
Drones that can plant 100k trees a day - artsandsci
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/drones-plant-100000-trees-a-day?utm_content=buffer6368b&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer
======
wklauss
"It’s simple maths. We are chopping down about 15 billion trees a year and
planting about 9 billion. So there’s a net loss of 6 billion trees a year."

ehhhhhmmmm no. It's not simple math. Or if it is, those are the wrong numbers
to pick. Trees can reproduce themselves without human help and there are
around 3.04 trillion trees in the world so a lot of potential for these net
loss figures to be waaay off.

As far as we know, the number of trees in the world is actually growing.
Higher levels of CO2 and the arrival of plastics and aluminium have
contributed to reforestation of large areas of the world (we used to make
everything out of wood). There are more trees now than there were 100 years
ago.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the US, forest
growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Same goes for Europe.
The story might be different in Asia and certain parts of South America but in
aggregate numbers I'd bet that we have net growth.

~~~
alkonaut
Self replicating trees?? This technology needs to be put under regulatory
control before we are all turned into trees.

~~~
wukerplank
I trust Monsanto is on it.

~~~
allengeorge
We'll use the blockchain to do a rights payment when a tree using our patented
DNA grows.

There are also milestone payments: survives for 1 year - a small payment;
survives for 2 - another payment...

~~~
FilterSweep
back in the old days, we used to get a ring for each year.

------
echlebek
Seed pods ain't trees. There's a reason that when forestry companies replant
trees, they are planting seedlings that have been cultivated for planting
purposes. They aren't just shoving seeds into the ground and hoping for the
best.

It's a very good idea to make planting trees cheaper. I've often pondered
robotics for tree planting. But will it be as cheap as human labour in terms
of stems that make it to maturity? Hand-planted seedlings have a fairly good
survival rate and tend to be well spaced, even if the planter is relatively
negligent. Typically, the planted trees will need to be thinned later on,
because so many survive.

As it stands, it costs a licensee $2-$3 CAD per stem to reforest an area.
Typical densities are 1400-1800 stems per hectare. That's actually pretty
cheap. Mature trees at harvest are worth thousands.

Source: worked as a tree planter for three seasons, have friends in the
forestry sector.

------
black_puppydog
Someone needs to explain to the target audience here (politicians, I guess,
since this is coming from the WEF?) that "proprietary algorithms" is NOT a
good thing. One might argue about if or if not it is necessary, but for the
customer, it is always a limitation on what they can do with the product they
supposedly bought.

~~~
gregknicholson
Ah! So they're selling a service, not a tool.

~~~
sharemywin
Let's see 10x faster.

About 1/5th the cost as a person:
[http://www.johnswope.com/?p=83](http://www.johnswope.com/?p=83)

And a 20% savings. looks like a 10x margin to me...

------
lxglv
There was a discussion almost 3 years ago regarding drones, that are able to
plant 36K trees per day. There was also a reference to the 1970s planting
machines, that are much simple in mechanical design and are able to plant
10-20K trees per hour.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9444521](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9444521)

------
roryisok
I see a lot of skeptical comments on here and I suppose that's healthy, but
generally I find news items like this encouraging. We need to find more ways
like this to use technology to fight deforestation, pollution and the erosion
of the natural environment.

~~~
philipps
I agree that it’s encouraging to see engineers and scientists focus their
efforts on important societal issues. However, we need to find more thoughtful
ways to use this technology. A good place to start is trying to deeply
understand a context and need, before coming up with a solution. We just ran a
workshop in Jordan with engineers who want to develop education technology for
refugee learners. On the first day we took our teams to NGOs who are working
with refugees and interviewed the learners. As a result most team scrapped
their initial ideas. I wish learning to analyse a challenge through the lense
of the user was a more integral part of engineering education.

