Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Letter to the Editor
Research Article
  • Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest, M. T. Moroni, T. H. Kelley, and M. L. McLarin
    International Journal of Forestry Research
    Research Article (13 pages), Article ID 690462, Volume 2010 (2010)
    Published 3 March 2011
International Journal of Forestry Research
Volume 2012, Article ID 762080, 3 pages
Letter to the Editor

Creative Carbon Accounting—A Reply to “The Wood, the Trees, or the Forest? Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest: A Response to Comments”

1School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
2Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, High Street, Randwick, NSW 2052, Australia
3Department of Environment and Agriculture, Biodiversity and Climate Institute, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia

Received 7 May 2012; Accepted 13 May 2012

Copyright © 2012 Christopher Dean. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Moroni et al. (2012) made forty claims which misrepresent my earlier reply to their work (Dean, 2011) and if left unrefuted, might mislead all but the most expert reader—I cover seven of the most important ones here. Firstly, in my earlier paper I had calculated a conservative carbon deficit in State forests due to logging of the most-targeted forest types—mature wet-eucalypt—by clearfell, burn and sow to yield even-aged eucalypt regeneration. That deficit was conservative as a range of stand ages were used even though most carbon flux through logging has been from the old-growth subset. It was additionally conservative at the landscape-scale as inclusion of conversion to plantation and logging of other primary-forest types would have yielded a larger carbon deficit, not a smaller one, as implied in Moroni et al. (2012). Secondly, their claim that I applied “carbon saturation” at the landscape-scale is incorrect. Instead I applied carbon carrying capacity at that scale and included different stands ages in its calculation (by definition). Conversely, Moroni et al. (2012) produce the “confusion” which they claim to observe by advocating the use of “carbon saturation” at the landscape-scale, which can have no practical usage.