His focus was looking at resilience against weather, insects etc. and mixed forests fared significantly better throughout all climate zones.
As someone from the alps, a thing that should not be forgotten is how important a diverse tree structure can be for stabilizing soil, especially in mountain areas. And those areas can expect more extreme wheater conditions due to climate change, especially in the form of rain. Mudslides can become a real economic factor in such regions.
Mixed forests are also better at stabilizing the soil because the root structures are less uniform.
So the best moment to plant mixed forests is 20 years ago, the next best is now.
Edit: For non-wood people, the reason why there aren't more mixed woods is that harvesting is easier in non-mixed environments (although that also has changed with newer methods and tech).
Translation is probably Boom-bust cycle (literal: swine cycle?)
https://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Schweinezyklus for some rather poor usage examples
Loss of those trees was an economic disaster. I’m not sure it’s an environmental disaster yet - especially as replanting seems to be with better reference to the agro-climatic zone.
Given that most of the trees lost were in the nature reserve, the economic impact is somewhat limited.
Main reason was stated as monoculture planted decades ago, since these forests are pretty and they were used also for treating respiratory illnesses (clean mountain air with strong pine sap smell really helps, sort of natural aromatherapy).
Almost 20 years passed, its still a sad sight. More logging, some ad hoc growth but forest definitely didn't regrow in any meaningful form, rather fast growing bushes took over. There was a lot of fight between forest / natural park management and ecologists on how to proceed, and everybody (including forest) lost.
It makes sense. The diversity means that while one genera is suffering from some Hostility X or Y (e.g., insects) the others might not be, or at least as much so.
Diversity is a form of hedging your bet.
A part of that habitat is food, so ironically and perhaps counter intuitively, a good agro-ecological practice is to farm your pests. This provides a source of food (but not in your main crop) to attract the predators that you want to help control the pest.
This is the reversal of a negative spiral where you control pests by killing them, thus preventing predators to settle in your land and making it a very nice place for the pests to multiple. And they will, because you can never kill them all - unless you keep using massive amounts of pesticides. This is why monocultures often need a lot of pesticides to work, its very hard to do without.
Nature doesn’t work in the most optimal way, so it’s not always best to replicate it. Tons of things happen in nature that may wipe out important ecosystems. I suppose one could argue that at a long enough time scale it will even out but that time scale can be millennia. In the meantime, nature can wreak tons of havoc.
Nature (and by that I mean ecosystems because nature is a vague) also doesn’t behave in necessarily intuitive or easily observable ways either. What might seem “obvious” at first can be very wrong.
Nature (and again I mean ecosystems) also doesn’t exist in vacuums. What may have worked for centuries can be upset by even the most subtle of temperature shifts, and those might be caused by effects hundreds of miles away.
Unchecked nature is also not always going to be conducive to human needs either.
The entire field requires constant observation and inference. Even the ways of indigenous people that are fetishized as natures way by many, are scientific in nature. They’re the result of many years of observation, experimentation, learning and modifying how nature works to fit our needs.
For sure - I suppose I'm questioning humans' ability to mitigate such havoc without causing a load of unintended consequences.
"Nature (and by that I mean ecosystems because nature is a vague) also doesn’t behave in necessarily intuitive or easily observable ways either. What might seem “obvious” at first can be very wrong."
I think I was saying a very similar thing, actually. I certainly agree with you on that.
But the linked article doesn't have this problem. The "for" there is quite clearly the recovery of forests after logging, so they can be used again for whatever you may be expected to use a forest for (including more logging)
The person I was replying to was saying “just do what nature does”. But that doesn’t mean much. My point was you can’t just blindly follow “nature” without observation and study because it can just as easily go and do something catastrophic as it can do something good.
Optimum in what sense?
Make as much cash as quickly as possible or have a forrest and a working eco system (or even any trees at all) also in 100+ years from now.
Just trusting nature to do the optimal thing and trust that it’ll turn out okay isn’t sensible unless you also don’t care about the constituent parts of that ecosystem.
Insects can ravage entire populations of trees, rendering them dead and inhospitable to wildlife. Blight can do the same. Those are just as much nature at work as happy trees in a forest.
No, in the sense that humans are actually part of these ecosystems and it is possible for us to understand these processes and work with them. And this is the point of the research posted here: planting native seedlings is superior for restoration than 'just leaving things to nature'.
There's a technical side to this and a 'worldview' side, where there are two competing concepts of 'nature': one defines it as 'everything except humans' and the other includes humans as being part of nature, a useful part even.