~~~
mstipetic
What makes you think that these companies didn't go through that process?

~~~
TeMPOraL
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16264127](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16264127)

Also, the usual rule of thumb: "drones". Flying means constantly expending
energy to fight against gravity. Unless the particular problem solved
_requires_ flying (to e.g. reach otherwise unreachable spots), solutions
involving flying machines are almost always bad. And I don't see anything in
reforestation that requires flying.

This is doubly important if you're trying to make the world a better place,
instead of just making a quick buck. If all you care about is money, you can
make it so that someone else pays the energy costs. But if you truly care
about doing something good, then you have to factor them in (they almost
always involve non-renewable sources and pollution) and ask yourself, if your
plan is even a net improvement for the world.

~~~
credit_guy
I can see two alternatives to flying, sending a person, or a remote-
control/autonomous ground based machine. The first one is not as productive,
the second one is much more complex, and so more expensive.

~~~
daemin
If cost and fuel are major concerns then sending a person is by far the
cheapest option. Not the most productive but in the areas that need
reforestation (i.e. where they burn or clear cut, Asia / Amazon) the labour is
not that expensive. Though there are a lot of other factors involved.

These kinds of projects remind me of Juicero, where it combines a few things
western (middle/upper class?) people care about with technology and expects a
great result but end up a middling disappointment.

------
RobertRoberts
When I was in 8th grade in Oregon. We went to a clear cut site to plant trees.
We had to dig a very small hole and put the seedling into it. They had little
burlap bags around them with a bit of dirt around the root ball. There was
twine tied to keep the bag closed.

The ground we had to walk through was like a world war I trench zone with
massive holes, ripped up trees, rocks, pits, it was a mess and hard to climb
through. It was fun as a kid. But there was no way you could just throw trees
everywhere and have them grow.

That being said, I can see how drones could do this with a tech change in how
they are planted. Each drone has a few seedlings, the seedlings are in a pod
that is weighted (keep it upright during planting) and self-sustaining (ie,
plenty of dirt, water retention polymers, etc..) so they could be set on _top_
of the ground. (maybe some hex-shaped carboard box thing? lol)

Then drones get brought in with a big giant ass truck, you have 1000 drones,
they make many multiple trips, recharges. It's possible.

~~~
qznc
The article says "a drone loaded with germinated seeds fires (!) pods into the
ground at a rate of one per second". The video makes it look like the drone
will just fly over the terrain.

Maybe the pods fall from say 10m and that is enough to get them into the
ground (and not kill them)?

~~~
RobertRoberts
Well, I missed that part somehow. :P But those are seeds not seedlings, maybe
a downside to the change in planting technique from the past. I guess I can
see how it would be cheaper/easier to fire seeds all over the place though.

I don't think 10m (or even 100m) would get them into the ground. In my
experience, the ground is a lot of rocks, roots and some dirt all in a big
mess. Especially where there's been logging. But there's also a lot of
upturned dirt, so who knows.

The best way to find out is to give it a shot. Can't be hard to fund a trial
run. I bet it cost more to make the 3d video than to actual try it out and
record the drone doing the work. :P

~~~
beagleman
If these are the same drones I've seen previously, the germinated seed is
inside a hard(ish) molded nutrient pod with a pointy end, and the drone fires
it into the ground with a compressed air cannon. Which makes me very dubious
about the '1 per second' rate of fire - even if it's possible, the weight of
the gear + seed pods + gas is going to severely limit how many can be planted
before needing to reload and recharge.

~~~
daemin
So realistically you could just throw these seeds from the air using a plane
and it would be even more efficient? Modify some sort of sprayer to spray
seeds over a large enough area. With enough seeds there should be sufficient
trees to survive and grow.

------
thatswrong0
> Then the most efficient planting pattern for that area is calculated using
> algorithms.

Code and algorithms you say?[0]

[0]: [https://i.redd.it/ytdyqbyzjkky.png](https://i.redd.it/ytdyqbyzjkky.png)

~~~
cwkoss
When my code crashes, it's usually because I forgot the algorithms

------
DrScump
1 per second would only be 86,400 a day... and that assumes zero flying and
positioning time, zero loading and reloading time, zero fueling time, and
flawless, instant decisions.

~~~
onion2k
Assuming the drone is only planting one tree at a time...

