Ahmed wrote:Whether trees rot naturally or are burned does not change the atmospheric carbon cycle point of view. As for the carbon footprint of a "natural" forest, it is strictly neutral over time, but the initial phase immobilizes CO.2 en masse. So extending the forest mantle where possible is a good thing, especially since the influence of the forest is strongly manifested in terms of rainfall (emissions of micro particles that trigger the formation of droplets in the clouds) and temperature (in the sense of greater freshness).
This is not true for old forests, in any case it is a received idea that has been widely attacked in recent years: old trees are those which store the most carbon per unit area and per year, more than a young plantation in full growth even dense, as counterintuitive as it sounds. Again I already had to put a link (to check). Finally, this is due to the fact that the old hyper mature trees have had time to absolutely optimize the light received, and by their highly developed roots the soil resources.