Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 765–777 | Cite as

Residence Times and Decay Rates of Downed Woody Debris Biomass/Carbon in Eastern US Forests

  • Matthew B. Russell
  • Christopher W. Woodall
  • Shawn Fraver
  • Anthony W. D’Amato
  • Grant M. Domke
  • Kenneth E. Skog
Article

Abstract

A key component in describing forest carbon (C) dynamics is the change in downed dead wood biomass through time. Specifically, there is a dearth of information regarding the residence time of downed woody debris (DWD), which may be reflected in the diversity of wood (for example, species, size, and stage of decay) and site attributes (for example, climate) across the study region of eastern US forests. The empirical assessment of DWD rate of decay and residence time is complicated by the decay process itself, as decomposing logs undergo not only a reduction in wood density over time but also reductions in biomass, shape, and size. Using DWD repeated measurements coupled with models to estimate durations in various stages of decay, estimates of DWD half-life (T HALF), residence time (T RES), and decay rate (k constants) were developed for 36 tree species common to eastern US forests. Results indicate that estimates for T HALF averaged 18 and 10 years for conifers and hardwoods, respectively. Species that exhibited shorter T HALF tended to display a shorter T RES and larger k constants. Averages of T RES ranged from 57 to 124 years for conifers and from 46 to 71 years for hardwoods, depending on the species and methodology for estimating DWD decomposition considered. Decay rate constants (k) increased with increasing temperature of climate zones and ranged from 0.024 to 0.040 for conifers and from 0.043 to 0.064 for hardwoods. These estimates could be incorporated into dynamic global vegetation models to elucidate the role of DWD in forest C dynamics.

Keywords

carbon flux decomposition forest inventory forest fuels decay class coarse woody debris 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. We thank Lori Daniels, Alex Finkral, Ron McRoberts, Steve Prisley, and Herman Shugart for their comments that improved the content of this work.

Supplementary material

10021_2014_9757_MOESM1_ESM.docx (233 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 233 kb)
10021_2014_9757_MOESM2_ESM.txt (21 kb)
Appendix B: Supplementary material 2 (TXT 21 kb)

