A RECENT Australian Government study of 115 key industries found that only the forestry sector was net carbon-positive. Yet, a major Wilderness Society campaign is advocating the closure of Australian timber industries to help mitigate climate change.
Their campaign revolves around research by scientists from the Australian National University Fenner School of Environment and Society who have found that large amounts of carbon reside in some Australian “old growth” forests. Environmental activists have shoe-horned this finding into their over-arching 40-year campaign to completely evict timber production from all Australian forests. Their rationale is that a total absence of timber harvesting will allow all forests to become “old growth” which will store maximum amounts of carbon.
This raises several important issues. First, closing a carbon-positive industry that is based on a renewable resource is hardly likely to reduce carbon emissions. Second, the capability of most forests to attain “old growth” is reliant on fire, irrespective of timber harvesting. And third, there is concern about the integrity of the Wilderness Society’s campaign and the key participatory role of several ANU scientists.
It is hardly a surprise that large trees store more carbon than small trees. Yet this is essentially the finding of the ANU research which the Wilderness Society has loudly trumpeted as an exciting new development since it was released via two academic papers published during the past 10 months.
The first paper entitled Green Carbon – the Role of Native Forests in Carbon Storage – Part 1, by ANU scientists Professor Brendan Mackey, Dr Heather Keith, Sandra Berry, and Professor David Lindenmayer, was published in August 2008. This is now supported by a follow-up paper published just days ago (in late June 2009) – entitled Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon dense forests, by Keith, Mackey, and Lindenmayer.
Much of the research underpinning these papers has focused on mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests in Victoria’s Central Highlands. Prior to February 2009, the majority of these ash forests were classed as advanced regrowth derived from the 1939 and 1926 bushfires. Only about 1.5 per cent of their area was classed as “old growth”.
February’s “Black Saturday” fires changed this quite significantly by killing a large area of ash regrowth and most of the “old growth” ash. Ash forests depend on fire for renewal and these burnt areas will regenerate as new young stands. The period between stand replacement fires is variable, but may be sufficiently infrequent to allow some forests to grow for hundreds of years to attain “old growth” status. However, as we have seen over the past century, more frequent fires can kill huge areas before they grow old and thereby maintain much of the forest in a regrowth state.
Anti-logging activism is typically silent on matters of scale and proportion as it is far easier to foster community outrage by implying that all forests are threatened. However, this is far from the reality. In Victoria, less than 10 per cent of public forests are available and suitable for timber production: the national figure is 6 per cent. Within these available forests, harvesting and regeneration occurs on a sustainable cycle that aims to supply timber and fibre in perpetuity.
Despite being Victoria’s most productive forest type, about two-thirds of the state’s mountain ash forests are in parks and reserves where timber production is excluded. Where permitted, timber production is restricted to regrowth ash forest mostly emanating from the 1939 bushfires. While, the ANU research and associated environmental campaign have built a perception that central Victoria’s “old growth” ash forests are threatened by logging, all were protected in parks and reserves, or by management prescription.
The exclusion of timber production from the vast majority of Australia’s forests means that most already have the potential to grow their carbon stocks towards their maximum carrying capacity. However, it is drawing an extremely long bow to expect all Australian forests to attain “old growth” given the prevalence of fire in the landscape; and an even greater leap of faith to expect that closing down a timber industry which operates in only a minor part of the forest, to be a catalyst for maximising forest carbon storage.
On the contrary, it is highly likely that closing Australia’s hardwood timber industry would exacerbate climate change. This is because it would encourage greater importation of hardwoods from developing countries whose forests are not sustainably managed; and increase the substitution of renewable wood products with non-renewable alternatives, such as steel and aluminium, which embody massive carbon emissions in their manufacture.
Furthermore, the forced removal of economic activity from Australia’s forests in response to political activism is already acknowledged as a significant factor in declining capability to manage forest fire. Total removal of industry and associated government workforces would only exacerbate this problem and thereby further reduce the chances of forests growing old before they are burnt.
The ANU research has ignored all these factors. In particular, its failure to consider the role of fire as the ultimate determinant of forest carbon storage is a stunning omission from scientists of such high standing. The magnitude of this flaw was emphasised when the February bushfires killed most “old growth” ash forest in the O’Shannessy catchment (north of Melbourne) which had been the study area for the most recent ANU research.
Forest carbon storage is clearly a complex matter. It cannot be simply assumed – as the Wilderness Society does – that “saving” forests from timber production is a climate change fix. Their campaign is also deceitful because it lumps Australia’s sustainable forestry (in which trees are harvested and regenerated), with deforestation in developing countries (where trees are permanently removed for another land use). It is the latter activity which is mostly responsible for a reported 18 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.
Australian environmentalists view themselves as an ally of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, with regards to forests, they are out of step given that in 2007, the IPCC stated that:
In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.
Deceptively avoiding inconvenient truths is almost expected of activists fixated on an ideological outcome. However, similar behaviour should be intolerable among scientists working for respected academic institutions carrying credibility for being apolitical and scientifically objective.
Unfortunately, there is a growing suspicion that the ANU scientists researching forest carbon have been less than objective since their Fenner School partnered the Wilderness Society to establish the ANU Wild Country Research and Policy Hub. The lead scientist working on forest carbon – Professor Brendan Mackey – is the Hub’s Director of Research and is responsible for its management.
The progress of the ANU’s forest carbon research thus far points to a disturbing slackening of academic process to assist the Wilderness Society’s political activism. As pointed out in an earlier article in On Line Opinion (“Blurring the lines between science and political activism”, October 30, 2008), the Green Carbon paper by Mackey et al was part-funded by the Wilderness Society. However, more significantly, the paper failed to conform to accepted academic standards when:
• it was published without any technical data to support its findings;
• its key findings were publicly launched by its lead author (Professor Mackey) some nine months before it was published. This was at a Wilderness Society function held at the UN Climate Conference in Bali in November 2007;
• the pre-publication launch occurred before the academic peer review process had been completed;
• it was able to satisfy peer review standards without any supporting technical data. thereby raising concerns about the veracity of the peer review process;
• one of the peer reviewers was Emeritus Professor Henry Nix, Chairman of the Wild Country Hub’s Advisory Board and co-Chair of the Wilderness Society’s Wild Country Science Council of which the paper’s lead author, Professor Mackey, is also a member; and
• also prior to publication, the paper’s findings were made available to Wilderness Society members to assist them in making submissions to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.
The key finding of the Green Carbon paper that halting native forest timber production will give superior carbon accounting outcomes fits neatly with the Wilderness Society’s position articulated in its Forests and Woodlands Policy:
The Wilderness Society “does not support the use of native forests to supply woodchips for pulp, wood for power generation, charcoal production, commercial firewood, or timber commodities”.
The recent release of a follow-up paper by three of the same ANU scientists has raised further concerns. While this new paper is more measured and does not directly advocate closing timber industries, the timing of its publication and the activities of the authors have again been integral to the current round of carbon-based political activism.
The most recent phase of the environmental movement’s carbon campaign appears to have been specifically designed to coincide with Federal parliamentary debate about a proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme. As can be seen below, the recently released ANU research is integral to this:
• June 5: Australian Greens media release – Greens in vigorous pursuit of forests solution in climate change – announces that Senator Bob Brown has “… explained to the PM, in detail, the latest research from the ANU showing that carbon emissions from logging native forests in NSW, Victoria, and Tasmania could be more than ten times above government estimates”.
