Australian study shows that planted trees capture less CO2
A report issued by the Australian National University shows that unspoiled natural forests capture more carbon than artificially planted trees. The report states that this fact wasn't considered when planning counteracting actions against global warming by the IPCC. However, according to our source article, the report didn't consider the capture capacity of relatively young trees, whereas the IPCC did. IPCC calculations considered a tree a plant over 2 meters with 110 percent diameter crown, whereas the Australian report considers a tree over 10 meters with 120 percent diameter crown. Regardless of the actual calculation methods, the Australian report calculated 1 hectare of wild unspoiled forest in the SE of the country could store 640 tons of CO2 , whereas the same surface of artificially planted trees stored 217. Take also in consideration that planted trees are usually cut for the use of its wood regularly and new trees are planted afterwards. The result: 25 trees planted every 4 years store less carbon than 1 tree planted for 100 years.
[Source: Cesefor via Agroinformacion]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Hank 2:51PM (8/09/2008)
They aren't calculating the effects of undergrowth, it seems to me, and they may affect results far more than they realize.
Reply
friend 4:52PM (8/11/2008)
These results seem counter to my knowledge of how trees and forests grow. Perhaps there is some confusion between the terms carbon storage and carbon capture. Mature natural forests are typically at their maximum biomass and are therefore storing carbon at a peak and fairly constant level. At this state the rate of carbon capture from growth is equal to their carbon release through decay and so their carbon capture should equate to roughly zero. Planted forests obviously have less carbon in storage because it has been removed to make wood products, but their rate of carbon capture grows at a constantly increasing rate until slowing again over time as the forest reaches a mature state similar to the original forest. Comparing the two fairly would therefore require a desciption of the timeframe over which the comparison is made. Looking at a snapshot in time is not looking at the whole picture. The potential carbon storage in wood products and or displacement of non renewable fossil fuel by renewable wood fuel should also be considered in an unbiased analysis.
Reply