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

[Michaelangelica]

O Dear,
Looks like I am posting to myself again.

'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:

Originally Posted by SF Chronicle, 6/26/07

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]

Originally Posted by DougF

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/droug...dunerecord.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/20...rss&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:
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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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.