Growing forests double quick

[geordief]

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0308/1436684-trees-climate/

 

"The Tiny Forest concept was pioneered by a Japanese botanist, Akira Miyawaki. He pioneered a special method of planting and ground preparation that can be used to grow forests ten times faster than a typical forest (which usually takes 200 to 300 years"

 

"Usually up to five saplings are planted for every square metre and as a result, the trees are forced to grow upwards for sunlight instead of spreading outwards"

Edited March 8 by geordief

[iNow]

Unsure I’m interested. Meh. I mean, Trees? For srsly? They don’t even have the courtesy to hug me back. Not even once!

I mean, ugh. Maybe 2 stars… tops! You know, come to think of it. Do the trees put out free wi-fi, at least? Do they grow any sort of root based leaf enhanced power charging stations or something?? (and, if they do, those stations had better AT LEAST be configured minimum of USB-C 2.1)

Hashtag gotta have standards

Edited March 8 by iNow

[naitche]

Nice to see such a controlled study utilizing whats understood of soil health and biodiversity used in permaculture methodology (permanently sustainable agriculture mimicking natural systems).

Soil cover is essential for soil health. Disturbing soils is not always avoidable, though it does interfere with natural processes, the  roles of  fungi and bacteria  in the decomposition of organic matter into usable components. Disturbing soils always involves a degree of sterilization.

My take is that Miyawaki method improves the soils nutrient content and arability but sterilizes the soil to a degree at the same time, interfering with the biodynamics. The plantings themselves then provide cover needed to rebuild those dynamics.

The Kinvara adaptation to the Miyawaki method covers the soil 1st, with the raw materials to 'feed' the natural processes, then plants with as little disturbance as needed to those processes set in motion. The plantings cover a second time before soils surfaces are again exposed  to U.V. irradiation . 

[Ken Fabian]

7 hours ago, geordief said:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0308/1436684-trees-climate/

 

"The Tiny Forest concept was pioneered by a Japanese botanist, Akira Miyawaki. He pioneered a special method of planting and ground preparation that can be used to grow forests ten times faster than a typical forest (which usually takes 200 to 300 years"

 

"Usually up to five saplings are planted for every square metre and as a result, the trees are forced to grow upwards for sunlight instead of spreading outwards"

I'm not sure we know how any typical forest planted now will be faring in 200 to 300 years; do we choose which species to grow based on what the climate is now or what we expect it to be? Sounds like a concept with benefits to farmed and gardened forests but not necessarily useful at very large scale.

There are good reasons to have forests and natural ecosystems but emissions mitigation isn't one of them. I think it is more appropriate to think of the CO2 reforestation sequesters as counting towards reductions in land use emissions rather than to justify ongoing fossil fuel burning.

The impacts on emissions of mass forest plantings are going to be complex but ultimately they'll be finite and won't exceed what was emitted from prior deforestation; this kind of forest cultivation might take down the Carbon faster but it will reach peak biomass faster and stop being a carbon sink sooner.

I don't think we can depend on sustained, non-reversible increases in global biomass to make a significant difference to the climate problem. If it doesn't reduce fossil fuel burning it isn't fixing the climate problem. And in my view it is a travesty to plant forests in order to protect fossil fuels from global warming.

 

Edited March 9 by Ken Fabian

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I'm not sure we know how any typical forest planted now will be faring in 200 to 300 years

Not even that long, I suspect. Dense-packing the trees seems to stimulate growth for the few years observed, but what happens as the trees (literally) branch out? Will the proximity impede growth? What happens as their root systems start interfering with each other - will you run into issues if water is scarce?

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not even that long, I suspect. Dense-packing the trees seems to stimulate growth for the few years observed, but what happens as the trees (literally) branch out? Will the proximity impede growth? What happens as their root systems start interfering with each other - will you run into issues if water is scarce?

Even without water issues, the growing roots of Ficus tree in my yard have killed over the years surrounding coco palms, one by one.

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not even that long, I suspect. Dense-packing the trees seems to stimulate growth for the few years observed, but what happens as the trees (literally) branch out? Will the proximity impede growth? What happens as their root systems start interfering with each other - will you run into issues if water is scarce?

I assumed they would be thinned at an earlyish  stage(no idea  how  they develop after that)

 

Here is their website  https://www.facebook.com/KBtreegang/

 

There is not much specificity regarding  the aims of the project,but increasing local bio diversity seems to figure as one of the main aims  and the fast rate of initial growth attracted the attention of the national broadcaster,I guess.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

Even without water issues, the growing roots of Ficus tree in my yard have killed over the years surrounding coco palms, one by one.

Yes I have read that some plants are able to attack the roots of competitors chemically.I am forever weeding  the scutch from my strawbs  for that reason  but without noticeable benefit. 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Yes I have read that some plants are able to attack the roots of competitors chemically.I am forever weeding  the scutch from my strawbs

Scutch is Bermuda grass in American English.  Me pop told me that "you have to keep the fescue happy" in order to discourage Bermuda grass from being invasive.  

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

There are good reasons to have forests and natural ecosystems but emissions mitigation isn't one of them. I think it is more appropriate to think of the CO2 reforestation sequesters as counting towards reductions in land use emissions rather than to justify ongoing fossil fuel burning.

Yes.  It may be that some areas, where there are longterm changes in precipitation and temperature will lose the capacity to nurture a forest and best practice will be to assist a transition to grassland or savannah.  We're looking at that now in areas of the American West, where forest wildfires are bringing a longterm change and recovering the original climax community simply cannot be done.  Keystone species are no longer viable in some areas, either dying out or shifting northward.  

(one tiny silver lining, if I dare call it that, is that grassland sends more solar radiation back into space than forest, so areas may get what's called rangeland cooling)

[naitche]

From what I understand  attrition should/would be expected as part of the processes of growth, nourishment and diversity but allowing for changing conditions as the forests evolve. ie lower growth choked out under canopy, but allowed to regrow where canopies are damaged, to shelter regrowth beneath. Not meant to represent a finished production, but to  speed up a more natural evolution in maximization of supportive environmental conditions.

Emissions mitigation is a benefit thats not inconsequential, but only one benefit, to mitigate, not solve a carbon emissions problem. Other benefits such as better soil hydrology, can also assist in mitigating climate extremes, desertification and other of effects of carbon emissions.  It should not be seen as simply a sequestration solution.  Grasslands can often succeed forests, where soils were previously unsuited with poor hydrology. An open forest mixture can be the most productive and diverse, indicative of a healthy system.

This is just one example of methodology to speed a procession to that end.

Edited March 12 by naitche

[Ken Fabian]

Close planting - more like 1 per m² rather than 5 - is common practice for forest regen projects here in Australia, and I expect worldwide. It mimics the mass germination and growth from broken canopy in natural forests. Attrition is of course part of that; you end up with a very few mature trees. The pre-colonization mature forest where I am (if I am recalling correctly) was around 6 to 12 trees per hectare. Big trees. The regrowth forest present now is in between - maybe near a hundred trees per hectare after much higher numbers of (naturally germinated) seedlings and saplings.

Had the original land clearing intention been followed through the regrowth would have been prevented as far as possible and over time the soil seed bank would deplete - and planting becomes the only way. But natural regrowth favours some species over others; there is no expectation that what will regrow will have all the same species in similar proportions. And some species never really recover, including some of the most prized timber species, that were mostly gone before the land clearing and haven't and won't ever recover. The glib cutting trees down promotes new trees, more than before defense of widespread exploitation of old growth forests was and is a half truth; we get lots of smaller trees dominated by a few species and the ecosystem is different to the original.

Edited March 12 by Ken Fabian