# Carbon Emissions from Forest Disturbances Under Global Change

Sergio De-Miguel, Abdi Birhanu, Imma Oliveras Menor, Davide Ascoli, Gian

Luca Spadoni, Maitane Erdozain

► To cite this version:

Sergio De-Miguel, Abdi Birhanu, Imma Oliveras Menor, Davide Ascoli, Gian Luca Spadoni, et al. Carbon Emissions from Forest Disturbances Under Global Change. Current Forestry Reports, 2025, 11 (1), pp.29. 10.1007/s40725-025-00257-5. hal-05488524

HAL Id: hal-05488524

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05488524v1

Submitted on 2 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Carbon Emissions from Forest Disturbances Under Global Change

Sergio de-Miguel<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> · Abdi Birhanu<fnref n="1" /> · Imma Oliveras Menor<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Davide Ascoli<fnref n="5" /> · Gian Luca Spadoni<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" /> · Maitane Erdozain<fnref n="2" />

Received: 7 October 2025 / Accepted: 8 October 2025 / Published online: 9 December 2025
© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

**Purpose of Review** Forests have a key role in global carbon dynamics, acting as both carbon sinks and sources. Yet, the intensification of global change-related natural and anthropogenic forest disturbances such as forest fires, deforestation, management practices, and biotic agents, among others, have the potential to compromise their carbon sink function. Here, we synthesize the current understanding of forest disturbances' impact on forest carbon dynamics under varying spatial, temporal, and ecological contexts globally. Thereby, our goal is to address ongoing uncertainties around the pattern, magnitude, persistence, and variability of carbon emissions linked to forest disturbances and to identify underrepresented regions, disturbance types, or forest ecosystems that remain understudied.

**Recent Findings** We present a synthesis of previous research from 2020 until early 2025. After screening 519 records, 90 studies were included for full synthesis following the PRISMA guidelines and PICOS framework. Data were extracted on forest type, carbon pool, disturbance type, geographic location, and study design. Recent studies have dominantly quantified carbon emissions from high-severity disturbances such as forest fires and deforestation. These disturbances have significant carbon impacts and have been amplifying under climate change. Furthermore, evidence from studies shows that compound disturbances often interact synergistically. However, the carbon impacts of low-intensity disturbances such as forest degradation, selective harvesting, or compound disturbances such as drought-fire interactions remain limited and fragmented. Moreover, the literature is biased toward aboveground pool estimates, with limited studies quantifying Total Ecosystem Carbon (TEC), as well as toward a remarkable underrepresentation of the Global South, with most research focused on areas and countries from the Global North.

**Summary** This review identifies key gaps in the literature, particularly regarding underrepresented geographic regions, compound disturbance effects, and the integration of multiple carbon pools in carbon estimates. We conclude by offering recommendations to address these gaps, aiming to improve carbon flux estimates and support adaptive forest management.

**Keywords** Forest disturbance · Carbon emission · Carbon dynamics · Climate change · Fire · Land use change

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Introduction

Forest ecosystems cover approximately one-third of Earth's land surface and play a crucial role in the global carbon cycle through their dual function as carbon sinks and sources [1, 2]. Annually, the global forest sink is at 3.6 ± 0.4 Pg C yr⁻<fnref n="1" /> in the 1990s and 2000s and 3.5 ± 0.4 Pg C yr⁻<fnref n="1" /> in the 2010s, according to [3]. Estimated carbon stock changes of live woody biomass from 2000 to 2019 have shown that live biomass has removed 4.9–5.5 Pg C yr⁻<fnref n="1" /> from the atmosphere [4]. Despite their global importance as carbon sinks, forest ecosystems are increasingly threatened by both natural and anthropogenic disturbances that can alter their functioning. Though forests have been affected and shaped by

<footnote>Sergio de-Miguel
sergio.demiguel@udl.cat</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences and Engineering, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia, Solsona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ AMAP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Torino, Grugliasco, Italy</footnote>
these disturbances over time, the intensity, frequency, severity, and spatial extent of these disturbances has amplified under global change [5–7]. As an example, two-thirds of the global forest sink has been counteracted by tropical deforestation (2.2 ± 0.5 Pg C yr⁻¹ in 1990–2019) and further intensification of forest disturbance regimes [3]. Globally, gross emissions from disturbances account for 4.6 ± 0.1 Pg C yr⁻¹ effectively reducing the net carbon sink of live biomass to just 0.2 to 0.9 Pg C yr⁻¹.

The intensification of human-driven disturbances can transform forests from a carbon sink to a source [8, 9]. For instance, the IPCC report [6] showed that land use changes caused about one-quarter of the global greenhouse gas emissions between 2007 and 2016. Land-use change, deforestation, and forest degradation in the tropics are estimated to have emitted approximately 1.4 Pg C yr⁻¹ between 1990 and 2010 (~15% of anthropogenic carbon emissions) [10] and 1.1 Pg C yr⁻¹ (~10% of total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions) between 2011 and 2020 [11, 12]. Another study [13] reported that the world’s tropical forests represent a net carbon source, releasing 0.40 ± 0.09 Pg C yr⁻¹, this net emission stemming from total carbon losses of 0.86 ± 0.08 Pg C yr⁻¹ primarily due to deforestation and degradation or disturbance accounting for 68.9% of the total losses. On the other hand, more recent research found that tropical deforestation and degradation emit approximately 2.2 ± 0.5 Pg C yr⁻¹, this being offset by forests regrowth, making tropical forests almost neutral to small net sink or source between (−0.1 and 0.6 Pg C yr⁻¹ in 1990–2019), although this balance remains vulnerable to disturbance regime intensified by climate change [3].

In addition to human-driven disturbances, climate-induced disturbances are also intensifying, especially in temperate and boreal forests, leading to increased carbon emissions [5, 7]. In extratropical regions (i.e., temperate and boreal), fire-related carbon emissions increased by 60% globally between 2001 and 2023. This trend shows that climatic factors play a larger role in driving fires in extratropical areas, whereas human activities remain the dominant driver in tropical regions [14, 15]. These biome-specific patterns show that both the type of disturbances and the local context might affect forest carbon dynamics. Moreover, the feedback loops generated by these disturbances further reinforce climate change, consequently increasing the likelihood and severity of climate-induced disturbances [14, 16]. Moreover, the compounded effects of interacting forest disturbances (e.g., bark beetle outbreaks × fire, fire × deforestation) further complicate forest carbon dynamics, creating an increasingly complex and interdependent system in which disturbance regimes both respond to and drive climate change [7, 17–19]. These findings show how both human- and climate-induced disturbances affect forest

carbon dynamics, challenging the traditional focus on deforestation by revealing the often-overlooked contribution of other disturbances to long-term carbon loss.

However, the long-term carbon impacts of these disturbances remain debated. Some studies highlight forest resilience, showing that forest ecosystems can recover their carbon stocks and maintain overall carbon stability through post-disturbance regeneration (particularly following low-severity wildfires and low-impact harvesting), provided that the land use remains unchanged [20]. Nevertheless, growing evidence shows that the increasing frequency and severity of forest fires under climate change can surpass the recovery potential of forests, leading to long-term carbon losses and potentially shifting forests from carbon sinks to sources [21]. Similarly, the carbon impacts of forest degradation remain uncertain and are often underreported in national greenhouse gas inventories due to definitional ambiguity, inconsistent methodologies, and challenges in quantifying subtle but cumulative changes over time [22]. The impacts of forest management practices also raise contrasting viewpoints about carbon removal through harvesting and carbon sequestration through forest regeneration. There are studies that claim that the effects of management on forest regeneration allow the forest carbon stock and timber harvests to increase simultaneously [23]. Harvesting under sustainable forest management can provide climatic benefits by enabling the substitution of carbon-intensive products and allowing forest regrowth that captures back the released carbon [24–26]. However, other studies show that the removal of biomass from forests can cause carbon losses that may take a long time to recover, as recovery is heavily influenced by the type of silviculture, extent of the disturbances along with forest types and environmental conditions [18, 27, 28]. The expectation of complete regrowth holds a high degree of uncertainty, especially under global change, where disturbances have a significant role in forest carbon dynamics [7, 17, 29].

Building upon this context, this review aims to systematically assess and synthesize studies on carbon dynamics under different disturbances scenarios, published between 2020 and the beginning of 2025. We aim to clarify the carbon emission impacts of disturbances by synthesizing studies under varying spatial, temporal, and ecological contexts. By doing this, we address uncertainties surrounding the persistence, magnitude, and variability of carbon emissions linked to different types of natural and anthropogenic forest disturbances. The objectives of this review are threefold: (1) to identify which types of disturbances are most often assessed by forest carbon emission studies and how their impacts vary by forest biome, (2) to synthesise reported carbon emissions associated with forest disturbances and reveal prevailing patterns, (3) to highlight underrepresented
regions, disturbance types, or forest ecosystems where knowledge gaps persist and to make recommendations for future research and monitoring priorities. Ultimately, our goal is to establish an evidence-based scientific foundation to improve the global representation of disturbance-driven carbon fluxes while informing climate mitigation strategies.

# Materials and Methods

## Search Strategy

This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement (PRISMA) [30] (Fig. 1). The literature search was conducted using two major databases (Scopus and Web of Science), which provide structured, advanced, and replicable search capabilities, making them appropriate for systematic synthesis under PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy was developed around four thematic categories: “carbon metrics”, “forest disturbances”, “global change”, and “forest ecosystem”. Keywords and synonyms were then identified under each theme and combined with Boolean operators (AND, OR) as shown in Table 1. To ensure consistency and sensitivity across databases, syntax was tailored to each database accordingly: TITLE-ABS-KEY was used for Scopus, and Topic (TS) for Web of Science. In addition, through a citation network analysis, relevant articles that were not obtained by the bibliographic search were included. The publication date was restricted from January 1, 2020, to March 15, 2025.

