Forest carbon can recover on a similar trajectory while the ecosystem underneath takes a different path
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
Researchers compared secondary and planted subalpine forests across a recovery chronosequence, separating total above-ground tree carbon into ectomycorrhizal (EcM) and arbuscular-mycorrhizal (AM) components and testing stand structure, functional composition and soil variables. Total tree carbon and EcM-associated carbon increased with recovery stage in both strategies, with no significant strategy-by-stage interaction for either; AM-associated carbon did show a significant interaction. Secondary forests were more strongly associated with mycorrhizal dominance and functional reassembly, while planted forests were more strongly associated with stand structure and soil conditions.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
The useful result is the null as much as the difference: two restoration approaches can converge on a similar headline carbon trajectory while rebuilding different ecological machinery. Carbon stock alone can therefore hide differences in composition, structure and belowground relationships that may matter for durability and future function.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
This is a chronosequence and structural-equation analysis rather than a randomized restoration experiment, so inferred pathways remain observational. The findings concern above-ground tree carbon in one subalpine forest context and do not establish that secondary and planted forests are equivalent across biodiversity, soil carbon or long-term resilience.
SOURCE
Journal of Applied Ecology · Original evidence
View original evidence ↗
A subalpine forest chronosequence found similar total above-ground carbon recovery in secondary and planted forests, but the mycorrhizal, structural and soil pathways behind that recovery differed.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →