18 ms·
Is it better to plant trees or let forests regrow naturally?
- dragontamer 6y agoIf "natural growth" is best, it'd be possible to measure it. It seems somewhat straightforward to measure the carbon content of an area before its forested (or re-forested), and then measure it afterwards, and see which method does better. In my experience: agriculture wins in regards to hitting goals and targets. Nature will never grow as much food as our farming system, period. Similarly, I expect that our farming system (tweaked for carbon-capture instead of wood and/or other growth targets) would be superior at handling a specific goal (ie: Carbon capture) than nature.
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoIn New Zealand where we have a lot of commercial forest and a Emissions Trading Scheme plantation forests are certainly much better ate capturing carbon than natural forest.
- 11235813213455 6y ago> Nature will never grow as much food as our farming system Permaculture is considered as "farming" or "nature"? I think it corresponds more to the latter. And it's extremely productive
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoUnfortunately permaculture usually isn't that productive with a few exeptions
- minerjoe 6y agoReferences? As far as I understand it, by personally visiting sucessfull alternative farms that are using management intensive grazing (holistic grazing, mob grazing, etc.), they really do have a paradigm changing method that could and should be adapted by almost all meat producers. The current practices are archaic and destructive and are completely missing the more recent (last 20 years) scientific advancement in understanding how to build soil, maximize forage use, and raise healty animals without the current massive use of pesticides, herbicides, and large expensive machines. The economics is there, the change is slow, but proceeding. Check out the research work at the University of Missouri by Jim Garrish, the Stockman Grass Farmer publication and the farms of Greg Judy and Gabe Brown, to start.
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoI guess it depends on your definition of permaculture, I was thinking more like an integrated orchard system. You are quite right about your 'alternative grazing methods', they are productive and much much better for the soil than Corn + Feedlots that you get in the US. I do work on a farm that does a fair bit of that sort of stuff.
- minerjoe 6y agoYea, we're arguing symantics. My apoligies. The word "permaculture", nowadays, is, in my circles, a big umbrella word for many different systems. Many of those systems would not necessarily call themselves "permaculture". A big umbrella - "permanent agriculture", or agricultural practices that do not degrade the land, but rather can run on for millenia, there are many systems we are now discovering, some ancient, some newly synthesized, that have that potential to feed the world, while, at the same time, healing past damage .
- dragontamer 6y agoI'd expect that the ideal carbon-capture strategy is to grow a tree as quickly as possible (ie: a fast and easy growing wood like poplar, or maybe bamboo), and then probably bury the wood deep underground. If any bacteria eats the wood, the CO2 gasses should remain trapped there. The expectation that permaculture is actually the best carbon-capture strategy is... strange. Trees eventually die, and at that point: their captured carbon is eaten by bacteria, turned back into CO2 and released into the atmosphere. There is a degree of carbon-capture with natural forests, but they aren't explicitly designed for carbon capture. -------- Now if you think there are other benefits of permaculture, then of course, that's to be discussed. Maybe it'd be more beneficial to the wildlife (more room for predators / prey to roam the lands), and possibly beneficial for other reasons in the long run. But if we have a specific goal (ie: carbon capture), that's easily measured and easily quantified, then frankly... modern science is the best approach forward. We should measure various methodologies, and then compare them. And then incrementally engineer a solution over the years based on the target quantifier.
- mikepurvis 6y agoBurying newly-grown wood seems like a difficult thing to achieve economically. Surely it's almost as good to build that wood into long-lasting structures where it is equally protected from rot, and then when demolition does occur, ensure that the rubble is buried underground?
- RockIslandLine 6y agoWhy? We've got lots of coal mines with the equipment to move tons of material. Just start stacking cordwood down below.
- andrewjl 6y agoWe can certainly measure mineral depletion in soil that agriculture drives. This affects the resulting nutritional value of agricultural products.[1] In general we over focus on stocks rather than flows when it comes to natural resources. That is to our, and the planets, detriment. Much of modern agriculture, for its productivity, wreaks havoc on the soil and the surrounding ecosystems. It's something that can be solved by technology, but not without getting over this stocks vs flows conceptual hurdle. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/a-decline-in-the-nutritional-value-of-crops.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/a-decline-in-the-...
