Study Reveals Trees Could Absorb Less Carbon Than Anticipated

WHO:

The Guardian - Mukund Palat Rao, a carbon cycle scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, is the lead author of the study.

WHAT:

The Guardian - A study found that trees may not store as much carbon as previously anticipated, with photosynthesis not always leading to wood growth.

The Guardian - Researchers studied 137 sites across the US.

The Guardian - About 36% of yearly carbon uptake in the eastern US occurred after tree growth stopped in late summer.

The Guardian - In California, about 26% of yearly carbon uptake occurred after tree growth stopped.

The Guardian - The study indicates that if more absorbed carbon flows toward transient uses, the capacity of forests to act as carbon sinks would decrease.

WHERE:

The Guardian - The study was conducted at 137 sites across the US, specifically mentioning sites in the eastern US and California.

WHEN:

The Guardian - The study was published in the journal Science Advances.

WHY:

The Guardian - The findings suggest that the assumption that photosynthesis directly correlates with tree growth may lead to overestimations of future forest carbon sequestration.

HOW:

The Guardian - The researchers measured wood growth and photosynthesis at various sites, noting that wood growth was restricted to periods of low aridity and temperature.

The Guardian - The study highlights that growth activity stops instantly under dry and hot conditions, while photosynthesis may continue at a decreased rate.

(UPDATED June 13, 2026 06:22 UTC)

A new study led by Mukund Palat Rao, a carbon cycle scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, reveals that trees may not store as much carbon as previously thought, with photosynthesis not always resulting in wood growth. Researchers examined 137 sites across the U.S., finding that in the eastern U.S., about 36% of yearly carbon uptake occurred after tree growth halted in late summer, while in California, that figure was around 26%. The study suggests that if more absorbed carbon is directed toward temporary uses, the ability of forests to function as effective carbon sinks could diminish significantly.