• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Anthropogenic reforestation - humans planting trees - will certainly be much better than humans burning down forests wholesale......or allowing forests to burn due to too much "un-burned" fuel on the forest floor.

      Whether planting trees is better than "natural" reforestation" and natural reforestation's allowing invasive species to compete for space, is very easy to sort out - run some LARGE trial plots of each, rather than publishing articles pro and con.

      Humans didn't delineate physics via discussions, but by experiments. The better methods of reforestation might better be decided the same way.

      Indeed, one MIGHT give thought to running a few of these sorts of trials in large National Forests.

      Or society might allow commercial endeavors to allow people to invest with the idea of encouraging forest growth and its removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

      I have thought for many years that the Earth is truly a garden, that depends on the wisdom of its caretakers - US - to care for like a really good thoughtful gardener always does - with knowledge, wisdom, and humility, and a profound desire to protect it beyond one's own lifetime.

    • Interesting article and question. I think a mixed approach is needed. Mono cultures is definitely a problem for numerous reasons. They are less resilient to disease, fires and other things that affect a forests growth. Siviculture is an advanced science but the needs of industry has often trumped what would be healthiest for the forest ecosystem. We need to be clear on our goals. We also have to keep in mind that it’s more mature forests that add the most growth per year and speeding up the process can really add to the speed of change. Again, knowing the forest to begin with is important but this costs a lot of money. We will have to decide what is the best bang for our buck. It’s likely that a multipronged approach to climate change will be needed. Different areas, countries and places will have a wide assortment of optimal options for each particular area and its needs. This won’t be a one solution fits all solution.

    • knowing the forest to begin with is important but this costs a lot of money

      It may cost money but it prevents things like invasive species and other forms of imbalancing the micro-ecology of the specific forest.

    • I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done because of the cost. I’m saying all options in each location have to be evaluated and then decided. Do the low hanging fruit options information then build from there. And the cost has to be balanced with the political will.

    • Siviculture is an advanced science and these experiments have been done many times. That’s the good news. Political will is the question and cooperation between different countries and different interest groups.

    • Is anthropogenic reforestation a bad idea?

      In a word, No.

      It's not a bad idea. It just needs to be done with a little thought and in sympathy with local natural occurring forestation.

      Is rewilding a better idea?

      Quite possibly, but there is room for both to exist and both have benefits.

      Reforestation has very distinct uses, for example to stop or reverse the spread of desertification in places where we have decimated the soil and local natural ecosystems.

    • Agreed. Anthropogenic reforestation can be beneficial if some consideration is given to what trees are native to a given area, and we don't focus on a single species to replant. A planted forest will never be the same as a wild forest, but we can take steps to plant something a bit closer to nature...