9 ms·

The Miyawaki Method: A Better Way to Build Forests? (2019)

166 points by nkurz 6y ago

sandworm101 6y ago
I am confused. There are a host of different methods in creating a forest depending on the end goal. If the goal is to generate more board-feet of lumber you do A. If the goal is to sequester carbon you do B. If you want to promote animal life you do C. If you want to promote particular plants/trees you do D. Of course you can balance these interests, but you cannot maximize all at once. What exactly is the end goal of the Miyawaki Method? What does the finished forest look like?
- Peckingjay 6y ago
  From the article: "A high level of diversity is paramount on Sharma’s list of essential goals. In projects Afforestt has undertaken in India, his company so far managed to use about 336 types of native trees out of 2800 that are known to have existed in the country. And the company has started its own nursery in Rajasthan to begin to add more species to their plantings. Sharma is adamant that the impact of even very small forests on local communities is significant enough to matter. Research from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, which found increased fungi, bacteria, pollinators, and amphibians on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad that were based on Sharma’s models,, lends some scientific credence to this claim." In this case, it would seem end goal is fauna/flora diversity.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad Ok. But that is where the debates start. Many forests will not lend themselves towards diversity. Look at places like the pacific coastal rain forests. If left alone they will become a homogenous zone, one canopy of trees. Clearcutting strips increases diversity of tree/bush cover, helping small animals and everything that feeds on them. Diversity over and above the "natural" untouched state. So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake?
    - vram22 6y ago
      Diversity does not have to be a static or micro thing, along any dimension. E.g. temporal or spatial. If you look on a larger scale, there was/is species diversity across centuries/aeons (evolution, Ice Ages, ...) and across hundreds or thousands of square km. Could be a large homogeneous patch of 500 sq. km. next to another 300 in size next to a large or medium heterogeneous patch, and so on. On a larger scale, that's still diversity.
    - carapace 6y ago
      FWIW, my limited understanding is that initially, in Japan, the focus was on restoring the native forests, conserving Japanese species and ecosystems. > So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake? I favor E. O. Wilson's proposal that we set aside half the Earth as a nature preserve and more-or-less let evolution do it's thing. Which half is, of course, an open question, eh? One way or another, I doubt we can avoid continent-scale ecological management.
      - _jal 6y ago
        > Which half is, of course, an open question, eh? This approach would of course favor species that thrive in toxic waste, radiation and trash mountains.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Which half is always this problem. It's compounded by the fact that Europeans have scourged their land of anything worthwhile - relegating nature to tiny preserves and replacing most wilderness with farms and cities. Often these same people insist that other nations avoid developing and "preserve" their land. How about we raze Europe's cities and give half her land back to Nature first.
        KaiserPro 6y ago
        because the cities don't have that much land. its the farm land one would need to reclaim
        6y ago
- setr 6y ago
  Not mentioned in TFA, but apparently this method also leads to short timelines (~10 yrs) to reach self-sustaining forests[0] That article also goes a lot more in depth on how they setup the forest [0] https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really-really-fast-d27df202ba09 https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really-real...
- 786caeefb13016 6y ago
  You almost answered your own question by mentioning "balance" -- the primary goal is self-regulating stability. This is an approach which uses intensive (and expensive) horticultural methods to quickly create a patch of forest that will require no further human management or operating expense. The biodiversity should increase a little bit as local fauna habituate and immigrate to the forest, bringing with them propagules from other native species, so humans don't have to do all the work. Specific benefits of the Miyawaki method are that it can dovetail well with common urban practices. A small forest can grow next to concrete buildings, roads and sidewalks, and offer all the common "green building" benefits such as fire suppression, improved thermal regulation, and runoff absorption. Of course, there will be wildlife as well. Some people consider it a nuisance for whatever reason. M.R. Hari in Kerala has done some experiments with "eccentrifying" (my word, not his) Miyawaki forests into types such as a edible- or flower- dominated forests, which the mix of such species is slightly increased, but not enough to disrupt the ecological balance. I recommend his YouTube channel 'Crowd Foresting' for many examples of what these forests can look like (in his particular location).
ARandomerDude 6y ago
TL;DR Plant a huge variety of native plants in good soil. Seems like a good approach.
- sriram_malhar 6y ago
  The details are what set this method apart. The myriad ways of rejuvenating fallow soil, planting on clusters of mounds, planting 30x denser than accepted practice, the idea that a forest can be just 4m wide and so on ...
  - hinkley 6y ago
    It's quality over quantity. Forests tend to recover from the edges. If you spread all of your available resources over a hectare of land, you get something better but not good. If instead you dumped all of those resources into six squares, they get closer to healthy faster and then begin to spread. I've heard others opine that if we forced foresters to leave a large intact area in the middle of a clearcut, that the land would recover faster. I don't doubt it. I think we could accomplish the same by making them take out narrower strips. It's just not 'convenient' and so they won't unless we force them.
awinter-py 6y ago
the 'random mix' and monoculture points in here are the topic of the first chapter of Seeing Like a State, the book about why institutions over-simplify the societies they govern
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  it's a good book, especially as an introduction to why reductionism and quantitative measurement distort what they measure when taken apart from holism and qualitative valuation - but boy is it a slow burner. I listened to it on audiobook during my commute and I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep at the wheel.
  - awinter-py 6y ago
    yeah I made it to the middle of the jane jacobs / corbusier section and gave up midsection is like fractally repetitive where it's repeating previous chapters and also repeating the current chapter really good footnotes though
mekoka 6y ago
A previous discussion (different article) on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473
seltzered_ 6y ago
Don't feel like rambling too much here but after taking a class (Ecosystem Restoration Design) last year that touched on this method a few notes: - Yes, you generally try to use native species only. Search for things like the WWF ecoregions map to get a broad idea, search for a local resource on native species. - The reason it grows a bit faster isn't magic - it involves a higher input effort/cost, and you skip a stage of succession by focusing more on planting 'keystone species' rather than going through an initial stage of 'pioneer species'. - Because of this, they tend to be more attractive in urban environments. See also related organizations like "tiny forests" https://www.ivn.nl/tiny-forest/tiny-forest-worldwide https://www.ivn.nl/tiny-forest/tiny-forest-worldwide (netherlands), https://theotherdada.com https://theotherdada.com (beirut), more listed on https://www.afforestt.com/about https://www.afforestt.com/about. You do need a minimum width/length to implement, and may need to dig the soil/amend the soil to deal with urban-area compaction. - The most actionable things you can do is: - got money? Right now (temperate winter here) is a good time to plant native saplings if they're not sold out. You may even find some folks 'salvaging' native plants from areas where land is about to be cleared for construction. - setup a tree nursery. Native saplings can be expensive - try things in a small way, tell your neighbors, start mutual learning. - Keep in mind not all areas in the world should be planted with trees. Some areas are natively grasslands and thus trees are less populated. - If you're going to have a dense forest, you need a plan for maintenance so you don't end up with woody mass building up to cause a fire later on (see millan millan's papers "greening and browning in a climate change hotspot". You might be able to partner with a local businesses, school, government, etc. to find a spot & help with expenses/maintenance
- _qwfv 6y ago
  I'm considering a few hundred acres of mountainous clearcut land in the pacific northwest. Are there any resources you'd recommend to learn about replanting non-urban areas?
  - jointpdf 6y ago
    The best option might be to get in touch with your local university forestry extension, for example: https://forestry.wsu.edu/ https://forestry.wsu.edu/ Another resource would be your local USDA office. The NRCS should be available to provide free site-specific technical assistance (e.g. for soil regeneration and conservation planning). There are also zillions of loan/grant/easement/conservation payment programs that the USDA runs: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical/tsp/ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/prog...
OnACoffeeBreak 6y ago
This 99% Invisible podcast episode talks about the unintended consequences of planting trees in the peat tundra of Scotland spurred by the British government's tax breaks to incentivize re-forestation around the country in the 1980s: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/ EDIT: This is not to say that trees should not be planted. I wrote the post in support of using science and nuance to plant trees the right way, which I think is the major point of the article.
abraae 6y ago
> The seedlings are planted very densely—20,000 to 30,000 per hectares as opposed to 1,000 per hectare in commercial forestry. For a period of two to three years, the site is monitored, watered, and weeded, to give the nascent forest every chance to establish itself. Any planting of new forest is to be applauded, but(at least where I live) this is an unrealistic approach. We have 10 acres (about 4 acres) of land that we have mostly replanted. I've learnt a bit in the process. 1) watering everything is not feasible. We're on tank water, and each summer ends with me policing the lengths of family showers. This southern hemisphere summer, we added one more 25kl tank (several $k) just for plant watering. It barely scratches the surface. 2) weeding is unpleasant and hard work.I struggle to get any help with it. In practice, spraying is the only practical approach, not ideal environmentally. 3) the profile of species that thrive is changing, right before our eyes last summer was brutal and we lost several big trees probably 50+years old in the heat. While this article's approach is an interesting one, I would say it's is suited to a very compact environment, such as one might find in japan. At a larger scale, a less intensive approach is to plant semi-intensively mainly in pioneer species. Planted in the autumn or spring, these will survive without watering. These form a thick forest that prevents weed growth underneath. You have now reached a stable point - you can now leave your forest to nature. Birds will drop seeds, and those seeds will germinate beneath the pioneer canopy, letting the larger species come through and eventually replace the pioneer species. If you want you can accelerate the process by planting large trees here and there within the pioneer canopy. But again, that won't require watering or weeding. Key to it is using native species, and picking species that will survive at higher temperatures. Being in the southern hemisphere, that means species that are commonly found in the north, where it is hotter already.
- howlin 6y ago
  There is some interesting thinking to be done on "native" versus "adapted" when it comes to planning new forest. It's a reality that the climate is changing and there are many introduced pest species that are all drastically changing the landscapes. On the Pacific coast, the combination of drought, sudden oak death disease and pine beetles are rapidly changing the flora and also the fauna when food and shelter disappears. When you plant a new forest today, do you try to preserve the native species or do you anticipate what species will thrive in the area 20-50 years from now?
_joel 6y ago
Just became aware of this term after looking at this BBC article on micro-forests https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-56003562 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-56003562
thinkingemote 6y ago
Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if left alone. The real question is not how to get people to plant trees, it's how to get people to leave trees and the areas where they will grow alone. That's in the majority of places where trees would normally grow. Of course in some ecosystems like a full desert, we can help nature do it's thing. And we can also help along the natural process by selectively planting additional species. In the US tree planting is about foresty not nature or the environment. Forestry is the planting and managing trees for economic gain, usually for pulp or lumber often by planting only one or two species. So, another misleading thing would be that forestry involves planting several times as many trees and then weeding, culling, thinning out the trees. So one misleading statistic you will find is something like "we planted 1 million trees", where the actual number of trees finally will be something like 100,000. Trees come with their own built in reproductive system via seeds, acorn and the like. The urge to plant forests is a human urge to meddle and fix things. This urge is also the reason why the forests were cleared and nature curtailed. This urge should, in most of the world, be resisted if we are to let nature do it's own thing.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if left alone. They'd also tell you that the attrition rates are terrible.
- 786caeefb13016 6y ago
  Trees are planted in urban environments all the time. In this kind of environment, "leaving it alone" is unfortunately not an option, although I agree it would be best for the trees. The Miyawaki method presents a stark alternative to the recommendations of the International Society of Arboriculture, with many benefits. Maybe people want a Miyawaki forest in a city to help with runoff, air quality, and temperature regulation. On the other hand, maybe people prefer sparsely placed trees which don't obscure their views of road signs and intersections, or provide shade over a lawn for congregation.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Planted also doesn't mean 'survived'. You plant these trees among disturbed soil and broken branches. The trees left behind are supposed to harbor species that will repopulate, but those species are used to the water levels and shade of the closed canopy, and now they're in the middle of a hellscape that won't recover for decades, only to be chopped down again. Even if the trees are fit for the local ecology, they're now in a very bad microbiome and not all will make it.
