[HN Gopher] The Miyawaki Method: A Better Way to Build Forests? ... ___________________________________________________________________ The Miyawaki Method: A Better Way to Build Forests? (2019) Author : nkurz Score : 112 points Date : 2021-02-12 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (daily.jstor.org) (TXT) w3m dump (daily.jstor.org) | awinter-py wrote: | the 'random mix' and monoculture points in here are the topic of | the first chapter of Seeing Like a State, the book about why | institutions over-simplify the societies they govern | beaconstudios wrote: | it's a good book, especially as an introduction to why | reductionism and quantitative measurement distort what they | measure when taken apart from holism and qualitative valuation | - but boy is it a slow burner. I listened to it on audiobook | during my commute and I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep at the | wheel. | awinter-py wrote: | yeah I made it to the middle of the jane jacobs / corbusier | section and gave up | | midsection is like fractally repetitive where it's repeating | previous chapters and also repeating the current chapter | | really good footnotes though | _joel wrote: | Just became aware of this term after looking at this BBC article | on micro-forests https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-56003562 | thinkingemote wrote: | Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if left | alone. The real question is not how to get people to plant trees, | it's how to get people to leave trees and the areas where they | will grow alone. | | That's in the majority of places where trees would normally grow. | Of course in some ecosystems like a full desert, we can help | nature do it's thing. And we can also help along the natural | process by selectively planting additional species. In the US | tree planting is about foresty not nature or the environment. | Forestry is the planting and managing trees for economic gain, | usually for pulp or lumber often by planting only one or two | species. | | So, another misleading thing would be that forestry involves | planting several times as many trees and then weeding, culling, | thinning out the trees. So one misleading statistic you will find | is something like "we planted 1 million trees", where the actual | number of trees finally will be something like 100,000. | | Trees come with their own built in reproductive system via seeds, | acorn and the like. The urge to plant forests is a human urge to | meddle and fix things. This urge is also the reason why the | forests were cleared and nature curtailed. This urge should, in | most of the world, be resisted if we are to let nature do it's | own thing. | 786caeefb13016 wrote: | Trees are planted in urban environments all the time. In this | kind of environment, "leaving it alone" is unfortunately not an | option, although I agree it would be best for the trees. | | The Miyawaki method presents a stark alternative to the | recommendations of the International Society of Arboriculture, | with many benefits. | | Maybe people want a Miyawaki forest in a city to help with | runoff, air quality, and temperature regulation. | | On the other hand, maybe people prefer sparsely placed trees | which don't obscure their views of road signs and | intersections, or provide shade over a lawn for congregation. | DanBC wrote: | > Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if | left alone. | | They'd also tell you that the attrition rates are terrible. | hinkley wrote: | Planted also doesn't mean 'survived'. You plant these trees | among disturbed soil and broken branches. The trees left behind | are supposed to harbor species that will repopulate, but those | species are used to the water levels and shade of the closed | canopy, and now they're in the middle of a hellscape that won't | recover for decades, only to be chopped down again. | | Even if the trees are fit for the local ecology, they're now in | a very bad microbiome and not all will make it. | seltzered_ wrote: | Don't feel like rambling too much here but after taking a class | (Ecosystem Restoration Design) last year that touched on this | method a few notes: | | - Yes, you generally try to use native species only. Search for | things like the WWF ecoregions map to get a broad idea, search | for a local resource on native species. | | - The reason it grows a bit faster isn't magic - it involves a | higher input effort/cost, and you skip a stage of succession by | focusing more on planting 'keystone species' rather than going | through an initial stage of 'pioneer species'. - Because of this, | they tend to be more attractive in urban environments. See also | related organizations like "tiny forests" | https://www.ivn.nl/tiny-forest/tiny-forest-worldwide | (netherlands), https://theotherdada.com (beirut), more listed on | https://www.afforestt.com/about. You do need a minimum | width/length to implement, and may need to dig the soil/amend the | soil to deal with urban-area compaction. | | - The most actionable things you can do is: - | got money? Right now (temperate winter here) is a good time to | plant native saplings if they're not sold out. You may even find | some folks 'salvaging' native plants from areas where land is | about to be cleared for