Do broadleaf or coniferous trees absorb more CO2 in a year?

Or to generalize better, does an average acre of broadleaf forest absorb more co2 in an average year than an acre of coniferous (needle-producing) forest?





A single leaf has more surface area than a single needle, of course, but conifers produce huge numbers of needles and they are able to photosynthesize earlier in spring and later in autumn than broadleaf trees.





I know that many organizations that plant trees usually concentrate on conifer seedlings, because they grow quickly and are low-maintenance --- but are they as useful in extracting CO2 from the atmosphere? This is what I'm trying to determine.

Do broadleaf or coniferous trees absorb more CO2 in a year?
The following link will help you in your research.





http://www.cfr.washington.edu/Classes.es...





http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane...





A quote from a net source =





Moran, E.Fsays in his work titled "Deforestation and Land Use in the Brazilian Amazon", Human Ecology, Vol 21, No. 1, 1993 “It took more than 15 years for the "lungs of the world" myth to be corrected. Rain forests contribute little net oxygen additions to the atmosphere through photosynthesis.”
Reply:Needle leaves absorb more CO2 in a year. The surface area of all needles of a pine tree is about twight the size of that of a comparable beechs leaves f.e.


And coniferous trees are evergreen and photosynthesize in winter too.


And they grow more quickly ( large trees %26gt;more photosynthesis )