Abstract
In forest management, merging stand structural diversity with carbon storage is essential for resilience and climate mitigation. This study assesses (1) how structural diversity in stands of spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.), pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) in Central Europe varies with age, site quality, and applied thinning grade; (2) these factors' impact on carbon stock; and (3) the link between structural diversity and carbon stock. Analyzing 26 long-term thinning experiments, we used the Gini coefficient of tree heights to measure structural diversity and species-specific biomass functions for carbon stock assessments. Our results show that structural diversity, highest in beech and spruce, decreases with stand age and on richer sites. Thinning enhances structural diversity in spruce and beech but reduces it in pine and oak. Unthinned or only moderately thinned mature spruce and beech stands outperform pine and oak in carbon stock (200–300 vs. 100–150 Mg C ha−1). C- and D&E-grade thinning halves carbon stock. A decrease in vertical layering with increased carbon storage varies across species. Given the same carbon stock, thinning from above maintains structural diversity in spruce and beech, while non-thinning or thinning from below promotes structural diversity in pine and oak. Based on the current silvicultural practice reflected by the NFI data of Germany, we argue that reduced thinning in previously D&E-grade thinned stands may slightly reduce their structural diversity. However, a suspension or reduction of thinning would strongly improve carbon storage (+ 100–200 Mg C ha−1) in the next 3–5 decades. We discussed options for reconciling structural diversity and carbon storage by silvicultural management of the four considered species in Central Europe.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Structural diversity and standing stock of wood are two essential stand characteristics driving numerous ecosystem services. Structural diversity, in terms of tree height or tree diameter inequality and associated vertical canopy stratification, can promote, e.g., habitat provision (Hilmers et al. 2018; Dieler et al. 2017; Ishii et al. 2004), growth resilience against disturbances (Nikinmaa et al. 2020; Seidl et al. 2014), or drought resistance (Pretzsch et al. 2023a; Grote et al. 2016). Meanwhile, the standing stock determines, e.g., stand growth (Zeide 2002; Assmann 1970a, b), carbon stock (Węgiel and Polowy 2020; Schaich and Plieninger 2013), and forest economy (Assmuth et al. 2018; Knoke and Plusczyk 2001). Both structural diversity and standing stock can be steered by silvicultural thinning (Duduman 2011). Unthinned stands may accumulate standing stock yet lose structural diversity. Thinning from above can boost structural heterogeneity by opening the canopy, fostering the remaining tall trees, and maintaining subdominant trees. Conversely, thinning from below may increase stand growth by eliminating less resource efficient growing trees but tends to homogenize the stand structure.
The structural diversity of even-aged monospecific stands has been extensively documented (e.g., Oliver and Larson 1996; Knox et al. 1989; Long and Smith 1984). Initially, when established with uniform plants or naturally generated in one go, these stands exhibit homogeneity in tree size distribution. However, as soon as competition startseven-aged monospecific stands often evolve more heterogeneous size structures. This differentiation allows categorizing trees into social classes 1–5 (Kraft 1884). Later, the closing of the upper canopy and competition-induced mortality, tends to homogenize the size distribution again. In their old age, even-aged monocultures often become mono-layered or “hall-like” stands (Commarmot et al. 2005; Leibundgut 1993).
Numerous metrics exist for quantifying stand structures (del Río et al. 2016; Staudhammer and LeMay 2001), primarily utilized for analyzing and classifying specific stand development phase (Keren et al. 2019), temporal disturbances (Onaindia et al. 2004), or transition phases (Sharma et al. 2014). However, quantitative insights into structural stand development in temperate forests, particularly size differentiation with increasing stand age, its relation to site condition, and the impact of thinning, remain scarce (Kuehne et al. 2018; Pretzsch 2021; Wichmann 2001). However, Soares et al. (2017) and Sun et al. (2018) showed for forests in Brazil and China how spacing and thinning modulated structural diversity. Recently, understanding and analyzing the structure in different stand development phases has gained importance, as structural diversity is crucial for a successful transition from even-aged monocultures to uneven-aged mixed stands (Reventlow et al. 2021; Hilmers et al. 2020; Pretzsch 2019; Schütz 2001).
Combating the effects of climatic change on forests by mitigation strategies triggered numerous studies dealing with the carbon storage in the standing stock of forests (e.g., Mo et al. 2023; Köhl et al. 2010; Rötzer et al. 2010). The standing volume stock, a standard characteristic in forest management and planning, is commonly used for this purpose. Multiplying this volume by the species-specific wood density (ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 for European tree species) for mass conversion and then by the mean carbon content of 0.5 (for biomass to carbon transformation) provides a rough estimate of carbon in the standing stock. This calculation of carbon stock typically relies on observational plots, forest inventories, or existing growth and yield models. While these methods provide insights into carbon stock in representative forest stands, data on the maximum carbon stock in unmanaged stands are limited. Yet, this information on potential carbon stock without management intervention is particularly valuable as a benchmark.
Over the past half-century, strong thinning from above has become a widely applied concept in forest management (Štefančík et al.2018; del Río et al. 2017), aimed at boosting the size growth of a selected number of future crop trees through strong stand density reduction, well below the maximum standing stock. Given this trend of managing forests far below their maximum standing stock of volume and carbon stock, information about the maximum stock is crucial. Not necessarily for setting stands aside and fully exploiting the carbon storage potential but for reconsidering common thinning concepts and respective density levels in view of the carbon topic (Schwaiger et al. 2019). Especially middle aged and older stands can still have high growth rates, are often kept far below the maximum stand density, and could relatively fast (simply by changing the thinning concept) contribute to higher C sequestration, compared with other measures of C storage such as afforestation (Mo et al. 2023).
The standing stock in early thinned monospecific stands is often far below the maximum of unthinned stands on the same sites (Cavalieri et al. 2022; Mrad et al. 2020; Oliver and Larson 1996). Prior thinnings have fostered structural diversity and mechanical stability (Slodicak and Novak 2006), positioning these stands for a relatively low-risk increase in carbon stock by reducing or pausing thinning interventions. Assessing the stock of unthinned stands may reveal the extent to which stands currently exploit maximum C storage and the additional capacity they could provide by modifying thinning practices.
Structural diversification and carbon storage, in principle, represent competing objectives with inherent tradeoffs (Biber et al. 2020). On one side, the standing stock induces competition and drives structural development, leading to homogenization as lower social class trees get outcompeted by taller ones in stands with high standing stock and closed upper canopies. Conversely, the structure, characterized by tree size inequality and vertical differentiation, can positively affect the potential packing density and enhance the standing stock (Pretzsch et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2011).
In their initial phase, when the standing stock is still low, monospecific stands tend to be homogeneous, with trees assessing similar resources. As trees grow in size and resource demand, the equilibrium changes. Once the standing stock reaches a level where available resources become insufficient for all, size differentiation initiates, leading to structural heterogeneity. Predominantly, dominant trees with superior access to light survive this differentiation process, steering the stand towards homogenization. This trend results in mono-layered stands, where resource distribution may seem similar to the initial phase, but this uniformity stems from a rigorous, irreversible social selection process. In this later phase, conditions might again support understory or subdominant trees, but these have been irreversibly outcompeted decades earlier (Stimm et al. 2021; Dey et al. 2012).
During the middle age of stands, a critical phase for differentiation and loss of structure, silvicultural measures can play a pivotal role in shaping the future structural development of monospecific stands: Thinning from below tends to accelerate homogenization by removing smaller, less competitive trees, whereas thinning from above may maintain the living condition of these smaller trees by removing taller neighbors in the upper canopy. Beyond influencing various ecosystem services like aesthetic value, biodiversity, and climate stability, maintaining structural diversity can enhance a stand's potential in terms of stability and resilience. It also opens opportunities to refill the standing stock through the suspension or reduction of thinning and for transforming stands into more diverse ecosystems with multiple species and uneven-aged structures (O'Hara 2014; Schütz 2001, Kohm and Franklin 1997).
To better understand the relationship between structural diversification and carbon storage in forest stands and how the tradeoff between both is modified by thinning, we based our study on 26 long-term experiments with 164 plots in even-aged monospecific stands. This sample includes a broad spectrum of thinning grades, and unthinned reference stands. The species studied are Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). For oak, we pooled common oak (Quercus robur L.) and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) as they have not been differentiated well enough in the data source.
We used “oak” as a generic term summarizing both taxa to avoid possible taxonomic pitfalls. Our comprehensive dataset, encompassing 290 surveys of the plots, covers the development of individual tree sizes over up to 150 years, providing a solid basis for quantifying structural diversity and carbon stock.
This setup was used to address three questions:
-
(Q1) How does the structural diversity depend on stand age, site index, and thinning grade?
-
(Q2) How does the stem carbon stock depend on stand age, site index, and thinning grade?
-
(Q3) How is the structural diversity related with the carbon stock?
Especially the unthinned plots provided reference data for rethinking the potential of carbon stock. For showing the difference between the potential carbon stock and the current carbon stock in forest practice we used the NFI data of Germany. Based on this comparison we discussed options for reconciling structural diversity and carbon storage by silvicultural management.
Material and methods
Long-term experimental plots as empirical basis
This study leveraged 26 long-term thinning experiments located in southern Germany, involving 164 plots and 290 surveys in even-aged, monospecific stands of N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak (Fig. 1). The plots, originating from either planting or seeding, are situated across diverse environmental conditions, with elevations ranging from 340 to 840 m above sea level, annual precipitation between 640 and 1200 mm, and mean temperatures of 6–8 °C. Soil quality across these sites varies from poor to rich (Table 1).
Plot sizes varied, with the smallest being 0.09 ha and the largest extending to 0.36 ha. Each experiment consisted of up to 24 plots. Depending on the timing of the first (ranging between 1870 and 2004) and last (occurring between 1990 and 2022) surveys, each experiment underwent 4 and 18 surveys. The length of observation lasted up to 150 years, and the age differed between 36 and 198 years (Table 2), thereby offering a comprehensive dataset for our analysis.
Applied thinnings
The experiments encompassed plots subjected to various thinning grades as defined by Wiedemann (1935) and elaborated in detail by Kramer (1988, pp. 179–183), implemented in this study’s experimental plots (Table 2). The thinning grades are categorized as A-, B-, and C-grade, representing slight, moderate, and intense thinning from below. On A-grade plots, only dead or dying trees were removed. B- and C-grade plots involved the removal of mainly small and subdominant trees, with B-grade leaving only co-dominant and dominant trees and C-grade retaining only the dominant trees.
D- and E-grade thinning denote moderate and strong thinning from above, targeting mainly dominant trees to promote the growth of the remaining dominant trees. The key distinction between D- and E-grade lies in the horizontal distribution of the interventions (D-grade being uniformly distributed, E-grade concentrated around future crop trees) rather than the extent of density reduction (Wiedemann 1935). We therefore grouped D- and E-grade plots in our evaluation. For a more comprehensive explanation of the internationally defined thinning grades, refer to Assmann (1970a, b), Hummel (1953), and Verein Deutscher Forstlicher Versuchsanstalten (1902, 1873).
Metrics for quantifying tree size distribution and stand structure
We utilized common metrics such as the Gini Coefficient of the tree heights (GCh), stem diameter (GCd), and stem volume (GCv) across all plots and surveys to provide a comprehensive insight into the stand structure and their dependency on the applied thinnings.
Gini coefficient of stem diameter, GCd: The Gini coefficient for a cumulative stock of trees is generally calculated as follows \(GC = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i - 1}^{n} \mathop \sum \nolimits_{j = 1}^{n} \left| {x_{i} - x_{j} } \right|}}{{2n\left( {n - 1} \right) \times \overline{x}}}\) (see de Camino 1976; Kramer 1988, p. 82). Where \(x_{i}\) and \(x_{j}\) denote the size or growth (or other tree characteristics) for the \(i\)'th and the \(j\)'th tree in the stand, with \(i = 1 \ldots n\) trees, and \(\overline{x}\) is the mean value of the charactersitic being measured across all trees. The Gini coefficient, \(GC\), of tree size (e.g., based on stem diameter) can be used for quantification of whether a tree size distribution is homogeneous and equal (\(GC = 0\)), maximal unequal (\(GC = 1\)), or in between (e.g., \(GC = 0.5\)). It can be visualized by plotting the cumulative tree diameter against the cumulative tree number after ranking the trees according to their diameter. A Gini coefficient of 0.5 might be observed in mature, even-aged forest stands, indicating a moderate level of inequality in tree size distribution. We calculated the Gini coefficients in terms of tree height (GCh), stem diameter (GCd), and stem volume (GCv).
Evaluation of growth, standing stock, and carbon stock at tree and stand level
In this study, the characteristics at the stand level were derived from the successive inventories, which included tree diameters, tree heights, and records of the dropout trees. We used standard evaluation methods in accordance with the DESER-norm, which is recommended by the German Association of Forest Research Institutes (in German "Deutscher Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten") (Biber 2013; Johann 1993). The calculation of stem volume (merchantable stem volume > 7 cm at the smaller end) was based on the regional-specific stem form equations by Franz et al. (1973). The results of the standard evaluation included the quadratic mean tree diameter, stand volume, and volume growth.
For above ground biomass estimation we used the stem biomass equations by Pretzsch (2005) \(\ln \left( {\text{m}} \right) = {\text{a}} + {\text{b}} \times \ln \left( d \right)\) with stem mass, m, and stem diameter, d, and coefficients for N. spruce (\({\text{a}} = - 3.839,{\text{ b}} = 2.861\)), S. pine (\({\text{a}} = - 3.580,{\text{ b}} = { }2.693\)), E. beech (\({\text{a}} = - 2.856,{\text{ b}} = 2.678\)), and oak (\({\text{a}} = - 1.179,{\text{ b}} = { }2.173\)). These equations are based on sample tree measurements from the experimental plots of this study and represent different thinning regimes. So they should represent the local stem shapes better than generalized biomass equations (e.g., by Forrester et al. 2017), which might be more suitable for studies including regions for which local equations are not available. The carbon content was calculated by multiplying the biomass by the mean carbon content of 0.5 (Körner 2002). Martin et al. (2018) showed that the wood carbon content can vary among species and biomes, however, we had no species-specific values for our study region n available.
