How to Regrow the Rainforest in 10 Minutes or Less

[Smithsonjohn]

Prescott Blue http://prescottblu.blogspot.com/

 

Aggressive trees, out of control plant growth; these are often supporting or vilified roles in the world of sci-fi or fantasy. Dr. Lago, a Sao Paulo University biogenetic research professor, explains that this fantasy may have come true. Using gene splicing, amplification and second messenger systems, the rainforest advocate has invented a new possibility of plant repopulation.

[imatfaal]

If anyone has any proper news stories on this I would love to see it! The blog posted is a little information-lite - without even the full name of Prof Lago. Even if the figures quoted are exaggerated it would still be a huge step forward - which makes me a little sceptical

[lemur]

How can trees grow any faster than they already do? They can only receive so much solar energy for their size. Granted some trees grow fast than others, but I think such trees are usually softer and more prone to breaking.

[random]

How can trees grow any faster than they already do? They can only receive so much solar energy for their size. Granted some trees grow fast than others, but I think such trees are usually softer and more prone to breaking.

 

 

Yes and no I am a professional cabinet maker and wood afficianado and am familiar with numerous wood species from highly exotic and ultra rare to the lesser and more common. The technique is not very well thought out.(without looking at the link because it does not work) The idea would incorporate rapid growing trees often referred to as weed trees such as Aspen and poplar. These species are susceptible to disease and pests and as such rarely live past 30 years of age. They have a very invasive root system which is needed to support the rapid growth, are very easy to root (r.e. fallen branches) leading to rapid over growth and stunting of descendants. However poplar is the most successful agricultural tree in many countries so it does lend itself quite well to reforestation albeit in the short term.

 

The main purpose of restoring the rain forest for the sake of this argument would I assume be carbon capture? as the altered species would require a great deal of adaptivity on the part of local animal species to stop their rapid extinction. Because of the relatively short life span the carbon would be continually recycled on the forest floor and quite regularily, It's also worth mentioning that the allelopathic reactions are not known and I would be rather pessimistic of an invasive new species of tree having a minimal effect. It would be better than leaving the land bare as any attempt to repair is better than nothing in my opinion but it is certainly not a restorative project.

 

These trees suck up alot of water in their growth too such a plan could leave the highly fertile soil as sandy and useless as a desert in very little time. I would rather see these species used for fuel and the untouched rain forest be left as is their high energy in energy out ratio makes them perfect for this. As well the construction industry has taken note of these woods and they are now used in ply wood structural members fine trim etc. much more extensively than in the past. These uses allow the carbon to be stored for a much longer period of time but not indefinitely. I wish these highly intelligent people would look at the big picture before becoming gung ho about their ideas. There must be a more effective and long term way of storing carbon than just wood. We can turn highly volatile petroleum by products into almost eternal and useful hard plastics what is so difficult about doing the same with carbon?

[Athena]

This is a google page for rapid growth trees.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=rapid+growth+trees+poor+timber&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

I am in Oregon and our tress are getting stressed because of lack of water. I think we can agree if global warming, results in trees being stressed and then a loss in trees, the problem will get worse.

[lemur]

This is a google page for rapid growth trees.

http://www.google.co...ql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

I am in Oregon and our tress are getting stressed because of lack of water. I think we can agree if global warming, results in trees being stressed and then a loss in trees, the problem will get worse.

 

It would not be pretty to see species stressed by warmth struggling with climate change, but surely there are many co-present species struggling with cold that would flourish from any additional warmth. So I think that by the time the climate change was severe enough to be seriously affecting certain trees, other trees would be flourishing to take their place.

[Athena]

It would not be pretty to see species stressed by warmth struggling with climate change, but surely there are many co-present species struggling with cold that would flourish from any additional warmth. So I think that by the time the climate change was severe enough to be seriously affecting certain trees, other trees would be flourishing to take their place.

 

 

Lemur, that was a comforting thought, but than I realized the issue is lack of water and that effects the growth of all trees. Some trees require more water than others, so may be some trees would have a better survial rate, however...

 

Tempature is an issue and Oregon has Mountains. Only some trees can survive in the higher altitude.

 

Forest soils can be poor, so there is a soil issue as well.

 

Now with the soil and tempature and altitude issues, how are the right trees going to get in the right places? If the problem is a lack of rain fall, these trees will need watering at least until they develop an adquate root system. How will they get watered?

