Plans to plant billions of trees threatened by undersupply of seedlings(uvm.edu)
uvm.edu
Plans to plant billions of trees threatened by undersupply of seedlings
https://www.uvm.edu/news/story/plans-plant-billions-trees-threatened-massive-undersupply-seedlings
97 comments
This won't get resolved until collectively we move from "planted X millions of trees" to "X millions of trees have flourished for 5/10/15 years".
The problem of course is that it's a) much more difficult and expensive to keep track of survival rates, and b) provides no immediate green-washing credentials (politicians, corps, looking at you).
Thankfully there are some NGOs that are doing it right, proper analysis of the site, selection of diverse species, and yearly visits to measure survival rates.
It's just that presently, these are the minority.
The problem of course is that it's a) much more difficult and expensive to keep track of survival rates, and b) provides no immediate green-washing credentials (politicians, corps, looking at you).
Thankfully there are some NGOs that are doing it right, proper analysis of the site, selection of diverse species, and yearly visits to measure survival rates.
It's just that presently, these are the minority.
Have you ever heard of Scientific Forestry? It was something documented in James C Scott's Seeing Like a State. Here's a long-form essay summerizing the ideas in the book: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...
These forests were planted during the late colonial era by the French and German. The great naval powers at the time were running out of trees tall and straight enough to make masts. They cut down natural old-growth forests, and planted trees in a way that makes it easier to count. They grew better, and called it a success. However, that first generation grew well because they used up the nutrients banked by the natural forest. The subsequent generations did not grow as well.
So over the centuries or so of trying this, they tried things like, adding in insects, and measuring their rate of growth. But it all stems trying to force a complex system into something that is legible, but the results are its own folly.[1]
Frankly, our climate and global ecosystem is a complex, adaptive system [2][3][4], and to think that we can reduce solutions based on a single metric, such as atmospheric CO2 numbers, is a disaster in the making from our collective hubris.
[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-trees-are-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework#Complex
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
These forests were planted during the late colonial era by the French and German. The great naval powers at the time were running out of trees tall and straight enough to make masts. They cut down natural old-growth forests, and planted trees in a way that makes it easier to count. They grew better, and called it a success. However, that first generation grew well because they used up the nutrients banked by the natural forest. The subsequent generations did not grow as well.
So over the centuries or so of trying this, they tried things like, adding in insects, and measuring their rate of growth. But it all stems trying to force a complex system into something that is legible, but the results are its own folly.[1]
Frankly, our climate and global ecosystem is a complex, adaptive system [2][3][4], and to think that we can reduce solutions based on a single metric, such as atmospheric CO2 numbers, is a disaster in the making from our collective hubris.
[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-s-trees-are-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework#Complex
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
Indeed, ideally we should be thinking in tree lifespans, or several hundred years.
But right now, we plant oaks, which can live for centuries, and don't even think about next year's dry season. And then wonder why they die from lack of water.
Now fast growing sitkas, which can be harvested in 30 years for profit, seem to be doing just fine...
But right now, we plant oaks, which can live for centuries, and don't even think about next year's dry season. And then wonder why they die from lack of water.
Now fast growing sitkas, which can be harvested in 30 years for profit, seem to be doing just fine...
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they may never sit.
I know a guy who can rant at length about wetland restoration. Wetland plants have several waves of succession. If you plant A and B at the same time, B never establishes because A takes over. If you plant A and C at the same time, C dies because it needs A to be mature in order to live. Because restorations are an 'event' with an allocated budget, we make a big show of showing up and planting A,B&C all at the same time, when what we really need to do is plant B year one, A year three, and C year five.
Edit: I kinda suspect the correct solution here is to have 3 separate funding sources and to hit each up in turn, so they all get their event.
Edit: I kinda suspect the correct solution here is to have 3 separate funding sources and to hit each up in turn, so they all get their event.
If you are concerned, get involved. It's likely trivially easy for you to get face to face with the person responsible for the plantings, and it's unlikely anything will change in your backyard unless you or another concerned citizen does something.
It's really not "trivially easy" to get in contact when the operation is run by a government or a corporation (even less).
At best they "hear you" and "will take it into account", then keep on doing what was planned. At worst they treat you like an idiot or a lunatic. And it's not like the company hired to do the work is going to listen to some random person telling them how to do their job.
Only thing I've found works is volunteering for orgs that actually do things right, if you can find one.
That or just planting yourself at 2 in the morning ;-)
At best they "hear you" and "will take it into account", then keep on doing what was planned. At worst they treat you like an idiot or a lunatic. And it's not like the company hired to do the work is going to listen to some random person telling them how to do their job.
Only thing I've found works is volunteering for orgs that actually do things right, if you can find one.
That or just planting yourself at 2 in the morning ;-)
It's amazing how common this attitude is, when the opposite is true. From working in U.S. municipalities, I can promise you there are regular monthly or quarterly meetings where these issues and budgets are brought up, specifically to solicit public comment.
Beyond open forums, it's so easy to find the name of a park director, and schedule a face to face. They might not be thrilled to field the issue, but they are bound to by their public office. If they don', there are so many ways to force the issue (e.g. go one office above them until someone sees it as politically useful).
My concern is that it's easy to be concerned online, but it does nothing but empower government overreach. So much better to translate real concern into effective local action.
Beyond open forums, it's so easy to find the name of a park director, and schedule a face to face. They might not be thrilled to field the issue, but they are bound to by their public office. If they don', there are so many ways to force the issue (e.g. go one office above them until someone sees it as politically useful).
My concern is that it's easy to be concerned online, but it does nothing but empower government overreach. So much better to translate real concern into effective local action.
Probably why the idea of r/GuerrillaGardening is getting popular.
Leaving that aside, I was reading about an urban permaculture group's experience with working with the city. In their experience, the city they are working with wants to make sure that whatever is done will work with other people as well. (This was Seattle, with a conversion of one part of the park to a perennial food forest)
Leaving that aside, I was reading about an urban permaculture group's experience with working with the city. In their experience, the city they are working with wants to make sure that whatever is done will work with other people as well. (This was Seattle, with a conversion of one part of the park to a perennial food forest)
> There were places that were great ideas for planting — west sides of pathways to help block the blazing afternoon Phoenix sun.
It's interesting that you miss the forest for the trees here.
There really are no trees that are "great" for where you live, because without human intervention like what you described, there really are no trees that sustain themselves in the Lower Sonoran area. It is essentially a desert.
So the long term solution is really just slowly depopulating the Phoenix area or having landscapes that are appropriate for a desert, and planting trees where water isn't so scarce as to be unsustainable without human babysitting.
> And yet, there places they planted too close to existing trees, where they won’t even get sun (plants compete for sunlight, not root space)
Competing for sun isn't really a thing in a desert, because canopies in that landscape are a liability rather than an advantage. They contribute to water loss, which is extremely scarce.
If anything, having partial shade is good protection for young trees, which are more susceptible to variations in drought and heat.
It's interesting that you miss the forest for the trees here.
There really are no trees that are "great" for where you live, because without human intervention like what you described, there really are no trees that sustain themselves in the Lower Sonoran area. It is essentially a desert.
So the long term solution is really just slowly depopulating the Phoenix area or having landscapes that are appropriate for a desert, and planting trees where water isn't so scarce as to be unsustainable without human babysitting.
> And yet, there places they planted too close to existing trees, where they won’t even get sun (plants compete for sunlight, not root space)
Competing for sun isn't really a thing in a desert, because canopies in that landscape are a liability rather than an advantage. They contribute to water loss, which is extremely scarce.
If anything, having partial shade is good protection for young trees, which are more susceptible to variations in drought and heat.
There are still trees native to the Sonoran though? Palo Verde, desert ironwood, acacia, palms, and the not strictly native but highly adapted mesquite. You'll see these trees planted all over the metro and if you visit someplace like Granite Reef, you'll find entire natural groves of them creating dense shade even in the hottest months. The key to this is obviously water, but far less than you'd need for stands of other tree species (and it can be deeper).
Swales, basins, and bearms help with water management. I see a lot of that in the greenways in and around Phoenix. Just not at my neighborhood park.
There's a botanical garden an hour out of Phoenix metro that showcases edible Sonoran plants, as well as arid-adapted plants from around the world.
The native species do fine on raw, undeveloped lands.
I think it's because people confuse "desert" (or arid) with "wasteland".
And there are methods to remediate wastelands -- it just takes effort and time.
There's a botanical garden an hour out of Phoenix metro that showcases edible Sonoran plants, as well as arid-adapted plants from around the world.
The native species do fine on raw, undeveloped lands.
I think it's because people confuse "desert" (or arid) with "wasteland".
And there are methods to remediate wastelands -- it just takes effort and time.
It certainly doesn't help that specific directions from Phoenix traveled by major highways are fairly desolate. The Gila river valley as you drive south to Tucson is mostly salt flats for the first half hour, while heading north on the 17 goes through old lava fields and the waterless Agua Fria plateau.
I haven't travelled to Tuscon yet so I don't know, though I know there are some large preserves outside of Tuscon.
I'm not sure what you mean by the waterless Agua Fria plateau. I make a lot trips between Phoenix and northern cities like Prescott, Sedona, and Flagstaff. At no point among them do I see areas that are truly waterless. A lava field would be a sight to behold, but I don't recall any such thing along I-17 north.
During the years with there are more winter rains, the plateau one reaches right around Sunset Point makes for an amazing grassland. That's even knowing that, with as green and lush as it is that season, it will mean fire and devastation later in the drier parts of the year. During the monsoon rains, those high grassland turn into magnificent landscape with ponding, reflecting the stormy clouds in the sky, across a wide horizon.
I'm not sure what you mean by the waterless Agua Fria plateau. I make a lot trips between Phoenix and northern cities like Prescott, Sedona, and Flagstaff. At no point among them do I see areas that are truly waterless. A lava field would be a sight to behold, but I don't recall any such thing along I-17 north.
During the years with there are more winter rains, the plateau one reaches right around Sunset Point makes for an amazing grassland. That's even knowing that, with as green and lush as it is that season, it will mean fire and devastation later in the drier parts of the year. During the monsoon rains, those high grassland turn into magnificent landscape with ponding, reflecting the stormy clouds in the sky, across a wide horizon.
Sunset point is on the plateau I'm talking about. It's actually an old volcanic basalt flow from the Miocene. There's no permanent water sources up there, only down in the surrounding canyons (e.g. the aptly named rock springs). It's part of a big band of old vulcanism that extends all the way from Anthem (e.g. kuttu "peak") up to just south of the Grand Canyon, though you would have to hike in to see most of it.
Neat! I'll have to revisit it again with an eye towards what you just told me.
> There really are no trees that are "great" for where you live, because without human intervention like what you described, there really are no trees that sustain themselves in the Lower Sonoran area. It is essentially a desert.
The Lower Sonoron us actually a steppe biome. There are plenty of native trees and shrubs that thrive all on its own with the given rainfall. People see "desert" and picture wastelands like the Sahara or the Gobi. Many people who never been to the area are surprised at how lush both the lower and upper Sonoran are.
As far as human intervention goes, there is a nuance here: there is a big difference between acting upon the world as apart from the ecosystem, and acting within the world as part of the ecosystem.
My neighbor's Pakistani white mulberry is very well suited for growing here in the Sonoron, with some help. Jujube trees (one of the buckthorne family) is very well suited here. So are moringas, with people growing dense, backyard moringa groves here in Phoenix.
There are people who figured out how to grow the classic fruit-bearing trees here. Using dwarf varieties, careful pruning, use of deep mulch basins, chop-and-drop, companion planting, they can do very well here without having to rely on flood irrigation.
> Competing for sun isn't really a thing in a desert, because canopies in that landscape are a liability rather than an advantage. They contribute to water loss, which is extremely scarce.
In the park environment I am talking about, despite it being in the Sonoran, it is actually designed like a park you would see in temperate biomes. That means the overstory trees there are large ponderosa pines (which has high water requirements for the area, so they flood irrigate the park during the summer). The tree I was talking about in that park s going to be starved for sunlight is surrounded by the shadows of several of the overstory trees
> If anything, having partial shade is good protection for young trees, which are more susceptible to variations in drought and heat.
That's partially correct. There are other ways to work with this. For example, the people who sold my black mission fig to me told me that it doesn't shade itself. Well, it does shade itself, as long as you don't trim the lower branches that forces you to then put the white reflective paint on its trunks.
In the Sonoran, the mesquites and the ironwood act as nursery trees, providing partial shade to support a variety of plants. The Suguoro cactus, for example, requires a nursery tree to help it along when it is young. Then it kills off the nursery tree when it gets mature enough. Ironwood, despite growing extremely slowly, because it acts as a nursery tree for a variety of plants, is a keystone species.
The Lower Sonoron us actually a steppe biome. There are plenty of native trees and shrubs that thrive all on its own with the given rainfall. People see "desert" and picture wastelands like the Sahara or the Gobi. Many people who never been to the area are surprised at how lush both the lower and upper Sonoran are.
As far as human intervention goes, there is a nuance here: there is a big difference between acting upon the world as apart from the ecosystem, and acting within the world as part of the ecosystem.
My neighbor's Pakistani white mulberry is very well suited for growing here in the Sonoron, with some help. Jujube trees (one of the buckthorne family) is very well suited here. So are moringas, with people growing dense, backyard moringa groves here in Phoenix.
There are people who figured out how to grow the classic fruit-bearing trees here. Using dwarf varieties, careful pruning, use of deep mulch basins, chop-and-drop, companion planting, they can do very well here without having to rely on flood irrigation.
> Competing for sun isn't really a thing in a desert, because canopies in that landscape are a liability rather than an advantage. They contribute to water loss, which is extremely scarce.
In the park environment I am talking about, despite it being in the Sonoran, it is actually designed like a park you would see in temperate biomes. That means the overstory trees there are large ponderosa pines (which has high water requirements for the area, so they flood irrigate the park during the summer). The tree I was talking about in that park s going to be starved for sunlight is surrounded by the shadows of several of the overstory trees
> If anything, having partial shade is good protection for young trees, which are more susceptible to variations in drought and heat.
That's partially correct. There are other ways to work with this. For example, the people who sold my black mission fig to me told me that it doesn't shade itself. Well, it does shade itself, as long as you don't trim the lower branches that forces you to then put the white reflective paint on its trunks.
In the Sonoran, the mesquites and the ironwood act as nursery trees, providing partial shade to support a variety of plants. The Suguoro cactus, for example, requires a nursery tree to help it along when it is young. Then it kills off the nursery tree when it gets mature enough. Ironwood, despite growing extremely slowly, because it acts as a nursery tree for a variety of plants, is a keystone species.
All the trees in my mother-in-laws senior housing development died after five years because the original landscaper didn't remove any of the steel wire cages around the root balls.
Around these parts, true landscapers appear to be a thing of the past, and landscapers are increasingly people coming over from construction, and /construct/ the garden: pour concrete under tiled surface, build wall, stone beams around border, fill with gravel. No biology appears to be entering the equation anymore.
> They didn’t bother to dig basins
I thought you weren’t supposed to do this because the roots then grow in circles within the soft soil and eventually girdle/“suffocate” themselves.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding what is meant by “basin”.
I thought you weren’t supposed to do this because the roots then grow in circles within the soft soil and eventually girdle/“suffocate” themselves.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding what is meant by “basin”.
Ah! Great question! Let's talk roots.
Trees have different kinds of roots, such as lateral roots and tap roots. What they do depends upon the species, their growth patterns, and how those patterns adapt to their native environment.
Many trees will send out some lateral roots, and depending upon the species, they can be invasive. In the Sonoron, the mesquite is very aggressive about both lateral roots (far exceeding the drip line of the trees) and deep tap root (some mesquites have been discovered with tap roogs going 250 ft in the ground). They also have the added advantage of being a nitrogen fixer.
Fig roots are invasive, though primarily lateral, shallow roots. Jujube (and all buckthornes) are invasive, sending roots that can then grow and pop up as a whole other tree! Mulberries, particularly the Pakistan varieties, also have vigorous, water-seeking roots.
Bamboo are not trees. They are grasses, and grow like grasses with rhizomes. Once established, at around year 5, you would have a running bamboo grove pop up out of nowhere (because they can grow 1 foot a day until they reach their maximum height).
As far as basins, a basin is any depression in the landscape where rainwater can pool. It can be shallow, or deep. Many of the greenways here in Phoenix are large basins that can collect and help absorb our monsoon rains.
What you are talking about with girdling happens with hardwood trees, and not with "basins". When planting a bareroot hardwood tree, you should not plant it in a way so that the root crown goes too much below the ground level. The roots need to be unravelled so that they can grow outward instead of forced back on its self. For hardwoods, they can and do strangle themselves if their roots are allowed to girdle. Contrast that to a fig, whose roots will go whichever way and it will be fine.
Knowing that, you can still create a basin for such trees. You would dig the basin as a ring much further away from the hardwood, possibly as a shallow basin.
Trees have different kinds of roots, such as lateral roots and tap roots. What they do depends upon the species, their growth patterns, and how those patterns adapt to their native environment.
Many trees will send out some lateral roots, and depending upon the species, they can be invasive. In the Sonoron, the mesquite is very aggressive about both lateral roots (far exceeding the drip line of the trees) and deep tap root (some mesquites have been discovered with tap roogs going 250 ft in the ground). They also have the added advantage of being a nitrogen fixer.
Fig roots are invasive, though primarily lateral, shallow roots. Jujube (and all buckthornes) are invasive, sending roots that can then grow and pop up as a whole other tree! Mulberries, particularly the Pakistan varieties, also have vigorous, water-seeking roots.
Bamboo are not trees. They are grasses, and grow like grasses with rhizomes. Once established, at around year 5, you would have a running bamboo grove pop up out of nowhere (because they can grow 1 foot a day until they reach their maximum height).
As far as basins, a basin is any depression in the landscape where rainwater can pool. It can be shallow, or deep. Many of the greenways here in Phoenix are large basins that can collect and help absorb our monsoon rains.
What you are talking about with girdling happens with hardwood trees, and not with "basins". When planting a bareroot hardwood tree, you should not plant it in a way so that the root crown goes too much below the ground level. The roots need to be unravelled so that they can grow outward instead of forced back on its self. For hardwoods, they can and do strangle themselves if their roots are allowed to girdle. Contrast that to a fig, whose roots will go whichever way and it will be fine.
Knowing that, you can still create a basin for such trees. You would dig the basin as a ring much further away from the hardwood, possibly as a shallow basin.
The main problem is not in digging the basin, it's that most people think you're supposed to fill the basin with new dirt, which recreates the same problem with bare root plants that you get with 10 gallon trees bought from the nursery.
Dirt put back into a hole is never the right amount of compact, so the root crown can sink or pushing the soil back into place can tear off roots.
If you look at the root ball, you can often sort out how to spread out the roots without digging a basin, instead trenching out in several directions. A lot less work, especially if you're in rocky soil. I'm never digging a giant circular hole in flood plain soil again if I have any say in it.
Dirt put back into a hole is never the right amount of compact, so the root crown can sink or pushing the soil back into place can tear off roots.
If you look at the root ball, you can often sort out how to spread out the roots without digging a basin, instead trenching out in several directions. A lot less work, especially if you're in rocky soil. I'm never digging a giant circular hole in flood plain soil again if I have any say in it.
All landscapers plant trees too close to things because they expect to get re-hired every few years to replace them.
A neighbor wanted to seed a hill, but some other folks had done it, but they got the wrong mix.
So he checked a lot of places until he found a guy who knew all the native species and hydroseeded his hill. Basically water shot up onto the hill, mixed with seeds and more. stuff just took hold and it worked out.
So he checked a lot of places until he found a guy who knew all the native species and hydroseeded his hill. Basically water shot up onto the hill, mixed with seeds and more. stuff just took hold and it worked out.
That's what guerrilla gardners do with their seedbombs do as well. (Not necessarily the hydroseeding, but rather, a selection of native species).
Just leave areas alone and let nature do its thing.
There are entire countries that were deforested, and it's essentially impossible for nature to repopulate those forests.
Human intervention destroyed the ecosystem and there is immediate and ongoing harm to that destruction. It's idiotic to suddenly decide to "let nature do it's thing" now when billions of people are threatened by climate change.
Human intervention destroyed the ecosystem and there is immediate and ongoing harm to that destruction. It's idiotic to suddenly decide to "let nature do it's thing" now when billions of people are threatened by climate change.
Oh, I think something will regrow there even if humans die off. It's more likely that the planet will continue to live, and some other intelligent lifeform arises as a successor.
This isn't really about saving the planet. Over a large enough timescale, the planet will recover just fine -- as a living system, the global ecology can and does regenerate.
Instead, what we're fighting for is a place for humans within the global ecosystem.
"Human intervention" need not be destructive. It has been destructive because we came to see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem, rather than being part of the ecosystem. There have been cultures, to one degree or another, see themselves and conduct themsleves as part of the ecosystem, and tended the lands as such.
Wastelands can be remediated. In India, there are people working with marginalized castes and ethnic groups to restore wastelands. It's not something that works over a single season, but it is something that starts yielding stuff useful to humans within a single generation. The work that these people do ends up restoring land from bare rock eroded by poor land management practices. These were land no one wanted, and now they are both productive (yielding something useful) while at the same time, a fertile, active ecosystem beyond the human-centric view of the world.
There doesn't have to be a dichotomy between "human intervention", and "leaving nature alone". We're a part of the natural ecosystem -- how could we really ever "leave it alone"?
This isn't really about saving the planet. Over a large enough timescale, the planet will recover just fine -- as a living system, the global ecology can and does regenerate.
Instead, what we're fighting for is a place for humans within the global ecosystem.
"Human intervention" need not be destructive. It has been destructive because we came to see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem, rather than being part of the ecosystem. There have been cultures, to one degree or another, see themselves and conduct themsleves as part of the ecosystem, and tended the lands as such.
Wastelands can be remediated. In India, there are people working with marginalized castes and ethnic groups to restore wastelands. It's not something that works over a single season, but it is something that starts yielding stuff useful to humans within a single generation. The work that these people do ends up restoring land from bare rock eroded by poor land management practices. These were land no one wanted, and now they are both productive (yielding something useful) while at the same time, a fertile, active ecosystem beyond the human-centric view of the world.
There doesn't have to be a dichotomy between "human intervention", and "leaving nature alone". We're a part of the natural ecosystem -- how could we really ever "leave it alone"?
You realize nature populated the forests in the first place. Birds carry seeds. It is not impossible.
Over millions of years. If the soil the trees need has washed away they won't grow anytime soon. Some places you can plant a native tree and it will grow. Other places something is lost and it won't grow anymore. Places can be very tiny areas in the case of a desert.
And there are ways to remediate wastelands! It would take a very long time though if we just "left it alone".