To determine an integrated measure for site quality, the site index for each plot and survey was determined using yield tables specific to each species: N. spruce by Wiedemann (1936/1942), S. pine by Wiedemann (1943), E. beech by Schober (1975), and oak by Jüttner (1955). It's crucial to clarify that the site indexes referenced in this study represent the expected mean stand heights at an age of 100 years.
Standing volume and carbon stock according to the National Forest Inventory for comparison
To assess the potential of an additional volume and carbon stock by suspension or reduction of thinning, we used the standing stock of the four species according to the current National Forest Inventory in Bavaria/Germany (BWI III 2023). We calculated the difference between the potential carbon stock (based on the unthinned and only moderately thinned experimental plots) and the current carbon stock in forest practice (based on the NFI data of Bavaria, Germany).
This data is particularly relevant as it pertains to the region where our experimental areas are situated. For even-aged monocultures of N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and sessile/common oak, respectively, the standing stock was on average 631, 429, 440, and 390 m3 ha−1 in age class 80–100, and 644, 432, 468, and 372 m3 ha−1 in age class 100–120. Interestingly, also at the state level, the standing stock was still increasing at that age. To convert this volume data to carbon stock, specific wood densities (dry weight/fresh volume) were applied: 0.38 Mg m−3 for N. spruce, 0.43 Mg m−3 for S. pine, 0.55 Mg m−3 for E. beech, and 0.56 Mg m−3 for sessile/common oak (Knigge and Schulz 1966). With the assumption of a 50% carbon content in the biomass, we roughly estimated the carbon stock to be 120, 92, 121, and 109 Mg C ha−1 in the 80–100 year-old stands and 122, 93, 129, and 104 Mg C ha−1 in the 100–120 year-old stands (always carbon stock in stem volume > 7 cm at the smaller end).
Statistical models and evaluation
To analyze the overall effect of site index and stand age on the Gini coefficient of tree heights (GCh) in unthinned stands (A-grade), we employed model 1. This model incorporates the four species as a factorial variable (basic model for spruce, and factor 1 = pine, 2 = oak, 3 = beech). We used the coefficients a0–a3 to show the model results.
For analyzing the effect of different thinning grades on the Gini coefficient of tree heights (GCh) within each species, we applied model 2. This model treats different thinning grades as a factorial variable (basic model for A-grade, and factor 1 = B-grade, 2 = C-grade, 3 = D&E-grade). To present the results, we employed specific coefficients for each species: c for N. spruce, d for S. pine, f for E. beech, and g for oak.
Model 3 was applied for analyzing the effect of site index and stand age on the carbon stock in A- and B-grade plots for each species separately. To ensure a stable, conservative estimation of the carbon storage capacity of unthinned stands, and due to the relative scarcity of A-grade plots (Table 2), we pooled A- and B-grade plots. We used the coefficients h, l, m, and n to show the results for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively.
For analyzing the effect of site index, stand age, and thinning grade on the carbon stock for each species, we used model 4. In contrast to model 3, where we pooled the data from A- and B-grade thinning for analysis, model 4 exclusively used data from C and D&E-grade thinned plots. It’s important to note that only D&E-grade data were included in Model 4 for oak, as C-grade data were not available for this species (Table 2). We used the coefficients o, p, q, and r to show the results for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively.
Model 5 was implemented to analyze the relationship between carbon stock and the Gini coefficient of tree heights (GCh) for each species and how this relationship is influenced by site index and thinning grade. The coding for the thinning grade in model 5 was consistent with that in model 2. We used the coefficients s, t, u, and v to show the results for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively.
With \(\varepsilon_{ij}\), we denoted the residual error with mean zero and unknown variance of \(\sigma^{2}\). To account for the grouped structure in terms of repeated surveys of the same plot, random effect \(b_{i}\) was implemented at the level of plot in alignment with the standard assumptions of mixed-effects models (e.g., Mehtätalo and Lappi 2020). The included experimental plots represent different site conditions (Table 1). In order to capture the effect of the site conditions on the stand structure and carbon stock, we included the site index as a fixed effect in all models. The experiment was not used as a random effect as it would have eliminated the effect of the site index.
In the models a0, …, an–s0, …, sn are the parameters of the fixed effects. Restricted likelihood was used to estimate the fixed effects. All modeling results were evaluated with the basic fit statistics: AIC, BIC, and − 2Log likelihood and were subject to the usual visual residual diagnostics. For all models, the residuals were plotted against the fitted values. In no case, the plots suggested a violation of variance homogeneity (Supplementary Figures S1–S4). Likewise, the normality of errors was verified by making normal q–q plots of the residuals (Supplementary Figures S1–S4). For all calculations, we used the statistical software R 4.1.0 (R Core Team 2021), explicitly employing the packages nlme (Pinheiro et al. 2021), lme4 (Bates et al. 2015), and lmfor (Mehtätalo and Kansanen 2022).
Results
Overview of tree size distribution, standing volume, and carbon stock on the experimental plots
Table 3 shows that the included experimental plots encompassed a broad spectrum of stand ages (11–178 years) and site indexes (17–48 m hq at age 100). Our primary focus was on the Gini coefficient of tree heights (GCh) due to its effective representation of vertical stand structuring. However, for comparative purposes, we also report Gini coefficients for tree diameter (GCd) and volume (GCv), which are commonly used in other studies. Across all species, the mean level of Gini coefficients follows the trend GCh < GCd < GCv. In addition to reporting the standing stock in terms of carbon (Mg C ha−1), we also provided data on the standing volume in m3 ha−1 (Table 3). E. beech, on average, exhibited the highest standing stock at 543 m3 ha−1, followed by N. spruce, oak, and S. pine. The average carbon stock value range was 35–112 Mg C ha−1, maintaining the same species ranking as that for volume.
Notice, that Table 3 (last two rows) displays the stem volume, V, in terms of merchantable wood (wood with > 7 cm at the smaller end), whereas carbon stock, C, is reported for total stem volume. Merchantable wood constitutes about 99–99.5% of the total stemwood in trees with stem diameters of 20–30 cm but only 80% of the total stemwood in trees with stem diameters of 10 cm (Prodan 1965, pp. 199, Table 107). Therefore, the proportions between C and V are similar for mean and maximum tree sizes (see values in columns mean and max) but higher for minimum tree sizes (see values in min column).This ranking can be attributed to the different mean ages of the included stands: 47 years for N. spruce and S. pine and 81 and 110 years for oak and E. beech, respectively. However, the maximum carbon stock values proved more informative for our study, with N. spruce reaching 308 Mg C ha−1 and E. beech, oak, and S. pine achieving 223, 170, and 125 Mg C ha−1, respectively. GCh showed a strong correlation with both GCd and GCv (Fig. 2). The Pearson correlation coefficients between GCd and GCh were notably high, recorded at r = 0.81, 0.92, 0.88, and 0.95 for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively. Similarly, the correlation coefficients between GCv and GCh were r = 0.91, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.96.
