Front. For. Glob. Change Frontiers in Forests and Global Change Front. For. Glob. Change 2624-893X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274 Forests and Global Change Original Research Large Trees Dominate Carbon Storage in Forests East of the Cascade Crest in the United States Pacific Northwest Mildrexler David J. 1 * Berner Logan T. 2 Law Beverly E. 3 Birdsey Richard A. 4 Moomaw William R. 4 5 1Eastern Oregon Legacy Lands, Joseph, OR, United States 2EcoSpatial Services L.L.C., Flagstaff, AZ, United States 3Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States 4Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, United States 5The Fletcher School and Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States

Edited by: Isabel Cañellas, Centro de Investigación Forestal (INIA), Spain

Reviewed by: Jurij Diaci, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Thomas J. Dean, Louisiana State University, United States

*Correspondence: David J. Mildrexler, d.mildrexler@gmail.com

This article was submitted to Forest Management, a section of the journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change

05 11 2020 2020 3 594274 12 08 2020 16 10 2020 Copyright © 2020 Mildrexler, Berner, Law, Birdsey and Moomaw. 2020 Mildrexler, Berner, Law, Birdsey and Moomaw

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Large-diameter trees store disproportionally massive amounts of carbon and are a major driver of carbon cycle dynamics in forests worldwide. In the temperate forests of the western United States, proposed changes to Forest Plans would significantly weaken protections for a large portion of trees greater than 53 cm (21 inches) in diameter (herein referred to as “large-diameter trees”) across 11.5 million acres (∼4.7 million ha) of National Forest lands. This study is among the first to report how carbon storage in large trees and forest ecosystems would be affected by a proposed policy. We examined the proportion of large-diameter trees on National Forest lands east of the Cascade Mountains crest in Oregon and Washington, their contribution to overall aboveground carbon (AGC) storage, and the potential reduction in carbon stocks resulting from widespread harvest. We analyzed forest inventory data collected on 3,335 plots and found that large trees play a major role in the accumulated carbon stock of these forests. Tree AGC (kg) increases sharply with tree diameter at breast height (DBH; cm) among five dominant tree species. Large trees accounted for 2.0 to 3.7% of all stems (DBH ≥ 1” or 2.54 cm) among five tree species; but held 33 to 46% of the total AGC stored by each species. Pooled across the five dominant species, large trees accounted for 3% of the 636,520 trees occurring on the inventory plots but stored 42% of the total AGC. A recently proposed large-scale vegetation management project that involved widespread harvest of large trees, mostly grand fir, would have removed ∼44% of the AGC stored in these large-diameter trees, and released a large amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Given the urgency of keeping additional carbon out of the atmosphere and continuing carbon accumulation from the atmosphere to protect the climate system, it would be prudent to continue protecting ecosystems with large trees for their carbon stores, and also for their co-benefits of habitat for biodiversity, resilience to drought and fire, and microclimate buffering under future climate extremes.

carbon climate mitigation eastside screens forests global change large-diameter trees 21-inch rule

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Forest carbon accumulation is crucial for mitigating ongoing climatic change, with individual large trees storing a substantial portion of the overall carbon in living trees. Globally, forests store about 862 Gt carbon in live and dead vegetation and soil, with 42% of it stored in live biomass (above- and belowground; Pan et al., 2011). Globally, forests removed the equivalent of about 30% of fossil fuel emissions annually from 2009 to 2018 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019), and 44% of that was by temperate forests. Temperate forests of the United States are the largest category of land sinks in the country, consistently offsetting about 14% of the Nation’s CO2 emissions (EPA, 2020). Projections indicate that ecological systems have significant additional climate mitigation potential, with forest carbon accumulation serving as a central component of a natural climate solutions framework (Griscom et al., 2017; Fargione et al., 2018; Moomaw et al., 2019; Cook-Patton et al., 2020).

      Large-diameter trees constitute about half of the mature forest biomass worldwide and are key to the ability of forests to accumulate substantial amounts of carbon needed to mitigate climate change (Luyssaert et al., 2008; Lutz et al., 2018). Trees exceeding 60 cm (23.6 in) diameter at breast height (DBH) comprise ∼41% of the world’s aboveground live tree biomass (Lutz et al., 2018). Furthermore, on average, 50% of the live tree biomass carbon in all types of forests globally is stored in the largest 1% of trees, but the value for the United States is lower, ∼30% in the largest 1% of trees due to widespread historical logging of large trees (Lutz et al., 2018). A single large tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in a single mid-sized tree of the same species (Stephenson et al., 2014). The relationship between large-diameter trees and overall forest biomass suggests that forests cannot accumulate aboveground carbon (AGC) to their ecological potential without large trees (Lutz et al., 2018). Recognition of the importance of large-diameter trees in determining global atmospheric carbon stocks has led to management recommendations to conserve existing large-diameter trees and those that will soon reach large diameters (Lindenmayer et al., 2014; Lutz et al., 2018; Moomaw et al., 2019).

      In addition to comprising a substantial portion of forest carbon storage and accumulation, large-diameter trees fulfill a variety of unique ecological roles such as increasing drought-tolerance, reducing flooding from intense precipitation events, altering fire behavior, redistributing soil water, and acting as focal centers of mycorrhizal communication and resource sharing networks (Bull et al., 1997; Brooks et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2004; Luyssaert et al., 2008; Beiler et al., 2015; Lindenmayer and Laurance, 2017). In the United States Pacific Northwest (PNW), carbon dense old growth forests buffer against increasing temperatures by creating microclimates that shelter understory species from rising temperatures (Frey et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2019a). Forests with large-diameter trees often have high tree species richness, and a high proportion of critical habitat for endangered vertebrate species, indicating a strong potential to support biodiversity into the future and promote ecosystem resilience to climate change (Lindenmayer et al., 2014; Buotte et al., 2020).

      In the PNW region of the United States a 21-inch (∼53 cm) diameter criteria (USDA Forest Service, 1995) was enacted in 1994 to slow the loss of large, older trees and old forest patches in national forests east of the Cascade Mountains crest in Oregon and Washington. The forests under consideration shall be referred to as “eastside forests” to be consistent with United States Forest Service (USFS) terminology. In our study, we refer to trees that equal or exceed this value to be “large-trees” or “large-diameter trees.” Extensive studies determined that the large tree component of old forest structure had decreased due to human uses, and that sensitive wildlife species associated with old growth forest such as the American Marten and the Northern Goshawk were also in decline (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 2000; Wisdom et al., 2000; Bull et al., 2005; Greenwald et al., 2005). Site-specific exceptions have allowed removal of some trees ≥21 in DBH. However, the 21-inch rule has prevented large-scale harvest of trees ≥21 in DBH. For example, the 2010 Snow Basin Vegetation Management Project proposed harvesting over 43,000 trees ≥21 in DBH but was stopped by litigation [League of Wilderness Defenders, et al., v. Connaughton, et al., No. 3:12-cv-02271-HZ (D. Or. Dec. 9, 2014)]. Recently restoration of these forests was claimed to be inhibited by the 21-inch rule that protects large trees from logging (Hessburg et al., 2020). The rationale for harvesting large trees is premised upon the use of historical baselines of stand structure and species composition as management targets, and assuming that by removing large shade-tolerant species like grand fir and Douglas-fir it will promote resilience to future drought and disturbance (Johnston et al., 2018; Merschel et al., 2019; Hessburg et al., 2020). However, ongoing climate change and many other anthropogenic stressors such as habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and declines in biodiversity, heighten concerns over use of historical conditions as management targets (Millar et al., 2007; IPCC, 2018; Ripple et al., 2020). Proposed amendments to the 21-inch diameter limit would allow widespread harvesting of the larger trees up to 30 in DBH (76.2 cm) across six National Forests of eastern Oregon and southwestern Washington with major implications for forest carbon dynamics and important environmental co-benefits (Figure 1).

      Locations of the six national forests in eastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and western Idaho, and the proposed Snow Basin Project area (A). The forest carbon conservation priority rank is shown for the national forests and (B) for the broader western United States. The forest carbon conservation priority rank is from Buotte et al. (2020) and was derived from simulations of potential forest carbon sequestration and vulnerability to drought and fire over the 21st century. Forest extent is from Ruefenacht et al. (2008).

      Carbon storage is an increasingly important management objective for National Forest Lands in the United States (Depro et al., 2008; Dilling et al., 2013; Dugan et al., 2017). USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data have been used to develop baseline stocks and trends of forest carbon for every region and individual National Forest, including assessment of the main disturbance, management, and environmental factors that drive changes (Birdsey et al., 2019). Western United States forests show considerable potential to accumulate additional carbon over the coming century, especially forests within the PNW that are projected to have relatively low to moderate vulnerability to future drought and fire (Figure 1; Buotte et al., 2020). Strategies to mitigate climate change effects on forests require careful examination of the tradeoffs of proposed forestry practices on forest carbon stock accumulation, water cycling, and additional environmental co-benefits of forests, such as biodiversity and microclimatic buffering (McKinley et al., 2011; Law et al., 2018; Sheil, 2018; Buotte et al., 2020).