• June 16: Senator Brown signifies his intention to move that the Senate:
(a) notes the findings of Professor Brendan Mackey, Professor David Lindenmayer and Dr Heather Keith of the Australian National University that Victoria’s Eucalyptus regnans (mountain ash) forests are the most carbon dense on Earth; and
(b) calls on the Government to inform the Senate by 24 June 2009:
• whether the report has validity,
• what government measures are being taken or considered to protect Eucalyptus regnans forests in Australia that are currently targeted for logging,
• what area and volume of such forests are available for logging under current planning regimes, and
• whether ending native forest and woodland removal in Australia would reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10 to 20 per cent.
• June 16: ANU Media Release – Australia home to forest carbon winner – announces that Victoria’s Central Highlands are the most carbon-dense forests in the world according to a paper by Dr Keith, Professor Mackey and Professor Lindenmayer published in the US-based Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
• June 16: an article appears in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper – “Mountain ash the best for carbon” – referring to the Keith et al paper;
• June 16: Professor Mackey is interviewed on ABC radio’s AM program. The program includes a supporting interview with Dr James Watson, University of Queensland. Dr Watson was formerly a key figure in the Wilderness Society and is thought to have played a role in obtaining funding for the forest carbon research.
• June 16: an article in the Brisbane Times extensively quotes Wilderness Society campaigner, Virginia Young, who believes that the latest ANU research outlines “a huge opportunity for the government to help solve the climate problem through protecting and restoring native forests”.
• June 22: The Wilderness Society’s Gavan McFadzean has an 800-word opinion piece published in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper – “Preserving old growth forests is vital to saving the planet” – which draws extensively on the ANU research.
• June 24: Professor Mackey, Dr Keith, and Professor Lindenmayer conduct a public lecture at ANU to explain their latest research.
• June 24: the ANU paper so extensively promoted in the media since June 16 is finally published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
• June 25: the Senate defers a vote on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until August.
• July 1: an article written jointly by Wilderness Society campaigner, Amelia Young, and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s, Lucy Manne, appears in On Line Opinion – “Forests – the essential climate fix”.
It is a concern that the ANU’s latest forest carbon research paper was for most of the time unpublished while its findings were being promoted as published fact in the media. This raises the question of whether this is a deliberate ploy to stifle debate by denying critics (and journalists) the opportunity to examine the veracity of the science.
It is also curious that the paper was published only during June 2009, despite being received by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences almost a year earlier. In light of earlier events, this raises suspicions about whether publication was delayed at the behest of the authors to fit the Wilderness Society’s campaign requirements.
Superficially, it may seem reasonable to cease timber production by placing all forests in national parks so they can grow old and store maximum levels of carbon. However, when considered in context with the natural prevalence of bushfire and the carbon-value of wood products, it would be counter-productive to the effort to mitigate climate change.
It had been hoped that the 2009 “Black Saturday” bushfires would finally show environmental activists that fire – not timber harvesting and regeneration – is the ultimate arbiter of Australia’s forests. Sadly, their forest carbon campaign shows they have learnt nothing.
Mark Poynter, Melbourne
***************
This article was first published by Online Opinion: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9170&page=0
The photograph of the tree trunk was taken in Tasmania in May 2005.
Mark Poynter is a professional forester with 30 years experience. He is a member of the Institute of Foresters and the Association of Consultant Foresters, and author of the book Saving Australia’s Forests and its Implications (published in 2007).
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Mark, a very important article. Brendan mackey has been modelling forests for over a decade now having established much of his research methods in Canada’s boreal forests. Forests which are continental in scale carrying few species across the landscape. I have followed his research for some years now and have formed the opinion that his models are still not yet capable of simulating the diversity of forest types in Australia especially eucalypt forests and the manner in which they adopt niches that alter with aspect and elevation. I first came across Brendan’s work when he presented his modelling of the south east forests of NSW, modelling that completely failed to capture what Ross Florence calls in his book “ecological sifting”. Nothing that I have seen of Brendan’s work since has demonstrated that, even with the increase in computing power, he is able to capture the dynamics of australia’s forests.
What is also dissapointing is the complete absence of an author that has any real practical experience with forest ecology, growth, mortality, recruitment and defect. His models make no provision for internal defect, especially in senescing forests. As such his model results should be rendered worthless. Certainly if a forest agency were to manage their forests based on his models then their management would be unsustainable.
Not only does the Wilderness Society and its wild country science activists want to end native forest logging, but they want to re – wild Tasmania. They are not satisfied with the 97% of high quality wilderness currently in reserves but seek to restore ‘degraded’ (eg productive) parts of Tasmania to add to the 2 million hectares of wilderness.
They have also used the IUCN (Mackey is the Australian rep) to condemn forest practices in Tasmania alll though the areas of forest listed by the IUCN are already in National parks, reserves or World Heritage Areas.
They even oppose a factory in a heavy industrial zone that will add value to woodchips currently being exported, this will save over 1 million tonnes of greenhouse gas, http://www.tasmaniapulpmill.info/frequently_asked_questions
Yet the Wilderness society has wasted an estimated million dollars of donated (tax deductible) funds to campaign against this factory that has no impact on wilderness or old growth forests.
Where can we get a copy of these WWF $hitbag’s latest disgrace? If Lindenmeyer has anything to do with a published paper then it is absolutely essential to examine the data VERY CLOSELY.
Once again we see partisan shonkademics abusing the IPCC carbon accounting methodology. They compare the standing carbon volume of a real managed forest at a particular point in time with a modelled, imaginary old growth forest at some point far off in the future. And surprise, surprise, the imaginary forest has more carbon in it.
But what they have left out of the equation is the total volume of carbon that will be removed from the managed forest in successive partial harvests over the more than 100 years it would take to produce an old growth forest. This off-site carbon will be stored in houses, power poles, fence posts, rail sleepers, furniture and even newsprint (after recycling, and in landfill).
And because it is taken as part of a partial harvest, the remaining trees in the forest will grow much faster, and capture much more carbon, than would be the case if all the trees were left in the forest to compete with each other. In fact, within a decade or two after a managed forest is abandoned to green negligence the growth rate declines to a condition called “lock-up” where the growth of any given tree will only come at the expense of another tree.
The evidence comparing growth measurements between partially harvested forests and abandoned forests is absolutely overwhelming. Growth rates, and carbon capture rates, by the retained trees in partially harvested forests can be from 10 to 25 times greater than abandoned green forests. And these high growth rates ensure that the forest has replaced the harvested wood volume, and is ready for another partial harvest, long before the houses, poles and posts have rotted away.
The total carbon storage, in both on-site and off-site storage, from the managed forest is cumulative. So unlike the ANU’s imaginary old growth forest, there is no upper limit to the volume of carbon that can be captured by a managed forest. As long as the managed forest is managed in a way that replaces harvested wood faster than the wood in the house breaks down then the forest will accumulate carbon in perpetuity.
The greens have attempted to obscure this fact by claiming that it takes 80 years for another sawlog to grow from a seedling. But the reality is that the retained trees after a partial harvest are already in robust adolescent good health and are eager to grow to capture as much of the newly available sunlight, rainfall and nutrients that the harvested tree beside it can no longer use.
In other forests, it is the harvested tree itself that recaptures its place in the sun when the stump, with its entire root system still intact, puts all its energy into coppice shoots that, if pruned to 1 or 2 leaders, grow much faster, and with superior form, than the very best plantation provenances. Public sector foresters have generally been, collectively, too thick to appreciate the contribution coppiced stems can make. But many private native forests reveal as many as 4 or 5 successive harvests from the one stump in as little as 60 years.
What this clearly demonstrates is that the gross ignorance, or worse, deliberate misrepresentation, of the Fenner School at Australian National University is a disgrace to that institution. There are numerous ageing private forest owners all over Australia, with no more than a primary school education, who are orders of magnitude better informed on forest ecology and carbon budgets than Professor Brendan Mackey, Dr Heather Keith, Sandra Berry, and Professor David Lindenmayer.
And as a person who is often asked by forest owners to recommend a forestry consultant, I must advise that, on the evidence available to me, I would not touch any of their graduates with a barge pole.
How did these forests survive before you guys turned up.
What a moronic question, Luke. The entire discussion, including the drivell from the Fenner School, is about what happens to existing managed forests when they are abandoned. But the best you can do is reduce the discussion down to one of survival or not survival which was never in dispute. If your retention skills are that impaired then do us all a favour and get back onto your knees under the DG’s desk.
Dont old growth forests actually emit co2 as they decompose, whereas new growth absorbs co2 as they grow…and stores the carbon? Surely on an emissions basis alone it makes sense to have a timber industry that is well managed…like Australia’s. “species diversity, species diversity” I hear you call….with a well managed industry, both can occur together.
Ian Mott: it’s worse than you said. NGOs like the Wilderness Society and the hacks at the Fenner School like Mackey and his mates are incapable of – or unwilling to – distinguish between gross and net flows of CO2. The truth is that deforestation that leads to plantation forestry or oil palm plantations and the like actually take up more CO2 per annum than was being stored in old but moribund forests;
There’s been a parallel discussion in the US. Several years ago, the Sierra Club took the extreme position that ALL timber harvesting on National Forests should cease. I forget what the rationale was, but I think that it was before the Flying CO2 Monster spoke to his chosen prophet, Al Gore.
Yes, there are some areas in National Forests that should be protected from the chainsaw. The Echo-Carson area, SW of Lake Tahoe, is one of them. It has outstanding scenic value. (Until a few years ago, a few cattle grazed in Meiss Meadow during the Summer, in keeping with the multiple-use philosophy of the Forest Service.)
And yes, there are legitimate issues about how the forestry should be done on public lands. One forester I worked with many years ago expressed the opinion that we would get more bang for the buck, by focusing on the nation’s most productive timberland in the Northwest and in the South(east), and by having intensive German-style forest management there. And that includes fully-funded TSI.
My understanding is that is some other places, the Forest Service spends more money on timber cruising and on logging road construction than they take in from timber sales. But there’s another consideration. Deer hunters use these same logging roads in the Fall. And it’s difficult to put a dollar value on that, especially considering that under our federal system, the individual states set the hunting regulations (and fees).
Yes, there’s room for improvement in US forest management practices. But that does not justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
A good point, Tom. All the big old trees in a climax forest are actively decaying on the inside whilst adding wood on the outside of the trunk and larger limbs. The net result is almost zero carbon sequestration. So when early mature trees are harvested this natural emission from internal decay is intercepted before it becomes significant. When the tree is milled the small portion of decaying wood is isolated from the rest and discarded. The remaining wood is transported to a safe dry place, under a house or barn roof etc, where the potential for decay is minimised.
Neither the greens nor their captive IPCC goons have recognised this prevention or long term postponement of large scale natural emissions as a classic anthropogenic impact that creates room in global carbon budgets that can be filled by other anthropogenic emissions. In accounting terms it is a far more legitimate cause for a carbon credit than some of the cap and trade scams that are akin to the old Papal Indulgences that so enraged Martin Luther so many years ago.
And for that intellectual and moral failure the greens and the IPCC stand condemned as gross hypocrites.
Motty – Excellent sledge on the DG’s desk- we kacked – but the Luke team advises as a multi-state consortium it’s DGs’ plural.
There is a similar story about WWF wanting to close a cypress forest in Chinchilla Q on tonight’s ABC Stateline Qld. Not on the web yet but will be tomorrow.
This forrest has been logged sustainably for a 100 years and the timber industry show how areas that have not been logged do not develop into big trees as happens with good practice.
Carbon sequestration is many times greater with logging this productive, durable timber than leaving the forest in its natural, dwarfed state, and vulnerable to wildfire.
On top of this you have a great resource and a great industry.
Another magnificent article from Mr Poynter: measured, sensible, practical and based on fact and science. But Sir! Why do you waste your time and intelligence on anything put out by the ANU’s Fenner School? There is not one of us out here, other than paid up members of the Wilderness Society and the various paid bloggers who call themselves Luke, who have the faintest respect for this institution. They are the academic arm of the environmentalist movement, and as such have no scientific credibility.
Once again, AGW is simply using a veneer of science to push through a long standing public policy demand of the believers promoting a particular solution.
The ANU research was released 16 June 09, to the media, the day the ETS was to be introduced into the Senate for debate. But it was not finally published on line in the US until 24 June (25 June- Aus), 9 days later. The pdf version and supporting information is accessible at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/24/0901970106.abstract
” We found that E.regnans forest in the O’Shannassy catchment of the Central Highlands (53 sites within a 13,000-ha catchment) contains an average of 1,053 tonnes carbon (tC) ha1 in living above-ground biomass and 1,867 tCha1 in living plus dead total biomass in stands with cohorts of trees 100 years old.”
I see from Jennifer’s wiki http://jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Melbourne,_Australia,_Water_Security
has some very good stats on how 93% of this catchment was burnt in February 2009, thus releasing some of the stored carbon.
The ANU paper acknowledges the fire but makes no attempt to quantify: “In February 2009, extensive areas of the O’Shannassy Catchment and elsewhere in the Central Highlands of Victoria were burned in a major conflagration”
Surely such a wildfire supports Mark’s point. The academics, the greens and wilderness society should have included this fact in all the media that was generated between 16 June and its eventual publication 9 days later.
The authors of the ANU paper used small 10 x 10m plots and did not publish the allometric relationship showing how the biomass estimates was derived. No doubt more professional researchers will look into this and compare the data with earlier published estimates obtained from objective sources. However, the lack of data and comparative analysis supports the view that the authors are campaigners not scientists.
Is that right, Siltstone? A 100m2 plot is less than the footprint of a single early senescent tree. In fact, the stand of old growth blackbutt that my grandfather preserved, on quality basalt country, on a gentle north facing slope, in 1900mm rainfall country, and which is similar in standing wood volume to the best E.regnans stands, has only 16 large stems per hectare, with DBH of 2 metres and canopy of 50 metres.
And that gives a mean fotprint for each tree of 625m2. So even if the E.regnans stands have 20 stems/ha their footprint will be 500m2. So these Fenner School clowns have set up sample plots that are only 20% of the likely footprint of a single tree. That cannot be regarded as sampling. It is pure incompetence, or worse, fraudulent misrepresentation.
I think it is time we paid this campus a visit with a good stock of eggs, tomatoes and bottled urine.
You’re welcome Luke. I guess that explains the prevailing corporate culture of “fellatious argument” in natural resource management.
Hehehehehehehe – we’re laughing so much we can’t argue anymore. Motty has neutralised us.
If you are unsure how they were able to increase the mean from 500 tonnes per hectare to the study plots have a look at the photo at the ABC science report on this ANU study http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/16/2599532.htm
Then tell me which 10 x 10 m plot did they select to measure the carbon.
If you are unsure then check the photo on page 2 at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/24/0901970106.full.pdf+html
Was it the clreared road or the dense forest??
Quote from Methods in paper “All living and dead plants 2m in height and 5cm in diameter were measured at 318 10-m x 10-m plots nested within 53 sites (each measuring 3 ha) within the catchment.” That suggests that six small plots were located within each of 53 three-hectare “sites”. The plots size seem abnormally small for such a heterogeneous forest.
“Living and dead biomass carbon for each site were calculated by using an allometric equation applied to the inventory data for the individual trees in the plots. The equation related biomass to stem volume and wood density.”
No details of the allometric equation are given.
The paper states “Recent research findings have …. and demonstrated that old-growth forests are likely to be functioning as carbon sinks”. Living above ground carbon biomass for E regnans is quotes as averaging 1053 t/ha for 100 year old stand (13 sites) and 1819 t/ha for 250+ year old stand (no n given).
