Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iytf3aw wrote

Reply to comment by RobertJoseph802 in Curious to know what folks think about this messaging? by Johnny9Toes

[deleted]

8

Legitimate_Proof t1_iyvi6d4 wrote

I think the rate of sequestration is close. We assumed young forests sequestered more because they are growing faster, but studies have shown mature forests may actually sequester more carbon. Using made up numbers to demonstrate how that could be: if a young forest has 10 tons of carbon mass and is growing at 20% a year, it's adding 2 tons a year. A mature forest might have 10 times more mass and grow at 1/10th the rate, that would be 100 tons, growing at 2%, which would be 2 tons a year. I think the reality is that they are close enough that we can't generalize.

7

popquizmf t1_iyzojmx wrote

Depends on the forest. It's that simple, some mature forests, are great carbon reservoirs, but their ability to bring additional carbon in, is very limited. Other old growth forest continue to become more complex systems that can store more carbon.

All the research I went through as a grad student pointed to younger forests being better at sequestration. The bottom line is: the best carbon sinks are forests that don't exist yet. Allowing a field to go to forest is going to store more carbon over 100 years than any other option.

3

Johnny9Toes OP t1_iyudeef wrote

I think you're right and that people conflate sequestration (rate of carbon taken out of the atmosphere per some unit of time) with storage (total carbon locked in the forest above and below ground). I believe regenerating forests sequester more carbon and older forests have more carbon stored.

6