Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Disturbance event impact on aboveground carbon storage and vulnerability of large trees in old-growth coniferous forest stands in Latvia

87 Views


Abstract

Large, old trees store a considerable part of the total carbon in old-growth forests; however, their influence on long-term climate change mitigation capacity remains unclear. Damage caused by wind and insect outbreaks can rapidly kill trees, and these natural events are expected to increase with climate change, thereby reducing the long-term carbon storage capacity of old-growth stands. The aim was to estimate the importance of large, old trees in carbon storage at the stand level and the potential risks for the carbon stock if they die. The data were collected from Scots pine and Norway spruce stands on mineral soils, of which 44 were old-growth stands, and 47 were mature stands two times younger than the former. Stand-level carbon storage in tree biomass was investigated; the presence of deadwood was analyzed. The carbon stock changes were calculated by excluding the 1–15 largest trees per sample plot. The results showed that the largest trees in old-growth coniferous stands hold a disproportionally large (~ 50% of the total tree biomass carbon pool) share of carbon compared to mature stands, ~ 50% and ~ 10%, respectively. A reduction of the tree biomass carbon pool by approximately 50% required a removal of around 30% more trees in mature than in old-growth stands. A relatively low proportion of deadwood from the total stand volume (~ 20%) suggests a limited single-tree mortality and vulnerable mitigation potential in the assessed old-growth stands. Nevertheless, continuous single-tree mortality due to ageing or windthrow re-shapes forest structure, and raises the potential risk of the stands to maintain and/or further increase substantial tree biomass-linked carbon pools.

Similar content being viewed by others

Carbon carrying capacity in primary forests shows potential for mitigation achieving the European Green Deal 2030 target

Article
Open access
14 May 2024

Global increase in biomass carbon stock dominated by growth of northern young forests over past decade

Article

02 October 2023

Maximizing carbon sequestration potential in Chinese forests through optimal management

Article
Open access
11 April 2024

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Berglund, H. & Kuuluvainen, T. Representative boreal forest habitats in Northern Europe, and a revised model for ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. Ambio 50, 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01444-3 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kilpeläinen, A. & Peltola, H. Carbon sequestration and storage in European forests. In Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change. Managing Forest Ecosystems Vol. 42 (eds Hetemäki, L. et al.) (Springer, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4_6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barredo, J. et al. Mapping and Assessment of Primary and old-growth Forests in Europe (EUR 30661 EN, 2021). https://doi.org/10.2760/797591

  4. Matuszkiewicz, J. M., Affek, A. N. & Kowalska, A. Current and potential carbon stock in the forest communities of the Białowieża biosphere reserve. Ecol. Manag. 502, 119702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119702 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sabatini, F. M. et al. European primary forest database v2.0. Sci. Data. 8, 220. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00988-7 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Motta, R. et al. Old-growth forests in the dinaric alps of Bosnia-Herzegovina and montenegro: a continental hot-spot for research and biodiversity. Front. Glob Change. 7, 01–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2024.1371144 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Buchwald, E. A hierarchical terminology for more or less natural forests in relation to sustainable management and biodiversity conservation. Third Expert Meeting on Harmonizing Forest-related Definitions. FAO. Proceedings at (2005). https://forestsandco.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/buchwald_2002_definitions.pdf

  8. Martin, M., Shorohova, E. & Fenton, N. J. Embracing the complexity and the richness of boreal old-growth forests: A further step toward their ecosystem management. In Boreal Forests in the Face of Climate Change Vol. 74 (eds Girona, M. M. et al.) (Springer, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15988-6_7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. O’Brien, L. et al. Protecting old-growth Forests in Europe – a Review of Scientific Evidence To Inform Policy Implementation (Final report of European Forest Institute at, 2021). https://doi.org/10.36333/rs1

  10. Barredo, J. I., Vizzarri, M. & Kužnelová, K. Archetypal typology of European forest ecosystems integrating management intensity and naturalness. Ambio 53, 1587–1598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02050-3 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pardos, M. et al. Carbon storage potentiality in successional and secondary old growth forests. Eur. J. Res. 144, 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-024-01750-5 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor, A. R., Seedre, M., Brassard, B. W. & Chen, H. Y. Decline in net ecosystem productivity following canopy transition to late-succession forests. Ecosystems 17, 778–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-014-9759-3 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cerioni, M. et al. Recovery and resilience of European temperate forests after large and severe disturbances. Glob Change Biol. 30 (2), e17159. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17159 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kuuluvainen, T. & Gauthier, S. Young and old forest in the boreal: critical stages of ecosystem dynamics and management under global change. Ecosyst. 5, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0142-2 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Seidl, R. et al. Globally consistent climate sensitivity of natural disturbances across boreal and temperate forest ecosystems. Ecography 43 (7), 967–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04995 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Martin-Benito, D., Molina-Valero, J. A., Pérez-Cruzado, C., Bigler, C. & Bugmann, H. Development and long-term dynamics of old-growth beech-fir forests in the pyrenees: evidence from dendroecology and dynamic vegetation modelling. Ecol. Manag. 524, 120541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120541 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Keith, H. et al. Carbon carrying capacity in primary forests shows potential for mitigation achieving the European green deal 2030 target. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01416-5 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson, S., Knapp, B. O. & Kabrick, J. M. Stand-density effects on aboveground carbon dynamics in secondary Pinus and Quercus forests of central USA. Sci. 69 (2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxac053 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang, C. et al. Disturbance-induced reduction of biomass carbon sinks of china’s forests in recent years. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 114021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114021 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Högbom, L. et al. Trilemma of Nordic-Baltic forestry – How to implement UN sustainable development goals. Sustainability 13 (10), 5643. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105643 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Molina-Valero, J. A. et al. Mature forests hold maximum live biomass stocks. Ecol. Manag. 480, 118635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118635 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mikoláš, M. et al. Natural disturbance impacts on trade-offs and co-benefits of forest biodiversity and carbon. Proc. Biol. Sci. 288(1961), 20211631. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1631 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wijas, B. J. et al. The role of Deadwood in the carbon cycle: implications for Models, forest Management, and future climates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 55, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110421-102327 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Holzwarth, F., Kahl, A., Bauhus, J. & Wirth, C. Many ways to die – partitioning tree mortality dynamics in a near-natural mixed deciduous forest. J. Ecol. 101 (1), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12015 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Šēnhofa, S. et al. Availability and structure of coarse Woody debris in hemiboreal mature to old-growth Aspen stands and its implications for forest carbon pool. Forests 12, 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070901 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vasile, D. et al. Structure and Spatial distribution of dead wood in two temperate old-growth mixed European Beech forests. Not Bot. Horti Agrobot Cluj Napoca. 45 (2), 639–645. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha45210829 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lecina-Diaz, J., Senf, C., Grünig, M. & Seidl, R. Ecosystem services at risk from disturbance in europe’s forests. Glob Change Biol. 30 (3), e17242. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17242 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Patacca, M. et al. Significant increase in natural disturbance impacts on European forests since 1950. Glob Change Biol. 29, 1359–1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16531 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ķēniņa, L., Elferts, D., Jaunslaviete, I., Bāders, E. & Jansons, Ā. Sustaining carbon storage: lessons from hemiboreal old-growth coniferous and deciduous forest stands. For. Sci. 69 (2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxac055 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tíscar, P. A. & Lucas-Borja, M. E. Structure of old-growth and managed stands and growth of old trees in a mediterranean Pinus Nigra forest in Southern Spain. Forestry 89 (2), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw002 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Konôpka, B., Šebeň, V. & Pajtík, J. Species composition and carbon stock of tree cover at a postdisturbance area in Tatra National Park, Western Carpathians. Mt. Res. Dev. 39 (1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00008.1 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bāders, E. et al. Norway Spruce survival rate in two forested Landscapes, 1975–2016. Forests 11 (7), 745. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11070745 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Krisans, O. et al. Presence of root rot reduces stability of Norway Spruce (Picea abies): results of static pulling tests in Latvia. Forests 11 (4), 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040416 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L. & Jalas, J. Vegetation zones and their sections in Northwestern Europe. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 5 (3), 169–211 (1968). http://www.jstor.org/stable/23724233

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lõhmus, A. & Kraut, A. Stand structure of hemiboreal old-growth forests: characteristic features, variation among site types, and a comparison with FSC-certified mature stands in Estonia. Ecol. Manag. 260 (1), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.04.018 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rydin, H., Emanuelsson, U. & Kautsky, L. Biology and biogeographical zones of the Baltic region. In: Rydén L, Migula P, Andersson M (eds) Environmental science: understanding, protecting, and managing the environment in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic University Press, 68–91 (2003).

  37. Bušs, K. Forest ecosystem classification in Latvia. Proc. Latvian Acad. Sci. 51, 204–218 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Aldea, J. et al. Species stratification and weather conditions drive tree growth in Scots pine and Norway Spruce mixed stands along Europe. Ecol. Manag. 481, 118697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118697 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ķēniņa, L., Elferts, D., Bāders, E. & Jansons, Ā. Carbon pools in a hemiboreal over-mature Norway Spruce stands. Forests 9, 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9070435 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ķēniņa, L., Jaunslaviete, I., Liepa, L., Zute, D. & Jansons, Ā. Carbon pools in old-growth Scots pine stands in hemiboreal Latvia. Forests 10, 911. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100911 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sandström, F., Petersson, H., Kruys, N. & Ståhl, G. Biomass conversion factors (density and carbon concentration) by decay classes for dead wood of Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies and Betula spp. In boreal forests of Sweden. Ecol. Manag. 243 (1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.081 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Liepa, I. Pieauguma mācība. Jelgava. (in Latvian) (1996).

  43. Liepiņš, J., Lazdiņš, A. & Liepiņš, K. Equations for estimating above- And belowground biomass of Norway spruce, Scots pine, Birch spp. And European Aspen in Latvia. Scand. J. Res. 33 (1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1337923 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Liepiņš, J., Liepiņš, K. & Lazdiņš, A. Equations for estimating the above- and belowground biomass of grey alder (Alnus Incana (L.) Moench.) and common alder (Alnus glutinosa L.) in Latvia. Scand. J. Res. 36 (5), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2021.1937696 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bārdule, A. et al. Variation in carbon content among the major tree species in hemiboreal forests in Latvia. Forests 12 (1292). https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091292 (2021).

  46. Köster, K., Metslaid, M., Engelhart, J. & Köster, E. Dead wood basic density, and the concentration of carbon and nitrogen for main tree species in managed hemiboreal forests. Ecol. Manag. 354, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.039 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  47. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available from www.R-project.org. (2024).

  48. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67 (1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. LmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82 (13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lenth, R. emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.5.5-1. (2021). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

  51. Chai, Z. forestSAS: An R package for forest spatial structure analysis systems. R package version 0.1.0. (2016). https://github.com/Zongzheng/forestSAS

  52. Zhao, Z. et al. Testing the significance of different tree Spatial distribution patterns based on the uniform angle index. Can. J. Res. 44 (11), 1419–0192. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0192 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Szmyt, J. & Tarasiuk, S. Species–specific Spatial structure, species coexistence and mortality pattern in natural, uneven–aged Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)–dominated forest. Eur. J. Res. 137, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1084-x (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lutter, R., Kõlli, R., Tullus, A. & Tullus, H. Ecosystem carbon stocks of Estonian premature and mature managed forests: effects of site conditions and overstorey tree species. Eur. J. Res. 138, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-018-1158-4 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kirschbaum, M. U. F. Is tree planting an effective strategy for climate change mitigation? Sci. Total Environ. 909, 168479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168479 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Handegard, E., Gjerde, I., Bollandsås, O. M. & Storaunet, K. O. Identifying old Norway Spruce and Scots pine trees by morphological traits and site characteristics. Scand. J. Res. 36, 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2021.1996628 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Šēnhofa, S. et al. Deadwood characteristics in mature and old-growth Birch stands and their implications for carbon storage. Forests 11 (5), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050536 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mildrexler, D. J., Berner, L. T., Law, B. E., Birdsey, R. A. & Moomaw, W. R. Large trees dominate carbon storage in forests East of the cascade crest in the united States Pacific Northwest. Front. Glob Change. 3, 594274. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Slik, J. W. F. et al. Large trees drive forest aboveground biomass variation in moist lowland forests across the tropics. Glob Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 1261–1271. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12092 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bono, A. et al. The largest European forest carbon stocks are in the dinaric alps old-growth forests: comparison of direct measurements and standardised approaches. Carbon Balance Manage. 19, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00262-4 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sims, A., Mändma, R., Laarmann, D. & Korjus, H. Assessment of tree mortality on the Estonian network of forest research plots. Forestry Stud. 60, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.2478/fsmu-2014-0005 (2014). https://intapi.sciendo.com/pdf/

    Google Scholar 

  62. Siipilehto, J. et al. Stand-level mortality models for nordic boreal forests. Silva Fenn. 54 (5), 10414. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10414 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Larson, A. J. et al. Spatial aspects of tree mortality strongly differ between young and old-growth forests. Ecology 96 (11), 2855–2861. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0628.1 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to Annele Baltmane for her assistance with English language editing and grammar checking of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project “Development of a decision support tool integrating information from old-growth semi-natural forest for more comprehensive estimates of carbon balance” (No. 1.1.1.1/19/A/130) and the Latvia Council of Science national research programme project: “Forest4LV – Innovation in Forest Management and Value Chain for Latvia’s Growth: New Forest Services, Products and Technologies” (No. VPP-ZM-VRIIILA-2024/2–0002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Latvian State Forest Research Institute Silava, Rigas Street 111, Salaspils, Latvia

    Laura Ķēniņa, Didzis Elferts, Ieva Jaunslaviete & Āris Jansons

Authors

  1. Laura Ķēniņa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Didzis Elferts
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ieva Jaunslaviete
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Āris Jansons
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: L.Ķ., Ā.J.; Methodology: Ā.J., L.Ķ., D.E., I.J.; Data collection: I.J., L.Ķ.; Formal analysis and investigation: L.Ķ., D.E., Ā.J.; Writing – original draft preparation: L.Ķ.; Writing – review and editing: L.Ķ., Ā.J., D.E.; Funding acquisition: Ā.J.; Supervision: Ā.J.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Laura Ķēniņa.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent for publication

All authors gave their informed consent to this publication and its content.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ķēniņa, L., Elferts, D., Jaunslaviete, I. et al. Disturbance event impact on aboveground carbon storage and vulnerability of large trees in old-growth coniferous forest stands in Latvia.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37378-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37378-1

Keywords

  • Stand density
  • Carbon stock
  • Deadwood
  • Stand fragility
  • Hemiboreal region

Source: Ecology - nature.com

From death comes diversity

A Cambrian soft-bodied biota after the first Phanerozoic mass extinction

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close