References

  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. Aber JD, Ollinger SV, Federer CA, Reich PB, Goulden ML, Kicklighter DW, Melillo JM, Lathrop RG. 1995. Predicting the effects of climate change on water yield and forest production in the northeastern United States. Clim Res 5:207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alban DH, Pastor J. 1993. Decomposition of aspen, spruce, and pine boles on two sites in Minnesota. Can J For Res 23:1744–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey RG. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA Misc. Pub. 1391. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 77 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Barber BL, Van Lear DH. 1984. Weight loss and nutrient dynamics in decomposing woody loblolly pine logging slash. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:906–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birdsey R, Pregitzer K, Lucier A. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600–2100. J Environ Qual 35:1461–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradford J, Weishampel P, Smith ML, 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
  8. Domke GM, Woodall CW, Smith JE. 2011. Accounting for density reduction and structural loss in standing dead trees: implications for forest biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United States. Carbon Balance Manage 6:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster JR, Lang GE. 1982. Decomposition of red spruce and balsam fir boles in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Can J For Res 12:617–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraver S, Milo AM, Bradford JB, D’Amato AW, Kenefic L, Palik BJ, Woodall CW, Brissette J. 2013. Woody debris volume depletion through decay: implications for biomass and carbon accounting. Ecosystems 16:1262–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraver S, Palik B. 2012. Stand and cohort structures of old-growth Pinus resinosa-dominated forests of northern Minnesota, USA. J Veg Sci 23:249–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraver S, Ringvall A, Jonsson BG. 2007. Refining volume estimates of down woody debris. Can J For Res 37:627–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraver S, Wagner RG, Day ME. 2002. Dynamics of coarse woody debris following gap harvesting in the Acadian forest of central Maine, U.S.A. Can J For Res 32:2094–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gove JH, Ducey MJ, Valentine HT, Williams MS. 2012. A distance limited method for sampling downed coarse woody debris. For Ecol Manage 282:53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gove JH, Van Deusen PC. 2011. On fixed-area plot sampling for downed coarse woody debris. Forestry 84:109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagemann U, Moroni MT, Gleissner J, Makeschin F. 2010. Disturbance history influences downed woody debris and soil respiration. For Ecol Manage 260:1762–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harmon ME. 1982. Decomposition of standing dead trees in the southern Appalachian mountains. Oecologia 52:214–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Harmon ME, Fasth B, Woodall CW, Sexton J. 2013. Carbon concentration of standing and downed woody detritus: effects of tree taxa, decay class, position, and tissue type. For Ecol Manage 291:259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harmon ME, Ferrell WK, Franklin JF. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science 247:699–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K, Cummins KW. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:133–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harmon ME, Krankina ON, Sexton J. 2000. Decomposition vectors: a new approach for estimating woody detritus decomposition dynamics. Can J For Res 30:76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-29. 65 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Harmon ME, Woodall CW, Fasth B, Sexton J, Yatkov M. 2011. Differences between standing and downed dead tree wood density reduction factors: a comparison across decay classes and tree species. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NRS-15. 40 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Hérault B, Beauchêne J, Muller F, Wagner F, Baraloto C, Blanc L, Martin J-M. 2010. Modeling decay rates of dead wood in a neotropical forest. Oecologia 164:243–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrmann S, Bauhus J. 2013. Effects of moisture, temperature and decomposition stage on respirational carbon loss from coarse woody debris (CWD) of important European tree species. Scand J For Res 28:346–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 3—reference manual. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Japan: IGES. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6.html (last accessed 14 Jan 2013).
  28. Kirschbaum MUF. 1999. CenW, a forest growth model with linked carbon, energy, nutrient and water cycles. Ecol Model 118:17–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirschbaum MUF, Paul KI. 2002. Modelling C and N dynamics in forest soils with a modified version of the CENTURY model. Soil Biol Biogeochem 34:341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. 2006. World map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification updated. Meterol Z 15:259–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kruys N, Jonsson BG, Ståhl G. 2002. A stage-based matrix model for decay-class dynamics of woody debris. Ecol Appl 12:773–81.CrossRefGoogle 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. Lambert RL, Lang GE, Reiners WA. 1980. Loss of mass and chemical change in decaying boles of a subalpine balsam fir forest. Ecology 61:1460–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lamlom SH, Savidge RA. 2003. A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy 25:381–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackensen J, Bauhus J. 2003. Density loss and respiration rates in coarse woody debris of Pinus radiata, Eucalyptus regnans and Eucalyptus maculata. Soil Biol Biogeochem 35:177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackensen J, Bauhus J, Webber E. 2003. Decomposition rates of coarse woody debris—a review with particular emphasis on Australian species. Aust J Bot 51:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacMillan PC. 1988. Decomposition of coarse woody debris in an old-growth Indiana forest. Can J For Res 18:1353–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malmsheimer RW, Bowyer JL, Fried JS, Gee E, Izlar RL, Miner RA, Munn IA, Oneil E, Stewart WC. 2011. Managing forests because carbon matters: integrating energy, products, and land management policy. J Forest 109:S7–50.Google Scholar
