Both old and young forest plays significant role in slowing climate change, although old forest May seems to play more significant role because of the rich in its biodiversity especially the large volume of the tree canopy, also the young forest could also do so depending on it's structure, components and the age of the young forest.

Article From monospecific to mixed forest after fire?: An early fore...

Article From monospecific to mixed forest after fire?: An early fore...

Article Carbon Stock of European Beech Forest; A Case at M. Pizzalto, Italy

hope it helps to focus

Young forest with rich biodiversity

Thank you so much Abhijit Mitra , I have read your article and it is very helpful but it brings one more question in my mind.

Is it possible to maintain the rich biodiversity through the Young forest?

I have read your articles Hein Van Gils and it helps me to understand the question.

thank you so much for your valuable input.

it is young forest that can sequestering/sink more Carbon than the old one, but there is variation in across species and good to have diverse species.

It is better to have multilayer forest. so that it can maintain good biodiversity as well as it will provide several valueble materials and beneficial in climate change too.

At least for the boreal forests - old forest also store carbon for a long periode. I does not help much to produce volumes of young forests that is harvested rather early to become newspaper paper - which might be recirculated a few times before being burnt. The questions is good - but answer is difficult and it is deferent in different kind of forests.

I think young growing forests with good biodiversity would be better with a demand for food manufacture, hence utilizing carbon dioxide of the atmosphere.

You apparently have accepted widespread theory concerning what is responsible for climate change.

The conventional and widely accepted, BUT WRONG thesis (based on mathematical climate models) is that carbon containing greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) drive the global climate and are pollutants----while in truth carbon dioxide is plant food essential for photosynthesis.  As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen during recent decades, terrestrial plant productivity has increases by about 30%.

In short the majority of humanity has been taken in by the 'group think' concerning the cause of the minor mostly NATURAL cyclical climate warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s. Having accepted the 'group think' thesis --- many researchers proceed to exercise their minds as to how to curb or reverse the accumulation of carbon containing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere / without ever questioning whether the modeler's assumptions are correct. Do read scientific information on realistic climate science at  friendsofscience.org

and the statement of the Global Climate Intelligence Group at  https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WCD-A4version042020.pdf Peter Salonius

Thanks for your opinions Munira Nasiruddin , Vinaya Satyawan Tari and Wondimagegn Mengist .

I agree with you all but this brings me one more question.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_to_maintain_rich_biodiversity_through_the_Young_forest?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=NRJgyhVZmLBaQUKykQu9HYIrKR8Zfo1fzB5n-5xZVQ4mDjEMEYD_gaQg04rGz-3Y8Rl9Qu9aGC2-WbXd

Thank you Ole Jakob Sørensen , Joaquín Duque Lazo . I think the same that both types of forests are important but old forests are more prone to CC, so it's better to be prepared.

Thank you for your valuable input Peter Salonius . I am believing because we are experiencing uneven weather patterns and extreme events frequently than before. I have read the report. I agree that climate change is very slow and there is no model that say correctly and the forest productivity is also increasing, as you carbon dioxide is food for plants. But I am scared because of the increasing intensity of forest fire, high tides, melting of glaciers, sea-level rise.

Both are important - and to reforest former forested areas f- will always be give a net positive result for storing carbon. And trees will do so as long as they live. I just wanted to put a litle focus on the important aspect of sequestring carbon that goes on in old forests, too - then as dead organic C. .

Old forested areas has more capacity in sequestering carbon because of its volumes of canopy. young forested areas also sequestered carbon but only minimal. but carbon could be sequestered by the plants its depends upon the type of species.

Both type are important but old forest have accumulated more carbon in wood, litter and soil. However, young forest with fast growing species is also playing major role in carbon accumulation.

Concerns about supposed increasing intensity of forest fire, high tides, melting of glaciers and sea-level rise would be altered if readers avoided popular media reporting and exposed themselves to the information I referred to on actual climate science.

I think young plantation forests are the choice. Because we planting them in proper place and Time. Also, they are healthy or free from Diseases and pests.

There is no scientific information that demonstrates that a forest of any kind has any influence on global temperatures. Apparently you think that the capacity of a particular forest type to store carbon over a period of time has some effect on the climate. There is no evidence this is true, it is very unlikely to be true, but the people that believe this speculation have somehow had a significant effect on global politics and economics. If you think a forest should be managed for its capacity to store carbon, then probably the conifer forests of the western US, Amazonian jungles, and Australian hardwoods are good starting points. But they are affected by regional climatic conditions, not real influencers.

You, Joaquín Duque Lazo might have seen after the fire events, the land is not going to be sterile. After some time the new seedlings are coming and these are holding the remaining part of the carbon in the soil.

Thank you for your input and I'll start reading again from starting about climate change as per your sayings. Bob Zybach , Peter Salonius .

Both old and young forest plays significant role in slowing climate change, although old forest May seems to play more significant role because of the rich in its biodiversity especially the large volume of the tree canopy, also the young forest could also do so depending on it's structure, components and the age of the young forest.

Many thanks for sharing your knowledge

Natural forest that have not experience any form of degradation and is well protected

A forest mixed in essence and age class. And there we have to think about how it is managed?

It is true, Moses Fayiah but due to natural disturbances, it is continuously degrading. so it is better to think about precautionary measures before.

Amal Hassina Smaihi Yeah. We have to start thinking about it through the natural process, not by data modeling.

I agree with you, Anozie Ebere Loretto but old forest are more prone to natural disturbances too.

Je suis d'accord avec vous Shivam Sharma, la solution est de s'intégrer au processus écologiques et chercher la logique propre à cette nature si magnifique et ne jamais essayé de la modifier.

Dans le contexte et la conjoncture actuels du changement climatique, il faudrait coûte que coûte changé les esprits et limité de satisfaire nos désir sur le compte des génération futures. l'humain devrait vivre avec du bio ( plus forte immunité) et minimiser la transformation des produits de consommation afin de se limiter dans l'exploitation des ressources naturelles. exemple : on vit l'ère du numérique (enseignement par l'utilisation d'outils numériques) alors arrêté d'exploiter les forêts pour produire la pâte à papier.

Yes, Amal Hassina Smaihi I agreed. We have to stop exploiting nature unnecessarily. We have to learn to live with nature in a sustainable manner.