Accounting for forest management in the estimation of forest carbon balance using the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS (v4.0, r9710): Implementation and evaluation of simulations for Europe

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 projecting the development of forest carbon sink capacity in a future climate. Forest management capabilities are important to include in dynamic vegetation models to account for the effects of age and species structure and wood harvest on carbon stocks and carbon storage potential. This article describes the implementation of a forest management module containing even-age and clear-cut and uneven-age and continuous-cover management alternatives in the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS. Different age and species structure initialisation strategies and harvest alternatives are introduced. The model is applied at stand and European scales. Different management alternatives are applied in simulations of European beech (Fagus sylvaticus) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) even-aged monoculture stands in central Europe and evaluated against above-ground standing stem volume and harvested volume data from long-term experimental plots. At the European scale, an automated thinning and clear-cut strategy is applied. Modelled carbon stocks and fluxes are evaluated against reported data at the continent and country levels. Including wood harvest in regrowth forests increases the simulated total European carbon sink by 32g% in 1991-2015 and improves the fit to the reported European carbon sink, growing stock, and net annual increment (NAI). Growing stock (156gm3gha-1) and NAI (5.4gm3gha1gyr1) densities in 2010 are close to reported values, while the carbon sink density in 2000-2007 (0.085gkggCgm-2gyr1) equates to 63g% of reported values, most likely reflecting uncertainties in carbon fluxes from soil given the unaccounted for forest land-use history in the simulations. The fit of modelled and reported values for individual European countries varies, but NAI is generally closer to reported values when including wood harvest in simulations.