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

Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#11

Post by ianbicking »

The Miyawaki method [1], which I'm sure has been on HN before, is a very different approach to these projects. When I first read about it, it seemed like a kind of too-good-to-be-true miracle approach, but reading further it's really just a lot of hard work.

Site preparation is a huge part of it. This photo gallery [2] gives some sense. It starts with soil testing and soil amendment, I doubt they ever consider the soil "good enough" at the outset. I'm not sure if they also do any hydrological changes? Then they plant a dense and diverse set of trees. I'm not clear how many trees ultimately survive. There's theories about the set of trees you'd use, but I can only imagine some of the process is just natural selection, and a belief that early density is positive to later growth.

Bringing it back to technology, I do wonder what tools could support this kind of higher-effort higher-impact forestation. It seems like there's work to be done performing soil tests and understand the results and recommended amendments, including some decision trees around tests and results. There's general guidance on the choice of trees, but it requires matching that guidance against local conditions and local plants.

In some ways the process is simpler than landscaping a house: you aren't trying to get a perfect set of plants, and you aren't imposing other requirements. You're really trying to build a mini ecosystem, and the ecosystem is there to do a lot of the work on its own.

I am less sure how this approach translates to more marginal locations. It's a bit easier to rapidly create a lush and vibrant forest in India than at the edge of a desert. Most of the examples are in tropical locations.

[1] https://www.crowdforesting.org/miyawaki-model/forest-kerala

[2] https://www.greenyatra.org/miyawaki.php

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#12

Post by smesla »

debacle wrote: post #5

Trees tend to fail spectacularly, even for seasoned growers. The site that I bulk purchase seedlings from estimates a failure rate as high as 70% for evergreen plugs if you do everything right . As you move up from seedlings to 3 year old plants, the failure rate drops to 10%, but my real failure rate is probably closer to 30%. The number one reason is too much/too little moisture, with some pests/disease thrown in.…

What sort of evergreens are you planting? Are they native? I replanted a clearcut a year or so ago and even with an abnormally hot summer and a dry fall I'm looking at 30%, tops.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#13

Post by rolandog »

RobLach wrote: post #9
rolandog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way that wolves are pro-birthers when it comes to sheep.

Yes but planting trees and turning it to lumber is an excellent way to sequester carbon.

Oh, agreed. I just wanted to make an analogy about groups that have, in theory, competing interests but can in some cases have common goals.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#14

Post by clairity »

debacle wrote: post #5

Trees tend to fail spectacularly, even for seasoned growers. The site that I bulk purchase seedlings from estimates a failure rate as high as 70% for evergreen plugs if you do everything right . As you move up from seedlings to 3 year old plants, the failure rate drops to 10%, but my real failure rate is probably closer to 30%. The number one reason is too much/too little moisture, with some pests/disease thrown in.…

yes, LA has a program to give away trees for planting in yards and parkways, and my read of the program is that, while it's goal is laudable, the implementation is lacking. earlier this year, a partner non-profit planted 2 trees for us and i planted an additional 2 trees that another org gave us, and i learned that it's not a set-it-and-forget-it type of endeavor. walking around my neighborhood, many of these trees, even though most are native species adapted to the environment, will end up dying because of the lack of care and the lack of education that comes with the trees. beyond enriching the soil when planting, it apparently takes ~5 years for the trees to establish themselves, and so requires constant watering for at least that amount of time.

ours sprouted quickly when first planted but then stagnated through the hottest parts of the summer. now we're entering the winter season and i'm wondering what we need to do to revitalize the soil again to help them grow in the spring.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#16

Post by orangepurple »

RobLach wrote: post #9
rolandog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way that wolves are pro-birthers when it comes to sheep.

Yes but planting trees and turning it to lumber is an excellent way to sequester carbon.

Trees are not 100% carbon. Logging worsens soil conditions when no effort is made to preserve it. "Just keep planting lol" is not sustainable. Algae sequester carbon better.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#17

Post by sn41 »

ianbicking wrote: post #11

The Miyawaki method [1], which I'm sure has been on HN before, is a very different approach to these projects. When I first read about it, it seemed like a kind of too-good-to-be-true miracle approach, but reading further it's really just a lot of hard work. Site preparation is a huge part of it. This photo gallery [2] gives some sense. It starts with soil testing and soil amendment, I doubt they ever consider the so…

Hmm. Pleasantly surprised to find Kerala being mentioned in this context - I wasn't aware of this.

But on a related note, the south west of India has a rich tradition of "Sarpa Kavus", literally, "Serpent Shrine", but which are in reality, sacred groves in some corner of the yard of many traditional homes (see [1] for a typical example) - these are mostly left to themselves for most of the year, except for a couple of festival days. In practice, it is almost a biome within the yard.

[1] https://nandakishorevarma.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/a-sacred-...

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#18

Post by Retric »

biellls wrote: post #10

Monocultures of any kind are always fragile, you need diversity to have a resilient ecosystem. These projects should benefit from an understanding of permaculture, which is a discipline that aims to create the right conditions for healthy systems. Everything from succession (pioneer leguminous species that can fix nitrogen and improve soil, slowly replaced by other species), trying to slow down and catch water where…

Monoculture of very fast growing trees let’s them maximize the value per acre when sold as carbon indulgences. Actual impact is much lower, but by then they have moved to the next project.

That said, in areas that got deforested having any tree cover can make the area much more habitable for other trees. Thus single digit survival rates can still result in new forest over a few decades.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#19

Post by orangepurple »

mistrial9 wrote: post #3

a quick read of this -- it appears to be a list of badly executed projects by struggling governments, more than anything ecosystem-oriented; coinciding with "constant topic of conversation in political circles" .. Second in failure rate only to "protecting healthy forests that exist now" ?

From a distance it appears as if those organizations are doing those tree planting stunts to tick boxes on ESG compliance forms required to receive international aid they need for embezzlement income. How else do useless third world bureaucrats fund their escapades? Look no further than the recent history of Nauru to see how leadership has zero qualms stealing the future of a whole country then converting it into a literal prison for hire for $27 million a year.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#20

Post by tomrod »

Retric wrote: post #18
biellls wrote: post #10

Monocultures of any kind are always fragile, you need diversity to have a resilient ecosystem. These projects should benefit from an understanding of permaculture, which is a discipline that aims to create the right conditions for healthy systems. Everything from succession (pioneer leguminous species that can fix nitrogen and improve soil, slowly replaced by other species), trying to slow down and catch water where…

Monoculture of very fast growing trees let’s them maximize the value per acre when sold as carbon indulgences. Actual impact is much lower, but by then they have moved to the next project. That said, in areas that got deforested having any tree cover can make the area much more habitable for other trees. Thus single digit survival rates can still result in new forest over a few decades.

The economic topic you're hinting at is externality. There is also the notion of Goodhart's Law, where any (single dimensional) measure gets gamed.
Post reply on HN