When planting trees threatens the forest:
Campaigns to plant huge numbers of trees could backfire, according to a new study that is the first to rigorously analyze the potential effects of subsidies in such schemes.
The analysis, published on June 22 in Nature Sustainability, reveals how efforts such as the global Trillion Trees campaign and a related initiative (H. R. 5859) under consideration by the U.S. Congress could lead to more biodiversity loss and little, if any, climate change upside. The researchers emphasize, however, that these efforts could have significant benefits if they include strong subsidy restrictions, such as prohibitions against replacing native forests with tree plantations.
"If policies to incentivize tree plantations are poorly designed or poorly enforced, there is a high risk of not only wasting public money but also releasing more carbon and losing biodiversity," said study co-author Eric Lambin, the George and Setsuko Ishiyama Provostial Professor in Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences. "That's the exact opposite of what these policies are aiming for."
[...] The researchers set out to quantify the full impact of the afforestation subsidies and calculate their effects on net carbon and biodiversity changes across the entire country. They compared the area of Chilean forests under three scenarios: actual observed subsidy patterns, no subsidies and subsidies combined with fully enforced restrictions on the conversion of native forests to plantations. They found that, relative to a scenario of no subsidies, afforestation payments expanded the area covered by trees, but decreased the area of native forests. Since Chile's native forests are more carbon dense and biodiverse than plantations, the subsidies failed to increase carbon storage, and accelerated biodiversity losses.
"Nations should design and enforce their forest subsidy policies to avoid the undesirable ecological impacts that resulted from Chile's program," said study coauthor Cristian Echeverría, a professor at the University of Concepción in Chile. "Future subsidies should seek to promote the recovery of the many carbon- and biodiversity-rich natural ecosystems that have been lost."
Journal Reference:
Robert Heilmayr, Cristian Echeverría, Eric F. Lambin. Impacts of Chilean forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity, Nature Sustainability (DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0547-0)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @02:27PM (5 children)
A tree plantation is nothing like a wild forest - just as it is starting to mature it's razed, ecosystems are transient at best, the trees themselves tend to be monoculture and poor food sources for a biodiverse food web (though they can be excellent food sources for plagues like boring beetles...). The two things (tree plantations and wild forests) provide very different types of value, we need both, and it's the wild forests that are disappearing in most places, not tree plantations.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @04:39PM (2 children)
Getting trees right takes more work than just shoving some seeds in the ground and hoping for the best. One type that I know of needs fire to actually grow correctly. Literally if you do not 'burn the tree a bit' the thing will die. Some trees actually 'attack' each other with the pollen they emit.
I was having a bit of fun. I was growing a pinoak tree out of an ashtray. Full of cigarette butts. It was actually doing very well as the cotton holds water nicely and the burnt ash is a nice fertilizer. It lasted 3 months outside. The butts were breaking down nicely too. Then I had to bring it inside for a day because of some pressure washing being done outside. Then my cat dug the whole thing apart and ate it :(
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday June 24 2020, @01:46AM (1 child)
My take is that if you're doing any work at all, then you're doing it wrong. Trees are pretty good at being trees. They don't need a lot of help, unless you're trying to grow something delicate that's not going to survive without a lot of intervention or some sort of landscaping.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @01:47AM
Trees are particular about their soil and climate. To pretend otherwise shows you do not understand it.
One dude I know planted a giant redwood in his front yard. "I dont like my neighbors and I am selling my house next year". The problem with that tree will be found out in about 10-20 years as it basically takes over the whole yard. It is not a product of that environment.
(Score: 2) by corey on Friday June 26 2020, @01:33PM (1 child)
Yeah, I had to read TFS a couple of times to make the link between re-forestation and the stated negative benefits.
I think it's obvious that monoculture plantations are not going to work.
I'm surprised that the researchers assumed that the re-forestation scenario meant monoculture plantations. It's silly, and I don't think anyone being paid to re-forest areas would do this. If it were done with some brains, they would plant a diverse range of native plants, trees, shrubs and grasses. I think then their model would show some net positives.
It almost seems like the assumptions were set to fit the desired conclusions (that re-forestation is bad).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 26 2020, @04:36PM
Monoculture plantations "work" (or, rather, exist) because they are so bloody simple that even an Ag Extension office worker can explain them to your average rural land owner. Do this, get that: see your money grow.
Things like mixed stands, provision for wildlife inclusion, allowing "beneficial dying" of a certain percentage of the standing timber (something unlikely to come up in any forest planted during the human "owner"'s lifetime), etc. are not as well studied and the results aren't as cut and dried as: do this, get that - not to mention that the "see your money grow" component isn't nearly as clear or plentiful in the short term.
We do need tree farms, and even in some instances monocultures (though I really wish people would study the more complex mixed stand systems more than they do)... just like we need cotton fields, corn fields, soybeans, oats, (not sure if we really _need_ wheat in its present commercialized form), rice, apples, oranges, etc. Just don't kid yourself that these are "natural ecosystems, beneficial to wildlife" - even if you do get some passing birds eating some grain or beans.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday June 23 2020, @02:40PM (11 children)
How about water consumption, or ground water levels for that matter? More trees sucking up more water means less water somewhere down the line, or?
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @03:03PM (5 children)
When they plant pine plantations near pecans, the pecans wither due to all the water sucked up by the pines.
Varies by soil layer type, apparently shale bedrock provides a better water profile than sandstone - and a thousand other variables. Contact your local Ag extension office for their soil profile maps - in the US at least they know pretty well what grows well everywhere, and why.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 23 2020, @10:00PM (3 children)
That might also be because pine needles are toxic. This is an evolutionary advantage to prevent competition.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @11:34PM (2 children)
The folks that grow 'em blame the water. Pine needles aren't killing toxic to pecans, as near as I can tell, they just starve them for water so they don't grow or produce nuts - eventually they shade them out.
Black walnut and I think black cherry have some really impressive toxins that kill anything that tries to grow near them.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 23 2020, @11:41PM (1 child)
Pine needles are toxic to almost everything that might compete for sunlight and nutrients.
They might not kill the other plant, but they don't need to. They just need to prevent it from growing taller than the pine tree, and taking the sunlight.
To be fair, the pine trees may well be taking a lot of the water too, but if they want to prevent that, they should plant a willow. Willows can literally stop a creek from flowing.
It might not help their pecans I suppose.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @11:49PM
What was happening on the land we were looking at was people were planting pine plantations in what used to be pecan country, so you'd see these pecan trees on the edge of the pines, sometimes inside. The old timer who told me about the water was pointing to a ~25' tall skinny pecan tree that had been left in the middle of a now ~13 year old pine plantation, the pines were getting up around 30' or so, not quite completely shading it... yet. Folks around there preferred the pines because they are easier to manage.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday June 24 2020, @02:32AM
Indeed... sometimes trees don't grow somewhere, or are naturally widely spaced, because that's what the water profile can support. Suppress wildfire (and don't log out surplus) and pretty soon you have too many trees starving for water, and California-grade fires.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @03:56PM
Generally, the benefits of having the ground covered year-round by vegetation would offset any loss due to plant use. Trees are known to seed clouds with their respiration, and decreased loss of soil moisture and better absorption of rainwater mean they will help the water levels. There are tons of landscaping tricks that can help replenish aquifers as well.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @04:32PM (2 children)
By that measure, Sahara should be the best place for water in the world. No trees to speak of!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 23 2020, @05:08PM (1 child)
It does have some of the world's largest aquifers. In fact, big wars are being fought over it right now. It ain't the oil people are after.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @05:41PM
But they are acquifers that haven't seen significant new water in thousands of years. You start draining that at scale, and you are just "using it up." I've heard it called "fossil water."
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 23 2020, @05:47PM
Modern irrigation: bring in many truckloads of bottled water to be poured around the trees for growth.
The water comes from somewhere else. So it's not a concern of anyone. The trees won't drain the aquifers.
Dispose of bottles wherever convenient.
* Drop anywhere convenient?
* Grind up into small plastic bits and mix into soil.
* Bury?
* Burn?
* Throw in river in hopes they'll safely reach the ocean where they are no longer anyone's concern.
Is there a chemotherapy treatment for excessively low blood alcohol level?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @06:03PM (3 children)
Population increase is what kills forests, more people need more land and more resources , simple as that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @09:27PM (1 child)
So, what do you propose we do about it? That's a very difficult question to answer. For many reasons...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2020, @12:04AM
Like in Enders Game:
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-being-called-third-by-stilson-both-good-bad-74861 [enotes.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 23 2020, @09:54PM
It is far from simple.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday June 23 2020, @06:15PM (1 child)
Forestry is a well studied science. There are tons we do not know, but we do understand that typical plantation forests provide minimal benefit and can potentially hurt ecosystems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @11:37PM
It's actually pretty simple when you think about it: Chile paid people to grow trees: non-specific whether plantation or wild forest. Of course people are going to plant plantation that they make more money on, and some of that plantation is going to displace existing wild forest - just from the money side. Basically you have plantation trees competing for a limited resource (growing space) with wild trees, and additional advantage with the foresters.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @09:36PM
i saw that news somewhere else and got really upset and then i got it: people, via clubbermint, were financing "tree planting" but people just chopped down old forrest and planted monoculture crop trees ...
so, in short "tree planting" = bad. "reforestation" = good?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2020, @01:27AM
As a self-identified Black businesswoman, I find it appalling that USA plans to plant 1 trillion white birch trees, when the government should instead start a program to subsidize Black-owned companies to plant 1 trillion black ash trees.