Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the sprucing-up-for-the-future dept.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/03/climate-change-forestry

Minnesota is unique because it lies at the convergence of three distinct ecosystems, or biomes. And the boundaries among those three - boreal forests of spruce, fir, pine and birch; deciduous forests of maple and oak and basswood; and prairie grasslands - are very sensitive to climate changes, said Lee Frelich, the director of the University of Minnesota Center for Forest Ecology.

In addition, Minnesota has been warming faster than most other states. In particular, northern Minnesota is heating up faster still - by nearly three degrees over the past century.
...
Minnesota's iconic northern forests are undergoing a gradual shift as the climate warms. Aspen, birch, balsam fir and black spruce, for example, are projected largely to vanish from the state by the end of the century.

But some foresters are suggesting a more radical shift in approaching what to do about it. Although not everyone agrees, some in forestry are stressing urgency and experimenting with bringing new species from hundreds of miles away, betting that with a helping hand those trees stand a better chance of producing a healthy diverse forest than existing species.

For proponents, bringing oaks and even ponderosa pines from as far away as the Black Hills is the best way to ensure Minnesota and its sizable forest industry will have thriving forests many decades from now. Others worry that the idea is too much of a gamble and could wind up essentially introducing troublesome invasive species.
...
DNR [Department of Natural Resources] forest ecologist John Almendinger said, "I'm not wild about the idea of using our native forests as the place to experiment. I don't like the concept right now of moving trees that have shown no ability to perform in those kinds of habitats."

Palik at the Forest Service said planning for the uncertainty of how rainfall and temperature might change is the challenge. But he believes forest managers need to be more urgent and have little time to pause.

"I've had the realization that we are faced with something potentially very radical and unprecedented, in terms of the future climate scenario and habitat suitabillty for species we have here," Palik said. "The time to be thinking about how to act is now, and the time to act even beyond experimentation is rapidly approaching."

While climate change may not be easily evident in your corner of the world, there's no ignoring it in the Northland. From longer growing seasons, shorter snow seasons, warmer winters, and less lake ice, it's hard to ignore. It's increasingly evident that adaptation, not prevention, is the task at hand. For more information on the signs of Minnesota's changing climate, check out another MPR article with all the stats.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by hottabasco on Thursday February 05 2015, @12:56PM

    by hottabasco (3316) <reversethis-{moc ... 48sliw_salohcin}> on Thursday February 05 2015, @12:56PM (#141474)

    "The Earth has been warmer than the more probable AGW claims and the Earth has been colder": cant make sense of that, can anybody help me out?

  • (Score: 1) by LancePodstrong on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:39PM

    by LancePodstrong (5029) on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:39PM (#141502)

    Here's my expanded interpretation:
    "In the past, the earth has been both warmer than probable AGW estimates and colder than at the present time."

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:08PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:08PM (#141563)

    Some of the more 'imaginative' AGW theories do call for warming outside of the bounds of normal climate variation. I was excluding them from consideration right up front lest the thread get hijacked by some of those outlandish claims. Sorry if I was unclear. My point was that even if one accepts AGW, unless one also accepts the most outlandish claims by the least scientific fringe we aren't talking about a variation outside of global historical ranges. Disruption of human activity and expectations? Yup. Trees going extinct? No.