Northern forests may be losing their ability to trap carbon

February 2, 2012 By Joel N. Shurkin
Northern forests may be losing their ability to trap carbon

Enlarge

Credit: Linnea Hanson/U.S. Forest Service. Young aspen grove.

The northern forests of western Canada are likely absorbing less carbon dioxide because of climate change, and the decline may be making a bad situation worse, researchers from Quebec and China have concluded.

If the situation remains as it is, the forests may actually put more dioxide back into the air than they absorb, the researchers said. While researchers have seen this happen in , the new result suggests that this problem could be much more widespread.

The scientists at the University of Quebec’s Montreal campus and from several Chinese institutions, reporting in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, have been able to put numbers to the fears that the ability of northern forests to absorb carbon -- to act as carbon sinks -- was decreasing.

The researchers studied 96 permanent old-growth forests out of 20,000 candidates, concentrating on aspens, which are more sensitive to changes in precipitation.

They deliberately chose forests that were not affected by insect infestation or fires. They then estimated biomass production -- the growth of the -- from 1968 to 2008.

Trees in both east and west were dying sooner, but the eastern forests were replacing biomass while the forests in the western provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan were not. The west has had less precipitation and rising temperatures, which they believe is the cause.

"Our results indicate that since 1963, drought-induced water stress has led to a weakening of the biomass carbon sink across a large area of the western Canadian boreal [northern] forests, with the largest reduction after 2000," they wrote.

Eastern Canadian boreal forests are not showing a similar phenomenon, they said, because trees are being replaced fast enough.

A reduction in biomass does not necessarily mean the forests are actually shrinking. There could be the same number of trees over the same area, but they might be smaller. In this study, the scientists reported the forests actually were getting smaller.

"Over time, more trees died than were regenerated," said Changhui Peng, Director for Ecological Modeling and Carbon Science, Institute of Environment Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal. "The population of trees is declining."

Dead trees release the carbon back into the atmosphere as they decompose, Peng said.

Peng said until recently, scientists thought the decrease in the carbon sink was restricted to tropical rain forests, but apparently it is happening in the northern latitudes as well.

The theory is that the more and larger the trees and the larger the forests, the more will be captured, mitigating the greenhouse effect.

The Canadian research seems to indicate that may not be so, Peng said.

Almost half the carbon stored in the world’s forests is in northern latitudes.

The same thing appears to be happening in the American West as well, according to the U.S. Forest Service, although the forests of Western Europe are growing.

"In interior Alaska, we’re seeing very big decreases in productivity," said Teresa Nettleton Hollingsworth, a research ecologist for the U.S. Forest Service in Fairbanks. Productivity means the growth in biomass.

There also has been higher mortality in trees. But Hollingsworth said there is no evidence the change was due directly to in Alaska. It could also be the result of insect infestation and the increase in fires, which are endemic in the area, the indirect results of climate change.

"It could be that the number of trees have stayed the same but that they are not growing as much as they were in the past," she said.

Provided by Inside Science News Service (news : web)

3.4 /5 (11 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

rubberman
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
This is the second Physorg article in as many days regarding boreal forest stress, although the other one is more on the trouble that one particular species is having. The other one also pinpoints climate changes causing the conditions that are putting the stress on the trees. Chalk up another potential feedback mechanism...
AWaB
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Northern forests may be losing their ability to trap carbon


Are they or aren't they?

The theory is that the more and larger the trees and the larger the forests, the more carbon dioxide will be captured, mitigating the greenhouse effect.


Is this actually the case? Any evidence?

A reduction in biomass does not necessarily mean the forests are actually shrinking. There could be the same number of trees over the same area, but they might be smaller. In this study, the scientists reported the forests actually were getting smaller.


Finally, we have something to work with. The forests are getting smaller. Though, after all of the hemming and hawing, I'm not sure that I believe it. Are they being replaced by deserts, undergrowth, or grasslands?

I"m sorry, I was hoping that this article would actually say something. It may or might be doing something isn't telling us anything. Please, try again!
rubberman
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
For sure the article is horribly written. There are several contracdictory statements like the following:

"Over time, more trees died than were regenerated," said Changhui Peng, Director for Ecological Modeling and Carbon Science, Institute of Environment Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal. "The population of trees is declining."

"It could be that the number of trees have stayed the same but that they are not growing as much as they were in the past," she said.

The first is a statement of fact which is well supported if you care to search it. The second is an opinion by a different person. How they wound up a paragraph apart in the same article is beyond me. As far as what they are being replaced by....they are living trees being replaced by dead ones dude....no broad change to the overall biosphere yet, it is still a forest. Read this one.....

http://www.physor...sts.html

shalayka
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Thanks for pointing out these works Joel. It's pretty evident that over the past 5 decades we have seen a non-negligible loss of boreal forest. Like they say, it is likely due to drought, since there is a major hit during the early 2000s drought, plus since there is no negligible loss in Ontario where there was no drought.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that any tree is a carbon sink. How do you think the things grow? By magic? No, they absorb CO2 and turn it into cell walls.

