Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

technologynetworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#111

Post by atoav »

taylorius wrote: post #108
atoav wrote: post #71

My brothers MA thesis was about comparing the multiple model forests that have been planted throughout the EUs different climate zones (I didn't even know such a thing existed, bur it makes sense). His focus was looking at resilience against weather, insects etc. and mixed forests fared significantly better throughout all climate zones. As someone from the alps, a thing that should not be forgotten is how important a…

No offense meant at all to your brother, it sounds like an interesting investigation. That said, the answer to these sorts of eco-questions always seems to be that the way nature has worked for millions of years is actually the best way (for loads of reasons we didn't know) - and if we mess with it too much, there will be some problems. This just seems kind of inevitable though. If nature's way didn't work, it wouldn…

I just know what he told me about it verbatim, but the "meat" of his investigation was that he did statistical analysis on vast amounts of (LIDAR-based) tree-height data and comparison of storm damages. On top there were many other GIS-data layers included, so in addition to that simple finding the "meat" is that he found multiple concrete combinations of circumstances that are especially benefitial to resilience.

Not that a skilled and experienced ranger might not have known some of these combinations as well, but the data-based approach can help planing better where to plant what specifically, as opposed to just mix it based on chance.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#112

Post by dagmx »

mtnGoat wrote: post #102
rootw0rm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afaik it helps guard against particularly devastating wildfires, too.

The best way to deal with fires is not to. The problems the west is facing are due to so much fire suppression for tire last century and a half left too much fuel near the ground, we are now learning to let them burn.

This is somewhat simplistic. There are many methods to wild fire control, including prescribed burns.

Yes, many forestry practices are antiquated and incorrect, but it’s not as simple as just letting fires burn.

There’s a significant science to forestry and wildfire management. Fire suppression is as important as fire management and fire encouragement. They go hand in hand, and require a measured balance

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#113

Post by atoav »

mtnGoat wrote: post #102
rootw0rm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afaik it helps guard against particularly devastating wildfires, too.

The best way to deal with fires is not to. The problems the west is facing are due to so much fire suppression for tire last century and a half left too much fuel near the ground, we are now learning to let them burn.

Not to get too political here, but the problem is literally that we have "raked the forest" too much.

If you don't know how this could be political, be prepared to make your day a whole lot dumber if you google it.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#115

Post by thaumasiotes »

RGamma wrote: post #107
thaumasiotes wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the normal state of nature is to not create a perfect balance out of the gate That is true. Additionally, a balance will never be achieved no matter how long you wait, either. That's the state of nature; some things are always replacing other things.

That's dangerously simplistic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability and related topics for a start.

Ecological stability refers to a concept that is never realized. You can pretend it exists by ignoring the variation that you feel is unimportant. Over time, that variation will make its way into the areas that you thought were stable.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#116

Post by flakeoil »

dagmx wrote: post #110
taylorius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense meant at all to your brother, it sounds like an interesting investigation. That said, the answer to these sorts of eco-questions always seems to be that the way nature has worked for millions of years is actually the best way (for loads of reasons we didn't know) - and if we mess with it too much, there will be some problems. This just seems kind of inevitable though. If nature's way didn't work, it wouldn…

Your comment bothers me because it is based on very shaky premises. Nature doesn’t work in the most optimal way, so it’s not always best to replicate it. Tons of things happen in nature that may wipe out important ecosystems. I suppose one could argue that at a long enough time scale it will even out but that time scale can be millennia. In the meantime, nature can wreak tons of havoc. Nature (and by that I mean ecos…

> "the most optimal way"

Optimum in what sense?

Make as much cash as quickly as possible or have a forrest and a working eco system (or even any trees at all) also in 100+ years from now.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#117

Post by saiya-jin »

atoav wrote: post #71

My brothers MA thesis was about comparing the multiple model forests that have been planted throughout the EUs different climate zones (I didn't even know such a thing existed, bur it makes sense). His focus was looking at resilience against weather, insects etc. and mixed forests fared significantly better throughout all climate zones. As someone from the alps, a thing that should not be forgotten is how important a…

We had in Slovakia in 2004 a small catastrophe in our tiny higher mountains (High Tatras) - wind up to 110 kmh IIRC, and literally large swathes of pine/spruce forests that were on higher grounds were cut like with lawnmower. They often broke in half with bare trunk still standing, not even ripped out of the ground. Then parasitic beetles had a feast and their population exploded.

