Regrowing Forests Could Provide Climate Change Help

A new study shows that allowing cleared forest to grow back can help cut down carbon dioxide emissions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As policymakers and scientists try to find the best way to pump emissions from coal-fired power plants into deep underground reservoirs, another carbon dioxide sink is already soaking up greenhouse gases and has the potential to soak up much more.

Temperate forests in eastern North America are storing only part of their historic carbon sequestration potential, according to ecologists at McGill University and the University of Wisconsin.

"There's quite a lot of potential for the future," said Jeanine Rhemtulla, a postdoctoral fellow at McGill and lead author of a study published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As North American settlers moved west in the early 19th century, they cleared land for timber and agriculture, producing a third of the net carbon dioxide emissions since 1850, the researchers write. But as farms were abandoned and forests were allowed to regrow, the trees began sequestering more carbon, Rhemtulla said.

"Ecosystems provide all sorts of services, and this is a service that is often overlooked," Rhemtulla said. "It's an invisible thing that's happening with a great benefit that isn't always factored into decision-making."

Rhemtulla, David Mladenoff and Murray Clayton at the University of Wisconsin calculated the amount of carbon that Wisconsin forests stored prior to European settlement – before widespread logging and farming – and compared that with the amount of carbon stored today.

"The biological potential from 150 years ago suggests [these forests] can sequester more carbon," Mladenoff said.

The researchers estimate that sequestration potential in Wisconsin alone is 150 million metric tons – or one-third of the total carbon currently stored in the state's forests. They say Wisconsin could be indicative of the potential of other Eastern forests.

And the ecologists say their estimate is likely on the low end. They calculated historic and modern carbon storage potential in above-ground biomass only. Soils, dead trees and other woody debris scattered on the forest floor were not included in their calculations.

"We see a huge loss also below ground," Rhemtulla said. "Our back-of-the-envelope estimate is there's twice as much potential if we include the below-ground."

But much of Wisconsin's potential lies in lands that are still used for agriculture, the researchers said.

"These forests have been turned into areas for producing food," Rhemtulla said. "It's a tradeoff for another ecosystem service."

The researchers say their study could be used by land-use decision-makers.

"A social decision is what it comes down to: how society values the need for CO2 sequestration in forests," Mladenoff said.

Rhemtulla agreed. "We can't solve the [climate change] problem by growing back all the forests," she said. "It's only part of the solution."

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC.  www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe