By Thembi Borras
Throughout the redwood region redwood tops occasionally dieback. A green live top will turn brown, lose its needles and all that remains is a brown stem and lateral branches. The tree may or may not grow another top from this persistent weak spot. The dead top will sometimes break out and the tree becomes a flat top. Trees with dead tops are prevented from growing taller unless a new top grows, regardless the tree will continue to grow in diameter.
There are different causes of redwood top dieback, along the coast the harsh salt laden winds can cause tops, especially those that stick up more prominently, to lose their needles and dieback. Between Eureka and Crescent City, in the vicinity of the Drury Bypass, bear damage is apparent. Bears do not appear to get to the top, but will shred the bark, where the tree bole is larger. If the damage is extensive, the entire tree including the top will die. In Humboldt Redwoods Sate Park just south of Scotia, evident on the Eel River side of Highway 101 are old-growth redwood where nearly every tall tree has a dead top. In this case, the highway changed the water drainage pattern and increased the exposure of the treetops to increased air movement. Increased water stress combined with desiccation may have caused the tops to die.
The most common cause of redwood top dieback is animal damage by tree squirrels, wood rats and the occasional porcupine, which can chew the bark to the cambium. If enough area is affected the flow of nutrients is disrupted and the portion above the damaged area will die. The species of squirrels most likely causing the damage are Douglas' Squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), also called "Red Tree Squirrel" or "Chickaree" and to a lesser extent the Western Gray Squirrel (Sciurus griseus), also called the "California Gray Squirrel". Dusky-footed Woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) also cause damage, in younger redwood trees, trees less than 20 feet in height. In a clump of a dozen trees, the woodrat may advance a handful of tops to die. A handful more may be lightly chewed and the balance may escape being munched altogether. You may be able to catch the tree squirrels in action as they are active during the day, but it will be harder to catch woodrats in action as they are nocturnal.
July 31, 2005
July 24, 2005
Landowner Incentives to Increase Forest Net Carbon Stores
By Thembi Borras
This post explores the answer to the following question: What mechanisms encourage landowners to minimize forest loss, increase forested areas and temper forest harvest?
A market for ecosystem services, such as clean air, clean water and carbon storage is inevitable. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one such infrastructure. CCX members agree to reduce their overall carbon dioxide emissions by 1 percent per year. Members who reduce their emissions by more than 1% per year can sell the difference as "carbon credits" to other members who pay a price to pollute.
Businesses based in the US have little incentive to join the voluntary cap and trade market, as they are not required to reduce emissions. Consequently, domestic prices remain as low as $4/ton of carbon. In Europe however companies required to reduce emissions per the, now in effect, Kyoto protocol are trading and carbon dioxide emissions credits have increased to $32/ton of carbon. European markets do not presently include the forest sector. However, it is feasible that, in the future, landowners could join the market by selling the carbon stored in their forest as an ecosystem service to companies that don't meet the carbon emissions reduction targets.
Apart from the slow pace the federal government is taking, within a couple of years, the State of California may adopt a market-based cap and trade strategy to implement Governor Schwarzenegger's greenhouse gas reduction goals for the State, within which the forest sector may be included.
The value per ton of carbon would need to reach $20 for landowners to be economically enticed to participate in the carbon market. If the value per ton of carbon reached $100, storing carbon would directly compete with returns from development and short rotation timber harvest.
Other economic mechanisms include consumer preference for forest products from well-managed forests (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council certified), land use laws (e.g. urban growth boundaries), education, performance-based regulation, global fair trade laws and a vibrant timber industry infrastructure (loggers, truckers, mills etc.).
More difficult to convert into economic terms are aesthetics and the deep connection to the land that many landowners exhibit which also inspires a well-managed forest that supports carbon storage and associated values.
A portion of this production was gleaned from Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands a publication offered by The Pacific Forest Trust, a 08-01-05 article entitled Free Market, Cleaner Air written by Marianne Lavelle, Michelle Passero of the Pacific Forest Trust and a 08-01-05 article entitled Morgan Stanley, Citadel Chase Profit in Pollution-Rights Trade by Adam Levy.
This post explores the answer to the following question: What mechanisms encourage landowners to minimize forest loss, increase forested areas and temper forest harvest?
A market for ecosystem services, such as clean air, clean water and carbon storage is inevitable. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one such infrastructure. CCX members agree to reduce their overall carbon dioxide emissions by 1 percent per year. Members who reduce their emissions by more than 1% per year can sell the difference as "carbon credits" to other members who pay a price to pollute.
