We’re writing in response to Al Norman’s Aug. 19 opinion column, “Seeing the forest through the trees.” A great irony is that, in arguing that Greenfield residents lack appropriate focus on larger tracts of forest in favor of street trees, Norman himself regurgitates commonly held misconceptions regarding forest conditions, health, climate change, carbon, and logging — effectively not seeing the forest for the trees himself. The column was more broadly framed as a debate between forests vs. development, but we’re responding to his ill-informed ideas about carbon and forest management.
In a forest, carbon is sequestered by trees when they remove it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. According to the 2019 UMass Amherst publication “Forest carbon: An essential natural solution to climate change,” carbon sequestration peaks in New England forests when they are 30 to 70 years old (though they continue to sequester carbon as they age). Carbon is stored in various carbon pools within the forest, including the living things above ground (trees and plants), living things below ground (root systems), deadwood (snags, downed logs), leaf litter, and soil organic matter. In our forests, carbon storage peaks when forests are greater than 200 years old.
So, if trees sequester and store carbon, and older forests store more carbon, then one would think (like Norman does) that passive management (no cutting of trees) will automatically lead to maximum carbon sequestration and storage. Well, it is not that simple. Consider the 30-acre white pine stand that Norman claims “can sequester between 45,000 and 120,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year.” What’s missing here is the concept of resilient carbon, which refers to a forest’s capacity to remain a carbon sink into the future. Across the board, research continues to show that, for the type of forest Norman references, one with a resilient condition (a forest with structural and age diversity, which this 30-acre stand does not have) stands the best chance at withstanding climate-related challenges while continuing to provide many services such as clean air, clean water, wildlife, human habitat, and biodiversity, carbon benefits, and the wood products we all use every day.
Zooming out from the 30-acre stand, Norman states, without reference, that “forest harvesting accounts for 85% of the carbon lost from forests each year.” While we were unable to track down this reference, it likely is a simplification of a global figure and not a reflection of the conditions in Massachusetts. Recent Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data from the USDA Forest Service reveals that tree mortality from natural causes is 3.2 times greater than harvesting in Massachusetts. The only state in New England where harvesting removes more biomass than natural mortality is Maine.
FIA data also shows that the current composition of regeneration (young trees) is heavily skewed toward species of at least midshade tolerance and ecological generalism. Prohibiting active management isn’t necessarily going to produce ecologically diverse forests able to withstand climate change, nor will it necessarily protect biodiversity and carbon sequestration and storage. Unrecognized in these false assumptions are the effects of development, land use history and its lasting effects, ecological imbalance such as deer overbrowse, prevention of natural disturbance such as fire, floods, beavers, and the like, and all the many ways in which our every-day decisions affect the forests both near and far.
It’s clear that people really, really love forests, and we are facing unprecedented climatic changes that are radically impacting everyone, everywhere. Like ours, Norman’s words come from a place of love for forests, the desire to combat climate change, and the hope to effect change in his community. However, love involves understanding and inquiry.
Seeing the bigger picture, as Norman suggests we attempt to do, would involve asking nuanced and difficult questions such as: 1) Over what timeframe are we considering maximizing carbon storage, and how does this goal interact with forest health and ecological/biodiversity needs?; 2) What does an “intact” forest really mean when forests are dependent on patterns of disturbance and succession?; 3) Does our reluctance to utilize resources locally affect far-flung policy such as the cutting of old growth in British Columbia and elsewhere?; and 4) Is the general ecological literacy of our communities sufficient enough to claim authority over what constitutes “forest protection”?
Norman’s suggestion to partner with regional land trusts, however, is a sound one. In doing so, one will find they often engage in stewardship projects that are nuanced, forward-thinking, and involve some measure of active management in order to achieve ecological goals.
Kate Conlin of Buckland and Gabrielle Hardyn of Shelburne both serve on the board of the Massachusetts Forest Alliance. Gabrielle is a private consulting forester who has been trained and certified through the DCR’s Climate-smart Forestry and Foresters for the Birds programs. They both recommend Ali Kosiba’s “Introduction to Forest Carbon” from Northern Woodlands — northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/introduction-forest-carbon.