CO2 Absorption Per Tree

A really quick search brought up this:

http://www.treesftf.org/resources/Calculating%20CO2%20Sequestration%20by%20Trees.pdf

Is it of any use? I didn't read it as I am about to head home from work

Extremely useful, thank you.

It's amazing how many different opinions/methods there are for this calculation.

All the best,

David

Some recent advances in Fractal mathematics have been used to do just this kind of calculation. A single tree will serve as a database for the environment in which it is growing. From that information, the calculation can be made more accurately than by other methods.

This is not about art. I could not quickly bring up the information as I saw it presented, so you will have to search. The concept states that the forest (or plantation in your case) will produce trees that are fractals of the whole area. Consequently, if you have the carefully measured details of a single tree, you can scale the data to include the entire area of interest.

Because this form of math is relatively new (as to its meaning and usefulness) it is highly misunderstood and unceremoniously discredited without merit. But that always happens until it becomes impossible to stand on the soap box of traditional analysis.

I wish you good luck in your endeavor.

NotUOrdinaryJoe,

All makes sense, thank you. I shall search some more in that vain.

Brgds,

David

David

Good you wish to invest in plantation. But, please remember that local varieties of plants are always benefitial in long term.

If euclayptus is not a local variety, in long term it will harm the environment in general... plants around and the benefitial insects.

Hi....euclayptus also depeletes the ground water. This tree is unique and fast growing. It absorbs ground water & pumps it into the atmosphere. Preferabley grow it in a waterlogged area or where plenty of water is available in the ground otherwise the nearby wells will go dry.

Good comment. Eucalyptus trees burn like gasoline....ask the folks in California.

Hello gsuhas:

If euclayptus is not a local variety, in long term it will harm the environment in general... plants around and the benefitial insects.

Very good point you made there. I was trying to figure why the tree chosen was eucalyptus. Unless it was for the oils? If it also soaks up water as another post said, the 'locals' will not thank him for drying up their wells!

Thank you for both comments on water depletion. This issue has of course been addressed - we have a purpose built reservoir from which we pump water for the trees. we also rely on surface run-off from a nearby mountain.

As regards the locals, we employ a family to tend the plantation. They are familiar with cultivating eucalyptus, and are grateful receive a better salary than they would normally get. Poverty alleviation is therefore a valuable by-product of this operation.

I do appreciate your comments/concerns however.

David

- we have a purpose built reservoir from which we pump water for the trees.

But from where this water will be coming? From same water table. This is just a self satisfaction.

The short term gains of non local plants are always there with this type of plantation. But long term it harms the nature in many ways.

Hello Morgan 23

The eucalyptus tree was chosen for several reasons:

1/ It is extremely fast growing, so will prducs more CO2-absorbing foliage, faster than other hardwood trees.

2/ The eucalyptus is very versatile in terms if its uses - predominantly farmed for paper, it is also a good source for charcoal, and furniture. Then of course, the oil.

So you see, apart from alleviating local poverty, we have researched this choice of tree.

Thanks,

David

Hello david shelley:

As you may imagine, the CO2 absorption depends on the local weather, and damp or dry conditions etc. The site here has a series of test papers from a number of scientists. They are a little technical but only as far as need be to give accurate estimations.

It will depend on tree size, amount of leaves, and how close the trees are packed to some degree, and its general 'Habit'.

The first post offered some ways of working out the CO2 from trees of different sizes. But I did not see any white eucalyptus. The 'habit' of a tree, shape, leaf thickness, size of leaves, trunk thickness, bark type and thickness, has an effect on the quantity of CO2 produced.

The soft inner parts of the leaves mesophyll structure has been associated with the photosynthetic performance of leaves via the regulation of internal light and CO2.

So whatever CO2 sum you come up with for one tree, can be halved or doubled depending on the factors above.

If you know your tree sizes at this point in time you will be able to get a better than average 'guess' as to the absorption' of CO2.

http://www.per.clw.csiro.au/topog/publications/abs_dynamic.html

Dear Babybear,

Thanks very much for your comments/info. Much appreciated.

David

Hello david

All my replies with be as per normal. It seems I had sent three posts in a very short time and hit the spam buffers!

See you in open forum, and many thanks to you!

GA.

Short but hammering the nail post

I'm surprised no one has measured this in the lab. It would make for a great thesis.

Bobguz

Hello bobguz:

this has been experimented and tested in a Lab. Tens of times if not hundreds, my friend.

So, why are we talking about this? Give the man his data and let's move on.

Bobguz

Hello Bobgus, why don't you sign in you getting me confused!

The date I found was for different type of tree and was not relevant. Anyhow, as I think it was the first poster said about the way to figure out the CO2 absorption. Except, the figures and method was for a general 'tree', not the White eucalyptuc. As I said in my first post there is a whole lot of things which can have a major effect on the Apsorbtion. Weatherm damp air, try size etc........

The CO2 absorption will depend also on the maturity of the trees. Seedlings will absorb a lot of CO2 for their size, but it might be only a few grams per year. A tree that has reached half its mature mass will be absorbing quite a bit of CO2. A fully mature tree may absorb a lot of CO2, but as the amount of decay increases it will eventually produce less per square meter of ground that it covers.

Even most mature rainforests, which nearly everyone agrees should be preserved for their biodiversity, control of erosion, and aesthetics, do not remove as much CO2 per square meter of ground as, say, a peat bog. The floor of the rain forest contains a very thin layer of organic material. The flora, fauna, and bacteria and other microbes of the rainforest break down this organic layer into CO2 and methane almost as quickly as it falls, so the net CO2 score is nearly zero. If a large tree is harvested and used to make furniture or paneling, that takes that CO2 out of circulation and another tree can grow up in its place, eventually absorbing an equivalent amount of CO2 and locking it up in its wood. The same may hold true for a eucalyptus plantation. A mature plantation would only remove as much CO2 as is carried away in the wood or resin, or builds up as organic matter in the ground.

-Dennis

I do appreciate there are a lot of theories on this. However, there seem to be very few hard facts.

After every factor has been carefully considered, I will continue to plant trees for the following main sustainable reasons:

1/ Offsetting CO2.

2/ Providing poor locals with secure work - our employees are enjoying a better standard of living now, doing what they would be doing normally.

3/ Preventing soil erosion

4/ Prevention of development in place of the trees.

My only concern is about the lack of biodiversity. We are looking at indigenous species at the moment.

I could of course build a few tower blocks in their place!

Interesting to see how nobody appears particularly interested in this sort of scheme. Is down to certification/accreditation (which we are getting at the moment), or simple scepticism?

Thanks,

David

Hello once again david shelley:

The white eucalyptus is related to the Myrtle right?

I have just been cross referencing it and found the following, and, allow me to say if you had told me it was a Family: MYRTACEAE, I would have known it as Myrtle, tut tut, I don't know!

Details:

Genus: Eucalyptus

Family: Myrtaceae

Species: Scoparia

There must be four or five hundred sub species? But still have not found details relevant to your trees.

Here in Australia where eucalyptus originated, there are 800 species- in Western Australia where I live there are 150 species- all eucalypts have inflammable oil in their leaves- the fastest growing is Tasmanian Blue Gum- it has been transplanted into plantations here & is harvested as timber say every 10-15 years- the timber is cut about 12" from base- the base then regrows as before- thr phrase "white eucalypts" means nothing to me- here there are white gum(Wandoo), up north ghost gum(white bark also) & not much else- but local communities have their own names for local trees!. The point is the leaves are all a dark green, with slightly different shapes, as also the gumnuts(seeds). Some nuts require a fire passing to germinate after- the local aborigines in pre settlement times would routinely fire the bush - this would result in revegetation & also flushing out of food(kangaroos etc).

Hello Neil Kwyrer:

Thank you so much for the rich detail. I did find the 'proper white Eucalyptus', but with maybe a hundred or more having white flowers or bark, as you say, each area has their own name for the species growing there.

They grow pretty fast and bulk out quite a bit.

Cheers mate.....