Intuitively I’d guess the carbon is net negative because so many forests require fire in order to differentiate strong, durable trees from weaker ones, which then opens the canopy, returns nutrients to the soil, and creates conditions more like we see in old growth forests which are able to store absolutely massive amounts of carbon compared to young (even very dense) forests.
Not only that but they store water better, too. They’re less likely to burn as they stay wetter later in the dry season and hold onto rain and atmospheric moisture far better.
Cutting down old forests was a much worse idea than anyone would have guessed.
> Cutting down old forests was a much worse idea than anyone would have guessed.
It's species dependent.. Cutting down trees that take 250 years to mature probably isn't sustainable for example.
However, logging can be a carbon negative practice if done with correct practices and the correct species. You're literally taking the mass of the air and turning it into a useful building material.
If they are occupying the same environment then the same argument applies to native species no longer regularly exposed to fire. But unless its being actively selected against, then it disappearing through random drift alone would, I'd think, be a pretty slow process, even by evolutionary timescales.
Research has also shown its net carbon negative.