shifts in forest dynamics are already occurring, and the emerging pattern is that global forests are tending toward younger stands with faster turnover as old-growth forest with stable dynamics are dwindling

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:10
VIEWED: 1641
PAGE 1 of 1

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 2, 2020 9:56 PM

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6494/eaaz9463

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 8:12 AM

Wait?

Are we talking about trees now or humans?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 8:33 AM

Talking about Real. World. Events.

Other than that, you might want to learn how to read, if you're not too ~~stupi~~ ... I mean brilliant snicker to manage.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:31 AM

Obviously your talking about trees. I can read just fine, even when you don't capitalize words and use a ridiculously long phrase for the title of your thread that would be better suited in the body of your first post.

I forget sometimes that sarcasm and wordplay doesn't play well with low double digit IQ Karen Boomers that are losing their minds.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:37 AM

Quote:
Obviously your talking about trees. I can read just fine see - I use english good. Along with my stupid mantra.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

fify

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:18 PM

Whatevez, Cunty Karen.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 7:58 PM

Quote:
more mindless trolling because I'm just THAT stupid!

And my completely honesty-free blather -
Do Right, Be Right. :)

fify

.
.
.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:27 PM

OMG Wishy 2.0.

Are we done here yet?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:26 AM

Quote:
more mindless trolling because I'm just THAT stupid!
And my completely honesty-free blather -
Do Right, Be Right. :)

fify

.
.
.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:36 AM

Okay. Last Word Karen.

Go drink your boxed wine.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:01 AM

Quote:
more mindless trolling because I'm just THAT stupid!
And my completely honesty-free blather -
Do Right, Be Right. :)

fify

.
.
.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:38 AM

I read the extended abstract, but I don't get one part of it: authors claim that secondary growth stores less carbon than old growth forests. I suppose that happens in a static sort of way... old growth forests have much larger trees than secondary forests, but doold growth forests sequester more carbon PER YEAR than secondary growth forests, or do secondary growth forests grow faster and sequester carbon at a faster rate? I've read a few studies on exactly that ... they seem to comedown on both side of the issue. Had that been settled?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

1KIKI

Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:10 AM

I think it's pretty settled that old growth has a far larger sequestered carbon store, but that new growth adds more per unit time.

A question is, what happens to all that sequestered carbon as the old growth forest dies off.