From ... in Environmental Managed Decline Personal Development Lifestyle Biology — Feb 27, 2025

Just Plant Trees? It’s Not So Simple

With the many converging crises, we are looking for a quick fix to our problems. Too much carbon dioxide in the air? Plant more trees. I hear that constantly. Yes, of course we need the trees. But planting trees is no longer the solution to the enormous level of emissions in our air. Nor is it simple to just plant a tree. And though, our forest ecosystems have been a tremendous carbon sink in the past, and planting trees is a worthwhile endeavor, it is not a panacea for our environmental problems.

It is possible that trees have taken up around twenty percent of the global greenhouse gases. But now we are past the point where planting trees will stop our planet from warming – or significant parts from cooling depending on the whether the AMOC will shut down. And though our forest ecosystems have been a tremendous carbon sink in the past, the human population was small for many thousands of years. It took 200,000 years to get to a half billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Two hundred years after that we are eight billion. The human population is sixteen times larger, while resource use went up one hundred times per capita… (from Daniel Schmachtenberger) Recent studies indicate that trees are struggling to take up any more CO2 and that they are now an unreliable way of addressing climate change. Through the process of photosynthesis, trees and all green plants, algae and bacteria take carbon from the air and convert it to energy-rich compounds. Soils and oceans also take up carbon. But it takes thirty years for most trees to be large enough to take up enough carbon dioxide to make a difference. The older trees, large trees—oaks and pines and mangroves, take up the most.

The rapidly escalating climate instability has its roots in the overshoot of our population. And our population is well over the carrying capacity of the earth’s resources as we increase our mania for extracting fossil fuels.

“There is only one answer to slowing and eventually reversing climate change and that is to substantially reduce our emissions, our consumption, our waste.”

Before the emergence of agriculture, more than half of the world’s habitable land was forest. Since then, we have lost one third of all our forests, half of that loss occurring in the last century. Fifteen billion trees are cut down every year. That’s about five million hectares of forest. Almost all of the loss is tropical rainforest—land gone to cattle, soybeans, palm oil and coffee.

There are reasons to reforest and rebuild our tree communities, to replant where trees grew in the past. But being sustainable, planting forests or practicing agroforestry is not about planting a field in fruit trees. A self-sustaining forest ecosystem includes not just a mix of trees but the understory of smaller trees, shrubs and groundcover plants, the animals, the soil and its biota, and all the dead matter lying on the forest floor. And sustainable agroforestry requires a polyculture with trees on pasture land or planted among the crops. The tree canopy shelters the surroundings, cooling the ground below while it traps moisture, keeping the area underneath humid, creating a microclimate for the animals, grasses, and food plants. Planting a mix of trees together is particularly important during times of drought. Tree roots, those of the larger trees, are essential to water management, absorbing rainwater and reducing runoff during our torrential storms. And during periods of high winds, the roots act as natural anchors for the ecosystem, holding onto the layer of fertile topsoil. Once established, tree roots intermingle among the soil bacteria, fungus, the myriad of soil organisms, and other plants taking up and distributing nutrients. But one tree alone or an apple orchard is a monoculture. There is no biodiversity, no resilience. The more diversity, the more stability is possible in the face of the increasing chaos in our weather. “Forests are naturally diverse, and this diversity of plant species brings an array of benefits: pest and disease resistance, resilience to climate change and increased wildlife habitat…” Studies have shown that just “planting four species instead of one significantly reduced variation in survival in (experimental) plots, showing that small increases in diversity could have large impacts on the success of tree planting efforts.”

Tree planting efforts have failed when there was not enough research done before planting—whether it was selecting the wrong species of trees or the wrong crops for the area, the lack of experience of the cultivators or no plan for tree care. Planting numerous trees on already thriving meadows and grasslands may be a mistake. For trees, especially those recently planted, water availability is crucial. Rewilding with trees can be water intensive. If the tree is foreign to the ecosystem or water hungry it may cause more harm than good, commanding more resources or even inhibiting the growth, survival and reproduction of the surrounding plants and animals. Grasslands, savannas and wildflower meadows already sequester a great deal of carbon in their soil. Planting trees on degraded agricultural land depends first on rehabilitating the land, often with the local grasses and wild herbs. Areas where there are only a few centimeters of fertile topsoil will not support a sapling, let alone a several years-old tree. It would be a mistake to change an already vital ecosystem. The same with degraded land making a valiant effort on its own to return to its former self. “One study suggests that degraded forests, left to regrow naturally, may hold more carbon storage potential than previously thought. In the process, natural reforestation may be an unsung partner in the fight against climate change—not replacing large-scale tree planting efforts but working alongside them”.

Many forest-related services put out long lists of information one must know before replanting. Their points are important to know and I will rattle through some of them but I think there is a better way to find information and help. Of course, rule number one is always plant trees in areas which were historically forested using native species, trees which will maximize biodiversity, a companionable mix of species. Reconnecting fragmented forest areas with wildlife corridors is another priority. One must know the appropriate trees for the elevation, topography, soil type and those which will help prevent erosion. It is wise to use native trees which are adaptable to rapidly changing conditions. And, of course, there must be a plan for long-term maintenance: folks who will monitor tree growth, eliminate any threat of invasive species, disease or insect invasions, and take corrective actions, as necessary.

This list always ends with community involvement. But that’s where I begin my own list. I consider my long-time neighbors the local forestry experts. To know the right trees, the right way to plant and maintain them is where local knowledge—the neighbors who have lived on the land for years, maybe for centuries—is essential and may eliminate many of the recommended steps for reforesting. The people who live in the area are a more accurate source than any information in a book or on the Internet. They are my teachers. No one knows more about my land than my next-door neighbor whose family has lived in the area for 500 years. His relatives built the house in which I live and wild-farmed pigs in the woods in front of the house. The old timers use traditional methods to encourage biodiversity. They know what grew on the land ‘before’, the result of on-the-job-training since they were young, constantly retold family lore, and from just paying attention. They know the most resilient trees in the area: how to and where to plant them, and with which trees as company.

I have learned that water is most often the limiting factor when re-establishing trees, especially in the beginning. Both having enough and dealing with it when there is too much. One needs to know the source of irrigation if and when it will be needed, how much, and at what cost to the immediate ecosystem and the people who may depend upon it. We all have wells, but we depend on cisterns if the well runs dry. These have been built under the old houses since the Romans were here. And, in some areas, reforesting means combining trees with food crops and animal grazing… creating an ecosystem with agroforestry. Like a number of my neighbors, we have donkeys—another piece of expert advice we received from neighbors. Like the local goats and sheep, they browse/forage in the woodlands; taking shelter there during rainstorms.

In addition to replanting trees where they had always thrived, there are other ways to look at reforestation. There are alternatives which eliminate the need for clear cutting and replanting with a monoculture. Coppicing is one form of sustainable forestry, a way of preserving biodiversity while also maintaining a renewable resource. (Agroforestry is another approach to planting trees. But that’s for another day.) I am not suggesting coppicing as a blanket practice. It is just one approach to forest preservation. Eight years ago I was introduced to this art form, requiring no motorized tools, a method dating back to Neolithic times. Coppicing involves cutting only specific deciduous trees, cutting them down to the ground while dormant, leaving the roots alive and intact, encouraging regrowth of several shoots from the one stump (see photo above). It is the definition of sustainability, producing a constant supply of wood from hardwood trees—the selective cutting of trees for regrowth. In my immediate area, it is the oaks which are coppiced. The conifers, poplars, and ash are left standing. I was horrified the first time I saw the trees lying on the ground. I jumped into the fray, lawyering up, threatening the man cutting a portion of the woods near us. My neighbor kept trying to explain to me what was happening, telling me ‘ricresce, ricresce’. (It regrows. It regrows.) But knowing nothing, I just saw devastation. In the spring, the coppiced land began to green up, not just the trees which had been left standing, but a tremendous number of shrubs and vines and grasses—and saplings—plants just waiting for more light, more space. The understory/undergrowth took off, an almost instantaneous rebirth, a green mountainside, even with many trees just stumps until the following year. This method—cutting selected trees for regrowth among mature trees—is regulated by the forest service. A stand of trees can be cut only once every twenty-five years, always leaving a robust tree every eight meters… untouched. Ironically, the periodic disturbance actually supports regeneration by stimulating new growth of the understory as well as regrowth of the cut trees. The entire forest is more robust and healthy because of it. Very preliminary research has shown that “coppicing maintains trees at high growth rates, meaning high rates of sequestration… this is not the case with traditional plantation forestry (which) leads to the eventual release of the carbon held in the root systems…” A study in Nature came to the same conclusion. It is a completely sustainable practice which is being revived and praised.

To be clear, coppicing—like many environmentally-related practices—is location dependent. I live in a country with a low population, in a region sparsely settled, very traditional and proud of it. Coppicing works because we are surrounded by trees on which our farms, our income, our general well-being are dependent. And we know it. There are diverse answers to deforestation, all location dependent—the species of trees and understory plants, the topography, water resources, the weather, the substrate, the wildlife… so many variables must be factored in. That is why the knowledge of the local people is essential; in some regions it is the Indigenous Peoples, in others it is the relatives conversant in family lore. In my case it was a neighbor whose family has been in the same house for generations. Just planting a tree is not so simple. When it comes to planting trees, to reforestation, to creating, connecting or revitalizing woodland wildlife habitats… the place to begin is with the people who live there and have lived there the longest. They are the experts.

Two somewhat related thoughts:

There is little discussed about the methane we have released into our atmosphere. Methane from natural gas extraction, animal agriculture, and the landfill gas generated by our garbage. The methane molecule traps twenty times more heat than carbon dioxide. It is far more damaging than CO2 in the short term and rapidly increasing in the atmosphere. That tends to get left out of the enthusiastic tree-planting-to-mitigate-climate-change discussion. Trees can’t help with our methane emissions, though soils are a sink to a small degree, specifically the methanotrophic bacteria in forest soils. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating

In my sadness and occasional rage, I plant… trees, saplings, seeds. Most days. I dig up saplings from under the mothertrees, saplings which haven’t a chance to make it between massive root systems, with only filtered light, no space and little nutrition. I give them their own container in the sun. In fertile soil. When acclimated, I plant them where there were once trees growing. One small protest, one small solution, and my therapy all in one gesture. Details next time.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Just Plant Trees? It’s Not So Simple

Search Results

Bookmarks

Subscribe to The Article Feed