I don't know if I truly believe in the CO2-drought link that they imply, but if it is true, and there is a nonlinear feedback loop that leads to the accelerating desertification of the prairie provinces, then we could be in serious trouble. A non-negligible loss of farmland due to desertification would wreak havoc on the food supply for all of Canada and for a whole lot of developing countries that rely on Canada for assistance.
julianpenrod
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (9)
Another example of fraud being passed off as "science".
As only one example, consider the now boldly declared decision to use only specially chosen samples, rather than random ones. "96 permanent old-growth forests out of 20,000 candidates". That spells "ringer"! A "study" is supposed to include random samples, not a handful out of a preponderance of alternatives! And they admit they were specially chosen for not having been affected by insects or fires. But that could just as well mean the forests they looked at were unnatural, comprising trees that don't burn and are so abnormal they don't attract insects! Remember, a rule is that the random sample represents what affects a system and, since that means that forests affected by insects or that experienced fire, since19,904 out of 20,000 forests seem to qualify, that means that, whether you like those forests or not, those ar ethe ones you have to look at!
shalayka
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
... trees that don't burn, and trees that don't attract insects. Ok then.

Imagine this: In order to do a survey over a large period of time, you have to choose old trees. I know it's difficult to understand.
rubberman
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
@julianpenrod....what? Did you read what you wrote before you posted that? Trees that don't burn...really? They chose the 96 forests based on the fact that there were no other factors causing stress, this was the key point the study was based on. To be honest I can't believe that they managed to find 96 forests in North America that actually had no other stress factors other than climate change.
julianpenrod
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
Not all trees in areas that either suffer fires or insect attack are killed. In fact, there is no forest that hasn't suffered fire or insect attack at one time or another! The article specifically spoke of "forests", which meant live trees, meaning even those that had fires or insect attacks were still thriving! And it didn't say that those chosen were the only old growth stands. It's unreasonable, out of 20,000 candidates, only 96 were "permanent old growth" stands! And, consider, the "study" is not being done over time, it is looking at the condition of the trees now! The article "forests" are losing their ability to remove carbon dioxide form the air, not just "aging forests". That means new trees are no longer capable of taking carbon dioxide from the air. But, since carbon dioxide is crucial to tree growth, does that mean that trees are all being scraggly, anymore?
shalayka
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
It is true that 96 samples out of 20000 samples doesn't give a good confidence level. The forest industry in Saskatchewan is gigantic, and I'm certain that more tests will be done in order to gain greater confidence -- either to confirm or deny this early finding.

You have to see this from the point of view of someone from central Saskatchewan. To the north, we have vast areas of desert and rock. To the south, we have vast areas of farmland. If the farmland succumbs to desertification in a non-negligible way, then Canada, the US, and many developing countries will be in serious trouble. The fact of the matter is that Saskatchewan is deeply important to the stability of more than just Saskatchewan.

If it is possible to partially avoid desertification through reforestation, then it seems like it's kind of straightforward that we should increase reforestation efforts just to be on the safe side.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the drought was anthropogenic or not.
shalayka
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
OK, now you're just being a troll. Do you know how to monitor the growth of a tree over time? You kill it now, take a cross-section, and look at the rings.
rubberman
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
JP, my guess would be that they may not have had time to visit 20,000 forests to confirm their validity for the study, you believe what you want.

@shalayka.

"If it is possible to partially avoid desertification through reforestation, then it seems like it's kind of straightforward that we should increase reforestation efforts just to be on the safe side.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the drought was anthropogenic or not."

I agree with this 100%. The issue in reforestation is what to use. If the boreal is no longer self sustaining because the species of trees that comprise it cannot adapt, we should be looking at what does thrive and plant accordingly. I live in Ontario but my job will take me to Rocanville at some point this summer so I'm looking forward to the visit to your province. We ran into the same thing here with municipal tree planting. The list had to be altered and most evergreens removed as growing conditions are favoring broad leafed trees.

_nigmatic10
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
They study a 40 yr span of time and come to a conclusion like this? Can we call that climate science? I could see maybe 400 years being more clear and concise of any immediate cycle causing the data to be worthless.
julianpenrod
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
rubberman most eminently displays the behavior of a shill. They talk about the 96 out of 20,000 forests as if it is a normal, if small, sample. Bu they're not a normal sample. They are a specially defined collection of forest types. The very fact that they specify they must never have had fires or insect invasions suggests, if not implies, that their forests do not constitute a genuine, legitimate sample of the region! And, as for their "not having time", are the "researchers" on some kind of New World Order time clock to get fraudulent results in in time for an anti-forest bill to be passed? Aren't researchers supposed to take however much time is needed to get their results right? This entire project is a fraud and those who defend it stink like card carrying New World Order quislings.
Howhot
Feb 02, 2012

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Your missing a the point J-Rod and Mr Nig; Those forests have been there for 10s of 1000s of years. (10,000year ). They have a solid foundation which a scientists can use for a timescaled measurement.

Isolating the measurements to certain species of trees, simply removed all of the variables that having multiple species would introduce.

To me, it sound these scientists took a good approach to the data acquisition processes.
rubberman
Feb 03, 2012

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
LMAO!!! That's the first time I have been called a shill...for whom I can only imagine. OK J-ROD, you have a limited amount of grant money, and 20,000 forests to pick from to study. You know the criteria as far as tree species, density and the stress signals, but, fire and insect infestation cause the same ones. A complete moron would do it totally randomly, and arrive at more than half the sites only to find that the forests aren't usable for study because of insect infestation, and burn through the budget yeilding no results. You promote this as the "correct" way to have done the study.

Let us all know how you make out....take your time.
julianpenrod
Feb 05, 2012

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Why limit the "stress" to just drought? Insect infestations and fires are part of the regular strees evidently most forests experience, too! In fact, it can be suggested that trees that don't attract insects and do not burn so readily are already abnormal, likely providing far fewer carbon related molecules either for insects to ingest or to feed fires. And how legitimate is it to extend a judgement across all species when only one particular species is studied? Do they all react to this supposed "drought" the same way?
And, consider, just what are they saying when they say carbon is not being absorbed from the atmosphere? Carbon is basic to the molecules associated by "science" with living tissue on earth. If they don't absorb carbon, that means they aren't making carbon molecules for their own cells! So, on the basis of a variety with body chemistry different from all others, the "researchers" are going to conclude necessarily how all the others must behave now.
rubberman
Feb 06, 2012

Rank: not rated yet
The stress is just drought because that is what the study was trying to determine the effects of, not insects or fire.
Aspen trees do burn, and they do attract insects, google can help you with this if you still don't get it.
Yes, if you reduce the amount of water trees need to grow, they don't. This isn't species specific.
They didn't say that the trees stopped absorbing carbon, they said the forest as a whole would if death rates outpace new growth...again pretty logical.
Good speech about carbon and it's importance though.
Rank 3.4 /5 (11 votes)
Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Is the Earth really going to die
    created14 hours ago
  • Do some geologists actually act a lot like Randy Marsh?
    createdFeb 11, 2012
  • Discrepancy between oxygen and carbon-dioxide levels
    createdFeb 09, 2012
  • where gems are found in the world
    createdFeb 09, 2012
  • Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
    createdFeb 08, 2012
  • Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
    createdFeb 01, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - Earth

More news stories

Spitzer finds solid buckyballs in space

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have, for the first time, discovered buckyballs in a solid form in space. Prior to this discovery, the microscopic carbon spheres ...

Space & Earth / Astronomy

created 14 hours ago | popularity 4.7 / 5 (12) | comments 8 | with audio podcast

Going up: Japan builder eyes space elevator

A Japanese construction firm claimed Wednesday it could execute an out-of-this-world plan to put tourists in space within 40 years by building an elevator that stretches a quarter of the way to the moon.

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created 21 hours ago | popularity 3.5 / 5 (13) | comments 26

ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower

(PhysOrg.com) -- Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created 18 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (8) | comments 13 | with audio podcast

Fresh scandal embroils US climate science debate

A fresh scandal over climate change has erupted in the United States after leaked documents appeared to show a right-wing funded campaign to influence how climate science is taught in schools.

Space & Earth / Environment

created 10 hours ago | popularity 4.1 / 5 (9) | comments 8

World's oceans get an acid bath

Among the repercussions of global climate change, the effect of ocean acidification on marine life is one of the least-understood variables.

Space & Earth / Environment

created 17 hours ago | popularity 4.3 / 5 (6) | comments 4 | with audio podcast


Researchers build first physical 'metatronic' circuit

(PhysOrg.com) -- The technological world of the 21st century owes a tremendous amount to advances in electrical engineering, specifically, the ability to finely control the flow of electrical charges using ...

Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring

You can shelf your designs for a warp drive engine (for now) and put the DeLorean back in the garage; it turns out neutrinos may not have broken any cosmic speed limits after all.

Physicists surprised by disappearing and reappearing superconductivity in iron selenium chalcogenides

Superconductivity is a rare physical state in which matter is able to conduct electricity -- maintain a flow of electrons -- without any resistance. This phenomenon can only be found in certain materials at low temperatures, ...

CT colonography shown to be comparable to standard colonoscopy

Computerized tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, is comparable to standard colonoscopy in its ability to accurately detect cancer and precancerous polyps in people ages 65 and older, according ...

Stanford research team cracks animated NuCaptcha

(PhysOrg.com) -- The research team from Stanford University, led by Elie Bursztein, that previously had cracked regular CAPTCHAs and then audio CAPTCHAs, now has also successfully cracked the animated version called NuCapt ...

Study: Virtual colonoscopy effective screening tool for adults over 65

Computed tomography (CT) colonography can be used as a primary screening tool for colorectal cancer in adults over the age of 65, according to a new study published online in the journal Radiology.