No single forest strategy maximizes both carbon storage and arthropod biodiversity

Forests are expected to help address two global challenges at once: climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet a new study published in Forest Ecosystems shows that management practices favoring carbon storage do not necessarily benefit all arthropods in the same way, particularly when above- and belowground parts of the ecosystem are considered together.

Researchers analyzed data from forest plots in three regions of Germany, ranging from unmanaged, beech-dominated forests to intensively managed stands dominated by conifers. The team combined measurements of carbon stored in trees, deadwood and upper soil layers with records of the diversity and biomass of aboveground insects and soil-dwelling fauna.

More intensive management was associated with lower total and aboveground carbon stocks, but higher belowground carbon stocks in the soil layers assessed. Aboveground insect diversity and biomass generally increased with management intensity, while belowground fauna showed no clear overall response.

However, these patterns did not amount to a simple win-win relationship. Across the study, carbon stocks had no consistent association with arthropod diversity. Relationships with arthropod biomass were more apparent, but differed among functional groups, forest layers and sampling years.

In beech forests managed at low intensity or left unmanaged, higher aboveground carbon stocks were positively related to some arthropod groups. As management intensity increased, several of these relationships became neutral or negative. Belowground patterns were different and more variable, suggesting that practices supporting soil carbon and soil fauna may not be the same as those supporting aboveground carbon and insects.

Forest management should be adapted to specific ecological goals. Low-intensity or unmanaged beech forests may support beneficial relationships between aboveground carbon and some arthropod groups, while positive belowground outcomes may require a mixture of tree species and management intensities. Maintaining a mosaic of forest types, while reducing management intensity overall, could help forest managers balance these different needs. Although no single approach will benefit every carbon stock and arthropod group, the findings can guide practices that strengthen carbon storage while preserving suitable habitats, allowing forests to contribute to both climate-change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.

DOI Link:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fecs.2026.100482