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

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#71

Post by sitkack »

kokanee wrote: post #32
throwaway8582 wrote: post #24

Much of the Earth's surface is not suitable for growing trees, either because it's too dry, to wet, to cold, poor soil or lack of soil, etc. The article gives examples of planting in places where trees don't typically grow, on coastlines and in deserts, so it's not at all surprising that the trees planted there died. This is why I've always been skeptical of tree planting initiatives. In areas where they can survive,…

Some would argue that where conditions for trees aren't suitable, the solution is to build a forest there. Forests themselves are the best terraforming tool, if you can get them started by supplying the necessary nutrients, energy, and water. I don't know how feasible it is, but using trees to transform parched landscapes is the mission of a company I interviewed at a while back called Terraformation, founded by the…

To add reference to the claim that, "forests themselves are the best terraforming tool", one can take the example of Ascension Island. With the introduction of outside trees that formed an ecological foothold, they started cooling humid air and reinforcing the soil so that other plants and trees can flourish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island#Botany

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11137903

Once, This Island Had Just One Tree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZPrk9IZ3Jw

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#72

Post by pmayrgundter »

Great comments about monoculture and poor incentives.

Natural forests have a complexity that doesn't seem worthwhile to brute-force by massive tree planting. There's an obvious spatial complexity for different plant phyla patterns (see a bunch of links below).. a kind of blending between meadows to underbrush to trees, mosses and lichen in rocky areas, mangroves holding onto rivers. And there's plenty of fungus and animal participation to consider as well.

I like to listen to permaculture people and their approaches.. thinking of the water tables, clay and soil types. I think there's probably also some new thinking to be done about how functional water cycles differ from arid areas and developing long-term plans to coax water back up with strong cloud-seeders, from coastlines and river basins towards inland deserts.

That all leads to healthier rivers and tidal estuaries, which are keystones for many maritime ecosystems, due to feeding and breeding migrations e.g. of salmon, crab, eels.

I guess I'm saying we're missing the forests for the trees :)

https://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/2276/2276110-bigthum... https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediu... https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/536460cbe4b02a... https://www.backyardgardenlover.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Bl...

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#73

Post by nathancahill »

One of my favorite anecdotes on this problem is Guatemala. The laws on the books are pretty decent, incentives for farmers to reforest land where there used to be trees, with the government paying for the initial seedlings and then yearly payments (with verification of tree growth) over 7-15 years as the trees mature.

However, farmers quickly found a loophole where they could find a plot of virgin forest, clear cut the hardwood for lumber and then use the bare land to sign up for the program. They would plant a fast growing monocrop of pine and tend it (and collect payments) for 7 years until they would harvest it for lumber. All fully paid for by the government.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#74

Post by hinkley »

pmayrgundter wrote: post #72

Great comments about monoculture and poor incentives. Natural forests have a complexity that doesn't seem worthwhile to brute-force by massive tree planting. There's an obvious spatial complexity for different plant phyla patterns (see a bunch of links below).. a kind of blending between meadows to underbrush to trees, mosses and lichen in rocky areas, mangroves holding onto rivers. And there's plenty of fungus and a…

I just finished Suzanne Simard's book, which if you ignore the timelines (early 90's) of when she thought about these things, reads like your kid discovering a love of your favorite hobby and breathlessly explaining each new discovery as they happen.

The new idea I encountered in the book was one of deep rooted trees hydrating the soil by reaching into the water table and pulling it up to the surface. Particularly at night when evaporation rates drop off. I'd read years ago that some African cultures ascribe this power to fig trees (possibly from Wangari Maathai), but I've never seen anything but anecdotal evidence of this happening anywhere else. She anthropomorphized these things but I suspect that some of the activities she saw could more boringly be ascribed to osmotic pressure. Sugars and water are going to leak out across a gradient at some rate even if you try to stop it. Especially across a barrier that is designed to pass water in the opposite direction.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#75

Post by ajross »

ianbicking wrote: post #4
superchroma wrote: post #2

" There is no anti-tree lobby " There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also enthusiastically support planting trees

Only timber species, though, not forests.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#76

Post by [deleted] »

tomrod wrote: post #20
Retric wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#77

Post by hutzlibu »

greenie_beans wrote: post #65
hutzlibu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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

Well, I am also not a formal educated ecologist, but I am friends with some (including regular heated discussions) and have had a strong interest in the subject since years.

So yes, grasslands do hold water. But afaik it is a really tiny amount compared to trees. Also just compare how deep the roots of trees reach, compared with grass. (even though the savannah grass is of course a special breed and way better equipped against droughts than the common gras on a lawn)

"the ecological history of a place tells us where plants thrive and don't thrive. site selection is a fact of plant success."

I agree that it is stupid to ignore that.

But we humans changed so much on the earth already, that the conditions in many places also changed. Winds, rain, temperature, .. including the soil but usually for the worse (acid rain and co, but also fertilizers). This is what I meant with history is gone.

So my point is, I would not not plant a forest, just because 100 years ago, there also wasn't a forest there.

(Also humans have had cattle for a long time and overgrazing is likely the number one reason for desertification or plain grasslands.)

I rather would just look at the current data. How is the soil. PH. Salt level. How much rainfall. What is the temperature, etc.

And then start with the right shrubs and bushes. And then trees.

A forest will grow on its own with the right conditions. We can help with those conditions.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#78

Post by perrygeo »

throwaway8582 wrote: post #24

Much of the Earth's surface is not suitable for growing trees, either because it's too dry, to wet, to cold, poor soil or lack of soil, etc. The article gives examples of planting in places where trees don't typically grow, on coastlines and in deserts, so it's not at all surprising that the trees planted there died. This is why I've always been skeptical of tree planting initiatives. In areas where they can survive,…

> trees will just naturally appear on unused land, there's no need to plant them. If this isn't happening on it's own, it's probably because the conditions there aren't right for them.

That is only true if the seeds can travel to get there! Moving many miles or uphill via seed dispersal is a slow process. The climate gradients and habitat pressures are moving much faster. While I agree that land suitable for forests will eventually reforest itself, if we want to do it on human timescales, we may need to kick-start the process with a seed transfer program.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#79

Post by CommieBobDole »

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.

To extend that, there was an article here a while back about how many of the people growing these monoculture pine forests for paper production have stopped cutting them because gathering the pinestraw and selling it for landscaping purposes is much more lucrative.

Re: Phantom forests: Ambitious tree planting projects are failing

#80

Post by greenie_beans »

hutzlibu wrote: post #77
greenie_beans wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

"i'm no ecologist or scientist, but i've read that grasslands can hold water too. just google "do grasslands store water"" Well, I am also not a formal educated ecologist, but I am friends with some (including regular heated discussions) and have had a strong interest in the subject since years. So yes, grasslands do hold water. But afaik it is a really tiny amount compared to trees. Also just compare how deep the ro…

i agree that humans have changed a lot. and i also agree that you should look at the current data. you should also look at the failures of reforesting areas that weren't historically forests. what is the data of reforestation failure vs success in those areas?

if you're interested in this topic, i've learned a lot from the authors of this paper (paper is also good and relevant to our discussion and points to a lot of their sources): https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/159556/W...

it's a fascinating topic! appeals to my social science and nature interests

Post reply on HN