Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumPlanting new forests is part of but not the whole solution to climate change
The title is from their press release; I think the important finding is that planting trees helps on carbon-poor soil, but at best does no good at all on rich soil, and can even decrease carbon density, and it also decreases species diversity - so the "plant billions of trees" ideas are far too simplistic.
These results, based on over 11,000 soil samples taken across control and afforested plots in northern China, indicate that natural climate solutions alone are not enough to meet global climate mitigation goals.
...
The researchers found that in carbon-poor soils, afforestation did increase soil organic carbon density. But in soils already rich in carbon, they found that carbon density decreased. Their findings concluded that fixed biomass-to-soil organic carbon ratios assumed in previous studies might be overestimating the overall soil organic carbon enhancement features of afforestation practices in general.
The results have implications for forest managers and policymakers. For example, a site that's already above a certain threshold of soil organic carbon underground may be best left alone for natural forest regeneration rather than planted with trees, Chen said.
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-forests-solution-climate.html
Link to study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0557-y
True Blue American
(17,972 posts)The seedlings I watched the CCC plant in Southeast Ohio from the back seat of my Dads car as a small child are the forests so many enjoy today at all the Lakes and Parks.
Lake Jackson, Hocking Hills, etc.
I am now reading, The Pioneers, by David McCullough. The settling of the Ohio River. The massive forests, Wild life and Native Americans.
CatLady78
(1,041 posts)It depends on the tree species and the soil type.
This is actually a good summary for laymen:
https://medium.com/the-philipendium/trees-and-carbon-dioxide-what-is-the-truth-c7f8c9d12602