Main reason was stated as monoculture planted decades ago, since these forests are pretty and they were used also for treating respiratory illnesses (clean mountain air with strong pine sap smell really helps, sort of natural aromatherapy).

Almost 20 years passed, its still a sad sight. More logging, some ad hoc growth but forest definitely didn't regrow in any meaningful form, rather fast growing bushes took over. There was a lot of fight between forest / natural park management and ecologists on how to proceed, and everybody (including forest) lost.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#118

Post by vintermann »

dagmx wrote: post #110
taylorius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense meant at all to your brother, it sounds like an interesting investigation. That said, the answer to these sorts of eco-questions always seems to be that the way nature has worked for millions of years is actually the best way (for loads of reasons we didn't know) - and if we mess with it too much, there will be some problems. This just seems kind of inevitable though. If nature's way didn't work, it wouldn…

Your comment bothers me because it is based on very shaky premises. Nature doesn’t work in the most optimal way, so it’s not always best to replicate it. Tons of things happen in nature that may wipe out important ecosystems. I suppose one could argue that at a long enough time scale it will even out but that time scale can be millennia. In the meantime, nature can wreak tons of havoc. Nature (and by that I mean ecos…

Nothing is "optimal", it's only ever "optimal for". So asking if nature is optimal is nonsense unless we have a firm agreement on what nature is for (which we certainly don't).

But the linked article doesn't have this problem. The "for" there is quite clearly the recovery of forests after logging, so they can be used again for whatever you may be expected to use a forest for (including more logging)

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#119

Post by dagmx »

flakeoil wrote: post #116
dagmx wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment bothers me because it is based on very shaky premises. Nature doesn’t work in the most optimal way, so it’s not always best to replicate it. Tons of things happen in nature that may wipe out important ecosystems. I suppose one could argue that at a long enough time scale it will even out but that time scale can be millennia. In the meantime, nature can wreak tons of havoc. Nature (and by that I mean ecos…

> "the most optimal way" Optimum in what sense? Make as much cash as quickly as possible or have a forrest and a working eco system (or even any trees at all) also in 100+ years from now.

Optimal as in preserving life if we’re going based off of the person I was replying to, but in general that is hard to define which is part of my point . Nature can just as quickly extinguish entire ecosystems, just as much as it can make them thrive.

Just trusting nature to do the optimal thing and trust that it’ll turn out okay isn’t sensible unless you also don’t care about the constituent parts of that ecosystem.

Insects can ravage entire populations of trees, rendering them dead and inhospitable to wildlife. Blight can do the same. Those are just as much nature at work as happy trees in a forest.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#120

Post by dagmx »

vintermann wrote: post #118
dagmx wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment bothers me because it is based on very shaky premises. Nature doesn’t work in the most optimal way, so it’s not always best to replicate it. Tons of things happen in nature that may wipe out important ecosystems. I suppose one could argue that at a long enough time scale it will even out but that time scale can be millennia. In the meantime, nature can wreak tons of havoc. Nature (and by that I mean ecos…

Nothing is "optimal", it's only ever "optimal for". So asking if nature is optimal is nonsense unless we have a firm agreement on what nature is for (which we certainly don't). But the linked article doesn't have this problem. The "for" there is quite clearly the recovery of forests after logging, so they can be used again for whatever you may be expected to use a forest for (including more logging)

I think you’re arguing against a point that I am not making. In fact I think you’re making the same argument that I am, which is “nature isn’t seeking an optimal outcome because that is too abstract”.

The person I was replying to was saying “just do what nature does”. But that doesn’t mean much. My point was you can’t just blindly follow “nature” without observation and study because it can just as easily go and do something catastrophic as it can do something good.

Post reply on HN