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

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#61

Post by rini17 »

Lendal wrote: post #30
MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can hel…

There's no substitute for self learning here, sadly. As soon as you want "nonstandard" garden you're on your own, with plenty of trial and error. With that in mind, maybe there's local gardening group?

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#62

Post by formerkrogemp »

hutzlibu wrote: post #59
greenie_beans wrote: post #15

and what about grasslands? these projects will sometimes plant forests that were historically savanna and grasslands

History is gone. Also it is likely, that there were times when those Savanne areas were covered with trees. There is no shortage of grasslands that are close of becoming desserts with one serious draught, but there is shortage of forests, that hold the moisture and prevent further desertification.

> History is gone. Also it is likely, that there were times when those Savanne areas were covered with trees. > There is no shortage of grasslands that are close of becoming desserts with one serious draught, but there is shortage of forests, that hold the moisture and prevent further desertification.

Well said. It makes one wonder how the Midwest Great Plains shelter belt and other regions like it will handle this current dry spell we're in globally.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#63

Post by sitkack »

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…

I did a fun experiment in my yard, I took a small mixture of grass seeds (store bought bird seed) and planted them in various places in the yard (after sprouting). It was amazing to see what did and did not thrive in various places due to sun, water and soil.

One place supported all 4 kinds, the other three only supported 1 or 2 kinds of grasses.

I would think reforesting a barren land might have to take multiple phases of growth to prepare the soil, ability to hold water, fungal colonies to extract nutrients, etc.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#64

Post by jhoechtl »

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.…

> Furthermore, trees need organic material. A lot of it. A tree planted in "dirt" will be about the same size 3 years later.

As someone who has a green thumb, was fascinated of trees since a kid and is working a considerable amount of forrest partly with his own tools: It's not like that.

There are trees which fall into the category of early succession. They shy away of compost, their seeds do not even germinate in such an environment. They need bare soil.

Other trees prefer poor soil as they perform symbiosis with fungi (mykhoriza), essentially producing the type of soil they need (partly).

And then there are the trees which prefer rich soil.

The later category are trees where the lawn owner is to impatient to wait (how can I make my tree grow faster) or the aggroforrestry is dependent on highest yield in shortest growth time.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#65

Post by greenie_beans »

hutzlibu wrote: post #59
greenie_beans wrote: post #15

and what about grasslands? these projects will sometimes plant forests that were historically savanna and grasslands

History is gone. Also it is likely, that there were times when those Savanne areas were covered with trees. There is no shortage of grasslands that are close of becoming desserts with one serious draught, but there is shortage of forests, that hold the moisture and prevent further desertification.

i love forests too. i don't know where you live, but you might learn something about grasslands from the southern grasslands institute: https://www.segrasslands.org/

re: "history isn't gone," that's a reductive position. it will certainly be very different millions of years from now, but it won't be as drastic within our lifetime. the ecological history of a place tells us where plants thrive and don't thrive. site selection is a fact of plant success. certain types of trees grow in grasslands but they aren't the dominate plant life — fossil records would indicate this.

i'm no ecologist or scientist, but i've read that grasslands can hold water too. just google "do grasslands store water"

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#66

Post by 1123581321 »

Lendal wrote: post #30
MichaelCollins wrote: post #25

The problem is with the incentives. We reward organizations for planting trees when we should be rewarding them for growing trees. Anecdotally, paper mills don't seem to have a problem successfully growing monocrop forests on their own properties because they actually have a reason to care about the success of replanting their own land.

I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can hel…

If you’re in the US, contact your local extension office for help. Though I’m also unsure why your trees would keep dying; I haven’t seen a lot of people with that issue.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#67

Post by greenie_beans »

c0brac0bra wrote: post #34
greenie_beans wrote: post #15

and what about grasslands? these projects will sometimes plant forests that were historically savanna and grasslands

This may be unpopular on HN, but that's what Allan Savory has advocated for, along with rotational (holistic in his words) grazing of ruminants.

i didn't realize that "preserve and promote grasslands" was a controversial take lol

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#68

Post by crazygringo »

dylan604 wrote: post #54
Lendal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can hel…

>I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. I don't mean to be rude, but how brown is your green thumb? I get killing house plants, but killing a tree growing outdoors seems like something you'd actively have to do. The most common "mistake" I've seen are lack of care with lawn equipment like weed whackers. Are they just not being…

I'm no expert gardener but I can't help but wonder if it could be animals/pests eating the leaves before the tree is tall enough? Or gnawing all the bark, etc.

Also trees might not be a good match for the soil, there's clay the roots can't penetrate, etc.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#69

Post by gopher_space »

dylan604 wrote: post #54
Lendal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. Unfortunately the arborists in my town are incentivized to get me to pay their company to cut my trees down and replace them with new ones every 10-15 years or so. We really just need more foresters, with a broader mission that extends beyond simply government-owned park land, who can hel…

>I have plenty of incentive to keep the trees in my own yard from dying, yet I lack the expertise. So they die. I need an arborist. I don't mean to be rude, but how brown is your green thumb? I get killing house plants, but killing a tree growing outdoors seems like something you'd actively have to do. The most common "mistake" I've seen are lack of care with lawn equipment like weed whackers. Are they just not being…

Underwatering a recent transplant is pretty common. I'll just hold a hose on the area until I get bored.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#70

Post by hinkley »

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…

Some of these notions of building a forest have parallels in the still developing field of probiotics versus prebiotics. Setting the dominoes instead of trying and failing to set the scene.

It turns out that building a healthy forest is a long difficult process that can span multiple administrations and in some cases lifetimes. Building the conditions for a second growth successional forest is something most of us can watch in real time.

These things are quality over quantity, which requires some cleverness in order to leverage. Forests (vs tree farms) spread by mycelium, by root, by seed, and by wing, and pretty much in that order. You'll get more success planting the entire perimeter of an intact forest than planting a rectangular area next to it, and more success planting a rectangular area next to an intact forest than planting a random hill in the middle of a clearcut. I have a hypothesis that planting rich islands within line of sight of each other and then letting nature in-fill between them also works better, but I have seen no research supporting or refuting that hypothesis. Nature corridors seem to be pretty close to this model and those have been proven.

One thing I'd like to see us do is move away from square and rectangular clearcuts toward more linear ones. Perhaps on contour, and leaving support species instead of nuking everything before replanting. See also research by Suzanne Simard and her peers on the soil food web.

Post reply on HN