5 ms·

Just a little anecdote for the US. Obviously for other countries, like India, this is more of an issue. But it looks like we've made it sustainable here for a l

Just a little anecdote for the US. Obviously for other countries, like India, this is more of an issue. But it looks like we've made it sustainable here for a long time. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stori... In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.

taneq 9y ago
It's awesome that there are so many trees, but don't discount the part about old growth forests. Many replanted 'forests' (at least in Australia) are monocultures of fast growing softwoods, and not remotely comparable with old growth forest.
- bluGill 9y ago
  It isn't necessarily awesome that the US has so many trees. Forests can get overcrowded which is bad for the forest overall even though there are a lot of trees. It isn't just quantity that is important it is the whole ecosystem, those trees that are overcrowded shade out helpful plants on the lower forest floor. Forests in the US generally depend on regular forest fires for health. The US has mostly been putting out those fires and the result is we have a lot more trees than is ideal.
  - snerbles 9y ago
    Which is where we come in the loop, logging for wood instead of burning. It's when we suppress fires and don't thin the forest that there's dangerous fuel accumulation.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Periodic forest fires definitely seem more healthy for forest ecologies than logging, since they reduce potential fuel and return nutrients to the area. Logging or large forest-fires means significant deforestation/defloration leading to erosion. We should be managing our lands with more controlled burns to periodically reduce the fuel load so a huge unmanageable natural forest fire doesn't break out. Plus some species require forest fires, like ponderosa pine whose pine cones will only open to release their seeds from the heat of a forest fire.
      - snerbles 9y ago
        Sure, if the area is clear-cut and not replanted. It wouldn't be good for business if there weren't any more trees to log a few decades from now. Believe it or not, we do think long-term in the timber industry ;) Controlled burns often accompany harvest operations to return nutrients to the soil. > Plus some species require forest fires, like ponderosa pine whose pine cones will only open to release their seeds from the heat of a forest fire. Not the Ponderosa Pine. You are probably thinking of the Lodgepole Pine and Knobcone Pine.
        soperj 9y ago
        Why do you say not the Ponderosa?
        snerbles 9y ago
        I asked a forester. Admittedly this is not the best response for a pseudonymous internet forum. Further searching for links on serotinous (externally triggered) cones turn up sources that almost all refer to the Lodgepole Pine [0]. Also note that these trees have both serotinous and non-serotinous cones - they can still reproduce without the presence of fire, albeit at a lesser rate. That being said, the Ponderosa is fire-resistant, and will survive typical non-crowning fires. [0] https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all.html#REGENERATION%20PROCESSES https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all....
  - cowpewter 9y ago
    Here in Florida, those forest fires are required for some of the tree species in the endangered Florida scrub[1] and sandhill[2] ecosystems to germinate, in addition to clearing out space for smaller plants to thrive. Florida has a pretty regular controlled burn system though, developed over the years of trying to protect these habitats. I've never lived on the west coast, but I wonder sometimes if the out-of-control wildfires that happen out there so often would be better if there were more controlled burns happening? Or is it just too dry out there for even that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_scrub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_scrub http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archive/taking-action/scrub/ http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_longleaf_pine_sandhill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_longleaf_pine_sandhill http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archive/taking-action/sandhill/ http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archi...
    - germinalphrase 9y ago
      I've been told that yes - more frequent, smaller burns would be all around better; however, these areas are largely populated and there is zero political will to voluntarily threaten the properties - even if it reduces the risk of catastrophic fires.
      - cowpewter 9y ago
        That sucks. Around here at least most of the areas that need controlled burns are sparsely populated due to it mostly being federal parkland[1]. Anyway, I guess we have sufficient political will here in Florida, or at least we do after we saw what happens when we don't - the wildfires we had in 1998 [2]. Which were terrifying. The fires got within a few miles of our house at one point, and the sky looked like the scene from Fantasia where all the dinosaurs are dying, with an orange sun that was so dimmed by smoke you could look directly at it without even getting an afterimage on your retina. Ash fell from the sky like snow, and everything smelled like woodsmoke for months. [1] The Ocala National Forest https://www.fs.usda.gov/ocala https://www.fs.usda.gov/ocala [2] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+1998+wildfires+in+Central+Florida%3A+Volusia+County's+own...-a054250752 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+1998+wildfires+in+Central...
- saalweachter 9y ago
  In the northeastern US, this is primarily "natural" regrowth. It's still probably a different mix of trees, but it is a mix, of soft and hard woods. The northeastern US wasn't just logged, it was cleared, primarily for pastureland, and that primarily for sheep. Between cotton, synthetic fabrics, and cheap grazing land out west, it stopped being economically viable, so a lot of northeastern farmland was just abandoned. Over the next ~century, trees took over the once-clear pastures. Now you've got great swaths of woodlots with laboriously constructed stone fences throughout them.
cynicalbastard 9y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day_Foundation check out tree city usa.
jlg23 9y ago
> In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. Same is true for Europe[1], though I don't think that we "made it sustainable" - wood just was not this important as a resource anymore. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04...
- Tuna-Fish 9y ago
  Wood is still an important resource whose production and consumption has only grown, and yes, we've made it sustainable. As an example, Finnish forests today have 2400 Mm^3 of wood, which is nearly twice as much as they had in the beginning of the 20th century, we cut ~70 Mm^3 per year, but the amount keeps growing because the yearly growth is greater than 100 Mm^3. The reason for this is that most forests have essentially been turned into monoculture tree farms, and carefully managed for maximum productivity.
  - jlg23 9y ago
    I'm not an expert in forestry, but I don't get the correlation between mono-cultures and the overall forest area. If there was one, then the forests should be smaller now due to higher yield per area. Mind you, I'm not saying that it is not sustainable, just that we did not necessarily make it so. It just happens to play out.
    - Tuna-Fish 9y ago
      Modern tree farms are sparser than natural growth forest. The quantity they are optimized for is yearly increase of new wood per area as opposed to maximum amount of wood that will eventually grow once trees are mature and planting trees as densely as possible is not ideal for this. (That is, trees planted somewhat sparser grow faster and mature quicker.) > Mind you, I'm not saying that it is not sustainable, just that we did not necessarily make it so. It just happens to play out. Again in Finland, it didn't just play out this way, the current state of affairs is result of intensive government-led research into sustainable and effective forestry methods started in the 1920s. Back then, the forests were the most important export resource of the recently independent nation, we needed a lot of imports and therefore ensuring that there will be new trees to cut down was a national priority.
spraak 9y ago
It'd be useful to see this broken down by state, as while large trees aren't common in the Phoenix area of Arizona, there is increasing desertification there as more and more healthy desert is plowed to a monocrop or paved over for housing and shopping centers.
hashkb 9y ago
We have the most trees the same way we have the most cattle.
cjslep 9y ago
That statistic (more trees than 100 years ago) is less impressive when you consider the baseline (1920's) had already clear-cut most of the old/ancient forests in the USA (hence the conservationist movement decades prior) during the gilded age. This is why almost all of the Appalachian Mountains and east coast are only newer-growth forests. A better measure would be comparing current forest size to pre-European colonization of Americas, if it were possible.
gozur88 9y ago
Well, yes, there are more trees than 100 years ago, but it's not like we have more forests. This is the kind of thing that makes that true: http://i.imgur.com/oXw4E9d.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oXw4E9d.jpg

taneq 9y ago

It's awesome that there are so many trees, but don't discount the part about old growth forests. Many replanted 'forests' (at least in Australia) are monocultures of fast growing softwoods, and not remotely comparable with old growth forest.

bluGill 9y ago
It isn't necessarily awesome that the US has so many trees. Forests can get overcrowded which is bad for the forest overall even though there are a lot of trees. It isn't just quantity that is important it is the whole ecosystem, those trees that are overcrowded shade out helpful plants on the lower forest floor. Forests in the US generally depend on regular forest fires for health. The US has mostly been putting out those fires and the result is we have a lot more trees than is ideal.
- snerbles 9y ago
  Which is where we come in the loop, logging for wood instead of burning. It's when we suppress fires and don't thin the forest that there's dangerous fuel accumulation.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Periodic forest fires definitely seem more healthy for forest ecologies than logging, since they reduce potential fuel and return nutrients to the area. Logging or large forest-fires means significant deforestation/defloration leading to erosion. We should be managing our lands with more controlled burns to periodically reduce the fuel load so a huge unmanageable natural forest fire doesn't break out. Plus some species require forest fires, like ponderosa pine whose pine cones will only open to release their seeds from the heat of a forest fire.
    - snerbles 9y ago
      Sure, if the area is clear-cut and not replanted. It wouldn't be good for business if there weren't any more trees to log a few decades from now. Believe it or not, we do think long-term in the timber industry ;) Controlled burns often accompany harvest operations to return nutrients to the soil. > Plus some species require forest fires, like ponderosa pine whose pine cones will only open to release their seeds from the heat of a forest fire. Not the Ponderosa Pine. You are probably thinking of the Lodgepole Pine and Knobcone Pine.
      - soperj 9y ago
        Why do you say not the Ponderosa?
        snerbles 9y ago
        I asked a forester. Admittedly this is not the best response for a pseudonymous internet forum. Further searching for links on serotinous (externally triggered) cones turn up sources that almost all refer to the Lodgepole Pine [0]. Also note that these trees have both serotinous and non-serotinous cones - they can still reproduce without the presence of fire, albeit at a lesser rate. That being said, the Ponderosa is fire-resistant, and will survive typical non-crowning fires. [0] https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all.html#REGENERATION%20PROCESSES https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinconl/all....
- cowpewter 9y ago
  Here in Florida, those forest fires are required for some of the tree species in the endangered Florida scrub[1] and sandhill[2] ecosystems to germinate, in addition to clearing out space for smaller plants to thrive. Florida has a pretty regular controlled burn system though, developed over the years of trying to protect these habitats. I've never lived on the west coast, but I wonder sometimes if the out-of-control wildfires that happen out there so often would be better if there were more controlled burns happening? Or is it just too dry out there for even that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_scrub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_scrub http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archive/taking-action/scrub/ http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_longleaf_pine_sandhill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_longleaf_pine_sandhill http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archive/taking-action/sandhill/ http://myfwc.com/conservation/special-initiatives/fwli/archi...
  - germinalphrase 9y ago
    I've been told that yes - more frequent, smaller burns would be all around better; however, these areas are largely populated and there is zero political will to voluntarily threaten the properties - even if it reduces the risk of catastrophic fires.
    - cowpewter 9y ago
      That sucks. Around here at least most of the areas that need controlled burns are sparsely populated due to it mostly being federal parkland[1]. Anyway, I guess we have sufficient political will here in Florida, or at least we do after we saw what happens when we don't - the wildfires we had in 1998 [2]. Which were terrifying. The fires got within a few miles of our house at one point, and the sky looked like the scene from Fantasia where all the dinosaurs are dying, with an orange sun that was so dimmed by smoke you could look directly at it without even getting an afterimage on your retina. Ash fell from the sky like snow, and everything smelled like woodsmoke for months. [1] The Ocala National Forest https://www.fs.usda.gov/ocala https://www.fs.usda.gov/ocala [2] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+1998+wildfires+in+Central+Florida%3A+Volusia+County's+own...-a054250752 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+1998+wildfires+in+Central...
saalweachter 9y ago
In the northeastern US, this is primarily "natural" regrowth. It's still probably a different mix of trees, but it is a mix, of soft and hard woods. The northeastern US wasn't just logged, it was cleared, primarily for pastureland, and that primarily for sheep. Between cotton, synthetic fabrics, and cheap grazing land out west, it stopped being economically viable, so a lot of northeastern farmland was just abandoned. Over the next ~century, trees took over the once-clear pastures. Now you've got great swaths of woodlots with laboriously constructed stone fences throughout them.

cynicalbastard 9y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day_Foundation check out tree city usa.

jlg23 9y ago

> In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. Same is true for Europe[1], though I don't think that we "made it sustainable" - wood just was not this important as a resource anymore. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04...

Tuna-Fish 9y ago
Wood is still an important resource whose production and consumption has only grown, and yes, we've made it sustainable. As an example, Finnish forests today have 2400 Mm^3 of wood, which is nearly twice as much as they had in the beginning of the 20th century, we cut ~70 Mm^3 per year, but the amount keeps growing because the yearly growth is greater than 100 Mm^3. The reason for this is that most forests have essentially been turned into monoculture tree farms, and carefully managed for maximum productivity.
- jlg23 9y ago
  I'm not an expert in forestry, but I don't get the correlation between mono-cultures and the overall forest area. If there was one, then the forests should be smaller now due to higher yield per area. Mind you, I'm not saying that it is not sustainable, just that we did not necessarily make it so. It just happens to play out.
  - Tuna-Fish 9y ago
    Modern tree farms are sparser than natural growth forest. The quantity they are optimized for is yearly increase of new wood per area as opposed to maximum amount of wood that will eventually grow once trees are mature and planting trees as densely as possible is not ideal for this. (That is, trees planted somewhat sparser grow faster and mature quicker.) > Mind you, I'm not saying that it is not sustainable, just that we did not necessarily make it so. It just happens to play out. Again in Finland, it didn't just play out this way, the current state of affairs is result of intensive government-led research into sustainable and effective forestry methods started in the 1920s. Back then, the forests were the most important export resource of the recently independent nation, we needed a lot of imports and therefore ensuring that there will be new trees to cut down was a national priority.

spraak 9y ago

It'd be useful to see this broken down by state, as while large trees aren't common in the Phoenix area of Arizona, there is increasing desertification there as more and more healthy desert is plowed to a monocrop or paved over for housing and shopping centers.

hashkb 9y ago

We have the most trees the same way we have the most cattle.

cjslep 9y ago

That statistic (more trees than 100 years ago) is less impressive when you consider the baseline (1920's) had already clear-cut most of the old/ancient forests in the USA (hence the conservationist movement decades prior) during the gilded age. This is why almost all of the Appalachian Mountains and east coast are only newer-growth forests. A better measure would be comparing current forest size to pre-European colonization of Americas, if it were possible.

gozur88 9y ago

Well, yes, there are more trees than 100 years ago, but it's not like we have more forests. This is the kind of thing that makes that true: http://i.imgur.com/oXw4E9d.jpg http://i.imgur.com/oXw4E9d.jpg