[Terrapreta] Growing Trees

[Dave Demyan]

The first four paragraphs provide the gist of my response.

 

In response to, "Why not just grow trees?", I would like to point out that
it isn't that simple.  As the human population continues to grow there is a
corresponding need for potable water, food and shelter.  Overall human
socio-political systems, to date, seem to be reactive rather than
pro-active.  If it doesn't affect me today it's not really a problem.  There
are individuals who work on long term issues, but the majority of humans are
interested in living there lives and getting by.

 

Today's agri-biz farming isn't sustainable or economically feasible.
Charcoal as a soil amendment may be an alternative that will head off global
famine, ameliorate water issues and sequester carbon.  Until I was on the
list I thought that it was pretty clear cut that adding charcoal to soils
was a quick and easy alternative to the petro-chemical dependent, soil
wasting agri-biz system.  It appears that as usual it isn't that simple.

 

Planting trees to make building materials and charcoal in conjunction with
converting waste materials to charcoal will absolutely reduce levels of
atmospheric CO2, if it is done consistently and conscientiously.  It must be
done in a way that maintains the integrity of forested ecosystems.  Every
forest type is different and will require different management systems.  

 

Tree farms seem like a good idea at first.  Stick around for a few hundred
years and observe a tree farm following depletion of nutrients.  Human
understanding of forest ecosystem dynamics is at a rudimentary level.
Unless there is a concerted effort to expand human knowledge on this topic
achieving sustainability is questionable.

 

A forest's life spans millenniums until climate change (extended drought or
ice age), geologic upheaval (basalt flows, subsidence, etc.), ice age or
human actions that alter the land for other uses.  European forestry can be
traced to the Renaissance when, in the late 1500's, fast growing conifers
were planted to replace the mix of hardwood and conifer species of the
native forests.  It was a grand success and an example of humans improving
on nature.  

 

However 250 years later trees were succumbing in ever increasing numbers to
pathogens and growth rates slowed.  The soil was depleted of nutrients that
had been previously recycled by the interactions of the organisms, micro to
macro, which inhabited the sustainable native forest.  By the late 1800's
the scientists of the day developed natural forestry, which returned the
forests to a more natural tree species mix.  Yet today the forests are much
less productive due to nutrient depletion and air pollution.  

 

Native Americans altered the landscape with fire as a primary tool to
maximize the productivity of the plant and animal species they utilized.
Following a significant population crash due to European introduced disease
the "natural??" forest returned to be altered again by European settlers.
Vermont was 80% sheep pasture in the early 1800's.  It is now 80% forest,
but with different tree species than was described by early settlers.
Settlers moved across the Appalachians and cleared forests to raise corn and
tobacco on the rich black soil, until it was "worn out"     A fungus
accidentally introduced from Europe decimated the American Chestnut that was
the dominant tree of Eastern forests.  American elm trees met a similar
fate. 

 

The low and mid-elevation forests of the interior west of North America (I
live in north central Washington) have changed over the last century and a
half.  Fire suppression and high grade logging have replaced larger diameter
ponderosa pine dominated forests with smaller diameter suppressed stands of
ponderosa pine or in the slightly less arid locations with suppressed
Douglas-fir trees.  

 

Fire, from lightning or Native Americans, maintained more open forests with
larger fire resistant trees and diverse understory vegetation over much of
the landscape.

 

In a reasonably thoughtful society the suppressed stands of trees would be
thinned and utilized for char, bio-oil production and heat.  This would
reduce the intensity of wildfires (Fire fighting costs often exceed $1000
per acre with another $500 per acre spent on "restoration" costs of
questionable value to the forest.)  increase the vitality of the remaining
trees, decrease pathogen habitat, increase understory plant communities and
maximize the valuable capture and slow release of precipitation function
that forests provide.

 

A forest is a dynamic ecosystem composed of a multitude of organisms from
soil biota to macro vertebrates under a canopy of trees.  They interact with
each other and the physical environment. It is an ongoing symphony with
musicians taking breaks or sometimes leaving for extended breaks and with
the concert hall in a constant state of renovation.  

 

Humans are a natural part of the system that tinkers with forest elements.
The results of this tinkering affect the forest in overt and subtle ways.
As humans are at a kindergarten level of understanding ecosystem dynamics
only the obvious effects are noted.  The only thing that maintains the
forests is the resiliency of the components.  Hopefully humans will make
progress and at least make it to a grade school level of understanding
before we lose the multitude of benefits that forests provide.

 

Thanks for all the stimulating conversation.

Dave

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080601/bbc8f667/attachment.html