New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Forests Getting Younger and Shorter

Old, big trees are dying faster than in the past, leaving younger, less biodiverse forests that store less carbon worldwide.

Wistman’s Wood in England’s Dartmoor National Park.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

They give us paper and fuel, as well as vital ecological services—like cleaning the air, storing carbon and providing habitat. We’re talking about trees, of course. But human changes to the environment appear to be causing profound changes to trees around the world.

In a new study, scientists reviewed global research on trends in tree seedlings, growth and death. They combined those data with an analysis of deforestation. And they found that worldwide, older trees are dying at a higher rate than in the past due to factors like rising air temperature, wildfires, drought and pathogens.

“And most of the drivers of that decrease in large, old trees are increasing themselves, such as temperature going up, droughts are more severe, wildfires, windstorms and deforestation are all—although variable across the globe—they’re generally increasing. And so both the loss has already occurred, but we expect more continued loss of big, old trees.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Nate McDowell, an earth scientist at Pacific Northwest National Lab, who was one of the study’s authors. [Nate G. McDowell et al., Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world]

“So if we have an increasing rate of death, particularly of the larger, older trees, what’s left are the younger trees. So that’s why, on average, through the loss of bigger, older trees, our forests are becoming inherently younger and shorter.”

This trend is a problem, because old trees are vitally important.

“For sure, the increase in death does limit the carbon storage of an ecosystem and can force the system to become a carbon source to the atmosphere. The second reason we care is from a biodiversity perspective: old growth trees tend to house a higher biodiversity than young forests do. And the third reason is aesthetic: As a society, we care about these trees. We have national parks named after these big trees. So there’s a personal reason for people to care about this as well.”

—Annie Sneed

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe