Claim: City Trees and Soil are Sucking More Carbon Out of the Atmosphere than Previously Thought


Researchers found that trees and soils on the outermost edge of forests may have a role in fighting climate change—but the benefits might not last

Peer-Reviewed Publication

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

Forest edge in Newton, MA
IMAGE: A FOREST EDGE IN NEWTON, MASS., WHERE RESEARCHERS CONSISTENTLY MEASURED AND MONITORED THE SOIL TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH CARBON IS BEING RELEASED. view more  CREDIT: PHOTO BY SARAH GARVEY

They may not have lungs like we do, but the soil and trees are breathing in and out all of the time. Trees take in carbon dioxide (CO2), release oxygen by way of photosynthesis, and store carbon in their trunks. And when the leaves land on the ground, soil microbes work to decompose the leaves and other organic matter, which releases carbon dioxide. 

Forests actually store more carbon dioxide than they release, which is great news for us: about 30 percent of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are taken in by forests, an effect called the terrestrial carbon sink.

“That’s CO2 that’s not in the atmosphere,” says Boston University biogeochemist and ecologist Lucy Hutyra. “We’re not feeling the full effects of climate change because of the terrestrial climate sink. These forests are doing an incredible service to our planet.”

For more than a decade, Hutyra has been investigating what happens to the planet’s “lungs” when large forests are cut down into smaller patches, a process researchers call forest fragmentation. 

“We think about forests as big landscapes, but really they are chopped up into all these little segments because of the human world,” says Hutyra, a BU College of Arts & Sciences professor of Earth and environment. Forests get cut into smaller parcels, as chunks are taken down to make space for roads, buildings, agriculture, and solar farms—one of the biggest drivers of forest loss in Massachusetts. These alterations to forests create more areas called forest edges—literally, the trees at the outermost edge of a forest.

It has long been assumed that these forest edges release and store carbon at similar rates as forest interiors, but Hutyra and researchers in her lab at BU have discovered this isn’t true. Soils and trees in temperate forest edges in the Northeast United States are acting differently than those farther away from people. In two recent research papers, Hutyra’s team found edge trees grow faster than their country cousins deep in the forest, and that soil in urban areas can hoard more carbon dioxide than previously thought. Their results can challenge current ideas about conservation and the value of urban forests as more than places for recreation. 

Breathing In CO2

In one of the most detailed looks at temperate forest edges to date, Hutyra and her research team, including collaborators at the Harvard Forest, examined the growth rates of edge trees compared to the rest of the forest. 

Using data from the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Inventory and Analysis program—which monitors tree size, growth, and land use across the country—Hutyra’s team looked at more than 48,000 forest plots in the Northeast United States. They found trees on the edges grow nearly twice as fast as interior trees—those roughly 100 feet away from the edge. 

“This is likely because the trees on the edge don’t have competition with interior forest, so they get more light,” says Luca Morreale, a PhD candidate in Hutyra’s lab and lead author on the paper, published in Nature Communications, outlining the findings. And the more a tree grows, the more carbon it is taking in.

This is good news, considering over 25 percent of the landscape in the Northeast United States is covered by an edge. But this doesn’t mean that more forest fragmentation is a solution for sucking more carbon out of the atmosphere; carbon storage along the edges of fragmented areas does not come close to offsetting the negative side effects of losing forests—like releasing carbon long stored underground back into the atmosphere. 

According to Morreale and Hutyra, their study instead points to the need to better understand and conserve existing forest edges, which are typically seen as more disposable. “We are underestimating how much carbon is being taken up by temperate forest edges,” Hutyra says. “We also need to think about how susceptible they might be in the future to climate change,” because previous studies have shown that even though these trees are growing faster from more sunlight, hotter temperatures cause growth rates of edge trees to plummet. 

Breathing Out CO2

In a second related study, Hutyra teamed up with BU biologist Pamela Templer to find that soils at the forest edge felt the effects of forest fragmentation, just like the trees. 

“Soils contain wild amounts of bacteria, fungi, roots, and microorganisms, and just the way we breathe out CO2 when working and being active, they respire CO2, as well,” says Sarah Garvey, a PhD candidate in Hutyra’s lab and lead author of a paper on forest edge soils published in Global Change Biology. “With soil, there is more there than meets the eye.”  

Garvey found that not only does forest edge soil release more carbon than interior forest soil, but that the soil is acting dramatically differently in rural and urban forests. 

She visited eight field sites in developed and undeveloped areas of Massachusetts every two weeks for a year and a half (skipping the winter, when the ground is covered in ice) to measure the levels of carbon being released from the soils. She and her team would take a snapshot of the temperature and moisture levels of the soil at the forest edge, and then walk about 300 feet into the forest to take measurements again.

They saw that in rural areas with fewer people and buildings, warmer temperatures at the edge of the forest caused leaves and organic matter to decompose faster, forcing the soil microorganisms to work harder and release more carbon dioxide than their cooler, more shaded peers in the forest interior. But, in urban forests, where the ground was significantly hotter and drier, those soils stopped releasing as much carbon. 

“It’s so hot and dry that the microbes are not happy and they’re not doing their thing,” Hutyra says. The long-term effect of unhappy soil is uncertain, but the findings also mean that urban soils, like those in Franklin Park, the largest public park in Boston, could have a greater capacity to store carbon than previously expected, says Garvey. Her next project will look deeper into the possible mechanisms behind the different carbon release and storage rates.  

Critical for Our Future

Although discovering that urban trees and soils store more carbon might seem like “a double whammy of a good thing,” Hutyra says, it’s unclear if this boost in carbon uptake will last as the planet continues to warm. 

Climate change could exacerbate carbon losses from soil, and the trees at the edge of forests in rural or urban areas could be more vulnerable to extreme heat and drought.

“Forests store almost half of their carbon below ground,” Garvey says. “Which is why understanding the relationships between the soil and the plant life is so vital to understanding the bigger picture of how forests store carbon for the long term.”

With cities and countries making commitments to plant more trees in an effort to curb the impacts of climate change, the researchers in Hutyra’s lab all agree that thinking about the greater context of the trees and soils, and where new trees are planted, is extremely important. Factoring in the elevated amounts of carbon stored by forest edges should be taken into account when looking at long-term projections of climate change, as well. 

“We need to think about that as we [decide] what areas to conserve, what to develop, and how to tackle climate change solutions,” Hutyra says. “Is a place like Franklin Park where there’s tons of foot traffic just as valuable to save as a remote forest in Maine where three people visit? There’s no easy answer.”


JOURNAL

Global Change Biology

DOI

10.1111/gcb.16099 

ARTICLE TITLE

Diverging patterns at the forest edge: Soil respiration dynamics of fragmented forests in urban and rural areas

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

16-Feb-2022

From EurekAlert!

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
3.3 9 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Old Goat
February 17, 2022 2:10 am

Nobody is “fighting”, or “tackling” climate change -they are merely pretending to, and deceiving the more gullible amongst us.

The changing climate has done s for bilennia, and will continue to do so, whilst there IS a climate, and nothing man can do will change that (unless, of course, they cause the planet to cease to exist – a goal I’m sure some are interested in…)

Ron Long
February 17, 2022 2:21 am

Wow, a report with some actually useful information, but contaminated by the idea of “fighting climate change”. So the NASA report of 10% greening of the earth tells us that our photosynthesis friends are enjoying our help with CO2, and it looks like we should add more to the atmosphere? And trees at the edge of the forest grow more than trees in the interior, so we should leave some of the forested areas alone, and not clear them for solar panels? This is actually a useful report, probably not as planned by the authors.

Pablo
February 17, 2022 2:43 am

IMAGE: A FOREST EDGE IN NEWTON, MASS., WHERE RESEARCHERS CONSISTENTLY MEASURED AND MONITORED THE SOIL TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH CARBON IS BEING RELEASED

I spot two cars.

Krishna Gans
February 17, 2022 2:58 am

“We’re not feeling the full effects of climate change because of the terrestrial climate sink. These forests are doing an incredible service to our planet.”

What a BS that statement is offering. Not because CO2 and CC, but because of the “full effect” of it. These trees didn’t start from a day to an other to reduce CO2, but they always did and climate is as it is .

