A significant component of climate-smart forestry (CSF) is increasing the amount of carbon stored by forests, which is commonly a result of increased planting of trees or improving the productivity of forests. Forest productivity is generally defined as the forest volume at any given time.

Forest volume can be increased through various efforts such as reforestation (replanting forests), afforestation (planting trees on previously nonforested land), thinning practices, extending rotation ages of current forest stands, fertilization, and practices to control competition such as prescribed fire and the use of herbicides. However, CSF is much more than sequestering and storing carbon. With sustainable forestry and responsible land management in mind, prioritizing enhanced forest productivity without reason—known as carbon tunnel vision—should be avoided. Due to the vast array of ecosystems and socioeconomic regions in the United States, there are no explicit step-by-step directions when employing CSF for any specific forest or timber stand. Instead, general guidelines direct landowners on how to make the best decisions for their land. Flexibility is vital for CSF practices and will help limit carbon tunnel vision and encourage land-use optimization.

Avoiding Carbon Tunnel Vision

Refraining from carbon tunnel vision is easier said than done. Land managers must consider the ecosystem in which they are managing as well as the socioeconomic status of their surroundings. An easy way to understand this concept is to look at forests in the southern, northeastern, and western regions of the United States. Each region’s forest productivity and timber markets are vastly different and would not be utilized to their fullest potential if they were all managed the same.

For example, timber markets and forest productivity are favorable in the southern region. Managing for enhanced pine production might be the most suitable approach to incorporate CSF practices. On the other hand, marginal forestland in the region might be better suited for management focused on longer rotation ages or hardwood species. In the northeastern region, where forest productivity is lower and timber markets are weaker, a management approach focused on reforestation for woody biofuels might be the best option. Western forests are productive but generally have weaker timber markets than the southern region. Managing western forests for long rotation ages might be best.

However, some areas may need to be managed with biodiversity at the forefront. This can still be done through the lens of CSF by implementing heavy thinning treatments, such as increasing frequency or removing volume. Implementation of heavy thinning treatments increases carbon storage, provides consistent revenue, and supports greater plant and animal biodiversity through increased sunlight availability to support diverse understory plant communities. When coupled with longer rotation ages, heavy thinning treatments can provide similar functionality benefits to that of heterogenous old-growth forests.

Encouraging Land-Use Optimization

Just because a forest can be established in an area does not mean it should be. While forests have the highest productivity compared to prairies or agricultural lands, making space for grasslands and croplands is just as crucial for mitigation. Afforestation (planting forests on previously nonforested land) of these areas can be attractive for carbon sequestration. Grasslands are vital for biodiversity, water supply, and erosion control, and croplands are essential for providing food to a growing world. In addition, specific climatic conditions may not be suitable for supporting a productive forest and would be better suited as another biome, such as grasslands. Keeping this in mind, CSF practices must acknowledge this balance of needs. The fact that forests are the most productive in sequestering carbon does not mean that we should plant trees wherever there is space.

Summary

Though there may be many more caveats in actual application, starting with this basic knowledge helps move away from carbon tunnel vision. To avoid carbon tunnel vision, CSF approaches should reflect alternative scenarios for forest mitigation (carbon accumulation and storage) and adaptation (forest management and increased forest resilience). CSF is more than just tree plantings or increased forest productivity. What ecosystems and socioeconomic regions are most appropriate for increased carbon sequestration and storage should be considered at a broader level. CSF practices for specific forests should be a balance of mitigation and adaptation strategies that support sustainable forestry and responsible land management. This extends beyond maximizing tree growth (carbon storage), whether for wood production, ecosystem function and health, or habitat quality. For more information on CSF, visit the Alabama Extension website at www.aces.edu. For more information on carbon tunnel vision, visit the IOPscience website.

Samantha Schweisthal, Graduate Research Assistant, and Adam Maggard, Extension Specialist, Assistant Professor, both in Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment, Auburn University; and Noah Shephard, Graduate Research Assistant, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia.

New November 2024, Effective Climate-Smart Forestry: Carbon Tunnel Vision, FOR-2168