Submitted as: development and technical paper 27 Jan 2021

Submitted as: development and technical paper | 27 Jan 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

Accounting for forest management in the estimation of forest carbon balance using the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS (v4.0, r9333): Implementation and evaluation of simulations for Europe

Mats Lindeskog1, Fredrik Lagergren1, Benjamin Smith1,2, and Anja Rammig3 Mats Lindeskog et al.
  • 1Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sweden
  • 2Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia
  • 3TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany

Abstract. Global forests are the main component of the land carbon sink, which acts as a partial buffer to CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Dynamic vegetation models offer an approach to making projections of the development of forest carbon sink capacity in a future climate. Forest management capabilities in dynamic vegetation models are important to include the effects of age and species structure and wood harvest on carbon stocks and carbon storage potential. This article describes the introduction of a forest management module in the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS. Different age- and species-structure setup strategies and harvest alternatives are introduced. The model is used to represent current European forests and an automated harvest strategy is applied. Modelled carbon stocks and fluxes are evaluated against observed data at the continent and country levels. Including wood harvest in simulations increases the total European carbon sink by 32 % in 1991–2015 and improves the fit to the reported European carbon sink, growing stock and net annual increment (NAI). Growing stock (156 m3 ha−1) and NAI (5.4 m3 ha−1 y−1) densities in 2010 are close to reported values, while the carbon sink density in 2000–2007 (0.085 kgC m−2 y−1) is 63 % of reported values. The fit of modelled values and observations for individual European countries vary, but NAI is generally closer to observations when including wood harvest in simulations.

Mats Lindeskog et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-440', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2020-440', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Apr 2021
  • AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-440', Mats Lindeskog, 18 May 2021

Mats Lindeskog et al.

Mats Lindeskog et al.


Total article views: 556 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
340 202 14 556 6 12
  • HTML: 340
  • PDF: 202
  • XML: 14
  • Total: 556
  • BibTeX: 6
  • EndNote: 12
Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jan 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jan 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 464 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 463 with geography defined and 1 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
Latest update: 13 Jun 2021
Short summary
Forests play an important role in the global carbon cycle and for carbon storage. In Europe, forests are highly managed. To understand how management influences carbon storage in European forests, we implement detailed forest management into the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS. We test the model by comparing model output to typical forestry measures such as growing stock and harvest data for different countries in Europe.