🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <93msl3$hdm@llama.swcp.com>,
  lewitt@swcp.com (Martin E. Lewitt) wrote:
> Recent research reports that North American evergreen
> forests rather than fighting global warming as carbon sinks
> may be contributing to global warming by absorbing more
> heat  in the winter because they are less reflective of
> sunlight than the winter snow cover.
>
> Accordingly I would like to do my bit and cut down the
> evergreens on my property and replace them with deciduous
> trees.  I live in New Mexico on a ridgetop at 7070'
> elevation right where the juniper and pinion transition
> to ponderosa pines.  The only deciduous trees I see
> around are locally called "scrub oak", they don't
> get much taller than a man.
>
> Where could I find out the possible selections of trees
> that might do well at my site?
>
> Also, why is the lumber industry so focused on evergreens,
> are there any good or even mediocre deciduous alternatives?
>
The reason the lumber industry likes evergreens is that they concentrate
biomass into one relatively straight stem. Many of the largest softwoods
also are the largest known trees in the world: Coastal redwood, Giant
sequoia, Ponderosa pine, Sugar pine, Douglas fir, etc.

Deciduous trees tend to grow wide and squat rather than tall and massive.
That's why the majority of climax forest trees are evergreen rather than
deciduous. This fact was noted over 100 years ago by the first head of
the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot from research done in the Black
Forest of Germany.

The thing that doesn't make sense is the alledged "research" you mention
above. Evergreens live far longer than hardwoods, and degradation of
their biomass requires considerably longer than hardwoods, which
logically results in a longer carbon sequestration than from hardwoods.

Until such work is cited and can go through the review process, I would
be extremely leery of it.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/