Surely, standing volume and carbon stock also displayed a close correlation (Supplementary Figures S5). The Pearson correlation coefficients between standing stem volume and carbon stock were remarkably high, at r = 0.99, 0.97, 0.99, and 0.98 for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively.
Structural diversity depending on stand characteristics and thinning (Q1)
Figure 3 shows the Gini coefficients of tree height (a–d) and stem volume (e–h) plotted against stand age for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak. The various thinning grades in the data are represented by letters a, b, c, and d, corresponding to A-grade, B-grade, C-grade, and D&E-grade thinning, respectively. Horizontal lines in the graph illustrate the mean Gini coefficients for each thinning grade, as observed in the experiments.
To address the first research question (Q1) regarding the dependence of structural diversity on stand age, site index, and thinning grade, we focused on the Gini coefficients of tree height. The results of analyzing Q1 are presented in terms of statistical characteristics in Tables 4 and 5 and visualized in Figs. 4 and 5. Initially, we examined the decline in height variation (measured by GCh) with stand age in unthinned stands. This analysis is crucial as it highlights the baseline level of GCh values in untreated stands, serving as a reference point for comparing the effects of thinning in stands.
The analysis revealed that in their younger stages, stands of all four species—E. beech, N. spruce, oak, and S. pine—exhibited relatively heterogeneous structures. However, with progressing age, they tended to evolve towards a more mono-layered structure (Fig. 4a, Table 4). Among these species, E. beech maintained the most pronounced vertical structuring throughout the timespan. The order of decreasing vertical structuring was observed as E. beech > N. spruce > oak > S. pine.
Additionally, the vertical structuring of the stands was found to diminish with increasing site index (Fig. 4b). The same ranking (E. beech > N. spruce > oak > S. pine) in terms of structuring was noted; we found no interactions between the independent variables age and SI (Table 4). E. beech and N. spruce exhibited similar patterns in their vertical structuring, and a parallel behavior was observed between oak and S. pine.
Figure 5, derived from Model 2 (Table 5), illustrates the decline in structural diversity with increasing stand age for all four species. Our results highlight the significant effect of thinning practices on both the level and drift of structural diversity within forest stands.
For N. spruce and E. beech (Fig. 5a, c), thinning from above (D&E-grade) is demonstrated to effectively counteract the loss of structural diversity that typically occurs with aging. In contrast, thinning from below (B- and C-grade) tends to exacerbate the reduction in structural diversity. Notably, thinning from above not only mitigates the decline in diversity but, interestingly, can increase it above the level observed in the A-grade (unthinned) plots. For Scots pine and sessile/common oak (Fig. 5b, d), unthinned plots (A-grade) maintain the highest levels of structural diversity. In contrast, all other thinning practices significantly diminish this diversity. Among the four tree species studied, E. beech exhibited the most pronounced response to thinning in terms of the Gini coefficient of tree height (GCh). Thinning interventions in E. beech stands have the potential to double GCh values. Conversely, for the other species—N. spruce, S. pine, and oak—the impact of thinning on GCh values was more modest, leading to modifications in the range of 10–20%.
Standing stock of carbon depending on stand characteristics and thinning (Q2)
The results of analyzing Q2 are presented in terms of statistical characteristics in Table 6 and visualized in Fig. 6. The carbon stock continuously increases until advanced ages in stands of all four tree species (Fig. 6). Notably, N. spruce stands can accumulate up to 300 Mg C ha−1, while S. pine stands typically plateau around 100 Mg C ha−1. This leads to the species-specific carbon stock ranking of N. spruce > E. beech > oak > S. pine. Regarding thinning grades, A- and B-grade plots generally achieve the highest carbon stocks. Conversely, plots thinned under D&E-grades, and particularly those under C-grade, exhibit lower carbon storage. Note the difference in the age axis for E. beech and oak (200 years) compared to N. spruce and S. pine (140 years) in Fig. 6.
Unthinned stands of N. spruce and E. beech reached carbon stocks of 200–300 Mg C ha−1 in their advanced ages. In contrast, S. pine and oak stands achieved approximately 100–150 Mg C ha−1. Thinning at the C- and D&E-grade levels halved the carbon stock (Fig. 7, Table 6).
Trade-off between carbon stock and structural diversity (Q3)
The results of analyzing Q3 are presented in terms of statistical characteristics in Table 7 and visualized in Fig. 9. Figure 8 shows a discernible decrease in the Gini coefficient of tree height (GCh) as carbon stock accumulates for all four species. D&E-grade plots, despite having the highest GCh values, exhibit the lowest carbon stock. Conversely, C-grade plots show both low structural diversity and low carbon stock. A- and B-grade plots typically fall in the middle, with high carbon stock and moderate structural diversity. For oak (shown in Fig. 8d), B- and C-grade plots were not represented, but the trends for A- and D&E-grades mirror those observed in the other species (Fig. 8a–c).
Our findings revealed a general trend where vertical layering, as measured by the Gini coefficient of tree height (GCh), decreased with an increase in the standing stock of carbon (Fig. 9, Table 7). However, this trend varies by species in terms of the average level of GCh, its reduction with carbon accumulation, and the reaction to different thinning practices.
For a medium standing stock of 150 Mg C ha−1, N. spruce and E. beech (Fig. 9a, c) exhibited higher GCh levels than S. pine and oak (Fig. 9b, d). The decline in tree height diversity with increasing carbon stock was relatively modest for N. spruce and E. beech but more pronounced for S. pine and oak. Regarding thinning effects, for N. spruce and E. beech, thinning from above (D&E-grade) was found to be most favorable for maintaining height structuring. In contrast, A-, B-, and C-grade significantly reduced structural diversity in these species. On the other hand, for S. pine and oak, thinning from below (A-, B-grade) led to more diverse structures compared to thinning from above (D&E-grade).
Discussion
The drift of structural diversity with progressing age and counteracting silvicultural measures
As even-aged forest stands age, they tend to become more structurally homogeneous, a process that occurs more rapidly on richer sites compared to poorer ones. As the stock accumulates, competition for resources intensifies, leading to self-thinning, particularly of smaller trees within the stand. This increased competition and density do not directly cause tree mortality. Instead, the reduced carbon balance in dominated trees heightens their vulnerability to pathogens, more likely resulting in the death of smaller trees than their taller counterparts (Long and Smith 1984). The loss of understory or subdominant trees is essentially irreversible, as these trees are outcompeted due to temporary resource scarcity and weakening. However, under more open canopies in later developmental stages, these smaller trees might have a renewed opportunity to survive and even contribute to maintaining higher levels of stand growth. Such loss can be mitigated through silvicultural practices like thinning from above, which supports the growth of smaller and medium-sized trees by removing taller ones. This approach can help preserve structural diversity in the forest stands, though it may come at the cost of reduced accumulation of standing volume and carbon stock.
