Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size (original) (raw)

References

  1. Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011)
    Article CAS ADS Google Scholar
  2. Medvigy, D., Wofsy, S. C., Munger, J. W., Hollinger, D. Y. & Moorcroft, P. R. Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: Ecosystem Demography model version 2. J. Geophys. Res. 114, G01002 (2009)
    ADS Google Scholar
  3. Caspersen, J. P., Vanderwel, M. C., Cole, W. G. & Purves, D. W. How stand productivity results from size- and competition-dependent growth and mortality. PLoS ONE 6, e28660 (2011)
    CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  4. Kutsch, W. L. et al. in Old-Growth Forests: Function, Fate and Value (eds Wirth, C., Gleixner, G. & Heimann, M. ) 57–79 (Springer, 2009)
  5. Meinzer F. C., Lachenbruch B., Dawson T. E., eds. Size- and Age-Related Changes in Tree Structure and Function (Springer, 2011)
  6. Enquist, B. J., West, G. B., Charnov, E. L. & Brown, J. H. Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature 401, 907–911 (1999)
    CAS ADS Google Scholar
  7. Sillett, S. C. et al. Increasing wood production through old age in tall trees. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 976–994 (2010)
    Google Scholar
  8. Mencuccini, M. et al. Size-mediated ageing reduces vigour in trees. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1183–1190 (2005)
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Drake, J. E., Raetz, L. M., Davis, S. C. & DeLucia, E. H. Hydraulic limitation not declining nitrogen availability causes the age-related photosynthetic decline in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Plant Cell Environ. 33, 1756–1766 (2010)
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Ryan, M. G., Binkley, D. & Fownes, J. H. Age-related decline in forest productivity: pattern and process. Adv. Ecol. Res. 27, 213–262 (1997)
    Google Scholar
  11. Thomas, S. C. in Size- and Age-Related Changes in Tree Structure and Function (eds Meinzer, F. C., Lachenbruch, B. & Dawson, T. E. ) 33–64 (Springer, 2011)
    Google Scholar
  12. Thomas, H. Senescence, ageing and death of the whole plant. New Phytol. 197, 696–711 (2013)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Carey, E. V., Sala, A., Keane, R. & Callaway, R. M. Are old forests underestimated as global carbon sinks? Glob. Change Biol. 7, 339–344 (2001)
    ADS Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, N. G., Buckley, T. N. & Tissue, D. T. Capacity of old trees to respond to environmental change. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 50, 1355–1364 (2008)
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Piper, F. I. & Fajardo, A. No evidence of carbon limitation with tree age and height in Nothofagus pumilio under Mediterranean and temperate climate conditions. Ann. Bot. 108, 907–917 (2011)
    PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  16. Weiner, J. & Thomas, S. C. The nature of tree growth and the “age-related decline in forest productivity”. Oikos 94, 374–376 (2001)
    Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, J. C., Chojnacky, D. C., Heath, L. S. & Birdsey, R. A. Comprehensive Database of Diameter-based Biomass Regressions for North American Tree Species General Technical Report NE-319, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/6725 (USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 2004)
    Google Scholar
  18. Niklas, K. J. & Enquist, B. J. Canonical rules for plant organ biomass partitioning and annual allocation. Am. J. Bot. 89, 812–819 (2002)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, S. C. Photosynthetic capacity peaks at intermediate size in temperate deciduous trees. Tree Physiol. 30, 555–573 (2010)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  20. Steppe, K., Niinemets, Ü. & Teskey, R. O. in Size- and Age-Related Changes in Tree Structure and Function (eds Meinzer, F. C., Lachenbruch, B. & Dawson, T. E. ) 235–253 (Springer, 2011)
    Google Scholar
  21. Gilmore, D. W. & Seymour, R. S. Alternative measures of stem growth efficiency applied to Abies balsamea from four canopy positions in central Maine, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 84, 209–218 (1996)
    Google Scholar
  22. Kaufmann, M. R. & Ryan, M. G. Physiographic, stand, and environmental effects on individual tree growth and growth efficiency in subalpine forests. Tree Physiol. 2, 47–59 (1986)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  23. Coomes, D. A., Holdaway, R. J., Kobe, R. K., Lines, E. R. & Allen, R. B. A general integrative framework for modelling woody biomass production and carbon sequestration rates in forests. J. Ecol. 100, 42–64 (2012)
    CAS Google Scholar
  24. Binkley, D. A hypothesis about the interaction of tree dominance and stand production through stand development. For. Ecol. Manage. 190, 265–271 (2004)
    Google Scholar
  25. Pretzsch, H. & Biber, P. A re-evaluation of Reineke’s rule and stand density index. For. Sci. 51, 304–320 (2005)
    Google Scholar
  26. Kashian, D. M., Turner, M. G., Romme, W. H. & Lorimer, C. G. Variability and convergence in stand structural development on a fire-dominated subalpine landscape. Ecology 86, 643–654 (2005)
    Google Scholar
  27. Munné-Bosch, S. Do perennials really senesce? Trends Plant Sci. 13, 216–220 (2008)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  28. Jump, A. S., Hunt, J. M. & Peñuelas, J. Rapid climate change-related growth decline at the southern range edge of Fagus sylvatica. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2163–2174 (2006)
    ADS Google Scholar
