CO2 sequestration may not protect species

CORVALLIS, Ore., July 9 (UPI) -- A U.S. study finds paying rural landowners to protect at-risk animals won't necessarily mean conserved trees and plants will absorb more carbon dioxide.

The Oregon State University study analyzed hypothetical payments that were given to landowners to voluntarily take their acreage out of production for conservation. The study then examined the relationship between the absorption of carbon, a contributor to global warming, by trees and plants and the protection of 37 different types of animals under each of various scenarios and payment schemes.

"The main thing we found is that if you want to conserve species, that policy might not be compatible with carbon sequestration," said co-author Professor Andrew Plantinga. "On the other hand, if you want to get carbon out of the atmosphere, it's not clear that will be good for species."

He said the conclusion is: "When you think about policies targeted to private landowners, government has to be careful about how it does this because it may achieve one objective but at the expense of something else."

The research appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.