- gz5 6y agoHeadline is a false dichotomy. Some of the content is good - certainly natural regrowth is vital. So is planting trees. Replacing cement and buildings in concrete jungles with trees puts the trees exactly where they are the most needed.
- caturopath 6y agoI don't quite follow. You're suggesting more trees in cities/towns?
- baq 6y agonot the OP but absolutely. if you're lucky you already live in a city with trees, not all of us are.
- Polylactic_acid 6y agoOne of the things I love about my city is it was designed with a ring of parklands around it so even people living in the city without a car can access fairly undisturbed nature. Visible on google maps here https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.9279778,138.6043731,3461m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.9279778,138.6043731,3461...
- Jtsummers 6y agoAside from aesthetics, more plants (trees especially) within cities can reduce the local temperatures, along with providing habitat (food and shelter) for a number of animals.
- gz5 6y agoYes. The longer term environmental benefits are staggering and there are immediate quality of life and health improvements. There are also second order effects in jobs planting and maintaining trees and park areas, increased biodiversity, and better awareness of the need to take care of the earth which takes care of us. Regrowth is great but won't (directly) help those cities as much.
- a4444f 6y agoTrees are evil. (OMG so many downvotes!)
- arpa 6y agoWhy would you say that?
- a4444f 6y agoTo make people think. Trees are a common symbolic representation of a female principle (hollows!). Why on earth would people deforest land in the first place.
- 01100011 6y agoWell, they are a major source of smog in some areas. They emit quite a bit of hydrocarbons(https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-3296-4_4 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-3296-4_...). They also kill quite a number of people every year by dropping heavy things onto their heads. Grandparent poster is quite likely a loon, but hey, no reason we can't use it as a starting point to discuss things.
- a4444f 6y agoI am a loon, but my comment was a joke / ironic. I'm a tree lover. I love to sleep on a hammock suspended between two trees in the forest. I've heard of a person that fell of a tree while climbing and died, another reason for being careful with the trees.
- gruez 6y ago>Well, they are a major source of smog in some areas I'm skeptical of this. Are you saying there's a forest somewhere that's giving people asthma attacks?
- Afton 6y agoPollen, I believe, is that they're referring to.
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y agoDiversity and self balancing of ecosystem are quite important, mono-cultures can do more damage than good but on the other side, were have problem of unchecked climate change and we are running out time (at best we have 10 more years). To have any fighting chance we would need to plant 1 trillion trees in next 2 years, significant task considering how much is done up to this point. Project "trillion trees" exist since 2006 "... until 22 Feb 2020 13,638,907,054 trees have been registered around the world. That looks like an amazing achievement; in 14 years, the number of trees planted is almost two times the size of the human population. Unfortunately, that is not remotely enough as in comparison with the goal of 1,200,000,000,000 trees that is 1.14%. With the same speed, we would need 1232 years to finish the project." https://www.34rest.com/articles/trees/trillion-trees/ https://www.34rest.com/articles/trees/trillion-trees/
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoMany more trees than that have been planted, we have planted several hundred million (and possibly much more) in New Zealand alone since that period
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y agoOfficial statistic https://www.trilliontreecampaign.org/ https://www.trilliontreecampaign.org/ 13.49 billion so 1 trillion = 1000 billion = 1,000,000 million 1 billion = 1000 million New Zealand = let say 500 million trees ? = 0.5 billion = 0.0005 trillion trees
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoNew Zealand has planted ~250 million trees in the past 2 years. still a far way of 1 trillion but more than you might think. https://www.teururakau.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/one-billion-trees-programme/progress-towards-planting-one-billion-trees/tracking-planting-for-the-one-billion-trees-programme/ https://www.teururakau.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forest...
- robocat 6y ago
- pbreit 6y agoBoth?
- da39a3ee 6y agoThere's more to creating natural ecosystems than planting "trees". Which species of "trees" are being planted? The answer to that question is...kind of important. And unfortunately, if you look at what we are doing right now, a lot of tree-planting schemes are just commercial species. If we go down this road, our zeal to combat climate change may in fact end up having negative consequences for species conservation. We must tie these two things together; it just requires us to understand that wild organisms are picky: a eucalyptus or pine plantation is no good whatsoever for the species we must save from extinction.
- adtechperson 6y agoA friend of mine had a 10 acre field in Vermont with bad soil. He did not mow it for a few years and the trees just took over. It took him years and a lot of hard work to clear it back to a field. Certainly in Vermont, the forests are voracious. They will quickly take over almost any open land. Obviously, different parts of the world have very different ecosystems, but in New England, I do not think replanting trees is needed.
- Spooky23 6y agoThe northeast in general is slowly evolving into suburb/exurb and forest. Farms are mostly no longer economically viable. That said, those "takeover" trees are often junk trees or invasive species. Nice hardwoods take time to establish. You can accelerate mature forest creation by planting native and more late cycle trees to prime the pump. I have a buddy who inherited ~50 acres in central NY after college. It had limited road frontage and sale value, so he basically pays the taxes by leasing ~10 acres to a farmer, and spent about $15k planting black walnut, oak, etc. It probably
- Alex3917 6y ago> Farms are no longer economically viable. Large scale farms at least. Some things like cheesemaking are still viable, because you only need a handful of cows to make an enormous amount of cheese.
- Spooky23 6y agoYes, good point. The traditional dairy businesses that drove corn and hay production are mostly dead/dying as that business consolidates and declines.
- Swizec 6y agoSimilar trend in lots of Europe. As farming takes smaller and smaller footprints to sustain us, the forests are coming back. Between 1990 and 2015 forests in Europe gained 90,000 square kilometer. A whole Portugal worth of additional forest. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environ... In less naturally forested areas we have to be careful not to upset things like peat and bogs which are even better at CO2 than forests.
- ape4 6y agoI just hear a radio show about this. Short answer - it depends. CBC "What on Earth" https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-429-what-on-earth/clip/15805996-the-promise-trees-climate-solution https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-429-what-on-earth/cli...
- lolpython 6y agoRelated article on the bad side effects of Japanese cedar planting monoculture: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/17/science/japan-s-cedar-forests-are-man-made-disaster.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/17/science/japan-s-cedar-for...
- thdrdt 6y agoPlanting trees can help to regrow a forest naturally. For example planted trees can provide shade for seedlings. This is what I like about the Groasis projects. They create special planters so they can plant trees in deserts. Most of the time they choose very hard trees but with the intention to make it possible for other trees to grow. https//www.groasis.com https://www.youtube.com/c/Groasis https://www.youtube.com/c/Groasis
- hinkley 6y agoI think part of the problem is figuring out the motives of the person planting the trees. Weyerhauser has been getting a pass for deforestation for decades by tooting their own horn about their replanting initiatives, but if you replant only the most commercially viable species, it doesn't take a genius to know you're planning to cut 'em down again.
- robofanatic 6y agowhy is one different than the other? aren't humans part of nature?
- ars 6y agoOne is planted in bulk (by humans), the other is micromanaged to plant exactly whichever species can survive best in that spot (nature).
- mensetmanusman 6y agoThe best policy is to subsidize vertical farming near population centers until we have such a surplus that we can start slowly reconverting land away from agriculture towards natural forests/plains/etc. It will be a very long and slow process, but it is a path forward, and there are huge benefits. If we get the technology right, we wont need pesticide, herbicide, etc.
- VBprogrammer 6y agoHave you heard anyone with agricultural training saying that because every person in the industry I've listened to thinks vertical farming is a silly silicon valley hipster fad.
- LMYahooTFY 6y agoAre there some links to elaborate on this topic you could/would share? Vertical farming certainly seems like an awesome idea with obvious benefits, but there are clearly plausible obstacles and drawbacks that I don't know enough about agriculture to deem valid or not.
- VBprogrammer 6y agoSorry, I don't have time to dig much out. The tldr is that we tend to overestimate the inputs like water and fertilizers and underestimate the massive amount of energy added by the sun.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoSolar energy is getting so inexpensive and more TWhr installations will come online in the next century, it’s still possible we can use that energy. I’m thinking more on the 100 year timeline.
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoYes but plants have built in solar panels, you need to have solar energy that is much more efficient than plants and also very, very cheap
- secondcoming 6y agoIreland has reforesting but is using the wrong type of tree. These forests are indeed weird. They're totally silent inside and there's no undergrowth because nothing can grown underneath all dead pine needles. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/the-wrong-kind-of-trees-irelands-afforestation-meets-resistance https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/the-wrong-kind...
- pcmaffey 6y agoProbably the correct answer is: whatever rebuilds the soil. Forests represent the mature phase of an ecosystem, so jumping right into tree planting from barren field is likely not the best idea. You look at the edges of a road cut through a forest and you get an idea of the phases of regrowth for a forest. "Weeds", ie. smaller grasses and annuals, are the first pioneers. They then give way to bushes, and then later, trees, as the soil's capacity grows. There's still so much we don't know about living soil, but most of what we do know points to soil health being the key ingredient to healthy ecosystems. How much we can accelerate that through tree planting and what not is likely very dependent on local environment.
- quixoticelixer- 6y agoWhat do you mean by healthy soil?
- jehb 6y agoGenerally soil health is measured by a number of things, from the easy to quantify like pH and percentage of organic matter and the availability of certain nutrients, or even simple physical measurements like depth, compaction, or water solubility, to more complex things like the makeup of the microbiota living within it. All of these things affect what and how well things can grow on top of it. I'm not a soil scientist, just an amateur gardener, but it's a very complex and interesting area of study.
- hinkley 6y agoThis is a chemist's answer. These are all proxies for "is there a healthy soil ecosystem?" Like a letter grade on your report card. Healthy soil has a ridiculously high number of individual microbes and invertebrates. When everything is going properly, soil carbon, pH, friability, gas/water permeability etc etc all work out to something forests like. Feed the soil, not the plant.
- quixoticelixer- 6y ago
- TheGRS 6y agoFood for thought in this discussion: there are chemical battlefields from WWI that were thought to be largely inhabitable by any lifeform that have slowly but surely been retaken by nature. The trenches and craters created by mortars and landmines still pocket the earth, but trees and grass and wildlife have largely taken it back over. WWI was about 100 years ago, so it gives us a lot of hope to what can happen if you just give nature a chance. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/05/the-fading-battlefields-of-world-war-i/561353/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/05/the-fading-battlef...
- da39a3ee 6y agoThe drive to combat climate change is creating a generation of people who are forgetting that forest-inhabiting species need forest ecosystems of native species, as similar as possible to the natural vegetation cover. Not plantations of "trees" of whatever species, done as part of some large-scale anti-climate-change program. All the tree-planting that we are doing to combat climate change should be done explicitly with a view to promoting natural vegetation ecosystems. Species extinctions in the next 5 years will be due to habitat loss, not climate change. There are few things more important than preventing the loss of the World's natural habitats and preventing species extinction: in my opinion every time we talk of climate change as a great challenge facing humanity we should also be talking of habitat loss and species extinction.
- tastyfreeze 6y agoI enjoy sharing the short film in this vein, "Fools and Dreamers", that follows a group that bought some land in New Zealand and let it return to forest over 30 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoA healthy old-growth forest is maybe 100 trees per acre. A 'naturally regrowing' forest may be 400 trees per acre. They're scrub trees, none of the ever getting very large, unhealthy and scraggly and broken by every storm. It takes maybe a century of trees dying, giving one of their cohort a chance to get ahead of the others, then shading them and 'thinning the herd' until you have a stable population. Then, they're still not very healthy because they 'grew from scrub'. They have to then die of natural causes one at a time and be replaced by a single healthy one. Maybe another 50 years. Finally you have a stable healthy forest. Or, you can just plant 100 trees per acre in a grid. And mow the volunteers until you have what you want. 20 years maybe.
- hinkley 6y agoThere was a horror movie that came out a year or two ago, involving haunted woods or somesuch, and I can't tell you anything more about the movie because all I could process was the fact that the 'forest' they showed was trees planted on like a 4 or 5 foot center, in perfect rows. Math says that's somewhere ~2000 trees per acre, which I think is the real horror story. I'm not sure how you'd even log that. Every tree that dies is going to kill a few of its neighbors, until there are giant triangles of dead trees.
- notatoad 6y agoI'm not entirely sure what your objection is here, but if it's that they're too close together I encourage you to visit some of the productive forests in Western Canada. Trees growing (whether naturally or planted) 4-5' on center is pretty normal. Tree planters put in trees about one every pace. They don't all survive, but they're not all supposed to. As many make it to maturity as the light allows.
- taneq 6y agoI think the objection was that a "haunted forest" sounds like it should be something old and natural and tangled and wild (think the Old Forest near the beginning of Lord of the Rings). "Haunted pine plantation" just doesn't have the same vibe to it.
- kelchm 6y agoAnecdotal, but I had around 40 trees harvested from my property last year as part of a larger forestry job on an adjacent property. These were mostly mature Poplar along with a few middle aged Black Walnut. At one point I asked the forester what I could do to help promote healthy regrowth of the forest. His response was that I didn’t need to do anything and that “the best way to grow a new tree [in a forest] is to cut an old one down”. This honestly seemed a bit like nonsense to me at the time, but watching the way things have already started to rebound has been pretty incredible. I started counting new seedlings this summer but ended up giving up after I had counted more than 200 poplar seedlings within a relatively small area. Obviously all of those won’t survive to maturity, but it’s given me a new appreciation for just how effective forests are at regenerating themselves when harvesting is done responsibly.
- haberman 6y agoI think Poplar and Aspen are particularly notorious for this. I just had to cut down a 50 foot Aspen in a small-ish backyard because it had started rotting and was becoming unsafe. No one warned us what was going to happen next. Within the next few months at least 50 suckers have popped up in our yard and -- worse -- our unsuspecting neighbor. As much as we loved the tree and were sad to see it go, this feels like an invasion.
- justinator 6y agoAspens (for the uninitiated) are rhizomes. Some of the largest aspen groves - all of the same single plant, are > 100 acres in size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Aspens (for the uninitiated) are rhizomes. I think I can safely speak for most of the uninitiated when I say that this sentence is completely meaningless to us.
- 6y ago
- prashantkrdey 6y agoThe simple answer I can think of is if the destruction of forest is more than natural growth then we all should work towards planting of trees.
- hikerclimb 6y agoIt’s better to let them burn
- FooHentai 6y ago>Others ask: Why plant at all, when we can often simply leave the land for nearby forests to seed and recolonize? Because we continue to seek ways to profit from climate change, and re-wilding land is not profitable. The tree planting push is an example of the status quo attempting to maintain itself in the face of increased awareness of the consequences of it continuing. The recent fad of 'swipe your credit card here and we'll sequester carbon for you!' is another example. These attempts will probably get increasingly desperate over time. I would lend the tree-planting movement a lot more credibility if we were talking about re-wilding significant areas of developed land, and rendering them inaccessible to any possibility of profit. What you actually find is a large intent to expand the logging industries of various nations. A lot of it is obscured 'we don't have data on that' type stuff, but take a look at whether natives and re-wilding are on the cards or if it's about planting profitable species, and the reality is quite different from the spin. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair The longer we limit our thinking to solutions within the entrenched, centuries-old economic/social system which gave rise to the problem in the first place, the longer the problem will perpetuate unchecked before effective action is taken to mitigate and reverse it. If we're even in a state capable of such action by the time we realize that's what it's going to take. >It was a good reminder that nature knows what it is doing Couching natural processes in this language implies there is some level of knowledge humans could attain which would enable us to become a better steward than nature herself. Again, looking for solutions within the box that created the problem is folly when stepping outside of it is necessary to resolve matters. Nature has no idea what it's doing, it doesn't 'know' a damned thing, and this is it's inherent strength which we will never successfully emulate. Nature is chaotic and constitutes an incredibly complex ongoing battle of wills played out over at least 3.5 billion years of competition, death, birth, selection pressures and evolution. Misplaced hubris alone accounts for our belief we can somehow do better than nature with the power of knowledge. "When you are new at sheep-raising and your ewe has a lamb, your impulse is to stay there and help it nurse and see to it and all. After a while, you know that the best thing you can do is walk out of the barn." - Wendell Berry We have the capability, knowledge, and power to restore balance to our environment but our only hope of success is to work with existing natural systems, not against them. The solution certainly lies in our ability to augment, complement, and enhance them. Anyone asking why we can't just settle other plantes or geo-engineer earth in a way that's beneficial to us hasn't thougt things through enough - We're already ON spaceship earth and it is capable, with cautious collective caretaking that our intelligence and knowledge affords us, of carrying us through and into the stars in perpetuity. If we don't completely fuck it beforehand. "For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams I believe that if we as a species were to develop enough knowledge and attempt to effect a superior replacement for nature, what we would have invented at the end of it would look an awful lot like a natural ecosystem, probably just with some sticky-tape (technology) holding things up behind the scenes. So in the end surely it's better to ruthlessly preserve the ecosystem we already have than allow it to die and have to try and re-create it or adapt to whatever the hell emerges in the void it leaves. “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation.” – Gus Speth, founder Natural Resources Defense Council
- kashmir 6y agoWhile I wholeheartedly agree with the preservation of naturally-grown trees and forests, I think it may depend on what the proposed newly-planted trees would be used for. Oxygen production, timber cultivation, ecosystem support? If the first, phytoplankton in our oceans produce WAY more oxygen than all the trees on earth combined -- which is one of a billion reasons why we absolutely need to stop polluting our oceans (and land for that matter). If the second, sowing hemp plants takes up less land and resources while producing more usable material for even more applications than do trees. If the third, then yeah trees are definitely required to sustain entire ecosystems so I can't make an argument against that. It is extremely unfortunate that entire naturally-occuring forests get completely decimated just for the wood or other for-profit ventures, regardless of the impact to the entire planet's balance between all of nature...including but not limited to us as human beings.
- b0rsuk 6y agoI think either way is fine, life will find a way. The important bit is to stop cutting it.
- pedro1976 6y agoI recently read that grassland binds CO2 in the soil and is therefore better for wildfires.
- maskedoffender 6y agoIf the goal is to remove carbon from the system, then the best thing we can do is waste as much paper and throw it in the trash where it goes to a landfill and never decays back into the air. If we recycle it we're keeping that carbon in play. But by wasting mass amounts of paper over and over again, we can remove a lot of carbon from the air. As we chop down more and more trees to make paper and bury the paper in a landfill, new trees grow up which get turned to paper which gets buried and taken out of the system. So waste paper if you want to save the planet, because paper may kill a tree, but that tree will grow back, and the paper will sit in a landfill petrified.
- dTal 6y agoExcept that paper comes from unsustainable logging practices in the Amazon, which is an irreplaceable carbon sink that is being destroyed.
- ethagknight 6y agoPaper mostly comes from massive tree farms that are close to mills and close to market on managed, easy to transit tracts of land close to shipping lanes. Take a look at aerials of the wooded areas surrounding Panama City, FL, miles and miles of rows of tree farms. What’s happening in the Amazon is terrible mismanagement, but it’s not the sole source of paper Callaway Florida 32404 https://goo.gl/maps/rezXSYN8Hf6MRU2m7 https://goo.gl/maps/rezXSYN8Hf6MRU2m7 https://goo.gl/maps/vvEBnqhfgg5LhzU88 https://goo.gl/maps/vvEBnqhfgg5LhzU88
- WhyKill 6y agopermaculture. google it. the answer is of course BOTH. naturally regrowing forests by using ancient technology to understand the best way for things to be arranged physically for optimal soil regeneration. the Amazon was cultivated by humans for thousands of years. we can do this all over the planet
- morekozhambu 6y agoNeither. It is better to plant forests. https://www.ted.com/talks/shubhendu_sharma_how_to_grow_a_forest_in_your_backyard https://www.ted.com/talks/shubhendu_sharma_how_to_grow_a_for... https://www.afforestt.com/ https://www.afforestt.com/