Dear Umbra, Just wanted to share a related reference that gave me a perspective on this topic.  The article is "Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Safe the World?" in the book Confronting Consumption by Thomas Princen, Michael Maiates and Ken Conca.  Helps clarify the consumer vs the citizen actions that really make a difference on a large scale.  

I've tried this on numerous occasions, only to become frustrated by the matter. I searched the literature for a short time -- though longer than I should have -- and found the issue of exactly which biome sequesters more carbon still quite difficult to identify. It goes without saying, for most Grist readers, that it is very complicated and depends on climate, soil type, water, et cetera. Factor in albedo and transpiration and I'd rather have a professional just tell me what to do.

Here is a tiny bit of information from a paper published in Ecological Applications, Vol 10, No 2. I had to add up the values the authors presented in thrir Table 3 to get total SOC (soil organic carbon).

A list of biomes and SOC in kilograms/square meter...

Boreal Forest 25
Crops 35
Desert 23
Sclerophyllous Shrubs (whatever they are!) 29
Temperate Deciduous Forest 46
Temperate Evergreen Forest 41
Temperate Grassland 38
Tundra 36

Crops, Temperate Forest, Grassland... not much diffferent.

The tropical forests and tropical grasslands have much higher values.

Another paper described something referred to as SIC (soil inorganic carbon). The authors mentioned that is plays an important role in LONG-TERM carbon storage, but the process is largely not understood. I don't have the reference in front of me, but I can find it again if someone is interested. Surprisingly, in this case, shrubland and grassland lead the pack, forests are dead last. This suggest grassland might be useful as a long-term carbon sink.

Does anyone know more about SIC? Sounds rather important.

I can conclude two things at this time:

(1) PLANT SOMETHING! But make sure it is appropriate for the climate and soil in the area. No point in planting deciduous or evergreen trees if they burn to ground on a regular basis (unless their adpated to that sort of environment).

(2) Our government should fund further research on natural carbon cycles so we don't further mess things up by promoting the planting of the wrong flora in the wrong places. I cannot imagine how this task can be left to private enterprise.

Just food for thought.

Another issue with planting trees is that so few of them actually survive for long. For most species you must plant dozens, sometimes hundreds, to make up for the loss of one tree, because most die within the first few years. Planting a single tree is unlikely to do much good anyway.

Remember, though, that in many areas of the southwestern US, forests are ALREADY way overstocked and experiencing enhanced drought, above and beyond that of the rest of the west. In some forests, there's up to 100 times more trees than were there before the white man came. Now, before you jump all over me (again), I freely admit that this comes from mismanagement of our forests throughout the last decade. Fire suppression, heavy-handed logging and preservationism has impacted our forests so much that were seeing the results of that mismanagement in record fire years, unnatural bark beetle infestations and over-harvesting of private timberlands (in response to locked up Federal forests).

Often times, after fires, I have seen "carpets" of natural regeneration with THOUSANDS of seedlings per acre. I guess this is part of nature's plan but, she tends to work on timescales that boggle our minds. In some areas, it may take 500 years to return the land to towering fat pines and mega-biodiversity.

THAT'S what I want to see but, I think us humans can speed up the process of restoration. That being said, carefully pick your spots but, make sure ya plant em green side up....lol.

I perceive an emerging conflict between, for lack of a better term, impulsive and informed environmentalism.

Tree planting is one example. I'd swear I've been indoctrinated for almost my entire life -- via the education system and mass media -- that planting trees is always a good idea. Folks dreamed of covering the landscape with trees. Fire was an enemy. Reforest the barren land. Tree planting is almost synonymous with being a steward of the Earth. Cutting down a tree is considered evil.

Then I moved to southwest Wisconsin and learned about the pre-settlement landscape... savanna. And I learned about endangered grassland birds, about ancient trout streams overgrown by tangles of vegetation, about how the settlers suppressed natural fires and changed the ecology.

For several years, I've worked toward liberating my tiny bit of grassland from invasive trees. The first reaction of one of my friends was something like... "Oh my God! How can you cut down those boxelder trees and set fire to the grass! What about the poor animals?" Well... I had to explain it was for the greater good. There are insects, birds, and mammals that prefer grassland over shaded dirt.

I've also volunteered to help the Nature Conservancy a few times and learned that their activity is not always welcomed by the community. Many people don't undertand that removing the red cedars from a hillside and burning the area is good for wildlfe, a net gain for biodiverstiy. They think the trees are "normal" and that bare land -- otherwise known as prairie -- is bad.

This is a public relations problem that must be addressed.

Well, since we had almost 10 million acres burn last year, there should be plenty of spots to plant lots of trees. Wiscidea is being truly progressive in restoring land back to a balanced and natural state. Some ornamentals are alright to plant but, one of my pet peeves is the planting of water-intensive species in arid cities. Yep, Sacramento has some streets lined with redwoods and alders, with green grass underneath. Talk about "water hogs"! I'd think that a native oak with decorative rocks underneath is more ecologically-sound.

If you live in the West and want to get involved, I'm sure there's plenty of volunteer programs that involve planting trees in burned areas. It's also amazing to go back years later and see how well your baby trees are doing.

While I have not read the study, it would seem that this would be predominantly true for boreal forests and conifer plantation more than other types of trees. Deciduous trees obviously have higher albedo, while evergreens do not. If factoring in methane evolution with boreal conifer removal with the warming of the soil during the summer, I would believe that this thesis would drop out as well. I guess the main thing that can be said about this is that there should be less conifers planted in temperate zones, but this is a difficult proposition for some since conifers are much easier to establish then deciduous trees (but worth less also, so an interesting caveat).

I find it somewhat of a dubious statement that boreal forests contain the least organic carbon in the soil. They are net sinks of carbon, due to peat production and Podzols, which is not the same as SOC. Basically what I think happened with wiscidea's citation was the various authors were measuring soil organic carbon in the upper profile or the pedon. Depending on the climate, and type of soil much of that carbon will be continuously leached from the upper horizons into lower ones, creating a sink (this might change with warming).

"Now, before you jump all over me (again), I freely admit that this comes from mismanagement of our forests throughout the last decade."

That should really be "the last century", although both Bush and Clinton both have done an inadequate job as forest stewards.

Please don't interpret my comments as a rant against tree planting! I'm only concerned that people will incorrectly perceive trees as ALWAYS the appropriate vegetation for an area.

In urban areas where water is available trees are important for cooling, shading streets, creating a more pleasant environment, providing resources for wildlife, et cetera. Properly located, they can reduce energy demand for air conditioning and heating. The value of a tiny meadow or patch of short-grass prairie -- genetically isolated and too small to serves as someone's nesting territory -- is probably minimal in an urban area.

Regarding the boreal forests, that's the best info I've managed to find so far. I'll keep searching for clearer data. There is also the question of above ground organic matter. The paper I cited did look at SOC at different depths; I added up the values to get total kg per square meter.

Regarding the podzol, perhaps that is where SIC (soil inorganic carbon) enters the picture. I'll track down that paper again to see what the authors say about boreal forests.

This is obviously not my area of expertise, but it is something I'm very interested in learning about. I presented the information to stimulate some discussion of the value of different ecosystems for sequestering carbon and hoping that someone might bring better information to our attention.

A better question would be...

What is the net carbon gain observed for each biome? For the moment, I'm assuming a biome's SOC reflects its ability to sequester carbon. Perhaps it just indicates the plants grow better in a certain climate or on certain soil.

If anyone can direct me to CLEAR and SPECIFIC information about net carbon gain for different plant communities in different climates, please send the link or reference to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_o37eaWMfyF').innerHTML = output; //]]> . Or post it here. Thanks!

That ought to mean, "having hard leaves."  E.g. yucca?

Would the world be a much poorer place, if we did not have tequila?  And mezcal, con gusano?  Yo pienso que Si.

All the same, this conversation is one of the most brilliant ever hosted by Gristmill.  And I say that, with no reference whatsoever to my mad crush on Umbra Fisk.

Plus, I have long enjoyed the contributions of WiscIdea, and I am glad that he/she has got over his/her depression.

As for Backcut's nervousness regarding being "jumped all over," one would first have to have relevant photos of the jumpees.  Nicht wahr?  My guess, purely founded on prejudices of one kind or another, is that Backcut is quite safe.

Areas covered in ice have a high albedo, however, those areas are too cold to grow trees (otherwise, they wouldn't be covered in ice). They can't be used for planting trees anyways, so albedo there is irrelevant to the question, or may even be a reason to plant trees in addition to carbon storage.

Cities have high concentrations of asphalt, which has a lower albedo than trees. Hence, for every large shade tree planted in a city, once it gets big enough to start shading houses or roads, it is actually raising albedo. Trees, in city yards, already store much more carbon than grass (and grass mowing contributes to carbon emissions). The problem becomes not just that we need more trees, but that we need them to replace grassy areas in people yards, not prairie (which stores at least five times as much carbon as grass typically grown in a yard, more if it contains some shrubs or small trees).

In short, plant a tree. Plant a long-lived tree, adapted to your local climate, which can spread out and shade a significant area, and is unlikely to be killed by disease or pests. And plant it in your own yard, where you can be sure it won't be cut down.

Total net primary production (NPP) of the major biome types (carbon fixation - respiration) in g m^-2 yr^-1:

tropical forests: 2500
temperate forests: 1550
boreal forests: 380
mediterranean shrublands: 1000
trop. savannahs and grasslands: 1080
temp. grasslands: 750
deserts: 250
tundra: 180
crops: 610

Saugier et al. 2001.

Saugier, B., J. Roy, and H.A. Mooney, 2001. Estimation of global terrestrial productivity: toward a single number? pp. 543-557 in Terrestrial Global Productivity. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

percentages of global carbon stored in soils by biome:

13% trop. forest
8% temp. forest
9% savannah
13% boreal forest
11% grasslands
15% wetlands
14% tundra
12% crops
6% deserts

from Perry, D.A., 1994. Forest Ecosystems, p. 40. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

astreyger

Thank you very much for the reference. I looked at the information available online and found the book -- Terrestrial Global Productivity -- very interesting and very thorough! I noticed he also covers decomposition of organic material, which was going to be my follow-up question... what is the net carbon gain year after year, not just  fixation minus respiration? He also discusses biodiversity. I imagine he sorts out the above-ground vs. below-ground and SOC vs. SIC issues as well. I've requested the 500+ page tome from the library and look forward to reading it.

Grist

Thank you very much for providing this valuable service, which enables everyone to find the information they need to understand how we affect the world and how we might repair the damage.

You are most certainly welcome, I am glad that I could help out. If it helps you a little bit more, the net carbon sequestration by an ecosystem is called Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP), I think that this criterion is a more difficult one to calculate, but there are plenty of scientists who are trying and succeeding, or the global climate models wouldn't be worth a damn.

Trees are at the far end of the plant evolutionary scale -- as such they consume a lot of resources to make their big trunks.

Greenpeace and Earth First would help the planet more if they went around planting ferns.