Ecological Research

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 293–302 | Cite as

Effects of management treatments on the carbon cycle of a cool-temperate broad-leaved deciduous forest and its potential as a bioenergy source

  • Kayo MatsushitaEmail author
  • Mitsutoshi Tomotsune
  • Yoshiaki Sakamaki
  • Hiroshi Koizumi
Special Feature Long-term and interdisciplinary research on forest ecosystem functions: Challenges at Takayama site since 1993


The ecological effects of management treatments on the carbon cycles of secondary forests remain poorly understood. Here, we compared carbon cycles at three sites, a managed understory harvesting site (UH), a managed understory harvesting and litter raking site (LR), and an unmanaged site that served as a control (Um). We considered the harvests of understory and litter biomass as bioenergy sources, and made compartment models for the carbon cycle in units of carbon. Management increased the net primary production from 6.7 tC ha−1 year−1 for the Um site to 7.2 tC ha−1 year−1 for the UH site and 7.8 tC ha−1 year−1 for the LR site. Concurrently, management reduced the decomposition rate from 5.1 tC ha−1 year−1 for the Um site to 3.7 tC ha−1 year−1 for the UH site and 3.8 tC ha−1 year−1 for the LR site. Management also reduced fossil fuel use by 0.7 tC ha−1 year−1 for the UH site and 3.5 tC ha−1 year−1 for the LR site. These values suggest that harvesting had positive effects on net ecosystem production (NEP). In contrast, bioenergy use released 1.3 tC ha−1 year−1 into the atmosphere (in the form of carbon dioxide) for the UH site and 6.9 tC ha−1 year−1 for the LR site. These values suggest that harvesting had negative effects on NEP. We conclude that understory harvesting without litter raking (UH) maximized NEP at 2.9 tC ha−1 year−1. Our findings underscore the importance of a balanced ecological approach to forest management.


Bioenergy Compartment model Net ecosystem production SATOYAMA Soil respiration 



We thank the Laboratory for Environmental Ecology, Waseda University, for their assistance in field experiments. We also thank the staff of the Karuizawa Seminar House for their great help in the use of the institution.


