SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Local water availability is permanently reduced after planting forests:
River flow is reduced in areas where forests have been planted and does not recover over time, a new study has shown. Rivers in some regions can completely disappear within a decade. This highlights the need to consider the impact on regional water availability, as well as the wider climate benefit, of tree-planting plans.
"Reforestation is an important part of tackling climate change, but we need to carefully consider the best places for it. In some places, changes to water availability will completely change the local cost-benefits of tree-planting programmes," said Laura Bentley, a plant scientist in the University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, and first author of the report.
Planting large areas of trees has been suggested as one of the best ways of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, since trees absorb and store this greenhouse gas as they grow. While it has long been known that planting trees reduces the amount of water flowing into nearby rivers, there has previously been no understanding of how this effect changes as forests age.
The study looked at 43 sites across the world where forests have been established, and used river flow as a measure of water availability in the region. It found that within five years of planting trees, river flow had reduced by an average of 25%. By 25 years, rivers had gone down by an average of 40% and in a few cases had dried up entirely. The biggest percentage reductions in water availability were in regions in Australia and South Africa.
Partial river flow recovery with forest age is rare in the decades following establishment (open, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14954) (DX)
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:20AM (2 children)
Sorrel's are not a clover, more closer related to rhubarb, and contains oxalic acid, which in high enough doses is poisonous. It is good in moderation though.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43PM (1 child)
Looking through the scientific classifications of the species in question, we're both wrong: You're right that sorrel isn't in the same Order as clovers even though it kinda looks like it ought to be. You, however, are incorrect in that it's actually more closely related to clover than rhubarb, because clover and sorrel share the common Clade of Rosids, while rhubarb doesn't.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday February 03 2020, @05:23PM
Ok, I see that you were actually talking about an Oxalis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalis [wikipedia.org] rather then a sorrel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrel [wikipedia.org] which I was talking about. I don't know of any wild oxalises (they are a horrible weed though) where I am whereas there are lots of wild sorrels. Both rhubarb and sorrel are in the family Polygonaceae, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonaceae [wikipedia.org]
This is the problem with using common names instead of the Latin species name, we end up talking about completely different plants thinking we're talking about the same ones.