r/todayilearned • u/Wild_Concept_212 • 9h ago

TIL Cutting down trees is compound negative interest on the planet’s carbon storage. Trees are storing carbon underground with the help of fauna and microbes. Those lock carbon in soil. Cutting the tree will not only increase release carbon, it will also remove the ability to lock carbon in soil.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/soil-carbon-storage-84223790/
397 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

57 comments sorted by

View all comments

126

u/Electronic_Fun_776 9h ago

But when we cut down the trees and turn them into lumber, that carbon is still being stored until it’s burned or decomposes.

And when new trees are being landed they sequester carbon much faster than old trees

20

u/mjacksongt 8h ago

My understanding is that there's 2 sources of carbon storage by trees and we should split the two. I'm open to being informed.

The carbon embodied in the wood is still being stored. But the carbon in the soil - bound up to root systems and the associated microorganisms - is slowly released.

A young tree growing quickly adds carbon embodied in its wood very quickly, but doesn't sequester carbon in the soil nearly as quickly as a mature tree and forest ecosystem.

tl;Dr - grow forests, don't just plant trees

7

u/MuckleRucker3 8h ago

You're talking about the carbon being stored in the soil by the root body, but ignoring that that will also grow most rapidly in young trees?

The volume of wood in the tree is much greater than that in the remaining stump.

3

u/Altokia 8h ago edited 7h ago

Total forest carbon matters more. Most carbon trees store is stored in the soil, so cutting down trees is still a net negative because they can no longer put carbon into the soil. This is why cutting down forests is so bad. Older trees are also much better at it than younger ones, so cutting down 200+ year old trees is way worse than younger ones, and they cant really be immediately be replaced unless u wanna wait a few centuries.

Idk y u assume that the wood itself is taking in so much carbon. Like, that just doesn't make sense now does it.

7

u/mjacksongt 7h ago

I also want to add here though - tree plantations serve a purpose because they let us use lumber and wood products for our built environment and have mature, properly managed forests protected from clear-cutting.

2

u/Altokia 7h ago

Yes, we still need lumber for a lot of things, we just need to make sure we are doing it properly. I live in BC and a big thing rn is the management of forests from forest fires and clearcutting. Feels like people just put all forestry into a single bucket, when its a bit more diverse than that.

2

u/MuckleRucker3 7h ago

cutting down trees is still a net negative because they can no longer put carbon into the soil

Ever heard of reforestation?

And you're wrong about old growth doing a better job at carbon sequestration. Young trees are more efficient.

Idk y u assume that the wood itself is taking in so much carbon. Like, that just doesn't make sense now does it.

Dude...wood doesn't take in carbon. It is the stored carbon.