Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rainforests grow fasterEnvironmental | 208073 hits | Dec 31 1:11 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  Researchers from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California have found that tropical forests account for more than half of all carbon dioxide absorbed by plants growing on land.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Rain forest soils are very poor "laterite" soils. They don't have a deep humus layer like some soils (tall grass prairie for instance) have in Canada. All the biomass is in the vegetation, not the soil, so as plants die they are quickly recycled, with carbon and oxygen released back to the air, rather than being stored in the humus layer.
I don['t see how those forests can continue to absorb carbon for ever.
Plants grow and forests will grow so long as they're not being clear cut to provide cheap hamburger for McDonald's and ethanol for idiots who hate oil.
Not my point. What I meant was that this increase in growth rate can't continue, there's a limit. So at some point, I would think that the forest would reach homeostasis. Now, maybe there's still lots of room for growth rate increase, i don't know that. But for sure, as the article points out, cutting down the rain forest is going to result in a huge release of carbon.
Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay. Then they rapidly die and decompose, releasing all the carbon they stored to begin with and making more atmospheric Co2 than before.
You first.
Not my point. What I meant was that this increase in growth rate can't continue, there's a limit. So at some point, I would think that the forest would reach homeostasis. Now, maybe there's still lots of room for growth rate increase, i don't know that. But for sure, as the article points out, cutting down the rain forest is going to result in a huge release of carbon.
Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay. Then they rapidly die and decompose, releasing all the carbon they stored to begin with and making more atmospheric Co2 than before.
Not necessary released immediately... after all, this is how our coal reserves were formed.
Not my point. What I meant was that this increase in growth rate can't continue, there's a limit. So at some point, I would think that the forest would reach homeostasis. Now, maybe there's still lots of room for growth rate increase, i don't know that. But for sure, as the article points out, cutting down the rain forest is going to result in a huge release of carbon.
Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay. Then they rapidly die and decompose, releasing all the carbon they stored to begin with and making more atmospheric Co2 than before.
Not necessary released immediately... after all, this is how our coal reserves were formed.
Coal came from steamy swamps, not rain forests, where as I wrote above, most of the plant biomass is in the vegetation itself. There is very little organic matter or nutrients in the soils of tropical rainforests, because the rain washes it away. What there is is rapid decomposition and the nutrients are taken up by the living plants again. Coal doesn't form from living plants.
This would also explain why the forests are acting as carbon sink - the rapid cycling of nutrients back into the living plants. Still, there would have to be a limit to that cycle, where the plants can't grow any faster because they can't access the nutrients at a faster rate.
Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay. Then they rapidly die and decompose, releasing all the carbon they stored to begin with and making more atmospheric Co2 than before.
Oh wait, UR serious.
Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay. Then they rapidly die and decompose, releasing all the carbon they stored to begin with and making more atmospheric Co2 than before.
Oh wait, your serious.
/you're
Isn't it fun going "grammar police" on someone who's trying to mock you?
Always.
If all he can do is attempt to ridicule me, which I realize is all he has left, at the very least proper grammar would show some small effort on his part.
cannot be challenged, what the Hell, I'll play.
Show us those tests. I'm not even sure how they'd do them. Do they grow trees, then watch them grow and die, or something? Why would it make only "atmospheric Co2? Why wouldn't it also make carbon and oxygen? Isn't the largest carbon sink the Ocean. How much of this released Co2 from decay would be swallowed up there?
Unless you're saying tropical rainforests quickly become deserts, in which case...show me...wouldn't the replacement rainforest also be swallowing up some Co2.
Give me some facts and figures from these tests. How much actual Co2 is being released that is not managed by natural feedbacks. BTW biomass is actually increasing worldwide. Why is that?