus wood in vitro and nutrient mobilization by fungi. Can J For Res 39:2193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Allison SD, Bauhus J, Eggleton P, Preston CM, Scarff F, Weeden JT, Wirth C, Zanne AE. 2009. Plant traits and wood fates across the globe: rotted, burned, or consumed? Glob Change Biol 15:2431–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edman M, Möller R, Ericson L. 2006. Effects of enhanced tree growth rate on the decay capacities of three saprotrophic wood-fungi. For Ecol Manage 232:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraver S, Wagner RG, Day M. 2002. Dynamics of coarse woody debris following gap harvesting in the Acadian forest of central Maine, USA. Can J For Res 32:2094–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraver S, Ringvall A, Jonsson BG. 2007. Refining volume estimates of down woody debris. Can J For Res 37:627–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freschet GT, Weedon JT, Aerts R, van Hal JR, Cornelissen JHC. 2012. Interspecific differences in wood decay rates: insights from a new short-term method to study long-term wood decomposition. J Ecol 100:161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grier CC. 1978. A Tsuga heterophyllaPicea sitchensis ecosystem of coastal Oregon: decomposition and nutrient balances of fallen logs. Can J For Res 8:198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grove SJ, Stamm L, Barry C. 2009. Log decomposition rates in Tasmanian Eucalyptus oblique determined using an indirect chronosequence approach. For Ecol Manage 258:389–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagemann U, Moroni MT, Gleibner J, Makeschin F. 2010. Accumulation and preservation of dead wood upon burial by bryophytes. Ecosystems 13:600–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K Jr, Cummins KW. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:133–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harmon ME, Cromack K Jr, Smith BG. 1987. Coarse woody debris in mixed-conifer forests, Sequoia National Park, California. Can J For Res 17:1265–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harmon ME, Krankina ON, Sexton J. 2000. Decomposition vectors: a new approach to estimating woody detritus decomposition dynamics. Can J For Res 30:76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harmon ME, Woodall CW, Fasth B, Sexton J. 2008. Woody detritus density and density reduction factors for tree species in the United States: a synthesis. GTR-NRS-29. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture. 84 pp.Google Scholar
  26. He HS, Shang BZ, Crow TR, Gustafson EJ, Shifley SR. 2004. Simulating forest fuel and fire risk dynamics across landscapes—LANDIS fuel module design. Ecol Model 180:135–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henry JD, Swan JM. 1974. Reconstructing forest history from live and dead plant material—and approach to the study of forest succession in southwest New Hampshire. Ecology 55:772–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes S. 2005. Archimedes revisited: a faster, better, cheaper method of accurately measuring the volume of small objects. Phys Educ 40:468–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krankina ON, Harmon ME. 1995. Dynamics of the dead wood carbon pool in northwestern Russian boreal forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 82:227–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krankina ON, Harmon ME, Griazkin AV. 1999. Nutrient stores and dynamics of woody detritus in a boreal forest: modeling potential implications at the stand level. Can J For Res 29:20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kueppers LM, Southon J, Baer P, Harte J. 2004. Deadwood biomass and turnover time, measured by radiocarbon, along a subalpine elevation gradient. Oecologia 141:641–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laiho R, Prescott CE. 1999. The contribution of coarse woody debris to carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles in three Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. Can J For Res 29:1592–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laiho R, Prescott CE. 2004. Decay and nutrient dynamics of coarse woody debris in northern coniferous forests: a synthesis. Can J For Res 34:763–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C. 2011. Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Ind 11:1027–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindner DL, Vasaitis R, Kubartova A, Allmer J, Johannesson H, Banik MT, Stenlid J. 2011. Initial fungal colonizer affects mass loss and fungal community development in Picea abies logs 6 yr after inoculation. Fungal Ecol 4:449–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackensen J, Bauhus J, Webber E. 2003. Decomposition rates of coarse woody debris—a review with particular emphasis on Australian tree species. Aust J Bot 51:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mäkinen H, Hynynen J, Siitonen J, Sievänen R. 2006. Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecol Appl 16:1865–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maser C, Anderson RG, Cromack K Jr, Williams JT, Martin RE. 1979. Dead and down woody material. In: Thomas JW, Ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agricultural handbook 553. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture. p. 78–95.Google Scholar
  39. McFee WW, Stone EL. 1966. The persistence of decaying wood in the humus layers of northern forests. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 30:513–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McNab WH, Avers PE. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States. WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  41. Means JE, Cromack K Jr, MacMillan PC. 1985. Comparison of decomposition models using wood density of Douglas-fir logs. Can J For Res 15:1092–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Means JE, MacMillan PC, Cromack K Jr. 1992. Biomass and nutrient content of Douglas-fir logs and other detrital pools in an old-growth forest, Oregon, U.S.A. Can J For Res 22:1536–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Müller-Using S, Bartsch N. 2009. Decay dynamics of coarse and fine woody debris of a beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest in central Germany. Eur J Forest Res 128:287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Næsset E. 1999. Decomposition rate constants of Picea abies logs in southeastern Norway. Can J For Res 29:372–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panshin AJ, de Zeeuh C. 1980. Textbook of wood technology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. p 722.Google Scholar
  46. Rock J, Badeck F-W, Harmon ME. 2008. Estimating decomposition rate constants for European tree species from literature sources. Eur J Forest Res 127:301–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoennagel T, Veblen TT, Romme WH. 2004. The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain Forests. Bioscience 54:661–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spies TA. 1998. Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem. Northwest Sci 72:34–9.Google Scholar
  49. Spies TA, Franklin JF, Thomas TB. 1988. Coarse woody debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington. Ecology 69:1689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG. 2012. Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 509 pp.Google Scholar
  51. Stone JN, MacKinnon A, Parminter JV, Lertzman KP. 1998. Coarse woody debris decomposition documented over 65 years on southern Vancouver Island. Can J For Res 28:788–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Storaunet KO, Rolstad J. 2002. Time since death and fall of Norway spruce logs in old-growth and selectively cut boreal forest. Can J For Res 32:1801–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tarasov ME, Birdsey RA. 2001. Decay rate and potential storage of coarse woody debris in the Leningrad Region. Ecol Bull 49:137–47.Google Scholar
  54. Tikkanen O-P, Heinonen T, Kouki J, Matero J. 2007. Habitat suitability models of saproxylic red-listed boreal forest species in long-term matrix management: cost-effective measures for multi-species conservation. Biol Conserv 140:359–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Geffen KG, Poorter L, Sass-Klaassen U, van Logtestijn RSP, Cornelissen JHC. 2010. The trait contribution to wood decomposition rates of 15 Neotropical tree species. Ecology 91:3686–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verrall AF. 1938. The probable mechanism of the protective action of resin in fire wounds on red pine. J Forest 12:1231–3.Google Scholar
  57. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M. 2006. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev 81:259–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woodall CW. 2010. Carbon flux of down woody materials in forests of the north central United States. Int J For Res, article ID 413703.Google Scholar
  59. Woodall CW, Rondeux J, Verkerk P, Ståhl G. 2009. Estimating dead wood during national inventories: a review of inventory methodologies and suggestions for harmonization. Environ Manage 44:624–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yatskov M, Harmon ME, Krankina ON. 2003. A chronosequence of wood decomposition in the boreal forests of Russia. Can J For Res 33:1211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yin X. 1999. The decay of forest woody debris: numerical modeling and implications based on some 300 data cases from North America. Oecologia 121:81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zell J, Kändler G, Hanewinkel M. 2009. Predicting constant decay rates of coarse woody debris—a meta-analysis approach with a mixed model. Ecol Model 220:904–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shawn Fraver
    • 1
  • Amy M. Milo
    • 2
  • John B. Bradford
    • 3
  • Anthony W. D’Amato
    • 1
  • Laura Kenefic
    • 4
  • Brian J. Palik
    • 5
  • Christopher W. Woodall
    • 6
  • John Brissette
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesGeorge Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.Southwest Biological Science CenterUS Geological SurveyFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.Northern Research StationUS Forest ServiceBradleyUSA
  5. 5.Northern Research StationUS Forest ServiceGrand RapidsUSA
  6. 6.Northern Research StationUS Forest ServiceSt. PaulUSA
  7. 7.Northern Research StationUS Forest ServiceDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations