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
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
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
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
I’m surprised they haven’t claimed that excess oxygen is being produced due to this natural “phenomena” which will lead to reduced breathing capacity requirements and physical abnormalities that will affect future generations.
““This is likely because the trees on the edge don’t have competition with interior forest, so they get more light,””
that ain’t rocket science- trees on the edge are more likely to have live branches to the ground- I suppose that researcher will get a PhD for that brilliant, Einstein like research
total nonsense- trees like warm temperatures- and in recent years we’ve gotten more rain, at least here in the Northeast, where this “research” is being done- so with more warmth, longer growing seasons, and more rain- trees are growing faster than ever
too much “forest research” is being done by people who have no clue about the practice of forestry- the researchers are usually biologists who look down their noses at people who actually work in forests, like field foresters- so they won’t bother to talk to us – we spend years out there and we know the forests quite well- and I know Harvard Forest quite well, it’s only several miles from me- been there many times at events, mostly BS events
“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. ”
This “fact” that these “researchers” have “discovered” is extremely trivial. As a field forester for almost half a century- I’ve complained a lot over the fact that forestry researchers have done so little in the way of USEFUL research for those of us trying to earn a living in the forests. We tell them what research is really needed but they have no interest in what we say- too focused on extreme trivia.
“…but the benefits might not last”? Sure, not if they can make sure they don’t.
Soil Restoration Agriculture can sequester the Carbon equivalent 350 to 700 tons of CO2 per acre from all of our Croplands… for free. The US has ~250 million acres of cropland.
Soil Regeneration is an interesting development in Agriculture. Pioneer “Regen Farms” have been able to increase biological activity in the soil steadily over several years… back to normal levels. This increases Soil Carbon Content by around ~ 0.5% annually. Topsoil weighs ~1000 tons an acre so 0.5% is 50 tons of carbon which comes from 183 tons of CO2. 5% increases are common and up to 8% carbon increases have been achieved over 5 to 10 years.
With a few Cover Crop and Foliar Feeding and Soil Inoculation “hacks”, farms are making the 5 to 10 year transitions without reducing farm production or income. Many have actually achieved large increases in income during the transition. We’re getting better at it. Transitioning to “Soil Regen” requires farms to wean off Inorganic Fertilizers and Pesticides and Herbicides and Tillage because each of those things suppresses or kills soil biology. Eliminating fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and tillage (diesel fuel) results in very significant cost savings.
A HUGE positive side effect of Soil Regen is a change in soil texture and composition that can absorb up to 20 inches of rain per hour compared to the “normal” 1 inch of rain or less per hour. If all farms had these soils the only flooding we’d suffer would be in the Cities. These fields are very drought resistant.
Another side effect of Soil Regen Ag is a temperature reduction in those fields compared to the surrounding “normal” fields
If the Fake Carbon Markets are ever established and Carbon prices settle at $30 per ton, farmers could all get rich… and we all could avoid paying $100 Trillion for a redundant Fake energy supply…or save even more $Trillions from paying for pie in the sky Carbon Capture Bahrmouth Machines (currently on the drawing boards of Start-Up Companies looking to cash in on the Climate Fraud).
It’s curious to me that REAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS haven’t been demanding subsidies for Farms to make the “Soil Regen” Transition. I suspect that’s because the Climate Fraud Industry doesn’t really want any actual solutions to their made-up “Crisis”.
Anyone who says “The science is settled” in one breath and “It’s different than we thought” in another is a charlatan by definition. You cannot have it both ways.
Vegetation and soil are not ‘fighting climate change”. They are just doing what nature designed them to do. Only idiotic uneducated progressives could be stupid enough to waste energy try to stop the climate from doing its thing.
I follow the tested science.
I believe in the enormous benefit of photosynthesis – it is marvelous.
I believe CO2 is plant food.
The pertinent question is does the more rapid uptake of CO2 it the edges of forests more than compensate for the loss of CO2 uptake in the areas cleared by man for roads, power lines, buildings, etc. My bet is no. So, I don’t see where this study means much of anything.
But I though you need to cut trees to allow sunshine to reach PV panels on your or your neighbor’s roof? Isn’t it what Cali courts and SolarCity salesmen were talking about?
How does this dovetail with the claim that clear cutting forests for wood chips is a valid renewables choice?