Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest”
Moroni et al. (2010) reported extant, spatially representative carbon stocks for Tasmania's State forest. Their disputation of earlier work, contextual setting, redefinition of carbon carrying capacity (CCC), methods, adoption of ecological concepts and consequent conclusions on carbon flux wer...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2011-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Forestry Research |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/212361 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832558852311089152 |
|---|---|
| author | Christopher Dean |
| author_facet | Christopher Dean |
| author_sort | Christopher Dean |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Moroni et al. (2010) reported extant, spatially representative carbon stocks for Tasmania's State forest. Their disputation of earlier work, contextual setting, redefinition of carbon carrying capacity (CCC), methods, adoption of ecological concepts and consequent conclusions on carbon flux were investigated. Their reported data was very useful; however, the absence of sufficient context and fundamental equations was atypical of scientific publications; old-growth should have been differentiated from mature forests and wet-sclerophyll from mixed-forest, redefinition of CCC was unwarranted, and several of their arguments and conclusions appeared unwarranted. From their graphs and tables, I estimated that the carbon deficit in State forest biomass (the amount below CCC) due to commercial forestry was conservatively 29(±4) Tg (or 106(±13) Mtonnes CO2-eq; with couped-production forests 29(±6)% below CCC) a greenhouse gas mitigation opportunity—indicating the usefulness of the existing definition of CCC. Also, using their data, earlier work on long-term fluxes accompanying conversion of wet-eucalypt forests to harvesting cycles was found to correspond to 0.56(±0.01) Mha (i.e., >1/3 of State forest), 76(±2)% of which is in the commercial production area—in contrast to their claim that earlier work referred to a small and atypical proportion. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-39a9101a098847d18d628988ad747347 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-9368 1687-9376 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2011-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Forestry Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-39a9101a098847d18d628988ad7473472025-02-03T01:31:23ZengWileyInternational Journal of Forestry Research1687-93681687-93762011-01-01201110.1155/2011/212361212361Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest”Christopher Dean0Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, High Street, Randwick, NSW 2052, AustraliaMoroni et al. (2010) reported extant, spatially representative carbon stocks for Tasmania's State forest. Their disputation of earlier work, contextual setting, redefinition of carbon carrying capacity (CCC), methods, adoption of ecological concepts and consequent conclusions on carbon flux were investigated. Their reported data was very useful; however, the absence of sufficient context and fundamental equations was atypical of scientific publications; old-growth should have been differentiated from mature forests and wet-sclerophyll from mixed-forest, redefinition of CCC was unwarranted, and several of their arguments and conclusions appeared unwarranted. From their graphs and tables, I estimated that the carbon deficit in State forest biomass (the amount below CCC) due to commercial forestry was conservatively 29(±4) Tg (or 106(±13) Mtonnes CO2-eq; with couped-production forests 29(±6)% below CCC) a greenhouse gas mitigation opportunity—indicating the usefulness of the existing definition of CCC. Also, using their data, earlier work on long-term fluxes accompanying conversion of wet-eucalypt forests to harvesting cycles was found to correspond to 0.56(±0.01) Mha (i.e., >1/3 of State forest), 76(±2)% of which is in the commercial production area—in contrast to their claim that earlier work referred to a small and atypical proportion.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/212361 |
| spellingShingle | Christopher Dean Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest” International Journal of Forestry Research |
| title | Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest” |
| title_full | Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest” |
| title_fullStr | Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest” |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest” |
| title_short | Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest” |
| title_sort | comment on carbon in trees in tasmanian state forest |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/212361 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christopherdean commentoncarbonintreesintasmanianstateforest |