Which type of vegetation absorbs the most CO2, rain forest or flat grass?

Question

Under the same weather and irrigation conditions, which form of vegetation absorbs more CO2, woodland or a plain field of grass of the same area?

Answer 1

The other answers seem to be confusing CO2 absorption with CO2 storage, the question is not asking about storage. Rainforests and woodland are good CO2 sinks as the trees contain large carbon stores in their trunks etc as previously identified above, but once a rainforest or woodland is mature it does not take up much CO2, as trees must die (and then rot, releasing CO2) to make way for new trees to grow, so the net usage of CO2 is negligable. Most grasses are C4 plants which are much better adapted to capture CO2 and convert it to useable carbon compounds than C3 plants (rainforest plants are C3 plants), in this respect grasses are better at ABSORBING CO2, in the same time period and area. A grassland is not good at storing it, as stated above, seasonally grasses tend to die releasing their CO2 back into the atmosphere, but storage was not the question, so I believe the correct answer is grass. The question askes "of the same area" both rainforest and grass of the same area are absorbing the same amount of sunlight (only the canopy of a rainforest absorbs sun, thats why there is little growing on the ground in a rainforest, very little light penetrates, thus there is little photosynthesis, and thus there is little CO2 absorption). If the same area of vegetation is absorbing the same amount of sunlight (think of a birds eye view of both, there is the same area of "green"), but the grass is more efficient at using that light to fix CO2 because it uses C4 photosynthesis then it will as a result be absorbing more CO2, it's as simple as that.

Answer 2

Under the same weather and irrigation conditions, the grass fields because they would be quickly growing into rainforests! But I understand what you mean - right now it would probably be a tropical forest - their productivity is increasing as CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase (it's called the global carbon sink), but this is unstable and could crash - meaning global warming could suddenly get a lot worse! Hope that helps xx

Answer 3

No, they both absorb CO2.

I don't know if you're talking about similar surface areas or similar biomass...a 1 square mile patch of grass would absorb LESS CO2 than 1 square mile of woodland simply because the plants (trees) are bigger and CAN absorb more in the woodland.

Answer 4

Rain! Rain! Rain! Rain! Rain! As a baby I used to roll around in the grass with my acquaintances and it replace into exciting. immediately i'm getting a rash as quickly as I try this! i don't be attentive to why besides the fact that if it itches like loopy! via this i attempt to stay removed from grass or perhaps the scent of specific varieties of grasses will make me sneeze or itch even while i'm close to it. Our front backyard and maximum of our backyard has been switched over to rocks and cement to assist do away with this project. My mom lives down the line countless properties over and our females play over there because of the fact we've little or no grass left.

Answer 5

More CO2 is absorbed BY grass or short growing plants, but more CO2 is absorbed (and kept) IN mature trees. Trees are bigger, therefore they store more carbon.


Grass is a very short CO2 reservoir while trees are long term storage holds.

So I guess it's trees (rainforest) as thw wood/bark/trunk also acts as a CO2 sink.

Answer 6

surely logic would suggest forest, in terms of sheer leaf area there is more green so more CO2 is absorbed.
and you are right it takes in co2 and gives of oxygen.

Answer 7

Rain forest, plain and simple.
Guess what, these other people don't know what they're talking about.
Catch ya later,
*JMac*

Answer 8

I think it gives of CO2

Answer 9

I believe it gives off co2