The accumulation of standing stock is a crucial factor driving stand homogenization, highlighting a challenging tradeoff between structural diversity and standing stock in even-aged and monospecific stands we were considering here. Although this tradeoff may be difficult to completely resolve monospecific stands, it can be mitigated through targeted silvicultural interventions. For species such as N. spruce and E. beech, thinning from above has been shown to be effective. On the other hand, for S. pine and oak, adopting a strategy of no thinning or only moderate thinning is preferable (Fig. 9). Interestingly, the variability of the GCh values of oak is not higher than of the other species (Figs. 8, 9), although the data is based on two species (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) compared to the other species of this study.
Differences between the standing stock on unthinned and differently thinned plots
The standing stock of volume and carbon of the unthinned or moderately thinned stands was far above the level of stands with usual thinning from below (C-grade) or above (D&E-grade) (Fig. 7). This reveals a high potential for further carbon stock accumulation in the latter stands, especially in the case of the structural heterogeneous stands. They are stabilized and equipped with trees of various dimensions that may maintain the stand growth on a high level if the thinning is reduced or suspended in the next decades for the purpose of carbon neutrality (Melikov et al. 2023; Rybar and Bosela 2023).
The A-grade plots demonstrate a remarkable potential for carbon storage, which continues to increase even in old stands, and have not yet reached the maximum level of above-ground standing stock, often referred to as the constant final yield (Cavalieri et al. 2022; Weiner and Freckleton 2010). Indeed, there are many practical reasons to reduce their standing stock early, such as realizing intermediate yield and income, mechanical stabilization against storms and snow-breakage, or establishment and promotion of natural regeneration. Other reasons may be the export of intermediately thinned wood to substitute fossil fuels and construction materials by wood (Biber et al. 2020; Schwaiger et al. 2018, 2019). The continuously increasing stocks on the A-grades may be slowed down in the future by climate change effects, especially in N. spruce and E. beech stands (Lévesque et al. 2013, Mette et al. 2013, Geßler et al. 2007), which are more susceptible to drought than S. pine and oak (Meyer et al. 2020; Merlin et al.2015). Despite these considerations, it is evident that the A-grade stands in our study have not yet reached their full carbon storage potential. This observation aligns with a Europe-wide study involving 476 A-grade plots, which revealed a consistent increase in standing stock with no evident flattening even in older stands across all major European tree species (Pretzsch et al. 2023b).
On the thinned plots, the carbon stock is kept far below the maximum, as indicated by the A-grade plots. Especially on the C- and D&E-grade plots, the stock levels plateau at medium ages due to the removal of biomass through thinning, resulting in stock levels that are only 50–70% of those seen in A-grade plots. Without A-grades in long-term experiments, this plateauing effect in C- and D&E-grades could be misinterpreted as a natural development, representing the maximum storage potential. The existence of continuously monitored A-grade plots is crucial, as they provide a benchmark for understanding the true potential of carbon storage. Without these plots, there is a significant risk of underestimating the carbon storage capacity of forest stands. This underscores the importance of A-grade plots in research despite their instability against storm and ice-breakage or lack of economic feasibility (Paul et al. 2019; Pretzsch et al. 2019).
The thinned stands typically remain below the constant final yield level, but those stabilized through thinning from above exhibit potential for low-risk carbon stock accumulation in the coming decades. D&E-grade plots, often reflecting common thinning practices in forestry, result from continuous crop tree promotion through strong thinning from above. This approach involves maintaining stand density below the level that would achieve maximum growth rates. Reducing thinning in these stands could increase the standing stock relatively fast, as growth rates are likely to rise alongside the increasing stock until the maximum stand density is reached (Assmann 1970a, b; Zeide 2001, 2002).
The potential of higher C accumulation in the standing stock
To further substantiate the potential of carbon storage in mature forest stands in South Germany, we used the standing stock of the four species according to the current National Forest Inventory in Bavaria/Germany (BWI III 2023). This data represents the site conditions, current silvicultural practice, and standing stock of the region where our experimental areas are situated. Comparing the mean carbon storage on the A- and B-grade plots with the National Forest Inventory data (Sect. "Standing volume and carbon stock according to the National Forest Inventory for comparison") showed that the carbon storage potential is far from exploited. For the 80–100 age class, the mean carbon storage on experimental plots was 244, 176, 233, and 122 Mg C ha−1 for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively, and 260, 193, 271, and 147 Mg C ha−1 for the 100–120 age class. These values were derived using Model 3, based on the ages of 90 and 110 and the mean site index values for the species in Bavaria (SI = 32.1, 26.8, 31.0, 24.4 for N. spruce, S. pine, E. beech, and oak, respectively).
For N. spruce, only 47–50% of its carbon storage potential is currently being utilized. In S. pine, E. beech, and oak, the exploitation rates are 48–53%, 47–55%, and 71–78% respectively. This translates to an under-exploitation of 22–53%, with N. spruce showing the most significant gap and oak the least. A reduction in thinning, particularly in stands previously managed with D&E-grade thinning, might lead to a decrease in structural diversity. However, it could be an effective strategy for enhancing carbon storage in stands of the four considered species in Central Europe until their level of constant final yield is reached. This approach could potentially add an additional 100–200 Mg C ha−1 to the carbon stock over the next 3–5 decades.
Methodological considerations
In their early stages, planted stands typically exhibit a very uniform tree size distribution due to the selection of similarly sized plants from nurseries. This similarity in size would result in the Gini coefficient for tree height (GCh) being close to zero at the outset. However, the initial surveys and measurements on experimental plots are usually conducted 5–10 years after planting, by which time the trees have grown beyond 1.30 m in height, and their stem diameter at breast height becomes measurable. During this phase, intense competition and significant size differentiation among trees lead to high GCh values. This competitive growth phase is why the curves depicting structural diversity over stand age, as shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 9, start from a peak at ages 5–10. Had measurements been taken earlier, the structural diversity would likely display an optimum curve, starting with low GCh values in the initial phase, peaking at ages 5–10, and then showing a decline in heterogeneity in subsequent years.
Our analysis primarily utilized the Gini coefficient of tree height (GCh) as it most effectively represents the vertical structuring of stands. However, we also included the Gini coefficients of tree diameter (GCd) and tree volume (GCv) for comprehensive insights and comparability with other studies. For all species, the average level of these Gini coefficients followed the sequence: GCh < GCd < GCv. Notably, GCh was found to correlate closely with both GCd and GCv (Fig. 1). Furthermore, there was a strong correlation between the standing stock in terms of volume (m3 ha−1) and the carbon stock (Mg C ha−1) (Fig. 2). This correlation suggests that the relationships identified between the Gini coefficient of tree height and carbon stock are similarly applicable to relationships involving Gini coefficients based on other tree attributes (such as diameter and volume) and the standing volume stock.
The comparison of maximum carbon stock in unthinned and moderately thinned stands from the experimental plots with the mean carbon stock reported in the National Forest Inventory (BWI III 2023) might be subject to a slight bias. The inventory data primarily accounts for merchantable wood, focusing on standing stem volume greater than 7 cm at the smaller end, which is then converted into biomass and carbon stock. In contrast, our biomass and carbon stock calculations were based on stemwood functions. As noted by Prodan (1965, pp. 199, Table 107), merchantable wood constitutes about 99–99.5% of the total stemwood in trees with stem diameters of 20–30 cm. This suggests that a correction factor of approximately 1% could be applied to our values to account for the difference between merchantable and total stemwood. This study analyzed the above ground stock of tree volume and carbon; to et a complete picture of the stock below ground values may be accessed by expansion factors or models (Rötzer et al. 2009).
Implications for silviculture and forest management
On the underlying experimental plots, we strictly follow the prescribed thinning grades to learn more about the behavior of different treated stands in old ages. However, for the management of forest stands in practice, we can draw some conclusions or derive some scenarios for climate change mitigation considering the revealed tradeoff between structural diversity and carbon storage and its modification by silvicultural thinning.
Figure 10 illustrates three primary scenarios for enhancing the carbon stock in forest stands. Stands that have undergone substantial thinning, either from below (C-grade) or from above (D&E-grade), might be stable enough (due to low height-to-diameter ratios from past density reductions) to accumulate more stock. This accumulation could feasibly occur from middle to old age. This approach might slow the promotion of diameter growth in selected future crop trees, delay harvesting, and potentially lead to economic drawbacks.
Scenario 1 (Fig. 10a) proposes increasing density through the reduction or suspension of thinning. This approach is expected to gradually bring the standing stock closer to the constant final yield level, potentially over the course of several decades. Stands treated with D&E-grade thinning typically have sufficient trees across various layers, allowing growth to continue at a relatively high level into older ages.
Scenario 2 (Fig. 10b) suggests that future forest generations might maintain a higher standing stock from the beginning on. Given the current challenges in carbon storage, the demand for energy wood, and the minimal price differences between low and high dimension timber, the traditional practice of strong density reductions to promote a limited number of future crop trees and accelerate their diameter growth may be re-evaluated. These past practices of reducing density to favor individual tree growth often came at the cost of overall stand growth, as well as reduced carbon storage.
Scenario 3 (Fig. 10c) involves initiating regeneration early, either through natural regeneration or by planting different cohorts below the overstory. This process could be executed in stages, forming groups or clusters with various species, depending on their light requirements and canopy openings. The standing stock from this new regeneration may offset the carbon exported when thinning the upper layer to facilitate and encourage the growth of the new generation. Over the long term, the standing stock of these uneven-aged stands may be lower compared to the old phase of even-aged stands. However, this approach can transform the forest into a continuously covered forest system, where the stock is consistently maintained at a relatively high level (Reventlow et al. 2021; Hilmers et al. 2020; O'Hara 2014; Schütz 2001).
Disturbances, both by human interventions and nature, are creating numerous canopy openings in forests globally (Patacca et al. 2023; Reis et al. 2022; McCarthy 2001), leading to increasingly gappy and fragmented forests (Biber and Pretzsch 2022; Senf and Seidl 2018). As a result, forests are experiencing a notable reduction in standing stock. In response to this trend, a strategic approach could be to reduce thinning in forest areas that still retain normal and closed structures. Such a management strategy would help preserve the diversity in horizontal patterns of forest areas, maintaining a balance between closed and open zones.
Conclusions
Knowledge-based silvicultural design can reconcile initially seemingly diverging management goals. Reconciliation of stand structure diversity and carbon storage is essential for stress resilience and climate mitigation through sustainable forest management. We found, that in general stand structure diversity decreased with increasing carbon stock. Silvicultural treatment, and especially the kind of thinning and stand density management modified the tradeoff between stand structure diversity and carbon storage. When the carbon stock was increased from a low to a mean level we found a drastic reduction of stand structure diversity. Further accumulation of the carbon stock above the mean level hardly exacerbated the losses of stand structural diversity. Comparing the carbon stock of stands under the current standard of strong thinning with the potential carbon stock of unthinned or only moderately thinned stands showed that the carbon storage potential is far from exploited. A reduction in thinning, particularly in stands previously heavily thinned from above, might cause slight losses of structural diversity. However, it could add an additional 100–200 Mg C ha−1 to the carbon stock of these species over the next 3–5 decades. Our study emphasizes the relevance of silvicultural measures and their modulating effect on the relationship between stand structure diversity and carbon storage. This and also further knowledge is essential for a better integration of nature conservation and biodiversity aspects into sustainable forest management.
Data availability
The datasets analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Assmann E (1970a) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Assmann E (1970b) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 506
Assmuth A, Rämö J, Tahvonen O (2018) Economics of size-structured forestry with carbon storage. Can J For Res 48:11–22. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0261
Bates D, Kliegl R, Vasishth S, Baayen H (2015) Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967
Biber P (2013) Continuity by flexibility-standardised data evaluation within a scientific growth and yield information system. Allg Forst-Und Jagdztg 184(7/8):167–177
Biber P, Pretzsch H (2022) Tree growth at gap edges. Insights from long term research plots in mixed mountain forests. For Ecol Manag 520:120383
Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl’ J et al (2020) Forest biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies and trade-offs for ten forest landscapes across Europe. Front Ecol Evol 8:547696
BWI III (2023) Thünen-Institut, Dritte Bundeswaldinventur - Ergebnisdatenbank, https://bwi.info, Aufruf am: 24.11.2023, Auftragskürzel: 77Z1JI_L244of_2012_bi, Archivierungsdatum: 2014-6-12 14:34:8.660
Cavalieri A, Groß D, Dutay A, Weiner J (2022) Do plant communities show constant final yield? Ecology 103(11):e3802
Commarmot B, Bachofen H, Bundziak Y et al (2005) Structures of virgin and managed beech forests in Uholka (Ukraine) and Sihlwald (Switzerland): a comparative study. For Snow Landsc Res 79:45–56
De Camino R (1976) Zur Bestimmung der Bestandeshomogenität. Allg Forst-Und Jagdztg 147:54–58
del Río M, Pretzsch H, Alberdi I et al (2016) Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed-species stands: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res 135:23–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0927-6
del Río M, Oviedo JAB, Pretzsch H, Löf M, Ruiz-Peinado R (2017) A review of thinning effects on Scots pine stands: from growth and yield to new challenges under global change. For Syst 26(2):9
Dey DC, Gardiner ES, Schweitzer CJ, Kabrick JM, Jacobs DF (2012) Underplanting to sustain future stocking of oak (Quercus) in temperate deciduous forests. New For 43:955–978
Dieler J, Uhl E, Biber P et al (2017) Effect of forest stand management on species composition, structural diversity, and productivity in the temperate zone of Europe. Eur J For Res 136:739–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1056-1
Duduman G (2011) A forest management planning tool to create highly diverse uneven-aged stands. Forestry 84:301–314
FAO (2014) World reference base for soil resources 2014: international soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. FAO, Rome
Forrester DI, Tachauer IHH, Annighoefer P, Barbeito I, Pretzsch H, Ruiz-Peinado R et al (2017) Generalized biomass and leaf area allometric equations for European tree species incorporating stand structure, tree age and climate. For Ecol Manag 396:160–175
Franz F, Bachler J, Deckelmann B, Kennel E, Kennel R, Schmidt A, Wotschikowsky U (1973) Bayerische Waldinventur 1970/71, Inventurabschnitt I: Großrauminventur Aufnahme- und Auswertungsverfahren. Forstl Forschungsber München 11:143
Geßler A, Keitel C, Kreuzwieser J, Matyssek R, Seiler W, Rennenberg H (2007) Potential risks for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in a changing climate. Trees 21:1–11
Grote R, Gessler A, Hommel R et al (2016) Importance of tree height and social position for drought-related stress on tree growth and mortality. Trees 30:1467–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-016-1446-x
Hilmers T, Friess N, Bässler C et al (2018) Biodiversity along temperate forest succession. J Appl Ecol 55:2756–2766. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13238
Hilmers T, Biber P, Knoke T, Pretzsch H (2020) Assessing transformation scenarios from pure Norway spruce to mixed uneven-aged forests in mountain areas. Eur J For Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01270-y
Hummel FC (1953) The definition of thinning treatments. In: Proceedings of the XIth IUFRO Congress, Rome, pp 582–588
Ishii HT, Tanabe S, Hiura T (2004) Exploring the relationships among canopy structure, stand productivity, and biodiversity of temperate forest ecosystems. For Sci 50:342–355
Johann K (1993) DESER-Norm 1993. Normen der Sektion Ertragskunde im Deutschen Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten zur Aufbereitung von waldwachstumskundlichen Dauerversuchen. Proc Dt Verb Forstl Forschungsanst, Sek Ertragskd, in Unterreichenbach-Kapfenhardt, pp 96–104
Jüttner O (1955) Eichenertragstafeln. In: Schober R (ed) (1971) Ertragstafeln der wichtigsten Baumarten. JD Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp 12–25
Keren S, Svoboda M, Janda P, Nagel TA (2019) Relationships between structural indices and conventional stand attributes in an old-growth forest in Southeast Europe. Forests 11(1):4
Knigge W, Schulz H (1966) Grundriss der Forstbenutzung. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg, p 584
Knoke T, Plusczyk N (2001) On economic consequences of transformation of a spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) dominated stand from regular into irregular age structure. For Ecol Manag 151:163–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00706-4
Knox RG, Peet RK, Christensen NL (1989) Population dynamics in loblolly pine stands: changes in skewness and size inequality. Ecology 70:1153–1166
Köhl M, Hildebrandt R, Olschofksy K et al (2010) Combating the effects of climatic change on forests by mitigation strategies. Carbon Balance Manag 5:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-5-8
Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) (1997) Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Körner C (2002) Ökologie. In: Sitte P, Weiler EW, Kadereit JW, Bresinsky A, Körner C (eds) Strasburger Lehrbuch für Botanik, 35th edn. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 886–1043
Kraft G (1884) Beiträge zur Lehre von den Durchforstungen, Schlagstellungen und Lichtungshieben. Klindworth, Hannover
Kramer H (1988) Waldwachstumslehre. Paul Parey, Hamburg, p 374
Kuehne C, Weiskittel A, Pommerening A, Wagner RG (2018) Evaluation of 10-year temporal and spatial variability in structure and growth across contrasting commercial thinning treatments in spruce-fir forests of northern Maine, USA. Ann For Sci 75:20
Leibundgut H (1993) Europäische Urwälder: Wegweiser zur naturnahen Waldwirtschaft. Haupt, Bern
Lévesque M, Saurer M, Siegwolf R, Eilmann B, Brang P, Bugmann H, Rigling A (2013) Drought response of five conifer species under contrasting water availability suggests high vulnerability of Norway spruce and European larch. Glob Change Biol 19(10):3184–3199
Long JN, Smith FW (1984) Relation between size and density in developing stands: a description and possible mechanisms. For Ecol Manag 7(3):191–206
Martin AR, Doraisami M, Thomas SC (2018) Global patterns in wood carbon concentration across the world’s trees and forests. Nat Geosci 11:915–920
McCarthy J (2001) Gap dynamics of forest trees: a review with particular attention to boreal forests. Environ Rev 9(1):1–59
Mehtätalo L, Kansanen K (2022) lmfor: functions for forest biometrics
Mehtätalo L, Lappi J (2020) Forest biometrics with examples in R. Chapman&Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
Melikov CH, Bukoski JJ, Cook-Patton SC, Ban H, Chen JL, Potts MD (2023) Quantifying the effect size of management actions on aboveground carbon stocks in forest plantations. Curr For Rep 9:131–148
Merlin M, Perot T, Perret S, Korboulewsky N, Vallet P (2015) Effects of stand composition and tree size on resistance and resilience to drought in sessile oak and Scots pine. For Ecol Manag 339:22–33
Mette T, Dolos K, Meinardus C, Bräuning A, Reineking B, Blaschke M et al (2013) Climatic turning point for beech and oak under climate change in Central Europe. Ecosphere 4(12):1–19
Meyer BF, Buras A, Rammig A, Zang CS (2020) Higher susceptibility of beech to drought in comparison to oak. Dendrochronologia 64:125780
Mo L, Zohner CM, Reich PB, Liang J, De Miguel S, Nabuurs GJ et al (2023) Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06723-z
Mrad A, Manzoni S, Oren R, Vico G, Lindh M, Katul G (2020) Recovering the metabolic, self-thinning, and constant final yield rules in mono-specific stands. Front For Glob Change 3:62
Nikinmaa L, Lindner M, Cantarello E et al (2020) Reviewing the use of resilience concepts in forest sciences. Curr For Rep 6:61–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00110-x
O’Hara KL (2014) Multiaged silviculture: managing for complex forest stand structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Oliver C, Larson B (1996) Forest stand dynamics, Update. Yale School of the Environment Other Publications, New Haven
Onaindia M, Dominguez I, Albizu I, Garbisu C, Amezaga I (2004) Vegetation diversity and vertical structure as indicators of forest disturbance. For Ecol Manag 195(3):341–354
Patacca M, Lindner M, Lucas-Borja ME, Cordonnier T, Fidej G, Gardiner B et al (2023) Significant increase in natural disturbance impacts on European forests since 1950. Glob Change Biol 29(5):1359–1376
Paul C, Brandl S, Friedrich S, Falk W, Härtl F, Knoke T (2019) Climate change and mixed forests: how do altered survival probabilities impact economically desirable species proportions of Norway spruce and European beech? Ann For Sci 76(1):1–15
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2021) R. Core Team. 2021. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1‐152. J Apic Res
Pretzsch H (2005) Link between the self-thinning rules for herbaceous and woody plants. Sci Agric Bohem 36(3):98–107
Pretzsch H (2019) Transitioning monocultures to complex forest stands in Central Europe: principles and practice. In: Stanturf J (ed) Achieving sustainable management of boreal and temperate forests. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge
Pretzsch H (2021) The social drift of trees Consequence for growth trend detection, stand dynamics, and silviculture. Eur J For Res 140(3):703–719
Pretzsch H, del Río M, Biber P, Arcangeli C, Bielak K, Brang P et al (2019) Maintenance of long-term experiments for unique insights into forest growth dynamics and trends: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res 138:165–185
Pretzsch H, Ahmed S, Rötzer T, Schmied G, Hilmers T (2023a) Structural and compositional acclimation of forests to extended drought: results of the KROOF throughfall exclusion experiment in Norway spruce and European beech. Trees 37:1443–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-023-02435-z