      The potential effects of changing the 21-inch rule on carbon storage of eastside forests have not been adequately considered. Proposed changes to the management of large trees should be carefully assessed prior to adoption of new rules given that forest carbon storage is critically important in the context of a warming climate, and that large trees disproportionately store more accumulated carbon, keeping it out of the atmosphere. The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential impact of removal of the 21-inch rule on forest carbon stocks and carbon stock accumulation in eastside forests (Figure 1). We examine the relationship between tree DBH and AGC storage at tree to population scales for selected dominant tree species in eastside forests, focusing on the following questions:

      How does AGC storage change with tree diameter among the dominant eastside tree species?

      How common are large trees across the eastside forests by species and what proportion of each species total AGC do they account for?

      What are the potential consequences on carbon stores of widespread removal of large trees in eastside forest restoration projects?

      Materials and Methods Study Area

      Our study area included the six national forests in eastern Oregon, two of which extend slightly into southwestern Washington and western Idaho (Figure 1). Located within the East Cascades and Blue Mountains ecoregions, these national forests together cover approximately 11.5 million acres (4.7 million ha) of complex mountainous terrain, characterized by a broad range of environmental gradients in climate regimes and associated forest types (Johnson and Clausnitzer, 1992; Peterson and Waring, 1994; Berner and Law, 2015). The Blue Mountains ecoregion functions ecologically and floristically as a transverse bridge between the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Rocky Mountains to the east (Kerns et al., 2017). This “mega-corridor” links together some of the most intact habitat remaining in the PNW region and is of great importance to regional-scale connectivity and carbon storage in response to a warming climate (McGuire et al., 2016; Buotte et al., 2020).

      Climatic conditions from 1981 to 2019 were similar across National Forests with regard to January and July average temperatures but show substantial variation in annual precipitation (Table 1). The Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests are in the eastern Cascade Mountains and thus receive relatively high annual precipitation (817 mm and 681 mm) due to orographic uplift. National Forests in the southwestern Blue Mountains receive less precipitation (Malheur, 571 mm; Ochoco, 484 mm) due to their location within the rainshadow of the Cascade Mountains. In the northeastern portion of our study area annual precipitation increases to 802 mm and 792 mm, respectively, for the Umatilla and Wallowa Whitman National Forests due to the intrusion of moisture-laden air masses through the Columbia River Gorge. The region’s complex precipitation patterns are similarly reflected in the distribution of forest types and biophysical characteristics.

      Summary of forest inventory data and climate conditions for the six National Forests included in the analysis.

      National forest Forest inventory
      Climate conditions
      N. Plots DBH (cm) AGC (kg) Annual precipitation (mm) Temperature (°C)
      Annual Jan. July
      Deschutes 474 16 (187) 131 (11359) 817 (170) 6.1 (0.6) −1.5 (1.9) 16.1 (1.8)
      Fremont-Winema 740 17 (204) 145 (14269) 681 (156) 6.3 (0.6) −1.4 (1.9) 16.6 (1.8)
      Malheur 687 15 (145) 108 (8392) 571 (104) 5.9 (0.7) −2.9 (2.0) 17.2 (2.1)
      Ochoco 253 16 (188) 119 (13462) 484 (101) 7.1 (0.6) −1.0 (1.9) 17.6 (1.9)
      Umatilla 487 14 (139) 99 (8759) 802 (121) 6.8 (0.7) −1.5 (1.8) 17.5 (2.0)
      Wallowa-Whitman 694 13 (164) 91 (8301) 792 (119) 6.0 (0.7) −3.0 (1.8) 17.3 (2.1)
      Forest inventory data were from the USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis program for the period 2000 to 2018. The variables include number of inventory plots and the average (max) diameter at breast height (DBH) and aboveground carbon (AGC) of trees on inventory plots. Average (±1 SD) climate conditions were based on the 40-year period from 1981 to 2019 and derived from 4-km resolution gridded PRISM data (Daly et al., 2008).
      Forest Inventory and Analysis Dataset

      We relied on forest inventory measurements from the USFS FIA program and our own selection of biomass equations to evaluate relationships between tree diameter and AGC storage, as well as assess potential effects of tree removal proposed as part of the 2010 Snow Basin project. The FIA conducts systematic forest inventories across the United States, with one field sampling plot for every ∼2,400 hectares (6,000 acres) of forest (O’Connell et al., 2017). In the western United States, the FIA surveys 10% of sampling plots each year, meaning that each sampling plot is revisited every 10 years. At each sampling plot, field crews collect data on tree species, tree size, and other forest attributes. These inventory data are available online through the FIA DataMart1.

      We downloaded the latest FIA data (FIADB_1.8.0.02) for Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and then identified inventory plots that occurred within the six national forests based on a spatial overlay with national forest boundaries (n = 3,973 plots). To maintain landowner privacy the FIA plot coordinates available to the public are slightly altered (“fuzzed”), thus our spatial overlay may include some plots just outside the national forests or miss some plots that occur around the edges of these forests. We selected the latest inventory measurements from each surveyed plot for the years 2010 to 2018 (the most recent year available). We filtered these data to include only live trees of the five tree species of interest. A total of 54,651 individual trees were measured on the microplots, subplots, and macroplots, which represented 636,520 trees after applying the expansion factors for each type of plot. Overall, we used data from 3,335 plots in this analysis. A summary of FIA plot conditions within our study area shows that relatively small variations in average DBH across National Forests, between 13 cm and 17 cm, translate into substantial differences in AGC (Table 1). The Fremont Winema National Forest had the largest average DBH (∼17 cm) and the largest average AGC stores (∼145 kg), whereas the Wallowa-Whitman had the smallest average DBH (∼13 cm) and the smallest average AGC stores (∼91 kg).

      We performed the analysis using the statistical software R (v. 3.6.1; R Core Team, 2020) with add-on packages including data.table (Dawle and Srinivasan, 2019), ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016), maptools (Bivand and Lewin-Koh, 2019), raster (Hijmans, 2019), and rgdal (Bivand et al., 2019).

      Estimating Tree Aboveground Carbon Storage

      We estimated AGC storage (AGC; kg C) for each tree on the FIA inventory plots using tree biometric measurements from FIA along with species- and component-specific biomass allometric models and traits (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). Using species-specific allometric models that include height measurements are essential to capture climate and site effects on taper and height (volume), and reduce uncertainty compared to estimates that are diameter-based and generalized models. For example, Van Tuyl et al. (2005) found that generalized models underestimated biomass by 50% on the eastside. Specifically, for each tree we estimated AGC as the sum of carbon stored in stem, branch, bark, and foliage biomass. To estimate stem biomass, we first derived stem volume using species-specific allometric models that incorporated tree diameter and height (Cochran, 1985; Supplementary Table 1). We then converted stem volume to biomass using published information on the wood density of each species, which we found was important to reducing uncertainty in estimates (Van Tuyl et al., 2005; Ross, 2010; Berner and Law, 2015). We also estimated branch, bark, and foliage biomass using species-specific allometric models, substituting equations for similar species where necessary (Gholz et al., 1979; Means et al., 1994; Jenkins et al., 2004). We assumed dry stem, branch, and bark biomass was 47.6 to 52.5% carbon depending on species (Lamlom and Savidge, 2003) and that dry foliage biomass was 46.1 to 51.4% carbon depending on species (Berner and Law, 2016). For trees smaller than 10 cm DBH, total aboveground biomass was estimated from tree height and then converted to AGC assuming wood carbon content.

      Tree-Level Analysis of Relationship Between Tree Diameter and Aboveground Carbon

      To better understand how carbon storage varies with tree size in eastside forests, we examined relationships between tree diameter (DBH; cm) and aboveground carbon (AGC; kg) among trees sampled on the FIA plots. Specifically, we rounded the DBH of each tree to the nearest centimeter and then computed the average AGC of trees within each 1-cm size class. To account for sampling uncertainty, we repeatedly computed these metrics using a resampling approach where each draw (n = 104) utilized data from a random 25% of inventory plots sampled with replacement. We computed the median across these 104 draws as our best-estimate of these metrics and also derived 95% confidence intervals.

      Population-Level Analysis of Tree Diameter and Aboveground Carbon

      We evaluated how the cumulative percentage of tree stems and AGC varied with tree diameter across the six national forests of our study area using forest inventories. This involved quantifying the cumulative percentage of tree stems and total AGC by DBH for each tree species, as well as pooled across tree species. To account for sampling uncertainty, we again implement a resampling approach (n = 104 draws).