The literature search was limited to 2020 to 2025 to capture recent advances while complementing earlier review findings that covered pre-2020, also keeping search results tractable given the vast volume of forest disturbance-related research on carbon emissions published over the last decades. Although the included studies publication window was mostly limited to the last 5 years, many studies analysed long-term datasets. Following the execution of the search, all retrieved records were exported to the Covidence tool, which was used to manage the systematic review process: (1) management of the search results, (2) title and abstract screening, (3) full text review, and (4) data extraction.

## Eligibility Criteria

After exporting and removing duplicates, studies were screened for relevance using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design) framework [31–33] (Fig. 1). The criteria were structured

as follows: Population (P) forest ecosystems; Intervention (I) forest disturbances; Comparator (C) not applicable; Outcome (O) carbon impacts; Study Design (S) empirical and analytical studies, including observational, experimental, modelling, and remote sensing approaches are included (Table 2). Screening was conducted in two stages: (1) title and abstract review and screening, and (2) full-text review for studies that met initial inclusion criteria or required further assessment. Studies that did not meet the PICOS criteria were excluded. Additional inclusion criteria included: (i) primary research articles and relevant reviews; (ii) written in English; and (iii) published from 2020 onwards. Based on these predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 studies that met all criteria underwent full text review and data extraction for the final synthesis.

## Data Extraction

Data extraction was conducted systematically using predefined attributes to capture both descriptive and quantitative results. Relevant articles were reviewed manually using spreadsheets and Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/) simultaneously. For each study, the following information related to forest disturbances and carbon-related outcomes was recorded: authors, title, year of publication, source, document type, country, biome, disturbance type, carbon pool and metric reported, methodology, study design used, and spatial and temporal scales.

## Synthesis Methods

We used a mixed-methods synthesis approach to organize and report the findings. First, all included studies were grouped by disturbance type (e.g., fire, deforestation, drought) and biome (tropical, temperate, boreal) to allow for thematic comparison. Data were extracted into structured matrices capturing carbon metrics (e.g., aboveground carbon (AGC) loss, soil organic carbon (SOC) loss, total emissions), and spatial and temporal dimensions, among others. Quantitative findings were synthesized using a descriptive narrative, summarizing emission ranges and biome-specific patterns where applicable. The qualitative synthesis examined cross-study patterns, disturbance-specific trends, and temporal dynamics of carbon flux. Special attention was given to understudied carbon pools (e.g., SOC, peat carbon) and to the identification of delayed or compound disturbance effects to identify gaps in the literature. Due to heterogeneity in study designs, carbon metrics, and spatial-temporal scales, a meta-analysis was not feasible.
Identification of studies via databases and registers

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart showing the study selection process [30]</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Keywords and syntax used for the literature search conducted within this study</caption><thead><tr><th>No</th><th>Theme</th><th>Search query</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Carbon metrics</td><td>TITLE ("carbon emission*" OR "GHG emission*" OR "forest carbon emission*" OR "CO2 emission*" OR "carbon release*" OR "carbon dynamics*" OR "carbon loss*" OR "carbon cycle*" OR "biomass change*" OR "carbon stock*" OR "carbon pool*" OR "carbon flux*")</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Forest disturbances</td><td>TITLE-ABS-KEY ("forest disturbance*" OR "deforestation" OR "forest degradation" OR "forest management" OR "silviculture" OR "forest migration" OR "forest fire*" OR "wildfire*" OR "pest*" OR "drought" OR "storm*")</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Global change</td><td>TITLE-ABS-KEY ("land use change*" OR "climate change" OR "global change")</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Forest ecosystem</td><td>TITLE-ABS-KEY ("forest*")</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2** Criteria used for relevance assessment of selected papers according to the PICOS (i.e., Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, study Design) framework</caption><thead><tr><th>Component</th><th>Definition</th><th>Criteria</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Population</td><td>Forest ecosystem</td><td>Global forest (tropical, boreal, temperate)</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>Forest disturbances</td><td>Both natural and anthropogenic forest disturbances</td></tr><tr><td>Comparator</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>No comparator criteria are needed for inclusion.</td></tr><tr><td>Outcome</td><td>Carbon related effects</td><td>Studies must report an emission, change, loss, or release of carbon resulting from forest disturbances.</td></tr><tr><td>Study design</td><td>Empirical and analytical</td><td>Peer-reviewed articles, modelling, remote sensing, and reviews. Excluded non-peer-reviewed works (e.g., book chapters, editorials).</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Characterization of Reviewed Research

The included studies represent a broad but uneven geographical distribution (Fig. 2). Out of the 90 studies, 68 focused on specific countries, even though some studies were conducted in multiple countries. The remaining 22 studies covered broader spatial scales, including 15 at a global scale and 7 eco-regional or continental studies. Most of the country-specific studies were concentrated in North America. The United States, Canada, and China together accounted for more than half of nationally focused studies. Brazil and

Indonesia were the most represented countries among those hosting extensive tropical forests. Conversely, forests in Europe, Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of Oceania remain largely understudied. Despite this uneven distribution across countries, all three major forest biomes were quite evenly represented in the considered literature, with the tropical, temperate and boreal forest biomes being represented in 44, 40 and 28 studies, respectively.

In terms of spatial scales, the reviewed studies varied from local to global focus, with a balanced distribution across scales (Fig. 3). Forest fire-related studies were dominated

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Countries in grey had no studies.

<caption>**Fig. 2** Geographic distribution of included studies</caption>
Distribution of Spatial Scales Across Studies

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Spatial scale across studies. Local: site/landscape-level; Regional: subnational or multi-site within one country; National: country scale; Continental: multiple countries within a continent; Global: worldwide coverage</figcaption></figure>

by national and regional scales (n=10 each), while defor-
estation studies covered a broader range of scales. In con-
trast, studies on disturbances such as harvesting, windthrow,
biotic factors and drought focused on smaller scales, with
few global-scale studies represented.

When categorised by forest disturbances, forest fires
emerged as the most frequently studied disturbance, fol-
lowed by deforestation. Forest fires were more preva-
lent in boreal and temperate regions, whereas research
in tropical forests tended to focus on deforestation and
degradation (Fig. 4). Only a small number of studies
addressed other types of disturbances.

In this review carbon pools are defined as follows: AGC refers to living aboveground biomass, SOC refers to organic carbon contained in soil profile, BGC refers to roots or belowground biomass, and TEC is the sum of all the carbon pools. The review also revealed an uneven representation of measured carbon pools (Fig. 5). Most studies, regardless of disturbance type, focused mainly on AGC and SOC measurements, with limited attention to belowground carbon (BGC) and detrital carbon pools (Fig. 5). Only 8 studies measured TEC, while another 7 did not specify the carbon pool measured, mostly those examining carbon fluxes.

Carbon Emissions from Forest Disturbances
Under Global Change

Forest disturbances, both human- and climate-induced, have substantial impacts on forest carbon dynamics, as shown across the reviewed studies. Human footprint expansion led to 20 Pg C of AGC loss between 2010 and 2018 globally, with tropical and subtropical biomes undergoing the most severe losses, especially in the Global South [34]. Global forest carbon sink was stable at 3.5 Pg C yr⁻¹ from 1990s to 2010s. However, this stability is offset due to intensifying disturbances such as degradation and deforestation. After accounting for disturbance-related emissions, the global forest carbon sink progressively weakened during the 2000s and 2010s [3]. For instance, in the Amazon forest 6.3 Pg C were lost to disturbances between 1996 and 2017, with a net loss of ~5 Pg C representing 2% of global carbon emissions [35]. Deforestation and degradation in the tropics remain high with a recent increasing trend in some regions. It is estimated that gross AGC emissions from deforestation was 10,521 Tg C and degradation 2,916 Tg C between 1984 and 2018 [36]. The following section provides a disturbance-specific assessment of forest carbon impacts, while quantitative carbon responses to disturbances are summarized in Table 3.

Forest Fires

Forest fires are one of the major disturbances affecting for-
est carbon dynamics worldwide. Across the reviewed stud-
ies, wildfires consistently caused significant AGC losses,
with several studies also reporting substantial belowground
impacts, especially in high-latitude and peatland forest
ecosystems [37–39]. For example, in terms of direct car-
bon emissions, forest fires in tropical dry forests (TDFs)
globally cause the emission of 259.6 Tg C yr⁻¹ on average,
with notable spatial variation across regions such as Mexico
and Central America [40]. Another study in North America
(USA and Canada) estimated that boreal forest fires burned
approximately 2.9 Mha annually, releasing 79 Tg C yr⁻¹ [41].
Wildfires are rapidly expanding in boreal forests. Although
they typically account for about 10% of global forest fire
CO₂ emissions, boreal fires contributed 23% (0.5 billion t C)
in 2021, the highest level recorded since 2000 [42]. A study
from southern Europe also estimated emissions from major
wildfire events in Portugal, highlighting substantial releases
of greenhouse gases, such emissions being greater than
Portuguese anthropogenic emissions over the entire year
2017 [43]. In the same vein [44], analysed satellite obser-
vations of large wildfires in southwestern Europe, show-
ing significant fire-driven greenhouse gas fluxes at regional
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Study frequency by forest biome (colors) and disturbance type. "Other" includes less frequent or uncertain reported disturbances such as changing rainfall patterns, fragmentation & edge effects, landslides, shifting cultivation, forest migration, and permafrost thaw</figcaption></figure>

scales. Together, these studies show that severe fire events in European ecosystems can contribute notably to atmospheric carbon dynamics. Prescribed fires have also been reported to result in carbon emissions [45], for instance, in the U.S. temperate hardwood forests, where repeated low-intensity prescribed fires were found to cause a 53% reduction in SOC [46]. However, this does not explicitly account for avoided emissions resulting from fire hazard mitigation as a result of prescribed burning. Nonetheless, over the long term, prescribed fire may enhance SOC retention by shifting carbon into slower-cycling pools.

Beyond direct AGC impacts, forest fires significantly affect BGC pools [47, 48]. Although most studies reported AGC as the primary source of immediate carbon emissions following forest fires, in certain ecosystems where data were available, SOC losses were higher in quantity and more persistent, especially in organic-rich soils. For example [41], showed that 90% of carbon emissions from the forest fires were from belowground (organic soil), and that these were

heavily influenced by burn depth and fire severity. A high-resolution case study in Russia assessing carbon losses from forest-peat fires found that soil carbon losses (mean 98 t C ha⁻¹) were approximately 50% larger than tree biomass losses (58.8 t C ha⁻¹) [49]. In the boreal forests of north-west Canada, wildfires caused immediate carbon emissions from the humus layer and delayed emissions from mineral soils. In forested permafrost areas, soils emitted three times more CO₂ than non-permafrost areas, highlighting their heightened and long-term vulnerability to carbon loss [50]. These belowground losses were hardly offset by post-fire regrowth and caused long-term carbon losses. Similarly, carbon recovery in boreal forests after wildfire, which can cause 60% TEC losses, takes up to 50–100 years due to the delayed releases from decomposition [42]. These findings show that while AGC losses are immediate and more visible, BGC dynamics, especially in peat-rich and permafrost regions, represent a greater and long-lasting source of carbon emissions. Geographic trends revealed contrasting
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Carbon pools measured by disturbance type (AGC: aboveground carbon; SOC: soil organic carbon; BGC: belowground carbon; TEC: total ecosystem carbon; HWP: harvested wood products).</figcaption></figure>

"Other" includes less frequent or uncertain reported disturbances such as changing rainfall patterns, fragmentation & edge effects, landslides, shifting cultivation, forest migration, and permafrost thaw

fire emission trajectories. For example, in mainland China, a study showed that CO₂ and CH₄ emissions declined by 48.4% and 88.9% after fire respectively, compared to the 1990s [51], and forest fire carbon emissions were regionally distinct and linked to forest type [51, 52]. In contrast, boreal fire emissions have significantly increased, with a notable upward trend of ~5 Tg C yr⁻¹ from 2008 to 2022, driven by warming temperatures, longer fire seasons, and increasing fire weather index (FWI) conditions [53]. Overall, wildfires are immediate and severe sources of forest carbon loss and have potential impacts on deep soil and persistent carbon impacts under climate change.

## Forest Degradation and Deforestation

Deforestation and forest degradation are the major drivers of forest carbon emissions globally, though the reported impacts in previous research differ in severity, spatial

patterns, and recovery trajectories. Across the reviewed studies, these disturbances were reported to have caused significant forest and carbon loss especially in tropical and mountain regions [84–87]. Although global tropical deforested and degraded old-growth forests are nearly carbon neutral, wet tropical forests were a net carbon source (0.07 Pg C yr⁻¹) due to deforestation (0.04 Pg C yr⁻¹) and agriculture expansion (0.03 Pg C yr⁻¹) between 2010 and 2019 [88]. On the other hand, previous research also reported a moderate net AGC sink of 0.21 ± 0.06 Pg C yr⁻¹ throughout the global tropics from 2010 to 2020 as a result of a gross carbon loss of –1.79 Pg C yr⁻¹ offset by a gain of 2.01 ± 0.06 Pg C yr⁻¹ [89]. Global deforestation for agriculture and settlements caused 12.3 Gt C from 2010 to 2018 (mostly in the tropics) [90]. These findings show the significant role of tropical forests in global carbon dynamics, highlighting the need to focus on land-use change in these high-emission regions.
<table><caption>**Table 3** Main quantitative impacts of forest disturbances on carbon stocks across disturbance types and biomes reported in the literature</caption><thead><tr><th>Disturbance Type(s)</th><th>Forest Biome</th><th>Carbon Pools Measured</th><th>Spatial Scale</th><th>Temporal Scale</th><th>Quantitative Value(s)</th><th>Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Deforestation</td><td>Temperate</td><td>SOC</td><td>Local</td><td>1-year post-deforestation</td><td>20.1% increase (0–100 cm)</td><td>(Wang et al., 2022) [54]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>TEC</td><td>Local</td><td>up to 120 years post-deforestation</td><td>35% to 85% decrease</td><td>(Grieco et al., 2024) [55]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal</td><td>SOC</td><td>Regional</td><td>~0–100 years (quasi-chrono sequence)</td><td>On average, permafrost-affected forest soils lost: 15.6±21.3% to cropland<br>23.0±13.0% to grassland</td><td>(Peplau et al., 2022) [56]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC</td><td>National</td><td>2010–2019</td><td>27% of gross loss of 4.45 Pg C</td><td>(Qin et al., 2021) [57]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC</td><td>National scale</td><td>2003–2015</td><td>Avoided emissions:<br>4.6 t CO<sub>2</sub>-eq ha<sup>-1</sup> (Petén)<br>2.15 t CO<sub>2</sub>-eq ha<sup>-1</sup> (Acre)</td><td>(Alejo et al., 2022) [58]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC, SOC, Deadwood</td><td>Continental</td><td>2001–2017</td><td>Net annual emissions: 72.9±6.2 Tg C yr<sup>-1</sup><br>With delayed emissions: 102.8±8.6 Tg C yr<sup>-1</sup></td><td>(Tang et al., 2021) [59]</td></tr><tr><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC</td><td>Regional</td><td>2000–2017 (18 years)</td><td>Across six states:<br>Mean AGB change: 0.38±5.73 Mg C ha<sup>-1</sup><br>3.4% of forest inventory plots deforested</td><td>(Fitts et al., 2021) [60]</td></tr><tr><td>Drought/Climate Extreme</td><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC, BGC, TEC</td><td>Local</td><td>15 months post-disturbance</td><td>TECS loss: -270.5 Mg C ha<sup>-1</sup> (-14.6%)<br>AGC: -49.4%<br>BGC: -61.2%<br>Emissions: 992.8 Mg CO<sub>2</sub> ha<sup>-1</sup><br>+2.7 kgm<sup>-2</sup> (P. abies),<br>+1.1 kgm<sup>-2</sup> (F. sylvatica)</td><td>(Gomes et al., 2021) [61]<br>(Brunn et al., 2023) [62]</td></tr><tr><td>Drought/Climate Extreme + Forest management</td><td>Boreal</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Local</td><td>1997–2021 (focus: 2018–2021)</td><td>Offset 8–92% of climate-driven C gains</td><td>(Wu et al., 2024) [63]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Forest degradation</td><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC</td><td>Bio-geographical Amazon</td><td>2010–2020</td><td>Disturbance = 192 T g C yr<sup>-1</sup><br>Old-growth sink = 333±195 Tg C yr<sup>-1</sup><br>Net = 141±195 T g C yr<sup>-1</sup></td><td>(Rosan et al., 2024) [64]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC</td><td>National</td><td>2010–2019</td><td>73% of gross loss of 4.45 Pg C</td><td>(Qin et al., 2021) [57]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Forest fire</td><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC, SOC</td><td>Local</td><td>2010 fire event</td><td>AGC loss: 58.8 t C/ha<br>SOC loss: 98 t C/ha (mean) or 92 t C/ha (median);<br>Total CO<sub>2</sub> emissions ~650 t CO<sub>2</sub>/ha</td><td>(Sirin et al., 2021) [49]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal</td><td>AGC, BGC, SOC</td><td>Regional</td><td>Single event focus (2015 fires), with legacy</td><td>Avg. emission: 3.3±1.1 kg C/m<sup>2</sup> to 14.2 kg C/m<sup>2</sup><br>Total emission: 36.3±15.0 Tg C</td><td>(Dieleman et al., 2020) [65]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal</td><td>Not specified</td><td>National</td><td>2023</td><td>647 Tg C (range 570–727 Tg C); 15 million ha burned</td><td>(Byrne et al., 2024) [66]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Insect Outbreak</td><td>Temperate</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Regional</td><td>2020–2022 (3 years)</td><td>Deciduous forest: GPP by ~35%<br>Mixed forest: GPP by ~23%<br>Carbon loss: 21.1–21.4 million t C</td><td>(Hussain et al., 2024) [67]</td></tr><tr><td>Temperate</td><td>TEC</td><td>Local</td><td>1997–2100 (104-year simulation under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5)</td><td>C at 80–95% salvage<br>Total stock loss: ~405–419 t C ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>(Dobor et al., 2020) [68]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Disturbance Type(s)</th><th>Forest Biome</th><th>Carbon Pools Measured</th><th>Spatial Scale</th><th>Temporal Scale</th><th>Quantitative Value(s)</th><th>Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Forest Management</td><td>Temperate</td><td>TEC</td><td>Local</td><td>5 years post-treatment (2017–2022)</td><td>Control: 207.6±8.6 Mg C/ha;<br>Partial cut: 189.2±11.8 Mg C/ha (–8.9%)<br>Clear-cut: 107.4±8.2 Mg C/ha (–48.3%)</td><td>(Ola et al., 2024) [69]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal</td><td>AGC, BGC, SOC, Deadwood</td><td>Regional</td><td>2010–2110 (100 years)</td><td>Partial cutting by 5 t C ha<sup>-1</sup> yr<sup>-1</sup><br>Clearcutting loss by ~10 t C ha<sup>-1</sup> yr<sup>-1</sup></td><td>(Ameray et al., 2024) [70]</td></tr><tr><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC, BGC, SOC</td><td>National</td><td>2010–2150</td><td>Carbon stock: BAU=307 Mt, CSC=452 Mt (+47%),<br>SRC=223 Mt (–27%);<br>Salvage logging: Vs. BAU CSC=–14%,<br>SRC=–32%</td><td>(Ledermann et al., 2022) [71]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Windthrow/ Storm</td><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC</td><td>Regional</td><td>2001–2007</td><td>Hardwood 74.5 t C/ha; Mixed stands 17.8 t C/ha<br>Up to 121.6 t C/ha young tall trees</td><td>(Alam et al., 2024) [72]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC, Deadwood, SOC</td><td>Local</td><td>1985–2018; focus on post-2004</td><td>Total=427–3,599 Mg C depending on scenario</td><td>(Peneva-Reed et al., 2021) [73]</td></tr><tr><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC</td><td>Regional</td><td>Simulated over 100 years; modelled for 2020 conditions</td><td>121 million t CO<sub>2</sub>e (baseline),<br>182 million t CO<sub>2</sub>e (8% wind increase),<br>250 million t CO<sub>2</sub>e (16% increase);</td><td>(Tumber-Dávila et al., 2024) [74]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Multiple Disturbances</td><td>Boreal, Temperate, Tropical</td><td>AGC, SOC</td><td>Global</td><td>1961–2020</td><td>Average net emission of 1.2 Pg C year<sup>-1</sup>.</td><td>(Qin et al., 2024) [75]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal, Temperate, Tropical</td><td>TEC</td><td>Global</td><td>2001–2019</td><td>gross emissions (8.1±2.5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub>e yr<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>(Harris et al., 2021) [76]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal, Temperate, Tropical</td><td>SOC</td><td>Global</td><td>1983–2022 (with observations up to ≥40 years post-disturbance)</td><td>SOC loss average: 7.2±1.3 Mg/ha (–25.7%);<br>Wildfire: –11.0±2.4 Mg/ha<br>Harvesting: –6.3±1.8 Mg/ha<br>Windstorm: –8.6±4.1 Mg/ha<br>Insect: –2.0±3.6 Mg/ha</td><td>(Mayer et al., 2024) [77]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal, Temperate, Tropical</td><td>AGC, SOC, Litter</td><td>Continental</td><td>2000–2019</td><td>Fire: 0.28–0.35 Pg C yr<sup>-1</sup><br>In drought years net C source: –0.02±0.46 Pg C yr<sup>-1</sup></td><td>(Murray-Tortarolo et al., 2022) [78]</td></tr><tr><td>Boreal, Temperate, Tropical</td><td>AGC, BGC, SOC, Litter</td><td>Global</td><td>1990–2020 (30-year period)</td><td>Cumulative net C emissions from forest area loss: ~0.74 Gt C total (0.03 Gt C yr<sup>-1</sup>)<br>4.9 Gt C without harvest change.<br>0.63 Gt C without burnt area change</td><td>(Noë et al., 2021) [79]</td></tr><tr><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC</td><td>Regional</td><td>2009–2018</td><td>Average fire emissions: 59.95 Tg CO<sub>2</sub>e/yr<br>Harvest: 49.88 Tg CO<sub>2</sub>e/yr<br>Clear-cutting emits 2–8× more C per area than fire</td><td>(Bartowitz et al., 2022) [80]</td></tr><tr><td>Temperate</td><td>AGC, BGC, SOC, Litter</td><td>National</td><td>2000–2050 (50 years)</td><td>Wildfires reduce carbon stocks by up to 33% Schoolbook management, final carbon stock projected at –20.7% (B2)</td><td>(Adame et al., 2020) [81]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC, BGC</td><td>Local</td><td>Up to 25 years post-disturbance</td><td>Undisturbed C stock: 182–2,730 Mg C ha<sup>-1</sup><br>Aquaculture conversion=–85% biomass, –60% soil C<br>Harvesting=–75% biomass C, no soil C loss</td><td>(Sasmito et al., 2020) [82]</td></tr><tr><td>Tropical</td><td>AGC, BGC</td><td>Global</td><td>Up to 2100</td><td>–3.4 Pg CO<sub>2</sub> loss under high sea-level rise with coastal squeeze</td><td>(Alongi, 2022) [83]</td></tr></tbody></table>
Topics such as embodied deforestation and extractive land-use activities like mining remain understudied, despite their significant contribution to global forest carbon emissions. For example, a study that analysed transboundary impacts of embodied deforestation (2000–2020) found that palm oil consumption in Europe caused emissions of up to 445 kg CO₂ capita⁻¹ yr⁻¹, primarily in Southeast Asia [91]. Globally, mining-induced forest loss between 2000 and 2019 resulted in cumulative emissions of ~ 490,525 Gg CO₂, with Indonesia, Brazil, and Canada being the largest contributors [92]. These findings highlight that forest carbon loss is not only driven by local land-use practices but also by cross-boundary trade and natural resource extraction. Both embodied deforestation and mining expansion directly cause forest cover loss and lead to carbon emissions from forest ecosystems.

In addition to immediate AGC loss, both forest degradation and deforestation are associated with SOC loss, too [93–95]. Research conducted in Brazil showed that native vegetation deforestation for agriculture through conventional tillage resulted in a progressive loss (1%–26%) in SOC stocks over time, although the impacts differ across Brazilian regions [96]. A study from India found that converting forest land to cultivated land led to a 21% loss in TEC and 41.2% loss in SOC. Collectively, these studies highlight that agricultural practices, such as deforestation for cropland and subsequent soil tillage, can alter carbon fluxes by increasing SOC losses and reducing overall carbon storage capacity. Similarly to trends observed in fire-affected permafrost regions, a study in Canada’s discontinuous permafrost zone found that converting boreal forest to agricultural land led to long-term soil carbon losses of up to 41 Mg C ha⁻¹, while non-permafrost soils showed no significant loss [56]. These results consistently demonstrate that soil carbon losses occur following land conversion and are strongly influenced by biome type, tillage intensity, and soil properties.

Geographically, forest degradation was studied exclusively in tropical regions, while deforestation studies covered a broader spatial range. However, emerging trends show that degradation may surpass deforestation in long-term carbon impacts [35, 57, 97]. For example, in the Brazilian Amazon, forest degradation is predicted to account for up to 47% of gross carbon emissions by 2050, surpassing deforestation as the dominant source, with emissions ranging from 1.3 to 24 Gt CO₂ [98]. In recent years, the area of forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon has been higher than the area affected by deforestation [98]. These studies show that, although deforestation has broader biome coverage and immediate AGC impacts, degradation may cause more long-term carbon losses over time in tropical regions.

## Forest Management-Related Disturbances: Silviculture and Harvesting

Forest management-related disturbances, such as harvesting, silviculture, and post-disturbance interventions, represent a distinct category of forest carbon drivers. Harvesting aims primarily at tree removal for resource extraction, whereas silviculture is a broader management approach also focused on achieving long-term forest ecological objectives, which may include harvesting. Unlike natural disturbances, these anthropogenic activities are intended to achieve specific management goals and can either reduce or enhance forest carbon stocks depending on the context and goals. For example, research conducted in Austria measured and compared the effect of three forest management scenarios on carbon stocks: business-as-usual (BAU), shortened rotation cycles (SRC), and changes in species composition (CSC). The findings showed that SRC reduced salvage logging by 32% but resulted in a 27% decrease in carbon stock compared to BAU, while the CSC increased carbon stocks by 47% and reduced salvage logging by 14% [71]. Similarly, in Mediterranean beech forests, species mixtures and low-intensity management enhanced long-term carbon stock and sink, whereas high-intensity harvesting led to substantial carbon loss, especially in monospecific beech stands [99].

Silvicultural thinning, when applied moderately, can increase SOC stocks in managed forests, especially in low-humidity regions and over long recovery periods. A meta-analysis conducted across China showed that forest thinning increased SOC stocks in planted forests by 7.2%, with mid-intensity thinning (35–55%) in stand basal area resulting in the greatest increase (+ 16.1%) compared to non-thinned controls. The positive effect of the thinning became statistically significant after five years [100]. These findings highlight how thinning intensity, site climatic conditions, and recovery period can strongly influence carbon impact. However, intense thinning may disturb soil processes and result in SOC loss.

Harvesting also shows a similar pattern to thinning. A study based on long-term simulations in eastern Canadian boreal forests showed that clearcutting substantially reduces TEC stocks. However, partial cutting that keeps canopy cover and forest structural integrity, seemed to lead to stable net ecosystem productivity (NEP) over time [70]. Likewise, in Douglas-fir forests of British Columbia, harvesting intensity was identified as the dominant driver of future carbon stock trajectories, with clearcutting reducing ecosystem carbon by up to 36% [101]. These findings together show that forest management practices are not inherently carbon-negative or carbon-positive but are determined by the local
context, including silvicultural treatments types and intensity, ecological conditions, and long-term carbon recovery dynamics. While moderate interventions such as selective thinning, variable retention harvest and compositional adjustments have been shown to increase soil carbon and reduce disturbance risk, more intensive treatments such as clearcutting and shortened rotations can result in consistent and long-term carbon losses.

## Drought

Drought is a critical climate-induced disturbance with variable effects on forest carbon dynamics depending on forest type, seasonality, legacy effects, and interaction with other disturbances. For example, in subtropical forests of China, a severe summer drought in 2022 led to different carbon responses in evergreen and deciduous forests. Indeed, the first impact on NEP varied according to forest type, with evergreen forests showing stronger resistance, while deciduous forests experienced sharper NEP reductions [102]. Likewise, a synthesis of North American forests found that late-summer droughts in deciduous forests reduced NEP by up to 6 g C m⁻²day⁻¹, mainly due to decreased gross ecosystem productivity (GEP), while evergreen forests remained stable due to simultaneous declines in both GEP and respiration [103]. A study comparing drought impacts on carbon fluxes in Norway spruce forests under different site conditions in the Czech Republic, found that drought entailed stronger reductions in GPP (–14%) and NEP (–38%) under drier site conditions compared to more humid areas, suggesting that site-specific differences modulate ecosystem responses and carbon fluxes under changing climatic conditions, with higher vulnerability in drier regions [104]. There is also emerging evidence showing forest resilience to drought over time, as reported for the Amazonian rainforest based on a long-term experimental drought research that reveals that tropical forest can structurally adjust and stabilise after prolonged drought stress, even though the initial impact of drought disturbance entails substantial carbon loss before recovery [105].

Contrary to the previous finding highlighting that drought reduces carbon sinks, experimental drought treatments in a mature temperate forest showed an over 80% increase in SOC in the top 0–5 cm soil layer under spruce. This increase was attributed to enhanced organic matter stabilization and carbon reallocation belowground [62]. These findings emphasize that while drought may reduce ecosystem-level carbon uptake, BGC sequestration can improve, depending on species composition and soil depth, revealing the dual effect of drought.

