I suggest this is very important research for the following reason. There is a movement by some people who don’t care much for forestry to lock up forests. They claim that doing so will result in a higher level of carbon sequestration. It is claimed by some that the biggest trees do the most sequestering and hold the most carbon. But idea fails to consider that big/old trees often have decay and hollows in them. So, locking up forests doesn’t offer the great carbon benefit that is presumed. By comparison, excellent silviculture practiced by competent foresters will result in removal of trees with decay and hollows- and which will encourage putting the growth on high value, fast growing, species which are resistant to such defects. It is also not appreciated by those who want to lock up the forests that many forests have been abused in the past where they cut the best and left the rest. Often, the trees that were left were damaged by logging machinery- or, they left them specifically because they are unhealthy specimens with significant defect including decay and hollows. So, leaving such forests to grow without forestry practices does not offer the carbon benefit so presumed. I think it’s clear that the solution to many forestry problems is to do excellent forestry and I suggest that this excellent forestry will result in higher levels of carbon in the forest.
This measures Carbon in trunks. Trees also sequester Carbon in the root system, and long term trees store more Carbon externally as they build up soil. Humans have reduced the amount of soil over 50%. Everywhere the soil is extracted for food crops and forest harvesting, the soil thins and the bio-diversity shrinks to a fraction of a healthy forest. Even a road passing ten miles away is enough to reduce bio-diversity 50%.
On a global scale, humans have ERASED half of the forests – 3 TRILLION trees – and a lot of those areas are now barren, lifeless soil, desert sands without even the mineral elements to re-forest – and yet, growing those forests back is essential to support even a couple of billion humans. Since 75% of humans are now fed on unsustainable chemical fertilizer, 2 billion is the best we can hope for. Even that is jeapardized each day we continue mining and burning.
Primeval forest is VERY IMPORTANT with regards to healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, which all help toward keeping climate change at bay.
“Biomass greater at the forest edge” – maybe simply easier to see and record imo.
Large areas of clearfell in primeval forests is not a good thing whatsoever.
So, now that trees have been deemed unimportant to the Earth’s ecosystem, let’s get rid of them. They’re an impediment to cattle ranching and shopping malls.
Trees – just like other plants – love carbon dioxide, which isn’t a pollutant at all (contrary to what the climate change alarmist crowd likes to say).
It’s a pollutant if there’s too much of it and it causes harm to humans and the planet.
Comments are closed.