~~~
DrScump
How many surviving trees do you propose to get out of one seedling pod?

(Hint: their own video says a max of 300 pods every 18 minutes, then reloading
and repositioning. And it can only work in daylight.)

~~~
onion2k
One. That's why it makes sense to plant several in each pod - tree sapling
survival rates aren't 100%. It makes sense to plant _many_ more trees than you
expect to grow to maturity.

~~~
RobertRoberts
Then I think they are cheating their numbers if they count multiple trees per
pod. :P

~~~
onion2k
It might not match your expectation that "number of trees planted === number
of mature trees" but that's because you're assuming things that they're not
saying. You can't reasonably make an incorrect assumption and then claim to be
cheated when it's wrong.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I was being a bit snarky, but this is common practice. They could easily claim
"100k" seeds, but full well knowing that only 10k will actually grow. But
saying "we can grow 10k trees" just doesn't sound as impressive. It seems to
be marketing numbers.

------
bb88
I'm skeptical. Trees already are pretty efficient at making seed pods, what
they lack is the ability to fend off predators from eating the seedlings.

~~~
Jedd
Many (most?) trees are efficient at making seed, but what they really lack is
the ability to get those seeds far enough away that they won't be out-competed
for nutrients, water, and light by the parent tree.

Somewhere downhill and relatively nearby is a 'solved problem' for most trees
-- but uphill, further afield, with appropriate soil depth for the seed size,
in sufficient numbers, with less competition, etc. Aside -- ridges are one of
the most useful places to focus reforestation efforts, in no small part
because once established there, trees can generally propagate themselves
across the rest of the slope.

Fending off predators is a concern, of course, but that's why you go for the
large quantity approach when propagating by seed.

The claim these things can 'plant 100,000 trees a day' is clearly hyperbole.
What they can do is plant 100,000 seeds a day, presumably at a much higher
density than fully grown trees would be able to thrive, on the assumption that
a useful number will actually establish.

While trees are mostly efficient at making new trees, that's not useful in
areas that are heavily deforested -- and I suspect that's where this kind of
technology would be most useful. Dungog in AU (as noted as a trial site in
TFA) is a good example (gold rushes were especially bad for local flora, and
in hot arid climates it can take centuries to recover). The breathtakingly
vast plains west of Beijing that have been deforested, and now result in
massive quantities of top soil being blown into the ocean each year would be a
fantastic candidate for this kind of mass spray-and-pray planting.

Also, when re-foresting, pioneer trees are chosen - typically these are
acacias (or similar) that have a relatively short life (10-20) years, are
hardy, fast growing, and fix nitrogen. In degenerated older forests you may
not find many of these around to produce seed naturally.

~~~
bb88
Thanks for many of the good points. I don't disagree with your sentiment that
deforestation is the problem, it's just that I feel like this is silly.

If the problem is deforestation, let's attack that problem first. Otherwise
this is just pushing the dirt around (literally) and hoping this will fix it.

------
westurner
> It’s simple maths. We are chopping down about 15 billion trees a year and
> planting about 9 billion. So there’s a net loss of 6 billion trees a year.

~~~
qznc
This is a regional thing [0] though. We need to plant the trees in Latin
America, Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The rest of the world is gaining
forests.

[0] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/deforestation-
whe...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/deforestation-where-is-the-
world-losing-the-most-trees/)

------
lnsru
What about wheeled robot for this task? Something like Curiosity to access
remote areas and use a drone to refill the seed container. Afaik it’s not
enough to drop a seed on the ground and wheeled robot could drill small hole
to put properly seed inside. Nice application, but who pays for this?

~~~
swarnie_
>A drone loaded with germinated seeds fires pods into the ground

My reading of this implies the seed ends up underground.

A drone seems like the best answer here to get maximum accessibility and
speed. Reaching 100k a day with a wheeled robot would be tricky.

~~~
TeMPOraL
We're really talking fleet of drones vs. fleet of wheeled robots here; wheeled
robots, even if slower in deployment, will be able to carry more seed pods
(reducing turnaround time) _and_ will be orders of magnitude more energy-
efficient - i.e. cheaper to operate and better for the planet.

As cool as flying is, I'm all for ground solutions on this one.

------
platz
why couldn't we do this before with RC planes

~~~
ovi256
VCs would not throw wads of cash at a business plan that uses RC planes. But
have it use quad-copters, and boom! They make it rain.

It's the novelty of it, basically. We're not yet inoculated, as a society, to
the charm of quad-copters.

~~~
TeMPOraL
At this point, it's not about quadcopters, it's just about the name. "Drones".
The new sexy name for RC planes and helicopters/multirotors.

~~~
brango
That can fly themselves and perform accurate 3D manoeuvres.

~~~
TeMPOraL
So can regular RC copters if you fit them with appropriate electronics.

~~~
brango
Wouldn't it then be a drone?

~~~
TeMPOraL
It would. That's why I wrote, that "drone" is "the new sexy name for RC planes
and helicopters/multirotors".

------
westurner
"This Biodegradable Paper Donut Could Let Us Reforest The Planet"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261101](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261101)

~~~
RobertRoberts
I think this kind of thing is funny for us westerners. I recently found this
tech has been used in arid countries for possibly hundreds or thousands of
years.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ollas+gardening&t=lm&iax=images&ia...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ollas+gardening&t=lm&iax=images&ia=images)

I do realize the ollas are for more permanent gardens, but it's the same
concept. I do hope the paper version gets used, there are plenty of places
that could benefit from it.

------
ForFreedom
Planting 100K trees a day is an awesome idea, has anyone thought where the
water is going to come for these trees?

~~~
HenryBemis
TL|DR: same place where the trees that were previously here were getting their
water. I don't think the article is about planting trees in Sahara or Gobi. It
would be more useful in the replenishment/repair after a fire.

Silly example, but in the U.K. (almost everywhere on this island) it rains
4629362619 days per year! (or it feel like this much:)

I do understand that U.K. forests are not diminishing as they are on Amazon
but I think (not sarcastically) they are called Rainforests.

I guess it depends on the reason for the deforestation. If it is just for
timber, then a cheap solution to repopulate the area would be taken up by the
lumberjacks themselves (so they can go back in 10-20-30 years and collect
again and repeat the cycle). If the deforestation is simple to create more
land for crops/living areas, then this is irrelevant.

------
titzer
While I like the general idea here, to improve the environment with
technology, it'd be better to use drones to pick up trash. Trees will plant
themselves but trash just accumulates and gets ground up by erosive forces.

Also, people need jobs. Give them jobs planting trees and picking up trash.

/can't see the forest for the trees.

~~~
finnjohnsen2
Nothing personal, but I disagree with pretty much everything you say :)

Firstly you're staging a false dichotomy. We can use both these kind of drones
if we want to.

"Trees will plant themselves" < so they are idiots?

"people need jobs" is played every time we replace a brain dead job with some
kind of effective innovation. There are no examples of us going back.
Fortunately.

~~~
pvaldes
Just reducing the load of roaming cattle in natural areas and reintroduce
predators if needed in natural parks, will do much more for much less money.

Birds plant trees much better than drones and wolves are critical to allow the
saplings to survive their first five years. We could feed an army of planting
tree drones and cover each inch of mountain with seedlings just to give an
expensive yummy snack to sheeps and goats.

~~~
titzer
I don't understand why you are being downvoted. Well, maybe I do, but I want
to believe that HN is not so techno-obsessed that they can't fathom what you
are saying.

I agree. Let's not plant a lot of trees that goats and cows will just eat up.

------
firefoxd
I hope they are not talking about those 15 to 20 min flight time drones.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I could see it work. They only need to plant, and go back to base... Could use
multiple drones, some working, some getting recharged/batteries replaced.

------
RobLach
I'm just speculating about the economics here, and it kinda sounds like a
high-school daydream solution, but I feel like you could artillery an area
with some munitions filled with seeds and just rely on the natural rate of
survival given a uniform-enough distribution of an airburst shell.

    
    
       Some quick insomnia driven commentbox math
    

One 155mm shells has about ~11kg of payload capacity and a range of 25km. [0]

100 panderosa pine seeds is ~4g [1]

11kg means 275000 seeds / shell.

You'd plant pines at density of around 1000/acre [2]

The biggest question is seed survivor rates of being planted by artillery but
let's consider a survivorship of 2%...

275000 * 0.02 = 5500 Surviving trees, or effective planting over 5.5 acres /
shell.

A modern autoloading artillery can launch ~70 shells per hour. [3]

You'd have an effective planting rate of 385 acres / hour. Or 1.54 km^2 /
hour. 13400 km^2 / year.

With a single artillery that has a radius of 25km you get an area of 1900km^2.

    
    
       Survivorship is a major bound here
    

_Seed Survival Rate: 2%_

9,504,000 trees / day

13400 km^2 covered / year

 _But at 1%_

4,752,000 trees / day

6700 km^2 covered / year

In any case 100k/day seems quaint when you can plant nearly 10 million.

Assuming 2% survivorship, covering 1900km^2 at 1.54km^2/hour you can plant the
entire effective area in ~55 days, as long as you keep loading the thing.

    
    
       Comparing costs to this drone
    

An Archer artillery unit is ~$4,200,000 [4] 1 155mm shell is ~$500 [5]

It takes ~37 shells to plant 100k trees which means ~$19000 for munitions.

    
    
       Using that $400 million dollar fund entirely for this idea
    
    

The fund intends to protect 5 million hectares, or 50000 km^2. [6]

Let's say we want to finish this endeavour within 2 years, and assume our
effective time spent planting versus moving and getting the project off the
ground is 50%, so we get 1 effective year of dedicated planting time.

One artillery piece can plant 13400km^2 / year.

50000km^2 total area / 13400km^2 coverage per year = ~4 pieces of artillery.

Let's buy 3x what we need so we can just flip them out when they break down
and have some spares in case repairs/maintenance take a while.

12 pieces of artillery is ~$51,000,000

You need ~46 shells to cover 1km^2

50,000*46 = 2,300,000 shells

2,300,00 shells at $500 / shell = $115,000,000 for munitions

Artillery + munition cost is $166 million.

Throw $10mil each at R&D + Testing, Logistics, and Administration/Staff and
you're at $196 million with more than half of the fund left over.

    
    
       Hmmmmmmm......
    

I dunno it feels like it would be worth taking a couple million USD to borrow
an Archer from Sweden and rig up a burst shell to see if it works at all.

It has some precedent: there have been some shotgun shells filled with seeds
before that actually worked [7]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M795](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M795)
[1]
[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/kids/WASeeds.pdf](https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/kids/WASeeds.pdf)
[2]
[https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_0...](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_021966.pdf)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System)
[4] [http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2819.html](http://www.army-
guide.com/eng/product2819.html) [5]
[http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html](http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/howitzer_rounds.html)
[6] [https://www.weforum.org/press/2017/01/400-million-fund-
launc...](https://www.weforum.org/press/2017/01/400-million-fund-launched-in-
davos-to-stop-tropical-deforestation-and-boost-farming/) [7]
[http://www.businessinsider.com/flower-shell-shotgun-
gardenin...](http://www.businessinsider.com/flower-shell-shotgun-
gardening-2013-12)