construction. - setup a tree | nursery. Native saplings can be expensive - try | things in a small way, tell your neighbors, start mutual | learning. | | - Keep in mind not all areas in the world should be planted with | trees. Some areas are natively grasslands and thus trees are less | populated. | | - If you're going to have a dense forest, you need a plan for | maintenance so you don't end up with woody mass building up to | cause a fire later on (see millan millan's papers "greening and | browning in a climate change hotspot". You might be able to | partner with a local businesses, school, government, etc. to find | a spot & help with expenses/maintenance | Pfhreak wrote: | I'm considering a few hundred acres of mountainous clearcut | land in the pacific northwest. Are there any resources you'd | recommend to learn about replanting non-urban areas? | jointpdf wrote: | The best option might be to get in touch with your local | university forestry extension, for example: | https://forestry.wsu.edu/ | | Another resource would be your local USDA office. The NRCS | should be available to provide free site-specific technical | assistance (e.g. for soil regeneration and conservation | planning). There are also zillions of | loan/grant/easement/conservation payment programs that the | USDA runs: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/nat | ional/prog... | reportingsjr wrote: | Beware that the USDA will typically not provide good advice | if you aren't planning on using land for resources like | harvesting lumber/crops/animal husbandry. | | If you want to restore a local ecosystem you'll need to | reach out to another organization, probably an NGO, to | figure out how to proceed in a reasonable manner. The | biggest group that would probably help would be the Nature | Conservancy. | iammiles wrote: | I'll second talking to a local nonprofit over the USDA or | USFS. At least in the PNW, these agencies are focused on | extracting value from the land and their replantings are | tightly-packed monocultures designed to be harvested | again. They have about as much in common with a forest as | a golf course has with a prairie. | martincolorado wrote: | I'm curious as to why you decided to look into purchasing a | clearcut in order to better understand if this is popular | amongst a demographic such as tech workers with growing | wealth--is there a market for this specifically in | consulting forestry with a tech focus. Check out the | Society of American Foresters if you want to pay for a | forest management plan. Or as noted try the local forestry | extension and the Forest Service's State and Private | Forestry contacts. | | https://www.eforester.org/Main/Certification_Education/Cert | i... | | https://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/forestry-and-natural- | re... | | https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/communityforests/?cid=fsb | d... | abraae wrote: | > The seedlings are planted very densely--20,000 to 30,000 per | hectares as opposed to 1,000 per hectare in commercial forestry. | For a period of two to three years, the site is monitored, | watered, and weeded, to give the nascent forest every chance to | establish itself. | | Any planting of new forest is to be applauded, but(at least where | I live) this is an unrealistic approach. | | We have 10 acres (about 4 acres) of land that we have mostly | replanted. I've learnt a bit in the process. | | 1) watering everything is not feasible. We're on tank water, and | each summer ends with me policing the lengths of family showers. | This southern hemisphere summer, we added one more 25kl tank | (several $k) just for plant watering. It barely scratches the | surface. | | 2) weeding is unpleasant and hard work.I struggle to get any help | with it. In practice, spraying is the only practical approach, | not ideal environmentally. | | 3) the profile of species that thrive is changing, right before | our eyes last summer was brutal and we lost several big trees | probably 50+years old in the heat. | | While this article's approach is an interesting one, I would say | it's is suited to a very compact environment, such as one might | find in japan. | | At a larger scale, a less intensive approach is to plant semi- | intensively mainly in pioneer species. Planted in the autumn or | spring, these will survive without watering. | | These form a thick forest that prevents weed growth underneath. | You have now reached a stable point - you can now leave your | forest to nature. Birds will drop seeds, and those seeds will | germinate beneath the pioneer canopy, letting the larger species | come through and eventually replace the pioneer species. | | If you want you can accelerate the process by planting large | trees here and there within the pioneer canopy. But again, that | won't require watering or weeding. | | Key to it is using native species, and picking species that will | survive at higher temperatures. | | Being in the southern hemisphere, that means species that are | commonly found in the north, where it is hotter already. | jschwartzi wrote: | > Birds will drop seeds, and those seeds will germinate beneath | the pioneer canopy, letting the larger species come through and | eventually replace the pioneer species. | | FYI This can actually be a huge problem if you live in | Washington State, because Himalayan Blackberry spreads through | bird droppings. You have to aggressively weed it or it will | choke out everything else in the area within a matter of years, | including saplings, mature brush, grass, native blackberry, and | other invasives like Scotch Broom. | howlin wrote: | There is some interesting thinking to be done on "native" | versus "adapted" when it comes to planning new forest. It's a | reality that the climate is changing and there are many | introduced pest species that are all drastically changing the | landscapes. On the Pacific coast, the combination of drought, | sudden oak death disease and pine beetles are rapidly changing | the flora and also the fauna when food and shelter disappears. | | When you plant a new forest today, do you try to preserve the | native species or do you anticipate what species will thrive in | the area 20-50 years from now? | 786caeefb13016 wrote: | "Assisted migration" provides ongoing ethical dilemmas, but | things seem to be moving in that direction. See, for example, | https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northern- | forests/topic... | | So I think the current consensus is something like: help | forests migrate faster than their natural rate, but don't | wormhole species across the planet. | abraae wrote: | That's a fascinating question. We hear a lot of talk about | planting forests to combat climate change. | | But it seems very feasible that just planting whatever is | thriving today will backfire in 20 years time when that | species becomes unviable due to temperature rise, reduced | rainfall or arrival of some exotic bio pest. | reportingsjr wrote: | Yes, this is something larger groups are starting to realize | and try to work with. Look up the Nature Conservancy's | climate change corridors. | | They are trying to preserve/conserve land in strips as a | priority. This way as climate changes, plants and animals | will have a path to migrate unimpeded (or at least impeded | less than if there were large roads/developments in the | way!). | sandworm101 wrote: | I am confused. There are a host of different methods in creating | a forest depending on the end goal. If the goal is to generate | more board-feet of lumber you do A. If the goal is to sequester | carbon you do B. If you want to promote animal life you do C. If | you want to promote particular plants/trees you do D. Of course | you can balance these interests, but you cannot maximize all at | once. What exactly is the end goal of the Miyawaki Method? What | does the finished forest look like? | Peckingjay wrote: | From the article: "A high level of diversity is paramount on | Sharma's list of essential goals. In projects Afforestt has | undertaken in India, his company so far managed to use about | 336 types of native trees out of 2800 that are known to have | existed in the country. And the company has started its own | nursery in Rajasthan to begin to add more species to their | plantings. | | Sharma is adamant that the impact of even very small forests on | local communities is significant enough to matter. Research | from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, which found | increased fungi, bacteria, pollinators, and amphibians on two | tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad that were based on | Sharma's models,, lends some scientific credence to this | claim." | | In this case, it would seem end goal is fauna/flora diversity. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad | | Ok. But that is where the debates start. Many forests will | not lend themselves towards diversity. Look at places like | the pacific coastal rain forests. If left alone they will | become a homogenous zone, one canopy of trees. Clearcutting | strips increases diversity of tree/bush cover, helping small | animals and everything that feeds on them. Diversity over and | above the "natural" untouched state. So is the goal a natural | level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for | diversity's sake? | carapace wrote: | FWIW, my limited understanding is that initially, in Japan, | the focus was on restoring the native forests, conserving | Japanese species and ecosystems. | | > So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an | artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake? | | I favor E. O. Wilson's proposal that we set aside half the | Earth as a nature preserve and more-or-less let evolution | do it's thing. _Which_ half is, of course, an open | question, eh? | | One way or another, I doubt we can avoid continent-scale | ecological management. | _jal wrote: | > Which half is, of course, an open question, eh? | | This approach would of course favor species that thrive | in toxic waste, radiation and trash mountains. | renewiltord wrote: | Which half is always this problem. It's compounded by the | fact that Europeans have scourged their land of anything | worthwhile - relegating nature to tiny preserves and | replacing most wilderness with farms and cities. Often | these same people insist that other nations avoid | developing and "preserve" their land. How about we raze | Europe's cities and give half her land back to Nature | first. | KaiserPro wrote: | because the cities