I think there's a false dichotomy about what "human intervention" means, because as a civilization, we think of human intervention as forces that act upon the ecosystem from the outside. Not all cultures and civilizations sees it that way. I think we think that way in modern times because we see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem rather than a part of the ecosystem. It's pretty common to hear people say, "there's nothing there", even if it is a lush, wildland (or close enough to it).
As an example, there are ancient, abandoned perennial food forests that were created by the inhabitants. These work with natural processes so that yields useful to humans are byproducts of the healthy ecosystem, and they can carry on even when humans stop tending them.
I think there's a false dichotomy about what "human intervention" means, because as a civilization, we think of human intervention as forces that act upon the ecosystem from the outside. Not all cultures and civilizations sees it that way. I think we think that way in modern times because we see ourselves as apart from the ecosystem rather than a part of the ecosystem. It's pretty common to hear people say, "there's nothing there", even if it is a lush, wildland (or close enough to it).
As an example, there are ancient, abandoned perennial food forests that were created by the inhabitants. These work with natural processes so that yields useful to humans are byproducts of the healthy ecosystem, and they can carry on even when humans stop tending them.
That only makes sense if you're willing to commit to it. "Leave areas alone and let nature do its thing" can't just mean "don't run deliberate tree-planting efforts with short-sighted planing". Actually leaving stuff alone and letting nature work would involve us retreating from the area, not developing the land, not spraying insecticides and herbicides, not introducing invasive species, not polluting the ground water, not putting extra particulates into the air, _certainly_ not continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere.
So the "just" part of" just leave areas alone, is asking quite a lot. That's not to say it's wrong ... but it's more ambitious than e.g. net-zero goals. In some sense, it's exactly 2x as ambitious as E. O. Wilson's "Half-Earth" proposal.
So the "just" part of" just leave areas alone, is asking quite a lot. That's not to say it's wrong ... but it's more ambitious than e.g. net-zero goals. In some sense, it's exactly 2x as ambitious as E. O. Wilson's "Half-Earth" proposal.
The existence of invasive species make even that plan questionable. A lot of trees are dead because of invasives that are still, so even if you plant it, it will die again.
There are a lot of trees and invasives. Sometimes if we plant trees and give them a few years of active removal of the invasives they will grow strong enough to out compete the invasive, but if you don't remove the invasive they will be chocked out and die. However only sometimes.
There are a lot of trees and invasives. Sometimes if we plant trees and give them a few years of active removal of the invasives they will grow strong enough to out compete the invasive, but if you don't remove the invasive they will be chocked out and die. However only sometimes.
"Invasive" are another idea I think are widely misunderstood by the public.
I think it is more about how many ecological relationship something has with other species within the local ecosystem.
Something without a lot of interactions would just take resources and contribute nothing back to the ecosystem would degrade an ecosystem until there are adaptations to include that species within the ecosystem. Contribution could be food for other species. They might provide habitat. Maybe they help spread seeds, or distribute nutrients for plants. And yes, yields for humans too.
By that understanding, I would say that the modern human is probably the most successful invasive specie across many ecosystems.
And it isn't that, I am advocating that we get rid of the humans within those ecosystems, but find ways for humans to participate within that local ecosystem. Once those relationships are established, it is better for that local ecosystem to have humans than to not have humans.
I think it is more about how many ecological relationship something has with other species within the local ecosystem.
Something without a lot of interactions would just take resources and contribute nothing back to the ecosystem would degrade an ecosystem until there are adaptations to include that species within the ecosystem. Contribution could be food for other species. They might provide habitat. Maybe they help spread seeds, or distribute nutrients for plants. And yes, yields for humans too.
By that understanding, I would say that the modern human is probably the most successful invasive specie across many ecosystems.
And it isn't that, I am advocating that we get rid of the humans within those ecosystems, but find ways for humans to participate within that local ecosystem. Once those relationships are established, it is better for that local ecosystem to have humans than to not have humans.
The cheapest effective solution, but sadly perhaps not fast enough, and definitely not optimal if you're trying to create rather than just preserve habitats.
The way things are going we're going to need to learn how to construct artificial reefs to survive as a species, and quite possibly also artificial game habitats. Planting trees is just one part of that.
The way things are going we're going to need to learn how to construct artificial reefs to survive as a species, and quite possibly also artificial game habitats. Planting trees is just one part of that.
It can be pretty fast if you work with the natural feedback loops. Permaculture design principles, "use small, slow solutions".
This is an accidental grove out along the CAS canal project. The bearm made unintentionally by the canal designers captured monsoon rains and accumulated organics for a grove to naturally spring up there. https://youtu.be/jf8usAesJvo
The more impressive (deliberate) projects involve turning barerock wastelands into productive lands using these principles.
There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing.
This is an accidental grove out along the CAS canal project. The bearm made unintentionally by the canal designers captured monsoon rains and accumulated organics for a grove to naturally spring up there. https://youtu.be/jf8usAesJvo
The more impressive (deliberate) projects involve turning barerock wastelands into productive lands using these principles.
There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing.
There is a big difference between human intervention that sets us apart from the ecosystem (in which we act upon the ecosystem) and human intervention where we work as a participant of the ecosystem (in which we participate within the ecosystem). We can and should use technology, but it is a different paradigm and a different way of seeing.
Some of the things the permaculture folks have been quietly doing for over 50 years have yielded some impressive results. They go far beyond what you'd hear about in the mainstream, and we're only seeing some of it trickle in (such as the ideas of restorative and regenerative agriculture or agroforestry).
Some of the things the permaculture folks have been quietly doing for over 50 years have yielded some impressive results. They go far beyond what you'd hear about in the mainstream, and we're only seeing some of it trickle in (such as the ideas of restorative and regenerative agriculture or agroforestry).
Right.
A good short video about how forests harvest maximum sunlight, and how many other things that are good for the environment as a whole, happen effortlessly in them, due to all of which they keep getting better over time:
Watch "Permaculture - from forest to farm | Clea Chandmal | TEDxBITSGoa" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/KI3haUOkP-I
A good short video about how forests harvest maximum sunlight, and how many other things that are good for the environment as a whole, happen effortlessly in them, due to all of which they keep getting better over time:
Watch "Permaculture - from forest to farm | Clea Chandmal | TEDxBITSGoa" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/KI3haUOkP-I
Across hundreds of years this is largely pointless, but people aren’t worried about that kind of timescale. In the short term planting trees in areas they can thrive can make a signifiant short term impact.
it doesn't really work that way, unfortunately invasives can take root and replace entire forests before native plants can take root. it's a huge problem in post-wildfire areas.
A trillion trees by 2030, each fixating 30 kg of CO₂ per year [1], with a global CO₂ emission of about 40 trillion kg by 2030 - roughly linearly extrapolated from [2] - that would capture about 75 % of global emissions, much more than I would have guessed. A billion trees on the other hand are just 0.075 % of global or 0.6 % of US emissions [3]. Also according to [1] a billion trees will need 20,000 km², a trillion 20,000,000 km², that are 0.2 % and 200 % of the US land area. And a trillion trees till the end of 2030, that are 369 million trees per day every day, that seems quite ambitious. The numbers used are the first thing a search turned up, I hope they are at least good enough for the orders of magnitude.
[1] https://www.encon.eu/en/calculation-co2-offsetting-trees
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
[1] https://www.encon.eu/en/calculation-co2-offsetting-trees
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
I think the 30kg/tree varies widely both by species and conditions, and critically given the timeline you've mentioned (by 2030) by _maturity_.
E.g. this source estimates 10kg/year for the first 20 years, but if much of that is after year 6-7, even if we could plant a trillion trees by 2030, they would not be close to the levels of carbon fixation you're mentioning.
It's ambitious, but _even if we succeed_, it won't be impactful in the time horizon you're discussing. In 2030 we may have a large proportion of 1-3 year old tiny saplings that may each weigh only a few kg (wet).
(update: forgot the link for source mentioned) https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-t...
It's ambitious, but _even if we succeed_, it won't be impactful in the time horizon you're discussing. In 2030 we may have a large proportion of 1-3 year old tiny saplings that may each weigh only a few kg (wet).
(update: forgot the link for source mentioned) https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-t...
I intentionally picked the favorable numbers as I was expecting even with those it would turn out to be a pretty futile endeavor, even ignoring things like forest fires. And it pretty much is, at least with a billion trees. And for a trillion trees I can not see how this could realistically happen. I would have to plant a tree every three weeks for the next seven and a half years, 125 trees in total, that sounds not too impossible. But once you consider that everyone in your city will have to the same - and every other human on earth - I don't think it would be too long before I would no longer be able to find a spot for the next tree where it interferes with nothing and can grow for a couple of decades.
"Fortunately" for the sake of this problem, we've got 1000 years of land that was cleared to get lumber. Not all of it is land that we could replant trees on (some being used for farming or housing), but for a decade-long society-wide project I wouldn't be too concerned, if there were actually political will to do it.
Why are we not considering clumping bamboo or/andor hemp;
Both of which take root easier, and grow 3x-5x faster, require less water.
Apparently it's estimated there's about 3 trillion trees on earth currently - I'm assuming it historically may have been closer to 4 or even 5 before we gleefully started chopping them all down. But it's hard to imagine a trillion extra trees being compatible with 10 billion humans wanting to have land to produce food with, unless we can genetically engineer trees capable of growing in parts of world humans tend to avoid.
So we don’t bother?
As mechanisms to help reduce net emissions go, planting trees is probably the one likely to encounter the least resistance, so I'm all for it, but the idea that it's going to help us avoid far more painful changes seems a little foolhardy.
If we start doing it at scale, a lot of people will assume it will work and think it's okay to make cross country trips in a big RV.
Already there are people who think recycling will save the planet.
Already there are people who think recycling will save the planet.
I'm all for people making cross country trips in a big RV, providing they're properly paying for whatever long-term environmental costs are involved - folks aren't going to get behind a plan to save the planet if they never get to spend any time enjoying it.
What percentage of newly planted trees survive? I suspect it is low double-digits without serious watering and good site preparation, which isn’t the case for any of the tree planting at scale I’ve seen in Canadian sites.
Planting trees is in the same category of solutions as recycling. In theory you could plant a quadrillion trees, but realistically it won’t happen and instead the initiative will be used as a way to increase our consumption and destruction of the planet even more.
Reduce, reuse and recycle was the original term. Everyone over indexed on recycling and completely abandoned the first two. (Instead we went the other way and started individually wrapping bananas in plastic)
Reduce, reuse and recycle was the original term. Everyone over indexed on recycling and completely abandoned the first two. (Instead we went the other way and started individually wrapping bananas in plastic)
In all fairness it's really hard to make money off of "reduce" and "reuse," and we've decided to use money as the system for allocating all of our resources.
I wonder about that - surely there must be a decent number of shoppers who'd prefer to buy products where you could reuse containers, for a start. Recycling perfectly good glass, metal or even plastic containers always feels terribly wasteful to me. And it has to be economically more efficient, so it should be possible to sell the product a lower cost.
Well I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. A functioning ecosystem and a functioning economy in our present contemplation of the term are not compatible.
I read somewhere that birds and squirrels are better at planting trees because they do it at random, their forests grow faster, are more diverse, provide better shelter and are more resistant to fires and bugs.
Can't find the study or news anymore. Anyone help? Could they plant a border of tress for squirrels and birds, so they would do the rest of the job and fill the square?
Can't find the study or news anymore. Anyone help? Could they plant a border of tress for squirrels and birds, so they would do the rest of the job and fill the square?
It's true, but also takes way too long for the mission at hand. Trees already grow slowly, and squirrels/birds were going to eat a lot of the seeds which -- as we can see here -- is counter to incentive when there is a dearth of seed. This is not even to mention the ungulates, which will eat most of the young trees. Simply put, a managed plantation will produce better outcomes than "hands-off" rewilding or even a hybrid model. It is better still if the wildlife are managed or contained. Healthy forests have predators to provide pressure on herbivore populations; predators were often intentionally removed in many of the places we are now considering for afforestation.
But that said, theoretically: yes, absolutely, a tree planted as a seed by a squirrel, if it survived to old-age, will likely have grown faster and healthier than the equivalent nursery product tree, which would have endured lots of handling and some shocks at a young age.
If I were to guess at the type of innovation we might see in this space, I would say GMO trees that grow at enhanced speed is more in the vein of what might be deployed. If land were more readily available, like in boreal regions, then you might see some sort of innovation in the form of novel rewilding techniques, like you are suggesting.
But that said, theoretically: yes, absolutely, a tree planted as a seed by a squirrel, if it survived to old-age, will likely have grown faster and healthier than the equivalent nursery product tree, which would have endured lots of handling and some shocks at a young age.
If I were to guess at the type of innovation we might see in this space, I would say GMO trees that grow at enhanced speed is more in the vein of what might be deployed. If land were more readily available, like in boreal regions, then you might see some sort of innovation in the form of novel rewilding techniques, like you are suggesting.
I'd be willing to bet the loss from ungulates/rabbits is worse than the squirrels/birds. If we had a way to fence off the individual young trees it would be ideal. I've had to do this for my own young oaks as they will get eaten down to the ground if not fenced.
Wouldn't the big advantage of GMO trees be ones that grow in non-boreal regions? But I gather genetic engineering for most tree species is limited by the slow reproductive cycle (oak trees take 40 years to produce acorns, and they're not even close to the slowest to reach maturity).
eg see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/16/half-the... about Jays planting oaks in UK.
God, I hope this is a genius plan. Something about bird and squirrel labor for reforestation pleases me
[deleted]
This is an interesting problem area, I recently talked with Mast about it - they started as Droneseed, and soon realized the whole seed-seedling-planting-managing process (not to mention funding) was pretty busted.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/17/from-root-to-crown-mast-re...
It's also really data-intensive, or it is if you want it to be effective. There's a lot of forestry and climate science that goes into whether a planting effort will be successful, not to mention a hell of a lot of back-breaking labor. But hopefully this sector will get the attention it needs now that people are seeing how badly it's been neglected in recent decades.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/17/from-root-to-crown-mast-re...
It's also really data-intensive, or it is if you want it to be effective. There's a lot of forestry and climate science that goes into whether a planting effort will be successful, not to mention a hell of a lot of back-breaking labor. But hopefully this sector will get the attention it needs now that people are seeing how badly it's been neglected in recent decades.
The final quote, "... but often, on the ground, it’s one old farmer walking around to collect acorns. ..." reminded me of the the book The Man Who Planted Trees [1] in which a shepard single-handedly reforests a desolate valley by planting acorns and other seedlings.
The book inspired an animated film of the same name [2], which won an Academy Award in 1988. I remember seeing this at an animated film festival about 35 years ago in the Biograph Theater in Washington, DC. Today I rewatched it on YouTube [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093488/
[3] https://youtu.be/epTqUnKsuUY
The book inspired an animated film of the same name [2], which won an Academy Award in 1988. I remember seeing this at an animated film festival about 35 years ago in the Biograph Theater in Washington, DC. Today I rewatched it on YouTube [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093488/
[3] https://youtu.be/epTqUnKsuUY
Interesting fact: The government agency responsible for the national roads in New Zealand (i.e. big roads that aren't the responsibility of the local government) is the largest purchaser of native tree seedlings in New Zealand (I can't find a source for this online, but I am reliably informed it's true).
I've seen a lot of motorway berms that were previously grass, converted to native plants. This not only captures carbon, but reduces carbon emissions by taking away the need to mow the grass, and it doesn't require 'new' land.
I've seen a lot of motorway berms that were previously grass, converted to native plants. This not only captures carbon, but reduces carbon emissions by taking away the need to mow the grass, and it doesn't require 'new' land.
It doesn't have to be trees. Grass can also take CO2 out of the air. Then you burn it off next spring, which leaves behind a layer of sequestered charcoal. Keep doing this for decades and you will have removed a lot of CO2 - all in natural prairie fashion.
If you live in the typical single family house you can make a small difference by mowing your law as little as you can get by with (use an electric power). You can also try to mow paths to make it look like the tall grass is intentional as an end run around demands you mow. Let the wild flower grow (but you do have to to watch for and remove invasive plants that will grow and take over destroying the effect you are trying to do). I don't know how to convert your suburban grass to charcoal in a way that won't get the neighbors after you for pollution though.
If you live in the typical single family house you can make a small difference by mowing your law as little as you can get by with (use an electric power). You can also try to mow paths to make it look like the tall grass is intentional as an end run around demands you mow. Let the wild flower grow (but you do have to to watch for and remove invasive plants that will grow and take over destroying the effect you are trying to do). I don't know how to convert your suburban grass to charcoal in a way that won't get the neighbors after you for pollution though.
One time a farmer-turned-software guy told me a wild claim once that Earth could carry about a billion humans tops, until someone figured out how to suck nitrogen from the air and make ammonia.
I wonder if we're fertilizing all these new trees we wanna plant with air manure.
I wonder if we're fertilizing all these new trees we wanna plant with air manure.
Growing up there was an ad on the radio each year around arbor day. A grizzled old man's voice says "when I was growing up, my dad and I would go to the forest each year on arbor day to plant some trees." It encouraged the same behaviour.
A forest is kind of by definition at capacity for how many trees will grow there. Planting a tree elsewhere means it will not suffer from the canopy blocking all it's light.
So many saplings senselessly murdered by well-meaning wordcels.
A forest is kind of by definition at capacity for how many trees will grow there. Planting a tree elsewhere means it will not suffer from the canopy blocking all it's light.
