Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 134, Issue 5, pp 737–754 | Cite as

Nine-year changes in carbon dynamics following different intensities of harvesting in boreal aspen stands

  • Manuella Strukelj
  • Suzanne Brais
  • David Paré
Original Paper

Abstract

Mixedwood forests occupy a large extent of boreal regions and have the potential for sequestering large amounts of carbon. In the context of forest ecosystem management, partial cutting prescriptions are increasingly being applied to boreal mixedwood stands. Partial harvesting is expected to maintain carbon pools and dynamics within the limits of those of natural stands. Changes in live tree, deadwood (standing snags, downed logs), forest floor and mineral soil carbon pools were assessed over a 9-year period in a replicated large-scale experiment, which included unharvested controls, two variants of partial harvesting and clear-cuts. We also measured leaf litter and deadwood inputs and decay rates. Carbon flux through leaf litterfall recovered rapidly following partial harvesting. Carbon flux from live trees to deadwood pools was a dominant process in partially harvested stands where snags and downed log carbon pools remained similar to those of natural stands. Hence, the nature of litter inputs diverged strongly among clear-cut and partially harvested treatments. Leaf and wood decay rates were higher in the partial cuts and controls than in clear-cuts. No significant differences in forest floor and mineral soil carbon were observed 9 years after harvesting. Carbon sequestration in live tree biomass was the carbon pool that most strongly differentiated the treatments allowing partial harvesting to maintain forest stands as net carbon sinks.

Keywords

Leaf Litter Mineral Soil Forest Floor Live Tree Tree Biomass 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the two reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions to improve the original manuscript. We are also grateful to Dr. Marc Mazerolle for statistical support, Josée Frenette, Ariane Béchard, Mylène Bélanger, Alfred Coulomb, Mario Major and Dr. Hedi Kebli for field assistance, and Dr. William F.J. Parsons for English revision. This study was supported by the Fonds Québécois de Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT, Grant 121414), by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, Grant 217118-02) by the Lake Duparquet Research and Teaching Forest (Ph.D. scholarship) and by Jean-Jacques Cossette (Ph.D. Scholarship).

References

  1. Amiro BD, Barr AG, Barr JG, Black TA, Bracho R, Brown M, Chen J, Clark KL, Davis KJ, Desai AR, Dore S, Engel V, Fuentes JD, Goldstein AH, Goulden ML, Kolb TE, Lavigne MB, Law BE, Margolis HA, Martin T, McCaughey JH, Misson L, Montes-Helu M, Noormets A, Randerson JT, Starr G, Xiao J (2010) Ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes after disturbance in forests of North America. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 115:G00K02Google Scholar
  2. Angers VA, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y (2010) Snag degradation pathways of four North American boreal tree species. For Ecol Manag 259:246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angers VA, Bergeron Y, Drapeau P (2012a) Morphological attributes and snag classification of four North American boreal tree species: relationships with time since death and wood density. For Ecol Manag 263:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angers VA, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y (2012b) Mineralization rates and factors influencing snag decay in four North American boreal tree species. Can J For Res 42:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balboa-Murias MÁ, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R, Merino A, Álvarez-González JG (2006) Temporal variations and distribution of carbon stocks in aboveground biomass of radiata pine and maritime pine pure stands under different silvicultural alternatives. For Ecol Manag 237:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaudet M, Harvey BD, Messier C, Coates KD, Poulin J, Kneeshaw DD, Brais S, Bergeron Y (2011) Managing understory light conditions in boreal mixedwoods through variation in the intensity and spatial pattern of harvest: a modelling approach. For Ecol Manag 261:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg B (2000) Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manag 133:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergeron Y, Harvey B (1997) Basing silviculture on natural ecosystem dynamics: an approach applied to the southern boreal mixedwood forest of Quebec. For Ecol Manag 92:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergeron Y, Bouchard A, Gangloff P (1983) La classification ecologique des milieux forestiers de la partie ouest des cantons d’Hebecourt et de Roquemaure, Abitibi, Quebec. Universite Laval, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergeron Y, Chen HYH, Kenkel NC, Leduc AL, Macdonald SE (2014) Boreal mixedwood stand dynamics: ecological processes underlying multiple pathways. For Chron 90:202–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bond-Lamberty B, Wang C, Gower ST (2002) Aboveground and belowground biomass and sapwood area allometric equations for six boreal tree species of northern Manitoba. Can J For Res 32:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bose AK, Brais S, Harvey BD (2014a) Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) volume growth in the boreal mixedwood: effect of partial harvesting, tree social status, and neighborhood competition. For Ecol Manag 327:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bose AK, Harvey BD, Brais S (2014b) Sapling recruitment and mortality dynamics following partial harvesting in aspen-dominated mixedwoods in eastern Canada. For Ecol Manag 329:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourgeois L, Messier C, Brais S (2004) Mountain maple and balsam fir early response to partial and clear-cut harvesting under aspen stands of northern Quebec. Can J For Res 34:2049–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brais S, Camiré C (1992) Keys for soil moisture regime evaluation for northwestern Quebec. Can J For Res 22:718–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brais S, Harvey BD, Bergeron Y, Messier C, Greene D, Belleau A, Paré D (2004) Testing forest ecosystem management in boreal mixedwoods of northwestern Quebec: initial response of aspen stands to different levels of harvesting. Can J For Res 34:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brais S, Paré D, Lierman C (2006) Tree bole mineralization rates of four species of the Canadian eastern boreal forest: implications for nutrient dynamics following stand-replacing disturbances. Can J For Res 36:2331–2340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brais S, Work TT, Robert É, O’Connor CD, Strukelj M, Bose AK, Celentano D, Harvey BD (2013) Ecosystem responses to partial harvesting in eastern boreal mixedwood stands. Forests 4:364–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brassard BW, Chen HYH, Bergeron Y, Paré D (2011) Coarse root biomass allometric equations for Abies balsamea, Picea mariana, Pinus banksiana, and Populus tremuloides in the boreal forest of Ontario, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4189–4196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cavard X, Bergeron Y, Chen HYH, Paré D (2010) Mixed-species effect on tree aboveground carbon pools in the east-central boreal forests. Can J For Res 40:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen HY, Popadiouk RV (2002) Dynamics of North American boreal mixedwoods. Environ Rev 10:137–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cotrufo MF, Wallenstein MD, Boot CM, Denef K, Paul E (2013) The microbial efficiency-matrix stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob Change Biol 19:988–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Covington WW, Aber JD (1980) Leaf production during secondary succession in northern hardwoods. Ecology 61:200–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dai KO, Johnson CE, Driscoll CT (2001) Organic matter chemistry and dynamics in clear-cut and unmanaged hardwood forest ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 54:51–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DesRochers A, Lieffers VJ (2001a) The coarse-root system of mature Populus tremuloides in declining stands in Alberta, Canada. J Veg Sci 12:355–360Google Scholar
  26. DesRochers A, Lieffers VJ (2001b) Root biomass of regenerating aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands of different densities in Alberta. Can J For Res 31:1012–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diochon A, Kellman L, Beltrami H (2009) Looking deeper: an investigation of soil carbon losses following harvesting from a managed northeastern red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) forest chronosequence. For Ecol Manag 257:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M (2006) Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J For Res 36:2285–2299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Environment Canada (2010) Canadian climate normals or averages 1971–2000. Available from http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
  30. Fierer N, Grandy AS, Six J, Paul EA (2009) Searching for unifying principles in soil ecology. Soil Biol Biochem 41:2249–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 32:2094–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fridman J, Walheim M (2000) Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 131:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gauthier S, Vaillancourt M-A, Leduc A, de Grandpre L, Kneeshaw D, Morin H, Drapeau P, Bergeron Y (2008) Ecosystem management in the boreal forest. Presses de l’Université du Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  34. Hagemann U, Moroni MT, Makeschin F (2009) Deadwood abundance in Labrador high-boreal black spruce forests. Can J For Res 39:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey BD, Brais S (2007) Partial cutting as an analogue to stem exclusion and dieback in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) dominated boreal mixedwoods: implications for deadwood dynamics. Can J For Res 37:1525–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hendrickson OQ (1988) Biomass and nutrients in regenerating woody vegetation following whole-tree and conventional harvest in a northern mixed forest. Can J For Res 18:1427–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoover C, Stout S (2007) The carbon consequences of thinning techniques: stand structure makes a difference. J For 105:266–270Google Scholar
  38. Hope GD, Prescott CE, Blevins LL (2003) Responses of available soil nitrogen and litter decomposition to openings of different sizes in dry interior Douglas-fir forests in British Columbia. For Ecol Manag 186:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hughes JW, Fahey TJ (1994) Litterfall dynamics and ecosystem recovery during forest development. For Ecol Manag 63:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Husch B, Beers TW, Kershaw JAJ (2003) Forest mensuration. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  41. Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, Johnson DW, Minkkinen K, Byrne KA (2007) How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalbitz K, Glaser B, Bol R (2004) Clear-cutting of a Norway spruce stand: implications for controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in the forest floor. Eur J Soil Sci 55:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kebli H, Brais S, Kernaghan G, Drouin P (2012) Impact of harvesting intensity on wood-inhabiting fungi in boreal aspen forests of Eastern Canada. For Ecol Manag 279:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kranabetter JM, Coates KD (2004) Ten-year postharvest effects of silviculture systems on soil-resource availability and conifer nutrition in a northern temperate forest. Can J For Res 34:800–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Laganière J, Paré D, Bergeron Y, Chen HH, Brassard B, Cavard X (2013) Stability of soil carbon stocks varies with forest composition in the Canadian boreal biome. Ecosystems 16:852–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lambert M-C, Ung C-H, Raulier F (2005) Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations. Can J For Res 35:1996–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lamlom SH, Savidge RA (2003) A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy 25:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Law BE, Sun OJ, Campbell J, Van Tuyl S, Thornton PE (2003) Changes in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Change Biol 9:510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee J, Morrison IK, Leblanc J-D, Dumas MT, Cameron DA (2002) Carbon sequestration in trees and regrowth vegetation as affected by clearcut and partial cut harvesting in a second-growth boreal mixedwood. For Ecol Manag 169:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lieffers VJ, Beck JA Jr (1994) A semi-natural approach to mixedwood management in the prairie provinces. For Chron 70:260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lieffers VJ, Pinno BD, Stadt KJ (2002) Light dynamics and free-to-grow standards in aspen-dominated mixedwood forests. For Chron 78:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lorenz K, Lal R, Preston CM, Nierop KGJ (2007) Strengthening the soil organic carbon pool by increasing contributions from recalcitrant aliphatic bio(macro)molecules. Geoderma 142:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martin JL, Gower ST, Plaut J, Holmes B (2005) Carbon pools in a boreal mixedwood logging chronosequence. Glob Change Biol 11:1883–1894Google Scholar
  54. Mattson KG, Swank WT, Waide JB (1987) Decomposition of woody debris in a regenerating, clear-cut forest in the Southern Appalachians. Can J For Res 17:712–721Google Scholar
  55. Moroni MT (2006) Disturbance history affects dead wood abundance in Newfoundland boreal forests. Can J For Res 36:3194–3208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nave LE, Vance ED, Swanston CW, Curtis PS (2010) Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 259:857–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paré D, Bergeron Y (1995) Above-ground biomass accumulation along a 230-year chronosequence in the southern portion of the Canadian boreal forest. J Ecol 83:1001–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parkinson JA, Allen SE (1975) A wet oxidation procedure suitable for the determination of nitrogen and mineral nutrients in biological material. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 6:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pedlar JH, Pearce JL, Venier LA, McKenney DW (2002) Coarse woody debris in relation to disturbance and forest type in boreal Canada. For Ecol Manag 158:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perera AH, Yemshanov D, Schnekenburger F, Baldwin DJB, Boychuk D, Weaver K (2004) Spatial simulation of broad-scale fire regimes as a tool for emulating natural forest landscape disturbance. In: Perera AH, Buse LJ, Weber MG (eds) Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances: concepts and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 112–122Google Scholar
  61. Piirainen S, Finér L, Mannerkoski H, Starr M (2002) Effects of forest clear-cutting on the carbon and nitrogen fluxes through podzolic soil horizons. Plant Soil 239:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Poulin J, Messier C, Papaik M, Beaudet M, Coates DK (2008) Rapport de paramétrisation du modèle de simulation de la dynamique forestière SORTIE-ND pour la forêt boréale et sub-boréale de l’ouest du Québec. In Université du Québec à Montréal, Centre d’étude de la forêt, p 59Google Scholar
  64. Powers M, Kolka R, Palik B, McDonald R, Jurgensen M (2011) Long-term management impacts on carbon storage in Lake States forests. For Ecol Manag 262:424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prescott CE (1997) Effects of clearcutting and alternative silvicultural systems on rates of decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in a coastal montane coniferous forest. For Ecol Manag 95:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prévost M, Pothier D (2003) Partial cuts in a trembling aspen conifer stand: effects on microenvironmental conditions and regeneration dynamics. Can J For Res 33:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.15.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  68. Rouvinen S, Kuuluvainen T, Karjalainen L (2002) Coarse woody debris in old Pinus sylvestris dominated forests along a geographic and human impact gradient in boreal Fennoscandia. Can J For Res 32:2184–2200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schwenk WS, Donovan TM, Keeton WS, Nunery JS (2012) Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Appl 22:1612–1627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seedre M, Shrestha BM, Chen HYH, Colombo S, Jõgiste K (2011) Carbon dynamics of North American boreal forest after stand replacing wildfire and clearcut logging. J For Res 16:168–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shorohova E, Kapitsa E, Vanha-Majamaa I (2008) Decomposition of stumps 10 years after partial and complete harvesting in a southern boreal forest in Finland. Can J For Res 38:2414–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  73. Sippola A-L, Similä M, Mönkkönen M, Jokimäki J (2004) Diversity of polyporous fungi (Polyporaceae) in northern boreal forests: effects of forest site type and logging intensity. Scand J For Res 19:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Soil Classification Working Group (1998) The Canadian system of soil classification. National Research Council of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  75. Strukelj M, Brais S, Quideau SA, Oh S-W (2012) Chemical transformations of deadwood and foliar litter of mixed boreal species during decomposition. Can J For Res 42:772–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Strukelj M, Brais S, Quideau SA, Angers VA, Kebli H, Drapeau P, Oh S-W (2013) Chemical transformations in downed logs and snags of mixed boreal species during decomposition. Can J For Res 43:785–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Wagner CE (1982) Practical aspects of the line intersect method. Petawawa National Forestry Institute, Canadian Forestry Service, Chalk RiverGoogle Scholar
  78. Veillette J, Bergeron Y, Gaudreau L, Miron F, Drainville G (2000) Abitibi-Témiscamingue: De l’emprise des glaces à un foisonnement d’eau et de vie: 10000 ans d’histoire. Éditions MultiMondes, Sainte-FoyGoogle Scholar
  79. Wei X, Kimmins JP, Peel K, Steen O (1997) Mass and nutrients in woody debris in harvested and wildfire-killed lodgepole pine forests in the central interior of British Columbia. Can J For Res 27:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wickings K, Grandy AS, Reed SC, Cleveland CC (2012) The origin of litter chemical complexity during decomposition. Ecol Lett 15:1180–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Work TT, Shorthouse DP, Spence JR, Volney WJA, Langor D (2004) Stand composition and structure of the boreal mixedwood and epigaeic arthropods of the Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) landbase in northwestern Alberta. Can J For Res 34:417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yanai RD, Currie WS, Goodale CL (2003) Soil carbon dynamics after forest harvest: an ecosystem paradigm reconsidered. Ecosystems 6:197–212Google Scholar
  83. Zhou D, Zhao SQ, Liu S, Oeding J (2013) A meta-analysis on the impacts of partial cutting on forest structure and carbon storage. Biogeosciences 10:3691–3703CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’Étude de la Forêt, and Chaire Industrielle NSERC-UQAT-UQAM en Aménagement Forestier DurableUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueRouyn-NorandaCanada
  2. 2.Centre de foresterie des Laurentides, Service canadien des forêtsRessources naturelles CanadaSainte-Foy, QuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations