So, aging reduces the sink in two ways: through slower growth of living biomass and through reduced litter production. Therefore, the carbon input to the forest carbon storage is now continuously decreasing as trees are not getting any younger. 6/9 - ThreadSky

ilkkaleinonen.bsky.social • 17 days ago

So, aging reduces the sink in two ways: through slower growth of living biomass and through reduced litter production. Therefore, the carbon input to the forest carbon storage is now continuously decreasing as trees are not getting any younger.
6/9

Comments

ilkkaleinonen.bsky.social•17 days ago

Reason 3: Perhaps the most important reason for the increase in emissions, however, is the acceleration of decomposition activity due to rising temperatures. This is especially the case in the soils of drained peatlands, where there are huge amounts of dead organic matter ready to decompose.
7/9

ilkkaleinonen.bsky.social•17 days ago

So, there are three permanent trends behind the increased emissions, the direction of which cannot be changed. Therefore, emissions from forests are likely to continue to increase.
8/9

ilkkaleinonen.bsky.social•17 days ago

This is a good practical example of the fact that biological carbon stocks are only temporary, and therefore their inclusion in the national net zero targets cannot be scientifically justified.
9/9

waiterich.bsky.social•16 days ago

Thanks for this explanation. How do changing rates of annual forest harvest fit into this? Has there also been an uptick in forest harvest (which would lead to more emissions w potentially mixed effects on removals due to regrowth vs old growth rates) in recent years? Or are harvests not increasing?

ilkkaleinonen.bsky.social•16 days ago

The harvest rate increased until the peak year 2018. After that, the harvests have decreased and the tree carbon sink has increased. So the the increase of emissions during the recent years is really about soils only.

tominyman.bsky.social•16 days ago

With sufficient, diverse biological carbon stocks, they support each other, and store carbon longer. If one part of the stocks is removed, eg wetlands, or tree trunks, or leaves and small branches, the system may collapse. A chair with only 3 legs is not stable if it had 4 in the first place..

ekstrakartofel.bsky.social•12 days ago

This seems inevitable from preservation of mass. There must be a limit of tons of plant biomass per square kilometer and there's nowhere else for the carbon to go.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply