Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday November 24 2017, @07:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the well,-who'd-have-thought-it? dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Excess carbon dioxide, emitted by burning fossil fuels like coal and petroleum, is one of the most important factors in driving global warming. While the world is focused on controlling global warming by limiting these emissions, less attention has been paid to the capacity of vegetation and soils to take up and store carbon.

One of the most popular approaches to carbon storage is protecting tropical rainforests. If a rainforest is cut down, the carbon stored in the trunks and leaves will be released to the atmosphere. But plants in alpine communities in Norway also have a role to play in storing—or releasing—carbon dioxide.

"We don't think about how much carbon is actually stored right in our own backyard," says Mia Vedel Sørensen, a PhD candidate at NTNU's Department of Biology who is studying carbon storage in shrub vegetation in the Dovre mountains, in mid-Norway.

Sørensen compared three types of vegetation that are typical of the Norwegian mountains:

  • Shrubs (willows)
  • Heath (crowberry and heather)
  • Meadow

"I wanted to figure out how much carbon these three vegetation types store and release. My hypothesis was that shrubs store more carbon than heath and meadow vegetation because shrubs have more biomass, and thus have higher rates of photosynthesis," she said.

But it turned out to be the opposite: Shrubs, even though they are tallest, actually store the least carbon.

"It surprised me that meadows actually store a lot more carbon than shrubs. The carbon in meadows is stored mostly below the ground, next to the roots," she said

The amount of carbon stored in heath vegetation is greater than in shrub vegetation, but less than in meadows, she said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:38PM (#601070)

    Agree. I've never understood the profound confusion environmentalists display when it comes to tree farming vs. slash and burn. Trees, from what I understand, can be just another crop.

    That being said, I'd love to see meadows in cities. I just think meadows are pretty.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @06:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @06:30PM (#601096)
    It's because many of them follow Environmentalism as a Religion and not as a science. "Chopping down trees" is against their religion.

    Forest farms are worse for bio-diversity but better for carbon-locking.

    a) When a rainforest is cut down they're not going to burn most of the wood. The wood will be used and thus carbon will be locked.

    b) When a rainforest is burnt then CO2 is released.

    What replaces the rainforest in both cases tends to be stuff like palm oil plantations, farms, ranches or denser human habitats (towns/cities). The first bunch tend to be carbon neutral by themselves (cattle ranches do produce methane though which is more greenhouse warming than CO2). Then for a) it's carbon locked up, then carbon neutral; for b) it's carbon released then carbon neutral.

    In the case of new human habitats that can indirectly result in more carbon released as long as more humans = more fossil fuels burnt. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case though.