## Windthrow and Storms

Hurricanes and extreme wind events represent powerful disturbances that significantly impact forest carbon dynamics, primarily through canopy damage and long-term carbon emission legacies. In New England's (USA) temperate forests, a simulation study estimated that a single severe hurricane can result in the loss of 121–250 million t CO₂e of AGC, which are released through decomposition over a 100-year period [74]. In the tropical forests of Puerto Rico, a modelling study found that an increased hurricane frequency reduced AGC by up to 59%, doubling the forest carbon source potential of the forest. Soil carbon gains from accumulated debris were insufficient to compensate for the substantial AGC losses over the period [106].

Moreover, there is also evidence that forest structure, disturbance intensity, and local conditions determine the magnitude of carbon impacts associated with these disturbances. For instance, in Florida's Perdido Bay watershed, Hurricane Ivan caused a decrease of 74.5 and 17.8 metric tons/ha of AGC in hardwood and mixed plots, respectively. AGC in young (< 25 years) taller trees (>15 m) decreased by 121.6 metric tons/ha of carbon immediately after the hurricane, showing that both physiographic features and tree characteristics contribute to carbon impacts [72]. These results underscore that wind events may not immediately cause carbon emissions like wildfires, but they are accompanied with long-term and delayed emissions through decomposition pathways that are underrepresented in carbon accounting. Moreover, the variation in carbon loss across forest types shows that both the regional context and forest type play a crucial role in determining the impact.

## Biotic Disturbances: Insect and Disease Outbreaks

Biotic disturbances such as insect defoliators, bark beetles, and invasive pathogens are among the forest disturbances that are also intensifying under climate change. These agents may disturb tree physiology, induce widespread mortality, and cause both immediate carbon loss and long-term changes in ecosystem carbon trajectory. Previous research shows that these disturbances are spatially heterogeneous but consistently have negative impacts on forest carbon stocks. For example, in North America's Great Lakes region, a 2021 spongy moth (*Lymantria dispar*) outbreak caused a 35% and 23% GPP decline in deciduous and mixed forests, respectively, resulting in an estimated carbon loss of ~ 21 Mt C. However, conifer forests showed stable productivity, emphasizing the importance of species composition in disturbance resilience [67]. Climate change can result in a two/three-fold increase in bark
beetles (*Dendroctonus spp.*) disturbances throughout the 21st century. It has been estimated that removing >95% of disturbed trees can effectively buffer the effect of disturbances, dampening bark beetle infestations and increasing live tree carbon. Although salvage interventions reduced beetle-related mortality, they led to an increase in wind damage and lower TEC based on the salvaged percentage, showing the compound disturbance trade-offs influencing long-term carbon dynamics [68].

Disease outbreaks, such as the pine wood nematode, also pose significant carbon risks. For example, in East Asia, China's forest carbon stocks at risk from pine wood nematode increased from 87 million to 99 million t C, with the affected habitat expanding by 116,000 km² and especially affecting Masson and black pine forests in the southeast (as opposed to white pine and larch) [107]. Notably, no studies on disturbances driven by fungi were identified through the search criteria, showing a gap in the literature and the need for also accounting for pathogen-driven carbon dynamics in future research. Together, these studies show that biotic disturbances are among the major and increasing threats to forest carbon under global change. Their carbon impacts are determined by species susceptibility, disturbance interaction (e.g., salvage logging), and regional climate.

## Compound Disturbance Effects

Multiple disturbances, such as drought, wildfire, harvesting, pests, or storms, can simultaneously or subsequently occur and may have a compounding effect. The interaction between disturbances is observed to have amplified carbon loss and impact on forest resilience [60, 108, 109]. For example, in Finland's boreal forests, a combination of severe summer drought in 2018 and subsequent thinning in 2019–2020 shifted the ecosystem from a carbon sink to a temporary carbon source, offsetting up to 92% of modelled climate-driven carbon gains during 2018–2021 [63]. In Canada's eastern boreal forest, long-term simulations revealed that the combined impacts of harvesting and spruce budworm (*Choristoneura fumiferana*) outbreaks can shift the forest into a net carbon source [70]. Similarly, in the Northern Rockies of Idaho, modelling showed that interacting disturbances under climate change had amplified effects. Fire-harvest scenarios resulted in greater cumulative annual burned area and carbon emissions compared to fire-only scenarios, especially on private lands where harvesting was more intensive [110]. Australia's 2019–2020 megafires, driven by the compounding effects of drought and repeated extreme fire events, released an estimated 0.67 Pg CO₂ [21], potentially shifting temperate *Eucalyptus* forests into long-term carbon sources.

These studies together show that compound disturbances exert more intense and long-term effects on forest carbon dynamics than single disturbances. They have the potential to reduce NEP and delay recovery. The interactions also generate feedback loops, such as drought enhancing fire risk or harvest increasing wind susceptibility, that further worsens the carbon integrity of forest ecosystems, according to the research analysed in this review.

## Knowledge Gaps and Future Directions

### Uneven Geographical Distribution

The current literature on the effect of forest disturbances on carbon emissions reveals a clear geographical imbalance, with most studies concentrated in the Global North, particularly the United States, Canada, and China. Conversely, critical carbon-rich regions in the Global South, such as tropical Africa and Insular Southeast Asia, remain significantly underrepresented. This uneven representation is also evident for carbon-rich ecosystems such as mangroves and peatlands. These ecosystems are less represented in the literature compared to other forest ecosystems and, given their relevance for carbon stocks and high vulnerability to disturbance, this also represents an important gap deserving future research efforts. This spatial disparity undermines drawing general and robust assessments of carbon dynamics at the global scale, as key forest ecosystems facing intense disturbance pressures are insufficiently studied.

Although certain tropical regions like the Amazon Basin and Southeast Asia are well represented in research on deforestation and degradation, reflecting the dominance of land-use change disturbances within this context [1, 90, 111], regions such as Central Africa are largely understudied. In contrast, wildfires, harvesting, and biotic disturbances are more frequently studied in temperate and boreal regions, where such events are becoming increasingly relevant due to rising temperatures and longer fire seasons [14, 41, 112, 113]. For instance, in forests of Canada, the USA, and Australia, both mean and maximum fire sizes have increased by 65–450% over recent decades, with related emissions rising accordingly [113]. Overall, these patterns suggest that research is often geographically clustered in regions with stronger research infrastructure, potentially overlooking disturbance impacts in ecologically critical but under-resourced areas. Such biases, risk skewing carbon flux models and hinder comprehensive understanding of forest carbon dynamics under global change.
## Low-Intensity Disturbances Underrepresented

There is strong evidence that high-severity, high-visibil-
ity disturbances, particularly wildfires and deforestation,
drive substantial carbon losses. Wildfires consistently
caused short-term AGC losses across multiple biomes,
with emissions closely tied to fire severity [15, 21,
114–116]. Deforestation, especially in tropical regions,
was also well-represented in the literature, with studies
quantifying large-scale carbon fluxes from AGC and, to a
lesser extent, SOC [90, 111, 117]. These two disturbance
types form a robust core of the evidence base, supported
by diverse methodologies including field measurements,
satellite data, and process-based modelling. However,
this focus has come at the expense of lower-intensity
and longer-term disturbances, such as selective harvest-
ing, prescribed burning, and forest degradation, which
remain understudied despite their cumulative carbon
impacts. These disturbances often involve subtle changes
over extended timescales, making them harder to detect
and quantify. For instance, in forested tropical peatland,
degradation or selective logging may lead to sustained
SOC losses, yet few studies have examined these effects
in depth [98, 118]. Similarly, silvicultural practices like
thinning, variable retention harvest, and species manage-
ment are widespread but lack consistent assessment of
their long-term carbon outcomes [71, 101]. In a world
facing increasing fire activity, there is still no clear under-
standing of how carbon removal through strategic fuel
management and pyrosilvicultural treatments (e.g., vari-
able retention harvesting, prescribed burning) is offset by
avoided fire emissions at the landscape level due to wild-
fire severity mitigation, this representing a gap in knowl-
edge worth of further research. In summary, the carbon
impacts of such lower-profile disturbances remain frag-
mented, underestimated, and context-specific, limiting the
ability to draw broad, generalizable conclusions.

Uneven Representation of Carbon Pools

A key limitation identified in the literature is the uneven
representation of different carbon pools, particularly SOC,
across forest disturbance studies. While AGC loss is com-
monly measured, deep SOC fluxes, mineral-associated car-
bon, and other belowground pools remain underexplored.
This is especially critical given that, in certain ecosystems,
such as peatlands and permafrost-affected boreal forests,
SOC losses can exceed AGC emissions [49, 50]. How-
ever, the number of studies capturing these belowground
dynamics is limited, leaving substantial uncertainty in our
understanding of the full carbon impact of disturbances,
especially in carbon-dense or vulnerable soils.

Short Temporal Scope

In addition to geographical constraints in carbon pool mea-
surement, there is also inconsistency in temporal scales
among the reviewed literature. While most studies quantify
immediate emissions following disturbance, few account for
delayed fluxes from decomposition, regrowth, or microbial
activity. Long-term SOC losses following deforestation, for
example, are rarely measured, and the carbon uptake poten-
tial of post-disturbance regrowth is often overlooked. This
short temporal scope hampers the ability to assess full dis-
turbance-recovery cycles and complicates modelling efforts
that aim to predict net carbon change under evolving cli-
mate scenarios.

Compound Disturbances

An important but often overlooked limitation identified in
this review is the limited understanding of compound dis-
turbances, i.e., interactions between multiple disturbance
types such as drought-fire or harvest-pathogen events. Evi-
dence suggests these interactions frequently amplify carbon
losses, often exceeding the sum of their individual effects.
For instance, in boreal forests, drought preceding harvest
shifted ecosystems from carbon sinks to sources [63]. How-
ever, the effects of such interactions are highly variable and
context-dependent, influenced by forest type, disturbance
sequence, and ecosystem resilience. One study found that
71% of compound disturbance effects were amplifying,
while 16.2% showed dampening effects, highlighting the
complexity of these interactions [5]. This variability makes
broad generalizations difficult and underscores the need for
more ecosystem-specific research. Despite their increasing
relevance under climate change, compound disturbances
remain understudied, partly due to the methodological chal-
lenges of detecting overlapping disturbances and attributing
their cumulative carbon impacts.

Strengths and Limitations of the Review

This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of
forest disturbances and their carbon impacts across global
forest biomes. Key strengths include the identification of
major disturbance types and their spatial patterns, quanti-
tative assessments of associated carbon emissions, and the
identification of underrepresented regions and disturbance
drivers. By incorporating both natural and anthropogenic
disturbances, as well as compound events like drought-fire
interactions, the review provides broad thematic and spatial
coverage. This makes it valuable for further research, poli-
cymaking, and carbon accounting efforts. However, several
limitations should be noted. As outlined in Sect. 5.1–5.3 and
5.5, the literature is skewed toward Global North studies, dominated by high-severity disturbances, and uneven carbon pools coverage, while often overlooking cumulative, gradual, and lagged processes, including compound interactions. This affects the synthesis effort by disproportionately reflecting certain disturbance dynamics, possibly underestimating both low-intensity and compound disturbances, especially in underrepresented areas of the world. Furthermore, methodological heterogeneity and differences among Measuring, Reporting, Verification (MRV) systems applied across studies further constraining cross-comparability among previous research, a thorough meta-analysis was not feasible. The review included only English-language peer-reviewed studies and excluded grey literature, potentially omitting important regional insights.

## Conclusions

This review synthesizes current knowledge on carbon impacts of forest disturbances across the globe, such knowledge remaining considerably uneven, with an emphasis on AGC, high-severity disturbances (notably forest fires and deforestation), and areas and ecosystems from the Global North. These imbalances constrain to some extent the comprehensiveness and generalizability of current knowledge. Another critical gap is the limited integration of compound disturbances such as drought-fire and harvest-pathogen interactions into carbon modelling and risk assessments. Our synthesis shows these interactions can significantly amplify emissions and alter recovery, yet they are seldom reflected in current models or national inventories. This review points out that these limitations can result in underestimation of emissions and in overestimation of forest recovery in global carbon models. To improve the accuracy, robustness, and generalizability of global carbon assessments, requires coordinated strategies. Strengthening international research collaborations can help ensure more balanced geographic representation, while building scientific capacity in underrepresented regions would improve local data availability and reduce reliance on extrapolation from other areas and ecosystems. Promoting standardized methodologies and reporting formats across studies would also enhance comparability and enable robust global syntheses. At the same time, future research should prioritize long-term disturbance effects, BGC responses, underrepresented regions and compounding interactions. Together, these strategies may strengthen the evidence, improve reliability of global carbon estimates, better inform climate mitigation policies, and enhance the role of forests as nature-based solutions in the face of global change to guide effective policymaking.

## Key References

* Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Phillips OL, Houghton RA, Fang J, Kauppi PE, et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature. 2024;631:563–569.

Presents and quantifies global forest sink and its resilience.

* Harris NL, Gibbs DA, Baccini A, Birdsey RA, Bruin SD, Farina M, et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11:234–240.

Provides detailed analysis of forest carbon dynamics and spatially explicit estimates of carbon fluxes across global forests using high-resolution maps.

* Qin Y, Xiao X, Wigneron J-P, Ciais P, Brandt M, Fan L, et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11:442–448.

Highlights the significant but often overlooked role of forest degradation in carbon emissions.

* Feng Y, Ciais P, Wigneron J-P, Xu Y, Ziegler AD, Wees DV, et al. Global patterns and drivers of tropical aboveground carbon changes. Nat Clim Chang. 2024;14:1064–1070.

Analyzes tropical aboveground carbon dynamics and its role in global carbon balance.

* Zheng B, Ciais P, Chevallier F, Yang H, Canadell JG, Chen Y, et al. Record-high CO2 emissions from boreal fires in 2021. Science. 2023;379:912–917.

Reports the significance of boreal wildfires CO2 emissions.

* Sanchez-Martinez P, Martius LR, Bittencourt P, Silva M, Binks O, Coughlin I, et al. Amazon rainforest adjusts to long-term experimental drought. Nat Ecol Evol. 2025;9:970–979.

Explores the resilience of Amazon rainforest to long-term experimental drought.

* Brunn M, Krüger J, Lang F. Experimental drought increased the belowground sink strength towards higher
topsoil organic carbon stocks in a temperate mature forest. Geoderma. 2023;431:116356.

Detailed analysis of belowground carbon responses
to drought in a temperate forest through soil carbon
dynamics.

**Acknowledgements** This work was supported by EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action (HORIZON-MSCA-2021-SE) awarded to FIRE-ADAPT project no. 101086416. This work was also supported by the EU Action Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees program, Mediterranean Forestry and Natural Resources Management program (MEDfOR) (Project Reference: 619801-EPP-1-2020-1-PT-EPPKA1-JMD-MOB) through a MSc grant to A.B.

**Author Contributions** S.dM. conceptualized the review paper and supervised the development of the manuscript through all stages. A.B. conducted most of the literature search. S.dM. and A.B. wrote the main manuscript. A.B., M.E. and S.dM. prepared and/or fine-tuned figures. All authors contributed with ideas, references and/or edits to successive versions of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

**Funding** Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.

**Data Availability** No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

**Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent** This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any. of the authors.

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en

2. Friedlingstein P, O'Sullivan M, Jones MW, Andrew RM, Bakker DC, Hauck J, et al. Global carbon budget 2023. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2023;15:5301–69.

3. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Phillips OL, Houghton RA, Fang J, Kauppi PE, et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature. 2024;631:563–9.

4. Xu L, Saatchi SS, Yang Y, Yu Y, Pongratz J, Bloom AA, et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci Adv. 2021;7:eabe9829.

5. Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Benito DM, Peltoniemi M, Vacchiano G, et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7:395–402.

6. Shukla PR, Skea J, Buendia CE, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner HO, Roberts DC et al. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. IPCC. 2019. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

7. Anderegg WRL, Trugman AT, Badgley G, Bartuska A, Ciais P, Cullenward D, et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science. 2020;368:eaa27005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7005.

8. Canadell JG, Raupach MR. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science. 2008;320:1456–7.

9. Walker XJ, Baltzer JL, Cumming SG, Day NJ, Ebert C, Goetz S, et al. Increasing wildfires threaten historic carbon sink of boreal forest soils. Nature. 2019;572:520–3.

10. Houghton RA. The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: past trends and future potential. Carb Manag. 2013;4:539–46.

11. Friedlingstein P, O'Sullivan M, Jones MW, Andrew RM, Bakker DCE, Hauck J, et al. Global Carbon Budget. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-386.

12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The state of the world's forests 2022. FAO. 2022;166. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9360en.

13. Baccini A, Walker W, Carvalho L, Farina M, Sulla-Menashe D, Houghton RA. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science. 2017;358:230–4.

14. Jones MW, Veraverbeke S, Andela N, Doerr SH, Kolden C, Mataveli G, et al. Global rise in forest fire emissions linked to climate change in the extratropics. Science. 2024;386:eadl5889. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl5889.

15. Zheng B, Ciais P, Chevallier F, Yang H, Canadell JG, Chen Y, et al. Record-high CO₂ emissions from boreal fires in 2021. Science. 2023;379:912–7.

16. Bowman DMJS, Perry GLW, Marston JB. Feedbacks and landscape-level vegetation dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30:255–60.

17. Seidl R, Spies TA, Peterson DL, Stephens SL, Hicke JA. Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol. 2016;53:120–9.

18. Dye AW, Houtman RM, Gao P, Anderegg WRL, Fettig CJ, Hicke JA, et al. Carbon, climate, and natural disturbance: a review of mechanisms, challenges, and tools for understanding forest carbon stability in an uncertain future. Carbon Balance Manag. 2024;19:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00282-0.

19. Turner MG. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology. 2010;91:2833–49.

20. Williams CA, Collatz GJ, Masek J, Goward SN. Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the conterminous united States. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2012;26:1005. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GB003947.

21. Bowman DMJS, Williamson GJ, Price OF, Ndalila MN, Bradstock RA. Australian forests, megafires and the risk of dwindling carbon stocks. Plant Cell Environ. 2021;44:347–55.
22. Rangel Pinagé E, Keller M, Peck CP, Longo M, Duffy P, Csillik O. Effects of forest degradation classification on the uncertainty of aboveground carbon estimates in the Amazon. Carbon Balance Manag. 2023;18:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-023-00221-5.

23. Kauppi PE, Stål G, Arnesson-Ceder L, Hallberg Sramek I, Hoen HF, Svensson A, et al. Managing existing forests can mitigate climate change. For Ecol Manage. 2022;513:120186.

24. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Decision 1/CP.21. In: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, in Paris. 2015. Available from: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

25. Chen J, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Yang H. Assessing the greenhouse gas effects of harvested wood products manufactured from managed forests in Canada. Forestry. 2018;91:193-205.

26. Gustavsson L, Haus S, Lundblad M, Lundström A, Ortiz CA, Sathre R, et al. Climate change effects of forestry and substitution of carbon-intensive materials and fossil fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;67:612-24.

27. Huang M, Asner GP. Long-term carbon loss and recovery following selective logging in Amazon forests. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2010;24:GB003727. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003727.

28. James J, Page-Dumroese D, Busse M, Palik B, Zhang J, Eaton B, et al. Effects of forest harvesting and biomass removal on soil carbon and nitrogen: two complementary meta-analyses. For Ecol Manage. 2021;485:118935.

29. Pugh TAM, Lindeskog M, Smith B, Poulter B, Arneth A, Haverd V, et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:4382-7.

30. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

31. Nishikawa-Pacher. A research questions with PICO: A universal mnemonic. Publications. 2022;10:21. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030021.

32. Schiavenato M, Chu F, PICO. What it is and what it is not. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;56:103194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194.

33. Ewane EB, Bajaj S, Velasquez-Camacho L, Srinivasan S, Maeng J, Singla A, et al. Influence of urban forests on residential property values: a systematic review of remote sensing-based studies. Heliyon. 2023;9:e20408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20408.

34. Geng MQ, Li XC, Mu HW, Yu GJ, Chai L, Yang ZW, et al. Human footprints in the global south accelerate biomass carbon loss in ecologically sensitive regions. Glob Chang Biol. 2023;29:5881-95.

35. Bullock EL, Woodcock CE. Carbon loss and removal due to forest disturbance and regeneration in the Amazon. Sci Total Environment. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142839.

36. Heinrich VHA, Vancutsem C, Dalagnol R, Rosan TM, Fawcett D, Silva-Junior CHL, et al. The carbon sink of secondary and degraded humid tropical forests. Nature. 2023;615:436-42.

37. Sannigrahi S, Pilla F, Basu B, Basu AS, Sarkar K, Chakraborti S, et al. Examining the effects of forest fire on terrestrial carbon emission and ecosystem production in India using remote sensing approaches. Sci Total Environ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138331.

38. Chen AP, Tang RY, Mao JF, Yue C, Li X, Gao M, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of ecosystem fires and biomass burning-induced carbon emissions in China over the past two decades. Geogr Sustain. 2020;1:47-58.

39. Lin SR, Liu YH, Huang XY. Climate-induced Arctic-boreal peatland fire and carbon loss in the 21st century. Sci Total Environ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148924. 796.148924.

40. Corona-Núñez RO, Campo JE. Climate and socioeconomic drivers of biomass burning and carbon emissions from fires in tropical dry forests: a pantropical analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 2023;29:1062-79.

41. Potter S, Cooperdock S, Veraverbeke S, Walker X, Mack MC, Goetz SJ, et al. Burned area and carbon emissions across North-western boreal North America from 2001-2019. Biogeosciences. 2023;20:2785-804.

42. Palviainen M, Laurén A, Pumpanen J, Bergeron Y, Bond-Lamberty B, Larjavaara M, et al. Decadal-scale recovery of carbon stocks after wildfires throughout the boreal forests. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GB006612.

43. Fernandes AP, Lopes D, Sorte S, Monteiro A, Gama C, Reis J, et al. Smoke emissions from the extreme wildfire events in central Portugal in October 2017. Int J Wildland Fire. 2022;31:989-1001.

44. Magro C, Nunes L, Gonçalves O, Neng N, Nogueira J, Rego F, et al. Atmospheric trends of CO and CH4 from extreme wildfires in Portugal using Sentinel-5P TROPOMI level-2 data. Fire. 2021;4:25.

45. Pellegrini AFA, Caprio AC, Georgiou K, Finnegan C, Hobbie SE, Hatten JA, et al. Low-intensity frequent fires in coniferous forests transform soil organic matter in ways that may offset ecosystem carbon losses. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27:3810-23.

46. Nave LE, DeLyser K, Domke GM, Holub SM, Kabrick JM, Keller AB, et al. Land use change and forest management affect soil carbon stocks in the central hardwoods. U S Carbon Balance Manage. 2025;19:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00251-7.

47. Kelly J, Ibáñez TS, Santín C, Doerr SH, Nilsson M-C, Holst T, et al. Boreal forest soil carbon fluxes one year after a wildfire: effects of burn severity and management. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27:4181-95.

48. Krisnawati H, Adinugroho WC, Imanuddin R, Suyoko, Weston CJ, Volkova L. Carbon balance of tropical peat forests at different fire history and implications for carbon emissions. Sci Total Environ. 2021;779:146365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146365.

49. Sirin A, Maslov A, Makarov D, Gulbe Y, Joosten H. Assessing wood and soil carbon losses from a forest-peat fire in the boreonemoral zone. Forests. 2021;12:880. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070880.

50. Köster K, Aaltonen H, Köster E, Berninger F, Pumpanen J. Post-fire soil carbon emission rates along boreal forest fire chronosequences in Northwest Canada show significantly higher emission potentials from permafrost soils compared to non-permafrost soils. Front Ecol Evol. 2023;11:1331018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1331018.

51. Fan D, Wang M, Liang T, He H, Zeng Y, Fu B. Estimation and trend analysis of carbon emissions from forest fires in Mainland China from 2011 to 2021. Ecol Inf. 2024;81:102572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102572.

52. Zhang W, Yang Y, Hu C, Zhang L, Hou B, Wang W, et al. NPP and carbon emissions under forest fire disturbance in Southwest and Northeast China from 2001 to 2020. Forests. 2023;14:999. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050999.

53. Liu Y, Ding A. Contrasting trends of carbon emission from savanna and boreal forest fires during 1999-2022. Meteorol Appl. 2024;31:e2177. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2177.

54. Wang B, Wang GB, Myo STZ, Li Y, Xu C, Lin ZY, et al. Deforestation for agriculture temporarily improved soil quality and soil organic carbon stocks. Forests. 2022;13:228. https://doi.org/10.390f/f13020228.

55. Grieco E, Vangi E, Chiti T, Collalti A. Impacts of deforestation and land use/land cover change on carbon stock dynamics in Jomoro District, Ghana. J Environ Manage. 2024;367:121993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121993.
56. Peplau T, Schroeder J, Gregorich E, Poeplau C. Subarctic soil carbon losses after deforestation for agriculture depend on permafrost abundance. Glob Chang Biol. 2022;28:5227–42.

57. Qin Y, Xiao X, Wigneron J-P, Ciais P, Brandt M, Fan L, et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11:442–8.

58. Alejo C, Walker WS, Gorelik SR, Potvin C. Community managed protected areas conserve aboveground carbon stocks: implications for REDD+. Front Forests Global Change. 2022;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.787978.

59. Tang X, Woodcock CE, Olofsson P, Hutyra LR. Spatiotemporal assessment of land use/land cover change and associated carbon emissions and uptake in the Mekong river basin. Remote Sens Environ. 2021;256:112336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112336.

60. Fitts LA, Russell MB, Domke GM, Knight JK. Modeling land use change and forest carbon stock changes in temperate forests in the united States. Carbon Balance Manag. 2021;16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-021-00183-6.

61. Gomes LED, Sanders CJ, Nobrega GN, Vescovi LC, Queiroz HM, Kauffman JB, et al. Ecosystem carbon losses following a climate-induced Mangrove mortality in Brazil. J Environ Manage. 2021;297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113381.

62. Brunn M, Krüger J, Lang F. Experimental drought increased the belowground sink strength towards higher topsoil organic carbon stocks in a temperate mature forest. Geoderma. 2023;431:116356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116356.

63. Wu M, Zhu S, He H, Zhang X, Wang C, Li S, et al. Modeling the recent drought and thinning impacts on energy, water and carbon fluxes in a boreal forest. Sci Total Environ. 2024;955:177187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177187.

64. Rosan TM, Sitch S, O'Sullivan M, Basso LS, Wilson C, Silva C, et al. Synthesis of the land carbon fluxes of the Amazon region between 2010 and 2020. Commun Earth Environ. 2024;5:46. http://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01205-0.

65. Dieleman CM, Rogers BM, Potter S, Veraverbeke S, Johnstone JF, Laflamme J, et al. Wildfire combustion and carbon stocks in the Southern Canadian boreal forest: implications for a warming world. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:6062–79.

66. Byrne B, Liu J, Bowman KW, Pascolini-Campbell M, Chatterjee A, Pandey S, et al. Carbon emissions from the 2023 Canadian wildfires. Nature. 2024;633:835–9.

67. Hussain N, Gonsamo A, Wang S, Arain MA. Assessment of spongy moth infestation impacts on forest productivity and carbon loss using the Sentinel-2 satellite remote sensing and eddy covariance flux data. Ecol Process. 2024;13:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13171-024-00520-w.

68. Dobor L, Hlášny T, Rammer W, Zimová S, Barka I, Seidl R. Is salvage logging effectively dampening bark beetle outbreaks and preserving forest carbon stocks? J Appl Ecol. 2020;57:67–76.

69. Ola A, Devos W, Bouchard M, Mazerolle MJ, Raymond P, Munson AD. Above- and belowground carbon stocks under differing silvicultural scenarios. Ecol Manage. 2024;558:121785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.121785.

70. Ameray A, Cavard X, Cyr D, Valeria O, Girona MM, Bergeron Y. One century of carbon dynamics in the Eastern Canadian boreal forest under various management strategies and climate change projections. Ecol Modell. 2024;498:110894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110894.

71. Ledermann T, Braun M, Kindermann G, Jandl R, Ludvig A, Schadauer K, et al. Effects of silvicultural adaptation measures on carbon stock of Austrian forests. Forests. 2022;13:565. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040565.

72. Alam A, Kadam P, Brandeis T, Baeza-Castro A, Dwivedi P. Assessing the impact of hurricane Ivan on aboveground forest carbon dynamics in the Florida panhandle: A case study from

Perdido Bay watershed. Ecol Manage. 2024;567:122067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122067.

73. Peneva-Reed EI, Krauss KW, Bullock EL, Zhu ZL, Woltz VL, Drexler JZ, et al. Carbon stock losses and recovery observed for a Mangrove ecosystem following a major hurricane in Southwest Florida. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2021;248:106750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106750.

74. Tumber-Dávila SJ, Lucey T, Boose ER, Laflower D, León-Sáenz A, Wilson BT, et al. Hurricanes pose a substantial risk to new England forest carbon stocks. Glob Chang Biol. 2024;30:e17259. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17259.

75. Qin Z, Zhu Y, Canadell JG, Chen M, Li T, Mishra U, et al. Global spatially explicit carbon emissions from land-use change over the past six decades (1961–2020). One Earth. 2024;7:835–47.

76. Harris NL, Gibbs DA, Baccini A, Birdsey RA, Bruin SD, Farina M, et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11:234–40.