don't have that much land. its the | farm land one would need to reclaim | hinkley wrote: | I think you need to look a bit closer at the pacific | coastal rain forests. Even if you had a tree monoculture | (which you don't), the amount and number of lichen and moss | on untouched, old or even second growth trees is | exhorbitant. Those in turn host a huge variety of other | organisms. | | The number of edible natives is also respectable, and those | didn't come from nowhere. They were here all the time in | those 'homogenous' zones. | vram22 wrote: | Diversity does not have to be a static or micro thing, | along any dimension. E.g. temporal or spatial. If you look | on a larger scale, there was/is species diversity across | centuries/aeons (evolution, Ice Ages, ...) and across | hundreds or thousands of square km. Could be a large | _homogeneous_ patch of 500 sq. km. next to another 300 in | size next to a large or medium heterogeneous patch, and so | on. On a larger scale, that 's still diversity. | setr wrote: | Not mentioned in TFA, but apparently this method also leads to | short timelines (~10 yrs) to reach self-sustaining forests[0] | | That article also goes a lot more in depth on how they setup | the forest | | [0] https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really- | real... | 786caeefb13016 wrote: | You almost answered your own question by mentioning "balance" | -- the primary goal is self-regulating stability. This is an | approach which uses intensive (and expensive) horticultural | methods to quickly create a patch of forest that will require | no further human management or operating expense. | | The biodiversity should increase a little bit as local fauna | habituate and immigrate to the forest, bringing with them | propagules from other native species, so humans don't have to | do all the work. | | Specific benefits of the Miyawaki method are that it can | dovetail well with common urban practices. A small forest can | grow next to concrete buildings, roads and sidewalks, and offer | all the common "green building" benefits such as fire | suppression, improved thermal regulation, and runoff | absorption. Of course, there will be wildlife as well. Some | people consider it a nuisance for whatever reason. | | M.R. Hari in Kerala has done some experiments with | "eccentrifying" (my word, not his) Miyawaki forests into types | such as a edible- or flower- dominated forests, which the mix | of such species is slightly increased, but not enough to | disrupt the ecological balance. I recommend his YouTube channel | 'Crowd Foresting' for many examples of what these forests can | look like (in his particular location). | OnACoffeeBreak wrote: | This 99% Invisible podcast episode talks about the unintended | consequences of planting trees in the peat tundra of Scotland | spurred by the British government's tax breaks to incentivize re- | forestation around the country in the 1980s: | | https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/ | | EDIT: This is not to say that trees should not be planted. I | wrote the post in support of using science and nuance to plant | trees the right way, which I think is the major point of the | article. | ARandomerDude wrote: | TL;DR Plant a huge variety of native plants in good soil. Seems | like a good approach. | sriram_malhar wrote: | The details are what set this method apart. The myriad ways of | rejuvenating fallow soil, planting on clusters of mounds, | planting 30x denser than accepted practice, the idea that a | forest can be just 4m wide and so on ... | mekoka wrote: | A previous discussion (different article) on HN | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473 | gautamdivgi wrote: | I believe Jadav Payeng should have a mention here - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng. Considering Jadav's | forest is magnitudes of cover more. | andrebotelho wrote: | I'm a bigger proponent for agroforestry than other methods. Being | that monocultures are the biggest catalyst of desertification, | agroforestry, when implemented in industrial agricultural | settings, has a higher dimensionality/impact. | hinkley wrote: | I did not scientifically measure this, but anecdotes are a good | place to start for grant applications, so I'll mention it | anyway. | | I'm trying to turn a compacted field back into a tiny woodland. | It's still mostly horizontal at this point, but it's full of | pillbugs and spiders and earthworms and the birds seem to love | foraging in it. An hour ago I looked out the window and saw a | finch pulling a spider off the side of my house, and it | reminded me that one of the supposed tenets of polycultures is | that you build up the food web and the food web will take care | of the pests. Then it reminded me that I don't recall seeing | this many birds the previous year. | | I've temporarily drawn in the bird population from the | surrounding area, by providing a richer hunting ground (more | carrying capacity). Next year there will be a few more baby | birds surviving to adulthood, then they'll be competing | aggressively for all the other invertebrates in the area, | dropping more fruit seeds everywhere they perch, which means | more bugs and fruit and so on. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-12 23:00 UTC)