Pretzsch H, del Río M, Arcangeli C, Bielak K, Dudzinska M, Forrester DI et al (2023b) Competition-based mortality and tree losses. An essential component of net primary productivity. For Ecol Manag 544:121204
Pretzsch H, Hilmers T, del Río M (2024) The effect of structural diversity on the self-thinning line, yield level, and density-growth relationship in even-aged stands of Norway spruce. For Ecol Manage 556:121736
Prodan M (1965) Holzmeßlehre. JD Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, p 644
R Core Team (2021) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Suppl Inf Ref S 1:371–378
Reis CR, Jackson TD, Gorgens EB, Dalagnol R, Jucker T, Nunes MH et al (2022) Forest disturbance and growth processes are reflected in the geographical distribution of large canopy gaps across the Brazilian Amazon. J Ecol 110(12):2971–2983
Reventlow DOJ, Nord-Larsen T, Biber P et al (2021) Simulating conversion of even-aged Norway spruce into uneven-aged mixed forest: effects of different scenarios on production, economy and heterogeneity. Eur J For Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-021-01381-0
Rötzer T, Seifert T, Pretzsch H (2009) Modelling above and below ground carbon dynamics in a mixed beech and spruce stand influenced by climate. Eur J For Res 128:171–182
Rötzer T, Dieler J, Mette T et al (2010) Productivity and carbon dynamics in managed Central European forests depending on site conditions and thinning regimes. For Int J For Res 83:483–496. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpq031
Rybar J, Bosela M (2023) Trade-offs or complementarity between biomass production and biodiversity in European forests: a review. Cent Eur For J 69(4):201–213
Schaich H, Plieninger T (2013) Land ownership drives stand structure and carbon storage of deciduous temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 305:146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.013
Schober R (1975) Ertragstafeln wichtiger Baumarten bei verschiedenen Durchforstungen [Yield tables of important tree species in various thinnings]. JD Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main
Schütz J-P (2001) Opportunities and strategies of transforming regular forests to irregular forests. For Ecol Manag 151:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00699-X
Schwaiger F, Poschenrieder W, Biber P, Pretzsch H (2018) Species mixing regulation with respect to forest ecosystem service provision. Forests 9(10):632
Schwaiger F, Poschenrieder W, Biber P, Pretzsch H (2019) Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management. Ecosyst Serv 39:100993
Seidl R, Rammer W, Spies TA (2014) Disturbance legacies increase the resilience of forest ecosystem structure, composition, and functioning. Ecol Appl 24:2063–2077. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0255.1
Senf C, Seidl R (2018) Natural disturbances are spatially diverse but temporally synchronized across temperate forest landscapes in Europe. Glob Change Biol 24(3):1201–1211
Sharma A, Bohn K, Jose S, Cropper WP (2014) Converting even-aged plantations to uneven-aged stand conditions: A simulation analysis of silvicultural regimes with slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.). For Sci 60(5):893–906
Slodicak M, Novak J (2006) Silvicultural measures to increase the mechanical stability of pure secondary Norway spruce stands before conversion. For Ecol Manag 224(3):252–257
Soares AAV, Leite HG, Cruz JP, Forrester DI (2017) Development of stand structural heterogeneity and growth dominance in thinned Eucalyptus stands in Brazil. For Ecol Manag 384:339–346
Staudhammer CL, LeMay VM (2001) Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can J For Res 31:1105–1115. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-033
Štefančík I, Vacek Z, Sharma RP, Vacek S, Rösslová M (2018) Effect of thinning regimes on growth and development of crop trees in Fagus sylvatica stands of Central Europe over fifty years. Dendrobiology 79(1):141–155
Stimm K, Heym M, Uhl E, Tretter S, Pretzsch H (2021) Height growth-related competitiveness of oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Quercus robur L.) under climate change in Central Europe Is silvicultural assistance still required in mixed-species stands? For Ecol Manag 482:118780
Sun H, Diao S, Liu R et al (2018) Relationship between size inequality and stand productivity is modified by self-thinning, age, site and planting density in Sassafras tzumu plantations in central China. For Ecol Manag 422:199–206
Verein Deutscher Forstlicher Versuchsanstalten (1902) Beratungen der vom Vereine Deutscher Forstlicher Versuchsanstalten eingesetzten Kommission zur Feststellung des neuen Arbeitsplanes für Durchforstungs- und Lichtungsversuche. AFJZ 78:180–184
Verein Deutscher Forstlicher Versuchsanstalten (1873) Anleitung für Durchforstungsversuche. In: Ganghofer von A ed (1884) Das Forstliche Versuchswesen. Schmid‘sche Buchhandlung, Augsburg, vol 2, pp 247–253
Wang W, Lei X, Ma Z et al (2011) Positive relationship between aboveground carbon stocks and structural diversity in spruce-dominated forest stands in New Brunswick, Canada. For Sci 57:506–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/57.6.506
Węgiel A, Polowy K (2020) Aboveground carbon content and storage in mature scots pine stands of different densities. Forests 11:240. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11020240
Weiner J, Freckleton RP (2010) Constant final yield. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:173–192
Wichmann L (2001) Annual variations in competition symmetry in even-aged Sitka spruce. Ann Bot 88(1):145–151
Wiedemann E (1935) Zur Klärung der Durchforstungsbegriffe. Zeitschr Forst-u Jagdwesen 67(1):56–64
Wiedemann E (1936/1942) Die Fichte 1936. Verlag M & H Schaper, Hannover, 248 p
Wiedemann E (1943) Kiefern-Ertragstafel für mäßige Durchforstung, starke Durchforstung und Lichtung, In: Wiedemann E (1948) Die Kiefer 1948. Verlag M & H Schaper, Hannover, 337 p
Zeide B (2001) Thinning and growth: a full turnaround. J For 99:20–25
Zeide B (2002) Density and the growth of even-aged stands. For Sci 48:743–754
Acknowledgements
We thank the Bayerische Staatsforsten (BaySF) for supporting the establishment of the plots and the Bavarian State Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture, and Forestry for the permanent support of the project “W07 Long-term experimental plots for forest growth and yield research” (# 7831-22209-2013). Thanks are also due to Michael Heym, LWF, Weihenstephan, for providing data from the BWI III, Monika Bradatsch for the graphical artwork, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. H2020-MSCA-ITN-2020-956355 and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No952314.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: HP; methodology: HP, TH; formal analysis and investigation: HP, TH; writing—original draft preparation: HP; writing—review and editing: TH; visualization: HP, TH; funding acquisition: HP.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare that is relevant to the content of this article. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
Not applicable—no living material is included.
Consent to participate
Not applicable—no living material included.
Consent for publication
Not applicable—no living material included.
Additional information
Communicated by Camilla Wellstein.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pretzsch, H., Hilmers, T. Structural diversity and carbon stock of forest stands: tradeoff as modified by silvicultural thinning. Eur J Forest Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-024-01691-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-024-01691-z