77. Mayer M, Baltensweiler A, James J, Rigling A, Hagedorn F. A global synthesis and conceptualization of the magnitude and duration of soil carbon losses in response to forest disturbances. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2024;33:141–50.

78. Murray-Tortarolo G, Poulter B, Vargas R, Hayes D, Michalak AM, Williams C, et al. A process-model perspective on recent changes in the carbon cycle of North America. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences. 2022;127:e2022JG006904. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG006904.

79. Le Noë J, Erb K-H, Matej S, Magerl A, Bhan M, Gingrich S. Altered growth conditions more than reforestation counteracted forest biomass carbon emissions 1990–2020. Nat Commun. 2021;12:6075. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26398-2.

80. Bartowitz KJ, Walsh ES, Stenzel JE, Kolden CA, Hudiburg TW. Forest carbon emission sources are not equal: putting Fire, Harvest, and fossil fuel emissions in context. Front Forests Global Change. 2022;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.867112.

81. Adame P, Cañellas I, Moreno-Fernández D, Packalen T, Hernández L, Alberdi I. Analyzing the joint effect of forest management and wildfires on living biomass and carbon stocks in Spanish forests. Forests. 2020;11:1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/fl1111219.

82. Sasmito SD, Sillanpää M, Hayes MA, Bachri S, Saragi-Sasmito MF, Sidik F, et al. Mangrove blue carbon stocks and dynamics are controlled by hydrogeomorphic settings and land-use change. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:3028–39.

83. Alongi DM. Impacts of climate change on blue carbon stocks and fluxes in Mangrove forests. Forests. 2022;13:149. https://doi.org/10.3390/fl13020149.

84. Koga N, Shimoda S, Shirato Y, Kusaba T, Shima T, Niimi H, et al. Assessing changes in soil carbon stocks after land use conversion from forest land to agricultural land in Japan. Geoderma. 2020;377:114487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114487.

85. Zhao Z, Ciais P, Wigneron J-P, Santoro M, Brandt M, Kleinschroth F, et al. Central African biomass carbon losses and gains during 2010–2019. One Earth. 2024;7:506–19.

86. Sugiarto A, Utaya S, Sumarmi, Bachri S, Shrestha RP. Estimation of carbon stocks and CO₂ emissions resulting from the forest destruction in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environ Challenges. 2024;17:101010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.101010.

87. Parsch C, Wagner B, Engert JE, Panjaitan R, Laurance WF, Nitschke CR, et al. Forecasting deforestation and carbon loss across new Guinea using machine learning and cellular automata. Sci Total Environ. 2025;970:178864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sici.totenv.2025.178864.

88. Yang H, Ciais P, Frappart F, Li X, Brandt M, Fensholt R, et al. Global increase in biomass carbon stock dominated by growth of Northern young forests over past decade. Nat Geosci. 2023;16:886–92.
89. Feng Y, Ciais P, Wigneron J-P, Xu Y, Ziegler AD, Wees DV, et al. Global patterns and drivers of tropical aboveground carbon changes. Nat Clim Chang. 2024;14:1064–70.

90. Hu X, Næss JS, Iordan CM, Huang B, Zhao W, Cherubini F. Recent global land cover dynamics and implications for soil erosion and carbon losses from deforestation. Anthropocene. 2021;34:100291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2021.100291.

91. Padbhushan R, Kumar U, Sharma S, Rana DS, Kumar R, Kohli A, et al. Impact of Land-Use changes on soil properties and carbon pools in india: A Meta-analysis. Front Environ Sci. 2022;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.794866.

92. Menezes RSC, Sales AT, Primo DC, Albuquerque ERGM, Jesus KN, Pareyn FGC, et al. Soil and vegetation carbon stocks after land-use changes in a seasonally dry tropical forest. Geoderma. 2021;390:114943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.114943.

93. Finstad K, van Straaten O, Veldkamp E, McFarlane K. Soil carbon dynamics following land use changes and conversion to oil palm plantations in tropical lowlands inferred from radiocarbon. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2020;34:e2019GB006461. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006461.

94. de Souza Medeiros A, dos Santos TC, Maia SMF. Effect of long-term and soil depth on soil organic carbon stocks after conversion from native vegetation to conventional tillage systems in Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 2022;219:105336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105336.

95. Csillik O, Keller M, Longo M, Ferraz A, Rangel Pinagé E, Görgens EB, et al. A large net carbon loss attributed to anthropogenic and natural disturbances in the Amazon Arc of deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2024;121:e2310157121. https://doi.org/10.1076/pnas.2310157121.

96. Assis TO, Aguiar APD, von Randow C, Nobre CA. Projections of future forest degradation and CO₂ emissions for the Brazilian Amazon. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eabj3309. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj3309.

97. Bausano G, Masiero M, Migliavacca M, Pettenella D, Rougieux P. Food, biofuels or cosmetics? Land-use, deforestation and CO₂ emissions embodied in the palm oil consumption of four European countries: a biophysical accounting approach. Agricultural Food Econ. 2023;11:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00268-5.

98. Ranjan AK, Gorai AK. Assessment of global carbon dynamics due to mining-induced forest cover loss during 2000–2019 using satellite datasets. J Environ Manage. 2024;371:123271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123271.

99. Walter RLM, Daniele OS, Sebastian B, Sophia D, Giorgio V. Interplay of species mixture, climate change, and management regimes on carbon stocks and sinks in a mediterranean Beech forest. Ecol Manage. 2025;578. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4898778.

100. Gong C, Tan QY, Liu GB, Xu MX. Forest thinning increases soil carbon stocks in China. Ecol Manage. 2021;482:118812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118812.

101. Robinson AJ, Defrenne CE, Roach WJ, Dymond CC, Pickles BJ, Simard SW. Harvesting intensity and aridity are more important than climate change in affecting future carbon stocks of Douglas-Fir forests. Front Forests Global Change. 2022;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.934067.

102. Han L, Chen Y, Wang Y, Sun Y, Ding Z, Zhang H, et al. Divergent responses of subtropical evergreen and deciduous forest carbon cycles to the summer 2022 drought. Environ Res Lett. 2024;19. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad416e.

103. Xu B, Arain MA, Black TA, Law BE, Pastorello GZ, Chu H. Seasonal variability of forest sensitivity to heat and drought stresses: A synthesis based on carbon fluxes from North American forest ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:901–18.

104. Mensah C, Šigut L, Fischer M, Foltýnová L, Jocher G, Acosta M, et al. Assessing the contrasting effects of the exceptional 2015

drought on the carbon dynamics in two Norway Spruce forest ecosystems. Atmos (Basel). 2021;12:988. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12080988.

105. Sanchez-Martinez P, Martius LR, Bittencourt P, Silva M, Binks O, Coughlin I, et al. Amazon rainforest adjusts to long-term experimental drought. Nat Ecol Evol. 2025;9:970–9.

106. del Gutiérrez O, Hartman MD, Silver WL. Modeling the effects of increased hurricane frequency on the tropical forest carbon cycle: modeling the effects of increased hurricane frequency on the tropical: O. G. Arroyo and others. Ecosystems. 2024;27:1076–89.

107. Xu S, Huang W, Wang D, Zhang B, Sun H, Yan J, et al. Risk assessment of carbon stock loss in Chinese forests due to pine wood nematode invasion. Forests. 2025;16:315. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16020315.

108. Magerl A, Gingrich S, Matej S, Cunfer G, Forrest M, Lauk C, et al. The role of wildfires in the interplay of forest carbon stocks and wood harvest in the contiguous united States during the 20th century. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2023;37:e2023GB007813. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GB007813.

109. Byrne B, Liu J, Lee M, Yin Y, Bowman KW, Miyazaki K, et al. The carbon cycle of Southeast Australia during 2019–2020: Drought, Fires, and subsequent recovery. AGU Adv. 2021;2:e2021AV000469. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021AV000469.

110. Walsh ES, Hudiburg TW. Response of avian cavity nesters and carbon dynamics to forest management and climate change in the Northern Rockies. Ecosphere. 2021;12:e03636. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3636.

111. Sasaki N, Myint YY, Abe I, Venkatappa M. Predicting carbon emissions, emissions reductions, and carbon removal due to deforestation and plantation forests in Southeast Asia. J Clean Prod. 2021;312:127728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127728.

112. Nave LE, DeLyser K, Domke GM, Holub SM, Janowiak MK, Kittler B, et al. Disturbance and management effects on forest soil organic carbon stocks in the Pacific Northwest. Ecol Appl. 2022;32:e2611. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2611.

113. Zhao J, Yue C, Wang J, Hantson S, Wang X, He B, et al. Forest fire size amplifies postfire land surface warming. Nature. 2024;633:828–34.

114. Corona-Núñez RO, Li F, Campo JE. Fires represent an important source of carbon emissions in Mexico. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GB006815. 34:e2020GB006815.

115. MacCarthy J, Tyukavina A, Weisse MJ, Harris N, Glen E. Extreme wildfires in Canada and their contribution to global loss in tree cover and carbon emissions in 2023. Glob Chang Biol. 2024;30:e17392. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17392.

116. Romanov AA, Tamarovskaya AN, Gloor E, Brienen R, Gusev BA, Leonenko EV, et al. Reassessment of carbon emissions from fires and a new estimate of net carbon uptake in Russian forests in 2001–2021. Sci Total Environ. 2022;846:157322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157322.

117. Liu WD, Zhang X, Xu H, Zhao TT, Wang JQ, Li ZH, et al. Characterizing the accelerated global carbon emissions from forest loss during 1985–2020 using Fine-Resolution remote sensing datasets. Remote Sens (Basel). 2024;16:978. https://doi.org/10.390/RS16060978.

118. Marcus MS, Hergoualc'h K, Honorio Coronado EN, Gutiérrez-Vélez VH. Spatial distribution of degradation and deforestation of palm swamp peatlands and associated carbon emissions in the Peruvian Amazon. J Environ Manage. 2024;351:119665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119665.

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.