stands at the stand or landscape scale—particularly in highly diverse forest communities such as subtropical or tropical ecosystems. Here, it is important to note that the
preservation of natural old-growth forests has a larger (mitigation) effect on the
carbon cycle than promotion of regrowth (i.e. establishment of young forest plantations; Schulze et al. 2000; Körner 2017).
Forests should be restored by using biome-specific tree species instead of planting
non-native trees and ideally, trees grew from seeds instead of using nursery plants
associated with root pruning. Next to assisted regeneration and reforestation, natural
regeneration of tropical secondary forests is suggested an effective forest restoration
strategy to enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration (Chazdon et al. 2016).
Specifically, in the tropics a large proportion of restoration hotspots coincidence with
conservation hotspots (Brancalion et al. 2019).
The more intensive (forest) ecosystems are managed, the lower their potential to
store carbon in the long term and the lower biome-specific biodiversity. Erb et al.
(2018) have demonstrated that in the (hypothetical) absence of land use, potential
vegetation would store twice the amount of carbon as terrestrial vegetation currently
does (415 vs. 916 petagrams of carbon; calculated for current climate conditions).
Therefore, forest management contributes two thirds to total management-induced
differences in biomass stocks (i.e. managed vs. unmanaged forests; Erb et al. 2018).
This indicates that altering forest management schemes towards a low-impact
approach (as described above) or abandonment of silvicultural measures would
offer a great opportunity for both biodiversity conservation and climate change
mitigation, although the role of forests in mitigating climate change impacts is
controversially discussed (see Popkin 2019).
One of the main challenges in future would be to find social-ecological solutions
to stop overexploitation and poaching (particularly in tropical and subtropical
forests), while addressing the needs of many people depending on forests for their
livelihood.
References
Adhikari K, Hartemink AE (2016) Linking soils to ecosystem services – a global review. Geoderma
262:101–111
Aerts R (1999) Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and
plant-soil feedbacks. J Exp Bot 50:29–37
Agren GI, Franklin O (2003) Root: shoot ratios, optimization and nitrogen productivity. Ann Bot
92:795–800
Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holliday JA et al (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate
change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl 1:95–111
Alkama R, Cescatti A (2016) Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover.
Science 351:600–604
Alroy J (2017) Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A 114:6056–6061
Ammer C (2019) Diversity and forest productivity in a changing climate. New Phytol 221:50–66
Forest Ecosystems: A Functional and Biodiversity Perspective
399
preservation of natural old-growth forests has a larger (mitigation) effect on the
carbon cycle than promotion of regrowth (i.e. establishment of young forest plantations; Schulze et al. 2000; Körner 2017).
Forests should be restored by using biome-specific tree species instead of planting
non-native trees and ideally, trees grew from seeds instead of using nursery plants
associated with root pruning. Next to assisted regeneration and reforestation, natural
regeneration of tropical secondary forests is suggested an effective forest restoration
strategy to enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration (Chazdon et al. 2016).
Specifically, in the tropics a large proportion of restoration hotspots coincidence with
conservation hotspots (Brancalion et al. 2019).
The more intensive (forest) ecosystems are managed, the lower their potential to
store carbon in the long term and the lower biome-specific biodiversity. Erb et al.
(2018) have demonstrated that in the (hypothetical) absence of land use, potential
vegetation would store twice the amount of carbon as terrestrial vegetation currently
does (415 vs. 916 petagrams of carbon; calculated for current climate conditions).
Therefore, forest management contributes two thirds to total management-induced
differences in biomass stocks (i.e. managed vs. unmanaged forests; Erb et al. 2018).
This indicates that altering forest management schemes towards a low-impact
approach (as described above) or abandonment of silvicultural measures would
offer a great opportunity for both biodiversity conservation and climate change
mitigation, although the role of forests in mitigating climate change impacts is
controversially discussed (see Popkin 2019).
One of the main challenges in future would be to find social-ecological solutions
to stop overexploitation and poaching (particularly in tropical and subtropical
forests), while addressing the needs of many people depending on forests for their
livelihood.
References
Adhikari K, Hartemink AE (2016) Linking soils to ecosystem services – a global review. Geoderma
262:101–111
Aerts R (1999) Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and
plant-soil feedbacks. J Exp Bot 50:29–37
Agren GI, Franklin O (2003) Root: shoot ratios, optimization and nitrogen productivity. Ann Bot
92:795–800
Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holliday JA et al (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate
change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl 1:95–111
Alkama R, Cescatti A (2016) Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover.
Science 351:600–604
Alroy J (2017) Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A 114:6056–6061
Ammer C (2019) Diversity and forest productivity in a changing climate. New Phytol 221:50–66
Forest Ecosystems: A Functional and Biodiversity Perspective
399