I agree with what you're saying - but I think this point is slightly misleading. Planting native seedlings is exactly what nature would do - we are just accelerating nature's own process - not changing it for another process.
That is well put and also exactly my point. However, you are accelerating something, so there is an intervention. For some people this doesn't count as natural! The word 'just' in your sentence does a lot of work.
The line is, in fact, not always obvious. Would those seedlings have come there naturally? Or would it have been a different mix? If so, is the end result actually the same as would have happened without human intervention, or would it have been different? Maybe there are actually 50 or more species that could and would find a place in this biome.
You can say the same about exotic species, eventually most (or at least some) of them would have come here anyway - via birds for example, but its the pace at which they are introduced which makes all the difference. Well, is it a good thing then to introduce exotic species, after all its just accelerating nature's processes, or is it not? Evidently this one is not always only beneficial, so it depends.
To some extent, who can say what exact mix of seedlings would arise if nature were left entirely to it's own devices. But one can imagine the basin of attraction for arriving at such a stable state is somewhat large (perhaps this is the crux of your point - such a basin cannot be mapped, and therefore one never knows if one is in it or not). Nevertheless - I feel able to draw a distinction between something that plausibly may have happened naturally, and, say, a vast grid of identically aged, undifferentiated pine trees. Though who knows, perhaps there is no distinction to be made - other than that of intention.
I'm interested in creating a plausible-natural agricultural ecosystem, aka a food forest. Such a system draws more criticism from ecologists, probably because where I live almost all of the desirable species aren't native.
On the one hand, this clearly isn't a normal agricultural system and often looks more like nature, on the other hand 'nature people' often do not really understand its ecological value. So thats where I'm coming from, maybe that clears it up a bit.
There's a weird aside to this story though, because what we (Netherlands) generally consider to be desirable nature is often a landscape created by old agricultural practices.
Not that a skilled and experienced ranger might not have known some of these combinations as well, but the data-based approach can help planing better where to plant what specifically, as opposed to just mix it based on chance.
If you don't know how this could be political, be prepared to make your day a whole lot dumber if you google it.
Yes, many forestry practices are antiquated and incorrect, but it’s not as simple as just letting fires burn.
There’s a significant science to forestry and wildfire management. Fire suppression is as important as fire management and fire encouragement. They go hand in hand, and require a measured balance
I'm left wondering:
1. Why did they plant only tree species that are frequently targeted for logging? This makes the whole experiment very suspect. The linked article talks a lot about restoring forests, but why restrict the tree species to those that are profitable to log?
2. Is the satellite imagery actually representative of on-the-ground truth? A lot of logging land in western America gets replanted with logging-friendly trees in very regular grid patterns. These areas may look like forests from satellites (or to uninformed ground-level visitors), but the regrown tree farms do not behave like forests. The dense growth crowds out the ground-level plants, which in turn makes the entire tree farm a poor habitat for local fauna. If your goal is to grow more trees for lumber, tree farms are great. But I'm not sure the claims about "forest restoration" are honest/true here.
Because that is what private land owners will do, they'll want to plant primarily what they can sell. This research likely intended to reduce the immediate damage from logging.
Because the main purpose of replanting trees to is be able to harvest them again in the next few decades. Private land owners generally aren't interested in creating old-growth forests, they're trying to make money.
It's not exactly ideal, but ending up with more biodiversity is likely a good thing even if it will be logged again later.
If you want more old-growth forests there's going to have to be a _lot_ more subsidies to private owners to literally pay them to not log their land.
To be clear, in the western US this is by design. Large swaths of private land are zoned for forest. Aside from a few niche instances of grandfathering, you cannot build on them. They're useful for recreation and logging, and that's all that's allowed.
The gov't wants them to be logged regularly. If they really wanted old growth forests they'd make it public land (it's not especially expensive land, either, right after a patch gets logged it's not uncommon for the owner to put it on the market fairly cheap).
In Canada the vast majority of logging is on crown land.
The 'Timber Wars' podcast was a six part story on the Pacific Northwest, including a lot of the history of the science on logging and forest health, as it evolved from the eighties through to today.
Maximizing ecological advantage also maximizes economic advantage, even in the short-medium term.
I don't see how this is supposed to be accomplished. For that concept to make any sense, you'd need to prevent the tree loss from non-human activity, which is all but impossible to do.
If you can't do that, then the existing pattern of loss already looks like "loss from non-human activity", and any logging you do will look like "a lot more loss than typical of non-human activity".
