Downsides to planting trillions of trees

Re:Downsides to planting trillions of trees by pvaldes on Saturday October 02, 2021 @07:57AM (#28727868)

This is a non intuitive result, and people is confused often by that, but adult mature [1] trees grow much faster than young trees. Faster here does not mean taller, means bigger.

[1] I'm not talking about dying trees, mature does not mean dying necessarily.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Downsides to planting trillions of trees by Retric on Saturday October 02, 2021 @10:31AM (#28728844)

A mature forest isn’t just filled with mature trees you get the full lifecycle and close to zero net carbon capture.

It’s not obvious when walking around because adult trees significantly outnumber dead ones, but trees decay in a tiny fraction of their total lifespan.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Downsides to planting trillions of trees by tuatoru on Saturday October 02, 2021 @06:55PM (#28732843)

Decay can sequester carbon in the right ecosystem and physical geography. Western Europe has its topsoils thanks to centuries of wild mature forest.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Downsides to planting trillions of trees by pbhjpbhj on Saturday October 02, 2021 @01:24PM (#28730301)

Do you have a source, both ways seem to have some logic to them (a larger growth is a smaller percentage growth for a large tree, for example - adding 1% to a massive tree is better than 10% to a tiny tree), but also we're used to new life increasing size far faster ...

Actually, I might tree rings not getting smaller as a tree grows taller is probably enough evidence to see that the carbon added increases over time? Would be nice to have a rigorous source to review too?

[ Parent | on HN ]