  1. Angers DA, Caron J (1998) Plant-induced changes in soil structure: processes and feedbacks. Biogeochemistry 42:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowden RD, Newkirk KM, Rullo GM (1998) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes by a forest soil under laboratory-controlled moisture and temperature conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1591–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen W, Chen JM, Price DT, Cihlar J, Liu J (2000) Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: a simulation study. In: Dixon R (ed) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 5. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecth, pp 143–169Google Scholar
  4. Chen J, Colombo SJ, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Heath LS (2008) Future carbon storage in harvested wood products from Ontario’s Crown forests. Can J For Res 38:1947–1958. doi: 10.1139/X08-046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiang PN, Yu JC, Wang YN, Tzou YM (2010) Effect of nutrient cycle by different thinning practice in temperate forest. In: 19th World congress of soil science, soil solutions for a changing world. Australian Society of Soil Science Inc., Warragul (on DVD)Google Scholar
  6. D’Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ (2011) Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: insights from long-term silviculture experiments. For Ecol Manag 262:803–816. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis SC, Hessl AE, Scott CJ, Adams MB, Thomas RB (2009) Forest carbon sequestration changes in response to timber harvest. For Ecol Manag 258:2101–2109. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dwyer JM, Fensham R, Buckley YM (2010) Restoration thinning accelerates structural development and carbon sequestration in an endangered Australian ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 47:681–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.01775.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eriksson E, Gillespie AR, Gustavsson L, Langvall O, Olsson M, Sathre R, Stendahl J (2007) Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can J For Res 37:671–681. doi: 10.1139/X06-257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991) Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujioka M, Yoshida H (2001) The potential and problems of agricultural ecosystems for birds in Japan. Glob Environ Res 5:151–161Google Scholar
  12. Guntiñas ME, Gil-Sotres F, Leirós MC, Trasar-Cepeda C (2013) Sensitivity of soil respiration to moisture and temperature. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 13:445–461Google Scholar
  13. Hyvönen R, Ågren GI, Linder S, Persson T, Cotrufo MF, Ekblad A, Freeman M, Grelle A, Janssens IA, Jarvis PG, Kellomäki S, Lindroth A, Loustau D, Lundmark T, Norby RJ, Oren R, Pilegaard K, Ryan MG, Sigurdsson BD, Strömgren M, van Oijen M, Wallin G (2007) The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol 173:463–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, Johnson DW, Minkkinen K, Byrne KA (2006) How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 137:253–268. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jandl R, Vesterdal L, Olsson M, Bens O, Badeck F, Rock J (2007) Carbon sequestration and forest management. CAB Rev Perspect Agric Veter Sci Nutr Nat Res 2:1–16. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20072017 Google Scholar
  16. Johansson M-B (1994) The influence of soil scarification on the turn-over rate of slash needles and nutrient release. Scand J For Res 9:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katakura M, Yamanouchi M, Koyama Y (2007) Carbon stocks and biomass of Japanese larch, red pine, and Quercus forests. And changes in surface soil carbon of Japanese red pine forest after logging. Bull Nagano Pref For Res Center 22:33–55Google Scholar
  18. Kato M (2001) ‘SATOYAMA’ and biodiversity conservation: ‘SATOYAMA’ as important insect habitats. Glob Environ Res 5:135–149Google Scholar
  19. Kowalski S, Sartore M, Burlett R, Berbigier P, Loustau D (2003) The annual carbon budget of a French pine forest (Pinus pinaster) following harvest. Glob Change Biol 9:1051–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kowalski AS, Loustau D, Berbigier P, Manca G, Tedeschi V, Borghetti M, Valentini R, Kolari P, Berninger F, Rannik U, Hari P, Rayment M, Mencuccini M, Moncrieff J (2004) Grace J (2004) Paired comparisons of carbon exchange between undisturbed and regenerating stands in four managed forests in Europe. Glob Change Biol 10:1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.00846.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law BE, Sun OJ, Campbell J, Van Tuyl S, Thornton PE (2003) Change in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Change Biol 9:510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lull HW (1959) Soil compaction on forest and range lands. U.S, Forest Service. Misc Pub 768:1–38Google Scholar
  23. Mallik AU, Hu D (1997) Soil respiration following site preparation treatments in boreal mixedwood forest. For Ecol Manag 97:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matamala R, Gonzàlez-Meler MA, Jastrow JD, Norby RJ, Schlesinger WH (2003) Impacts of fine root turnover on forest NPP and soil C sequestration potential. Science 302:1385–1387. doi: 10.1126/science543 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakatsubo T, Yoshitake S, Uchida M, Uchida M, Shibata Y, Koizumi H (2008) Organic carbon and microbial biomass in a raised beach deposit under terrestrial vegetation in the High Arctic, Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard. Polar Res 27:23–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-8369.00037.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. New Energy Foundation (2008) Biomass engineering handbook. Ohmusya Co., Japan, pp 450–485 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  27. Nunery JS (2009) Keeton WS (2010) Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. For Ecol Manag 259:1363–1375. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.12.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmgren K (1984) Muokkauksen ja kalkituksen aiheuttamia mikrobiologisia muutoksia metsämaassa: microbiological changes in forest soil following soil preparation and liming (in Finnish, English abstract). Folia For 603:1–27Google Scholar
  29. Powers M, Kolka R, Palik B, McDonald R, Jurgensen M (2011) Long-term management impacts on carbon storage in Lake States forests. For Ecol Manag 262:424–431. doi: 10.101/j.foreco.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qiu S, Bell RW, Hobbs RJ, McComb AJ (2012) Estimating nutrient budgets for prescribed thinning in a regrowth eucalyptus forest in south-west Australia. Forestry 85:51–61. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpr054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruess RW, Cleve KV, Yarie J, Viereck LA (1996) Contributions of fine root production and turnover to the carbon and nitrogen cycling in taiga forests of the Alaskan interior. Can J For Res 26:1326–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seidl R, Rammer W, Jäger D, Currie WS, Lexer MJ (2007) Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. For Ecol Manag 248:64–79. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.02.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shigematsu T (1988) Ecological studies on the secondary forest management for recreational use. Bull Univ Osaka Pref Ser B 40:151–211 (in Japanese with English summary)Google Scholar
  34. Swanson ME (2009) Modeling the effects of alternative management strategies on forest carbon in the Nothofagus forests of Tierra del Fuego, Chile. For Ecol Manag 257:1740–1750. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.01.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takeuchi K (2001) Nature conservation strategies for the ‘SATOYAMA’ and ‘SATOCHI’, habitats for secondary nature in Japan. Glob Environ Res 5:193–198Google Scholar
  36. The Japan Institute of Energy (2009) Biomass handbook, 2nd edn. Ohmusya Publishing Co., Tokyo, pp 165–178 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  37. Tomotsune M, Masuda R, Yoshitake S, Anzai T, Koizumi H (2013a) Seasonal and inter-annual variations in contribution ratio of heterotrophic respiration to soil respiration in a cool-temperate deciduous forest. J Geography 122:745–754. doi: 10.5026/jgeography.122.745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomotsune M, Yoshitake S, Watanabe S, Koizumi H (2013b) Separation of root and heterotrophic respiration within soil respiration by trenching, root biomass regression, and root excising methods in a cool-temperate deciduous forest in Japan. Ecol Res 28:259–269. doi: 10.1007/s11284-012-1013-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang B, Zha TS, Jia X, Wu B, Zhang YQ, Qin SG (2014) Soil moisture modifies the response of soil respiration to temperature in a desert shrub ecosystem. Biogeosciences 11:259–268. doi: 10.5194/bg-11-259-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Washitani I (2001) Traditional sustainable ecosystem ‘SATOYAMA’ and biodiversity crisis in Japan: conservation ecological perspective. Glob Environ Res 5:119–133Google Scholar
  41. Wood TE, Detto M, Silver WL (2013) Sensitivity of soil respiration to variability in soil moisture and temperature in a humid tropical forest. PLoS ONE 8:e80965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080965 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kayo Matsushita
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mitsutoshi Tomotsune
    • 2
  • Yoshiaki Sakamaki
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Koizumi
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and EngineeringWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Waseda Research Institute for Science and EngineeringWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Faculty of Education and Integrated Arts and ScienceWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations