Live data from Hacker News

Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

technologynetworks.com

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#141
post #127

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…

Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that 'nature' is what organisms learned in millions of years and the emergent processes of the ecosystems in which they 'learned' things. And because this is so vastly complex, we often don't understand it and our interventions will have unintended consequences. No, in the sense that humans are actually part of these ecosystems and it is possible for us to understand these processe…

"No, in the sense that humans are actually part of these ecosystems and it is possible for us to understand these processes and work with them. And this is the point of the research posted here: planting native seedlings is superior for restoration than 'just leaving things to nature'."

I agree with what you're saying - but I think this point is slightly misleading. Planting native seedlings is exactly what nature would do - we are just accelerating nature's own process - not changing it for another process.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#142
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)

Yes, I suppose optimal isn't really the right word - I suppose I mean relatively stable and long lasting.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#143
"...plots replanted with a mixture of 16 native tree species showed faster recovery of canopy area and total tree biomass, compared to plots replanted with 4 or just 1 species. However, even plots that had been replanted with 1 tree species were recovering more quickly than those left to restore naturally."

I am not trying to be obtuse or misanthropic.

Please, someone can explain why was this study needed? Was there some hidden new discovery?

Asking, because if I walk down the dirt road and ask any farmer, they will tell me, if I sow seed in a field, it will grow faster, than I leave it to nature's chance. If I sow mixed crops (crop & cover crop), I will get potentially better yield. I thought it was a specific species of trees thing, but the paper does not seem to be stating it.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#144
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> species that have survived for millions of years I mean, this is a perfect example of pretending that differences don't exist because you can't see them. There are no such species. https://www.darklegacycomics.com/185

Wrong taxon, I guess.

I'll use different terminology: there are no such organisms.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why did they plant only tree species that are frequently targeted for logging? This makes the whole experiment very suspect. The linked article talks a lot about restoring forests, but why restrict the tree species to those that are profitable to log? Because that is what private land owners will do, they'll want to plant primarily what they can sell. This research likely intended to reduce the immediate damage fro…

Interestingly enough, this is also part of the reason for Canada's horrible wildfires a few months back: https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/16/murder-offsets/#pulped-an...

[dead]

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#146
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only one of the trees I listed was invasive, the others are opportunistic natives to their regions that will outgrow everything else. The nice "diverse" forest you're thinking of in your mind took a long time to become that way, the normal state of nature is to not create a perfect balance out of the gate, but for constant competition and regularly have to cycle through multiple iterations of configuration which are,…

Where I live in germany, there used to be extensive spruce monocultures forests everywhere. They are mostly chopped down now and replaced with a mixed young forest, all without herbicides. (But with some planted trees, cleansing and fences to protect the young forest from deers) So after 15 years they surely are not comparible to old grown forests, but they are very diverse and alive. So I strongly question the assum…

To be clear: herbicides are not essential in every area, but in some areas it is completely cost-ineffective to promote appropriate diversity and wildlife habitat without some use of it.

FWIW, in the region I'm currently managing a 100-acre habitat that was previously a pine plantation, it would be sacrosanct to "fence out deer." Early stage re-growth is wonderful deer habitat, lots of sunlight generates lots of forbs. However, in the same region I am in, any area left to its own devices becomes quickly overgrown to the point of making poor habitat for wildlife (no viable food, no viable cover, even though it's "thick" it is not useful to species such as deer, rabbits, quail, turkeys, etc. lacking the right kinds of food and cover).

Mechanical and fire (prescribed burns) are our primary tool we use, along with appropriate canopy thinning. However, when dealing with opportunistic species (the most aggressive here being sweetgum and chinese tallow), these methods are not effective. As each of these species re-sprout and spread via roots as well as seed, mechanical and fire only top-kill, resulting in them coming back thicker again within months. Repeated mechanical control presents significant issues both for valuable forb and impacts on land (a skid-steer is very heavy and results in significant compaction of soil, for example) and is incredibly expensive at about $1,000/acre when following proper selective practices.

We were also very much against the use of herbicides, but after numerous conversations with local biologists and forestry management professionals (our state provides them as a service), we finally realized that we were in a losing battle and selective application was the way to go. With basal spraying for larger stems of unwanted species and selective foliar for seedlings, we've reduced our costs to a fraction, reduced the damage to land and erosion, and we're seeing higher value (ecologically, not monetary) habitat with a faster turn time. Our approach is to eliminate all non-native, invasive species, develop the mix of pine savannah and hardwood bottoms our region has historically represented, and we're seeing the returns we expected much quicker than mechanical methods were providing us.

None of the "chemicals" we use are soil-active, and all of them have a half-life measured in days. We don't use them where girdling or sawing are sufficient to open canopy or create snags, and we don't broadly apply them.

I'm glad you live in a region where there are no opportunistic trees and shrubs which will crowd out other species, and where mechanical control is sufficient to restore traditional diversity, but alas, it still doesn't have the same reward everywhere. Anything left to its own devices in this region will rapidly, I mean within 5 years, become what we call the "pine curtain," useless to both wildlife and man. For centuries even the indigenous tribes had to practice regular controlled burning to fight this.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#147
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that 'nature' is what organisms learned in millions of years and the emergent processes of the ecosystems in which they 'learned' things. And because this is so vastly complex, we often don't understand it and our interventions will have unintended consequences. No, in the sense that humans are actually part of these ecosystems and it is possible for us to understand these processe…

"No, in the sense that humans are actually part of these ecosystems and it is possible for us to understand these processes and work with them. And this is the point of the research posted here: planting native seedlings is superior for restoration than 'just leaving things to nature'." I agree with what you're saying - but I think this point is slightly misleading. Planting native seedlings is exactly what nature wo…

> we are just accelerating nature's own process

That is well put and also exactly my point. However, you are accelerating something, so there is an intervention. For some people this doesn't count as natural! The word 'just' in your sentence does a lot of work.

The line is, in fact, not always obvious. Would those seedlings have come there naturally? Or would it have been a different mix? If so, is the end result actually the same as would have happened without human intervention, or would it have been different? Maybe there are actually 50 or more species that could and would find a place in this biome.

You can say the same about exotic species, eventually most (or at least some) of them would have come here anyway - via birds for example, but its the pace at which they are introduced which makes all the difference. Well, is it a good thing then to introduce exotic species, after all its just accelerating nature's processes, or is it not? Evidently this one is not always only beneficial, so it depends.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#148
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No, in the sense that humans are actually part of these ecosystems and it is possible for us to understand these processes and work with them. And this is the point of the research posted here: planting native seedlings is superior for restoration than 'just leaving things to nature'." I agree with what you're saying - but I think this point is slightly misleading. Planting native seedlings is exactly what nature wo…

> we are just accelerating nature's own process That is well put and also exactly my point. However, you are accelerating something, so there is an intervention. For some people this doesn't count as natural! The word 'just' in your sentence does a lot of work. The line is, in fact, not always obvious. Would those seedlings have come there naturally? Or would it have been a different mix? If so, is the end result act…

Again, I agree entirely with you (yet still feel the need to respond) :-)

To some extent, who can say what exact mix of seedlings would arise if nature were left entirely to it's own devices. But one can imagine the basin of attraction for arriving at such a stable state is somewhat large (perhaps this is the crux of your point - such a basin cannot be mapped, and therefore one never knows if one is in it or not). Nevertheless - I feel able to draw a distinction between something that plausibly may have happened naturally, and, say, a vast grid of identically aged, undifferentiated pine trees. Though who knows, perhaps there is no distinction to be made - other than that of intention.

Re: Replanting logged forests with diverse seedlings accelerates restoration

#150
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live in germany, there used to be extensive spruce monocultures forests everywhere. They are mostly chopped down now and replaced with a mixed young forest, all without herbicides. (But with some planted trees, cleansing and fences to protect the young forest from deers) So after 15 years they surely are not comparible to old grown forests, but they are very diverse and alive. So I strongly question the assum…

To be clear: herbicides are not essential in every area, but in some areas it is completely cost-ineffective to promote appropriate diversity and wildlife habitat without some use of it. FWIW, in the region I'm currently managing a 100-acre habitat that was previously a pine plantation, it would be sacrosanct to "fence out deer." Early stage re-growth is wonderful deer habitat, lots of sunlight generates lots of forb…

Well, we do have invasive species as well (and other problems, like too much acid from the spruce in the soil), but fortunately not your kind, which seem indeed tricky to deal with.

This I found interesting (on wikipedia):

"Herbivores and insects have a conditioned behavioral avoidance to eating the leaves of Chinese tallow tree, and this, rather than plant toxins, may be a reason for the success of the plant as an invasive"

So the main problem is, for whatever reasons, animals could eat the chinese tallow tree, but don't? That is a problem indeed, but I think one that evolution would sort out eventually. Might take more time, though.

"restore traditional diversity"

And this is a common debate here as well, but I don't think it makes sense to try to restore the "pristine condition". Things have changed too much and they will continue to change. So yes also here we have invasive species that achieved local domination. But it won't last. If there is a monoculture, then other species will evolve (or find their way towards it) to make use of that food and space, as there is so much of it. But if you want fast results, well, you have to do more than waiting, I agree on that.

Post reply on HN