Peter Wohlleben has written about this approach. The Menominee tribe also practices a similar method; they only log sick or weak trees. However, because these are from old growth forests, the wood quality is superior to that of trees from monoculture forests.
In fact, this model comes quite close to natural destruction of forests, where old trees would fall over, and wildfires would rage.
The only difference is that the process is not random, but nicely planned and managed to allow _humans_ instead of _wildfires and storms_ to reap the full-grown timber.
Crowding out ground-level plants is the entire point of being a tree; it's pretty normal for forests to have clear ground.
Here's what a redwood forest looks like: https://www.westwindvistas.com/Redwood%20Forest%20Floor.htm
It's very difficult to accurately measure biodiversity from space. Drone imagery might get you species visually but until we have widespread hyperspectral (see ESA CHIME) 12-13 bands is what most people work with.
Because forest management is for logging. They will log those trees once they mature to the best value when considering DBH, the market, and opportunity cost.
Because the whole point of tree planting is forest management. That's why whenever there's a forest fire they spray it with glyphosate so that other trees don't grow, then they plant GMO trees that can live in glyphosate doused soil.
The primary reason for broad herbicide treatment as part of site prep is to avoid low-value, or ecologically opportunist species that thrive in disturbed soil/land, and prevent either the target species from growing, or create an environment which lacks the diversity necessary for the region. For example, sweetgum, huisache, black locust, chinese tallow (as examples from specific regions in the US), will all take over and completely dominate a deforested section and prevent oaks, pines, etc. and appropriate forb for wildlife without consistent, ongoing burns.
FWIW, there are no "trees which are GMOd to live with glyphosate application" - you're thinking non-tree crops. Nearly every softwood and hardwood tree is susceptible to damage from Glyphosate.
why do we need to perform chemotherapy on our forests?
The nice "diverse" forest you're thinking of in your mind took a long time to become that way, the normal state of nature is to not create a perfect balance out of the gate, but for constant competition and regularly have to cycle through multiple iterations of configuration which are, by all means, not as productive or valuable for wildlife/nature as their final states. None of that means that using a herbicide is sufficient, but without, you're looking at potentially hundreds of years to get back a usable environment for wildlife that is well-balanced vs 10's of years.
Outside of a few soil-active herbicides, most of what they use is one-and-done and can be applied selectively to only problem plants with minimal unintended consequences.
They are mostly chopped down now and replaced with a mixed young forest, all without herbicides. (But with some planted trees, cleansing and fences to protect the young forest from deers) So after 15 years they surely are not comparible to old grown forests, but they are very diverse and alive. So I strongly question the assumption that herbicides are necessary or beneficial to create a diverse forest.
Most of the dominating species in the first years will be (were) replaced by something else eventually.
FWIW, in the region I'm currently managing a 100-acre habitat that was previously a pine plantation, it would be sacrosanct to "fence out deer." Early stage re-growth is wonderful deer habitat, lots of sunlight generates lots of forbs. However, in the same region I am in, any area left to its own devices becomes quickly overgrown to the point of making poor habitat for wildlife (no viable food, no viable cover, even though it's "thick" it is not useful to species such as deer, rabbits, quail, turkeys, etc. lacking the right kinds of food and cover).
Mechanical and fire (prescribed burns) are our primary tool we use, along with appropriate canopy thinning. However, when dealing with opportunistic species (the most aggressive here being sweetgum and chinese tallow), these methods are not effective. As each of these species re-sprout and spread via roots as well as seed, mechanical and fire only top-kill, resulting in them coming back thicker again within months. Repeated mechanical control presents significant issues both for valuable forb and impacts on land (a skid-steer is very heavy and results in significant compaction of soil, for example) and is incredibly expensive at about $1,000/acre when following proper selective practices.
We were also very much against the use of herbicides, but after numerous conversations with local biologists and forestry management professionals (our state provides them as a service), we finally realized that we were in a losing battle and selective application was the way to go. With basal spraying for larger stems of unwanted species and selective foliar for seedlings, we've reduced our costs to a fraction, reduced the damage to land and erosion, and we're seeing higher value (ecologically, not monetary) habitat with a faster turn time. Our approach is to eliminate all non-native, invasive species, develop the mix of pine savannah and hardwood bottoms our region has historically represented, and we're seeing the returns we expected much quicker than mechanical methods were providing us.
None of the "chemicals" we use are soil-active, and all of them have a half-life measured in days. We don't use them where girdling or sawing are sufficient to open canopy or create snags, and we don't broadly apply them.
I'm glad you live in a region where there are no opportunistic trees and shrubs which will crowd out other species, and where mechanical control is sufficient to restore traditional diversity, but alas, it still doesn't have the same reward everywhere. Anything left to its own devices in this region will rapidly, I mean within 5 years, become what we call the "pine curtain," useless to both wildlife and man. For centuries even the indigenous tribes had to practice regular controlled burning to fight this.
This I found interesting (on wikipedia):
"Herbivores and insects have a conditioned behavioral avoidance to eating the leaves of Chinese tallow tree, and this, rather than plant toxins, may be a reason for the success of the plant as an invasive"
So the main problem is, for whatever reasons, animals could eat the chinese tallow tree, but don't? That is a problem indeed, but I think one that evolution would sort out eventually. Might take more time, though.
"restore traditional diversity"
And this is a common debate here as well, but I don't think it makes sense to try to restore the "pristine condition". Things have changed too much and they will continue to change. So yes also here we have invasive species that achieved local domination. But it won't last. If there is a monoculture, then other species will evolve (or find their way towards it) to make use of that food and space, as there is so much of it. But if you want fast results, well, you have to do more than waiting, I agree on that.
Plants do not just fill their niche, they alter the environment over time, which in aggregate alters the ecosystem as a whole. Animals and microbes also play a role in this process. E.g. the way rodents and birds disperse seeds, or how pests can destroy a species, or even how elephants can uproot whole trees.
That is true. Additionally, a balance will never be achieved no matter how long you wait, either. That's the state of nature; some things are always replacing other things.
Obviously on the face of it the premise is true, but time scales, operationalisation and causes/responsibilities matter critically there.
Islands of stability exist (like our homeostatic bodies, species that have survived for millions of years, old growth forests, etc) in nature. But whether one cares about (not unnecessarily, prematurely ending) any of this is a very different matter.
I mean, this is a perfect example of pretending that differences don't exist because you can't see them. There are no such species.
Logging companies typically log a parcel and replant for logging again in the future. They might be convinced to do things differently, especially if the outcome is better for them, but it would be hard to convince them to plant trees that won't be commercially viable when they come back to log again.
If diversity is good for the environment and the loggers, that seems ideal. If diversity is good for the environment and about the same for the loggers, they might be convinced.
Not all the parcels will end up being relogged, but that decision is unlikely to be made at the time of replanting.
I didn't really find an answer.
A study in Virgina found that planting multiple varieties of trees was beneficial because it allowed the variety that was most suitable for that location to thrive, and survive problems that might affect other varieties.
A study in Washington State tested a couple varities of common conifers planted in pairs, and found more conventional "trees are affected by competition" result.
This study performed in the inter-mountain West found that some conifers _may_ benefit from being mixed with aspens, but didn't seem nearly as conclusive as the Borneo study.
If anyone can find a more conclusive study about temperate Western forests, I'd love to see it.
Canada replants 600 million trees annually, USA about 1 billion.
Trees grow so much faster than they did a decade ago. CO2 is to 'blame'. I help maintain ski runs at my favorite ski hill and it's ridiculous how much more work it is now. Alpine areas that never in history had trees are beginning to get overrun.
Isn’t part of the issue that historically there would’ve been more deciduous trees that acted as natural fire breaks and now loggers only are allowed to replant coniferous?
Smaller block sizes act this way too, the boundaries are seeded from the older growth on the perimeter.
Deciduous trees like poplar, Adler, and birch are like weeds and will grow very quickly and compete for a time with replanted trees. Eventually the evergreens tend to choke them out by taking over the canopy and changing the soil with their needles.
If you randomly mix up species in temperate forests that are all competing in the same canopy layer, I can see more competition. A study done where say, a mix of overstory, understory, and shrub (such as berries), would be more insightful.
And yeah, site analysis is where I would start:
1. "Where Am I?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XNiacRhzuM
2. "Sectors" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=233GgYhtoGs&list=PLNdMkGYdEq...
3. "Zones" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUlnvGhnho&list=PLNdMkGYdEq...
4. "Slope" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McopD04XP3s&list=PLNdMkGYdEq...
These will inform you of how everything comes together, and it starts with an understand of your place on earth (particularly, the lat/lng and how that affects the sun cycle; then regional forces that is discussed in "Sectors". Then you designs zones on your site based on how much human contact you have.
You can get the rest of the Oregon State University PDC lectures from Andrew Millison from https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNdMkGYdEqOCvZ7qcgS3e...
Permaculture is very heavy on design, even if the end result doesn't look like it.
And yes, I had thought of creating a mod for an open source CAD that can pull in knowledge bases and databases as a permaculture design assistant. For example, there is a researcher whose lifetime work was to collect nutritional information for plants from all over the world so that people can select a nutritionally complete set of native plants. It's not more widely known because that knowledge base is locked into a desktop dbms from before web apps.
Also, trees like to grow slow and solid. Older trees from the same specie will feed small tree hidden in their shadow and provide it necessary resources so that when some bigger tree falls and it can take it place, it can also grow faster. It's possible that when there's competition between species they grow faster because there's a fight for sunlight. The year's growth will be bigger and wood would be less dense (but it is sold by volume).
1. The Hidden Life of Trees, Peter Wohlleben
2. Entangled Life, Merlin Sheldrake
A lot of the other literature on the complex relationship of soils and trees (and trees and trees via soil life) were instigated by her observations.
She was trying to get NW foresters to stop bathing everything in herbicides before replanting clearcuts. They always struggled more than anticipated.
I didn't. But there's no reason why it shouldn't work there.
Forest study in China finds mix of trees can absorb twice as much carbon as areas with one species
More than 60 scientists from China, Switzerland and Germany were involved in the research, testing a hypothesis based on observations in the field.
“The study shows that forests are not all the same when it comes to climate protection – monocultures achieve not even half of the desired ecosystem service,” Schmid said. “The full level of mitigation of global warming can only be achieved with a mix of species. In addition, species-rich forests also contribute towards protecting the world’s threatened biodiversity.”
Such forests were also less vulnerable to disease and extreme weather events, which are becoming increasingly frequent as a result of climate change, Schmid said.
That might well be an underestimated aspect. We don't know how climate will change locally, what pests will spread where, what species will turn out best adapted to future conditions, or what species turn out to be keystones in specific ecosystems. So we should strive for having as diverse a set of flora anywhere. Success factors are varied, complex & interconnected.
Climate changes so fast that past 'performance' of species in an area is of little value. Those trees are going to stand there 20, 50 or 100y from now. What will local climate be then? Take your guess / throw the dice.
There’s an implication of intent here, regarding plant-to-plant transport and fairness, that I think is more likely explained by osmotic pressure. Entropy itself is 'fair' in this regard. Fungal hyphae aren’t designed to manage huge nutrient or water gradients. In fact they seem to be designed to communicate information at an alarming speed. Which we still do not entirely understand.
it was called a tree farm
there was a commercialized ignorance of what forest actually was.
That’s not a forest it’s a fucking tree farm.
Now is there a Princess Mononoke style paranormal revenge story out there for destroying the forest? Absolutely. But this ain’t it.
“Plans to plant billions of trees threatened by massive undersupply of seedlings.” by Joshua Brown. 2023.
“A lack of ecological diversity in forest nurseries limits the achievement of tree-planting objectives in response to global change.” by Peter W. Clark, et al. 2023.
“Trees Help Fight Climate Change.” Arbor Day Foundation. N.d.
“Benefits of Planting Trees.” Tree Advisory Board. N.D. https://www.bgky.org/tree/benefits
"In essence, forest nurseries tended to maintain a limited inventory of a select few species, electing to prioritize those valued for commercial timber production over species required for conservation, ecological restoration, or climate adaptation."
"Yet, in their 20-state survey, the team only found two tree nurseries that had inventory of red spruce, a species from which many millions of seedlings are needed to meet restoration goals. “Remarkably, only 800 red spruce seedlings were commercially available for purchase in 2022,” the team reports in their new Bioscience study, “—enough to reforest less than one hectare.”
An example of a forest farm planted with the same approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ST9NyHf09M
Then others who travel around for their work, would toss those in random places. From bicycle thrown some distance from roadside, or a bush pilot dropping some during flight, etc.
Basically as many different seeds in as many different places as possible. Then let nature do its thing.
Note this was still mostly local. So not introducing invasive species from other side of the globe. Just helping native species to spread a bit further & faster.
It's based on ancient method of seedballs, promoted by Fukuoka.
Akira Miyawaki developed a variant of this method, which involves planting a variety of native species in close proximity. The idea is that the trees compete for sunlight, growing upwards more than outwards, leading to a fast-establishing and diverse forest.
Another example would be Mark Shephard's farm where he's using his Sheer Utter Total Neglect (STUN) method. He describes in his video that the goal is to find a combination of plants that is so resilient, that you can't kill those trees even if you try.
Sure, it's essential to ensure that the selected species are suitable for the specific soil, climate, and conditions of the site. Additionally, as the forest grows, some form of management, like thinning or selective removal of species, may be required to ensure the forest remains healthy and achieves the desired goals.
None of that is strictly necessary. While it helps, it's not a requirement. Simply selecting the right seeds, maximizing cover/photosynthesis, and perhaps mowing at the appropriate time are usually sufficient, unless the soil is seriously degraded.
Fukuoka spent years working with people and organizations in Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Europe, and the United States, to prove that you could, indeed, grow food and regenerate forests with very little irrigation in the most desolate of places.
By randomly scattering seeds.
I am not trying to be obtuse or misanthropic.
Please, someone can explain why was this study needed? Was there some hidden new discovery?
Asking, because if I walk down the dirt road and ask any farmer, they will tell me, if I sow seed in a field, it will grow faster, than I leave it to nature's chance. If I sow mixed crops (crop & cover crop), I will get potentially better yield. I thought it was a specific species of trees thing, but the paper does not seem to be stating it.
The Miyawaki method shows success when a few principles are followed:
-Planting naturally-occurring communities of plants, not monocultures (bonus points for including microfauna and soil microbes)
-Planting locations are semi-randomized, with room for plants to expand and reseed.
-Stands of trees are protected/watered for first 3-5 years.
-Local communities are engaged and have a vested interest in protecting/maintaining stands of trees for the first few years.
The Miyawaki method is probably relevant to this discussion - https://www.creatingtomorrowsforests.co.uk/blog/the-miyawaki...
Why? Germany was running out of forests to harvest around 1400, and the oldest law that is still in effect is from 1442 (Forstordnung of the Bistum Speyer) . All forests in Germany are artificially created, and there are a lot of things involved to make this happen.
We have rain plans that limit the amount of how much water farmers are allowed to use which are on higher altitudes on the mountains/plains. We have the Wasserwirt which is responsible to flood the farming plains regularly (completely under water), and redistribute their water "lakes" to other fields down to lower altitudes. We also have the Foerster whose job is to decide which trees to harvest, which ones need to be replaced, and what to do with the dead trees.
All of those variables are planned carefully and involve a lot of data, especially the water flooding and rain plan parts.
There are a lot of nice documentaries about this on arte and NDR in case anyone is interested about these kind of topics.
Also about corruption and the forest mafia in Romania, which is a huge discussion topic in Brussels for years, because Ikea and other furniture producers down the line keep buying illegally harvested wood.
I passed a forest by train and despite logs piled up next to it, and logging vehicles around, you could not tell from the train that the forest was being logged. While in Scotland, if they harvest a forest, they do it like harvesting wheat. They just leave a wasteland of stumps behind. Looks horrible, must be bad for the ecosystem and I am wondering if mudslides will be more common now, since a lot of forest is on hillsides.
Some other countries whose history has something to say about reforestation/afforestation: Australia, South Korea, UK
When a block is logged, cones from that block are taken to regrow seedlings to plant there. It doesn't work as well if you try to seed from different elevations or far away areas.
It turns out most logging in the northeast already yields a diverse ecosystem as quickly as the next year, and no planting is nessesary.
Forresters can target different species mixes in the regeneration by using different harvesting methods.
Pretty cool stuff.
Those 3 trees aren't nessesary though. The Forrest floor is loaded with seeds that can survive longer than a decade waiting for the right time to germinate. In many cases the sunlight hitting the ground is the trigger they need, and in most cases a "clear cut" will be a 9 year old forest 10 years later.
but then did more research, because i've been interested in forestry for a while and was geniunely curious and wanted to understand my investment more.
i pulled my investment once i learned that these sort of projects don't actually work. terraformation targets land in areas that aren't meant to be forests. also decided to pull it because i don't completely understand the space. (sure, "planting trees will solve climate change" seems easy enough and makes me feel good because "i'm planting trees!" but nah, not really, let's maybe rethink this...this is coming from somebody who spends a lot of time in the woods and finds trees to be an important part of my life.)
this person researches this space: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DbjysqUAAAAJ&hl=en
this is one of the bigger studies: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
Putting it this way emphasizes what "normal" is.
Having dead decaying logs on the forest floor probably helps because fungi are naturally fire resistant.