[Terrapreta] ancient forests: under-rated carbon sinks

[Kelpie Wilson]

I second these thoughts on old growth forests. What I have heard 
about temperate forests is that the bulk of the carbon is stored in 
the soils. Clearcutting and tree plantations wreck soils - I've seen 
that here in the pacific northwest. In the tropics, on the other 
hand, the soils don't store much carbon so most of the carbon is in 
the living vegetation. As I understand it, what terra preta does is 
to transform tropical soils to a condition that is more like what is 
found in native temperate forests with lots of carbon storage.
A big question on my mind these days is how terra preta could help 
restore tree plantations in the pacific northwest. There is a lot of 
talk right now about forest biomass burning for power generation here 
in Oregon. I wonder if it would be possible to create char and biogas 
instead and use the char to rehabilitate degraded land?

-Kelpie Wilson
Environmental Editor, Truthout.org

At 10:01 PM 3/6/2007, dyarrow at nycap.rr.com wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Michael Bailes
>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Some clarifying answers
>
>On the Old forests thing, there is some new research that is casting
>doubt on the role of older forests in carbon sequestration.  It would
>be good if they are right.  See:
>http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1204-forests.html
>
>On the decomposition thing do we know what is going on re soil zoology
>vis-a-vis CO2?
>Are the fungi and "wee beasties" storing or exhaling CO2?
>Does anyone know?
>
>Michaelangelica
>
>Fast growing young forests are good carbon offsets, because the bulk
>of the carbon which they take in as CO2, stays perched in the trees
>above and swollen into the roots systems below many hectares of land.
>When forests get older, they are no longer net carbon sinks, because
>they have decomposition of the plant material which puts CO2 back into
>the atmosphere.  A forest can sequester lots of carbon for a good
>twenty years.  Terra Preta soil has carbon which stays almost
>permanently, certainly with half-life of many thousands of years.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>my common sense says:
>
>having conducted ancient forest surveys in the northeast US, and
>examined old growth forests up close and personal, and having at least
>skimmed the literature defining and quantifying ancient forest
>processes, and having sat through discussions by the experts-in-the-
>forest that are twisting trails throuh minutiae, i think many of the
>assumptions about ancient forests are wrong -- or at least deceptively
>simplistic, and definitely no more than preliminary guesses at what
>are complex communities and processes.  and i have very limited faith
>in the assumptions and judgments of professional forestry, since
>virtually all those experts are hired guns for an industrial forestry
>that sees trees as commodities for harvest, and will argue against any
>statement that challenges their views and values that forests should
>be cut down for timber and pulp.
>
>one caution is that old growth forests are a complex diversity.  here
>in the northeast US, there are many different types of old growth,
>from 100-year-old pitch pine growing on rock and sand, to 700-year-old
>black tupelo growing in swamps, to 1000-year-old white cedars growing
>on cliffs and talus in the niagara river gorge.
>
>a second caution: old growth forests are rare.  in the eastern US,
>less than one quarter of one percent -- and a significant proportion
>of that are "secondary old growth" -- cut once in the first wave of
>settlement, then abandoned to regenerate into ancient trees and
>supported communities.  and the ancient forests that are left were
>generally left because they grow in extreme and inaccessible
>environments: steep slopes, cliffs, bare rock, mountaintops,
>swamps....  it is difficult to make firm assumptions and
>generalizations based on such a limited sample size of freakish
>forests.
>
>most eastern forests were cleared and burned to make potash and
>charcoal; creating new farmland was often a secondary goal -- the
>immediate need was cash.  logs and limbs were piled and burned in open
>air to make potash to sell as a fundamental industrial chemical.  logs
>and limbs piled and covered with dirt were smoldered to create
>charcoal to sell to industrial furnances such as iron smelters.  once
>cleared, the thick, humus-rich topsoil rapidly eroded downslope to
>accummulate in ravines, valleys, swamps, lake bottoms, and other
>landscape hollows.  this wholesale soil destruction and erosion was
>accelerated by the common practice of plowing up and down slopes.  and
>such plowing opened the soil to accelerate the oxidation of humus,
>outgassing immense amounts of carbon.
>
>i have hiked through ancient forests, and bounced on their deep,
>spongy layers of duff, humus, moss, mycelium, algae, lichen, and all
>else.  i've seen deep ravines lined with talus and boulders nearly
>hidden under thick deposits of humus.  and those carbon-rich humus
>deposits were still growing thicker year-by-year, and distributed by
>wind and water beyond forest boundaries to other enviroments.  my
>favorite example of this richness of soil is palmaghatt kill ravine in
>minnewaska state park in the NY hudson valley:
>www.championtrees.org\oldgrowth\surveys\MinnewaskaSP20413.htm
>
>i agree that new trees exhibit rapid growth, and thus quickly
>sequester large amounts of carbon -- that's their job -- to reshape
>soil, shade the land, replenish surface moisture, and regenerate
>habitat to support slower growing trees of a mature forest -- and all
>the complex communities that live in and under the shelter of trees.
>those rapid growth rates are not sustainable over a long term in most
>environments, and must inevitably slow down as trees get larger, more
>crowded, and divert energy into flowering, fruit and seeds.
>
>but an ancient forest isn't just trees, but an ecosystem community.
>slower tree growth is matched by broadening diversity, density and
>complexity of all the other living organisms supported by the ancient
>tree habitat.  studies of microbes and larger life forms on soils show
>that ancient forests are much more alive than even humus-enriched
>farmland.  and in a temperate climate, those organisms enjoy a longer
>growing season because forest soils stay warmer in winter.  in fact,
>complex symbiotic relationships are created where trees deliberately
>feed other life forms -- a significant percent of the carbon converted
>to carbohydrates by trees is then deliberately secreted by roots to
>feed bacteria, fungi and vast populations of larger life forms in the
>soil.  and the more carbon stored in soil, the thicker, richer and
>more diverse are soil microbial populations.  or consider that the
>pollen of certain trees actually act as microbial stimulants.
>
>another variable are assumptions about maximum tree height and
>volume.  for example, today in the east, it is rare to find white pine
>that reach 150 feet tall except in unusual sanctuaries.  yet, in the
>early days of european colonization, white pine over 200 feet tall --
>even over 250 feet -- were not unusual.  a large amount of biomass is
>accumulated in those added 50 to 100 feet of top growth.  or consider
>that george washington himself measured a sycamore on the ohio river
>with a 60 foot circumference.  and who has measured the additional
>biomass in root systems and their symbiotic extensions?
>
>i find the notion that that old growth forests are poor carbon sinks
>to based on faulty reasoning and short-sighted assumptions.  and i
>haven't the time to read, digest, dissect, and critique all the
>studies -- i'm too fiercely busy trying to preserve, publicize and
>protect what is left of our ancient forests.  and a dozen other
>similar battles.
>
>aside from this quibbling and scribbling over the minutiae of data,
>the flat fact is trees as forests are the lungs of the earth.  these
>complex, tree-based communities allow the biosphere to breathe in its
>poly-cyclic synchronies.  for thousands of millennia they have
>performed multiple functions to regulate the circulation, balance and
>quality of water, oxygen, carbon, and other factors that create and
>sustain the atmosphere, climate and weather.  carbon sequestration is
>only one of many reasons to regenerate and preserve these
>silvicultural communities -- a tough challenge considering the tiny
>amount of them still surviving.
>
>since the late 70s, i've supported and facilitated establishing
>organic, permaculture and other earth-sensible farming systems.  and
>while i support ongoing efforts to restore true full spectrum
>fertility to our farm soils, and thus our foods, i consider
>restoration of full spectrum minerals and stable organic carbon in our
>forests to be a much more crucial task to restore stability and
>temperateness to our earth's atmospheric thermal engine.  this is the
>greater challenge, since we can easily make money selling fertilizer
>to farmers, but it is rare to meet any forester who thinks deeply
>about restoring the integrity and quality of our forest soils.
>
>enough for now.  remember: the law of good land is the way of the
>forest.  if yer not forest, yer against us.
>
>David Yarrow
>"If yer not forest, yer against us."
>Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary
>44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
>518-330-2587
>dyarrow at nycap.rr.com
>www.championtrees.org
>www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org
>www.citizenre.com/dyarrow/
>www.SeaAgri.com
>
>"Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times,
>if one only remembers to turn on the light."
>-Albus Dumbledore
>
>_______________________________________________
>Terrapreta mailing list
>Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/