At 08:00 PM 5/5/97 +0000, Bret Diamond wrote: >While the production of steel products may result in more CO2 emmissions, it >certainly would help the situation if we weren't cutting down 600 year old forests >and replacing them with 1/2" diameter seedlings. How much CO2 do those >seedlings scrub, Patrick? This argument has been acrimonious and I question the productivity (pardon the pun) of such a discussion. But I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both positions as presented. I would, however, like to question the "scientific" issue above (in quotes to reflect the current state of the debate). Vitousek and Reiners (1975) discussed the nutrient retention of forests of different ages. Their fundamental premise is that elemental retention is proportional to net biomass increment. Much research since has supported this hypothesis. So, **IGNORING OTHER VALUES**, it could be argued that a young vigorously growing forest does more for nutrient retention (in riparian strips, for CO2 sequestration, etc.) than an old growth forest. Here's the complete reference. Vitousek, P.M. and W.A. Reiners. 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: A hypothesis. BioScience 25 (6): 376-381. Thanks for listening, Hobie -- C. Hobart Perry hperry@forestry.umn.edu Department of Forest Resources +1 612 625 5765 (voice) University of Minnesota, St. Paul +1 612 625 5212 (fax)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0