CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 731Forest ecology and managementForest Management and PolicyPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics

Open access
Pugh, Thomas A. M., Lindeskog, Mats, Smith, Benjamin, Poulter, Benjamin, Arneth, Almut, Haverd, Vanessa, Calle, Leonardo·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1810512116PMC PMC6410874
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although the existence of a large carbon sink in terrestrial ecosystems is well-established, the drivers of this sink remain uncertain. It has been suggested that perturbations to forest demography caused by past land-use change, management, and natural disturbances may be causing a large component of current carbon uptake. Here we use a global compilation of forest age observations, combined with a terrestrial biosphere model with explicit modeling of forest regrowth, to partition the global forest carbon sink between old-growth and regrowth stands over the period 1981–2010. For 2001–2010 we find a carbon sink of 0.85 (0.66–0.96) Pg year −1 located in intact old-growth forest, primarily in the moist tropics and boreal Siberia, and 1.30 (1.03–1.96) Pg year −1 located in stands regrowing after past disturbance. Approaching half of the sink in regrowth stands would have occurred from demographic changes alone, in the absence of other environmental changes. These age-constrained results show consistency with those simulated using an ensemble of demographically-enabled terrestrial biosphere models following an independent reconstruction of historical land use and management. We estimate that forests will accumulate an additional 69 (44–131) Pg C in live biomass from changes in demography alone if natural disturbances, wood harvest, and reforestation continue at rates comparable to those during 1981–2010. Our results confirm that it is not possible to understand the current global terrestrial carbon sink without accounting for the sizeable sink due to forest demography. They also imply that a large portion of the current terrestrial carbon sink is strictly transient in nature.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1810512116

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Less than 40% of global forest area has been estimated to contain old-growth forest (older than 140 years).

    “less than 40% of forest area has been estimated to contain old-growth forest [in Reference 18, forests identified to be older than 140 years].”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [18]

  • Globally, the estimated forest carbon sink for 2001-2010 was approximately 40% in intact old-growth forests and 60% in regrowing forests.