      Snow Basin Case Study: Carbon Consequences of Proposed Large Tree Removal

      To estimate the carbon consequences of large tree removal we utilized USFS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation from the Snow Basin Vegetation Management Project located on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Whitman Ranger District, Baker County, Oregon (Figure 1). The project area includes 10,721 ha (26,493 acres) of National Forest land and primarily encompasses two main subwatersheds (Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek and Little Eagle Creek). Elevations within the project area range from approximately 1,340 m (4,400 feet) on the southern boundary to approximately 1,980 m (6,500 feet) at the northern boundary near the border with the Eagle Cap Wilderness. The USFS’s preferred alternative plan was to remove over 43,000 large trees (DBH ≥ 21 in or 53.3 cm) from the project area. The large tree removal was prevented by litigation, but the project nonetheless provides a realistic framework to evaluate the carbon cost of large tree removal associated with dry forest landscape-scale restoration projects.

      The Snow Basin NEPA document estimated the number of large trees to be removed or retained per acre by biophysical environment (Snow Basin DEIS). The USFS’s preferred alternative proposed removal of grand fir from cool/moist and warm/dry grand fir biophysical environments, as well as removal of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch from mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir biophysical environments (Table 2). Based on this information we computed the total number of large trees proposed for removal vs. retention across the project area by biophysical environment. To evaluate the potential carbon consequences of large tree removal, it was necessary to know tree size class distribution. The FIA only surveyed 13 plots in the Snow Basin project area between 2010 and 2018, of which 12 plots included large trees. After an initial analysis, we deemed this inadequate for rigorous assessment of tree size class distribution and therefore used tree measurements from all FIA plots in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest that included large trees for the species of interest (n = 217 plots). To estimate the size class distribution of large trees, we computed the fraction of large trees that occurred at 0.1 cm DBH intervals between 53.3 cm and the largest observed DBH for grand fir, and after combining ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch into a mixed-species group. For each biophysical environment, we then distributed the large trees proposed for removal or retention among these size classes in proportion to the occurrence of trees in each size class. Lastly, we estimated the total large tree AGC that would be removed or retained by multiplying the number of trees in each size class by the mean AGC of trees in that size class and then summing AGC across size classes. To account for sampling uncertainty, we again computed these metrics using a resampling approach where each of 104 draws utilized data from a random 25% of inventory plots sampled with replacement. As before, we computed the median across these 104 draws as our best-estimate and derived 95% confidence intervals. For verification, we also performed this assessment using only FIA plots in the Snow Basin Project area rather than across the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and present these findings in the Supplementary Material.

      The total number of trees ≥21 in DBH proposed for removal and retention across the Snow Basin project area as reported in the NEPA plan prepared by the USFS (Table 53 of Snow Basin Vegetation Management Project DEIS, 2011).

      Biophysical environment Acres treated Species removed Mean number of large trees per acre Total number of large trees


      Removed Retained Removed Retained
      Cool/moist grand fir 973 Grand fir 5 9 4,865 8,757
      Warm/dry grand fir 5,262 Grand fir 5 5 26,310 26,310
      Warm/dry Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine Warm/moist Douglas-fir 6,136 Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, western larch 2 3 12,272 18,408
      Grand total 12,371 43,447 53,475
      Results Relationships Between Tree Diameter and Aboveground Carbon

      Average tree aboveground carbon (AGC; kg) rapidly increased with tree diameter at breast height (DBH; cm) among dominant tree species measured on USFS inventory plots located in the six eastside national forests (Figure 2). For instance, an average 25 cm (∼10”) diameter tree stored 90–121 kg of AGC depending on tree species, while a 50 cm (∼20”) diameter tree stored 541–683 kg of AGC. Thus, doubling tree diameter over this range led to a 5.3–6.2-fold increase in AGC. Similarly, tripling tree diameter from 25 cm to 75 cm led to a 13.8–18.2-fold increase in AGC, with the largest increase observed for ponderosa pine. For any given diameter, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch tended to store more AGC than an Engelmann spruce or grand fir.

      Average tree aboveground carbon (AGC; kg) increases sharply with tree diameter at breast height (DBH; cm) for five dominant tree species measured on USFS inventory plots located in the six eastside national forests. The 21-inch (53.3 cm) DBH limit of the Eastside Screens (vertical dash line) is shown for reference. Tree AGC (≥10 cm DBH) was estimated from tree diameter and height using regional species-specific allometric equations, wood density, and carbon content. Similarly, sapling AGC (DBH = 3–9.9 cm) was estimated from sapling height using regional species-specific allometry and wood carbon content. These estimates and 95% confidence intervals were derived by resampling (n = 104) measurements from inventory plots (n = 3,335). For visual clarity, the tree diameter limit for each species excludes the largest 0.5% of trees, generally those larger than 80 to 88 cm DBH.

      These results clearly showed that for large trees, a small increase in diameter corresponds to a massive increase in additional carbon storage relative to a small tree increasing by the same diameter increment. Overall, as trees grow larger, each additional centimeter of stem diameter corresponds with a progressively larger increase in tree carbon storage.

      Tree Diameter and Aboveground Carbon Storage Within Tree Populations

      Large trees (DBH ≥ 21 in or 53.3 cm) accounted for a small percentage of each species’ tree stems, but a substantial percentage of the total AGC stored by each species on FIA inventory plots located in the six eastside national forests (Figure 3 and Table 3). Specifically, large trees accounted for ∼2.0 to ∼3.7% of all stems (DBH ≥ 1” or 2.54 cm) among the five dominant tree species; however, these trees held ∼33.3 to ∼45.8% of the total AGC stored by each species (Table 3). Grand fir had the lowest percentage of stems ≥21 in DBH (∼2.0%), while ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir had the highest percentage of stems exceeding this threshold (both ∼3.7%). However, large grand fir trees accounted for 38.4% of total species AGC, whereas large Douglas-fir accounted for 37.5% of total species AGC. Western larch had the lowest percentage of total species AGC in trees ≥21 in (∼33.3%), whereas ponderosa pine had the highest percentage (∼45.8%).

      Percentage of (A) all tree stems and (B) total aboveground carbon that occur in trees above a given diameter threshold by species based on measurements from USFS inventory plots located in the six eastside national forests. The dashed vertical lines represent a 21 in (53.3 cm) tree DBH. These estimates and 95% confidence intervals were derived by resampling (n = 104) measurements from inventory plots (n = 3,335). For example, trees with ≥21 in diameter represent 3.7 [3.2, 4.2]% of all ponderosa pine and account for 45.8 [42.8, 48.8]% of all aboveground carbon stored by this species on these inventory plots. Only ∼0.002% of trees exceeded 150 cm diameter, so for visual clarity we limited the x-axis to 150 cm.

      Percentage of all trees stems and total aboveground carbon (AGC) occurring in trees above and below the 21 in DBH threshold based on measurements from USFS inventory plots located in the six eastside national forests.

      Common name Number of trees in the population % of total species stems in trees…
      % of total species AGC in trees…
      <21 in ≥21 in <21 in ≥21 in
      Douglas-fir 100021 96.3 [95.4, 97.1] 3.7 [2.9, 4.6] 62.5 [58.2, 66.7] 37.5 [33.3, 41.8]
      Engelmann spruce 31375 97.6 [96.0, 98.6] 2.4 [1.4, 4.0] 65.3 [54.6, 75.5] 34.7 [24.5, 45.4]
      Grand fir 187445 98.0 [97.5, 98.5] 2.0 [1.5, 2.5] 61.6 [57.0, 66.2] 38.4 [33.8, 43.0]
      Ponderosa pine 286970 96.3 [95.8, 96.8] 3.7 [3.2, 4.2] 54.2 [51.2, 57.2] 45.8 [42.8, 48.8]
      Western larch 30708 97.2 [95.5, 98.4] 2.8 [1.6, 4.5] 66.7 [58.4, 74.8] 33.3 [25.2, 41.6]
      Overall 636520 96.9 [96.6, 97.3] 3.1 [2.7, 3.4] 57.8 [55.7, 60.0] 42.2 [40.0, 44.3]
      Live trees were measured on 3,335 plots surveyed between 2010 and 2018. The estimates and 95% confidence intervals below were derived by resampling bootstrap sampling. Each bootstrap sample (n = 104) utilized measurements from 25% of inventory plots selected at random.

      Pooling across the five dominant species, large trees accounted for ∼3.1% of the 636,520 trees occurring on the inventory plots, but stored ∼42.2% of the total AGC. Similarly, based on the FIA’s CRM method, the five tree species together accounted for 44.9% of total AGC, with species-specific AGC stores ranging from ∼36.5 to ∼49.3% of the total stored by each species (Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Figure 1).

      A similar examination for trees >30 in DBH (76.2 cm) showed that among the five species, trees larger than 30 in DBH accounted for 0.4–0.9% of stems, but held ∼9.0 to ∼19.0% of each species AGC (Table 4). Ponderosa pine had the highest percentage of stems >30 in DBH (∼0.9%) and accounted for the highest percentage of AGC (∼19.4%) among the five species. Douglas-fir had ∼0.6% of stems >30 in DBH, and these stems held ∼12.9% of total species AGC. Engelmann Spruce, grand fir, and western larch each had ∼0.4% stems >30 in DBH, and accounted for ∼10.3, ∼14.0, and ∼9.2% of each species total AGC, respectively. Overall, trees >30 in DBH represent 0.6% of stems on inventory plots, but stored 16.6% of the total AGC.

      Percentage of all tree stems and total aboveground carbon (AGC) occurring in trees above and below the 30 in diameter threshold based on measurements from USFS inventory plots located in the six eastside national forests.

      Common name Number of trees in the population % of total species stems in trees…
      % of total species AGC in trees…
      <30 in >30 in <30 in >30 in
      Douglas-fir 100021 99.4 [99.2, 99.5] 0.6 [0.5, 0.8] 87.1 [83.7, 90.2] 12.9 [9.8, 16.3]
      Engelmann spruce 31375 99.6 [99.2, 99.9] 0.4 [0.1, 0.8] 89.7 [82.7, 95.7] 10.3 [4.3, 17.3]
      Grand fir 187445 99.6 [99.5, 99.7] 0.4 [0.3, 0.5] 86.0 [82.3, 89.3] 14.0 [10.7, 17.7]
      Ponderosa pine 286970 99.1 [99.0, 99.3] 0.9 [0.7, 1.0] 80.6 [78.3, 82.7] 19.4 [17.3, 21.7]
      Western larch 30708 99.6 [99.3, 99.8] 0.4 [0.2, 0.7] 90.8 [86.2, 94.8] 9.2 [5.2, 13.8]
      Overall 636520 99.4 [99.3, 99.4] 0.6 [0.6, 0.7] 83.4 [81.8, 85.0] 16.6 [15.0, 18.2]
      Tree AGC was derived using the FIA’s Component Ratio Method. Live trees were measured on 3,335 plots surveyed between 2010 and 2018. The estimates and 95% confidence intervals below were derived by resampling bootstrap sampling. Each bootstrap sample (n = 104) utilized measurements from 25% of inventory plots selected at random.
      Snow Basin Case Study: Carbon Consequences of Proposed Large Tree Removal

      As per the USFS NEPA documentation, the Snow Basin project preferred alternative would have removed ∼43,447 large trees (DBH ≥ 21 in or 53.3 cm) across 12,371 acres, while retaining ∼53,475 large trees over this area (Table 2). We estimate this would translate into removing ∼131.3 Gg AGC stored in large trees, while retaining ∼164.1 Gg AGC in large trees (1 Gg = 109 g; Table 5). Grand fir from cool-moist and warm-dry environments would together comprise ∼67% (∼87.3 Gg C) of large tree AGC removed by the project, while ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch from warm-dry and warm-moist environments would comprise the remaining ∼33% (∼43.8 Gg C). The project would have the largest relative and absolute impact on grand fir occurring in warm-dry environments, where 50% (∼73.7 Gg C) of large tree AGC would be removed. We obtained similar results albeit with substantially wider confidence intervals using only FIA inventory plots occurring in the Snow Basin project area (Supplementary Table 4).

      Removal and retention of aboveground carbon (AGC) in large trees (DBH ≥ 21 in) within the proposed Snow Basin project area.

      Common name Env. Total AGC in large trees (Gg C)… % of large tree AGC…


      Removed Retained Removed Retained
      Grand fir Cool moist 13.6 [12.0, 15.3] 24.5 [21.6, 27.5] 35.7 [35.7, 35.7] 64.3 [64.3, 64.3]
      Grand fir Warm dry 73.7 [65.0, 82.5] 73.7 [65.0, 82.5] 50.0 [50.0, 50.0] 50.0 [50.0, 50.0]
      Douglas-fir + ponderosa pine + western larch Warm dry or moist 43.8 [40.5, 47.3] 65.7 [60.8, 71.0] 40.0 [40.0, 40.0] 60.0 [60.0, 60.0]
      Overall 131.3 [120.8, 141.5] 164.1 [151.8, 176.2] 44.4 [44.2, 44.7] 55.6 [55.3, 55.8]
      Estimates of total AGC are given in gigagrams of carbon (1 Gg = 109 g). Values in brackets denote 95% confidence intervals derived by resampling (n = 104) inventory plots used to determine tree size class distributions.
      Discussion

      Our study reveals the large carbon stocks associated with large-diameter trees in the region, and the potential for significant losses in AGC with large tree logging. The 21-inch rule was initially conceived to protect remaining late successional and old-growth forest and the native species that depend on these unique ecosystems for survival in forests east of the Cascades Crest in Oregon and Washington (Henjum et al., 1994). The carbon storage associated with the 21-inch rule on the six national forests is a significant co-benefit of this protective measure. Large trees (DBH ≥ 21 in or 53.3 cm) constitute ∼3% of the total stems, but store ∼42% (∼45% with CRM; Supplementary Table 3) of the AGC across the six eastside forests (Table 3). This finding highlights the important role of large trees in storing carbon in eastside forest ecosystems, and is consistent with previous findings on the disproportionately important role of large trees in the forest carbon cycle (Hudiburg et al., 2009; Lutz et al., 2012, 2018; Stephenson et al., 2014). The sharp increase in carbon storage with increasing tree diameter (Figure 2) speaks to the importance of preserving mature and old large trees to keep this carbon stored in the forest ecosystem where it remains for centuries (Law et al., 2018; Lutz et al., 2018). Once trees attain large stature, each additional DBH increment results in a significant addition to the tree’s total carbon stores, whereas small-diameter trees must effectively ramp up to size before the relationship between DBH and AGC results in significant carbon gains. Harvest of large-diameter trees, even focused on a specific species (e.g., grand fir) can remove upward of 50% of the large tree AGC from these ecosystems (Table 5).

      There are substantial differences in wood density among the species examined that contributes to the observed differences in AGC at a given DBH. Wood density tends to be higher for ponderosa pine (∼0.45 g cm3), Douglas-fir (∼0.52 g cm3), and western larch (∼0.56 g cm3) than for Engelmann spruce (∼0.37 g cm3) or grand fir (∼0.40 g cm3; Supplementary Table 2). An evaluation of the relationship between tree height and diameter suggests the observed differences in AGC are not driven by ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch tending to be taller at a given DBH than Engelmann spruce or grand fir. Although stem decay is common in mature and old grand fir, a synthesis shows no evidence of carbon consequences of heart rot in grand fir (Harmon et al., 2008). While we could not estimate heart rot loss in grand fir due to lack of sufficient data, heart rot respiration has been estimated for another species and it had a scant contribution to ecosystem respiration (Harmon et al., 2004).

      Forestry practices exert significant controls on stand structure and forest carbon dynamics, and alterations of harvest practices can substantially alter carbon storage and accumulation (Masek et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2011; Krankina et al., 2012; Kauppi et al., 2015; Law et al., 2018). Generally, there is a negative relationship between harvest intensity and forest carbon stocks whereby as harvest intensity increases, forest carbon stocks decrease while emissions increase (Hudiburg et al., 2009; Mitchell et al., 2009; Simard et al., 2020). It can take centuries to reaccumulate forest carbon stocks reduced by harvest (Birdsey et al., 2006; McKinley et al., 2011). It would take 180 to 310 years to reach maximum biomass in the Blue Mountains and East Cascades, respectively, after harvest of the large trees (Hudiburg et al., 2009), too long to help reach climate mitigation targets in the next few decades. The amount of harvested carbon that remains stored in wood products is insufficient to offset the loss of carbon stored in the forest. If harvested, life cycle assessment shows that 65% of the wood harvested in Oregon over the past 115 years has been emitted to the atmosphere, 16% is in landfills and only 19% remains in wood products (Hudiburg et al., 2019). Thus, harvesting the large trees will increase, not decrease emissions and end centuries of long-term carbon storage in the forests.

      The 21-inch rule has preserved the trees that store and accumulate a disproportionately large amount of carbon in these forests (Figure 3 and Table 3). Of the ∼3% of tree stems over 21 in DBH in the study area, about 81% of these are between 21 in and 30 in DBH and account for ∼61% of the AGC in all large trees (Supplementary Figure 2). Trees over 30 inches DBH account for ∼19% of the large tree stems and hold ∼39% of AGC in large trees. These findings are similar to those reported by Stephenson et al. (2014) and emphasize the relative importance of the sub-30 in DBH large trees in the study area, and the value in allowing these trees to continue growing and replenish the stock of trees over 30 inches DBH that are rare on the landscape. This proforestation strategy is among the most rapid means for accumulating additional quantities of carbon in forests and out of the atmosphere (Moomaw et al., 2019).

      The importance of forest carbon storage is now greatly amplified by a warming climate that must urgently be addressed with reductions in greenhouse gasses and natural climate solutions (IPCC, 2018; Ripple et al., 2020). The preponderance of forests in our study area have medium to high carbon accumulation potential and low future climatic vulnerability (Figure 1), which reinforces the value of protecting large trees to help abate our current trajectory toward massive global change (Fargione et al., 2018; Buotte et al., 2020). Rather than holding ecosystems to an idealized conception of the past using historical conditions as management targets, a good understanding of the environmental co-benefits associated with large tree protection is needed to inform management strategies that contribute toward solving humanity’s most pressing Earth system challenges (Millar et al., 2007; Rockström et al., 2009; Barnosky et al., 2017; Ripple et al., 2020). Replacing large diameter trees with seedlings will create a major carbon loss to the atmosphere during harvest (Harris et al., 2016) and not achieve storage of comparable atmospheric carbon for the indefinite future.

      Large grand fir trees (DBH ≥ 21 in or 53.3 cm) accounted for the lowest proportion of tree stems for the five species we evaluated (2%), possibly reflecting the ingrowth of young, small grand fir within portions of our study area (Merschel et al., 2014; Johnston et al., 2016). One of the main premises for the proposed removals of large-diameter grand fir trees is that they have increased over historic levels, especially in drier biophysical environments. However, our data does not indicate an uncharacteristic abundance of large grand fir trees across these forests. Given the recent history of high-grade logging that focused on large and old trees (Henjum et al., 1994; Rainville et al., 2008), historical abundances of large trees were much greater than today (Wales et al., 2007; Hagmann et al., 2013; Kauppi et al., 2015), and thus would have represented a larger fraction of aboveground biomass than currently found on these forests.

      Interestingly, with respect to the overall representation of species abundance based on inventory plots (Table 3), the population of grand fir with 187,445 stems is a distant second to ponderosa pine with 286,970 stems, followed by Douglas-fir (100,021 stems), Engelmann spruce (31,375 stems), and western larch (30,708 stems). To the extent that current forest stand structure is skewed toward smaller diameter classes, ponderosa pine, grand fir, and Douglas-fir trees are notable for the number of trees on inventory plots.

      It is important to note that a diameter limit that emphasized protection of carbon stores would ideally protect trees starting at a lower DBH limit (∼12–15 inches). The 21-inch rule has provided significant leeway for fuels reduction and ecological restoration toward historical baselines to proceed in eastside forests. Ecological restoration treatments generally recommend giving protection to large and old trees, while reducing surface and ladder fuels, and accompanied by understory thinning treatments where appropriate and reintroduction of low-intensity fire at intervals (Allen et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2004; Agee and Skinner, 2005; Noss et al., 2006). From a forest carbon perspective, it would be prudent to restore an appropriate number of the approximately 97% of tree stems <21 inches DBH to replenish the stock of large trees over time (Lutz et al., 2018; Moomaw et al., 2019), while continuing to protect large trees for their carbon stores and the myriad other benefits that they provide. This approach would achieve the benefits of proforestation in the larger, most fire-resistant trees and reduction of fuel loads and stem density in the smaller diameter tree stems.

      The Snow Basin project provides a case study for how amending the 21-inch rule to allow logging large trees could change management across the six eastside National Forests. Overall the Snow Basin project would have removed 44% or 131,000 metric tons of carbon stored in large trees. This is equivalent to ∼0.75% of annual Oregon statewide carbon emissions, and this does not include carbon in tree roots or the AGC losses due to the removal of trees <21 in DBH. Removing nearly half of the carbon content from the large trees over 12,000 acres would create a carbon deficit in the live, dead, and soil carbon pools that will persist for many decades to the end of the century. However, left standing, these 43,445 large trees continue to grow, sequestering more carbon into long-term stores (Stephenson et al., 2014; Law et al., 2018; Domke et al., 2020). Older trees (∼100 years) are the next generation of old growth and already possess qualities associated with large, old trees, such as large canopies, deep root systems, and thick, fire-resistant bark.

      Co-Benefits of Carbon, Habitat, Biodiversity, Water Availability, Resilience to Climate Extremes

      High carbon conservation-priority forests support important components of biodiversity and are associated with increased water availability (McKinley et al., 2011; Perry and Jones, 2016; Berner et al., 2017; Law et al., 2018; Buotte et al., 2020). Large-diameter snags persist as standing snags for many years, providing valuable wildlife habitat, and account for a relatively high proportion of total snag biomass in temperate forests (Lutz et al., 2012). In PNW forests, large hollow trees, both alive and dead, are the most valuable for denning, shelter, roosting, and hunting by a wide range of animals (Bull et al., 2000; Rose et al., 2001). In the Interior Columbia River Basin, grand fir and western larch form the best hollow trees for wildlife uses (Rose et al., 2001). Downed hollow logs continue to serve as important hiding, denning, and foraging habitat on the forest floor (Bull et al., 1997; Bull et al., 2000). Large decaying wood influences basic ecosystem processes such as soil development and productivity, nutrient immobilization and mineralization, and nitrogen fixation (Harmon et al., 1986). Continuing to protect large trees in eastside forests provides the greatest benefit for carbon, habitat, and biodiversity.

      Water availability and microclimatic buffering are also disproportionately affected by large trees and intact forests (Frey et al., 2016; Buotte et al., 2020). Forest canopies of the PNW buffer extremes of maximum temperature and vapor pressure deficit, with biologically beneficial consequences (Davis et al., 2019a). Removal of large trees quickly leads to a large increase in soil and canopy heating, which increases enough to impact photosynthesis (Kim et al., 2016), seedling survival, and regeneration (Kolb and Robberecht, 1996; Davis et al., 2019b). The climatic changes toward warmer and drier conditions expected in the next decades will likely increase forest stress and mortality (Allen et al., 2015). Eastside forests experienced hotter and drier conditions from 2003 to 2012 concentrated in the months of August and September, especially in drier forest type groups (i.e., ponderosa pine, juniper), whereas spring months (April–June) showed trends toward cooler and wetter conditions (Mildrexler et al., 2016). Projections suggest that proportionally, the largest changes in microclimatic buffering capacity will occur in lower elevation or dry forests, which currently have more limited buffering capacity (Davis et al., 2019a). In these drier regions, microclimatic buffering by forest canopies may create important microsites and refugia in a moisture-limited system (Meigs and Krawchuk, 2018). In an old growth ponderosa pine stand in eastern Oregon, ∼35% of the total daily water used from the upper 2 m was replaced by hydraulic redistribution from deep soil by deep-rooted larger trees in summer (Brooks et al., 2002). The bigger trees rarely reach 80% loss of hydraulic conductivity, and both mature pine and mesic Douglas-fir were better buffered from the effects of drought on photosynthesis compared with young pine (∼20-year old) due to full root development and larger stem capacitance in older trees (Kwon et al., 2018). Redistribution of deep soil water can increase seedling survival during summer drought when young trees lack the root development to reach deep soil water (Brooks et al., 2002). While large tree composition may have shifted today relative to European settlement times, these large trees nonetheless continue to perform important functional attributes related to water and climate such as carbon storage, hydraulic redistribution, shielding the understory from direct solar radiation, and providing wildlife habitat. These functional attributes of large trees, irrespective of species, characterize ecosystems through thousands to millions of years (Barnosky et al., 2017), and are not quickly replaced.

      In mesic forest environments, microclimatic buffering and transpirational cooling are amplified because sites with higher moisture availability are better able to shift energy to latent as opposed to sensible heat fluxes (Dai et al., 1999; Mildrexler et al., 2011). During midday in full sun the surface temperature of a closed canopy moist forest is warmer than the temperature beneath the canopy which is protected from direct solar radiation (Thomas, 2011). Microclimates in moist forests are strongly linked to their closed-canopy structure (Chen et al., 1999; Aussenac, 2000). Removal of the overstory creates canopy openings that increase solar radiation penetration resulting in increased drying of the understory vegetation and the forest floor, and a thermal response of rising land surface temperatures (Chen et al., 1993, 1999). This alteration in the subcanopy thermal regime changes atmospheric mixing between the ground, subcanopy, and canopy, which in turn modifies the microclimate condition of the affected stand. Microclimate modifications associated with forest harvesting are expected to be greatest in moist forests and may affect resilience to climate change and increase the risk of occurrence and severity of wildfires (Lindenmayer et al., 2009). Maintaining mesic microclimates may give undisturbed moist forests and the species they support some inherent resilience to climate change. Moreover, an evaluation of the effects of water limitations on forest carbon cycling in the eastern Cascade Mountains found that grand fir radial growth was not strongly associated with variability in temperature or water variability (Berner and Law, 2015). A lengthening of the growing season may increase productivity in high-elevation grand fir stands. The microclimatic buffering, current and future potential carbon stores, and intact nature of previously unlogged grand fir and Douglas-fir forest types are co-benefits of protecting large trees that need to be considered in future management decisions.

      Potential Solutions

      The consequences of reducing protection of large trees are significant reduction in forest carbon stores and their climate mitigation, impacts on habitat for animals including birds, and resilience to a changing climate for decades to centuries to come. Given the rarity of large trees across the landscape, and their outsized role in storing carbon removed from the atmosphere, our findings call into question the value of removing large trees for forest modification in eastside forests.

      If the 21-inch rule were retained on these lands, continued protection of the existing carbon stock would prevent large quantities of harvest related biogenic carbon from being released to the atmosphere. It is also essential to let a sufficient number of sub-21 inch trees remain to become additional large, effective carbon stores, and assure that carbon accumulation continues in these forests. Rather than weakening the 21-inch rule, we suggest strengthening this important measure and expanding large tree protections to other western United States public lands that have been adversely affected by a similar history of large-tree logging. Protecting and growing more large trees is the most effective near-term option for accumulating more carbon out of the atmosphere, and will benefit other ecosystem services as well.

      Some public lands (local, state, and federal) could become part of a designated reserve system that includes intact forest landscapes, and carbon rich forests, that hold most of these large, older trees. This is an appropriate use of public lands because the services they provide including biodiversity, water retention, carbon accumulation and storage, and regional cooling by evapotranspiration serve the public interest, and promote sustainable economies that benefit from land protection and restoration.

      The critical need to adapt to more wildfire in the west is congruent with protecting large-trees in fire-prone forests. Older forests experience lower fire-severity compared with younger, intensively managed forests, even during extreme weather conditions (Zald and Dunn, 2018). A shift in policy and management from restoring ecosystems based on historical baselines to adapting to changing fire regimes and from unsustainable defense of the wildland–urban interface to developing fire-adapted communities is needed (Schoennagel et al., 2017). Improved fire and forest management is part of the solution, but the most effective changes in terms of protection of people and property, will be near homes and on private property. Prioritizing federal fuel treatments around communities and creating better mechanisms for reducing fuels on private land can help reduce home loss and better protect communities (Moritz et al., 2014; Schoennagel et al., 2017). Given the natural role of fire in the West, managing more wild and prescribed fires with a range of severities will help reduce future wildfire threats and increase ecological benefits in many systems (Schoennagel et al., 2017).

      Eastside forests are surrounded predominantly by rural communities. For production forests, lengthening the forest cycle will keep a larger amount of carbon in trees and soils rather than in the atmosphere (Law et al., 2018). Rather than coupling funding of forest restoration or community payments to logging large trees and disturbing older forests, new policies could be enacted that compensate rural communities for protecting large trees in older forests and some of the younger trees that will become large with their associated carbon stores. To implement such policies, the amount to be paid to a community needs to be marginally greater than the revenue earned from cutting these large trees and the older forests in which they are located. Policies that provide compensation for setting aside reserves and individual trees with microhabitats are already in place in Europe (European Commission, 2015). Because this service benefits society as a whole and is an irreplaceable part of the natural climate solutions framework urgently needed for climate stabilization, the payment funds should come from the treasury since all citizens benefit from carbon accumulation by these trees and forests. With over half of Oregon’s forest east of the Cascade Mountains crest, these forests are key to the State’s climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation goals.

      Conclusion

      Conducting a quantitative assessment using empirical data has determined the large carbon stock that would be lost and the resulting climate consequences if these large trees are harvested. Research indicates that 2021 begins a pivotal decade for humanity to transition off of fossil-fuels (IPCC, 2018) and move “to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (UNFCCC, 1992, Article 2). To meet net-zero carbon goals by 2050, it is estimated that reductions in net carbon emissions must be 7.6% per year over the decade of the 2020s (UNEP, 2019). This is most readily accomplished by reducing fossil fuel, bioenergy and industrial carbon dioxide emissions while simultaneously accumulating more carbon dioxide by protecting existing older forests that contain the largest share of carbon, and by allowing more forests to continue to accumulate carbon through proforestation (IUCN, 2020). Proforestation allows existing forests to continue growing without harvest or other management practices so that more trees can reach the large tree size that accumulates more carbon in the near and long term than do reforestation and afforestation (Moomaw et al., 2019). No additional land is required as is the case with afforestation, and proforestation is the lowest cost opportunity for reaching the zero net carbon goal by 2050. In fire-prone forests such as in our study area, a diameter limit strikes the balance between protecting the most fire-resistant trees that store the most carbon and allowing fuels reduction with reintroduction of fire in dry biophysical environments. Intact mesic forests are ideal locations for proforestation. Harvesting large trees will add very large amounts of biogenic carbon to the atmosphere (Harris et al., 2016), and make the net zero carbon goal difficult or impossible for Oregon to achieve. The young trees will never be able to recover and accumulate the amount of carbon that is in the growing and older forests during these next critical decades, and will only equal current levels a century or more from now.

      Protecting large trees to help stabilize climate is critically important for managing forest ecosystems as social-ecological systems. Knowledge of the disproportionately large amount of carbon stored in a small fraction of trees creates an opportunity to engage the public, decision makers, and forest managers in their importance as an integral part of the climate solution.

      Data Availability Statement

      Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study and are available through the FIA DataMart: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/fia/datamart/CSV/datamart_csv.html.

      Author Contributions

      DM and LB conceived the ideas and designed the study with critical suggestions from BL and RB. DM and LB collected the data. LB processed the data and carried out the modeling. DM and LB analyzed the data and led the writing of the manuscript. BL, RB, and WM assisted with writing, and contributed critically to the drafts. All authors gave final approval for publication.

      Conflict of Interest

      LB was employed by EcoSpatial Services L.L.C. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      Funding. This research was supported by United States Department of Energy (Grant DE-SC0012194) and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Grant numbers 2014-67003-22065 and 2014-35100-22066) for our North American Carbon Program study, “Carbon cycle dynamics within Oregon’s urban-suburban-forested-agricultural landscapes.” WM received support from Rockefeller Brothers Fund. DM received support from Eastern Oregon Legacy Lands.

      Thanks to Dr. Mark Harmon for supporting the initiation of this research.

      Supplementary Material

      The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: /articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274/full#supplementary-material

      References Agee J. K. Skinner C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For. Ecol. Manage. 211 8396. 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034 Allen C. D. Breshears D. D. McDowell N. G. (2015). On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6:129. 10.1890/ES15-00203.1 Allen C. D. Savage M. S. Falk D. A. Suckling K. F. Swetnam T. W. Schulke T. (2002). Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecol. Appl. 12 14181433. 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1418:erospp]2.0.co;2 Aussenac G. (2000). Interactions between forest stands and microclimate: ecophysiological aspects and consequences for silviculture. Ann. For Sci. 57 287301. 10.1051/forest:2000119 Barnosky A. D. Hadly E. A. Gonzalez P. Head J. Polly P. D. Lawing A. M. (2017). Merging paleobiology with conservation biology to guide the future of terrestrial ecosystems. Science 355:eaah4787. 10.1126/science.aah4787 28183912 Beiler K. J. Simard S. W. Durall D. M. (2015). Topology of Rhizopogon spp. mycorrhizal meta-networks in xeric and mesic old-growth interior Douglas-fir forests. J. Ecol. 103 616628. 10.1111/1365-2745.12387 Berner L. T. Law B. E. (2015). Water limitations on forest carbon cycling and conifer traits along a steep climatic gradient in the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Biogeosciences 12 66176635. 10.5194/bg-12-6617-2015 Berner L. T. Law B. E. (2016). Plant traits, productivity, biomass and soil properties from forest sites in the Pacific Northwest, 1999–2014. Sci. Data 3:160002. Berner L. T. Law B. E. Hudiburg T. W. (2017). Water availability limits tree productivity, carbon stocks, and carbon residence time in mature forests across the western US. Biogeosciences 14 365378. 10.5194/bg-14-365-2017 Birdsey R. Pregitzer K. Lucier A. (2006). Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-2100. J. Environ. Qual. 35 14611469. 10.2134/jeq2005.0162 16825466 Birdsey R. A. Dugan A. J. Healey S. P. Dante-Wood K. Zhang F. Mo G. (2019). Assessment of the Influence of Disturbance, Management Activities, and Environmental Factors on Carbon Stocks of U.S. National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-402. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bivand R. Keitt T. Rowlingson B. (2019). rgdal: Bindings for the ‘Geospatial’ Data Abstraction Library. R package version 1.4-8. Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal (accessed October 25, 2019). Bivand R. Lewin-Koh N. (2019). maptools: Tools for Handling Spatial Objects. R package version 0.9.9. Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=maptools (accessed February 2, 2019). Brooks J. R. Meinzer F. C. Coulombe R. Gregg J. (2002). Hydraulic redistribution of soil water during summer drought in two contrasting Pacific Northwest coniferous forests. Tree Physiol. 22 11071117. 10.1093/treephys/22.15-16.1107 12414370 Brown R. T. Agee J. K. Franklin J. F. (2004). Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place. Conserv. Biol. 18 903912. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.521_1.x Bull E. L. Akenson J. J. Henjum M. J. (2000). Characteristics of black bear dens in trees and logs in northeastern Oregon. Northw. Naturalist 81 148153. 10.2307/3536825 Bull E. L. Heater T. W. Shepherd J. F. (2005). Habitat selection by the American Marten in Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Sci. 79 3642. Bull E. L. Parks C. G. Torgersen T. R. (1997). Trees and Logs Important to Wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Buotte P. C. Law B. E. Ripple W. J. Berner L. T. (2020). Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecol. Appl. 30:e02039. 10.1002/eap.2039 31802566 Chen J. Franklin J. F. Spies T. A. (1993). Contrasting microclimates among clearcut, edge, and interior of old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 63 219237. 10.1016/0168-1923(93)90061-l Chen J. Saunders S. C. Crow T. R. Naiman R. J. Brosofske K. D. Mroz G. D. (1999). Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape ecology. BioScience 49 288297. 10.2307/1313612 Cochran P. H. (1985). Site Index, Height Growth, Normal Yields and Stocking Levels for Larch in Oregon and Washington. Research Paper PNW-RP-424. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cook-Patton S. C. Leavitt S. M. Gibbs D. Harris N. L. Lister K. Anderson-Teixeira K. J. (2020). Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585 545550. 10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x 32968258 Dai A. Trenberth K. E. Karl T. R. (1999). Effects of clouds, soil moisture, precipitation, and water vapor on diurnal temperature range. J. Clim. 12 24512473. 10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<2451:eocsmp>2.0.co;2 Daly C. Halbleib M. Smith J. I Gibson W. P. Dogget M. K. Taylor G. H. (2008). Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int. J. Climatol. 28 20312064. 10.1002/joc.1688 Davis K. T. Dobrowski S. Z. Higuera P. E. Holden Z. A. Veblen T. T. Rother M. T. (2019b). Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 61936198. 10.1073/pnas.1815107116 30858310 Davis K. T. Dobrowski S. Z. Holden Z. A. Higuera P. E. Abatzoglou J. T. (2019a). Microclimatic buffering in forests of the future: the role of local water balance. Ecography 42 111. 10.1111/ecog.03836 Dawle M. Srinivasan A. (2019). data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame’. R package version 1.12.8. Available online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table (accessed October 17, 2019). Depro B. M. Murray B. C. Alig R. J. Shanks A. (2008). Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. For. Ecol. Manage. 225 11221134. 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.036 Dilling L. Birdsey R. Pan Y. (2013). “Opportunities and challenges for carbon management on U.S. public lands,” in Land Use and the Carbon Cycle: Advances in Integrated Science, Management and Policy, eds Brown D. G. Robinson D. T. French N. H. F. Reed B. C. (Cambridge: Cambridge Press), 455476. 10.1017/cbo9780511894824.023 Domke G. M. Oswalt S. N. Walters B. F. Morin R. S. (2020). Tree planting has the potential to increase carbon sequestration capacity of forests in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 2464924651. 10.1073/pnas.2010840117 32958649 Dugan A. J. Birdsey R. Healey S. P. Pan Y. Zhang F. Mo G. (2017). Forest sector carbon analyses support land management planning and projects: assessing the influence of anthropogenic and natural factors. Clim. Change 144 207220. 10.1007/s10584-017-2038-5 EPA (2020). Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018. EPA 430-P-20-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 719. European Commission (2015). Natura 2000 and Forests. Part I–II. Technical Report—2015-088. Brussels: EU Commission Environment. Fargione J. E. Bassett S. Boucher T. Bridgham S. D. Conant R. T. Cook-Patton S. C. (2018). Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4:eaat1869. 10.1126/sciadv.aat186 Frey S. J. K. Hadley A. S. Johnson S. L. Schulze M. Jones J. A. Betts M. G. (2016). Spatial models reveal the microclimate buffering capacity of old-growth forests. Sci. Adv. 2:e1501392. 10.1126/sciadv.1501392 27152339 Friedlingstein P. Jones M. W. O’Sullivan M. Andrew R. M. Hauck J. Peter G. P. (2019). Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11 17831838. 10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019 Gholz H. L. Grier C. C. Campbell A. G. Brown A. T. (1979). Equations for Estimating Biomass and Leaf Area of Plants in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. 41, Forestry Research Laboratory. Corvallis: Oregon State University, 38. Greenwald D. N. Crocker-Bedford D. C. Broberg L. Suckling K. E. Tibbitts T. (2005). A review of Northern Goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the Western United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33 120129. 10.2307/3784847 Griscom B. W. Adams J. Ellis P. W. Houghton R. A. Lomax G. Miteva D. A. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 1164511650. 10.1073/pnas.1710465114 29078344 Hagmann R. K. Franklin J. F. Johnson K. N. (2013). Historical structure and composition of ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests in south-central Oregon. For. Ecol. Manag. 304 492504. 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.04.005 Harmon M. E. Bible K. Ryan M. G. Shaw D. C. Chen H. Klopatek J. (2004). Production, respiration, and overall carbon balance in an old-growth Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forest ecosystem. Ecosystems 7 498512. 10.1007/s10021-004-0140-9 Harmon M. E. Franklin J. F. Swanson F. J. Sollins P. Gregory S. V. Lattin J. D. (1986). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 15 133302. 10.1016/S0065-2504(03)34002-4 Harmon M. E. Woodall C. W. Fasth B. Sexton J. (2008). Woody Detritus Density and Density Reduction Factors for Tree Species in the United States: A Synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-29. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 84. Harris N. L. Hagen S. C. Saatchi S. S. Pearson T. R. H. Woodall C. W. Domke G. M. (2016). Attribution of net carbon change by disturbance type across forest lands of the conterminous United States. Carbon Balance Manag. 11:24. 10.1186/s13021-016-0066-5 27909460 Henjum M. G. Karr J. R. Bottom D. L. Perry D. A. Bednarz J. C. Wright S. G. (1994). Interim Protection for Late Successional Forest, Fisheries and Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society. Hessburg P. F. Charnley S. Wendel K. L. White E. M. Spies T. A. Singleton P. H. (2020). The 1994 Eastside Screens—Large Tree Harvest Limit: Synthesis of Science Relevant to Forest Planning 25 years Later. Portland, OR: USDA. Hijmans R. J. (2019). raster: Geographic Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.0-12. Available online at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (accessed August 22, 2019). Hudiburg T. Law B. Turner D. P. Campbell J. Donato D. C. Duane M. (2009). Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecol. Appl. 19 163180. 10.1890/07-2006.1 Hudiburg T. W. Law B. E. Moomaw W. R. Harmon M. E. Stenzel J. E. (2019). Meeting GHG reduction targets requires accounting for all forest sector emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 095005. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab28bb Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (2000). Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Boise: ICBEMP. IPCC (2018). “Summary for policymakers,” in Global Warming of 1.5oC, An IPCC Special Report, eds Masson Delmotte V. Zhai P. Rtner H.-O. P. Roberts D. Skea J. Shukla P. R. (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization), 32. IUCN (2020). International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Cyril Kormos, Brendan Mackey, Russel Mittermeir, Virginia Young, Primary Forests: A Priority Nature-Based Solution. Available online at: https://www.iucn.org/crossroads-blog/202003/primary-forests-a-priority-nature-based-solution (accessed August 5, 2020) Jenkins J. Chojnacky D. Heath L. Birdsey R. (2004). Comprehensive Database of Diameter-Based Biomass Regressions for North American Tree Species. Gen Tech Rep NE-319. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Johnson C. G. Clausnitzer R. R. (1992). Plant Associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. R6-ERW-T-036-92. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. Johnston J. D. Bailey J. D. Dunn C. J. (2016). Influence of fire disturbance and biophysical heterogeneity on pre-settlement ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Ecosphere 7:e01581. 10.1002/ecs2.1581 Johnston J. D. Dunn C. J. Vernon M. J. Bailey J. D. Morrissette B. A. Morici K. E. (2018). Restoring historical forest conditions in a diverse inland Pacific Northwest landscape. Ecosphere 9:e02400. 10.1002/ecs2.2400 Kauppi P. E. Birdsey R. A. Pan Y. Ihalainen P. Nöjd P. Lehtonen A. (2015). Effects of land management on large trees and carbon stocks. Biogeosciences 12 855886. 10.5194/bg-12-855-2015 Kerns B. K. Powell D. C. Mellmann-Brown S. Carnwath G. Kim J. B. (2017). Effects of projected climate change on vegetation in the Blue Mountains ecoregion, USA. Clim. Serv. 10 3343. 10.1016/j.cliser.2017.07.002 Kim Y. Still C. J. Hanson C. V. Kwon H. Greer B. T. Law B. E. (2016). Canopy skin temperature variations in relation to climate, soil temperature, and carbon flux at a ponderosa pine forest in central Oregon. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 226 161173. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.06.001 Kolb P. F. Robberecht R. (1996). High temperature and drought stress effects on survival of Pinus ponderosa seedlings. Tree Physiol. 16 665672. 10.1093/treephys/16.8.665 14871688 Krankina O. N. Harmon M. E. Schnekenburger F. S. Sierra C. A. (2012). Carbon balance on federal forest lands of Western Oregon and Washington: the impact of the Northwest Forest Plan. For. Ecol. Manage. 286 171182. 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.028 Kwon H. Law B. E. Thomas C. K. Johnson B. G. (2018). The influence of hydrological variability on inherent water use efficiency in forests of contrasting composition, age, and precipitation regimes in the Pacific Northwest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 249 488500. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.08.006 Lamlom S. Savidge R. (2003). A reassessment of carbon content in wood: variation within and between 41 North American species. Biomass Bioenergy 25 381388. 10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00033-3 Law B. E. Hudiburg T. W. Berner L. T. Kent J. J. Buotte P. C. Harmon M. (2018). Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 36633668. 10.1073/pnas.1720064115 29555758 Lindenmayer D. B. Hunter M. L. Burton P. J. Gibbons P. (2009). Effects of logging on fire regimes in moist forests. Conserv. Lett. 2 271277. 10.1111/j.1755-263x.2009.00080.x Lindenmayer D. B. Laurance W. F. (2017). The ecology, distribution, conservation and management of large old trees. Biol. Rev. 92 14341458. 10.1111/brv.12290 27383287 Lindenmayer D. B. Laurance W. F. Franklin J. F. Likens G. E. Banks S. C. Blanchard W. (2014). New policies for old trees: averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. Conserv. Lett. 7 6169. 10.1111/conl.12013 Lutz J. A. Furniss T. J. Johnson D. J. Davies S. J. Allen D. Alonso A. (2018). Global importance of large-diameter trees. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27 849864. 10.1111/geb.12747 Lutz J. A. Larson A. J. Swanson M. E. Freund J. A. (2012). Ecological importance of large-diameter trees in a temperate mixed-conifer forest. PLoS One 7:e36131. 10.1371/journal.pone.0036131 22567132 Luyssaert S. Schulze E.-D. Börner A. Knohl A. Hessenmöller D. Law B. E. (2008). Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455 213215. 10.1038/nature07276 18784722 Masek J. G. Cohen W. B. Leckie D. Wulder M. A. Vargas R. de Jong B. (2011). Recent Rates of Forest Harvest and Conversion in North America. J. Geophy. Res. 116:G00K03. 10.1029/2010JG001471 McGuire J. L. Lawler J. J. McRae B. H. Nuñez T. Theobald D. M. (2016). Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 71957200. 10.1073/pnas.1602817113 27298349 McKinley D. C. Ryan M. G. Birdsey R. A. Giardina C. P. Harmon M. E. Heath L. S. (2011). A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 21 19021924. 10.1890/10-0697.1 Means J. E. Hansen H. A. Koerper G. J. Alaback P. B. Klopsch M. W. (1994). Software for Computing Plant Biomass–BIOPAK Users Guide. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Meigs G. W. Krawchuk M. A. (2018). Composition and structure of forest fire refugia: what are the ecosystem legacies across burned landscapes? Forests 9:243. 10.3390/f9050243 Merschel A. Vora R. S. Spies T. (2019). Conserving dry old-growth forest in Central Oregon, USA. J. For. 117 128135. 10.1093/jofore/fvy085 Merschel A. G. Spies T. A. Heyerdahl E. K. (2014). Mixed−conifer forests of central Oregon: effects of logging and fire exclusion vary with environment. Ecol. Appl. 24 16701688. 10.1890/13-1585.1 Mildrexler D. J. Yang Z. Cohen W. B. (2016). A forest vulnerability index based on drought and high temperatures. Rem. Sens. Environ. 173 314325. 10.1016/j.rse.2015.11.024 Mildrexler D. J. Zhao M. Running S. W. (2011). A global comparison between station air temperatures and MODIS land surface temperatures reveals the cooling role of forests. J. Geophys. Res. 116:G03025. 10.1029/2010JG001486 Millar C. I. Stephenson N. L. Stephens S. L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol. Appl. 17 21452151. 10.1890/06-1715.1 Mitchell S. R. Harmon M. E. O’Connell K. E. B. (2009). Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 19 643655. 10.1890/08-0501.1 Moomaw W. R. Masino S. A. Faison E. K. (2019). Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2:27. 10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027 Moritz M. A. Batllori E. Bradstock R. A. Gill A. M. Handmer J. Hessburg P. F. (2014). Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 515 5866. 10.1038/nature13946 25373675 Noss R. F. Franklin J. F. Baker W. L. Schoennagel T. Moyle P. B. (2006). Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4:481487. 10.1890/1540-929520064[481:MFFITW]2.0.CO;2 O’Connell B. M. Conkling B. L. Wilson A. M. Burrill E. A. Turner J. A. Pugh S. A. (2017). The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and User Guide Version 7.0 for Phase 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 830. Pan Y. Birdsey R. A. Fang J. Houghton R. Kauppi P. E. Kurz W. A. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the World’s forests. Science 333 988993. 10.1126/science.1201609 21764754 Perry T. D. Jones J. A. (2016). Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology 10:e1790. 10.1002/eco.1790 Peterson D. L. Waring R. H. (1994). Overview of the Oregon transect ecosystem research project. Ecol. Appl. 4 211225. 10.2307/1941928 R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Rainville R. White R. Barbour J. (2008). Assessment of Timber Availability from Forest Restoration within the Blue Mountains of Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-752. Portland, OR: USDA, 65. Ripple W. J. Wolf C. Newsome T. M. Barnard P. Moomaw W. B. (2020). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. BioScience 70 812. 10.1093/biosci/biz088 Rockström J. Steffen W. Noone K. Persson A. Chapin F. S. III Lambin E. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461 472475. Rose C. L. Marcot B. G. Mellen T. K. Ohmann J. L. Waddell K. L. Lindely D. L. (2001). ““Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management” Pages,” in Wildlife–Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington, eds Johnson D. H. O’Neil T. A. (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press), 580623. Ross R. J. (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190, 2010: 509 p. 1 v. 190. Madison: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Ruefenacht B. Finco M. V. Nelson M. D. Czaplewski R. Helmer E. H. Blackard J. A. (2008). Conterminous U.S. and alaska forest type mapping using forest inventory and analysis data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sens. 74 13791388. 10.14358/pers.74.11.1379 Schoennagel T. Balch J. K. Brenkert-Smith H. Dennison P. E. Harvey B. J. Krawchuk M. A. K. (2017). Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 45824590. 10.1073/pnas.1617464114 28416662 Sheil D. (2018). Forests, atmospheric water and an uncertain future: the new biology of the global water cycle. For. Ecosyst. 5:19. Simard S. W. Roach W. J. Defrenne C. E. Pickles B. J. Snyder E. N. Robinson A. (2020). Harvest intensity effects on carbon stocks and biodiversity are dependent on regional climate in Douglas-fir forests of British Columbia. Front. For. Glob. Change 3:88. 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00088 Stephenson N. L. Das A. J. Condit R. Russo S. E. Baker P. J. Beckman N. J. (2014). Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature 507 9093. Thomas C. K. (2011). Variability of subcanopy flow, temperature, and horizontal advection in moderately complex terrain. Boundarawry Layer Meteorol. 139 6181. 10.1007/s10546-010-9578-9 Turner D. P. Ritts W. D. Yang Z. Kennedy R. E. Cohen W. B. Duane M. V. (2011). Decadal trends in net ecosystem production and net ecosystem carbon balance for a regional socioecological system. For. Ecol. Manag. 262 13181325. 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.06.034 UNEP (2019). UN Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report. Available online at: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019 (accessed August 4, 2020) UNFCCC (1992). Un Framework Convention on Climate Change Article 2. Available online at: unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (accessed August 4, 2020). USDA Forest Service (1995). Appendix N, Eastside Screens. In: Appendix B–Revised Interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales. Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Van Tuyl S. Law B. E. Turner D. P. Giterman A. I. (2005). Variability in net primary production and carbon storage in biomass across Oregon forests – an assessment integrating data from forest inventories, intensive sites, and remote sensing. For. Ecol. Manage. 209 273291. 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.002 Wales B. C. Suring L. H. Hemstrom M. A. (2007). Modeling potential outcomes of fire and fuel management scenarios on the structure of forested habitats in northeast Oregon, USA. Landscape Urban Plan. 80 223236. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.006 Wickham H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlang. Wisdom M. J. Holthausen R. S. Wales B. C. Hargis C. D. Saab V. A. Lee D. C. (2000). Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications, 3 vols. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Zald H. S. J. Dunn C. J. (2018). Severe fire weather and intensive forest management increase fire severity in a multi-ownership landscape. Ecol. Appl. 28 10681080. 10.1002/eap.1710 29698575

      https://apps.fs.usda.gov/fia/datamart/

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016www.hb-365.com.cn
      igrt.com.cn
      www.ew500.com.cn
      gxwm.org.cn
      kpmnnz.com.cn
      www.sdqdfc.com.cn
      mmshop.net.cn
      www.sheye.net.cn
      rockderma.com.cn
      qesocb.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p