Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Your criteria are shared by countless homeowners wanting to landscape their yards (fast growing, long-lived, low maintenance). Unfortunately, there are physiological tradeoffs involved, whereby fast growing trees tend to live fast in other ways, too, and hence are as a general rule not long-lived. Think about the way forest succession works: fast growing trees fill in gaps quickly, reproducing before the competition catches up; slow growing trees are the shade tolerant ones, coming up underneath the fast growing pioneers and eventually supplanting them. From what I have read of carbon sequestration (as it is not my primary area of knowledge), old-growth forests hold a lot of carbon, but do not take it up quickly; the decomposition of old trees and the carbon uptake of growing trees about cancel out, making the old-growth forest approximately carbon-neutral. Young forests take up carbon quickly, but as they age, the uptake rate slows down. When a tree decomposes, all the carbon sequestered in its biomass is re-released. So to have effective sequestration, you would have to have a steady supply of young trees taking up carbon, without a concurrent stream of decomposing trees. Net growth would have to exceed net decomposition. In other words, the only long-term way to counteract ever-increasing CO2 emissions, is to have ever-increasing acreage of forest. Jason Hernandez Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:59:02 -0800 From: Stephen Johnson pseud8c...@yahoo.com Subject: best tree species for carbon sequestration dear Ecolog-ers, I am designing a tree planting-planting project designed to counter CO2 production at a college in south central Iowa. Students will be involved in planting. I have heard that Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are both good candidates for carbon sequestration an I wonder if there is any primary literature that backs the claim. Also are there any other tree species with high rates of carbon uptake and biomass accumulation, fast growing and long-lived and with low maintenance and perhaps with any or all of these properties reflected in any scientific studies. Dr. Stephen R. Johnson Freelance Plant Ecologist/Botanist pseud8c...@yahoo.com
[ECOLOG-L] changes in environmental literacy
I am trying to find papers on three issues: 1) has the average environmental literacy (in the US or abroad) increased, declined, or remained stable over the last few decades. 2) does environmental literacy level influence engagement and/or interest in environment issues. (I am also interested in non-environmentally focused articles that demonstrate linkages between literacy and engagement/interest in other policy areas) 3) how does or does literacy and/or interest levels influence environmental policy. (related papers demonstrating hope public literacy in other topics woudl be useful too!) -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral fellow and technician position in saprotrophic fungal community structure/function
Postdoctoral and technician positions are available in the Zanne lab at George Washington University in Washington, DC, beginning August 2012, with the potential to begin fieldwork near St. Louis, MO in June 2012. Support is available for multiple years for the postdoc and a single year for the technician to participate in an NSF-funded project, which examines the influences of plant traits and fungal community composition on wood decomposition rates in the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion as climate changes. Potential additional field sites include Appalachians, USA and NSW, Australia. The postdoc will be responsible for fungal identification, using both traditional techniques (field collection and culturing) and molecular methods (targeted sequencing, environmental DNA extraction and next-generation based metagenomics) with encouragement to further develop the project according to his/her own interests. Opportunities will be available to spend time in collaborating labs that specialize on fungal identification, enzyme analysis and genomics. The technician will work closely with the postdoc and help to establish the lab. In both cities, there are strong links among institutions, including ties to the Missouri Botanical Garden and the Smithsonian. George Washington University is located in the heart of DC, with easy access to numerous science-, conservation-, and policy-based institutions. Motivated applicants with skills in mycology, molecular biology, phylogenetics, and bioinformatics are especially encouraged to apply. Postdoc applicants should have a PhD in a relevant field and strong writing and quantitative skills. Technician applicants with an MSc in a relevant field are preferred but Bachelors applicants will be considered. Applications will be reviewed as received and the positions remain open until filled. Applications should include a research statement, including relevant skills for the project and future goals, for the postdoc (1-2 pages) and research interests and relevant skills for the project (1 page) for the technician, curriculum vitae, and contact information for three references (including emails and phone numbers). Materials should be sent to Amy Zanne: aeza...@gmail.com.
[ECOLOG-L] FAPESP postdoc awards
FAPESP, the Sao Paulo Research Foundcation is one of the main research funding agencies in Brazil, supporting more than 11,000 fellowships and 8,000 research awards. Highlighted research areas include biodiversity, and climate change. Post-Doctoral Fellowships are available. www.fapesp.br/en/postdoc from an advertisement in 23 February issue of Nature. David Inouye
[ECOLOG-L] Ph.D. opportunities, Helmholtz Graduate school
http://www.helmholtz-helena.de/ The International Helmholtz Graduate School Environmental Health (HELENA) is a joint initiative for the promotion of doctoral students of the Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen - German Research Center for Environmental Health, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU) and the Technische Universität München (TUM). PhD Projects within the International Helmholtz Graduate School Environmental Health (HELENA) - life sciences m/f including ecosystems biology
Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Ecolog: [Note: I, for one, like this way of responding to initial posts, with the original subject-line and the string of subsequent comments preserved, rather than individual responses to the initial post. I know it is not possible for this to remain uniform, because some will post before one or more other responses are posted, (ships will pass in the night) but it is nice to have the thread in a sequence. I also appreciate it a lot when tangential posts preserve the original subject line whilst adding an appropriate subject label ahead of the initial one so that I, the reader, can follow all of the branches of all the tangents back to their source.] I share Rose's comment about the Hernandez post, which I agree is right on. I am not opposed to Rose's comments, but they do strike some complex chords for me. Rose is right on when she mentions resilience, and I would add that not only diversity in species is important, but diversity of age classes and genetic variation also is important--yea, more important than species diversity in some contexts. One thing troubles me a bit however. Well, maybe it troubles me a lot. The implication of Rose's and Johnson's remarks seems to be that one can decide to plant all kinds of different species without regard to the suitability of the site for the species, although they perhaps believe that such goes without saying. In my days in the U.S. Forest Service, for example, we were careful, perhaps absurdly so, about the provenance of the seeds collected, taking care to note the elevation, orientation, slope aspect, etc. so that the resulting saplings could be planted in comparable circumstances, believing that a good match of the genes to the site would maximize the potential for survival (e.g., temperature tolerance range, etc.) and result in optimum growth potential. I know that forest science has undoubtedly come a long way since then, so I look forward to those more advanced to bring me up to date. But what disturbs me even more is the unstated possibility that various sorcerer's apprentices might loose designer-trees based upon some marginal, perhaps largely fictional, increased ability to provide a single ecosystem service. (For some reason the Irish potato famine comes to mind . . .) The request also strikes me as more horticultural than ecological, and Rose and Johnson seem to imply that planting trees in South-Central Iowa (or any other location) can be done without regard to ecological context. While all the things Rose mentions are good, and can be part of the ecological context, I often hear/read/see similar tree boosterism overriding ecosystem concerns as well-intentioned prescriptions without regard to context. Also (almost?) never mentioned are the supposedly tangential but real factors in the net-energy and carbon-balance equations that include energy consumption and carbon-release numbers associated with the production, transportation, and planting of growing trees. I stand ready to be further enlightened on this subject as well. WT - Original Message - From: Katie Rose katieroseouts...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration Hello Dr. Johnson, I'd like to supplement some of the points made by Jason Hernandez, which are all right on. The best way to promote carbon sequestration is to plant a resilient forest: one that has a combination of tree species so you are buffered against pests and diseases, and then plan for what you will do with the trees after they die. If you plant trees which can be used to create furniture, such as cherry, oaks or pines, you will be creating a more permanent carbon sink. Also you can direct dead trees to a facility which will burn them for fuel: this will not only produce carbon neutral power, but will prevent more fossil fuels from being used. Finally, you can compost tree matter (leaves, pruned branches, etc). Although much of the carbon will be released, some will remain in the soil, which is actually a very under appreciated carbon sink. An aside: besides providing for carbon storage, trees help cities in a huge variety of ways. They improve urban streams by intercepting storm water (prevent flooding), stabilizing and creating soil, contributing organic matter, and cooling stream water. Trees cool streets and buildings, reducing air conditioning costs (and therefor lessening the electricity needed to climate control the building). They remove pollutants from the air, and provide habitats for birds, bugs, squirrels, and other wildlife. Katie Rose On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jason Hernandez jason.hernande...@yahoo.com wrote: Your criteria are shared by countless homeowners wanting to landscape their yards (fast growing, long-lived, low maintenance). Unfortunately, there are physiological tradeoffs involved, whereby fast growing trees
Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Tyson adds a much appreciated nuanced response. I agree that ecological context should be taken into account whenever possible, as well as with his point about looking at the whole carbon footprint of a planting project. I am unfamiliar with the ecological context of South-Central Iowa:I was answering generally without looking at the specific question. So first generally: Planting trees which were grown nearby not only lower the carbon balance of the project (through reducing transportation costs), but also lower the chance of pests being spread (which often happens through the movement of nursery stock). Furthermore, planting trees grown in local nurseries makes it more likely that the trees are already adjusted to the local climatic conditions. I agree that trees should be planted in the context of the area: not only will this make their success more likely, but can help boost populations of native trees. Both age diversity and genetic variation are an important component of a healthy forest, but may be difficult to accomplish. Age diversity requires long term planning. In Durham, NC we are currently experiencing the result of a lack of this planning: the city is filled with beautiful willow oaks, who have reached their age limit and are now dying more or less all at once. My impression is that within species genetic diversity is hard to accomplish when utilizing nursery stock. Thoughts? Now, as to specifically planting trees in South-Central Iowa. Often we move without looking at the larger affects on the ecosystem. What happens if the trees planted escape and take over? Are we planting trees easily controlled, or does it matter? In the Carolinas we have problems with escaped china berry and bradford pear and are beginning to see the escape of lacebark elm. However, in the face of the dramatic loss of forests across the midwest due to the beetles, maybe we should be actively creating forests in other locations. Or should we working to maintain the ecosystems around us how currently are, remembering that they are as much as a verb as a noun? Perhaps this is too big of a question for this thread, but I am curious to hear what those with more experience than I think. On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: [Note: I, for one, like this way of responding to initial posts, with the original subject-line and the string of subsequent comments preserved, rather than individual responses to the initial post. I know it is not possible for this to remain uniform, because some will post before one or more other responses are posted, (ships will pass in the night) but it is nice to have the thread in a sequence. I also appreciate it a lot when tangential posts preserve the original subject line whilst adding an appropriate subject label ahead of the initial one so that I, the reader, can follow all of the branches of all the tangents back to their source.] I share Rose's comment about the Hernandez post, which I agree is right on. I am not opposed to Rose's comments, but they do strike some complex chords for me. Rose is right on when she mentions resilience, and I would add that not only diversity in species is important, but diversity of age classes and genetic variation also is important--yea, more important than species diversity in some contexts. One thing troubles me a bit however. Well, maybe it troubles me a lot. The implication of Rose's and Johnson's remarks seems to be that one can decide to plant all kinds of different species without regard to the suitability of the site for the species, although they perhaps believe that such goes without saying. In my days in the U.S. Forest Service, for example, we were careful, perhaps absurdly so, about the provenance of the seeds collected, taking care to note the elevation, orientation, slope aspect, etc. so that the resulting saplings could be planted in comparable circumstances, believing that a good match of the genes to the site would maximize the potential for survival (e.g., temperature tolerance range, etc.) and result in optimum growth potential. I know that forest science has undoubtedly come a long way since then, so I look forward to those more advanced to bring me up to date. But what disturbs me even more is the unstated possibility that various sorcerer's apprentices might loose designer-trees based upon some marginal, perhaps largely fictional, increased ability to provide a single ecosystem service. (For some reason the Irish potato famine comes to mind . . .) The request also strikes me as more horticultural than ecological, and Rose and Johnson seem to imply that planting trees in South-Central Iowa (or any other location) can be done without regard to ecological context. While all the things Rose mentions are good, and can be part of the ecological context, I often hear/read/see similar tree boosterism overriding ecosystem