February 17, 2022 3:07 am

Actually, it looks to me all this greening is doing the extra warming…..
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/01/10/global-warming-due-to-ehhh-global-greening/

February 17, 2022 3:09 am

“We need to protect the forest edges”

Ok, so how can you have a forest without an edge? If you get rid of one edge, a new edge miraculously appears out of nowhere

/sarc

February 17, 2022 3:16 am

In “one of the biggest drivers of forest loss in Massachusetts”

“The state Department of Energy Resources estimates that approximately 2,500 acres of trees — equal to the size of 50 Boston Commons — have been cut down to put up solar panels in the last 10 to 15 years.”

That was published in 2019. It’s already up about 300% but that’s just the beginning. The state has a net zero by ’50 law. To get there hundreds of thousands of acres of forest will have to be converted to solar. I’ve been complaining about this for a decade since a big one was built near me- back when all enviros worshiped all solar. I asked all the enviro groups in Mass. to come look at it- none did. Now, they’re all complaining about it- without grasping that they can’t have it both ways- they can’t get to net zero (if ever)- without all this forest destruction.

“The trend is particularly pronounced in the western part of the state, where some residents and environmentalists are worried the demand for cleaner energy is destroying some of their beloved forests.”

Right, most of the early, big solar farms were in low income central Mass. where the enviro groups have less interest because they don’t live here. Many live in the Connecticut River Valley (lots of colleges and where the back roads are inhabited by old hippy dropouts from U. Mass.) and in “the beautiful Berkshires” now mostly owned by the ultra rich from NYC and wealthy CT towns.

February 17, 2022 3:31 am

“That’s CO2 that’s not in the atmosphere,” says Boston University biogeochemist and ecologist Lucy Hutyra. “We’re not feeling the full effects of climate change because of the terrestrial climate sink. These forests are doing an incredible service to our planet.”

February 17, 2022 4:03 am

Quote:”Forests actually store more carbon dioxide than they release

Think about that, the incredulity that’s apparent in someone seemingly oblivious to the fact that the forest wouldn’t be there if it weren’t true

Quote:”It’s so hot and dry that the microbes are not happy and they’re not doing their thing,

Bad news hun. They’re ‘not doing their thing‘ because they are dead.
This sorry state doesn’t last long though as any one or more of an NOx molecule, an Ozone molecule or a few UV photons will cremate the frazzled corpse and it will spend the next 34, 71, forever years floating around in the sky and wasting the world as it goes

Quote:”And when the leaves land on the ground, soil microbes work to decompose the leaves and other organic matter, which releases carbon dioxide.

This is indubitably true sweetness.
It’s also true that fish can swim but, fish also make baby fish. Fish notably have a penchant for water.
Now the tricky bit, Which came first, the fish, the baby fish or, the water?
And the really tricky bit, where did your Fossil Fuels come from?

Quote:”“Forests store almost half of their carbon below ground,

Is anyone in the house familiar with a back-hoe loader, a Hymac or one of them monster machines the Germans use for digging Lignite and lend such a thing to these peeps.
Such is the scale of the error here

Quote:”But this doesn’t mean that more forest fragmentation is a solution for sucking more carbon out of the atmosphere

How is it possible to get anything any more wrong? Fragmentation destroys the forest – just ask anyone everyone who has ever been a ‘hunter’ over the last 10,000+ years.
Ask the folks of California and Australia with their ‘protective burning’

Quote:”forcing the soil microorganisms to work harder and release more carbon dioxide than their cooler, m…
[I can’t immediately recall in the face of a rapidly depleting laptop battery but what’s the word where you give human characteristics to ‘things’]

Anyway, point being, nobody ‘forces’ microbes to do anything – sorry people – you really rather give yourselves away..

At which point, ttfn

February 17, 2022 4:19 am

Hutyra’s team found edge trees grow faster than their country cousins deep in the forest

More basic Ecology 101.
Nature conservation management procedures stress the importance of mosaic structure for habitat diversity and ecological resilience. For example want to have more grouse on your heather moor to provide food for predators (of all kinds…)? Then burn the moor in patches so that there is more boundary where the birds can reach young heather shoots from the shelter of old growth heather.
And so on…

Mulholland P, 1980. A study of the cycle of regeneration in the beech dominated woodlands of Epping Forest, Essex using a Markovian matrix analysis. University of London MSc Dissertation.

2hotel9
February 17, 2022 4:23 am

So, once again these clowns prove they got no idea what the hell they are babbling about. All about the money and nothing more.

fretslider
February 17, 2022 4:29 am

CO2 is doubleplusungood. This ‘fact’ must be accepted before proceeding with any study.

“We’re not feeling the full effects of climate change” 

Who is we? The UK climate is pretty much the same as it ever was in my lifetime – although the 60s and 70s were on balance a bit chillier.

Earlier today I heard on the BBC how psychedelics are now being favoured for treating a number of mental illnesses. I would suggest the authors appear to have a case of CO2 fixated climate anxiety. I wonder if Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds or magic mushrooms might help?

February 17, 2022 4:38 am

Does this not mean that some thinning of older trees in a forest will allow for more light and space for younger trees and more absorption of CO2? If so why would we not want more sensible logging?

Gregory Woods
February 17, 2022 4:43 am

“That’s CO2 that’s not in the atmosphere,” says Boston University biogeochemist and ecologist Lucy Hutyra.

and she says this as if it were a good thing….

Disputin
February 17, 2022 4:54 am

“…as the planet continues to warm. ”

But it isn’t!

Garboard
February 17, 2022 5:18 am

Trees don’t “store” co2 ; they transform it into living organic matter . Big difference . How much carbon does a human store ?

February 17, 2022 5:25 am

ANOTHER USELESS REPORT FINANCED WITH FEDERAL MONEY
WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?
HOW MUCH MORE PER ACRE OF EDGE?

US forests absorb about 0.90 metric ton of CO2 per acre, per year, per EPA.
US CO2 emissions are about 5500 million metric ton, per year, per EPA

February 17, 2022 5:29 am

Duh. Anyone who has ever designed a field plot experiment knows as a fact that there will be edge effects, which must be taken into account when assigning treatments to plots, when sampling, and when a priori determining the statistical design (none of which appears to have even been considered by these pseudo scientists).

As Mr. Zorzin, a real forester, will confirm for us, a lot changes at the forest edge, including species mix, understory, litter, micrometeorology, soil properties, etc. These Boston biologists act as though they are surprised by this and that they have discovered something new and unprecedented. In fact, this sort of thing is generally taught in freshman science classes.

A bunch of big city biologists granting doctoral degrees to big city kids who had probably never seen nature except on school field trips. This press release reminds me of the recent WUWT post about the “researchers” studying the Pacific Coast of Oregon. The stuff of elementary school science fair projects.

John Pickens
February 17, 2022 5:30 am

This forest edge phenomenon is already well known. Heck, I did an undergraduate biological statistics study of the effect in 1977. It was suggested by my professor as one of many possible easy to perform studies which could be carried out for the assignment. I went out with a light meter and did transects both across and aligned with the forest edge to record light levels on the ground. It showed the effect with great statistical demonstration.

Coeur de Lion
February 17, 2022 5:55 am

Those who say ‘carbon’ when they mean carbon dioxide are lazy, have a agenda or are lying. Which here? Anyway we are ‘fighting global warming’ not climate change. And by golly doing rather well. Looking at UAH readout global temp today same as 1988. Three quarters of a degree C cooling since the 2016 El Niño spike. Well done the alarmists! Btw I thought a tree was carbon DIOXIDE neutral over whole life?

February 17, 2022 6:26 am

Come on guys, don’t give poor Lucy such a hard time. At least she has discovered the carbon cycle and now realises that CO2 doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for ever like some of her fellow “scientists” would like us to believe. It can only be a matter of a few decades more of her studies to have the epiphany that all plants, not just trees, take in CO2 and release it when they die. Then realise that the same processes take place in the oceans, and then finally conclude that human emissions of CO2 are background noise in the greater carbon cycle. You know, the same stuff we were taught in school back in the 1960’s, but is forbidden knowledge these days.

LJG
February 17, 2022 6:39 am

I am all for more trees and more parks in cities.

menace
February 17, 2022 8:05 am

Duh I’ve always noticed trees with more exposure to sun/sky grow faster and larger

NotBob
February 17, 2022 8:18 am

Trees on the edge of a forest get more direct sunlight than those in the interior where the sun is partially blocked by other nearby trees.

Felix
February 17, 2022 8:39 am

There have been several “studies” similar to this recently. Either reporting has exposed more of them, or ….. /me smells the first rats leaving a sinking ship, or at least to prepare the public for the coming flood of excuses for their failed models and predictions.