SpringerLink
Log in

The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration

  • Published:
New Forests Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States (U.S.), the maintenance of forest cover is a legal mandate for federally managed forest lands. More broadly, reforestation following harvesting, recent or historic disturbances can enhance numerous carbon (C)-based ecosystem services and functions. These include production of woody biomass for forest products, and mitigation of atmospheric CO2 pollution and climate change by sequestering C into ecosystem pools where it can be stored for long timescales. Nonetheless, a range of assessments and analyses indicate that reforestation in the U.S. lags behind its potential, with the continuation of ecosystem services and functions at risk if reforestation is not increased. In this context, there is need for multiple independent analyses that quantify the role of reforestation in C sequestration, from ecosystems up to regional and national levels. Here, we describe the methods and report the findings of a large-scale data synthesis aimed at four objectives: (1) estimate C storage in major ecosystem pools in forest and other land cover types; (2) quantify sources of variation in ecosystem C pools; (3) compare the impacts of reforestation and afforestation on C pools; (4) assess whether these results hold or diverge across ecoregions. The results of our synthesis support four overarching inferences regarding reforestation and other land use impacts on C sequestration. First, in the bigger picture, soils are the dominant C pool in all ecosystems and land cover types in the U.S., and soil C pool sizes vary less by land cover than by other factors, such as spatial variation or soil wetness. Second, where historically cultivated lands are being reforested, topsoils are sequestering significant amounts of C, with the majority of reforested lands yet to reach their capacity relative to the potential indicated by natural forest soils. Third, the establishment of woody vegetation delivers immediate to multi-decadal C sequestration benefits in aboveground woody biomass and coarse woody debris pools, with two- to three-fold C sequestration benefits in biomass during the first several decades following planting. Fourth, opportunities to enhance C sequestration through reforestation vary among the ecoregions, according to current levels of planting, typical forest growth rates, and past land uses (especially cultivation). Altogether, our results suggest that an immediate, but phased and spatially targeted approach to reforestation can enhance C sequestration in forest biomass and soils in the U.S. for decades to centuries to come.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bechtold WA, Patterson PL (eds) (2005) The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program—national sampling design and estimation procedures. General technical report SRS-80. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 85 p

  • Bentz BJ, Regniere J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes JL, Hicke JA, Kelsey RG, Negron JF, Seybold SJ (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60:602–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birdsey R, Pregitzer K, Lucier A (2006) Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600–2100. J Environ Qual 35:1461–1469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond-Lamberty B, Wang CK, Gower ST (2004) Net primary production and net ecosystem production of a boreal black spruce wildfire chronosequence. Glob Change Biol 10:473–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunet-Navarro P, Jochheim H, Muys B (2016) Modelling carbon stocks and fluxes in the wood product sector: a comparative review. Glob Change Biol 22:2555–2569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buell GR, Markewich HW (2004) Data compilation, synthesis, and calculations used for organic-carbon storage and inventory estimates for mineral soils of the Mississippi River basin. US geological survey professional paper 1686-A, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

  • Caspersen JP, Pacala SW, Jenkins JC, Hurtt GC, Moorcroft PR, Birdsey RA (2000) Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in US forests. Science 290:1148–1151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland DT, Avers PE, McNab WH, Jensen ME, Bailey RG, King T, Russell WE (1997) National hierarchical framework of ecological units. In: Boyce MS, Haney A (eds) Ecosystem management: applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 181–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole JA, Johnson KD, Birdsey RA, Pan Y, Wayson CA, McCollough K, Hoover CM, Hollinger DY, Bradford JB, Ryan MG, Kolka RK, Weishampel P, Clark KL, Skowronski NS, Hom J, Ollinger SV, McNulty SG, Gavazzi MJ (2013) Database for landscape-scale carbon monitoring sites. General technical report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. GTR-NRS-119

  • Compton JE, Boone RD (2000) Long-term impacts of agriculture on soil carbon and nitrogen in New England Forests. Ecology 81:2314–2330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulston JW, Reams GA, Wear DN, Brewer CK (2014) An analysis of forest land use, forest land cover and change at policy-relevant scales. Forestry 87:267–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulston JW, Wear DN, Vose JM (2015) Complex forest dynamics indicate potential for slowing carbon accumulation in the southeastern United States. Scientific reports 5

