Reviewing research on over 500 forests, scientists in Europe and the United States have concluded old growth forests store more carbon dioxide than they release. They are not carbon neutral, as previously believed. According to Beverly Law, a professor of global change forest science at Oregon State University:
If you have an old forest on the ground, it’s probably better to leave it there than to cut it. For the countries that did sign on to Kyoto, it is suggesting that perhaps they need to consider unmanaged primary forests in their carbon accounting.
It is estimated that estimated that 1.3 billion metric tons of carbon are absorbed by old growth forests annually.
Via: Truthout
Image: americaslibrary.gov
how gets the excess carbon stored if the forests biomass is not growing?
New? Right… and when do we learn the carbon cycle kiddies? What plants do?
It’s a joke right? Everyone knew this as far as I was aware, from when I was a child!
Hahahaha thanks for pointing out the obvious. I learned that when I was in 3rd grade
It’s not as simple as it sounds. Photosynthesis captures carbon, but respiration (from plants, animals, decomposers, etc.) releases it again. The balance in those two rates determines whether carbon is being net stored or released at any given time. And much–actually, most–of the carbon storage is actually in soils. Clearly, carbon does not accumulate indefinitely–so either respiration eventually catches up, or some other process, like occasional fire or other disturbance, releases some of the stored carbon. Counting on carbon accumulation in forests to solve greenhouse gas problems implies a willingness to manage forests for that, likely including preventing wildfire. For forest ecosystems, that’s a bit of a step backward.
It has taken a while but scientists have finally realised something we folk have known for a long time. Old growth forests store carbon dioxide.
I’m not sure what is meant by “carbon storage in soils”, however, most of the carbon a tree uses to repair itself and produce leaves, buds, and fruit come from CO2 in the air. That anyone would think trees are carbon neutral seems insane. That is like thinking that we no longer need food once we stop growing or in adulthood.
You’re not getting the point: of course carbon dioxide is bound by plants into hydrocarbons. This is the carbon cycle that we all learned in school. A small part of the carbon is turned into biomass, but the main part is used in respiration. The respired carbon does not change the net balance of carbon in the forest (What goes in comes out and can be ignored).
So let’s focus on the carbon that is turned into new wood, leaves and stuff. This is the true carbon sink of a forest, and it was believed to be neutral in outgrown forests, because there the production of new biomass is balanced by the decomposition of old biomass. This is precisely the definition of an outgrown forest. So, if you would like to reduce atmospheric CO2 by planting forests, you would actually need to chop them down every 500 years or so and bury the stems under the earth to remove the biomass from the global carbon cycle. The post claims that this (very sensible!) conclusion has found to be wrong, but totally fails to explain why. Ignoring the subtleties by referring to apparent childhood knowledge is not enough, guys…
dadapapa and dirtprof are right if you guys were smart you would lisen to them =)