Planting trees-A good thing?- A bad thing?

[Michaelangelica]

scientific American says it depends on which lattitude you are for trees to help global warming /cooling

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/04/10/study-trees-actuallygcontribute-to-global-warming/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciam.com%2Farticle.cfm%3FchanID%3Dsa003%26articleID%3DDCA231BA-E7F2-99DF-3105874539B83ECB%26ref%3Drss&frame=true

[Michaelangelica]

what do you think? Is it just a big con.?

Attuned to planting trees

 

By Claire Gorman

 

Friday, 27/04/2007

 

Generation Y are supposed to be self-focused and self-serving. But if you happened to be at the Regen festival, held on a stunning 1,000-acre property south of Goulburn, you’d probably get a different picture.

 

About 600 people, mostly between the ages of 18-35, gathered to plant 12,100 trees during the three-day event. Participants drove from Sydney, the south coast and Canberra. There was even the odd Newcastle resident among the crowd.

 

The festival is unique because by day participants put red gum and yellow box seedlings in the ground and by night they dance. Organisers set up five stages with music genres including electronic, chill, dub, improvisation and live bands.

 

Mark Stettner, director of Regen, told 666 ABC Canberra environment reporter, Claire Gorman, the event was pulling bigger crowds each year because "…green consciousness within the mainstream is also rising."

 

He said the combination of good music and the green element was a real drawcard. While the festival did not encourage drug taking and drinking, organisers were prepared for any incidents with first aid officers on site, Mark said.

 

This festival, which costs about $70,000 annually, is in its third year. It is powered with a combination of solar energy and biodiesel. Property owner Martin Royds said farmers were increasingly seeing the value in being green.

 

"It was Government policy early on that you had to clear every tree. Now we realise that a tree can be beneficial. It can be involved in the daily water cycle. It can give shade and shelter to your stock and your pasture," he said.

 

Martin said he hoped the trees would help get rid of serrated tussock on his land.

 

And what was it like to have hoards of young people descending on his land? Martin said his experience was "very positive."

 

The only thing he found after last year’s festival was two cigarette butts.

 

For more information go to: REGEN - Welcome to REGEN, home of the finest outdoor Earth saving music festivals . Please note this website is not within the abc.net.au control and the ABC has no editorial control over its content.

One of the stages at the Regen festival

 

One of the stages at the Regen festival. (ABC)

Photo Gallery

 

Click image for larger version:

Festival participants enjoyed amazing fabric sculptures set up all over the site.

Viola and Liz set up in the kitchen, ready for the crowds to descend.

Martin, Mark Tim and Jen show that the festival is completely powered by solar and bio diesel.

Property owner Martin Royds with some of the 12,100 red gum and yellow box seedlings which are ready to be planted.

Canberra resident Kathleen Mahoney plants a tree.

 

Attuned to planting trees. 27 Apr 2007. Rural Online. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Michaelangelica]

1 2 next »

Science Image: tilling-soy-field

Image: USDA

NO TILL?: By avoiding tillage, seen here, farmers can both increase the quality of their soil and sequester greenhouse gases.

Saving the trees could slow climate change, new research shows. Each year, nearly 33 million acres of forestland around the world is cut down, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical felling alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon—some 20 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to the atmosphere annually. If such losses were cut in half, it could save 500 million metric tons of carbon annually and contribute 12 percent of the total reductions in GHG emissions required to avoid unpleasant global warming, researchers recently reported in Science.

 

Forest depletion ultimately contributes more GHG emissions than all the cars and trucks in use worldwide, says Werner Kurz, a forest ecologist with Natural Resources Canada, who was not involved with the study. "What we are doing in these tropical forests is really a massive problem."

Combating Climate Change: Farming Out Global Warming Solutions: Scientific American

[Michaelangelica]

O Dear,

Looks like I am posting to myself again.

Tree Planting a Practical, Effective Way to Remove CO2

American Forests: News

 

'As a result of pollution of the atmosphere by active nitrogen from the internal combustion engine, from factories, and from intensive agriculture, the whole planet receives an annual dose of what can be regarded as nitrogen fertiliser,' explained Professor Magnani. 'It comes for example in rain, snow and fog.'

 

By matching CO2 uptake to nitrogen deposition, the researchers were able to reveal that for every kilogram of nitrogen that rains down onto forests, an extra 400kg of carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere.

 

'This dual effect of humans on forests - causing release of carbon by management, and increasing uptake of carbon by nitrogen pollution - is but one illustration of the way anthropogenic influences impact on the global environment in ways that were not intended,' commented Professor Magnani. 'Forests, often viewed as pristine ecosystems, are in reality deeply conditioned by mankind.'

 

As Peter Högberg of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences points out in an accompanying article, the study raises a number of important questions. 'Should forests be fertilised with nitrogen to sequester more atmospheric CO2?' he asks. 'And should strategies to reduce levels of CO2 emissions include forest fertilisation to produce more wood products to replace fossil fuels, or to replace concrete as a building material (large amounts of CO2 are generated during concrete production)?'

 

However, he warns that further research is needed to understand the wider environmental impacts of artificially fertilising our forests.

 

For further information, please visit:

www.carboeurope.org

CORDIS : News

[Buffy]

We're having a major forest fire in Lake Tahoe in California this week, and there is a facinating article in today's San Francisco Comical on the problems associated with mis-managing the forests specifically citing the issue of *what* you plant--if you're going to Plant Trees--can be devastating to the ecosystem:

The immediate cause of the Angora fire was under investigation Monday. But the fire's beginnings can be traced all the way back to the Gold Rush and the Comstock-era mining boom.

 

"They clear-cut about two-thirds of the basin," said Shane Romsos, science and evaluation program manager for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

 

Mixed-growth forests of fire-tolerant species like the self-pruning Jeffrey pine were replaced by uniform stands of dense white fir and undergrowth, which grew rapidly in the unusually wet years of the early 20th century.

 

So, a hundred years ago, you're forefathers screwed up in planting the wrong trees. What do you do about it now?

 

Surrounded by big trees as we speak,

Buffy

[DougF]

Planting trees-A good thing?- A bad thing?

It's a good thing, once we (the USA) thought we should cut all the trees and plant wheat, corn every square inch of usable land was plowed and planted,

Well it sounded like a good plan the more you plant the more you make.

Wrong! The American Experience | Surviving the Dust Bowl | Timeline

It was the begging of one of the worst deserters in US history better known as "THE DUST BOWL"

1931 Severe drought hits the Midwestern and southern plains. As the crops die, the 'black blizzards" begin. Dust from the over-plowed and over-grazed land begins to blow.

1934 May

Great dust storms spread from the Dust Bowl area. The drought is the worst ever in U.S. history, covering more than 75 percent of the country and affecting 27 states severely.

experts estimate that 850,000,000 tons of topsoil has blown off the Southern Plains during the course of the year, and that if the drought continued, the total area affected would increase from 4,350,000 acres to 5,350,000 acres in the spring of 1936.

1938 The extensive work re-plowing the land into furrows, planting trees in shelterbelts, and other conservation methods has resulted in a 65 percent reduction in the amount of soil blowing. However, the drought continued.

1939 In the fall, the rain comes, finally bringing an end to the drought. During the next few years, with the coming of World War II, the country is pulled out of the Depression and the plains once again become golden with wheat.

 

 

The drought started the the dust bowl, but IMHO if we would have left "shelterbelts of planted trees" this would not have lasted as long or been as bad. Yes I think Trees are a good thing!

some photo link below.

New Page 1

Nasa link

NASA - Top Story - SOURCE OF 1930s 'DUST BOWL' DROUGHT IN TROPICAL WATERS, NASA FINDS - March 18, 2004

[Cedars]

1934 May

Great dust storms spread from the Dust Bowl area. The drought is the worst ever in U.S. history, covering more than 75 percent of the country and affecting 27 states severely.

 

1938 The extensive work re-plowing the land into furrows, planting trees in shelterbelts, and other conservation methods has resulted in a 65 percent reduction in the amount of soil blowing. However, the drought continued.

1939 In the fall, the rain comes, finally bringing an end to the drought. During the next few years, with the coming of World War II, the country is pulled out of the Depression and the plains once again become golden with wheat.

 

 

The drought started the the dust bowl, but IMHO if we would have left "shelterbelts of planted trees" this would not have lasted as long or been as bad. Yes I think Trees are a good thing!

some photo link below.

New Page 1

Nasa link

NASA - Top Story - SOURCE OF 1930s 'DUST BOWL' DROUGHT IN TROPICAL WATERS, NASA FINDS - March 18, 2004

 

Shelterbelts/hedgerows are a good thing that we are losing rapidly due to smaller farms being absorbed into corp farming.

 

Yes during the extreme conditions of the dust bowl many tons of topsoil was blown somewhere else. Many tons of topsoil have been blown into Minnesota since the end of the last ice age.

 

I dont know that more trees planted in these regions would have had the impact of lessening the droughts severity. Even under perfect conditions, on the plains, trees do not thrive.

 

The constant winds, the lower levels of rains and the soil itself contribute to the stunting and early demise of these types of plants. Sheltered areas such as stream valleys and the west sides of slopes do harbor thriving trees, but you wont see that in the flatlands.

 

Heres a piece on the great plains and long term droughts. They are extreme enough to cause extensive dunes.

 

Drought: A Paleo Perspective -- Dune Data, Forman et al.

 

JPG of Dune areas of the Great Plains:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/images/nadunerecord.jpg

[Michaelangelica]

Re trees and Global warming

This sort of reasearch seems to be popping up all over the web

I am not sure if all the research is really in yet

Few studies look at soil microbiology etc

Few look at the alternatives- eg a black car-park tarmac

or

the air conditioning cooling effects, perhaps even the promotion of rain.

the removal of air-born pollutants- perhaps even removal of man made green house gases?

SCIENCE NEWS

April 10, 2007

More Trees, Less Global Warming, Right? -- Not Exactly

A 150-year simulation of worldwide deforestation finds that tropical forests are carbon sinks and boreal forests contribute to warming these natural carbon sinks only do their job effectively in tropical regions; in other areas, they have either no impact or actually contribute to warming the planet.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/04/10/study-trees-actuallygcontribute-to-global-warming/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciam.com%2Farticle.cfm%3FchanID%3Dsa003%26articleID%3DDCA231BA-E7F2-99DF-3105874539B83ECB%26ref%3Drss&frame=true

 

Netscape

[Qfwfq]

Less sunlight toward the poles, plants only photosynthesize during day, they oxidize carbon as well, like most organisms...

[Michaelangelica]

Thanks to Chris for this research link

 

NASA - NASA Models Show Trees Can Slow Increase of Atmospheric Carbon

 

FEATURE

NASA Models Show Trees Can Slow Increase of Atmospheric Carbon

:

xmas_tree::xmas_tree:

04.30.07

 

Converting marginal agricultural land to forests may help slow the increase of carbon in the atmosphere, according to model-based results obtained by NASA scientists using space-based Earth observations and a state-of-the-art ecosystem model.

 

cropland Researchers found that on a national basis, converting marginal agricultural lands into forests has the potential to remove hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. This conversion, known as afforestation, could be used to partially off-set carbon emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.

 

Left: croplands

 

“In this study, we primarily wanted to know how much atmospheric carbon dioxide can be absorbed by plant growth over the next 20 to 30 years, if 25 percent or less of the Unites States croplands and rangelands was planted with native tree species,” said Christopher Potter, lead author of the paper in Climatic Change, published by Springer Science+Business Media, and a scientist from NASA Ames Research Center, in California's Silicon Valley. “Our findings showed that at least one-fifth of annual fossil fuel emission of carbon in the United States can be offset by planting new forests,” added Potter.

 

Using plants and soil to store atmospheric carbon dioxide could become part of our country’s enhanced land use management. Generalized global estimates of stored carbon in afforested areas vary between temperate and tropical regions, but range as high as 4.5 billion tons of carbon per year, say scientists. These estimates are from model results, not actual measurements, and many questions, scientific and economic, must be answered before such land use practices are adopted.

 

Researchers collected ‘greenness’ data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor on the NOAA Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) and entered it into the NASA-Carnegie, Ames, Stanford Approach (CASA) carbon model at 8-kilometers’ spatial resolution. The model generated three different national maps that showed estimates of the amount of carbon absorbed by plants growing in current forests, croplands and rangelands.

 

When the research was analyzed, the top five states identified as having a high carbon storage potential by converting croplands to newly developed forests were Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri. The top five states with potential for converting rangelands or pastures were Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico and Colorado.

 

Research suggested that the southeast region of the United States has the most favorable conditions for afforestation due to its subtropical climate. In addition, model results suggested that large areas of croplands in South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin showed potential for carbon management and shouldn’t be underestimated.

 

Past studies show that managed land use practices can be very productive in removing carbon from the air, but variability in forest growth conditions across diverse climate, soil, water and elevation zones make it difficult to predict outcomes. “If rainfall patterns change, for whatever reason, the risk of losing plants can go up in drought-stricken areas,” noted Potter.

 

This work was made possible through funding by NASA as part of the long-term USDA Northern Global Change Research Program, which is dedicated to understanding how human-induced and natural changes affect our global environment.

 

These and related studies appeared in the Springer Science+Business Media issues of Climatic Change, 2007.

 

For further information, please visit:

 

NASA - Home

 

 

Ruth Marlaire

NASA Ames Research Center

 

 

 

[Michaelangelica]

I liked this story from "The Sacred Balance" David Suzuki, where he quotes a story told to him by architect William McDonough, Dean of Architecture at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.( which was told to him by economic philosopher Gregory Bateson!)

 

"At new college in Oxford, England, the huge oak beams of the university's main hall are some twelve metres long and 0.5 metre thick. In 1985, dry rot had finally weakened them so much that they needed to be replaced. If oak trees of such size could have been found in England, they would have COST ABOUT u.s.$250,000 per log for a total replacement cost of around U.S.$50 million.

 

Then the university forester informed the administrators that when the main hall had been built 350 years earlier, the architects had instructed that a grove of oak trees be planted and maintained so that when dry rot set in, about three and a half centuries later, the beams could be replaced.

 

Now that is long term planning .

[Ganoderma]

so did they? if so that is really amazing. props to them...whats more amazing is that people would have left them that long without killing them or harvesting them early....

[Michaelangelica]

so did they? if so that is really amazing. props to them...whats more amazing is that people would have left them that long without killing them or harvesting them early....

funny

My response to the story was 'how wonderful" a good news story:)

 

My daughter's first response was like yours

"So did they cut down 350 year old Oaks?":(

(A greenie from Tasmania- where they cut down 1,000 YO trees- I note the Giant Californian Redwood's future is looking grim too)

 

I guess they must have otherwise new College would have fallen down. :hyper:

[Michaelangelica]

How to Nominate a Tree

Instructions to Register a Big Tree

TERRA: The Earth Renewal and Restoration Alliance

 

Society grows great when old men plant trees

in whose shade they will never sit.

—Greek proverb

 

TERRA: The Earth Renewal and Restoration Alliance

 

Very socially, emotive things trees.

What if it was better for planetary health if we made charcoal of them all? What if it was better for our survival if we turned them into bio-fuels?

[Michaelangelica]

Planting trees sounds like a flawless solution: Trees absorb carbon, after all. But it can actually be quite harmful, even dangerous.

Soil needs "riches" such as carbon, organic matter, and mineral nutrients, and they come in part from the "litter" left by plants that grow and die annually on the land.

By planting trees in soils that were created by other, more productive plants (e.g., prairie and wetland plants that used to occupy some of today's farmland), less litter is produced.

That means less carbon and organic matter are contributed to the soil, causing it to deteriorate.

 

In some areas, planted trees can dewater the soil. They can also release nitrogen and phosphorous in runoff that enters rivers, lakes, and estuaries and hurts water quality.

More worrisome, some forested areas are becoming more vulnerable to wildfires, because changing precipitation patterns and the associated drying effects are creating a tinderbox.

These changes appear to be resulting in bigger and more frequent fires (e.g., very recently in California).

Ecological lesson No. 1 is that we should plant trees only where the soils will benefit from it.

 

The corollary, lesson No. 2, is not to plant trees where inappropriate, for example, in farmland that used to be wetlands and grasslands. Native, deep-rooted plants should be grown in those areas instead, since they enrich the soil – with carbon, among other things – more quickly.

Lesson No. 3 is that, in the face of drought and increased wildfires, rebuilding soils is a safer strategy for storing carbon.

 

There are two ways to do this. First, restore conservation lands – which are not used for farming – with deep-rooted grassland or wetland plants, which sequester carbon more effectively than trees do.

. . .

Lots more at site

 

A dirty way to fight climate change - Yahoo! News

[Jet2]

Planting trees-A good thing?- A bad thing?

 

Why not letting Mother Nature bother and manage it itself?

If we try not to interfere or damage the eco system that much, it will get balance easily and automatically.

 

Well, if planting trees is to compensat our mistake of harming Nature, I think that should be a good thing.

[Michaelangelica]

A copy of an email I just received re a query I had about whether all these "feel good" tree planting schemes/scams really helped Global Warming.

 

The only evidence I had seen was that tropical forests did sequester Co2 temperate forest did notsequester Co2.

What do you think?

Is the science in yet?

Can we all rush out and donate to, or plant a tree?

While there is evidence that tropical trees MAY hold more CO2 - temparate trees will do so as well. European Union Forests Expanding, Absorbing Carbon At Surprisingly High Rate European Union Forests Expanding, Absorb... - Care2 News Network Scientists tout forests as climate cure Scientists tout forests as climate cure - Care2 News Network Protection of Ontario’s Intact Boreal Forest Critical In Fight To Stave Off Global Warming Protection of Ontario’s Intact Boreal Fo... - Care2 News Network