30. Arnoldia 78/3 « February 2021 
diameter each year—an imperceptible increase 
to even an observant naturalist—but a layer 
of carbon equal to adding an entire six-inch- 
diameter tree.® 
The amount of carbon stored in the trees 
across my property is over 50 percent higher 
than in an average acre and a half of forest in 
Connecticut.’ The elevated levels can be attrib- 
uted to the relatively high density of large trees 
in my woods, for which I have the past own- 
ers to thank. In addition to the two large oaks, 
seven other trees exceed twenty-seven inches 
in trunk diameter. A typical acre and a half of 
forest in Connecticut currently contains only 
one or two trees of this size.® Ironically, the for- 
est edge associated with residential properties 
appears to contribute to large tree growth. Trees 
within one hundred feet of a forest edge (which 
many of mine are) grow faster and thus are often 
larger—and store more carbon—than those in a 
forest interior because of reduced competition 
for light and greater leaf area.? Hence, smaller 
residential properties can be surprisingly impor- 
tant contributors to carbon sequestration. 
Natural Climate Solutions 
As a property owner, I have many different 
options for how to manage the vegetation grow- 
ing on my lot to increase the removal of car- 
bon dioxide from the atmosphere and to reduce 
emissions. These practices are collectively 
referred to as natural climate solutions.!° 
By choosing not to convert the forest on my 
property into lawn or field (a practice known 
as avoided conversion), I refrain from emit- 
ting the carbon stored in those trees into the 
atmosphere as carbon dioxide: 310 tons of it. 
(Carbon dioxide emissions can be calculated 
by multiplying organic carbon—in this case, 
84.3 tons—by 3.67). Three-hundred-ten tons of 
carbon dioxide is equivalent to the annual emis- 
sions of sixty-one cars.!! These are not insig- 
nificant numbers, and when multiplied across 
hundreds of thousands of small properties, the 
potential for avoided emissions is notable. 
When retaining a forest, I have a range of 
management decisions that will affect the 
amount of carbon stored in my woods. At one 
extreme, I could remove all the adult trees and 
regenerate a young forest. At the other extreme, 
I could remove an occasional tree for firewood, 
a practice that falls within the category of 
reduced impact forest management, or, by prac- 
ticing wildlands management, I could remove 
no trees at all. Not surprisingly, the latter sce- 
narios result in a significantly greater amount 
of carbon storage in my woods than the former 
scenario. In fact, any tree removal on a prop- 
erty like mine reduces carbon storage below 
the potential maximum for that site (although 
it is also true that if I leave all my trees stand- 
ing, which I mostly do, and obtain my firewood 
from another source, I transfer that carbon loss 
to another property). Hence, reduced impact 
forest management—retaining more trees, 
particularly large ones, for more time—can 
make an important difference in the amount of 
carbon that is retained in a forest.” 
Decisions about tree retention in residential 
areas often involve mitigating risk to power 
lines. A few years ago, for instance, the power 
company asked for my permission to cut three 
healthy trees on the edge of my previous prop- 
erty: a red oak, white oak (Quercus alba), and 
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), all with trunk 
diameters of more than thirty inches. Remov- 
ing three trees would not have resulted in any 
forest conversion on my property—indeed, 
there are young, small trees growing under- 
neath these big ones—but the carbon stored on 
my property would have been reduced by about 
eight tons, equivalent to the annual emissions 
of almost six cars. A large tree thirty inches 
in diameter also removes about seventy times 
the quantity of pollutants (including carbon 
monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particu- 
late matter) as a tree three inches in diameter.!* 
I decided that the trees were a relatively low 
risk to the powerlines and would provide more 
benefits if I allowed them to continue to grow 
and sequester carbon. 
Wildlands management, the decision not 
to cut or mow any trees, has obvious limita- 
tions near houses, but it can be applied to more 
removed areas. In the relatively small number of 
wilderness areas and strict nature preserves in 
the northeastern United States, the trees store 
a disproportionately large amount of carbon 