Much is made of the virtues of build up of dead biomass. The point that a felled tree is just another form of virtuous dead biomass seems to have escaped the authors.
Hehehehehehehe – Luke you never had an argument to begin with. The fact that these clowns continue to not release their equations should be of concern for the hierarchy at ANU and the on going credibility of that institution as a seat of learning and science.
I have no problems in protecting old growth forests for biodiversity reasons and that they are also awe inspiring places to vist. But to say they sequest more carbon than a harvested forest is clutching at straws! No wonder the green movement gets a bad name.
I’ve seen the oil palm in Borneo, you drive for hours through a monoculture, I shudder to think what has been lost. Not just Orang-utans but countless plant and invertebrate species lost forever. The irony is these people want a better standard of life and I enjoy my tim-tam biscuits.
Here is the critical bull$hit. “Since carbon is emitted much more rapidly than it is sequestered, Mackey says the best way to sequester carbon forests is to protect existing old forests.”
Where the hell is the evidence that harvested wood stored in a house, or a treated pole or even newsprint in a landfill, will emit its carbon more rapidly than the retained trees in the forest will grow and absorb more carbon?
Indeed, what on earth makes this turkey believe that wood in a house, protected from termites, under a roof and sealed with paint, will decay faster, or be eaten by termites faster, than wood in a moss covered hollow log on wet ground?
And still they claim that all their dead wood in the climax forest is not burned by bushfires but is, somehow, destroyed by forestry operations.
R.G. Florence established long ago that the greatest growth increment in eucalypt trees was found in early mature stems as they race to capture the surplus sunlight, soil moisture and nutrients that are available when a tree beside it is removed. So by maintaining a forest in this condition by regular partial harvesting the greatest long term carbon sequestration will take place.
If the Fenner Fools were even part of the way up the learning curve they would understand that the full compliment of trees in a climax forest ensures that a greater proportion of each trees energy is expended on maintenance rather than growth. They would understand that fully stocked stands suffer greater fluctuations in moisture and nutrient supply because the additional stems deplete a moisture profile faster than a spaced stand and produce longer periods of dry soil between rainfall events. And during these extended periods of dry soil the nitrogen fixing soil microbes shut down for longer, producing a less fertile soil.
These are the reasons why growth in fully stocked stands cannot possibly be greater than growth in regularly spaced stands. So even if a 100 year old unharvested stand might add another 800 tonnes of carbon if it is left for another 150 years, the accumulation will only be 5.3 tonnes each year. Meanwhile, a properly and sustainably managed stand will add more than twice that volume and see it more safely stored in stable wood products. Good forest practice can double the growth (sequestration) rate and halve the decay (emission) rate.
Just how much carbon was lost in the 2009 tragic bushfires that burnt hundreds of thousands of hectares (450,000 according to Wiki) including the ANU study area in the O’Shannassy catchment.
According Mark Adams, from the University of Sydney and the Bushfire CRC, the emissions from bushfires were far beyond what could be contained through carbon capture and needed . The bushfires have released a massive amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – almost equal to Australia’s industrial emission for an entire year.
In work for the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre, he estimated the 2003 and 2006-07 bushfires could have put 20-30million tonnes of carbon (70-105 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere.
The 2003 and 2006-07 bushfires were burning land carrying 50 to 80 tonnes of carbon per hectare. For the 2009 fires”This time we are burning forests that are even more carbon-dense than last time, well over 100 tonnes above-ground carbon per hectare” .
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25047322-5018067,00.html
Now the ANU claims almost 2,000 tonne per hectare!!
According Mark Adams, from the University of Sydney and the Bushfire CRC, the emissions from bushfires were far beyond what could be contained through carbon capture and needed . The bushfires have released a massive amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – almost equal to Australia’s industrial emission for an entire year.