Jerry asked examples of the role that pollinators play in carbon sequestering.

Unfortunately, I think the answer is "little or none".  The problem is that when you follow the carbon cycle, a huge amount is affected by pollination but almost none of the carbon is actually sequestered.

1.  Carbon makes up about 40% of the sugars in nectar (by weight).  Since we pull off millions of tons of honey each year, in theory that's a lot of carbon.  But the carbon is re-released as carbon dioxide soon as it is consumed and digested - whether it is consumed by the bees or by us.  It's not trapped unless you somehow remove it from the environment.  Personally, I'm unwilling to dump my honey.

2.  A few weeks ago, someone posted about a study that carbon-uptake of a plant increased shortly after pollination.  That's unsurprising since the plant has to spend a lot of energy creating the fruit/seed/etc after pollination - and much of that fruit will be carbon-based.  Again however, that carbon is re-released during consumption.  The apple core that ends up at the bottom of the landfill is sequestered but a) it's a small amount and b) I doubt your audience will think that increasing our landfills makes for a good ecological strategy.

3.  Pollination increases the growth of leafy plants (either in the current plant or in the next season).  Again, most of that carbon will be re-released when the plant dies and decomposes.  Some small amount will be sequestered as a contribution to the local topsoil but that's a pretty small amount.

About the only way that we can contribute to carbon sequestration is if the pollination increases the growth of the woody-components of trees.  Cutting down the trees for use as lumber still keeps the carbon sequestered.  (Letting it rot or burning it for fuel, however, return it to the environment.)  Pollination does not, to my knowledge, increase the plant's wood production.  It does, however, lead to the growth of new trees.  But lots of other factors also lead to increases in wooded lots.  It would be tough to claim credit for pollinators when so many other factors (like farm set-asides) are also claiming credit.

I guess you could also claim a benefit if you were pollinating in areas where the plants are unlikely to rot.  A peat bog comes to mind as an area where carbon is actually sequestered.  There aren't too many places where that's the dominant terrain - and we don't tend to do a lot of farming in those areas.

A third scenario would be the plant matter lost to the environment by falling into the ocean if it sinks deeply enough to be truly trapped.  Pollen might drift out to sea in significant quantities but I'm guessing that the most pollen subject to that level of drifting will be from wind-pollinated species, not bee-pollinated species.  Pollinators can't claim much credit.

Pollination is important but I just don't see a credible way that we can jump on the "carbon-trapping" bandwagon.






Mike Rossander
       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************