    “Globally, the estimated forest carbon sink for 2001-2010 was approximately 40% in intact old-growth forests and 60% in regrowing forests (18).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [18]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [1]Le Quéré C, et al. Global carbon budget 2017. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2018;10:405–448. [Google Scholar]
  2. [3]Odum EP. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science. 1969;164:262–270. doi: 10.1126/science.164.3877.262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  3. [4]Sousa WP. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1984;15:353–391. [Google Scholar]
  4. [5]Luyssaert S, et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature. 2008;455:213–215. doi: 10.1038/nature07276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. [6]Brienen RJW, et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature. 2015;519:344–348. doi: 10.1038/nature14283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  6. [7]Schimel D, Stephens BB, Fisher JB. Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:436–441. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407302112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  7. [8]Erb K-H, et al. Bias in the attribution of forest carbon sinks. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3:854–856. [Google Scholar]
  8. [9]Naudts K, et al. Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science. 2016;351:597–600. doi: 10.1126/science.aad7270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  9. [11]Chazdon RL, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci Adv. 2016;2:e1501639. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1501639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  10. [12]Houghton RA, et al. Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences. 2012;9:5125–5142. [Google Scholar]
  11. [13]Houghton RA. The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: Past trends and future potential. Carbon Manag. 2013;4:539–546. [Google Scholar]
  12. [14]Shevliakova E, et al. Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: Importance of the secondary vegetation sink. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2009;23:GB2022. [Google Scholar]
  13. [15]Kondo M, et al. Plant regrowth as a driver of recent enhancement of terrestrial CO2 uptake. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45:4820–4830. [Google Scholar]
  14. [17]Smith B, et al. Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:2027–2054. [Google Scholar]
  15. [18]Teobaldelli M, Somogyi Z, Migliavacca M, Usoltsev VA. Forest ecology and management generalized functions of biomass expansion factors for conifers and broadleaved by stand age, growing stock and site index. For Ecol Manage. 2009;257:1004–1013. [Google Scholar]
  16. [19]Martin PA, Newton AC, Bullock JM. Carbon pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical secondary forests. Proc Biol Sci. 2013;280:20132236. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  17. [20]Cole LES, Bhagwat SA, Willis KJ. Recovery and resilience of tropical forests after disturbance. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3906. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  18. [21]Huston M, Smith T. Plant succession: Life history and competition. Am Nat. 1987;130:168–198. [Google Scholar]
  19. [23]Saatchi SS, et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:9899–9904. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019576108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  20. [24]Heinimann A, et al. A global view of shifting cultivation: Recent, current, and future extent. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0184479. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  21. [25]Kerstiens G. Meta-analysis of the interaction between shade-tolerance, light environment and growth response of woody species to elevated CO2. Acta Oecol. 2001;22:61–69. [Google Scholar]
  22. [26]Körner C. Plant CO2 responses: An issue of definition, time and resource supply. New Phytol. 2006;172:393–411. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01886.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  23. [27]Körner C. A matter of tree longevity. Science. 2017;355:130–131. doi: 10.1126/science.aal2449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  24. [28]Baribault TW, Kobe RK, Finley AO. Tropical tree growth is correlated with soil phosphorus, potassium, and calcium, though not for legumes. Ecol Monogr. 2017;82:189–203. [Google Scholar]
  25. [29]Pugh TAM, et al. Simulated carbon emissions from land-use change are substantially enhanced by accounting for agricultural management. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10:124008. [Google Scholar]
  26. [30]Sitch S, et al. Recent trends and drivers of regional sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Biogeosciences. 2015;12:653–679. [Google Scholar]
  27. [32]Baccini A, et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science. 2017;358:230–234. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  28. [33]Ainsworth EA, Rogers A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: Mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 2007;30:258–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  29. [34]Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Smith WK, Todd-Brown K. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat Geosci. 2015;8:441–444. [Google Scholar]
  30. [35]Buermann W, et al. Widespread seasonal compensation effects of spring warming on northern plant productivity. Nature. 2018;562:110–114. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0555-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  31. [36]Ahlström A, et al. Carbon cycle. The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO2 sink. Science. 2015;348:895–899. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  32. [37]Strassburg BBN, et al. Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conserv Lett. 2010;3:98–105. [Google Scholar]
  33. [38]Marin-Spiotta E, Cusack DF, Ostertag R, Silver WL. Trends in above and belowground carbon with forest regrowth after agricultural abandonment in the neotropics. In: Myster RW, editor. Post-Agricultural Succession in the Neotropics. Springer; Berlin: 2008. pp. 22–78. [Google Scholar]
  34. [39]Poulter B, et al. Plant functional type mapping for earth system models. Geosci Model Dev. 2011;4:993–1010. [Google Scholar]
  35. [40]Simard M, Pinto N, Fisher JB, Baccini A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J Geophys Res. 2011;116:G04021. [Google Scholar]
  36. [41]Smith B, Prentice IC, Sykes MT. Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of European ecosystems: Comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2001;10:621–637. [Google Scholar]
  37. [42]Parton WJ, et al. Observations and modeling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 1993;7:785–809. [Google Scholar]
  38. [43]Le Quéré C, et al. Global carbon budget 2016. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2016;8:605–649. [Google Scholar]
  39. [44]Lamarque JF, et al. Multi-model mean nitrogen and sulfur deposition from the atmospheric chemistry and climate model intercomparison project (ACCMIP): Evaluation of historical and projected future changes. Atmos Chem Phys. 2013;13:7997–8018. [Google Scholar]
  40. [45]Ellis EC, Goldewijk KK, Siebert S, Lightman D, Ramankutty N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2010;19:589–606. [Google Scholar]
  41. [46]Sitch S, et al. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob Change Biol. 2003;9:161–185. [Google Scholar]
  42. [47]Haverd V, Smith B, Nieradzik LP, Briggs PR. A stand-alone tree demography and landscape structure module for Earth system models: Integration with inventory data from temperate and boreal forests. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:4039–4055. [Google Scholar]
  43. [49]Pugh TAM, et al. 2019 Data from “The role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics.” DataGURU. Available at https://dataguru.lu.se/app#PughPNAS2019. DOI:10.18161/forest_regrowthCUptake.201901, DOI:10.18161/forest_regrowthCVegSoil.201901, DOI:10.18161/forest_regrowthRecov.201901. Deposited January 18, 2019. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pugh, T. A. M., Lindeskog, M., Smith, B., Poulter, B., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., & Calle, L.
Affiliations
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Montana State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-02-19
Volume
116
Issue
10
Pages
4382-4387
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1810512116
PMC
PMC6410874
OpenAlex
W2916069439
Cited by
731
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 20
FWCI
58.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 181 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (603542, 758873)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (#NNX16AP86H)
  • Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft (ATMO)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
forest carbon sink, forest regeneration, forest demography, old-growth forest, stand age, terrestrial carbon uptake, land use change, natural disturbance, reforestation, logging, terrestrial biosphere modeling
MeSH terms
Carbon, Models, Biological, Trees, Biomass, Carbon Sequestration, Forests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review