IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p4198-d1650193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomass Modeling in European Beech and Norway Spruce Plantations: An Opportunity to Enhance the Carbon Market and Climate Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Bohdan Konôpka

    (National Forest Centre, Forest Research Institute Zvolen, T.G. Masaryka 2175/22, SK-960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia
    Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Prague 6—Suchdol, CZ-165 21 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Jozef Pajtík

    (National Forest Centre, Forest Research Institute Zvolen, T.G. Masaryka 2175/22, SK-960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia)

  • Vladimír Šebeň

    (National Forest Centre, Forest Research Institute Zvolen, T.G. Masaryka 2175/22, SK-960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia)

Abstract

This study examines the differences in growth patterns, biomass accumulation, and carbon storage between planted European beech and Norway spruce in the Western Carpathians, Slovakia. Two approaches were used to analyze young forest trees and stands: destructive tree sampling and repetitive tree measurements. Biomass modeling was conducted for individual tree components and entire trees, demonstrating that stem diameter and height were strong predictors of biomass. Notably, beeches exhibited greater tree biomass than spruces when analyzed at the same stem diameter, whereas the opposite trend was observed when tree height was used as the predictor. At the stand level, biomass modeling incorporated the mean diameter, mean height, or stand age. Two primary tree components were analyzed: woody parts, which store carbon long term, and foliage, which stores carbon for shorter periods. Stand age emerged as the most reliable predictor, providing real-time estimates of biomass and carbon storage. At a maximum modeled stand age of 12 years, beech biomass stock was 18 Mg ha −1 , compared to 58 Mg ha −1 for spruce (uniform tree spacing of 2.0 × 2.0 m for both species was considered). Correspondingly, carbon storage values were 9 Mg ha −1 for beech and 29 Mg ha −1 for spruce, demonstrating a threefold difference in favor of spruce. The study also examined the biomass transition to necromass, specifically foliage litter loss. Over 12 years, spruce stands shed 10.3 Mg ha −1 of needle litter, while beech stands lost 5.4 Mg ha −1 . A 12-year-old beech stand fixed-carbon (necromass in form of foliage litter was not included) equivalent to about 30 Mg CO 2 per ha, while a spruce stand of the same age fixed nearly 107 Mg CO 2 per ha. The carbon storage in live trees translates into financial values about EUR 2000 per ha for beech and over EUR 7000 per ha for spruce, highlighting an economic advantage for spruce in carbon sequestration markets as part of climate sustainability efforts. However, in practice, these differences could be partly reduced through denser (more than double) planting of beech compared to spruce.

Suggested Citation

  • Bohdan Konôpka & Jozef Pajtík & Vladimír Šebeň, 2025. "Biomass Modeling in European Beech and Norway Spruce Plantations: An Opportunity to Enhance the Carbon Market and Climate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:4198-:d:1650193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4198/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4198/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:4198-:d:1650193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.