[Terrapreta] Tree planting -- a bit more

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Loulou gold wrote:
> Again you are only partially correct.
>
> At a certain point forests WILL emit more CO2 than they capture in NEW 
> growth.
EXACTLY! This occurs when forests become overmature.
> BUT this completely ignores the amount of carbon STORED.
The "carbon" in the ground is not permanently sequestered. Only in the 
form of "black carbon", produced by anaerobic decomposition, or by 
charring, is the carbon permanently sequestered. (Permanent = "long 
time", not forever)
>
> 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.
Oh, yes there is!! :-) There is no tree that lives forever. Therefore 
trees die. As they start to die, there comes a point where they are 
rotting and giving up more CO2 than they are taking from the atmosphere. 
This is "ecological overmarturity." Then they progress to "snags", and 
"deadfalls", and then they liberate all the CO2 they once stored.

> 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."
You are introducing strawmen and red herrings. We are not talking about 
economic harvests... we are talking about carbon sequestering. But why 
don't we get back to talking about Terra Preta, and its contribution to 
carbon sequestering?

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> all best, 
> lou
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2007 3:48 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net 
> <mailto: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/>
>     > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/>
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Terrapreta mailing list
>     > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto: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/