  29. Lindenmayer, D. B., Laurance, W. F. & Franklin, J. F. Global decline in large old trees. Science 338, 1305–1306 (2012)
    CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  30. Enquist, B. J., West, G. B. & Brown, J. H. Extensions and evaluations of a general quantitative theory of forest structure and dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7046–7051 (2009)
    CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  31. Condit, R. et al. Tropical forest dynamics across a rainfall gradient and the impact of an El Niño dry season. J. Trop. Ecol. 20, 51–72 (2004)
    Google Scholar
  32. Condit, R. et al. The importance of demographic niches to tree diversity. Science 313, 98–101 (2006)
    CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  33. Rüger, N., Berger, U., Hubbell, S. P., Vieilledent, G. & Condit, R. Growth strategies of tropical tree species: disentangling light and size effects. PLoS ONE 6, e25330 (2011)
    ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  34. Chave, J. et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145, 87–99 (2005)
    CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  35. Sibly R. M., Brown J. H., Kodric-Brown A., eds. Metabolic Ecology: A Scaling Approach (John Wiley & Sons, 2012)
  36. Zanne, A. E. et al. Data from: Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. In Dryad Digital Data Repository, http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.234 (2009)
  37. Enquist, B. J. & Niklas, K. J. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 295, 1517–1520 (2002)
    CAS ADS PubMed Google Scholar
  38. Niklas, K. J. Plant allometry: is there a grand unifying theory? Biol. Rev. 79, 871–889 (2004)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  39. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H. & Teller, E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087–1092 (1953)
    CAS ADS Google Scholar
  40. Rüger, N., Huth, A., Hubbell, S. P. & Condit, R. Determinants of mortality across a tropical lowland rainforest community. Oikos 120, 1047–1056 (2011)
    Google Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2009)
  42. Hilborn, R. & Mangel, M. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data (Princeton Univ. Press, 1997)
    Google Scholar
  43. Chambers, J. Q., Dos Santos, J., Ribeiro, R. J. & Higuchi, N. Tree damage, allometric relationships, and above-ground net primary production in central Amazon forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 152, 73–84 (2001)
    Google Scholar
  44. Baskerville, G. L. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can. J. For. Res. 2, 49–53 (1972)
    Google Scholar
  45. Canham, C. D. et al. Neighborhood analyses of canopy tree competition along environmental gradients in New England forests. Ecol. Appl. 16, 540–554 (2006)
    PubMed Google Scholar
  46. Coates, K. D., Canham, C. D. & LePage, P. T. Above- versus below-ground competitive effects and responses of a guild of temperate tree species. J. Ecol. 97, 118–130 (2009)
    Google Scholar
  47. Pretzsch, H. & Biber, P. Size-symmetric versus size-asymmetric competition and growth partitioning among trees in forest stands along an ecological gradient in central Europe. Can. J. For. Res. 40, 370–384 (2010)
    Google Scholar
  48. Gómez-Aparicio, L., García-Valdés, R., Ruíz-Benito, P. & Zavala, M. A. Disentangling the relative importance of climate, size and competition on tree growth in Iberian forests: implications for forest management under global change. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2400–2414 (2011)
    ADS Google Scholar
  49. Das, A. The effect of size and competition on tree growth rate in old-growth coniferous forests. Can. J. For. Res. 42, 1983–1995 (2012)
    Google Scholar
  50. Zianis, D., Muukkonen, P., Makipaa, R. & Mencuccini, M. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fennica Monogr. 4, 1–63 (2005)
    Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the hundreds of people who have established and maintained the forest plots and their associated databases; M. G. Ryan for comments on the manuscript; C. D. Canham and T. Hart for supplying data; C. D. Canham for discussions and feedback; J. S. Baron for hosting our workshops; and Spain’s Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAGRAMA) for granting access to the Spanish Forest Inventory Data. Our analyses were supported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis, the USGS Ecosystems and Climate and Land Use Change mission areas, the Smithsonian Institution Global Earth Observatory—Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS), and a University of Nebraska-Lincoln Program of Excellence in Population Biology Postdoctoral Fellowship (to N.G.B.). In addition, X.W. was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31370444) and State Key Laboratory of Forest and Soil Ecology (LFSE2013-11). Data collection was funded by a broad range of organizations including the USGS, the CTFS, the US National Science Foundation, the Andrews LTER (NSF-LTER DEB-0823380), the US National Park Service, the US Forest Service (USFS), the USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, MAGRAMA, the Council of Agriculture of Taiwan, the National Science Council of Taiwan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Landcare Research and the National Vegetation Survey Database (NVS) of New Zealand, the French Fund for the Global Environment and Fundación ProYungas. This paper is a contribution from the Western Mountain Initiative, a USGS global change research project. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USA government.