  40. 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 17:712–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKinley DC, Ryan MG, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Harmon ME, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, Morrison JF, Murray BC, Pataki DE, Skog KE. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol Appl 21:1902–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Miller WE. 1983. Decomposition rates of aspen bole and branch litter. For Sci 29:351–6.Google Scholar
  44. Mobley ML, Richter DD, Heine PR. 2013. Accumulation and decay of woody detritus in a humid subtropical secondary pine forest. Can J For Res 43:109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Næsset E. 1999. Decomposition rate constants of Picea abies logs in southeastern Norway. Can J For Res 29(3):372–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Noormets A, McNulty SG, Domec J-C, Gavazzi M, Sun G, King JS. 2012. The role of harvest residue in rotation cycle carbon balance in loblolly pine plantations. Respiration partitioning approach. Glob Change Biol 18:3186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson JS. 1963. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44(2):322–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Radtke PJ, Amateis RL, Prisley SP, Copenheaver CA, Chojnacky DC, Pittman JR, Burkhart HE. 2009. Modeling production and decay of coarse woody debris in loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manage 257:790–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rebain SA, Reinhardt ED, Crookston NL, Beukema SJ, Kurz WA, Greenough JA, Robinson DCE, Lutes DC. 2010 (Revised 18 December 2012). The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator: updated model documentation. Internal Report. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Forest Management Service Center. 398 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Rehfeldt GE. 2006. A spline model of climate for the western United States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-165.Google Scholar
  51. Ritter T, Saborowski J. 2012. Point transect sampling of deadwood: a comparison with well-established sampling techniques for the estimation of volume and carbon storage in managed forests. Eur J Forest Res 131:1845–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rollins MG, Keane RE, Parsons RA. 2004. Mapping fuels and fire regimes using remote sensing, ecosystem simulation, and gradient modeling. Ecol Appl 14:75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Russell MB, Woodall CW, Fraver S, D’Amato AW. 2013. Estimates of coarse woody debris decay class transitions for forests across the eastern United States. Ecol Model 251:22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ryan MG, Harmon ME, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, McKinley DC, Morrison JF, Murray BC, Pataki DE, Skog KE. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Ecol Soc Am 13:1–16.Google Scholar
  55. Rykiel EJ. 1996. Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Model 90:229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sathre R, Gustavsson L. 2011. Time-dependent climate benefits of using forest residues to substitute fossil fuels. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2506–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schlamadinger B, Spitzer J, Kohlmaier GH, Ludeke M. 1995. Carbon balance of bioenergy from logging residues. Biomass Bioenergy 8:221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sitch S, Smith B, Prentice IC, Arneth A, Bondeau A, Cramer W, Kaplan J, Levis S, Lucht W, Sykes M, Thonicke K, Venevsky S. 2003. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob Change Biol 9:161–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA. 2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. 336 pp.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG. 2012. Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 509 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. United States Forest Service. 2012. Research on forest climate change: potential effects of global warming on forests and plant climate relationships in western North America and Mexico. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow Laboratory. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/climate/ (last accessed 28 June 2012).
  63. Wang C, Bond-Lamberty B, Gower ST. 2002. Environmental controls on carbon dioxide flux from black spruce coarse woody debris. Oecologia 132:374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weedon JT, Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Zanne AE, Wirth C, Coomes DA. 2009. Global meta-analysis of wood decomposition rates: a role for trait variation among tree species? Ecol Lett 12:45–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weggler K, Dobbertin M, Jüngling E, Kaufmann E, Thürig E. 2012. Dead wood volume to dead wood carbon: the issue of conversion factors. Eur J Forest Res 131:1423–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. White MA, Thornton PE, Running SW, Nemani RR. 2000. Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interact 4:1–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Woodall CW, Monleon VJ. 2008. Sampling protocols, estimation procedures, and analytical guidelines for down woody materials indicator of the Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-22. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 68 pp.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Woodall CW, Walters BF, Oswalt SN, Domke GM, Toney C, Gray AN. 2013. Biomass and carbon attributes of downed woody materials in forests of the United States. For Ecol Manage 305:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Woodall CW, Walters BF, Westfall JA. 2012. Tracking downed dead wood in forests over time: development of a piece matching algorithm for line intercept sampling. For Ecol Manage 277:196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Woodall CW, Westfall JA, Lutes DC, Oswalt SN. 2008. End-point diameter and total length coarse woody debris models for the United States. For Ecol Manage 255:3700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Woudenberg SW, Conkling BL, O’Connell BM, LaPoint EB, Turner JA, Waddell KL. 2010. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: database description and users manual version 4.0 for phase 2. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-245. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. 339 pp.Google Scholar
  73. Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N. 2012. Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy 4:761–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew B. Russell
    • 1
  • Christopher W. Woodall
    • 2
  • Shawn Fraver
    • 3
  • Anthony W. D’Amato
    • 1
  • Grant M. Domke
    • 2
  • Kenneth E. Skog
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Northern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  4. 4.Forest Products LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations