←back to thread

91 points PaulHoule | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.497s | source
Show context
myfonj ◴[] No.43682413[source]
> "We can expect the carbon pool stored in these forests to increase substantially,"

Interesting. I would have guessed that any kind of forests have quite limited cap how much carbon it could retain in dead wood, and that this cap will be pretty much fixed. Unless something will stop natural decay processes releasing the carbon back to the atmosphere I don't see how existing grown forest could increase its capacity, since I suppose it is already at its equilibrium.

(Unlike peatlands, where most of accumulated carbon remains underwater, so it presumably has much larger capacity.)

Simply said, without "burying or sinking wood mass" I see no easy way to prevent carbon from returning into the atmosphere. Basically if we need to take carbon from the atmosphere, we should ideally put it back from where we have been mining it for last couple of centuries.

replies(3): >>43682648 #>>43682711 #>>43683163 #
abainbridge ◴[] No.43682711[source]
> I would have guessed that any kind of forests have quite limited cap how much carbon it could retain in dead wood

The article says, "We found that a forest that's developing toward old-growth condition is accruing more wood in the stream than is being lost through decomposition" and "The effect will continue in coming decades, Keeton said, because many mature New England forests are only about halfway through their long recovery from 19th- and 20th-century clearing for timber and agriculture".

replies(1): >>43683415 #
1. myfonj ◴[] No.43683415[source]
Ah, overlooked they actually acknowledge the "cap" directly in the preceding paragraph, and even put it into "coming decades" time frame. Makes much more sense now, thanks for the pointer!

Still a bit confused about the emphasis in wood deposits in "streams" – reportedly way more effective, but I'd guess with very limited capacity to really "lock" the mass – compared to regular hummus – not that effective, but for forest with couple of centuries of growth ahead I'd guess way more capacious. Good news either way, though!

replies(2): >>43684250 #>>43684311 #
2. throwup238 ◴[] No.43684250[source]
“Coming decades” is an understatement. It depends on local conditions but douglas fir pines in the PNW take 200-300 years to decay completely, so that’s centuries more of carbon capture as long as we let our forests rewild. Realistically a forest becomes old growth once there are at least three generations of trees in various states of decay. That may decades in warmer climates but much longer in the north.
3. bluGill ◴[] No.43684311[source]
Reading between the lines in the article (which is of course always subject to incorrect interpretation) I think the reason for the focus on streams is just that nobody else has looked at that before and thus it is a factor not previously accounted for. Other sources have already been accounted for - they may be worth more than what is in streams, but it is already known so the article didn't mention them.