Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated

Nature volume 591, pages E21–E23 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 24 March 2021

The Original Article was published on 11 September 2008

arising from: S. Luyssaert et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07276 (2008)

Luyssaert et al.1 reported that unmanaged, old-growth forests continue to sequester atmospheric carbon (C) at a rate of 2.4 ± 0.8 Mg C ha–1 yr–1 for stand ages exceeding 200 years. This claim was based on an analysis of net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and other C flux data from temperate or boreal forest plots compiled from published studies and databases. Their conclusions and quantitative estimates are widely cited and essential in the debate on the role of forests in climate mitigation. Thus, it is important to discuss the validity of these estimates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Changes in C fluxes as a function of age.

Data availability

The data analysed in this study and in Luyssaert et al. (2008) are publicly available at https://daac.ornl.gov/VEGETATION/guides/forest_carbon_flux.html (ref. 22). We used version 3.1 (12.06.2008).

References

  1. Luyssaert, S. et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213–215 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Odum, E. P. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164, 262–270 (1969).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pan, Y. D. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciais, P. et al. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  5. Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234 (2017).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Global Soil Organic Carbon Map (GSOCmap) Technical Report http://www.fao.org/3/I8891EN/i8891en.pdf (FAO/ITPS, 2018).

  7. Belyea, L. R. & Malmer, N. Carbon sequestration in peatland: patterns and mechanisms of response to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1043–1052 (2004).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, J. et al. C:N:P stoichiometry in China’s forests: from organs to ecosystems. Funct. Ecol. 32, 50–60 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fang, Y. et al. Atmospheric deposition and leaching of nitrogen in Chinese forest ecosystems. J. For. Res. 16, 341–350 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fenn, M. E. et al. Nitrogen excess in North American ecosystems: predisposing factors, ecosystem responses, and management strategies. Ecol. Appl. 8, 706–733 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. MacDonald, J. A. et al. Nitrogen input together with ecosystem nitrogen enrichment predict nitrate leaching from European forests. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1028–1033 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dentener, F. et al. Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and global scales: a multimodel evaluation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB4003 (2006).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang, Y., Luo, Y. & Finzi, A. C. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics during forest stand development: a global synthesis. New Phytol. 190, 977–989 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moffat, A. M. et al. Comprehensive comparison of gap-filling techniques for eddy covariance net carbon fluxes. Agric. For. Meteorol. 147, 209–232 (2007).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu, J. et al. Synthesis on the carbon budget and cycling in a Danish, temperate deciduous forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 181, 94–107 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Soloway, A. D., Amiro, B. D., Dunn, A. L. & Wofsy, S. C. Carbon neutral or a sink? Uncertainty caused by gap-filling long-term flux measurements for an old-growth boreal black spruce forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 233, 110–121 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. McHugh, I. D. et al. Interactions between nocturnal turbulent flux, storage and advection at an “ideal” eucalypt woodland site. Biogeosciences 14, 3027–3050 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Campioli, M. et al. Evaluating the convergence between eddy-covariance and biometric methods for assessing carbon budgets of forests. Nat. Commun. 7, 13717 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kang, M. et al. New gap-filling strategies for long-period flux data gaps using a data-driven approach. Atmosphere 10, 568 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hayek, M. N. et al. A novel correction for biases in forest eddy covariance carbon balance. Agric. For. Meteorol. 250–251, 90–101 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wirth, C., Messier, C., Bergeron, Y., Frank, D. & Fankhänel, A. Old-growth forest definitions: a pragmatic view. In Old‐Growth Forests (eds Wirth, C. et al.) Ecological Studies Vol. 207, 1–33 (Springer, 2009).

  22. Luyssaert, S., Inglima, I. & Jung, M. Global Forest Ecosystem Structure and Function Data for Carbon Balance Research https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/949 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, 2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the contributors to the C flux database used here and in Luyssaert et al.1. This includes all site investigators, their funding agencies, the various regional flux networks (Afriflux, AmeriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEurope-IP, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux, TCOS-Siberia, USCCC), and the Fluxnet project, whose support was essential for obtaining the measurements compiled in the database. P.G. received funding from Aage V. Jensens Naturfond and T.N.-L. and L.V. received funding from ERA-GAS INVENT (NRC number 276398).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Per Gundersen, Emil E. Thybring, Thomas Nord-Larsen, Lars Vesterdal & Vivian K. Johannsen

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Knute J. Nadelhoffer

Authors
  1. Per Gundersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emil E. Thybring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Nord-Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars Vesterdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Knute J. Nadelhoffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vivian K. Johannsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.G. and E.E.T conceived the study. T.N-L., E.E.T. and P.G. analysed the data. P.G. wrote and edited the manuscript with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Gundersen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Tables

This file contains Supplementary Tables S1 to S3 and supplementary references 23−27. Supplementary Table S1 shows carbon flux estimates for the boreal and temperate forest area; Supplementary Table S2 shows estimates of nitrogen input rates needed to sustain the carbon build up in biomass, woody debris and soil organic matter; Supplementary Table S3 shows carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forests with different management history.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gundersen, P., Thybring, E.E., Nord-Larsen, T. et al. Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature 591, E21–E23 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03266-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03266-z

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing