Recently we presented data on the amount and distribution of standing-tree carbon on 1.5 M ha of Tasmanian State forest (Moroni et al. 2010) and deduced that the concept of carbon-carrying capacity (CCC) could usefully be applied at the site level but not at the landscape level in disturbance-driven wet eucalypt forest ecosystems. The recent response in this journal of Dean (2011) perpetuates the confusion between site-level CCC and attainable landscape-level C stocks, but mostly comprises material not at all relevant to the data and concepts presented by Moroni et al. (2010). Here, we rebut the response of Dean (2011) to the substance of our original analysis, in regard to the CCC of forests subject to disturbance, processes of ecological succession with and without disturbance, the use of Forest Class inventory datasets, and old-growth forest as a reference state. We respond to the wider issues raised by Dean (2011) by noting that the carbon footprint of active forest management needs to consider not the long-term landscape-average C stocks attainable under natural or anthropogenic disturbance regimes, but also the carbon stock in wood products, and furthermore the carbon emissions mitigation resulting from the use of timber in place of resources with higher greenhouse-gas emissions.
The Wood, the Trees, or the Forest? Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest: A Response to Comments