Biogeochemistry

, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 217–227 | Cite as

Are Swedish forest soils sinks or sources for CO2—model analyses based on forest inventory data

  • Göran I. Ågren
  • Riitta Hyvönen
  • Torbjörn Nilsson
Original Paper

Abstract

Forests soils should be neither sinks nor sources of carbon in a long-term perspective. From a Swedish perspective the time since the last glaciation has probably not been long enough to reach a steady state, although changes are currently very slow. In a shorter perspective, climatic and management changes over the past 100 years have probably created imbalances between litter input to soils and organic carbon mineralisation. Using extant data on forest inventories, we applied models to analyse possible changes in the carbon stocks of Swedish forest soils. The models use tree stocks to provide estimates of tree litter production, which are fed to models of litter decomposition and from which carbon stocks are calculated. National soil carbon stocks were estimated to have increased by 3 Tg yr−1 or 12–13 g m−2 yr−1 in the period 1926–2000 and this increase will continue because soil stocks are far from equilibrium with current litter inputs. The figure obtained is likely to be an underestimation because wet sites store more carbon than predicted here and the inhibitory effect of nitrogen deposition on soil carbon mineralisation was neglected. Knowledge about site history prior to the calculation period determines the accuracy of current soil carbon stocks estimates, although changes can be more accurately estimated.

Keywords

Carbon balance Carbon modelling Forest soils 

References

  1. Ågren GI, Bosatta E (1998) Theoretical ecosystem ecology – understanding element cycles. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Ågren GI, Hyvönen R (2003) Changes in carbon stores in Swedish forest soils due to increased biomass harvest and increased temperatures analysed with a semi-empirical model. For Ecol Manage 174:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ågren GI, Bosatta E, Magill AM (2001) Combining theory and experiment to understand effects of inorganic nitrogen on litter decomposition. Oecologia 128:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albrektson A (1988) Needle litterfall in stands of Pinus sylvestris L in Sweden, in relation to site quality, stand age and latitude. Scand J For Res 3:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellamy PH, Loveland PJ, Bradley RI, Lark RM, Kirk GJD (2005) Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978–2003. Nature 437:245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg B, Berg MP, Cortina J, Flower-Ellis J, Gallardo A, Johansson MB, Lundmark JE, Madeira M (1993) Amounts of litterfall in some European coniferous forests. In: Breymeyer A (ed) Proceedings SCOPE Seminar. Conference Paper 18. Geography of Carbon Budget Processes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Szymbark, 17–23 August 1991. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, pp 124–146Google Scholar
  7. Berg B, Albrektson A, Berg MP, Cortina J, Johansson MB, Gallardo A, Madeira M, Pausas J, Kratz W, Vallejo R, McClaugherty C (1999a) Amounts of litter fall in some pine forests in a European transect, in particular Scots pine. Ann For Sci 56:625–639Google Scholar
  8. Berg B, Johansson MB, Tjarve I, Gaitnieks T, Rokjanis B, Beier C, Rothe A, Bolger T, Göttlein A, Gerstberger P (1999b) Needle litterfall in a North European spruce forest transect. Reports in forest ecology and forest soils 80. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  9. Berggren D, Bergkvist B, Johansson MB, Langvall O, Majdi H, Melkerud PA, Nilsson Å, Weslien P, Olsson M (2004) A description of LUSTRA’s common field sites. Reports in forest ecology and forest soils 87. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  10. Berggren Kleja D, Svensson M, Majdi H, Langvall O, Jansson PE, Lindroth, A, Weslien, P, Bergkvist B, Johansson MB (2007) Pools and fluxes of carbon in three Norway spruce ecosystems along a climatic gradient in Sweden. Biogeochemistry (this volume)Google Scholar
  11. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS (1996) RothC-26.3 – A model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU (eds) Evaluation of soil organic matter models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 237–247Google Scholar
  12. Covington WW (1981) Changes in forest floor organic matter and nutrient content following clear cutting in northern hardwoods. Ecology 62:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Wit HA, Palosuo T, Hylen G, Liski J (2006) A carbon budget of forest biomass and soils in southeast Norway calculated using a widely applicable method. For Ecol Manage 225:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyvönen R, Ågren GI (2001) Decomposer invasion rate, decomposer growth rate, and substrate chemical quality – How they influence soil organic matter turnover. Can J For Res 31:1594–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janzen HH (2006) The soil carbon dilemma: shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biol Biochem 38:419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lilliesköld M, Nilsson J (1997) Kol i marken – Konsekvenser av markanvändning i skogs-och jordbruk. Rapport 4782. Naturvårdsverket, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  17. Liski J, Perruchoud D, Karjalainen T (2002) Increasing carbon stocks in the forest soils of western Europe. For Ecol Manage 169:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marklund LG (1988) Biomassafunktioner för tall, gran och björk i Sverige. Report No. 45. Department of Forest Survey, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UmeåGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin JL, Gower ST, Plaut J, Holmes B (2005) Carbon pools in a boreal mixedwood logging chronosequence. Glob Change Biol 11:1883–1894Google Scholar
  20. Olsson M, Erlandsson M, Nilsson T, Nilsson Å, Stendahl J (2007) Organic carbon in Swedish podsols and its relation to site factors (this volume)Google Scholar
  21. Peltoniemi M, Mäkipää R, Liski J, Tamminen P (2004) Changes in soil carbon with stand age – an evaluation of a modelling method with empirical data. Glob Change Biol 10:2078–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith P (2005) An overview of the permanence of soil organic carbon stocks: influence of direct human-induced, indirect and natural effects. Eur J Soil Sci 56:673–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Göran I. Ågren
    • 1
  • Riitta Hyvönen
    • 1
  • Torbjörn Nilsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Forest SoilsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations