Should We Be Planting More Trees?

[Baluncore]

If my statements bring up feelings of learned helplessness in you, that is not my fault.

Your statements do not.
I can only assume you are psychologically projecting.

 

[paradoxlost]

Your statements do not.
I can only assume you are psychologically projecting.

based on me wanting to address things that are, by your statements, out of my control. makes sense.

 

[paradoxlost]

Please don't post nonsense here at PF. Thanks.

if you took an infrared thermometer and measured the temp of the table your computer is in, it would be over 0 Kelvin I assume. If it is above that temperature, the part of its emission spectra that makes it not 0 Kelvin would be in the infrared spectrum.

the part that makes it whatever color you see it as, that's in the visible spectrum.

 

[BillTre]

if you took an infrared thermometer and measured the temp of the table your computer is in, it would be over 0 Kelvin I assume. If it is above that temperature, the part of its emission spectra that makes it not 0 Kelvin would be in the infrared spectrum.

the part that makes it whatever color you see it as, that's in the visible spectrum.

So much of your comments are irrelevant to the issue of planting trees.
I am negatively impressed.
You should make your own thread of digressions.

 

[paradoxlost]

So much of your comments are irrelevant to the issue of planting trees.
I am negatively impressed.
You should make your own thread of digressions.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the thread. It wasn't about growing trees, it was about growing trees to address a problem, which the majority of my comments are relative too.

The irony is your post is also, not about growing trees.

 

[BillTre]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the thread. It wasn't about growing trees, it was about growing trees to address a problem, which the majority of my comments are relative too.

A) I think you should let the guy who started the thread say what its about.
B) I think most of your comments have been about your comments not getting the respect you expected.

The irony is your post is also, not about growing trees.

Neither are many of yours. Oh the irony!

 

[paradoxlost]

A) I think you should let the guy who started the thread say what its about.

he did actually

A very popular activity here in Australia is the planting of trees for all sorts of reasons.

I am a huge supporter in order to offset the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

But an article in Scientific American thinks it is critical to remove CO2:

so you see where he says "in order to offset the destruction of the Amazon rainforest"

and than when he goes "it is critical to remove CO2"

notice where he doesn't ask "how can I grow trees" or anything analogous. So this means he is more interested in the secondary effects that emerge from trees being in existence. A positive externality if you will.

B) I think most of your comments have been about your comments not getting the respect you expected.

show me? i think wondering why a guy is following me around and editing my posts isn't the same as wondering why my posts aren't getting the respect I expected. Now what is unexpected is how out of touch with reality many of the members here to the point where mods are editing posts and its not even registering with them that they are editing posts.

Neither are many of yours. Oh the irony!

Good job derailing a thread about growing trees to combat the effects of climate change. Could have been a good thread too. We could have talked about emission spectra, heat capacities, environmental modeling, resource management, etc.

[Insult deleted by moderator]

 

[Bystander]

Been there, done that; grass type (fescue, zoysia, bermuda....) and sun angle throughout the day make for a very "mixed" data set.

..., see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screen ; turned into "can of worms."

 

[ShadowKraz]

One of the flaws I feel like with academics, at least environmental sciences, is they spend to much time trying to get grant money and not enough time actually interacting with the thing that inspired them to get into that field to begin with. Precious few scientists spend over 50% of the year outside.

Hunh... really? I put my ex though her grad studies in Edaphology; Ph.D. awarded in 2002. To this day she spends at least 50% of her time, even in the depths of winter, even while fighting for funding, outdoors.
Besides, do you spend at least 4,380 hours per year outdoors? She does.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One of the flaws I feel like with academics, at least environmental sciences, is they spend to much time trying to get grant money

Please don't post nonsense here at PF.

So how do you think they should get the resources to support their research? Wait for bags of gold to drop out of the sky? It sure would be nice if every time soneone had an idea the Science Fairy would wave her wand and suddenly there would be a puff of smoke and a postdoc , two students and some equipment would magically appear. But that's not how the world works.

 

[BillTre]

That paradox guy was a kind of mental plate cleanser.

 

[Nik_2213]

Please, please do not lose track of the need for a robust ecological succession.

The first trees etc planted must be of a type and spacing to tolerate their sub-optimal environments, support progression to a mature, mixed forest..
Eucalyptus has been mentioned as a prolific 'Water Thief'. This leaves immature stands vulnerable to wild-fire. Both their depletion of water-table and resin sprinkling may impair establishment of follow-on cultivars...

IIRC, there's interesting work on productive plantings in 'adverse' ground conditions eg
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/learning-love-hardscrabble-life-lanzarote-180977943/


Also, I've seen several reports of 'flechette' seeding', where 'ground-penetrators' are air-dropped to sufficiently bury packaged seed to stand a fair chance...

Then there are the brave projects in eg Sub-Saharan Africa and semi-desert Asia planting a mix of seedlings / saplings appropriate to local culture and climate. Hopefully, 'Useful', too.

Disclosure: I've a couple of adventitious Sycamore saplings stood waist-high in my cat-friendly garden: Still trying to decide if / when I must pot such saplings for safety, or simply remove...

 

[sophiecentaur]

Disclosure: I've a couple of adventitious Sycamore saplings stood waist-high in my cat-friendly garden: Still trying to decide if / when I must pot such saplings for safety, or simply remove...

Do whatever suits you EXCEPT concreting the place over. Drainage is much more important than small scale CO2 production imo. The relationship between a plant and its effect on the environment is very non-linear whereas 100l of water is 100l everywhere on its way to the sea.
Huge geo-engineering projects are a massive risk; just the same as monoculture farming. No one seems to think long-term enough or holistically.

 

[Nik_2213]

"No one seems to think long-term enough or holistically."

Sadly, all too true...
There is an oft-embarrassing lack of 'Joined-Up Thinking'...

 

[ShadowKraz]

No one seems to think long-term enough or holistically.

I have frequently pointed out in various places on the interwebs that very few people think things, any things, through completely, preferring to stop thinking at the point they get an answer they like. We're still evolving into our brains' potential.

 

[Mayhem]

I'd be more interested in looking how ocean acidification affects CO2 uptake in phytoplanktons, which accounts for something like 70% of the oxygen production on Earth, if memory serves.

 

[Baluncore]

... how ocean acidification affects CO2 uptake in phytoplanktons, ...

More phytoplankton, more CO₂ uptake. Krill eat phytoplankton, whales eat krill, then fertilise the phytoplankton with iron. Ocean acidification interrupts the early life of krill at depth.
Follow the biologically available iron cycle in the ocean.

 

[Astronuc]

The first trees etc planted must be of a type and spacing to tolerate their sub-optimal environments, support progression to a mature, mixed forest..

We have squirrels who are very successful at planting acorns and growing oak trees. We have maple trees as well, which seem to seed themselves.

Eucalyptus has been mentioned as a prolific 'Water Thief'. This leaves immature stands vulnerable to wild-fire. Both their depletion of water-table and resin sprinkling may impair establishment of follow-on cultivars...

Eucalyptus are indigenous to Australia.
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/site...eucalypt/AusForProf_2019_Eucalypt_v.1.0.0.pdf

Most species of Eucalyptus are native to Australia, and every state and territory has representative species. About three-quarters of Australian forests are eucalypt forests. Many eucalypt species have adapted to wildfire, are able to resprout after fire, or have seeds that survive fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus

https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/def...0eb/files/flora-australia-19-myrtaceae-v2.pdf

Of course, some folks imported non-natives species.
https://allcreativedesigns.com.au/pages/galltrees_non_native.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species_in_Australia#Plants

Also, along the coasts are mangroves.
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/australias-forests/profiles/mangrove-2019

Then there are the brave projects in eg Sub-Saharan Africa and semi-desert Asia planting a mix of seedlings / saplings appropriate to local culture and climate. Hopefully, 'Useful', too.

Yes - in the Sahel region. One program uses indigenous plants.

 

[Astronuc]

The U.S. currently lacks the ability to collect enough seeds from living trees and the nursery capacity to grow seedlings for replanting on a scale anywhere close to stemming accelerating losses, researchers say. It also doesn’t have enough trained workers to plant and monitor trees.

The Forest Service said the biggest roadblock to replanting on public land is completing environmental and cultural assessments and preparing severely burned areas so they're safe to plant. That can take years — while more forests are lost to fire.

“If we have the seedlings but we don’t have the sites prepped ... we can’t put the seedlings out there,” said Stephanie Miller, assistant director of a reforestation program.

https://apnews.com/article/wildfire...e-replanting-74c5ada85dcbe64d2972a15f2d5b4710

With tree seedling production at current levels, the U.S. can only plant about 84,000 acres annually in the West. That falls thousands of acres short of what is needed to reforest after wildfires.

In 22 years since the Hayman fire on Colorado’s front range burned 182 square miles (471 square kilometers) of forest, there has been almost no tree regeneration in the most severely burned areas, researchers and the Forest Service said.

In California’s Sierra Nevada, where up to 20% of the world’s mature giant sequoias and their seeds have been killed by fire in recent years, there are massive openings without seedlings. A U.S. Geological Survey study concluded some groves will never recover without replanting.

But researchers say the odds of forests growing back will worsen regardless of fire intensity because of more heat and drought.

Forest Service rules generally require planting the same species at the same elevations as before a fire, but it’s increasingly clear the agency will “need to be flexible moving forward,” said Jason Sieg, acting supervisor of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee National Grassland.

Conditions change, so rules should adapt to new/different conditions.

 

[pinball1970]

Just a quick link on planting wood to sequester Carbon

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adm8133

 

[Tom.G]

Quoting from that link:
"...potential of up to 10 gigatonnes CO2 per year with existing technology at a low cost of $30 to $100 per tonne after optimization."

I'm wondering about the availability of the needed 30gigadollars.

 

[pinball1970]

Quoting from that link:
"...potential of up to 10 gigatonnes CO2 per year with existing technology at a low cost of $30 to $100 per tonne after optimization."

I'm wondering about the availability of the needed 30gigadollars.

Yes it is a lot of money and just one idea. Hurricanes are costly also and they have increased since the 1980s, attributed to GW.

 

[Baluncore]

Just a quick link on planting wood to sequester Carbon

Coal and oil were once a good way to sequester carbon, but that was back in the carboniferous period. Those stores have been exploited over the last few centuries. We need better security. Bribery, corruption, and corporate cupidity, do too much damage.

To plant and establish a forest, is expensive.
Not to cut down a forest, is free. That would be a good start.

 

[pinball1970]

To plant and establish a forest, is expensive.
Not to cut down a forest, is free. That would be a good start.

Like I said just one idea. The FSC is another in terms of trees/wood.

 

[Astronuc]

Denmark will plant 1 billion trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...1-billion-trees-convert-10-farmland-115964316

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Danish lawmakers on Monday agreed on a deal to plant 1 billion trees and convert 10% of farmland into forest and natural habitats over the next two decades in an effort to reduce fertilizer usage.

The government called the agreement “the biggest change to the Danish landscape in over 100 years.”

"The Danish nature will change in a way we have not seen since the wetlands were drained in 1864,” said Jeppe Bruus, head of Denmark's Green Tripartite Ministry, created to implement a green deal reached in June among farmers, the industry, the labor unions and environmental groups.

Under the agreement, 43 billion kroner ($6.1 billion) have been earmarked to acquire land from farmers over the next two decades, the government said.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard a brief article on the radio about the Visingsö Oak Forest. I was interested because it mentioned that oak trees were planted between larch and another (possibly coniferous) species. I'm trying to learn more.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/visingso-oak-forest

https://www.internationaloaksociety.org/content/denmarks-navy-oaks-repurposed
Apparenly, Denmark had a similar program.

Most forestry entities do not want to wait 150 to 200 years to harvest. Instead, fast growing species are harvested as soon as economically practical, perhaps as much as 30 years. But if someone is willing to wait, this is one possibility. In areas where harvesting is not driven by lumber, forest restoration would be ideal - not necessarily with oaks, but with appropriate species for the geography.