  • Creutzburg MK, Scheller RM, Lucash MS, LeDuc SD, Johnson MG (2017) Forest management scenarios in a changing climate: trade-offs between carbon, timber, and old forest. Ecol Appl 27:503–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dumroese RK, Williams MI, Stanturf JA, St. Clair JB (2015) Considerations for restoring temperate forests of tomorrow: forest restoration, assisted migration, and bioengineering. New Forest 46:947–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry J, **an G, ** S, Dewitz J, Homer C, Yang L, Barnes C, Herold N, Wickham J (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 77:858–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough CM, Vogel CS, Harrold KH, George K, Curtis PS (2007) The legacy of harvest and fire on ecosystem carbon storage in a north temperate forest. Glob Change Biol 13:1935–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gower ST, McMurtrie RE, Murty D (1996) Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: potential causes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:378–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob Change Biol 8:345–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath LS, Smith JE, Skog KE, Nowak DJ, Woodall CW (2011) Managed Forest Carbon Estimates for the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2008. J Forest 109:167–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman K, Welty-Bernard A, Rasmussen C, Schwartz E (2009) Geologic controls of soil carbon cycling and microbial dynamics in temperate forests. Chem Geol 267:12–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman KA, Campbell JL, Powers H, Law B, Swanston C (2013) The influence of fire on the radiocarbon signature and character of soil organic matter in the Siskiyou Forest, Oregon. Fire Ecol 9:40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman K, Throckmorton H, Clingensmith C, Vila FJG, Horwath WR, Knicker H, Rasmussen C (2014) Factors affecting the molecular structure and mean residence time of occluded organics in a lithosequence of soils under ponderosa pine. Soil Biol Biochem 77:1–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hicke JA, Allen CD, Desai AR, Dietze MC, Hall RJ, Hogg EH, Kashian DM, Moore D, Raffa KF, Sturrock RN, Vogelmann J (2012) Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Glob Change Biol 18:7–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CC, Huang L, Yang B Wylie, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 70:829–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, ** S, Danielson P, **an G, Coulston J, Herold ND, Wickham JD, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 81:345–354

    Google Scholar 

  • ** WC, He HS, Thompson FR, Wang WJ, Fraser JS, Shifley SR, Hanberry BB, Dijak WD (2017) Future forest aboveground carbon dynamics in the central United States: the importance of forest demographic processes. Scientific reports 7

  • Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB, Turner MG, Ryan MG (2006) Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience 56:598–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellndorfer J, Walker W, Kirsch K, Fiske G, Bishop J, LaPoint L, Hoppus M, Westfall J (2013) NACP aboveground biomass and carbon baseline data, V. 2 (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000. Data set. http://daac.ornl.gov from ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA

  • Kurz WA, Dymond CC, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Neilson ET, Carroll AL, Ebata T, Safranyik L (2008) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452:987–990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laganiere J, Angers DA, Pare D (2010) Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol 16:439–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law BE, Sun OJ, Campbell J, Van Tuyl S, Thornton PE (2003) Changes in carbon storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Glob Change Biol 9:510–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang S, Hurteau MD, Westerling AL (2017) Response of Sierra Nevada forests to projected climate-wildfire interactions. Glob Change Biol 23:2016–2030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu JG, Li SX, Ouyang ZY, Tam C, Chen XD (2008) Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9477–9482

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald SE, Landhausser SM, Skousen J, Franklin J, Frouz J, Hall S, Jacobs DF, Quideau S (2015) Forest restoration following surface mining disturbance: challenges and solutions. New Forest 46:703–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNab WH, Cleland DT, Freeouf JA, Keys JE, Nowacki GJ, Carpenter CA (2007) Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, p 80

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra U, Riley WJ (2015) Scaling impacts on environmental controls and spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon stocks. Biogeosciences 12:3993–4004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mobley ML, Lajtha K, Kramer MG, Bacon AR, Heine PR, Richter DD (2015) Surficial gains and subsoil losses of soil carbon and nitrogen during secondary forest development. Glob Change Biol 21:986–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nave LE, Swanston CW, Mishra U, Nadelhoffer KJ (2013) Afforestation effects on soil carbon storage in the United States: a synthesis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1035–1047

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nave L, Johnson K, van Ingen C, Agarwal D, Humphrey M, Beekwilder N (2017) International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) Database, International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) Database, Version 3. International Soil Carbon Network. https://doi.org/10.17040/ISCN/1305039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nave LE, Domke GM, Hofmeister KL, Mishra U, Perry CH, Walters BF, Swanston CW (2018) Reforestation can sequester two petagrams of carbon in U.S. topsoils in a century. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719685115

  • Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Miles PD, Pugh SA (2014) Forest resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2015 update of the RPA assessment. General technical report GTR WO-91, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 218 pp

  • Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Glob Change Biol 6:317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puhlick J, Woodall C, Weiskittel A (2017) Implications of land-use change on forest carbon stocks in the eastern United States. Environ Res Lett 12:024011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Richter DD, Markewitz D, Trumbore SE, Wells CG (1999) Rapid accumulation and turnover of soil carbon in a re-establishing forest. Nature 400:56–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH (1997) Age-related decline in forest productivity: pattern and process. In: Begon M, Fitter AH (eds) Advances in ecological research, vol 27. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp 213–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample VA (2017) Potential for additional carbon sequestration through regeneration of nonstocked forest land in the United States. J Forest 115:309–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoennagel T, Balch JK, Brenkert-Smith H, Dennison PE, Harvey BJ, Krawchuk MA, Mietkiewicz N, Morgan P, Moritz MA, Rasker R, Turner MG, Whitlock C (2017) Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:4582–4590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schrumpf M, Kaiser K, Guggenberger G, Persson T, Kogel-Knabner I, Schulze ED (2013) Storage and stability of organic carbon in soils as related to depth, occlusion within aggregates, and attachment to minerals. Biogeosciences 10(3):1675–1691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sequeira CH, Wills SA, Seybold CA, West LT (2014) Predicting soil bulk density for incomplete databases. Geoderma 213:64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth CE, Stinson G, Neilson E, Lempriere TC, Hafer M, Rampley GJ, Kurz WA (2014) Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences 11:3515–3529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service (2016) Future of America’s forests and rangelands: update to the 2010 resources planning act assessment. General technical report WO-GTR-94, Washington, DC, 250 pp

  • Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel JN (2001) Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 67:650–662

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lutzow M, Kogel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Matzner E, Guggenberger G, Marschner B, Flessa H (2006) Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur J Soil Sci 57(4):426–445

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watrud E, Zensen F, Darbyshire R (2012) Laws affecting reforestation on USDA Forest Service lands. Tree Plant Notes 55:39–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Wear DN, Coulston JW (2015) From sink to source: regional variation in US forest carbon futures. Scientific reports 5

  • Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Goward SN (2012) Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochem Cycles 26:GB1005

  • Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Huang CQ, Goward SN (2014) Impacts of disturbance history on forest carbon stocks and fluxes: merging satellite disturbance map** with forest inventory data in a carbon cycle model framework. Remote Sens Environ 151:57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall CW, Walters BF, Coulston JW, D’Amato AW, Domke GM, Russell MB, Sowers PA (2015) Monitoring network confirms land use change is a substantial component of the forest carbon sink in the eastern United States. Scientific reports 5

  • Woodall CW, Walters BF, Russell MB, Coulston JW, Domke GM, D’Amato AW, Sowers PA (2016) A tale of two forest carbon assessments in the eastern United States: forest use versus cover as a metric of change. Ecosystems 19:1401–1417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang S, Mountrakis G (2017) Forest dynamics in the US indicate disproportionate attrition in western forests, rural areas and public lands. PLoS ONE 12:e0171383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang F, Chen JM, Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Shen S, Ju W, He L (2012) Attributing carbon changes in conterminous U.S. forests to disturbance and non-disturbance factors from 1901–2010. J Geophys Res 117:G02021

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank organizers Kasten Dumroese, Nicole Balloffet, and Jim Vose, and the participants of the Reforestation Matters workshop in Portland, OR, 12–13 April 2017, for the opportunity to contribute this synthesis to the reforestation science effort in the U.S. We are grateful to the USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station (Agreements No. 13-CR112306-077, 16-CR-112306-071, and 17-CR-11242306-028) and the National Science Foundation (Award No. EF-1340681) for the financial support to conduct this analysis. Lastly, we are grateful for the reviews provided by two anonymous referees and the Guest Associate Editor, who have helped to improve this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Michigan, Biological Station, 9133 Biological Rd., Pellston, MI, 49769, USA

    L. E. Nave

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    L. E. Nave

  3. USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    B. F. Walters, C. H. Perry & G. M. Domke

  4. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA

    K. L. Hofmeister

  5. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 60439, USA

    U. Mishra

  6. USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA

    C. W. Swanston

Authors
  1. L. E. Nave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. F. Walters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. L. Hofmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. H. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. U. Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. M. Domke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. W. Swanston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. E. Nave.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nave, L.E., Walters, B.F., Hofmeister, K.L. et al. The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration. New Forests 50, 115–137 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9655-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9655-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation