Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Back of the envelope calcs anyone?

To plant a trillion trees at an appropriate spacing, how much land area are we talking about?

party_pants said:

Back of the envelope calcs anyone?

To plant a trillion trees at an appropriate spacing, how much land area are we talking about?

Well if you said a 10×10 plot for each tree, that’s 100 trillion m2 or 100 million km2, or a square of land 10,000 × 10,000 km.

So quite a bit of land, that is not currently used, with enough water for trees to grow.

Revegetate the Amazon

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

But events like wildfires have wiped out many of the carbon-storing trees on those plots of land. By restoring forests and allowing them to re-grow, the carbon intake could also increase. Fully restocking all of the under-stocked forests in the country, the researchers find, could increase uptake of carbon by around 20 percent, eliminating more than 187 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.

…

Someone needs a proof-reader.

wookiemeister said:

Revegetate the Amazon

But what about McDonalds needing all that beef that is grown on cleared rainforest?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

An interesting theory is CO2 being a fertilizer will make trees grow faster, but faster growing trees die more quickly, plus the slower and more CO2 absorbing trees will be pushed out by these faster growing less effective ones. Eventually, there will be so many dead and dying trees that they will emit more CO2 than the living ones could absorb. Even today forests under stress from drought will emit more CO2 than they can absorb.

wookiemeister said:

Revegetate the Amazon

It is thought by many that the Amazon due to forest fires and drought (climate change) will transform into a Savanna type habitat. The dying trees, plus the burning will emit vast amounts of CO2, also vast amounts of methane. A very large nail in the coffin.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

The problem with global warming is habitats are changing and what once thrived there may not do so with the changes. As the climate is changing so quickly the old habitat might have gone before the trees have reached maturity.

PermeateFree said:

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

The problem with global warming is habitats are changing and what once thrived there may not do so with the changes. As the climate is changing so quickly the old habitat might have gone before the trees have reached maturity.

And trees catch on fire?

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

monkey skipper said:

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

The problem with global warming is habitats are changing and what once thrived there may not do so with the changes. As the climate is changing so quickly the old habitat might have gone before the trees have reached maturity.

And trees catch on fire?

Very true and more likely when the habitat is in drought too.

I mean surely reforesting recently cleared forest would be a start…

dv said:

I mean surely reforesting recently cleared forest would be a start…

Some countries get sustainable wood certification.

and “it won’t be like before” isn’t exactly a good argument against “stop things getting worse”

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Well, it’s already being done. In China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program

“When completed, the Green Great Wall will stretch more than 4,800 kilometres across the north of China”. The “Great Green Wall” lso called the “Three-North Shelter Forest Program”

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

“The fourth and most recent phase of the project, started in 2003, has two parts: the use of aerial seeding to cover wide swathes of land where the soil is less arid, and the offering of cash incentives to farmers to plant trees and shrubs in areas that are more arid.”

“As of 2009, China’s tree planted forest covered more than 500,000 square kilometers.”

party_pants said:

Back of the envelope calcs anyone?

To plant a trillion trees at an appropriate spacing, how much land area are we talking about?

You asked for back of envelope.

To plant a trillion trees would require roughly 35,000 years.

For land area on a 20 metre spacing it comes in at about 400 million square kilometres. The total land area of Earth is 510 million square km.

By the way, do you want your baby trees to be eaten by animals or do you want the trees to be toxic to wildlife?

Planting trees isn’t the whole equation. As Moll pointed out things may eat the trees. The trees will need several shedloads more time and money that they cost to plant put into caring for them for at least the first two years depending of course upon the environs the trees are planted in as well as the growth rate of the trees.

No small undertaking. Yes in rainforest areas we may be able to shoot seeds down from drones or airvraft but this will only work f the condions on the ground are amenable and still then people would have to go in and maintain their survival anyway.

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

If climate change is causing more drought conditions then trees may not survive their first 20 years which are arguably the most important years for a tree.

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Trees reproduce.

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Trees reproduce.

but that one is in CHINA, maybe they were force-sterilised

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Trees reproduce.

They could have been wiped out by disease, or illegal logging, or a stray meteorite that blasted the forest from above a la Tunguska.

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Trees reproduce.

Yes but the conditions need to be there for their seed to both germinate and survive.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Revegetate the Amazon

It is thought by many that the Amazon due to forest fires and drought (climate change) will transform into a Savanna type habitat. The dying trees, plus the burning will emit vast amounts of CO2, also vast amounts of methane. A very large nail in the coffin.

It would be great if they could turn this around.

a multi level living farming approach might work

living quarters underground

ground level and above for farming

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight

Multilevel corridors to maximize sunlight over a large area

This is where height and width of the multilevel corridors would vary with the available landscape

This would need to be computer modelled and managed properly using weekly large scale statewide satellite data

A huge project certainly an opportunity for universities and business to create a model for that.

Need Bill Gates / Elon Musk, China’s way of building things fast for something that big.

Then there’s the local politics.

Lots of other considerations as well.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Revegetate the Amazon

It is thought by many that the Amazon due to forest fires and drought (climate change) will transform into a Savanna type habitat. The dying trees, plus the burning will emit vast amounts of CO2, also vast amounts of methane. A very large nail in the coffin.

It would be great if they could turn this around.

a multi level living farming approach might work

living quarters underground

ground level and above for farming

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight

Multilevel corridors to maximize sunlight over a large area

This is where height and width of the multilevel corridors would vary with the available landscape

This would need to be computer modelled and managed properly using weekly large scale statewide satellite data

A huge project certainly an opportunity for universities and business to create a model for that.

Need Bill Gates / Elon Musk, China’s way of building things fast for something that big.

Then there’s the local politics.

Lots of other considerations as well.

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight
—-
some plants..like sunflowers.. do that without satellite data.

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

It is thought by many that the Amazon due to forest fires and drought (climate change) will transform into a Savanna type habitat. The dying trees, plus the burning will emit vast amounts of CO2, also vast amounts of methane. A very large nail in the coffin.

It would be great if they could turn this around.

a multi level living farming approach might work

living quarters underground

ground level and above for farming

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight

Multilevel corridors to maximize sunlight over a large area

This is where height and width of the multilevel corridors would vary with the available landscape

This would need to be computer modelled and managed properly using weekly large scale statewide satellite data

A huge project certainly an opportunity for universities and business to create a model for that.

Need Bill Gates / Elon Musk, China’s way of building things fast for something that big.

Then there’s the local politics.

Lots of other considerations as well.

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight
—-
some plants..like sunflowers.. do that without satellite data.

Yes

They also need to look at bringing back native plants and have corridors for native plants, animals and birds.

And if better large scale modelling can be found, go with that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

It would be great if they could turn this around.

a multi level living farming approach might work

living quarters underground

ground level and above for farming

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight

Multilevel corridors to maximize sunlight over a large area

This is where height and width of the multilevel corridors would vary with the available landscape

This would need to be computer modelled and managed properly using weekly large scale statewide satellite data

A huge project certainly an opportunity for universities and business to create a model for that.

Need Bill Gates / Elon Musk, China’s way of building things fast for something that big.

Then there’s the local politics.

Lots of other considerations as well.

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight
—-
some plants..like sunflowers.. do that without satellite data.

Yes

They also need to look at bringing back native plants and have corridors for native plants, animals and birds.

And if better large scale modelling can be found, go with that.

For smaller scale farming

Combine smaller scale farming within a larger scale framework

integrate tens of thousands of smaller farmers into the whole project that still follows the sunlight landscape rain pattern

Something like that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

look at satellite data to orientate the farming towards sunlight
—-
some plants..like sunflowers.. do that without satellite data.

Yes

They also need to look at bringing back native plants and have corridors for native plants, animals and birds.

And if better large scale modelling can be found, go with that.

For smaller scale farming

Combine smaller scale farming within a larger scale framework

integrate tens of thousands of smaller farmers into the whole project that still follows the sunlight landscape rain pattern

Something like that.

They could grow mushrooms underground with multilevel farming.

With a network of tunnels they could grow lots and lots of mushrooms and fungi.

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Typical losses in one year of new plantings are 15%.

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tree planing “started in 1978, and is planned to be completed around 2050”. So we’re more than half way through, 44 years in and only 30 years to go..

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Typical losses in one year of new plantings are 15%.

In China?

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Intense logging and burial of lumber.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Burying the wood underground once it taken up its load

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Intense logging and burial of lumber.

Dump it all in the Sahara.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Intense logging and burial of lumber.

Maybe future spaceships could be designed to take some CO2 up into space as a wood metal composite of some kind. ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Intense logging and burial of lumber.

Maybe future spaceships could be designed to take some CO2 up into space as a wood metal composite of some kind. ?

Why?

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Intense logging and burial of lumber.

Maybe future spaceships could be designed to take some CO2 up into space as a wood metal composite of some kind. ?

Maybe a future solar powered centrifuge using cyclonic separation, could separate carbon and oxygen ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Intense logging and burial of lumber.

Maybe future spaceships could be designed to take some CO2 up into space as a wood metal composite of some kind. ?

Maybe a future solar powered centrifuge using cyclonic separation, could separate carbon and oxygen ?

Would that be better.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/root-fungus-stores-a-surprising/

“For example, the E. coli bacterium can grow in the complete absence of oxygen. When it does this it makes a special metal-containing enzyme, called ‘FHL’, which can interconvert gaseous carbon dioxide with liquid formic acid. This could provide an opportunity to capture carbon dioxide into a manageable product that is easily stored, controlled or even used to make other things. The trouble is, the normal conversion process is slow and sometime unreliable.

“What we have done is develop a process that enables the E. coli bacterium to operate as a very efficient biological carbon capture device. When the bacteria containing the FHL enzyme are placed under pressurised carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas mixtures — up to 10 atmospheres of pressure — then 100 per cent conversion of the carbon dioxide to formic acid is observed. The reaction happens quickly, over a few hours, and at ambient temperatures.

“This could be an important breakthrough in biotechnology. It should be possible to optimise the system still further and finally develop a `microbial cell factory’ that could be used to mop up carbon dioxide from many different types of industry.

“Not all bacteria are bad. Some might even save the planet.”

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Burying the wood underground once it taken up its load

Wood, soil , moisture = termites.

roughbarked said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/root-fungus-stores-a-surprising/

How would that go in tunnels ?

roughbarked said:

“For example, the E. coli bacterium can grow in the complete absence of oxygen. When it does this it makes a special metal-containing enzyme, called ‘FHL’, which can interconvert gaseous carbon dioxide with liquid formic acid. This could provide an opportunity to capture carbon dioxide into a manageable product that is easily stored, controlled or even used to make other things. The trouble is, the normal conversion process is slow and sometime unreliable.

“What we have done is develop a process that enables the E. coli bacterium to operate as a very efficient biological carbon capture device. When the bacteria containing the FHL enzyme are placed under pressurised carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas mixtures — up to 10 atmospheres of pressure — then 100 per cent conversion of the carbon dioxide to formic acid is observed. The reaction happens quickly, over a few hours, and at ambient temperatures.

“This could be an important breakthrough in biotechnology. It should be possible to optimise the system still further and finally develop a `microbial cell factory’ that could be used to mop up carbon dioxide from many different types of industry.

“Not all bacteria are bad. Some might even save the planet.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180108101359.htm

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So lots of trees are one option.

What other biological options are there for permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere?

Burying the wood underground once it taken up its load

Wood, soil , moisture = termites.

Yep termites are good too.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/root-fungus-stores-a-surprising/

How would that go in tunnels ?

Like roots do.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Burying the wood underground once it taken up its load

Wood, soil , moisture = termites.

Yep termites are good too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289846016_Global_Impact_of_Termites_on_the_Carbon_Cycle_and_Atmospheric_Trace_Gases

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/how-a-termite-s-mound-filters-methane-and-what-it-means-for-greenhouse-gases

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-017-3223-9_19.pdf

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes

They also need to look at bringing back native plants and have corridors for native plants, animals and birds.

And if better large scale modelling can be found, go with that.

these (what I refer to as “Telephone Pole Factories”)
are about as far from an actual FOREST as you can get

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

42 years in.

How many of those trees are still there?

Typical losses in one year of new plantings are 15%.

In China?

In China’s “great green wall”, yes.

This ought to show up on Google Earth, if it’s been a success. Let’s see. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271617303192

“Assessing the Three-North Shelter Forest Program in China” from 2017.

“The Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP) in China has been intensely invested for approximately 40 years. However, the efficacy of the TNSFP has been debatable due to the spatiotemporal complexity of vegetation changes. … examine the afforestation efforts of the TNSFP using MODIS datasets from 2001 to 2015. Around 46% of areas had an increasing vegetation trend” as against 4.5%
with a vegetation decline. “ … remarkable efficacy in the region of Eastern Ordos.”

In the following chart “Border of the TNSFP” is essentially the border of the tree planting region, which is huge.

Note, sci-hub has moved.

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620305084

“Since 1952, China has completed 3.3 billion km^2 of afforestation, accounting for 34.7% of China’s land area and one-third of the world’s total afforestation”

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Typical losses in one year of new plantings are 15%.

In China?

In China’s “great green wall”, yes.

This ought to show up on Google Earth, if it’s been a success. Let’s see. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271617303192

“Assessing the Three-North Shelter Forest Program in China” from 2017.

“The Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP) in China has been intensely invested for approximately 40 years. However, the efficacy of the TNSFP has been debatable due to the spatiotemporal complexity of vegetation changes. … examine the afforestation efforts of the TNSFP using MODIS datasets from 2001 to 2015. Around 46% of areas had an increasing vegetation trend” as against 4.5%
with a vegetation decline. “ … remarkable efficacy in the region of Eastern Ordos.”

In the following chart “Border of the TNSFP” is essentially the border of the tree planting region, which is huge.

Note, sci-hub has moved.

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620305084

“Since 1952, China has completed 3.3 billion km^2 of afforestation, accounting for 34.7% of China’s land area and one-third of the world’s total afforestation”

Thanks. I might remind you that most of China has a good margin better rainfall than Australia.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

In China?

In China’s “great green wall”, yes.

This ought to show up on Google Earth, if it’s been a success. Let’s see. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271617303192

“Assessing the Three-North Shelter Forest Program in China” from 2017.

“The Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP) in China has been intensely invested for approximately 40 years. However, the efficacy of the TNSFP has been debatable due to the spatiotemporal complexity of vegetation changes. … examine the afforestation efforts of the TNSFP using MODIS datasets from 2001 to 2015. Around 46% of areas had an increasing vegetation trend” as against 4.5%
with a vegetation decline. “ … remarkable efficacy in the region of Eastern Ordos.”

In the following chart “Border of the TNSFP” is essentially the border of the tree planting region, which is huge.

Note, sci-hub has moved.

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620305084

“Since 1952, China has completed 3.3 billion km^2 of afforestation, accounting for 34.7% of China’s land area and one-third of the world’s total afforestation”

Thanks. I might remind you that most of China has a good margin better rainfall than Australia.

Yeah. And that’s just one of the reasons why I think that tree planting in Australia is not a great idea.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

In China’s “great green wall”, yes.

This ought to show up on Google Earth, if it’s been a success. Let’s see. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271617303192

“Assessing the Three-North Shelter Forest Program in China” from 2017.

“The Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP) in China has been intensely invested for approximately 40 years. However, the efficacy of the TNSFP has been debatable due to the spatiotemporal complexity of vegetation changes. … examine the afforestation efforts of the TNSFP using MODIS datasets from 2001 to 2015. Around 46% of areas had an increasing vegetation trend” as against 4.5%
with a vegetation decline. “ … remarkable efficacy in the region of Eastern Ordos.”

In the following chart “Border of the TNSFP” is essentially the border of the tree planting region, which is huge.

Note, sci-hub has moved.

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620305084

“Since 1952, China has completed 3.3 billion km^2 of afforestation, accounting for 34.7% of China’s land area and one-third of the world’s total afforestation”

Thanks. I might remind you that most of China has a good margin better rainfall than Australia.

Yeah. And that’s just one of the reasons why I think that tree planting in Australia is not a great idea.

It can be difficult but there are numerous ways to achieve it.
Keeping them alive after planting is often the hard work of it.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Thanks. I might remind you that most of China has a good margin better rainfall than Australia.

Yeah. And that’s just one of the reasons why I think that tree planting in Australia is not a great idea.

It can be difficult but there are numerous ways to achieve it.
Keeping them alive after planting is often the hard work of it.

(shrugs) millions of hectares of forest have been cleared in Australia in recent times. I don’t see how it can be tremendously bad environmentally to just put it back to how it was 200 years ago.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yeah. And that’s just one of the reasons why I think that tree planting in Australia is not a great idea.

It can be difficult but there are numerous ways to achieve it.
Keeping them alive after planting is often the hard work of it.

(shrugs) millions of hectares of forest have been cleared in Australia in recent times. I don’t see how it can be tremendously bad environmentally to just put it back to how it was 200 years ago.

More has been cleared in the past 20 than the previous 240.
However no planting can work on soil that has lost it’s biota.
Most Australian farms have blown into the sea in that time.
I’ve suffered the derision of farmers all my life for telling them they are doing it all wrong.
The shoe is on the other foot after so many of them committed suicide.
Though the mentality still is buy another bit of land, shift the water and the crops to land that has never been ploughed or irrigated until that bit is fucked too.
Of course planting trees in Australia to put it all back will be tremendously environmentally sound.
However you both seemed to have missed mt point. First up you need to put life back in the soil. Yes the trees will do that eventually but the cost of getting them to that point in denatured soil is horrendous.

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

Yes.
Though it isn’t always as clear cut. I’ve been working on understanding this all my life and have been responsible for millions of trees planted back over a period of fifty years.

Originally the Casuarina species largely were on creek beds and larger streams. Some Casuarina and Allocasuarina species were on hilltops or in salty ground and the river she oak or Casuarina cunninghamiana was the first tree species to be protected in Australia because it was the main tree holding stream banks together.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Can planting a trillion trees really help Earth? It’s complicated

The idea was floated by scientists and President Donald Trump’s government alike: Planting an astronomical amount of trees — a trillion, some estimates suggest — may help pull us out of the deep trouble carbon dioxide emissions are causing.

more…

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

Yes.
Though it isn’t always as clear cut. I’ve been working on understanding this all my life and have been responsible for millions of trees planted back over a period of fifty years.

Originally the Casuarina species largely were on creek beds and larger streams. Some Casuarina and Allocasuarina species were on hilltops or in salty ground and the river she oak or Casuarina cunninghamiana was the first tree species to be protected in Australia because it was the main tree holding stream banks together.

> The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

But is there such a thing as a correct tree? If you want a tree that is kind to native animals then the native animals won’t be kind to the tree.

Perhaps the ideal is a tree that is useful for logging, because logging captures carbon that would otherwise be released back into the atmosphere as CO2 as the tree rots.

Or just let trees get on with their own thing of planting themselves.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

Planting trees should be treated like biological controls that need to be very well understood before embarking upon.

I believe she oaks or casuarinas were planted in land areas affected by salinity. The great point is the trees thrived in the environment, the water table could be potentially better managed with re-forestation BUT the original tree species weren’t coping with the high saline soils in the region which is a direct consequence of over clearing , and over nutrients iirc from agriculture. It was likely the introduced albeit native to Australia trees but not native to that region trees would help in the shorter term but there were indications the trees would change the landscape and potentially become noxious. I understand they were also trialling salinity resistant grasses as well.

Cutting a long story shorts. The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

Yes.
Though it isn’t always as clear cut. I’ve been working on understanding this all my life and have been responsible for millions of trees planted back over a period of fifty years.

Originally the Casuarina species largely were on creek beds and larger streams. Some Casuarina and Allocasuarina species were on hilltops or in salty ground and the river she oak or Casuarina cunninghamiana was the first tree species to be protected in Australia because it was the main tree holding stream banks together.

> The correct trees need to be chosen to meet an entire criteria of improvement.

But is there such a thing as a correct tree? If you want a tree that is kind to native animals then the native animals won’t be kind to the tree.

Perhaps the ideal is a tree that is useful for logging, because logging captures carbon that would otherwise be released back into the atmosphere as CO2 as the tree rots.

Or just let trees get on with their own thing of planting themselves.

Go to your last sentence.