Keymessage High-elevation forests in the Alps protect infrastructure and human lives against natural hazards such
as rockfall, flooding, and avalanches. Routinely performed silvicultural interventions maintain the required stand
structure but are not commercially viable in remote forests due to high operational costs. Financial subsidies for the
management of high-elevation protection forests are an efficient strategy to ensure sustainable forest cover. Overall, the productivity of forests increases by approximately 15% until the end of the century. In a zero-management scenario, the forest accumulates carbon both in the aboveground biomass and the soil. In the case of an extensive management with moderate timber extractions every 50 years, the carbon stocks decline both in biomass and soil. A more intensive management scenario with extractions every 30 years leads to substantial losses of the soil and biomass carbon pools. In addition, the stand structure changes and the protective function of the forest is not sustainably ensured. Timber production can be economically successful only with high selling prices of cembran pine timber and the availability of governmental subsidies for forest management. The admixed European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) contributes only marginally to the economic success. The main challenge are harvesting costs. The costs of timber extraction by a long-distance cableway logging system exceed the value of the harvested timber. The intensification of forest management cannot be recommended from the perspective of timber production, sustainable forest management, and protection against natural hazards. Our simulation experiment shows that the extraction of timber at decadal intervals depletes the carbon stock that is insufficiently replenished from aboveground and belowground litterfall. Leaving the forest unmanaged does not impose a particular threat to stand stability and is under the encountered situation, a justified strategy. Keywords: Growth modeling, Soil carbon pool Climate change, Mountain forest Forest management costs Schlüsselwörter: ,
