<p>The presence of nearby rainforest is known to measurably deplete the local atmospheric <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> content, but how much would <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span>-hungry crops reduce local <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span> and which crop would deplete it most? My guess is that maize would be among the most <span class="math-container">$\small\mathsf{CO_2}$</span>-hungry crops. Could anything compete with rainforest?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-15T18:37:32.523Z
[If forests are cut down in favor of arable land and pasture land, it reduces the capacity of plants and soil to take up CO2. "**The wood in a forest can store more CO2 than corn** for example," explains Arneth who in her research deals with the interaction between the atmosphere, plants and soil. If deforestation were to continue, it could even be expected that large parts of the tropics will change from a CO2 basin—which absorbs more CO2 than it releases—to a CO2 source.](https://phys.org/news/2018-07-expansion-agricultural-co2-absorption.html)
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-15T18:54:28.773Z
Dry biomass produced per hectare per year is a first-order approximation to the amount of CO₂ removed from the air. However, woody and non-woody crops with high yield such as poplar, elephant grass (miscanthus), or sugar cane are often grown specifically for the production of renewable energy, thus there is at best a minimal sequestration effect from residual plant matter being plowed into the ground etc. You may want to clarify the question as to whether you are looking for the highest rate of (short-term) CO₂ removal, or are interested in long-term sequestration aspects.
njuffa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-15T18:55:45.930Z
Yes, but corn,sugar cane or some other crop can be harvested year after year. Some climates can support 3 or 4 harvests per year. Unfortunately, farm crops make a very poor habitat for wildlife.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-15T19:02:58.987Z
I'm asking about the short term effects, but if the land is worked for a hundred years, the short term effect becomes a long term effect. I'm certainly not saying it would be a good thing to cut down the rain forest and replace it with agriculture.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-16T01:59:39.343Z
If you are talking about the rate of photosynthesis, the [map here](http://www.yadvindermalhi.org/blog/does-the-amazon-provide-20-of-our-oxygen) suggests that rainforests win.
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-16T02:12:03.607Z
@njuffa Don't food crops also have minimal sequestration?
Keith McClary
<co2><farm><rainforest>
Which Farm Crops Are Most Efficient at Reducing Local CO2?
Michael Walsby
# Which Farm Crops Are Most Efficient at Reducing Local CO2?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-15)

The presence of nearby rainforest is known to measurably deplete the local atmospheric $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ content, but how much would $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$-hungry crops reduce local $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$ and which crop would deplete it most? My guess is that maize would be among the most $\small\mathsf{CO\_2}$-hungry crops. Could anything compete with rainforest?

**Tags:** co2, farm, rainforest

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [If forests are cut down in favor of arable land and pasture land, it reduces the capacity of plants and soil to take up CO2. "**The wood in a forest can store more CO2 than corn** for example," explains Arneth who in her research deals with the interaction between the atmosphere, plants and soil. If deforestation were to continue, it could even be expected that large parts of the tropics will change from a CO2 basin—which absorbs more CO2 than it releases—to a CO2 source.](https://phys.org/news/2018-07-expansion-agricultural-co2-absorption.html)  
> **username_2**: Dry biomass produced per hectare per year is a first-order approximation to the amount of CO₂ removed from the air. However, woody and non-woody crops with high yield such as poplar, elephant grass (miscanthus), or sugar cane are often grown specifically for the production of renewable energy, thus there is at best a minimal sequestration effect from residual plant matter being plowed into the ground etc. You may want to clarify the question as to whether you are looking for the highest rate of (short-term) CO₂ removal, or are interested in long-term sequestration aspects.  
> **username_0**: Yes, but corn,sugar cane or some other crop can be harvested year after year. Some climates can support 3 or 4 harvests per year. Unfortunately, farm crops make a very poor habitat for wildlife.  
> **username_0**: I'm asking about the short term effects, but if the land is worked for a hundred years, the short term effect becomes a long term effect. I'm certainly not saying it would be a good thing to cut down the rain forest and replace it with agriculture.  
> **username_3**: If you are talking about the rate of photosynthesis, the [map here](http://www.yadvindermalhi.org/blog/does-the-amazon-provide-20-of-our-oxygen) suggests that rainforests win.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 Don't food crops also have minimal sequestration?  

---

## 0 answers

