Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
For those asking about the best trees for carbon sequestration, this small item I wrote in Science in 1989 puts a slightly different slant on things. Also as subsequent event have shown, the future moves in unpredictable ways and with all due apologies to Matt Chew, not necessarily in better ways for confessed bibliophiles.--David Duffy Carbon-Sequestering Science: An Alternative to Pesky Electronics? Science 1989 With concern growing over the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere leading to global warming through the greenhouse effect, the public is interested in what scientists can contribute to the solution of the problem. Indirectly, we can provide information on the extent of the problem and on solutions such as energy conservation, use of clean fuels, deforestation, and reforestation. Directly, scientists appear to have little to offer. I would like to suggest, however, that science does have a role to play, both directly and by example. Scientific libraries are a modest but useful carbon sink, exactly the sort of sequestration proposed by Norman Myers, as quoted in William Booth's News Comment article Johnny Appleseed and the greenhouse (7 Oct. 1988, p. 19). Libraries attempt to preserve their books, thus preventing carbon release. Rather than the extremely energy-inefficient proposal of cutting and burying whole forests underground or at sea, as suggested by Myers, I propose that scientists be encouraged to publish and that more public funds be made available for their carbon-sequestering literary activities through increased support for library establishment and maintenance, subsidized subscriptions, and research grants to generate the research necessary for yet more publications. There are those who complain about the information glut in science and about overpublishing. While such logic may be appropriate within the limited perspective of science itself, it shows a sad lack of acceptance of our wider responsibilities to society. Referees and editors should consider manuscripts in the context of global climate change and seek to expand scientific carbon sequestering. Scientists should produce and overproduce. We are doing so anyway; now we have an excuse. Indeed, using science as an example, society should encourage a return to book reading and owning and should discourage all those pesky electronics, such as compact disks and televisions, that will do little to keep our seas from rising or our farms from drying out. A grateful world will thank us. David Cameron Duffy Professor of Botany and Unit Leader Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU) University of Hawai`i 3190 Maile Way St. John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822-2279 (808) 956-8218 phone (808) 956-4710 fax / (808) 956-3923 (backup fax) email address: ddu...@hawaii.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Ecolog: Methinks the battles over semantics in ecology be oft over-strained, and thus serve to distract the issues concerned rather than increase understanding and bring clarity. We all might benefit from a reduced fascination with our mirrors and a reduction in king-of-the-mountain games. Hence we often miss the mud-encased gems drawn from our cloddy rhetoric. Chew may well be engaged in some question-begging, but we can set that aside while we consider his attention to principle: It remains arguable whether ecological communities are much more than an instantaneous reflection of the contingencies of the story of life on earth so far. That story from here on out will likewise entail whatever happens next. --Matt Chew I believe I mentioned this, though my statement could not hold a candle to Chew's more elegant prose. So barring any question-begging of my own, I must agree with Chew on this one. But here he may be straining against a ghost-horse; at least he did not quote examples from the alleged offending text at which he swats, apparently preferring to magnify the monster while ignoring the statements which align with his point. But apply any metaphor you like (restoration, turning the clock back, putting the toothpaste back into the tube, putting Humpty Dumpty back together again) what happens next is not going to be a repeat of what happened before, and we can never look forward with clarity or confidence beyond simple, proximate causes and effects. Yes, of course we cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube, but we can, as Wendell Berry once put it, . . . increase the possibility of life on earth, rather than to diminish it. That may be nostalgic yearning, but it might also be a cause and an effect promoted by a species concerned with its future. So somewhere between ignoring the effects of culture (or endorsing them as just part of the ecosystem) upon ecosystems and re-forming culture to correct its mistakes by a process we have come to call restoration, may lie some truth that has not yet jelled in our individual and collective minds. Yea, we can argue 'till Hell freezes over, we can posture until we turn to salt, but we also have the option of trying very hard to understand what we really mean rather than reinforcing the semantic fences that divide us. We can start by carefully considering Chew's remarks even if we may not be quite sure what the 'ell 'e's talkin' about. In any case, we might be well-advised to cite the text to which our comments actually refer rather than indulging in vague allusions containing at least a bit of straw . . . WT - Original Message - From: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:26 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration This thread often employs 'natural' and 'ecological' as proxies for 'good' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' or 'desirable'. Using some past condition to exemplify a desired future is commonplace, but that past is always poorly documented and most of our 'knowledge' of past conditions is selectively conjectural or inferred. That is the standard recipe for nostalgic yearning. It is also clear that 'sequestering' carbon as biomass does not override concerns the commenters have about belonging, structure and longevity, also invoked – again vaguely – as proxies for 'good' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' or 'desirable'. It remains arguable whether ecological communities are much more than an instantaneous reflection of the contingencies of the story of life on earth so far. That story from here on out will likewise entail whatever happens next. But apply any metaphor you like (restoration, turning the clock back, putting the toothpaste back into the tube, putting Humpty Dumpty back together again) what happens next is not going to be a repeat of what happened before, and we can never look forward with clarity or confidence beyond simple, proximate causes and effects. To paraphrase a non-ecologist, life is happening while we make other plans. Meanwhile, ESA's finest minds make plans framed primarily by fear and loathing of certain change in uncertain directions. To paraphrase another non-ecologist, how's that workin' for ya? Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences ASU Center for Biology Society PO Box 873301 Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA Tel 480.965.8422 Fax 480.965.8330 mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4837 - Release Date: 02/28/12
Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Honorable Forum: Rose's additions and clarifications are illuminating. My concerns too are general--related to principle--not specific to the South-Central Iowa area. While I am not overly concerned with individual projects at local scales, particularly urban areas, I am concerned with the impression left with the public at large, upon which ecological distinctions are largely lost. And, of course, the implication that tree planting on a scale actually large enough to have any measurable effect upon global warming can be effective enough is disturbing, even though I do not necessarily wish to imply that the case instant is itself all that disturbing. I only hope that students of all ages and the public at large are not mislead into thinking that the rather romantic practice of tree planting, whether or not a site is actually suitable or historically a tree or forest habitat, will even be a preferable allocation of concern and investment in solving the global warming phenomenon. Such investments may be better directed at oceanic organisms and scales, and certainly, as I believe Hernandez may be suggesting, that simply stopping the wholesale destruction of forests, particularly in the tropics, are more likely to have an effect on the carbon balance than Arbor Day-like projects that, while perhaps consciousness-raising, simply seduce us with an appealing fantasy rather than actually educate and move in the direction of actual solutions. I would emphasize that considering the ecological context is ALWAYS possible; and it's high time that horticulturalists realize that they can choose to move from fascinating fantasies toward even more fascinating realities if they do so. The too-common, even prevalent idea that landscaping and gardening as currently practiced is natural or yes, even ecological is in fact far from ecological or natural is largely fiction, and fostering that idea is simply fraudulent. I hope that Johnson, Hernandez, Rose and similarly enlightened folks will propagate the idea that urban spaces actually can be made to better fit into local ecosystems, not only without giving up aesthetic considerations, but actually enhancing them. The answer to the genetic uniformity issue with nursery stock is to stop using it--at least until the nursery industry stops its industrial-production obsession. Throw out the nursery catalogs. Look to the kinds of ecosystems that existed prior to their destruction, and at least exhaust the ecological options (of which most of the nursery/gardening/landscaping industry is ignorant of and even biased against) before resorting to non-indigenous species--however, when this is done, it may be better, in ecosystem terms, for the species selected to be aliens from very different climatic and ecological conditions so that reproduction is prevented. Selecting species that are well-adapted can seriously backfire, simply because the selected species came from a similar climate on another continent. Liquidambar, for example, can be a weedy tree in some locations beyond its natural or original range. And above all, discard the notion that GMO trees will provide a solution to global warming for the fraud that it is, promulgated by corporate profiteers, not responsible natural scientists. Any additional sequestration that some lab-created and patented tree variety MIGHT (or might not, despite reckless claims) provide would have to be so miniscule as to have no significant or actual effect upon global warming. My purpose in commenting here is to support and supplement the comments of Rose and Hernandez and to better understand what Johnson is proposing, not to dictate or micromanage from afar. I do not expect great changes in established habits overnight, but I do believe that ecologists should stand up and be counted, and help the industries that deal in living things to make better choices. Homo sapiens has been increasingly deluding itself for the last ten millennia or so, and it's time we started to make amends for the damage we have done to the earth in the most sensible way possible. And it IS possible. It's just a matter of the knowledge, the understanding, and the will to do so. WT - Original Message - From: Katie Rose katieroseouts...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:43 PM Subject: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