Author information

Author notes

  1. N. G. Beckman & N. Rüger
    Present address: Present addresses: Mathematical Biosciences Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA (N.G.B.); German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany (N.R.).,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Three Rivers, 93271, California, USA
    N. L. Stephenson & A. J. Das
  2. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa, Republic of Panama,
    R. Condit, N. Rüger & S. P. Hubbell
  3. School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 68588, Nebraska, USA
    S. E. Russo & N. G. Beckman
  4. Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3121, Australia,
    P. J. Baker
  5. Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EA, UK,
    D. A. Coomes
  6. Department of Geography, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK,
    E. R. Lines
  7. School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia,
    W. K. Morris
  8. Spezielle Botanik und Funktionelle Biodiversität, Universität Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany,
    N. Rüger
  9. Jardín Botánico de Medellín, Calle 73, No. 51D-14, Medellín, Colombia,
    E. Álvarez
  10. Instituto de Ecología Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, 4107 Yerba Buena, Tucumán, Argentina,
    C. Blundo, H. R. Grau & A. Malizia
  11. Department of National Parks, Research Office, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Bangkok 10900, Thailand,
    S. Bunyavejchewin
  12. Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, Buea, Southwest Province, Cameroon,
    G. Chuyong
  13. Smithsonian Institution Global Earth Observatory—Center for Tropical Forest Science, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013, USA,
    S. J. Davies & D. Kenfack
  14. Departamento de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia
    Á. Duque
  15. Wildlife Conservation Society, Kinshasa/Gombe, Democratic Republic of the Congo
    C. N. Ewango & J.-R. Makana
  16. Unité Mixte de Recherche—Peuplements Végétaux et Bioagresseurs en Milieu Tropical, Université de la Réunion/CIRAD, 97410 Saint Pierre, France,
    O. Flores
  17. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, Washington, USA
    J. F. Franklin
  18. State Key Laboratory of Forest and Soil Ecology, Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, 110164, China
    Z. Hao & X. Wang
  19. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 97331, Oregon, USA
    M. E. Harmon & R. J. Pabst
  20. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, 90095, California, USA
    S. P. Hubbell
  21. Department of Life Science, Tunghai University, Taichung City, 40704, Taiwan
    Y. Lin
  22. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, 4600 San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina,
    L. R. Malizia
  23. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, ChatuChak Bangkok 10900, Thailand,
    N. Pongpattananurak
  24. Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, Taipei 10066, Taiwan,
    S.-H. Su
  25. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan,
    I-F. Sun
  26. Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuching, 93660, Sarawak, Malaysia
    S. Tan
  27. Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 97331, Oregon, USA
    D. Thomas
  28. US Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Arcata, 95521, California, USA
    P. J. van Mantgem
  29. Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand,
    S. K. Wiser
  30. Department of Life Sciences, Forest Ecology and Restoration Group, University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, 28805 Madrid, Spain,
    M. A. Zavala

Authors

  1. N. L. Stephenson
  2. A. J. Das
  3. R. Condit
  4. S. E. Russo
  5. P. J. Baker
  6. N. G. Beckman
  7. D. A. Coomes
  8. E. R. Lines
  9. W. K. Morris
  10. N. Rüger
  11. E. Álvarez
  12. C. Blundo
  13. S. Bunyavejchewin
  14. G. Chuyong
  15. S. J. Davies
  16. Á. Duque
  17. C. N. Ewango
  18. O. Flores
  19. J. F. Franklin
  20. H. R. Grau
  21. Z. Hao
  22. M. E. Harmon
  23. S. P. Hubbell
  24. D. Kenfack
  25. Y. Lin
  26. J.-R. Makana
  27. A. Malizia
  28. L. R. Malizia
  29. R. J. Pabst
  30. N. Pongpattananurak
  31. S.-H. Su
  32. I-F. Sun
  33. S. Tan
  34. D. Thomas
  35. P. J. van Mantgem
  36. X. Wang
  37. S. K. Wiser
  38. M. A. Zavala

Contributions

N.L.S. and A.J.D. conceived the study with feedback from R.C. and D.A.C., N.L.S., A.J.D., R.C. and S.E.R. wrote the manuscript. R.C. devised the main analytical approach and wrote the computer code. N.L.S., A.J.D., R.C., S.E.R., P.J.B., N.G.B., D.A.C., E.R.L., W.K.M. and N.R. performed analyses. N.L.S., A.J.D., R.C., S.E.R., P.J.B., D.A.C., E.R.L., W.K.M., E.Á., C.B., S.B., G.C., S.J.D., Á.D., C.N.E., O.F., J.F.F., H.R.G., Z.H., M.E.H., S.P.H., D.K., Y.L., J.-R.M., A.M., L.R.M., R.J.P., N.P., S.-H.S., I-F.S., S.T., D.T., P.J.v.M., X.W., S.K.W. and M.A.Z. supplied data and sources of allometric equations appropriate to their data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toN. L. Stephenson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Fitted model parameters for each species have been deposited in USGS’s ScienceBase at http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7JS9NFM.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Summary of model fits for tree mass growth rates.

Bars show the percentage of species with mass growth rates that increase with tree mass for each bin; black shading indicates percentage significant at P ≤ 0.05. Tree masses increase with bin number. a, Species fitted with one bin (165 species); b, Species fitted with two bins (139 species); c, Species fitted with three bins (56 species); and d, Species fitted with four bins (43 species).

Extended Data Figure 2 Log–log model fits of mass growth rates for 381 tree species, by continent.

Trees with growth rates ≤ 0 were dropped from the analysis, reducing the number of species meeting our threshold sample size for analysis. a, Africa (33 species); b, Asia (123 species); c, Australasia (22 species); d, Central and South America (73 species); e, Europe (41 species); and f, North America (89 species). Trunk diameters are approximate values for reference, based on the average diameters of trees of a given mass.

Extended Data Figure 3 Aboveground mass growth rates for 41 tree species in the absence of competition.

The ‘+’ or ‘−’ symbol preceding each species code indicates, respectively, species with mass growth rates that increased continuously with tree size or species with mass growth rates that declined in the largest trees. Sources of the diameter growth equations used to calculate mass growth were: a, ref. 45; b, ref. 46; c, ref. 48; d, ref. 47; and e, ref. 49. ABAM, Abies amabilis; ABBA, Abies balsamea; ABCO, Abies concolor; ABLA, Abies lasiocarpa; ABMA, Abies magnifica; ACRU, Acer rubrum; ACSA, Acer saccharum; BEAL, Betula alleghaniensis; BELE, Betula lenta; BEPA, Betula papyrifera; CADE, Calocedrus decurrens; CASA, Castanea sativa; FAGR, Fagus grandifolia; FASY, Fagus sylvatica; FRAM, Fraxinus americana; JUTH, Juniperus thurifera; PIAB, Picea abies; PICO, Pinus contorta; PIHA, Pinus halepensis; PIHY, Picea hybrid (a complex of Picea glauca, P. sitchensis and P. engelmannii); PILA, Pinus lambertiana; PINI, Pinus nigra; PIPINA, Pinus pinaster; PIPINE, Pinus pinea; PIRU, Picea rubens; PIST, Pinus strobus; PISY, Pinus sylvestris; PIUN, Pinus uncinata; POBA, Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa; POTR, Populus tremuloides; PRSE, Prunus serotina; QUFA, Quercus faginea; QUIL, Quercus ilex; QUPE, Quercus petraea; QUPY, Quercus pyrenaica; QURO, Quercus robar; QURU, Quercus rubra; QUSU, Quercus suber; THPL, Thuja plicata; TSCA, Tsuga canadensis; and TSHE, Tsuga heterophylla.

Extended Data Figure 4 Residuals of predicted minus observed tree mass.

a, The allometric equation for moist tropical forests34—used for the majority of tree species—shows no evident systematic bias in predicted aboveground dry mass, M, relative to trunk diameter (n = 1,504 trees). b, In contrast, our simplest form of allometric equation—used for 22% of our species and here applied to nine temperate species—shows an apparent bias towards overestimating M for large trees (n = 1,358 trees). c, New allometries that we created for the nine temperate species removed the apparent bias in predicted M.

Extended Data Figure 5 Estimated mass growth rates of the nine temperate species of Extended Data Fig. 4.

Growth was estimated using the simplest form of allometric model [log(M) = a + _b_log(D)] (a) and our allometric models fitted with piecewise linear regression (b). Regardless of the allometric model form, all nine species show increasing G in the largest trees.

Supplementary information

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stephenson, N., Das, A., Condit, R. et al. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size.Nature 507, 90–93 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12914

Download citation