Prof. Harte and ccs
Thanks for the new information. This is to turn this beetle kill
topic towards geoengineering, in part because I see you helped the authors on
the sent article. Also, others may not know that there is a “geo” side to this
beetle kill disaster.
The newest USDA Land Grant College bioenergy research program is at
Colorado State University. CSU has brought together a large multi-University
team (led by Prof. Keith Paustian) studying the possible use of beetle-killed
trees. See http://banr.nrel.colostate.edu/, which includes some good photos.
The program includes CoolPlanet (www.coolplanet.org) - possibly the world’s
largest biochar producer (maybe therefore also the world’s largest CDR [even
“geo”?] commercial team?)
BANR is the most recent (awarded late 2013) of seven such five-year
USDA R&D bioenergy programs. There is one also for that includes biochar at
Iowa State University - but CSU’s BANR is the only USDA (or other?) program
specifically looking at beetle kill.
The CSU team specifically will look at the ecological issues related to
dead tree removal. Do you, teaching and doing research in this area, have an
ecological rationale on using vs leaving the dead trees? I ask because a) I
have been unable to communicate with a local environmental leader re the
obvious safety, fire, CO2, and methane issues, b) because I probably would
also disagree with some ccs, and c) because such ecological topics should be
fully discussed on lists such as “Geo”.
This is also a chance to say I have been in contact with ccs Dr.
Antonio Nobre and Douglas Sheil (both working with Dr.Makalieva), whose
messages to this list have bounced. Because this thread probably has become
excessive, I hope others interested in their views will contact them or me,
while we figure out the best next steps for more easily continuing the needed
dialog depth.
Ron
On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:26 AM, John Harte <[email protected]> wrote:
> Many fascinating eco-climatological issues are raised in these discussions,
> but for now I just want to chime in on the forest infestation topic.
>
> First, the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) problem in Colorado
> is nearly certainly not the result of warmer winters, as commonly asserted,
> but rather longer summers allowing multivoltine reproduction, or in other
> words several breeding cycles per growing season. This has allowed the
> reproductive rate and net population growth rate to go through the ceiling.
> Here's a good paper on this:
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/665007.pdf. from The American
> Naturalist.
> Moreover, the evidence for a multidecadal trend toward longer growing season
> in the regions where the infestation is worst is strong.
>
> Secondly, while that pest species is native to N. America, in many instances
> the extent of damage a pest species will do is closely tied to whether it is
> an exotic pest or not. Native trees are in general more resilient to native
> pests for obvious reasons.
>
> Without examining such factors as the nature of the climate change in a
> region, and the biogeography of the pest species, I think it is difficult to
> draw conclusions regarding the extent to which forest management explains
> variability in outbreak intensity.
>
>
>
> John Harte
> Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
> ERG/ESPM
> 310 Barrows Hall
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Anastassia Makarieva <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ron
<snipped - as not being pertinent to the ecology of beetle kill
use>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