So many saplings senselessly murdered by well-meaning wordcels.
I feel like the important part of these tree-planting initiatives is setting aside land for trees to grow. If you leave a plot of land alone, climate-appropriate plants will grow soon enough. You might have to do more in special scenarios like reversing desertification, but that's not generally the point o these initiatives, and the number of trees needed for that is much less.
quick - bio-engineered seedlings must be the answer!
The article does ask important questions, but also repeatedly mentions "investment" and "investors". People, the forests do not grow money. "Thirty-five million dollars" is a fortune in the forest, yet our living world is dying for lack of simple things, and death by a thousand cuts. How can one billion dollars be spent on a single recreation facility[0], and no money for forestry? Because the system is not reflecting real value, it reflects self-referential money value.
Beware of investors. These science people are lining up for what? -- [0] New Athletics stadium in Las Vegas to reportedly cost ...
Sportsnaut https://sportsnaut.com › las-vegas-athletics-stadium-cost May 27, 2023 — The total stadium cost is estimated at $1.5 billion, for a new ballpark that will have a retractable roof and seat 30,000 people.
The article does ask important questions, but also repeatedly mentions "investment" and "investors". People, the forests do not grow money. "Thirty-five million dollars" is a fortune in the forest, yet our living world is dying for lack of simple things, and death by a thousand cuts. How can one billion dollars be spent on a single recreation facility[0], and no money for forestry? Because the system is not reflecting real value, it reflects self-referential money value.
Beware of investors. These science people are lining up for what? -- [0] New Athletics stadium in Las Vegas to reportedly cost ...
Sportsnaut https://sportsnaut.com › las-vegas-athletics-stadium-cost May 27, 2023 — The total stadium cost is estimated at $1.5 billion, for a new ballpark that will have a retractable roof and seat 30,000 people.
Even better would be a drone that can irrigate, limb a tree, spread compost, and use directed energy on unhelpful pests while ignoring beneficial insects. We have the technology today to build a drone that can do all of these things, there's just no market for it so it doesn't exist or else it would already.
Even in the best of circumstances, a tree takes years if not decades to mature. That isn't a timeline that many investors are attracted to.
With careful planning and initial human upkeep for the first few years, it's been shown this can be accelerated and have a self-sustaining forest in ~10 years. Akira Miyawaki (29.01.1928 - 07.16.2021) [0], a botanist who studyied plant ecology, seeds, and natural forest restoration methods, introduced a "reforestation" algorithm known as the "Miyawaki method" in the early 1970s [1]. It has been adopted throughout the world with great success. And also prompted a viral TED talk by Shubhendu Sharma [2] who then produced a 12 video series on YT on how to create your own forest [3].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki [1] https://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/assets/pdf/list/2006... [2] https://youtu.be/mjUsobGWhs8 [3] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDw6OmGaV5rnOCATIho19Icvp...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki [1] https://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/assets/pdf/list/2006... [2] https://youtu.be/mjUsobGWhs8 [3] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDw6OmGaV5rnOCATIho19Icvp...
Haven't read the article but who plants trees like that? If you want to grow a tree, you must go to forest, dug out the baby tree which is not going to survive, like when you see a big number of instances of the tree in relatively small area, then you go in wiser place and dug the baby tree in. Here is how I do it.
This is as absurd as it is futile because of forest fires, decay, and math.
"TeamTrees vs REALITY!!" https://youtu.be/gqht2bIQXIY
"TeamTrees vs REALITY!!" https://youtu.be/gqht2bIQXIY
Trees have a big impact on local climate. The carbon sequestering part might be futile (but forests play other roles in climate change, like promoting cloud cover which is good for cooling), but reforesting is worth doing for a million reasons- plus everyone likes trees.
1. Show me the evidence.
2. "Local". You're not going to plant a million trees in Manhattan or almost anywhere where people already are.
2. "Local". You're not going to plant a million trees in Manhattan or almost anywhere where people already are.
Trees almost everywhere will create more trees if left to themselves. One oak tree produces lots of acorns.
The problem is mankind. We like to interfere. In a way many tree planting schemes are an indicator of this interference (hubris?). We just need to let nature do its thing in most places.
There are of course some places that need help and people can help here (watering, stopping logging, species diversity, grazing animal protection etc) but generally nature will do it for us if we let it.
Small scale planting schemes are great for community and education too.
The problem is mankind. We like to interfere. In a way many tree planting schemes are an indicator of this interference (hubris?). We just need to let nature do its thing in most places.
There are of course some places that need help and people can help here (watering, stopping logging, species diversity, grazing animal protection etc) but generally nature will do it for us if we let it.
Small scale planting schemes are great for community and education too.
> One oak tree produces lots of acorns.
But takes 40+ years to do so...
But takes 40+ years to do so...
I'm glad this is happening because there is a lot of desertification going on with a lot of establishments globaly
We need a program for training people to rake leaves.
[deleted]
In my neighborhood park, there were a bunch of new trees planted this year. And yet, it looked like someone just sprinkled trees without a care about the specific species, sun, and water.
There were places that were great ideas for planting — west sides of pathways to help block the blazing afternoon Phoenix sun.
And yet, there places they planted too close to existing trees, where they won’t even get sun (plants compete for sunlight, not root space).
They didn’t bother to dig basins or to mulch (both harvests water, helps retain moisture, and feed the trees).
The species are not appropriate for the lower Sonoron, but it is what people expect for “trees” in the cultural idea of “parks”. There were no concept of designing for canopy layers (at least, overstory vs understory), much less adding shrubs or flowers to help round out the ecosystem. (“Diversity” is not really about different species of trees, but rather, the ecological function of each plant at the different canopy layers, working together to form a stronger, more resilient ecosystem).
Instead, they got their planting numbers up and everyone can pat themselves on the back for Doing Something.