[Terrapreta] Tree planting -- a bit more

[lou gold]

Again you are only partially correct.

At a certain point forests WILL emit more CO2 than they capture in NEW
growth. BUT this completely ignores the amount of carbon STORED.

If you cut a 500 year old so-called "over-mature forest" it will take 500
years to recapture the amount of carbon that was stored in them.

BTW, "over-mature" is not an ecological concept but an economic one. From an
ecological stand point there is no such thing as an "over-mature" or
"decadent" forest. There are only stages of development and a host of
biological services associated with each stage. Profitable economic activity
fits into a narrow band that is favored by industrial forestry and they
invent lots of pejorative labels for aspects and processes not seen as
"productive."

all best,
lou



On Dec 4, 2007 3:48 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> lou gold wrote:
> > Kelpie Wilson over at TruthOut as juxtaposed two recent articles on
> > tree planting, soils, etc.
> > They reveal the issues.
> > http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/120307EA.shtml
> > <http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/120307EA.shtml>
> >
> > There's tremendous misunderstanding and I suspect lots is reported
> > without full context. Here's an example:
> >
> >     "Forests are a band-aid," said Mike Flannigan, a research
> > scientists at the Canadian Forest Service. "Eventually, forests die,
> > releasing all that stored carbon into the atmosphere."
> >
> >     "Forests are carbon-neutral over the long term," Flannigan told IPS.
> >
> Where is the misunderstanding? He clearly says forests are a bandaid,
> but in teh long term, are carbon neutral.
> >
> > So, do they release all stored carbon or not? The answer is 1) at
> > first they grow and capture carbon quickly; 2) then they start to
> > recycle as decay replaces some of the early growth binge; 3) then they
> > reach an equilibrium state in which the future is carbon neutral
> > (growth and decay in equal amounts) AND there is an enormous amount of
> > carbon (from the past) stored in large tree boles and in undisturbed
> soil.
> >
> All the carbon in the tree and roots is, as you state, carbon neutral.
> Same as Flannigan says.
> >
> > LESSONS: 1) It is far more important to stop deforestation of standing
> > stable forests than to plant trees;
> I would disagree. When they are overmature, they are returning more C to
> the Biosphere than they are capturing. At that stage, they are a carbon
> source, and should be harvested..
> > 2) tree planting is important in the right places and if the intention
> > is to preserve them as diverse forests;
> You really don't have to plant trees if you manage a forest for mixed
> uneven aged stands. Selectively harvest the mature and overmature trees,
> and new growth fills tgeh cleared gap.
> > and 3) one region meeting short-term targets (in this case Europe)
> > does not balance long-term damage taking place in other regions
> > (tropical rainforests).
> True
> >
> > Hope this helps with a complicated issue.
> The explanations you pose should be seen in context. Strategies that are
> sound for Balsam Fir and White Spruce (short lived species)are very
> different from strategies that would be employed for long lived
> species.(Redwood, Douglas Fir)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> >
> > lou
> >
> > --
> > http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
> > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071204/3ac99f97/attachment-0001.html