There's lots of talk about as part of a solution to , , etc. And part of this talk bothers me: the assumption is that forests absorb carbon as they grow, and then simply reach a steady-state.
But this isn't true, I think. Every lepidopteran colony chewing on leaves, every infestation of wood-boring beetles, every parasitic fungus, diverts biomass from plant to animal/fungi, and their density is not limited by insolation. Ecosystems comprise carbon.

@cathal So the 'steady-state' of carbon (if there even is one) is not just related to the trees, makes sense.

@douginamug I can accept that the rate of CO2 uptake probably declines, but I don't think it "levels off".
But they are probably thinking of "managed" forestry, where they prevent any kind of herbivory, and therefore there's no trophic siphon for carbon to move out of the trees. And in that situation, steady-state sounds about right..

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!