Plans to plant billions of trees, fight climate change threatened by low seedling supplies

[Stevicus]

Plans to plant billions of trees, fight climate change threatened by low seedling supplies - UPI.com

The U.S. Forest Service's plan to plant more than a billion trees by 2030 -- in an effort to fight climate change -- is facing seedling scarcity and funding issues, according to new research.

www.upi.com

According to research published Monday in the journal Bioscience, U.S. tree nurseries are not growing enough tree seedlings to keep up with demand.

"Trees are this amazing natural solution to a lot of our challenges, including climate change. We urgently need to plant many millions of them," University of Vermont scientist Tony D'Amato, who co-led the new research, said in a statement. "But what this paper points out is that we are woefully underserved by any kind of regional or national scale inventory of seedlings to get the job done."

The REPLANT Act provides funding to plant more than a billion trees in the United States, as the World Economic Forum works to plant a trillion threes around the world by 2030. But researchers from UVM and the USDA's Northern Forest Research Stations in Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire -- who studied 605 plant nurseries across twenty northern states -- found only 56 grow and sell seedlings in the volumes needed for conservation and reforestation. According to the report, only 14 were government-operated.

Researchers are now calling for increasing both seedling production and diversity at regional nurseries in order to address climate change with tree planting. They are also calling for increased federal and state investment.

"Given the existing and growing reforestation backlog, declines in nursery infrastructure, and complex needs for diverse seeds and seedlings, it is likely that substantially more public investment in the form of grants, loans and cost-share programs will be needed to reinvigorate, diversify and expand forest nurseries," the study says.

So, we need to plant more trees, and for this we need increased seedling production. We need a 21st century version of "Johnny Appleseed" to go around and plant trees. Also, it's not just a matter of more trees, but also a diverse assortment which is needed.

"The number of seedlings is a challenge," Clark added, "but finding the diversity we need to restore ecologically complex forests -- not just a few industrial workhorse species commonly used for commercial timber operations, like white pine -- is an even bigger bottleneck."

 

[Quintessence]

I became aware of this issue through other channels - I have some background in forestry and float in conservation and land management circles at the university still. My homeland in particular was hit with a land hurricane a while back and municipalities that lost significant amounts of tree cover began some urban forestry planing to regreen the landscapes here. In their analysis, they quickly ran into supply and supply chain issues.

This was to be expected and I wasn't at all surprised to see this outcome in the study.

One thing the article isn't mentioning is a lot of these urban forestry programs are focusing specifically on native trees. This is important for ecological reasons, and it also exacerbates the issue. Few nurseries specialize in native woodland species of their ecoregions, instead growing non-native ornamentals for homeowners that don't care about functional ecosystems. These massive tree planting projects have to consider that. Well, I suppose technically they don't have to, but the folks heading up these projects understand the importance of native stock and will strongly favor it over the more easily-grown and available non-native stock. Then add in the issue of time. There are limited shortcuts to reforestation - the Tall Standing Ones will grow as they grow, and it simply takes time that impatient humans are often unwilling to grant them. But it is good, worthwhile work to do regardless even if it does little or nothing to ameliorate climate change.

Bias disclosure - tree-hugging dirt-worshipping Druid trained in conservation science, botany and land management.

 

[metis]

And Earth Day should be resurrected, imo.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have an ample supply of seedlings for fall planting.
Redbud & Norway spruce.
Alas, I've no catalpa seedlings this year.

 

[Riders]

Plans to plant billions of trees, fight climate change threatened by low seedling supplies - UPI.com

The U.S. Forest Service's plan to plant more than a billion trees by 2030 -- in an effort to fight climate change -- is facing seedling scarcity and funding issues, according to new research.

www.upi.com

So, we need to plant more trees, and for this we need increased seedling production. We need a 21st century version of "Johnny Appleseed" to go around and plant trees. Also, it's not just a matter of more trees, but also a diverse assortment which is needed.

But how much good will it do?

 

[Stevicus]

But how much good will it do?

Hard to say. It might help, along with other measures that could be taken. The article noted that it's a problematic undertaking, and they may be facing setbacks. It's an uphill battle, to be sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From various sources I have seen that we cannot plant our way out of AGW. Cutting back on carbon production would do much more. In the US we would need to plant 640 trees per person to make up for our production ,and even that is overly simplified (meaning probably wrong):

How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?

Because of the complexity of the carbon cycle, the answer is not obvious. What is obvious, MIT experts say, is that we should not only plant more trees but also put much more effort into protecting existing forests.

climate.mit.edu

 

[metis]

There's no magic bullet but there are many ways to fight global warming, and some of this can be done by ourselves in our own home and car.

 

[Pete in Panama]

But how much good will it do?

Any benefit would be temporary, as mature forests generate more GHG's than they consume.

 

[Quintessence]

But how much good will it do?

The main benefit will actually be supporting native ecosystems since the plans typically utilize native species. While the United States lags behind on many things, the EU has already put forth initiatives for this sort of widescale ecosystem restoration following centuries of misuse and abuse by humans. The value of functional ecosystems - even if one doesn't buy into the intrinsic value of all things - can't be understated and vastly eclipses the issue of climate change.

 

[Pete in Panama]

The main benefit will actually be supporting native ecosystems since the plans typically utilize native species. While the United States lags behind on many things, the EU has already put forth initiatives for this sort of widescale ecosystem restoration following centuries of misuse and abuse by humans. The value of functional ecosystems - even if one doesn't buy into the intrinsic value of all things - can't be understated and vastly eclipses the issue of climate change.

People don't want a "restoration" of the ecosystem because that would mean less trees. There are more trees in the U.S. now than what we had a hundred years ago:

• How Many Trees Are in the World Today vs 100 Years Ago? - THE ENVIRONMENTOR
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...matically-more-trees-than-previously-thought/
• America Has More Trees Now Than It Had a Century Ago - Good News Network
• How Many Trees Are in the United States? 6 Shocking Stats

 

[metis]

Any benefit would be temporary, as mature forests generate more GHG's than they consume.

That's really not true. From MIT: How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?

However, as the article states, this by itself will not lower carbon emissions to 0 growth levels.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That's really not true....

--and what, I say yes it's true two times and I win? The problem we're facing is the issue is a hot-button controversy (contradictory postings here) and I'm basing my judgement on a myriad of factors. You're welcome the deem this issue any way you want.

 

[Quintessence]

People don't want a "restoration" of the ecosystem because that would mean less trees.

No, it would not.

A mere one hundred years ago still puts us in the post-colonial era of the United States, after which time there was extensive anthropogenic modification of the land.

When land managers and conservationists talk about restoration projects, they refer to these ecosystems as they were prior to the extreme anthropogenic modifications that followed colonization of the United States by Europeans. While we don't have the best documentation of what these forests were really like prior to the arrival of Europeans, we do know that forest cover in this country was vastly higher pre-colonization than it is today (or a century ago). Imagine basically everything east of the Mississippi as one big forest. That's what the historical forest cover was. It's nowhere near that today.

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, it would not.

A mere one hundred years ago still puts us in the post-colonial era of the United States, after which time there was extensive anthropogenic modification of the land.

When land managers and conservationists talk about restoration projects, they refer to these ecosystems as they were prior to the extreme anthropogenic modifications that followed colonization of the United States by Europeans. While we don't have the best documentation of what these forests were really like prior to the arrival of Europeans, we do know that forest cover in this country was vastly higher pre-colonization than it is today (or a century ago). Imagine basically everything east of the Mississippi as one big forest. That's what the historical forest cover was. It's nowhere near that today.

--and if I posted another "map" showing virtually no forests in 1620, would that make me right and you wrong? What can we agree on here. Do we agree that there were no satellite images available for 1620. That raises the question of just what is the map based on anyway? More questions follow changes in climate that would affect the existence/location of forest areas.

 

[Quintessence]

--and if I posted another "map" showing virtually no forests in 1620, would that make me right and you wrong? What can we agree on here. Do we agree that there were no satellite images available for 1620. That raises the question of just what is the map based on anyway? More questions follow changes in climate that would affect the existence/location of forest areas.

So... as mentioned, I have a background in forestry and land management. It turns out I kind of know what I'm talking about with this stuff. Have technical expertise, so to speak. But if you don't want to listen to me, go talk to some other academic with a strong background in forestry and land management - I only went masters level, so honestly I'll defer to the current professors and researchers still doing the work today.

For the curious, what is used for these early data are the land surveys done by colonialists, for example. They can be very interesting to look at if you can get access to them and they have the granularity you'd expect from such data, but it's all we've really got to work with outside of narrative accounts. See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00790.x and Prototyping a methodology for long-term (1680-2100) historical-to-future landscape modeling for the conterminous United States | U.S. Geological Survey for an example of these kinds of studies.

 

[metis]

--and what, I say yes it's true two times and I win? The problem we're facing is the issue is a hot-button controversy (contradictory postings here) and I'm basing my judgement on a myriad of factors. You're welcome the deem this issue any way you want.

So, you know more than the scientists at MIT, eh? How about NOAA, NASA, the NAS, do you know more than they as well?

Don't bother to answer-- instead just get your facts from actual science sources from institutions that have been studying this very serious problem for many decades.

 

[Alien826]

I was going to start a thread like this, then noticed this one.

Trees have been covered already so I'll mention another couple of things that have been in the news.

Someone has developed a reflective white paint that would reflect back the sunlight before it warmed the Earth's surface. It would have to be painted on lots and lots of roofs. The practical problems are obvious, and the paint wears out over time and would have to be redone.

Releasing sulfur (?) into the upper atmosphere would reflect the sunlight. Just an idea, and side effects unknown.

I like the tree planting better, and unintended consequences seem to be limited. But, it has to be done. Though, "every little helps" as the old lady said as she piddled into the ocean.

 

[Pete in Panama]

So, you know more than the scientists at MIT, eh? How about NOAA, NASA, the NAS, do you know more than they as well?...

OK, so everything I'm saying is wrong and you're right. You and I don't change what's happening in the world, such as whether--

...the issue is a hot-button controversy (contradictory postings here) and I'm basing my judgement on a myriad of factors. You're welcome the deem this issue any way you want.

the issue is the issue an my judgement is my judgement. We can talk about it and we can search for the truth together, or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so everything I'm saying is wrong and you're right. You and I don't change what's happening in the world, such as whether--

Whether what? Why did you stop midsentence? But yes, he has been right. You have been wrong. Finally some progress.

the issue is the issue an my judgement is my judgement. We can talk about it and we can search for the truth together, or not.

And your judgment is faulty. Fix it and move on.