[lemur]

Lemur, that was a comforting thought, but than I realized the issue is lack of water and that effects the growth of all trees. Some trees require more water than others, so may be some trees would have a better survial rate, however...

 

Tempature is an issue and Oregon has Mountains. Only some trees can survive in the higher altitude.

 

Forest soils can be poor, so there is a soil issue as well.

 

Now with the soil and tempature and altitude issues, how are the right trees going to get in the right places? If the problem is a lack of rain fall, these trees will need watering at least until they develop an adquate root system. How will they get watered?

 

Please explain to me the logic of how rainfall levels decrease due to warming. When I first heard that CO2 levels were going to be high, I expected an increase in tree-growth. Not only the extra CO2 would provide more carbon for growth but increasing average temperatures would mean earlier springs and later freezes in fall, which translates to a longer growing-season. Of course this assumes that deforestation doesn't eliminate too many trees. If in fact more land was devoted to (re)forestation, I would think that increased CO2 levels and longer grow-seasons would actually help to mitigate the warming because the greater shade would generate more cooler air from the forests. I don't know how significantly an effect this would be.

 

I think that you're right about desertification causing problems for (re)forestation. I just wonder why rainfall is supposed to decrease.

[Mr Skeptic]

Please explain to me the logic of how rainfall levels decrease due to warming. When I first heard that CO2 levels were going to be high, I expected an increase in tree-growth. Not only the extra CO2 would provide more carbon for growth but increasing average temperatures would mean earlier springs and later freezes in fall, which translates to a longer growing-season. Of course this assumes that deforestation doesn't eliminate too many trees. If in fact more land was devoted to (re)forestation, I would think that increased CO2 levels and longer grow-seasons would actually help to mitigate the warming because the greater shade would generate more cooler air from the forests. I don't know how significantly an effect this would be.

 

I think that you're right about desertification causing problems for (re)forestation. I just wonder why rainfall is supposed to decrease.

 

Global warming will increase rainfall overall, but also decrease it in some areas, so there will be more desert and more flooding. One way warming can decrease rainfall is by killing vegetation. What plants do is trade water for CO2 via their stomata (so that increasing CO2 decreases their water needs). In doing so, they draw water from the soil or stored from a long ago rain, and let it evaporate (they need to have wet parts exposed to air to get CO2). This evaporated water will probably fall again as rain elsewhere. Without the plants much of that water would instead be runoff or go down to an aquifer, so that it would not evaporate and not fall as rain. In other words, there will be less rain downwind of deserts, which I'm sure is no surprise when it's put like that.

 

As to desertification, some places are arid but not desert. Increasing their temperatures will increase the water needs of all plants in the area, which could eventually kill some of them off. Absent the plants, wind can blow away the topsoil, so that the plants that are left now have little water and less nutrients. Keep it going and you end up with a desert (but not like a proper desert with a desert ecosystem, more like a barren wasteland).

[lemur]

Global warming will increase rainfall overall, but also decrease it in some areas, so there will be more desert and more flooding. One way warming can decrease rainfall is by killing vegetation. What plants do is trade water for CO2 via their stomata (so that increasing CO2 decreases their water needs). In doing so, they draw water from the soil or stored from a long ago rain, and let it evaporate (they need to have wet parts exposed to air to get CO2). This evaporated water will probably fall again as rain elsewhere. Without the plants much of that water would instead be runoff or go down to an aquifer, so that it would not evaporate and not fall as rain. In other words, there will be less rain downwind of deserts, which I'm sure is no surprise when it's put like that.

 

As to desertification, some places are arid but not desert. Increasing their temperatures will increase the water needs of all plants in the area, which could eventually kill some of them off. Absent the plants, wind can blow away the topsoil, so that the plants that are left now have little water and less nutrients. Keep it going and you end up with a desert (but not like a proper desert with a desert ecosystem, more like a barren wasteland).

So are you trying to say that plants act as a moisture anchor and transmit humidity over the ground, and that they will dry up because higher CO2 levels cause them to evaporate more water on average? If they're sweating more, why wouldn't that humidity just get taken up by nearby soil and other plants? Plus, if higher CO2 levels increase overall plant-growth, I would expect there to be more moisture being embedded in the plants.

 

I am kind of divided here about what to think of your approach to this issue. On the one hand, I do think that cars pollute in numerous ways and are bad for plants and certainly many animals as well. Personally, I would prefer to see people drive less and walk/bicycle more. Even roads full of electric cars will have a negative effect on nature and wildlife. What it really comes down to is that there is a culture of destroying and repressing nature, which occurs not just in urban planning of roads and transit but also in the way business and homeowners maintain properties. Add to this the fact that many people simply like to backlash against green-politics to assert their own power and you have a recipe for intense nature-hate fascism.

 

Despite my irritation with nature-repression culture generally, however, I also get irritated by the elitism of environment-worshippers. This is not because of the fact they value and love nature, because I do that too. It's the fact that they tend to fetishize their immediate surroundings, the way an ethnocentric jingoist fetishizes their ethnic culture. So I can't tell if the reason you are lamenting about plants drying out is because you live in or just fetishize some lush moist foresty area, which is more than likely also an area with a high level of economic and cultural capital. I mention the capital because it also bugs me to listen to people fantasize about how wonderful such areas are when they are not the people that put in all the labor of cultivating and maintaining the landscaping and architecture that gives them that warm-fuzzy feeling while they go out for coffee and have deep conversations about life and knowledge.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that lifestyle as well. It's just that there is a lot of economic resources going into supporting those elite areas that people enjoy so much, and the question is whether the same economy that sustains them is not contributing to the degradation of so many other habitats elsewhere. Yes, I'm all for the greening of everything from major cities to interstate highways, but I'm not sure that fetishizing rain-forests, Seattle, or any place else in particular will achieve that. I think the economic practices have to be addressed directly how and where they are taking place. And I don't mean attacking them - I mean approaching them constructively to develop and evolve them into greener replacements. And realize that it's not cars you have to replace, it's cultural-geographic habits and cultures of economic-behavior and business. Do you have any idea how rigidly embedded cultural assumption are down to the most sub-conscious cognitive levels?

 

I know you're probably going to say that you just wanted to talk about rainfall and plant-growth, but you can't practically separate those from the human cultural practices that interact with the ecology.

 

 

[Athena]

Please explain to me the logic of how rainfall levels decrease due to warming. When I first heard that CO2 levels were going to be high, I expected an increase in tree-growth. Not only the extra CO2 would provide more carbon for growth but increasing average temperatures would mean earlier springs and later freezes in fall, which translates to a longer growing-season. Of course this assumes that deforestation doesn't eliminate too many trees. If in fact more land was devoted to (re)forestation, I would think that increased CO2 levels and longer grow-seasons would actually help to mitigate the warming because the greater shade would generate more cooler air from the forests. I don't know how significantly an effect this would be.

 

I think that you're right about desertification causing problems for (re)forestation. I just wonder why rainfall is supposed to decrease.

 

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. It made no sense to me at all, because we are right off the west coast and I thought the increased temperature would increase evaporation from the ocean, and therefore, increase our rainful, but we are experiencing the opposed of this. Thanks to your prodding I made the effort of getting more information.

 

Before I add to what Mr. Sketic said, I want to say how thrilling it is read his explanations of things. I am in awe of how much he seems to know. However, his explanation only makes me feel worse after reading what is said here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought .

 

Humanity is facing some major challenges, and our public education system needs to have a nature and survival agenda immediately. The link explains why some forest are getting close to a tipping point, and why Oregon forest are in danger instead of thriving. California heats up the air, and this effects the air pressure in such way we are enjoying pleasant winters, with occasional bizarre weather. Seriously gardening has become a challenge. No one got broccile from their spring gardens and usually broccile does very well here, but our seaonal weather cycle is all messed up.

 

For sure we need to take action to protect forest, and the link does say what we can do. I am thinking Oregon needs to adopt the California logging practice of thinning forest instead of strip logging. I could be wrong, but I think, the lack of water means we need to reduce the number trees soon, if we are going to have a chance of saving our forest. However, logging individual trees rather than strip logging has to be much more difficult and costly.

 

Lemur, I read your next post, and your thinking is an excellent demonstration of the importance of science. I was going to say we are facing a mass die off. I don't think we can avoid this, but we might manage it better with science and technology. However, I didn't want to take the thread off topic. I now state my concerns, to clarify my sense of passion. I love deserts as much as I love forest, but as the link explains, the new deserts will not be the living deserts that have evolved. We are facing a crisis and need to be as informed as possible, so we can manage things the best they can be managed.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Athena

[The Peon]

Please tell me I am not the only one who thought of this after reading the OP: