3 ms·
do you have some science to back up this claim? i’ve read a bit about this as an layperson and the mature vs young forest debate seems kinda inconclusive. but i
by greenie_beans 5y ago
do you have some science to back up this claim? i’ve read a bit about this as an layperson and the mature vs young forest debate seems kinda inconclusive. but it also seems like keeping a mature forest’s ecosystem in tact is better than clearcutting and planting new trees that supposedly grow faster and capture more carbon. by clearcutting, you’re removing and releasing a lot of the ecosystem (mushrooms and such) that also play a part in carbon capture and storage. capturing carbon is only one part, from what i understand, a mature forest’s ecosystem does a lot to retain it, too.
- soco 5y agoMaybe the middle way should be not clear cutting but punctual culling so you'd try to get best of both worlds... and getting closer to regenerative agriculture as well.
- idiotsecant 5y ago'grow faster' is a bit of a vague statement. What we should be talking about is biomass added, which is what sequesters carbon. Older trees unequivocally add mass at a faster rate, which is geometrically obvious when you consider that old growth tree rings add about the same radius each yeah that young growth trees do, and then consider that area of a circle grows with the square of radius. see: https://news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today/article/study-finds-large-older-trees-grow-at-a-faster-rate/#:~:text=A%20Bornean%20rain%20forest%20with%20massive%20trees.&text=They%20concluded%20that%20for%20most,tree%20in%20a%20single%20year https://news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today/article/study-finds-lar....