[HN Gopher] Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects ar... ___________________________________________________________________ Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing Author : kaboro Score : 176 points Date : 2022-10-18 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (e360.yale.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (e360.yale.edu) | theptip wrote: | > Not surprisingly, those locals often reacted badly. For | example, in northern Malawi, they broke fences and burned a | growing forest to get back the common grazing land on which the | trees had been planted. In two Nigerian projects, villagers cut | all the planted non-fruit trees for firewood, while protecting | those that bore fruit. | | Recommended reading: "Seeing Like A State" by James Scott. The | first section on Scientific Forestry directly applies, and the | rest of the book conceptually does too. | | In summary, the state seeks to render its resources and populace | legible, because local arrangements are very hard to quantify | (and tax) from the center. This drive to achieve legibility | inevitably distorts the world they are attempting to understand, | for example by incentivizing monoculture forestry (easier to | count the trees) instead of natural forest growth (providing many | communal resources that are impossible to measure such as | firewood, foraging, grazing, and so on). | | There is a very prevalent idea that "subsistence farmers" know | little about the land they work. It's usually the opposite; they | tend to have far more practical expertise than the centralized | planners. | | If instead of planning these projects centrally, they were | planned and executed by locals in collaboration with central | funding sources, you'd be much more likely to get good results. | The local farmers can usually tell you what trees will grow, | where they will survive, what the village needs more of, and so | on. To be more concrete -- why not provide a centralized program | that subsidizes villages to plant trees, but does not specify | which trees to plant? If the incentives are high enough you'll | get people to plant anything (as the OP shows). But at a lower | level of incentive, they will only do the work for something that | they actually value. That's the sweet spot. | MichaelZuo wrote: | The problems start when each empowered locality starts | demanding exemptions to laws that must be enforced consistently | to be credible, or even viable. | | It's a very difficult problem to resolve as coordination | problems get exponentially costly as the number of parties | grow. | | In organizational terms, once there's two or more layers of | middle management, delegating decision making to frontline | managers create wicked problems. | PicassoCTs wrote: | Thats the problem with all these projects though, they are | situation brittle, depending on a situation not changing for | the worse and a constant economic drip keeping them alive. The | actual solution would be to saturate humans need for firewood | and material - by drone planting the only plant that could keep | up, survive and thrive, with it - Variations of genetically | modified Bamboo.The past is gone, it cant be restored, but the | danger can be contained with no constant costs and outside of | the containment vessels, something like the past one day might | return. | hutzlibu wrote: | "The actual solution would be to saturate humans need for | firewood and material - by drone planting the only plant that | could keep up, survive and thrive, with it - Variations of | genetically modified Bamboo" | | Bamboo needs lots of water, and I am unaware of a modified | version that does not, so is not really suitable in many | areas. How about low tech solar cookers instead? | DoreenMichele wrote: | _Seeing like a state_ is a terrific book. | | It's possible that I learned the idea of _forest death_ from it | rather than a college class.[1] The German word for it is | waldsterben and there seem to be few English language resources | about it.[3] | | My recollection is that monoculture forests promote forest | death. Diversity is critical to a thriving forest. | | [1] Or both. I was an Environmental Resource Management major. | | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30749891 | empyrrhicist wrote: | That's the idea behind community-based participatory research. | Some people get it. | pstuart wrote: | You're spot on with your assessment, the only thing I'd change | is that the centralized management does more than funding -- it | provides a library of possible projects with expert assistance | as needed. Locals still get control and ownership of their | efforts but they have help when _they_ want it. | theptip wrote: | Indeed. Given the starting point, and the major shift in | world-view required to do this kind of thing, I think of that | library as a "phase 2" kind of thing. First get a few | successful projects under our belt, then think about how we | can add more leverage. | | But I strongly agree that the end point to envision is the | center acting as a library/facilitator to share knowledge | between different groups, rather than The Source of Truth in | itself. | | Local farmers that succeed in these sort of programs would | likely be happy to go share ideas and experiences with other | farmers, and the government can certainly provide funding and | logistical support to facilitate these small-scale | collaborations. | | And it's certainly the case that there are some scientific | advances that farmers aren't aware of, that "the center" can | help to introduce; things like sensors, democratized GM | technology, and so on, could all be developed centrally and | made available to the periphery. Farmers tend to be quick to | adopt new tools and practices that actually help them. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Carbon credits from tree planting? Similar to the famous bounties | on rats in old France. Rat plantations made a few rich. | Similarly, institutions can claim credit for planting 'forests' | that are pointless and failures. | | Sure planting trees is generally a low-yield operations, with | <50% survival rate typical. But these referenced projects were | abysmally low, egregiously low, around a percent or two. Low | enough to see that no honest effort was made. | pmayrgundter wrote: | Great comments about monoculture and poor incentives. | | Natural forests have a complexity that doesn't seem worthwhile to | brute-force by massive tree planting. There's an obvious spatial | complexity for different plant phyla patterns (see a bunch of | links below).. a kind of blending between meadows to underbrush | to trees, mosses and lichen in rocky areas, mangroves holding | onto rivers. And there's plenty of fungus and animal | participation to consider as well. | | I like to listen to permaculture people and their approaches.. | thinking of the water tables, clay and soil types. I think | there's probably also some new thinking to be done about how | functional water cycles differ from arid areas and developing | long-term plans to coax water back up with strong cloud-seeders, | from coastlines and river basins towards inland deserts. | | That all leads to healthier rivers and tidal estuaries, which are | keystones for many maritime ecosystems, due to feeding and | breeding migrations e.g. of salmon, crab, eels. | | I guess I'm saying we're missing the forests for the trees :) | | https://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/2276/2276110-bigthum... | https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediu... | https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/536460cbe4b02a... | https://www.backyardgardenlover.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/... | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Bl... | hinkley wrote: | I just finished Suzanne Simard's book, which if you ignore the | timelines (early 90's) of when she thought about these things, | reads like your kid discovering a love of your favorite hobby | and breathlessly explaining each new discovery as they happen. | | The new idea I encountered in the book was one of deep rooted | trees hydrating the soil by reaching into the water table and | pulling it up to the surface. Particularly at night when | evaporation rates drop off. I'd read years ago that some | African cultures ascribe this power to fig trees (possibly from | Wangari Maathai), but I've never seen anything but anecdotal | evidence of this happening anywhere else. She anthropomorphized | these things but I suspect that some of the activities she saw | could more boringly be ascribed to osmotic pressure. Sugars and | water are going to leak out across a gradient at some rate even | if you try to stop it. Especially across a barrier that is | designed to pass water in the opposite direction. | pmayrgundter wrote: | I love her work :) The co2 isotope-based tracing is genius. | | Also reminds me of the nutrient chain in PacNW connects the | salmon spawn to becoming tree fertilizer via the bear fishing | and discarding partly eaten carcases; they just eat the fatty | skin. Deep ecology. | nathancahill wrote: | One of my favorite anecdotes on this problem is Guatemala. The | laws on the books are pretty decent, incentives for farmers to | reforest land where there used to be trees, with the government | paying for the initial seedlings and then yearly payments (with | verification of tree growth) over 7-15 years as the trees mature. | | However, farmers quickly found a loophole where they could find a | plot of virgin forest, clear cut the hardwood for lumber and then | use the bare land to sign up for the program. They would plant a | fast growing monocrop of pine and tend it (and collect payments) | for 7 years until they would harvest it for lumber. All fully | paid for by the government. | gelatocar wrote: | While that is obviously rorting the system, isn't it kind of | ideal from a carbon capture perspective? One of the big | problems with planting forests for carbon capture is that they | often burn down, and even when they don't, the natural cycle of | the forest trees dying or falling and breaking down releases | the captured carbon too. Harvesting the trees and using them as | a building material seems like a better way to ensure that the | captured carbon stays stored for longer. As long as they aren't | used for firewood... | superchroma wrote: | " _There is no anti-tree lobby_ " | | There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release | statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when | new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. | They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when | allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda | printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist. | ianbicking wrote: | If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting | lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also | enthusiastically support planting trees | soperj wrote: | There's no lobby, but you count me as part of an anti-tree- | planting group. There's a specific reason why, and it's | because of how it's done. The reason that they plant trees, | is to grow specific kinds of trees that are good for logging | companies. So they spray areas that are logged with | glycosphate to prevent other plants from reclaiming the | logged areas, and then plant round-up ready GMO trees in the | area. It leads to these massive mono-culture forests that are | prime for huge forest fires. The trees they want are fire- | promoting trees (like pines), and the trees they don't (like | aspen) are fire break species. They then blame the bigger | forest fires entirely on climate change. | xani__ wrote: | ajross wrote: | Only timber species, though, not forests. | rolandog wrote: | The same way that wolves are pro-birthers when it comes to | sheep. | RobLach wrote: | Yes but planting trees and turning it to lumber is an | excellent way to sequester carbon. | orangepurple wrote: | Trees are not 100% carbon. Logging worsens soil | conditions when no effort is made to preserve it. "Just | keep planting lol" is not sustainable. Algae sequester | carbon better. | jandrese wrote: | What logging does is create an economic incentive to | plant the trees and let them grow. The problem with algae | is that it doesn't have economic value currently. People | dream about turning it into food or biofuels but that's | not currently viable. | | Although if you were only interested in sequestering | carbon (which currently has close to 0 economic | incentive) you could grow algae, filter them out of the | water, and then pump them deep underground into old | gas/oil wells. It's still a lot of energy but possibly | more viable than most carbon capture proposals. Over | millions of years that algae will probably turn back into | coal/oil. | | Also, farming algae in natural waterways tends to have | its own environmental impacts. | rolandog wrote: | Oh, agreed. I just wanted to make an analogy about groups | that have, in theory, competing interests but can in some | cases have common goals. | BurningFrog wrote: | Harvesting and replanting trees is not anti-tree. | mistrial9 wrote: | a quick read of this -- it appears to be a list of badly executed | projects by struggling governments, more than anything ecosystem- | oriented; coinciding with "constant topic of conversation in | political circles" .. Second in failure rate only to "protecting | healthy forests that exist now" ? | orangepurple wrote: | From a distance it appears as if those organizations are doing | those tree planting stunts to tick boxes on ESG compliance | forms required to receive international aid they need for | embezzlement income. How else do useless third world | bureaucrats fund their escapades? Look no further than the | recent history of Nauru to see how leadership has zero qualms | stealing the future of a whole country then converting it into | a literal prison for hire for $27 million a year. | ianbicking wrote: | The Miyawaki method [1], which I'm sure has been on HN before, is | a very different approach to these projects. When I first read | about it, it seemed like a kind of too-good-to-be-true miracle | approach, but reading further it's really just a lot of hard | work. | | Site preparation is a huge part of it. This photo gallery [2] | gives some sense. It starts with soil testing and soil amendment, | I doubt they ever consider the soil "good enough" at the outset. | I'm not sure if they also do any hydrological changes? Then they | plant a dense and diverse set of trees. I'm not clear how many | trees ultimately survive. There's theories about the set of trees | you'd use, but I can only imagine some of the process is just | natural selection, and a belief that early density is positive to | later growth. | | Bringing it back to technology, I do wonder what tools could | support this kind of higher-effort higher-impact forestation. It | seems like there's work to be done performing soil tests and | understand the results and recommended amendments, including some | decision trees around tests and results. There's general guidance | on the choice of trees, but it requires matching that guidance | against local conditions and local plants. | | In some ways the process is simpler than landscaping a house: you | aren't trying to get a perfect set of plants, and you aren't | imposing other requirements. You're really trying to build a mini | ecosystem, and the ecosystem is there to do a lot of the work on | its own. | | I am less sure how this approach translates to more marginal | locations. It's a bit easier to rapidly create a lush and vibrant | forest in India than at the edge of a desert. Most of the | examples are in tropical locations. | | [1] https://www.crowdforesting.org/miyawaki-model/forest-kerala | | [2] https://www.greenyatra.org/miyawaki.php | sitkack wrote: | I did a fun experiment in my yard, I took a small mixture of | grass seeds (store bought bird seed) and planted them in | various places in the yard (after sprouting). It was amazing to | see what did and did not thrive in various places due to sun, | water and soil. | | One place supported all 4 kinds, the other three only supported | 1 or 2 kinds of grasses. | | I would think reforesting a barren land might have to take | multiple phases of growth to prepare the soil, ability to hold | water, fungal colonies to extract nutrients, etc. | sn41 wrote: | Hmm. Pleasantly surprised to find Kerala being mentioned in | this context - I wasn't aware of this. | | But on a related note, the south west of India has a rich | tradition of "Sarpa Kavus", literally, "Serpent Shrine", but | which are in reality, sacred groves in some corner of the yard | of many traditional homes (see [1] for a typical example) - | these are mostly left to themselves for most of the year, | except for a couple of festival days. In practice, it is almost | a biome within the yard. | | [1] | https://nandakishorevarma.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/a-sacred-... | mabbo wrote: | > I do wonder what tools could support this kind of higher- | effort higher-impact forestation | | What's neat is that the tools already exist. Much of modern | farming is a data problem- knowing soil conditions and nutrient | levels across a large area and which plants would work best | where. They often make use of satellite data, watershed | simulation, weather and climate models. | | I wonder if anyone has documented using those tools for this | purpose. | atonalfreerider wrote: | Ceres is one that I know about: | https://www.ceresimaging.net/customer-stories | antisthenes wrote: | The Miyawaki model is incredibly labor intensive and requires | far more sophistication in monitoring and planting methods than | developing countries are usually willing to commit to mass | planting projects. | | 90%+ of these mass planting "1 million trees in 30 seconds" | projects is usually little more than putting sticks in the | ground, hoping some of them make it, with little regard for | survivability, usefulness, tree species nativity, etc. | hinkley wrote: | Some of these notions of building a forest have parallels in | the still developing field of probiotics versus prebiotics. | Setting the dominoes instead of trying and failing to set the | scene. | | It turns out that building a healthy forest is a long difficult | process that can span multiple administrations and in some | cases lifetimes. Building the conditions for a second growth | successional forest is something most of us can watch in real | time. | | These things are quality over quantity, which requires some | cleverness in order to leverage. Forests (vs tree farms) spread | by mycelium, by root, by seed, and by wing, and pretty much in | that order. You'll get more success planting the entire | perimeter of an intact forest than planting a rectangular area | next to it, and more success planting a rectangular area next | to an intact forest than planting a random hill in the middle | of a clearcut. I have a hypothesis that planting rich islands | within line of sight of each other and then letting nature in- | fill between them also works better, but I have seen no | research supporting or refuting that hypothesis. Nature | corridors seem to be pretty close to this model and those have | been proven. | | One thing I'd like to see us do is move away from square and | rectangular clearcuts toward more linear ones. Perhaps on | contour, and leaving support species instead of nuking | everything before replanting. See also research by Suzanne | Simard and her peers on the soil food web. | MichaelCollins wrote: | The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for | _planting_ trees when we should be rewarding them for _growing_ | trees. | | Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem | successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties | because they actually have a reason to care about the success of | replanting their own land. | ethagknight wrote: | This is great insight that I haven't considered. IN parts of | the US you can plainly see miles of monoculture forests in all | directions thriving (in an industrial sense) because they are | actively managed. Look around Panama City, FL, (link below) for | a good example. | | https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2640043,-85.4463662,3277m/da... | chaostheory wrote: | Isn't most of the Western portion of the US comprised of | monoculture forests due to the historical lack of rain | compared to the Eastern half? | dghlsakjg wrote: | No. | | The western half of the US has many monoculture forests | where forestry companies manage them with thinning, | herbicides and selective planting. | | Natural forests in the west are diverse and contain many | species of trees. They are different trees than you see in | the east, and many of the coniferous species appear | similar. | CommieBobDole wrote: | To extend that, there was an article here a while back about | how many of the people growing these monoculture pine forests | for paper production have stopped cutting them because | gathering the pinestraw and selling it for landscaping purposes | is much more lucrative. | Lendal wrote: | I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard | from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an | arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are | incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees | down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. | | We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that | extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can help | individual landowners to plant the right kinds of trees in the | right ways. | dylan604 wrote: | >I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard | from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an | arborist. | | I don't mean to be rude, but how brown is your green thumb? I | get killing house plants, but killing a tree growing outdoors | seems like something you'd actively have to do. The most | common "mistake" I've seen are lack of care with lawn | equipment like weed whackers. Are they just not being planted | correctly so they don't have a chance? | crazygringo wrote: | I'm no expert gardener but I can't help but wonder if it | could be animals/pests eating the leaves before the tree is | tall enough? Or gnawing all the bark, etc. | | Also trees might not be a good match for the soil, there's | clay the roots can't penetrate, etc. | dylan604 wrote: | I get planting the wrong tree in the wrong area. That's | part of what I meant by not being planted correctly. Not | treating the root ball properly is another. | | However, I have pecan/oak trees in my area. Every spring, | I get free saplings from the nuts that actually | germinated and sprouted in a lot of my pots that I use | for my container garden. If I were to actually try to get | one of these nuts to grow, it would never take. Yet every | spring, Mother Nature gives me freebies that I feel | guilty about plucking when it comes time to prep for the | next round of veggies instead. I have an almost perfect | spot to let another tree grow to full size. If it weren't | for the remaining stump from where the shitty developer | planted Bradford Pears, I'd transplant some of the Live | Oaks saplings in their place. | gopher_space wrote: | Underwatering a recent transplant is pretty common. I'll | just hold a hose on the area until I get bored. | luhn wrote: | Some great advice that I got: Buy a five gallon bucket, | drill an 1/8" hole in the side. That way the water can | soak into the ground without having to stand there with a | hose for five minutes. Plus you can measure how much | water you're giving the tree--I was told one bucket twice | a week for the first year, but I'm sure YMMV depending on | the tree and your climate. | dylan604 wrote: | >until I get bored. | | =) I really wish I could make a lot of my decisions based | on this alone. | | If you have a short attention span, that's not good. | | Yet, at the same time, if you zone out for an hour and | doing this daily, that's not good but in an opposite | manner. | 1123581321 wrote: | If you're in the US, contact your local extension office for | help. Though I'm also unsure why your trees would keep dying; | I haven't seen a lot of people with that issue. | rini17 wrote: | There's no substitute for self learning here, sadly. As soon | as you want "nonstandard" garden you're on your own, with | plenty of trial and error. With that in mind, maybe there's | local gardening group? | s1artibartfast wrote: | Can you expand on your arborist conflict of interest. Are | they all dishonest or can you simply ask what the expected | lifetime of the tree would be? | googlryas wrote: | Your local/nearby college/university almost certainly | provides these services for free. | extantproject wrote: | https://archive.ph/7bVu8 | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | How many of these tree planting projects are funded by carbon | credits/offsets? | | Tree planting seems the be the simplest/cheapest project to do | that ostensibly removes CO2. | | Basically, the carbon offsets serve as a conscience salve for | rich people to continue their lifestyle, and then these tree | projects exist as a way to say that you are at least trying to do | something. Nobody really cares if they are effective or not. | throwaway8582 wrote: | Much of the Earth's surface is not suitable for growing trees, | either because it's too dry, to wet, to cold, poor soil or lack | of soil, etc. The article gives examples of planting in places | where trees don't typically grow, on coastlines and in deserts, | so it's not at all surprising that the trees planted there died. | This is why I've always been skeptical of tree planting | initiatives. In areas where they can survive, trees will just | naturally appear on unused land, there's no need to plant them. | If this isn't happening on it's own, it's probably because the | conditions there aren't right for them. | kokanee wrote: | Some would argue that where conditions for trees aren't | suitable, the solution is to build a forest there. Forests | themselves are the best terraforming tool, if you can get them | started by supplying the necessary nutrients, energy, and | water. | | I don't know how feasible it is, but using trees to transform | parched landscapes is the mission of a company I interviewed at | a while back called Terraformation, founded by the former CEO | of Reddit. | sitkack wrote: | To add reference to the claim that, "forests themselves are | the best terraforming tool", one can take the example of | Ascension Island. With the introduction of outside trees that | formed an ecological foothold, they started cooling humid air | and reinforcing the soil so that other plants and trees can | flourish. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island#Botany | | https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11137903 | | Once, This Island Had Just One Tree | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZPrk9IZ3Jw | robocat wrote: | Looking at the satellite photos, a lot of the Island is | still quite barren. | | Strangely enough, the Google maps satellite imagery is | almost useless. Use Apple maps instead. If not on an Apple | device, you can access Apple maps via | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ascension+island (note: satellite | imagery is not available this way on my iDevice). | | Here is another BBC article, which I think is far more | balanced and talks about the negative issues of the | biological cost of the planting: | https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36076411 | | The last volcanic eruption was 1508 or so. I did a quick | Google to find some information on how long takes it | generally takes for vegetative regeneration after volcanic | eruptions. Looks like it depends on type of eruption and | rainfall: "Mount Kelud in East Java has erupted on a | 15-37-years cycle for the past centuries [snip] Within 3 | years of the eruption, stem diameters were 3-10 cm. [snip] | being able to establish itself rapidly in the extreme | conditions that prevail after a recent ash deposition event | (given the short return period of eruptions), but by | enriching the ash deposits with nitrogen, paves the way for | grasses to take over, which in turn delay succession to | other woody vegetation" (not sure if the landscape was | purely volcanically virgin). Obviously it can also takes | centuries in the example of Ascension. A study in Hawaii | looked at the order that types of vegetation took hold: htt | ps://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/5/chap8.. | . | jandrese wrote: | The caveat with this is the forests can do ok for awhile, but | then a dry spell will hit and it tends to burn down. | perrygeo wrote: | > trees will just naturally appear on unused land, there's no | need to plant them. If this isn't happening on it's own, it's | probably because the conditions there aren't right for them. | | That is only true if the seeds can travel to get there! Moving | many miles or uphill via seed dispersal is a slow process. The | climate gradients and habitat pressures are moving much faster. | While I agree that land suitable for forests will eventually | reforest itself, if we want to do it on human timescales, we | may need to kick-start the process with a seed transfer | program. | 0000011111 wrote: | I wonder what the success rate would be if trees were replanted | in forest that burned. | | And to what extent climate change would make the environment no | longer suited for trees? | | In the US forest fires burn about 7 million acres on average | each year. | | https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10244.pdf | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires | | The Dixie fire alone was about 1 million acres. | | San Francisco is 30,000 acres for perspective. | | https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10244.pdf | fnordpiglet wrote: | Maybe the gauge of success isn't 100% but much lower - a 15% | success rate doesn't seem terrible, as was quoted for several | projects. Maybe we better custodianship you can make that better, | but I've seen quotes elsewhere that even with the most aggressive | stewardship up to 70% of planted trees in afforestation efforts | die. Maybe carpet bombing with seedlings and being happy with the | residual survival is the game and we should be happy? Careful | stewardship may not be scaleable, but mass planting is. That 15% | delta might be dwarfed by the scale of effort possible. | contingencies wrote: | Some practical steps might include staging (eg. first reduce | topsoil loss and create windbreaks with native grasses and ground | covers, then start shrubs, then move on to trees, finally seed | additional biome), always interplanting a range of species, | placing protective rocks or other features for initial | microclimate (moisture channeling, moisture retention, part wind | protection, shade), and ensuring that all species planted are | regionally endemic (greater capability to thrive in location | conditions). Things to avoid are plants that depend on artificial | irrigation, fertilizer, or pathogen protection. | tantalor wrote: | Did nobody play SimEarth? You have to start with grasslands | before building up to forests. And you need the right critters. | jibbit wrote: | ~10 trees have been planted on my street (in London) over the | past few years. Each cost hundreds of pounds and took months to | arrange. Every one died this summer. | georgeburdell wrote: | Didn't see any mention of Israel? Their afforestation efforts | seem successful | foobarbecue wrote: | The folly of monoculture forest planting forms the basis for a | subplot in The Overstory. | | I can't give a wholehearted reccomendation for The Overstory | since it was a bit melodramatic for my taste. The narrative | cadence of the book goes something like: tragedy, pointless | tragedy, ridiculous tragedy, unrealistic tragedy and so forth | until the end... with a dash of interesting ecology and history | sprinkled throughout. I suppose it should be read as magical | realism with "rage against the machine" vibes. | greenie_beans wrote: | and what about grasslands? these projects will sometimes plant | forests that were historically savanna and grasslands | c0brac0bra wrote: | This may be unpopular on HN, but that's what Allan Savory has | advocated for, along with rotational (holistic in his words) | grazing of ruminants. | greenie_beans wrote: | i didn't realize that "preserve and promote grasslands" was a | controversial take lol | hutzlibu wrote: | History is gone. Also it is likely, that there were times when | those Savanne areas were covered with trees. | | There is no shortage of grasslands that are close of becoming | desserts with one serious draught, but there is shortage of | forests, that hold the moisture and prevent further | desertification. | greenie_beans wrote: | i love forests too. i don't know where you live, but you | might learn something about grasslands from the southern | grasslands institute: https://www.segrasslands.org/ | | re: "history isn't gone," that's a reductive position. it | will certainly be very different millions of years from now, | but it won't be as drastic within our lifetime. the | ecological history of a place tells us where plants thrive | and don't thrive. site selection is a fact of plant success. | certain types of trees grow in grasslands but they aren't the | dominate plant life -- fossil records would indicate this. | | i'm no ecologist or scientist, but i've read that grasslands | can hold water too. just google "do grasslands store water" | hutzlibu wrote: | "i'm no ecologist or scientist, but i've read that | grasslands can hold water too. just google "do grasslands | store water"" | | Well, I am also not a formal educated ecologist, but I am | friends with some (including regular heated discussions) | and have had a strong interest in the subject since years. | | So yes, grasslands do hold water. But afaik it is a really | tiny amount compared to trees. Also just compare how deep | the roots of trees reach, compared with grass. (even though | the savannah grass is of course a special breed and way | better equipped against droughts than the common gras on a | lawn) | | "the ecological history of a place tells us where plants | thrive and don't thrive. site selection is a fact of plant | success." | | I agree that it is stupid to ignore that. | | But we humans changed so much on the earth already, that | the conditions in many places also changed. Winds, rain, | temperature, .. including the soil but usually for the | worse (acid rain and co, but also fertilizers). This is | what I meant with history is gone. | | So my point is, I would not not plant a forest, just | because 100 years ago, there also wasn't a forest there. | | (Also humans have had cattle for a long time and | overgrazing is likely the number one reason for | desertification or plain grasslands.) | | I rather would just look at the current data. How is the | soil. PH. Salt level. How much rainfall. What is the | temperature, etc. | | And then start with the right shrubs and bushes. And then | trees. | | A forest will grow on its own with the right conditions. We | can help with those conditions. | greenie_beans wrote: | i agree that humans have changed a lot. and i also agree | that you should look at the current data. you should also | look at the failures of reforesting areas that weren't | historically forests. what is the data of reforestation | failure vs success in those areas? | | if you're interested in this topic, i've learned a lot | from the authors of this paper (paper is also good and | relevant to our discussion and points to a lot of their | sources): https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/1 | 1449/159556/W... | | it's a fascinating topic! appeals to my social science | and nature interests | hutzlibu wrote: | "it's a fascinating topic! appeals to my social science | and nature interests" | | Definitely. | | I am also interested in the linked paper, but for some | reasons it fails to download for me. | greenie_beans wrote: | it's titled "Grassy biomes: An inconvenient reality for | large-scale forest restoration? A comment on the essay by | Chazdon and Laestadius" | formerkrogemp wrote: | > History is gone. Also it is likely, that there were times | when those Savanne areas were covered with trees. > There is | no shortage of grasslands that are close of becoming desserts | with one serious draught, but there is shortage of forests, | that hold the moisture and prevent further desertification. | | Well said. It makes one wonder how the Midwest Great Plains | shelter belt and other regions like it will handle this | current dry spell we're in globally. | nyanpasu64 wrote: | See also https://placesjournal.org/article/informal-settlers- | environm... (discussion at | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32726036), describing how | one local-run tree-planting operation has succeeded where | government and NGO-run prestige projects failed. | princevegeta89 wrote: | Growing a forest is as much an effort as it is to plant it. Of | course, wherever the forests have ever been present, those places | were being controlled by nature automatically. Nothing has ever | changed, except for the fact that we have cut down a good | majority of those. | | To replicate a forest means to replicate the entire mechanics and | settings that forests thrive in, not just replicating the | presence of plants/trees alone. | debacle wrote: | Trees tend to fail spectacularly, even for seasoned growers. The | site that I bulk purchase seedlings from estimates a failure rate | as high as 70% for evergreen plugs _if you do everything right_. | As you move up from seedlings to 3 year old plants, the failure | rate drops to 10%, but my real failure rate is probably closer to | 30%. The number one reason is too much /too little moisture, with | some pests/disease thrown in. | | Furthermore, trees need organic material. A lot of it. A tree | planted in "dirt" will be about the same size 3 years later. A | (young) tree planted in rich compost can double in size in a | year. You can't stick a tree in the ground anywhere and expect it | to grow without a good amount of help. | jhoechtl wrote: | > Furthermore, trees need organic material. A lot of it. A tree | planted in "dirt" will be about the same size 3 years later. | | As someone who has a green thumb, was fascinated of trees since | a kid and is working a considerable amount of forrest partly | with his own tools: It's not like that. | | There are trees which fall into the category of early | succession. They shy away of compost, their seeds do not even | germinate in such an environment. They need bare soil. | | Other trees prefer poor soil as they perform symbiosis with | fungi (mykhoriza), essentially producing the type of soil they | need (partly). | | And then there are the trees which prefer rich soil. | | The later category are trees where the lawn owner is to | impatient to wait (how can I make my tree grow faster) or the | aggroforrestry is dependent on highest yield in shortest growth | time. | smesla wrote: | What sort of evergreens are you planting? Are they native? I | replanted a clearcut a year or so ago and even with an | abnormally hot summer and a dry fall I'm looking at 30%, tops. | debacle wrote: | A variety. I'm working to restore a large tract of former | farmland, and so we're trying to plant whatever sticks to | increase biodiversity. | smesla wrote: | If you haven't yet, you may want to hire a professional | forester. At 70% loss they'd likely pay for themselves many | times over and save a lot of headache. | debacle wrote: | These are seedling trees, less than a foot high. They're | expected to fail at a pretty high rate. In the future | I'll be updating to 2nd year trees which seem to have a | better cost/survival rate. | 11235813213455 wrote: | They need insects also (some will eat the moisture, some will | pollinate, spread grains, etc), diversity | swader999 wrote: | A thirty percent failure rate is pretty decent for three year | old seedlings when you consider the pine cone potential of the | survivors. | clairity wrote: | yes, LA has a program to give away trees for planting in yards | and parkways, and my read of the program is that, while it's | goal is laudable, the implementation is lacking. earlier this | year, a partner non-profit planted 2 trees for us and i planted | an additional 2 trees that another org gave us, and i learned | that it's not a set-it-and-forget-it type of endeavor. walking | around my neighborhood, many of these trees, even though most | are native species adapted to the environment, will end up | dying because of the lack of care and the lack of education | that comes with the trees. beyond enriching the soil when | planting, it apparently takes ~5 years for the trees to | establish themselves, and so requires constant watering for at | least that amount of time. | | ours sprouted quickly when first planted but then stagnated | through the hottest parts of the summer. now we're entering the | winter season and i'm wondering what we need to do to | revitalize the soil again to help them grow in the spring. | lazide wrote: | Also, even native plants aren't adapted to what many people | consider 'native soil' - if there is no existing native | vegetation, the soil itself is far different from what a | typical seed would deal with from that same plant natively. | | And when you think about it, it's normal - you'd never end up | with a giant 100% consistent group of plants in a native area | anyway. You'd have variable concentrations all over the | place, with some devoid of one species, others overpopulated | with it, all based on suitability of the local env. and and | variations in the soil, water, shade, and competing plants | nearby. | | As humans, we just think we can point to a spot and it should | comply and grow amazingly I guess, and we get flustered if | that isn't what happens. | xani__ wrote: | jandrese wrote: | Also, even in nature most saplings don't make it. It's easy | to forget that trees release hundreds or thousands of seeds | every year and only a small handful will even germinate, | and few of those will make it to maturity. Most every plant | takes a quantity over quality approach. Exceptions may | include stonefruit trees, but even those produce a lot of | fruit, but only dozens instead of thousands. | splitstud wrote: | clairity wrote: | yah, good soil is an ecosystem of living things, not an | inert medium. urban soil tends to be more depleted and | polluted than average, so needs even more attention to get | trees to grow. i'm not really a gardener type, but i do | love me some trees and shade! | mypalmike wrote: | In Seattle, we have a similar program. The tree comes with a | donut-shaped water bag for twice weekly watering during the | dry summer, and instructions for tree care for those first 5 | years. The main takeaways I got were: don't bury the trunk | (the top of the root system should just barely be above the | dirt line) and amend the tree maybe once a year with coarse | wood or bark mulch, leaving a couple inches of space around | the trunk. Three years in, my tree seems to be flourishing. | Maursault wrote: | I think the author is incorrect about no one hating trees, | because developers seem to hate trees. The most conspicuous | detail in a new development is the absence of trees. | | I think trees need a forest. The best place for a tree to grow is | under a mature tree of its own species. But even trees of | different species help prevent damage to each other from winds | and storms. Perhaps instead of trying to plant a new forest, we | should be jealously conserving and expanding what forest remains. | Harvesting timber by clear-cutting should be illegal, and while | the logging industry has adjusted somewhat to conservation, | wealthy landowners still do it all the time. | rdtwo wrote: | Planting the wrong trees can be an ecological disaster and a lot | of trees planted are the wrong tree for the environment | insane_dreamer wrote: | As the article points out, the problem is our obsession with | "trees planted" instead of "trees survived" after n years (n=20? | not sure, but at least 10). | | It's a reason why those "we plant a tree every time you buy X" | marketing claims are mostly BS. | xani__ wrote: | It's more than that. Even if planting gigantic monoculture | "works" it's not exactly a healthy forest. Ignoring what the | locals need/want will also just bring it to status quo sooner | than later. | biellls wrote: | Monocultures of any kind are always fragile, you need diversity | to have a resilient ecosystem. These projects should benefit from | an understanding of permaculture, which is a discipline that aims | to create the right conditions for healthy systems. Everything | from succession (pioneer leguminous species that can fix nitrogen | and improve soil, slowly replaced by other species), trying to | slow down and catch water where it falls to prevent soil erosion | and runoff and much more. I've heard (unsubstantiated) claims | that initiatives in China have already started to take these into | account and have succeeded where other monoculture forests | failed. | | A side effect is that you can end up with productive species. | Imagine forests where many trees bear fruits, others have acorns | that pigs can feed on, fruit vines and understory herbs that | animals can graze on, large lakes with edible fish. This is the | future I'd be excited for and it's all currently possible with | the right policies. | jandrese wrote: | Would it really be so hard to plant a mix of seeds? I can see a | monoculture if the intention is to harvest the wood or fruit | later, but if you're only planting to capture carbon or restore | a forest then a mix of trees seems like a healthier option and | shouldn't be any more effort. You don't need to be precise with | the mix either, a just random chance should be fine. | Retric wrote: | Monoculture of very fast growing trees let's them maximize the | value per acre when sold as carbon indulgences. Actual impact | is much lower, but by then they have moved to the next project. | | That said, in areas that got deforested having any tree cover | can make the area much more habitable for other trees. Thus | single digit survival rates can still result in new forest over | a few decades. | tomrod wrote: | The economic topic you're hinting at is externality. There is | also the notion of Goodhart's Law, where any (single | dimensional) measure gets gamed. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-18 23:00 UTC)