Businesses based in the US have little incentive to join the voluntary cap and trade market, as they are not required to reduce emissions. Consequently, domestic prices remain as low as $4/ton of carbon. In Europe however companies required to reduce emissions per the, now in effect, Kyoto protocol are trading and carbon dioxide emissions credits have increased to $32/ton of carbon. European markets do not presently include the forest sector. However, it is feasible that, in the future, landowners could join the market by selling the carbon stored in their forest as an ecosystem service to companies that don't meet the carbon emissions reduction targets.
Apart from the slow pace the federal government is taking, within a couple of years, the State of California may adopt a market-based cap and trade strategy to implement Governor Schwarzenegger's greenhouse gas reduction goals for the State, within which the forest sector may be included.
The value per ton of carbon would need to reach $20 for landowners to be economically enticed to participate in the carbon market. If the value per ton of carbon reached $100, storing carbon would directly compete with returns from development and short rotation timber harvest.
Other economic mechanisms include consumer preference for forest products from well-managed forests (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council certified), land use laws (e.g. urban growth boundaries), education, performance-based regulation, global fair trade laws and a vibrant timber industry infrastructure (loggers, truckers, mills etc.).
More difficult to convert into economic terms are aesthetics and the deep connection to the land that many landowners exhibit which also inspires a well-managed forest that supports carbon storage and associated values.
A portion of this production was gleaned from Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands a publication offered by The Pacific Forest Trust, a 08-01-05 article entitled Free Market, Cleaner Air written by Marianne Lavelle, Michelle Passero of the Pacific Forest Trust and a 08-01-05 article entitled Morgan Stanley, Citadel Chase Profit in Pollution-Rights Trade by Adam Levy.
July 17, 2005
The Relationship between Carbon Storage and Forest Disturbance
By Thembi Borras
Forests have tremendous potential to meter carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon is stored in forests until carbon is transferred back into the atmosphere through some sort of disturbance, such as forest loss, forest harvest or natural disturbance.
The scale of forest loss is more significant globally and nationally than it is regionally. Nonetheless forest loss is occurring regionally and has serious implications, 2% of existing forest and rangeland in the Klamath/ North Coast bioregion, which includes Mendocino County, will become, at a minimum, a rural residential neighborhood by the year 2040. If Mendocino County were considered individually, this figure would likely be higher given our proximity to the Bay Area. Statewide this figure is 10%. Part of the reason for this shift in land use is it can be more profitable to treat forestland as real estate than it can be to manage it. Shifting land use does not necessarily equate to forest loss but may lead to forest loss as it continues to do in Lake Arrowhead. In Lake Arrowhead, a Southern California forested neighborhood, bark beetle afflicted trees continue to be removed to reduce fire hazard and improve safety.
The amount of stored carbon is reduced at the time of harvest. When a tree is harvested, approximately 1/3 of the carbon is stored in the final product, for example, dimensional lumber and plywood. The remaining 2/3 is lost to the atmosphere, 1/3 of which is lost within 5 years, and the other 1/3 over time through decay. Stands at age 35 have 70 tons per acre of tree carbon. Stands at age 70 have more than double that, 194 tons per acre.
The amount of stored carbon is also reduced when harvest exceeds growth. Since the 1980's, growth in California has exceeded harvest. However, taken from 1996 data, nationally harvest exceeded growth.
Preventing forest loss, increasing forested area and forest management that increases forest age, increases growth relative to harvest, fosters a disease and fire resistant forest, has integrity, supports biodiversity and is economically sound can increase net carbon stores.
These strategies may be supported by performance based regulation, market incentives, land use laws, education, carbon credits, global fair trade laws and a functioning timber infrastructure.
A portion of this production was gleaned from The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment for California from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands a publication offered by The Pacific Forest Trust.
Forests have tremendous potential to meter carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon is stored in forests until carbon is transferred back into the atmosphere through some sort of disturbance, such as forest loss, forest harvest or natural disturbance.
The scale of forest loss is more significant globally and nationally than it is regionally. Nonetheless forest loss is occurring regionally and has serious implications, 2% of existing forest and rangeland in the Klamath/ North Coast bioregion, which includes Mendocino County, will become, at a minimum, a rural residential neighborhood by the year 2040. If Mendocino County were considered individually, this figure would likely be higher given our proximity to the Bay Area. Statewide this figure is 10%. Part of the reason for this shift in land use is it can be more profitable to treat forestland as real estate than it can be to manage it. Shifting land use does not necessarily equate to forest loss but may lead to forest loss as it continues to do in Lake Arrowhead. In Lake Arrowhead, a Southern California forested neighborhood, bark beetle afflicted trees continue to be removed to reduce fire hazard and improve safety.
The amount of stored carbon is reduced at the time of harvest. When a tree is harvested, approximately 1/3 of the carbon is stored in the final product, for example, dimensional lumber and plywood. The remaining 2/3 is lost to the atmosphere, 1/3 of which is lost within 5 years, and the other 1/3 over time through decay. Stands at age 35 have 70 tons per acre of tree carbon. Stands at age 70 have more than double that, 194 tons per acre.
The amount of stored carbon is also reduced when harvest exceeds growth. Since the 1980's, growth in California has exceeded harvest. However, taken from 1996 data, nationally harvest exceeded growth.
Preventing forest loss, increasing forested area and forest management that increases forest age, increases growth relative to harvest, fosters a disease and fire resistant forest, has integrity, supports biodiversity and is economically sound can increase net carbon stores.
These strategies may be supported by performance based regulation, market incentives, land use laws, education, carbon credits, global fair trade laws and a functioning timber infrastructure.
A portion of this production was gleaned from The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment for California from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands a publication offered by The Pacific Forest Trust.
July 10, 2005
The Biology of Carbon Sequestration
By Thembi Borras
In response to the G8 meeting in Scotland of which global warming was one focus, I will explore the relationship between global warming and forests in the next several posts.
Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, of these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is emitted in the greatest quantity. The bulk of the carbon dioxide is let into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned.
Carbon dioxide passes into the tree through the stomata, which are openings in the "skin" of the leaves and needles. Light energy, stored in chlorophyll, triggers photosynthesis, the reaction that changes inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide) into organic carbon (carbohydrate). Organic carbon is moved downward (translocated) in vascular tissue called phloem from a source, such as a mature leaf, to a sink such as roots, the tree bole, and developing fruits.
Organic carbon is used by the tree to increase biomass and provides the energy to build and maintain that biomass. To obtain this energy, trees respire consuming approximately 1/2 of the organic carbon assimilated during photosynthesis releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
The carbon a tree gains is a function of the balance between carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon lost by respiration. Carbon sequestration is the term used for this net gain of organic carbon.
Although younger rapidly growing forests are more productive in terms of carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere and respiration is more efficient, the younger forest lacks the accumulated organic carbon from many decades of growth. When older forests are replaced by younger forests, they store less carbon. More influential is when forests are converted to non timber uses, such as roads, housing and agriculture and the capacity to store carbon is further decreased.
A portion of this post was gleaned from Introduction to Plant Physiology by William G. Hopkins and Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands a publication offered by The Pacific Forest Trust.
In response to the G8 meeting in Scotland of which global warming was one focus, I will explore the relationship between global warming and forests in the next several posts.
Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, of these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is emitted in the greatest quantity. The bulk of the carbon dioxide is let into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned.
Carbon dioxide passes into the tree through the stomata, which are openings in the "skin" of the leaves and needles. Light energy, stored in chlorophyll, triggers photosynthesis, the reaction that changes inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide) into organic carbon (carbohydrate). Organic carbon is moved downward (translocated) in vascular tissue called phloem from a source, such as a mature leaf, to a sink such as roots, the tree bole, and developing fruits.
Organic carbon is used by the tree to increase biomass and provides the energy to build and maintain that biomass. To obtain this energy, trees respire consuming approximately 1/2 of the organic carbon assimilated during photosynthesis releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
The carbon a tree gains is a function of the balance between carbon uptake by photosynthesis and carbon lost by respiration. Carbon sequestration is the term used for this net gain of organic carbon.
Although younger rapidly growing forests are more productive in terms of carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere and respiration is more efficient, the younger forest lacks the accumulated organic carbon from many decades of growth. When older forests are replaced by younger forests, they store less carbon. More influential is when forests are converted to non timber uses, such as roads, housing and agriculture and the capacity to store carbon is further decreased.
A portion of this post was gleaned from Introduction to Plant Physiology by William G. Hopkins and Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands a publication offered by The Pacific Forest Trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
