European Forests are Getting to Old - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23712464[/URL] [QUOTE][B]European forests are showing signs of reaching a saturation point as carbon sinks, a study has suggested.[/B] Since 2005, the amount of atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the continent's trees has been slowing, researchers reported. Writing in Nature Climate Change, they said this was a result of a [URL="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1853"]declining volume of trees, deforestation and the impact of natural disturbances[/URL]. Carbon sinks play a key role in the global carbon cycle and are promoted as a way to offset rising emissions. Many of Europe's forests are reaching an age where growth, and carbon uptake, slows down Writing in their paper, the scientists said the continent's forests had been recovering in recent times after centuries of stock decline and deforestation. The growth had also provided a "persistent carbon sink", which was projected to continue for decades. However, the team's study observed three warnings that the carbon sink provided by Europe's tree stands was nearing a saturation point. "First, the stem volume increment rate (of individual trees) is decreasing and thus the sink is curbing after decades of increase," they wrote. "Second, land use is intensifying, thereby leading to deforestation and associated carbon losses. "Third, natural disturbances (eg wildfires) are increasing and, as a consequence, so are the emissions of CO2." Co-author Gert-Jan Nabuurs from Wageningen University and Research Centre, Netherlands, said: "All of this together means that the increase in the size of the sink is stopping; it is even declining a little. "We see this as the first signs of a saturating sink," he told BBC News [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Dr Nabuurs explained that saturation referred to the point where the natural carbon sinks were unable to keep pace and absorb the additional atmospheric carbon being released by human activities.[/QUOTE] I find it kind of pathetic on the part of the human race that within ~200 years we have been able to violate our home to a point that could be potentially species-ending. Also, it's sad that the only real forests that exist in Europe nowadays were planted back at the end of the Second World War. Now they are old growth and dying. I think it's a fatal human flaw to get caught up in a fragment of time without paying mind to the consequences of our actions, or lack thereof. It truly is shaming that we can fuck up a planet so hard so fast.

They're getting to old what? On a serious note, would any sort of mass-planting do anything?

So basically. Deforestation is causing less CO2 to be absorbed? Really? [editline]19th August 2013[/editline] It's not that it's a saturation point, it's just that there's less trees.

There's actually a point where fire suppression and protecting forests from logging becomes detrimental to the environment, forests need to replenish themselves over time. They do this naturally with forest fires but since we're working to cut down less trees [i]and[/i] put out fires quickly, they don't anymore. That's not to say logging isn't a problem, far too much deforestation is happening without replanting. If you remove forests to fit in more agriculture you can't exactly replant trees there, which is terrible for the environment.

i think the problem is when those european forests were replanted after ww2 they only planted the trees like what 15 feet appart? now the trees are for the most part at the limit of how big they can get because they are crowded. still i really want to see these forest some day, the pictures ive seen of them are just erie

[QUOTE=Zeke129;41898613]There's actually a point where fire suppression and protecting forests from logging becomes detrimental to the environment, forests need to replenish themselves over time. They do this naturally with forest fires but since we're working to cut down less trees [i]and[/i] put out fires quickly, they don't anymore. That's not to say logging isn't a problem, far too much deforestation is happening without replanting. If you remove forests to fit in more agriculture you can't exactly replant trees there, which is terrible for the environment.[/QUOTE] The best thing to do would be to do nothing at all. Make no more fields where none exist, and plant no more forests where they don't already stand. Don't cut down forests to make room for expansion. Let fires run their course without interfering until absolutely necessary. That won't happen though, because we are to caught up in doing the right thing, rather than allowing the right things to happen, or not, in their time.

Its interesting because we learned this in America quite some time ago. Lots of species were just evaporating and going endangered and nobody knew why. Someone finally put 2 and 2 together and noted the abundance of certain things in recently burnt out areas. Now we just sort of let things happen. Yeah there are some elements to reduce the magnitude of fires, but we don't just try to outright stop them dead anymore, and the result is places like yellowstone are far healthier than they otherwise would be.

[QUOTE=Sableye;41898656] still i really want to see these forest some day, the pictures ive seen of them are just erie[/QUOTE] Can you post some pictures? I'm curious.

It's actually quite interesting how humans have managed forests. For instance, in most of Medieval Europe, there wasn't actually very much forest at all, and it was exploited ceaselessly for fuel and timber. They only really began to grow (ironically enough) during the industrial revolution when we started to import our food from abroad and get our fuel from coal instead of trees. This may or may not have been a good thing but forests certainly did start to grow significantly then. Same happened in Japan as well.

We'd better cut them down and start again.

the logging company which owns most of the land around where i live seems to do a good job of not cutting down every tree as well as replanting. they cut lots of some size which i cannot guess, replant, let grow for 50 years or so, then chop the same lot down again. dunno personally how good that really is but it seems to be fine.

[QUOTE=valkery;41898669]The best thing to do would be to do nothing at all. Make no more fields where none exist, and plant no more forests where they don't already stand. Don't cut down forests to make room for expansion. Let fires run their course without interfering until absolutely necessary. That won't happen though, because we are to caught up in doing the right thing, rather than allowing the right things to happen, or not, in their time.[/QUOTE] You don't really need to just wait for wildfires, you can give logging companies one-off permits to clear an area and replant, or perform controlled burns. Would be good for everything to swap the areas of forests and farmland every few generations as well, but that'd be super expensive and require a level of environmental stewardship we just can't seem to figure out.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;41901014]You don't really need to just wait for wildfires, you can give logging companies one-off permits to clear an area and replant, or perform controlled burns. Would be good for everything to swap the areas of forests and farmland every few generations as well, but that'd be super expensive and require a level of environmental stewardship we just can't seem to figure out.[/QUOTE] Every citizen should do there bit for the environment so I think ill go help the environment by starting a few forest fires tomorrow, cant wait on those big companies to do everything, Ill be an Environmentalist hero!

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;41902136]Aren't loggers forced by law to replant every tree they have cut? I remember something like that.[/QUOTE] I thought it was normal silvicultural practice to replant trees anyways?

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;41902136]Aren't loggers forced by law to replant every tree they have cut? I remember something like that.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how it is Europe but I know in America it's fairly standard practice to replant 1 or more trees for every one you cut down. Makes sense for the environment, and ensures those industries will always have product. If this [I]isn't[/I] standard in Europe yet...well, maybe it should be.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;41902136]Aren't loggers forced by law to replant every tree they have cut? I remember something like that.[/QUOTE] Europe has a shitload of countries. Some have that law, some don't. EU doesn't force any law of sorts either so, yeah.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;41902136]Aren't loggers forced by law to replant every tree they have cut? I remember something like that.[/QUOTE] Only in some places. On another note, [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/spellcheck.png[/img] to the title.