How much carbon is sequestrated per hectare of fully grown tree
i push your questions to AI and here is what i got"
There are several parameters to consider when calculating how much carbon is sequestered per hectare of a fully grown tree, including:
Tree species: Different tree species have different growth rates, sizes, and wood densities, which affect their carbon sequestration rates.
Age of trees: Younger trees absorb more carbon dioxide than older trees, but older trees have larger trunks and thus store more carbon.
Climate and environmental conditions: Trees grow faster in areas with higher rainfall, sunlight, and temperature. Environmental stressors such as drought, disease, and pests can also affect tree growth and carbon sequestration.
Soil type and quality: The type and quality of soil affect the amount of nutrients available to the tree, which in turn affects its growth and carbon sequestration potential.
Management practices: Factors such as planting density, pruning, thinning, and fertilization can affect tree growth and carbon sequestration rates.
Considering these parameters can help estimate the amount of carbon sequestered per hectare of a fully grown tree.
When calculating how much carbon is sequestered per hectare of fully grown trees like Gmelina arborea, several parameters should be considered. These parameters may include the tree’s biomass, planting density, species-specific allometric equations, carbon content of the biomass, and the time frame of carbon sequestration.
For example, a study on Gmelina arborea showed that with a planting density of 1111 seedlings per hectare (3 m spaced grid), 100 kg CO2 (i.e., 27.3 kg of C) per tree equates to 111,100 kg CO2 (i.e., 30,300 kg of C) captured per hectare after 4.1 years . The study also used species-specific allometric equations to compute the tree biomass (above-ground and below-ground biomass), which was multiplied by 0.5 to calculate the carbon sequestration based on the assumption that the biomass is made up of 50% carbon .
Overall, when calculating carbon sequestration in fully grown trees like Gmelina arborea, it is essential to consider factors such as the tree’s biomass, carbon content of the biomass, planting density, species-specific allometric equations, and the time frame of carbon sequestration.
Carbon sequestration rates will depend on several factors.
- How dense the planting is (the number of trees per hectare). Is it an orchard? A dense firewood plantation? A timber planting? A fodder bank? The higher the number of trees per hectare, the higher the carbon.
- How large the trees will grow, or how tall you will let them grow. If you dry out a tree, about half of the weight is carbon, so the bigger the tree, the more carbon.
- Some tree species have denser wood than others, and dense wood has higher carbon.
- More diverse plantings, with multiple species, and multiple layers of species (like cacao or coffee under larger trees) tend to have more carbon than single-species plantings.
- The climate where the planting is. Carbon will be lower in drier places than very rainy places. In colder places there will be more carbon in the soil, while hotter places more will be in the wood of the trees.
- There are some standard values used for timber plantations and orchards.
Here are some average values we used at Project Drawdown, from https://drawdown.org/solutions:
- timber plantations, 3.3 tons of carbon per hectare per year (12 tons of CO2).
- multi-story agroforests in humid tropics (like shade cacao or coffee), 4.5 tC/ha/yr or 16.4 tons CO2.
- coppiced firewood production (cut every 2-3 years), 1.1 tC/ha/yr or 4 tons CO2.
- bamboo plantation, 2 tC/ha/yr or 7.5 tons CO2.
- orchard in tropical humid areas, 3.3 tons or 12.3 tons C02.
Unfortunately average values are not very helpful, and science is not yet really ready to accurately predict carbon for specific practices in specific areas. There may be some scientists working in your area who have already done work to answer these questions, you could contact the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi to see if they can help.
In the context of carbon taxing and carbon credit funds coming from European governments who are hurting their own economies with the burden of this tax, this question begs so many questions. Outside of getting money from the Europeans and meeting the requirements of their carbon credit programs, I don’t see the point of this calculation. I would rather redirect this in any of several directions. #1 If we want the best mix of human flourishing and using carbon credit money we will want fruit trees or high-value trees such as sandalwood, teak, and as much as some people hate Eucalyptus trees (that is changing and the hate is becoming more “old school” since these trees also hydrologically pump water and release it to the surface) they are also very high value for income per year assessments. You will also want to try to intercrop high-value crops between the trees if you want to maximize human flourishing and also this helps with weed control around the trees. #2 You can also use a technique I am researching called radial hedge-laying where trees are used as nurses for fruit trees and then when the fruit trees are more established then the legume trees are laid on the ground and become an understory as the fruit tree extends outward. This results in a tremendous amount of carbon sequestering for the requirements and you’re able to pull off a lot of green manure or mulch from the laid-on-ground trees that are grown around the fruit trees. The fruit tree is fertilized and mulched this way and the legume tree sloughs off a lot of roots when you lay it down and when you prune it. Sloughed off roots are a major contribution to soil fertility. #3 Carbon sequestering in my opinion outside of the carbon credit programs should not be a goal as it does not improve human flourishing unless there it happens to overlap with improving income in the current generation and in future generations. Carbon sequestering is a distraction from our real goal of improving human flourishing. CO2 is a plant fertilizer and the more in the air the better the plant or tree grows and the more efficiently it uses water. CO2 effect on temperature is logarithmic so its influence declines greatly as the percent in the air increases. Some researchers are looking at the increase in temperature in the troposphere where we should be seeing temperature increases from CO2 if the estimates were sound and we are not seeing the effect. We are likely near the peak of CO2 ability to heat the earth (the top of the curve). The sun spot or lack thereof is much closer correlated to global temperatures and the British Meteorological Society has been able to plot an almost perfect fit between the two in our recent global temperatures. The Roman and Medieval warming periods were times of tremendous productivity and there is volumes of evidence that we have not even reached as high as temperatures during those time periods, particularly when we find glaciers retreating leaving tree stumps exposed, and when we exhume a Viking grave from permafrost and find tree roots growing through it. The Little Ice Age resulted in huge famines in both the temperate (frosts and excessively wet cold summers) and tropical regions (dry weather). Lower temperatures result in less rainfall since air flowing across colder water does not pick up as much moisture. This additional moisture in the air results in negative feedback which happen when moisture becomes clouds and shields the earth from the sun heating. And all the satellite studies in the last 30 years show the earth is getting greener and 70% of that greening is coming from CO2 increases. And only 5% of the earth is browning and much of that is due to overgrazing or shifts in ocean currents and 40% of the surface is greening, the rest not appreciably changing. So spending money on carbon sequestering when CO2 in the air is plant fertilizer and also insurance that if we have reduced sunspot activity and worse yet combined with volcanic eruptions we don’t once again have a Little Ice Age that results in massive starvation. The oceans will buffer weather for up to 500 years to mitigate those changes but we should not be wasting money and time on carbon sequestering. People are doing almost exactly the opposite of what we should be doing! And it gets even more crazy than that when you consider that burning wood releases 2.5 times more CO2 than natural gas. Yet we are talking about taking wood off for wood burning in our discussion. Contrary to popular opinion that burning wood is carbon neutral it is not. If you take it off as fuelwood then you are putting back all the carbon you have sequestered. You would have been much better off planting a perennial legume intercrop or living mulch and continuing to build the carbon in the soil and soil fertility which can aid the growth of high-value crops. Then you are promoting human flourishing by building carbon in the soil as an aid to increase fertility. That is where our focus should be and it should all come back to income per hour as the excellence standard. This whole issue really perplexes me and it is as if we as humans are unlearning and going backward in our excellence at applying knowledge. We are moving closer and closer to an environmental disaster of our own making which results in fewer and fewer people flourishing because we forgot that we are called to manage the environment instead of succumbing to the results of fear of change and mismanagement of our potential.
I wanted to share another perspective from Elliott Kinsey. He contributed the following:
Scientific consensus on the urgency and global nature of climate change is clear. Carbon taxing and carbon credit programs, along with broader efforts to reduce emissions and promote sustainable practices, are essential in addressing the challenges posed by climate change and securing a prosperous future for all [creation].
Comparing historical warming periods to current climate change trends oversimplifies the complexity of the Earth’s climate system. Indeed there are many factors influencing climate, including solar activity, greenhouse gas concentrations, and natural climate variability. However, scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant driver of recent global warming.
While it is true that increased CO2 in the atmosphere for photosynthesis leads to increased productivity, the benefits of this are outstripped by the environmental costs of climate change. Even the most optimistic of our current emissions trajectories will lead to catastrophic impacts, with expected extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruptions, having far-reaching and detrimental effects on human societies and ecosystems. Lots more can be said about human flourishing on a planet in which we are pushing every boundary A safe operating space for humanity | Nature.
The case of the “overwhelming scientific consensus” does not exist unless you judge it by the amount of coverage on popular news stations but we all know how much we can trust the media. Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues | Fraser Institute. And even if there was a consensus it does not make it true just like the fact that scientists who do not believe in God need godless evolution to be true. And it is understandable that many if not most “eminent” scientists are naturally biased toward not wanting to be responsible to a creator God who will judge their lives after they die. And we also naturally are drawn toward a bias that caters to the side that is “saving the world”. I understand, I really do.
Elliot may mean well in attempting to counter what I have said about carbon credit programs. First of all, we should all be aware that carbon taxes are regressive taxes that affect the poor more than the rich and I doubt you can find very many programs that use carbon taxes that are efficient enough to compensate for the loss of income or are as efficient as the average extension service impact. I used to work for the US extension service as an agricultural agent and I have visited a number of programs using carbon credit money in east Africa and they are inefficient mostly due to top-down management which also lacks the advantage of individual initiative in participation in mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services which drive a healthy economy. In addition, the objectives are not on target with human flourishing because they are directed at sequestering carbon instead of the needs of the population.
I believe all the evidence points to the fact that CO2 increases are not bad but good for the earth and if we should be giving more consideration to the famines in both the tropics and the temperate zones during the Little Ice Age that are far more threatening than the warming we may be experiencing. All the evidence we have historically points to the fact that we had better be on the warming side rather than the cooling side of the climate. Fortunately, we are experiencing the Grand Solar Maximum or Modern Maximum since the early 1900s which may have ended in 2005 (the verdict is still out). Solar maximum - Wikipedia.
So we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age and we should all pray to God that we don’t incur the lack of sunspots and solar wind of the Little Ice Age and the weakening of the solar maximum recently should concern us. Geologically in ages past CO2 reached 3000 or more PPM and accompanied a very robust amount of plant material as found in the fossil record.
Elliot must not be aware of the research showing that the earth is greening. It really does not matter what other evidence you might have that supposedly shows we are moving toward tragedy if the stark evidence that the earth is greening appreciably cannot be debunked. That evidence is in every satellite study assessing leaf area index that has been done for the last 30 years and this greening shows no sign of a flip-flop or a tipping point reversal of that trend given that only 4% of the earth’s surface is browning. 70% of the buildup is coming from CO2 increases. And we are talking about a massive buildup of leaf area index, enough to cover the whole Amazon watershed or 2 layers of leaves over the whole US. That is the increase in leaf area index in the last 30 years. And there is no logical reason to assume that it would flip flop because CO2s ability to heat the earth is a diminishing curve and there is evidence we are near the top of the curve, a fact that almost no one in the catastrophic camp will even talk about. The temperature increases as predicted by the climate modelers are all wrong (except for 3) and overestimated (111 of 114 studies done). Why should we trust scientists whose models are consistently overestimated in the direction of alarmism? The troposphere does not show the heat buildup which we would expect if catastrophic anthropogenic warming is occurring and CO2 is driving it. A good analogy to alarmism on climate change is the “emperor has no clothes”.
This article is the clincher to debunk the whole catastrophic alarmist raving: I have copied most of it here so that you do not just skip over this link but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK SO YOU CAN SEE THE GLOBE SHOWING GREENING OF THE EARTH IN THE LAST 30 YEARS AND YOU WILL SEE THE 4% BROWNING THAT IS BARELY THERE. I THINK FOR MANY OF YOU IT WILL BE A “TIPPING POINT” LEADING TO THE END OF CLIMATE ALARMISM FOR YOU.
TITLE OF ARTICLE: Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased plant growth across the planet over the past three decades, a new study has found.
- A few areas on Earth have browned but the vast majority have greened
- Plant coverage has grown by 18 million square kilometres in a few decades
- The main cause is increase in atmospheric CO2
- Nitrogen from agricultural fertilisers has also contributed
The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in this time has increased by 18 million square kilometres — about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).
“[The greening] has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said Dr Zaichun Zhu, from Peking University in China and lead author of the new study, which appears today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Carbon fertilisation is the dominant process for greening across the globe, particularly in the tropics because there’s so much leaf area there.
“This is a snapshot of humans’ global influence on the functioning of the entire global biosphere,” said co-author CSIRO’s Dr Pep Canadell of the Global Carbon Project.
The new findings come from analysis of data from the past 33 years taken by three different satellite missions that measured the green light reflected by photosynthesising leaves.
Dr Canadell said the remote sensing data was run through 10 global environmental change models to identify the cause of the greening.
A map of the Earth showing how much different areas have greened since 1982*(Ranga Myneni)*
About 85 per cent of Earth’s ice-free land is covered by plants, and each year photosynthesis soaks up about one quarter of the nearly 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted by humans.
Drs Zhu, Canadell and colleagues found that the 46 parts per million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1982 and 2009 was responsible for 50 to 70 per cent of the observed greening.
“Carbon fertilisation is the dominant process for greening across the globe, particularly in the tropics because there’s so much leaf area there,” Dr Canadell said.
Scientists have long established humans as a key source of atmospheric CO2 through the use of chemical signatures that distinguishes carbon from different sources.
"The growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost exclusively due to fossil fuel
burning and deforestation," said Dr Canadell.
The new study found other causes of the greening, including nitrogen from agricultural fertilisers.
‘Surprising’ finding given increase in droughts
Dr Canadell said the greening has surprised scientists who expected to see more browning, given the increase in droughts associated with global warming.
While the researchers found between 25 to 50 percent of all vegetated areas of the land have become greener, only 4 percent have become browner. END OF QUOTE FROM ARTICLE
MY FINAL POINT: Climate resilience is something we can all agree to focus on but I can not see much difference between objectively focusing on climate resilience and what agricultural research has been focusing on from the beginning. It has always been about climate resilience and we should not get caught up in the inefficiency of siphoning off money that is managed with top-down programs and burdens people with extra taxes.
Many of ECHO’s publications have focused on helping farmers cope with related challenges such as heat and drought. Increasing farmer resilience and minimizing risk have been key elements of the practices we have written about over the years. We encourage “no regret” strategies, approaches that steward the land well and improve livelihoods, regardless of whether or not farmers face immediate changes to climate. However, we also view farmers as having an integral role in mitigating some of the driving forces of climate change. Farmers and development practitioners often tell us of the adverse effects of changing climate that they experience in their communities.
For now, please let us stay focused on Mofya’s original question of how to calculate the carbon sequestration of planted trees or future trees to be established. This is a worthwhile conversation that can benefit much of the ECHO network as they plan on-farm and in the community.
Do any network members have additional answers to Mofya’s question?
Many thanks for your support. This indeed has helped me understand the topic in-depth. I will keep falling on you