) before resorting to non-indigenous species--however, when this is done, it may be better, in ecosystem terms, for the species selected to be aliens from very different climatic and ecological conditions so that reproduction is prevented. Selecting species that are well-adapted can seriously backfire, simply because the selected species came from a similar climate on another continent. Liquidambar, for example, can be a weedy tree in some locations beyond its natural or original range. And above all, discard the notion that GMO trees will provide a solution to global warming for the fraud that it is, promulgated by corporate profiteers, not responsible natural scientists. Any additional sequestration that some lab-created and patented tree variety MIGHT (or might not, despite reckless claims) provide would have to be so miniscule as to have no significant or actual effect upon global warming. My purpose in commenting here is to support and supplement the comments of Rose and Hernandez and to better understand what Johnson is proposing, not to dictate or micromanage from afar. I do not expect great changes in established habits overnight, but I do believe that ecologists should stand up and be counted, and help the industries that deal in living things to make better choices. Homo sapiens has been increasingly deluding itself for the last ten millennia or so, and it's time we started to make amends for the damage we have done to the earth in the most sensible way possible. And it IS possible. It's just a matter of the knowledge, the understanding, and the will to do so. WT - Original Message - From: Katie Rose katieroseouts...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:43 PM Subject: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Ecolog: To minimize the temptation to get lost in the brambles, I'm going to annotate McNeely's remarks [[thus. WT]] WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration To consider the possibility that using nursery stock has very negative ecological consequences one need only visit a large scale tree and shrub production facility. Certainly the quantity of fertilizers and pesticides used, coupled with extensive runoff (the largest one in Oklahoma is in the Ozarks east of Tulsa on steep terrain with very shallow and rocky soils in a karst geology) have potentially devastating effects. [[Good addition to this thread. This is a large subject, and I hope all the comments lead to wider consideration of the merits of various approaches to fostering a wider understanding of the value of real rather than fantastical conceptions of what ecology is and is not all about. WT]] Cities and other jurisdiction can (and I believe a few have) develop codes that require developers to leave what is there so far as possible. A smaller total developed footprint can allow native (whatever that means) landscapes to remain in place. This is not a new notion. [[I applaud any city which has made progress in a more realistic approach to land development with respect to ecosystems at all scales. The issue of what native means may best be left to a separate, though related, thread of discussion that has its own importance in transitioning the human-earth relationship from one of exploitation to one of mutualism. WT]] but a lot of the work that is contemplated by cities and developers today is renovation in existing developed property, some of it having displaced native landscape decades ago. My small city has in place one of the nicer city parks in this area. It was placed atop a former dump (that was there long before the term or the practice of landfill existed). The dumping had simply taken place amongst clumps of native grasses and trees (for those familiar with the southern plains, it is in the mixed oak/prairie area known as the Cross Timbers). With careful work, the city was able to get a quite nice semi-natural park established, and the native trees and meadows that sit atop the hills complement the playgrounds and picnic areas in riparian areas. Some replanting was done, mostly with locally native species that are fairly easily established, like cedar elm and shumard oak, rather than the more difficult cross timbers species such as post oak and blackjack. The hillside and hilltop woods themselves, however, are native Cross Timbers. [[This sounds like a good example of the integration of landscaping with ecosystem restoration, management, and preservation that could come to characterize a more sensible, useful, aesthetic, and more efficient approach to our relationship to the land right under our feet and noses as well as the earth itself. WT]] Was carbon sequestering a consideration in the park development? Not at all at the time, several decades ago. Is it a reasonable factor to consider now for such work? Probably not. Tyson is correct, that a different attitude and action regarding the largescale removal of native ecosystems is needed to have any effect. But, has the increase in wooded area in the eastern U.S. over the past century slowed the advance of climate change? I haven't seen an adequate analysis to know. [[Indeed, we may never know the effects of small-scale projects on climate change, but everything has to start someplace, and if such projects give rise to greater awareness that produces a paradigm shift within individuals and cultures, the implications for enhanced ecosystem health on a large enough scale to have effects on many aspects of global systems. WT]] [[ mcneely Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Honorable Forum: Rose's additions and clarifications are illuminating. My concerns too are general--related to principle--not specific to the South-Central Iowa area. While I am not overly concerned with individual projects at local scales, particularly urban areas, I am concerned with the impression left with the public at large, upon which ecological distinctions are largely lost. And, of course, the implication that tree planting on a scale actually large enough to have any measurable effect upon global warming can be effective enough is disturbing, even though I do not necessarily wish to imply that the case instant is itself all that disturbing. I only hope that students of all ages and the public at large are not mislead into thinking that the rather romantic practice of tree planting, whether or not a site is actually suitable or historically a tree or forest habitat, will even be a preferable
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
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
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 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 -- Katie Rose Levin Duke University, Nicholas School of The Environment Masters of Environmental Management Candidate, 2012 Masters of Forestry Candidate, 2012 Environmental Professional, National and North Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals Wilderness First Responder, National Outdoors Leadership School The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. ~Nelson Henderson - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424
