[Terrapreta] Tree planting -- a bit more

[lou gold]

This is my last shot.

Standing forests are carbon sinks -- not permanent ones but nevertheless
long-term.

At an early growth stage they are carbon negative.

At a certain equilibrium stage they are carbon neutral, sometimes even
carbon positive, but mostly very stable as a sink of lots of stored carbon.

Eventually they may (not always) encounter a catastrophic event -- fire,
climate change, insect infestation, human deforestation. These events dump
very quickly a huge amount of the stored carbon. It will take as much time
to recapture the carbon released as it took to fill the sink as it did the
first time around.

Old forests provide the greatest range of ecosystem services -- limiting
erosion, filtering water, hosting biodiversity, storing carbon, etc. From an
ecological standpoint there is no such thing as an "over-mature" forest.
Everything is connected. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every
benefit has an associated cost.

I'm quite certain that the same is true for terra preta -- that there will
have to be many adjustments in the relationship between humans and nature
for it's full promise to be realized. The crisis of climate change is going
to force humans to learn a great deal about their reciprocal relationships
with the earth.

as always,   lou





On Dec 4, 2007 4:20 AM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071204/13bf7049/attachment.html