gautamdivgi 6y ago
I believe Jadav Payeng should have a mention here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng. Considering Jadav's forest is magnitudes of cover more.
andrebotelho 6y ago
I'm a bigger proponent for agroforestry than other methods. Being that monocultures are the biggest catalyst of desertification, agroforestry, when implemented in industrial agricultural settings, has a higher dimensionality/impact.
- hinkley 6y ago
  I did not scientifically measure this, but anecdotes are a good place to start for grant applications, so I'll mention it anyway. I'm trying to turn a compacted field back into a tiny woodland. It's still mostly horizontal at this point, but it's full of pillbugs and spiders and earthworms and the birds seem to love foraging in it. An hour ago I looked out the window and saw a finch pulling a spider off the side of my house, and it reminded me that one of the supposed tenets of polycultures is that you build up the food web and the food web will take care of the pests. Then it reminded me that I don't recall seeing this many birds the previous year. I've temporarily drawn in the bird population from the surrounding area, by providing a richer hunting ground (more carrying capacity). Next year there will be a few more baby birds surviving to adulthood, then they'll be competing aggressively for all the other invertebrates in the area, dropping more fruit seeds everywhere they perch, which means more bugs and fruit and so on.
darth_avocado 6y ago
On a similar topic, 10 years ago, a couple of friends and I led a replantation drive in a 2 acre patch of land (a portion of a larger degraded area slated for replantation with the help of the government and NGOs) near a dried up lake in India. Instead of the usual mass mono culture plantations that are cost effective and easily doable, we decided to do something different. Here's a couple of things we did: 1. Use native species 2. Instead of a blanket plantation of rows of trees, landscape a more natural habitat. This included, a dense canopy, a meadow and some sparce shrubbery all on different areas of the lot. 3. Include plants that provide food and shelter for native fauna, even if the plants weren't native. 4. Landscape a little to allow for water retention 5. Focus on soil improvement in the beginning We did a few more things to ensure high survival rate, but that's probably not of interest. The results were amazing. Our section was the one with the most promising results. Our lot grew like a natural habitat in the 2nd and 3rd year in a way that you'd never feel that this was a barren piece of land. And eventually, some of the species started spreading to the nearby lots as well. The other lots didn't do so well, some of them had survival rate of about 30-40%, but a lot of them ended up more like less than 10%. Mind you, we are talking about 40C+ summer temperatures.
- uxamanda 6y ago
  I am interested in how you ensured high survival rate in a very hot climate if you’re willing to share.
  - darth_avocado 6y ago
    Of course, beyond the fact that we used plants that survive in the weather here's a couple more: 1. We tilled the land (burying whatever dead plant material was above it), almost the entire lot. High temperatures tends to harden the top soil and therefore increase water run off during the rainy season. Tilling ensures higher water absorption when it rains. 2. We amended the soil just around each of the planted saplings with coconut coir and cow dung because the soil was really degraded, devoid of much organic matter. 3. The way we would plant each tree would be that the sapling at the center, with a depression in the soil around it followed by a small bund around the depression, and some hardy shrubs/ground cover on the bund. During the rainy season, this collects a lot of water and retains it for the roots for a longer time, and once the dry season kicks in, even if there's no water at the surface, the shrubs around the bund kind of prevent direct sunlight from hitting the ground, thereby retaining moisture even in the dry season. 4. For the first year we had to ensure we water the plants till they take root and can sustain themselves, especially during the summer. We couldn't set up a drip irrigation system, nor could we flood the surface with water. We instead buried clay pots in the ground around the plants and would fill them with water regularly during the summer. The clay pots release water slowly into the ground throughout the day, and since the pots were covered with a lid after filling up, water loss to evaporation was minimal. The plants would get water directly at the roots in a slow and steady manner.

166 points by nkurz 6y ago

I am confused. There are a host of different methods in creating a forest depending on the end goal. If the goal is to generate more board-feet of lumber you do A. If the goal is to sequester carbon you do B. If you want to promote animal life you do C. If you want to promote particular plants/trees you do D. Of course you can balance these interests, but you cannot maximize all at once. What exactly is the end goal of the Miyawaki Method? What does the finished forest look like?

Peckingjay 6y ago
From the article: "A high level of diversity is paramount on Sharma’s list of essential goals. In projects Afforestt has undertaken in India, his company so far managed to use about 336 types of native trees out of 2800 that are known to have existed in the country. And the company has started its own nursery in Rajasthan to begin to add more species to their plantings. Sharma is adamant that the impact of even very small forests on local communities is significant enough to matter. Research from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, which found increased fungi, bacteria, pollinators, and amphibians on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad that were based on Sharma’s models,, lends some scientific credence to this claim." In this case, it would seem end goal is fauna/flora diversity.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad Ok. But that is where the debates start. Many forests will not lend themselves towards diversity. Look at places like the pacific coastal rain forests. If left alone they will become a homogenous zone, one canopy of trees. Clearcutting strips increases diversity of tree/bush cover, helping small animals and everything that feeds on them. Diversity over and above the "natural" untouched state. So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake?
  - vram22 6y ago
    Diversity does not have to be a static or micro thing, along any dimension. E.g. temporal or spatial. If you look on a larger scale, there was/is species diversity across centuries/aeons (evolution, Ice Ages, ...) and across hundreds or thousands of square km. Could be a large homogeneous patch of 500 sq. km. next to another 300 in size next to a large or medium heterogeneous patch, and so on. On a larger scale, that's still diversity.
  - carapace 6y ago
    FWIW, my limited understanding is that initially, in Japan, the focus was on restoring the native forests, conserving Japanese species and ecosystems. > So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake? I favor E. O. Wilson's proposal that we set aside half the Earth as a nature preserve and more-or-less let evolution do it's thing. Which half is, of course, an open question, eh? One way or another, I doubt we can avoid continent-scale ecological management.
    - _jal 6y ago
      > Which half is, of course, an open question, eh? This approach would of course favor species that thrive in toxic waste, radiation and trash mountains.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Which half is always this problem. It's compounded by the fact that Europeans have scourged their land of anything worthwhile - relegating nature to tiny preserves and replacing most wilderness with farms and cities. Often these same people insist that other nations avoid developing and "preserve" their land. How about we raze Europe's cities and give half her land back to Nature first.
      - KaiserPro 6y ago
        because the cities don't have that much land. its the farm land one would need to reclaim
      - 6y ago
setr 6y ago
Not mentioned in TFA, but apparently this method also leads to short timelines (~10 yrs) to reach self-sustaining forests[0] That article also goes a lot more in depth on how they setup the forest [0] https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really-really-fast-d27df202ba09 https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really-real...
786caeefb13016 6y ago
You almost answered your own question by mentioning "balance" -- the primary goal is self-regulating stability. This is an approach which uses intensive (and expensive) horticultural methods to quickly create a patch of forest that will require no further human management or operating expense. The biodiversity should increase a little bit as local fauna habituate and immigrate to the forest, bringing with them propagules from other native species, so humans don't have to do all the work. Specific benefits of the Miyawaki method are that it can dovetail well with common urban practices. A small forest can grow next to concrete buildings, roads and sidewalks, and offer all the common "green building" benefits such as fire suppression, improved thermal regulation, and runoff absorption. Of course, there will be wildlife as well. Some people consider it a nuisance for whatever reason. M.R. Hari in Kerala has done some experiments with "eccentrifying" (my word, not his) Miyawaki forests into types such as a edible- or flower- dominated forests, which the mix of such species is slightly increased, but not enough to disrupt the ecological balance. I recommend his YouTube channel 'Crowd Foresting' for many examples of what these forests can look like (in his particular location).

ARandomerDude 6y ago

TL;DR Plant a huge variety of native plants in good soil. Seems like a good approach.

sriram_malhar 6y ago
The details are what set this method apart. The myriad ways of rejuvenating fallow soil, planting on clusters of mounds, planting 30x denser than accepted practice, the idea that a forest can be just 4m wide and so on ...
- hinkley 6y ago
  It's quality over quantity. Forests tend to recover from the edges. If you spread all of your available resources over a hectare of land, you get something better but not good. If instead you dumped all of those resources into six squares, they get closer to healthy faster and then begin to spread. I've heard others opine that if we forced foresters to leave a large intact area in the middle of a clearcut, that the land would recover faster. I don't doubt it. I think we could accomplish the same by making them take out narrower strips. It's just not 'convenient' and so they won't unless we force them.

awinter-py 6y ago

the 'random mix' and monoculture points in here are the topic of the first chapter of Seeing Like a State, the book about why institutions over-simplify the societies they govern

beaconstudios 6y ago
it's a good book, especially as an introduction to why reductionism and quantitative measurement distort what they measure when taken apart from holism and qualitative valuation - but boy is it a slow burner. I listened to it on audiobook during my commute and I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep at the wheel.
- awinter-py 6y ago
  yeah I made it to the middle of the jane jacobs / corbusier section and gave up midsection is like fractally repetitive where it's repeating previous chapters and also repeating the current chapter really good footnotes though

mekoka 6y ago

A previous discussion (different article) on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473

seltzered_ 6y ago

Don't feel like rambling too much here but after taking a class (Ecosystem Restoration Design) last year that touched on this method a few notes: - Yes, you generally try to use native species only. Search for things like the WWF ecoregions map to get a broad idea, search for a local resource on native species. - The reason it grows a bit faster isn't magic - it involves a higher input effort/cost, and you skip a stage of succession by focusing more on planting 'keystone species' rather than going through an initial stage of 'pioneer species'. - Because of this, they tend to be more attractive in urban environments. See also related organizations like "tiny forests" https://www.ivn.nl/tiny-forest/tiny-forest-worldwide https://www.ivn.nl/tiny-forest/tiny-forest-worldwide (netherlands), https://theotherdada.com https://theotherdada.com (beirut), more listed on https://www.afforestt.com/about https://www.afforestt.com/about. You do need a minimum width/length to implement, and may need to dig the soil/amend the soil to deal with urban-area compaction. - The most actionable things you can do is: - got money? Right now (temperate winter here) is a good time to plant native saplings if they're not sold out. You may even find some folks 'salvaging' native plants from areas where land is about to be cleared for construction. - setup a tree nursery. Native saplings can be expensive - try things in a small way, tell your neighbors, start mutual learning. - Keep in mind not all areas in the world should be planted with trees. Some areas are natively grasslands and thus trees are less populated. - If you're going to have a dense forest, you need a plan for maintenance so you don't end up with woody mass building up to cause a fire later on (see millan millan's papers "greening and browning in a climate change hotspot". You might be able to partner with a local businesses, school, government, etc. to find a spot & help with expenses/maintenance

_qwfv 6y ago
I'm considering a few hundred acres of mountainous clearcut land in the pacific northwest. Are there any resources you'd recommend to learn about replanting non-urban areas?
- jointpdf 6y ago
  The best option might be to get in touch with your local university forestry extension, for example: https://forestry.wsu.edu/ https://forestry.wsu.edu/ Another resource would be your local USDA office. The NRCS should be available to provide free site-specific technical assistance (e.g. for soil regeneration and conservation planning). There are also zillions of loan/grant/easement/conservation payment programs that the USDA runs: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical/tsp/ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/prog...

OnACoffeeBreak 6y ago

This 99% Invisible podcast episode talks about the unintended consequences of planting trees in the peat tundra of Scotland spurred by the British government's tax breaks to incentivize re-forestation around the country in the 1980s: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/ EDIT: This is not to say that trees should not be planted. I wrote the post in support of using science and nuance to plant trees the right way, which I think is the major point of the article.

abraae 6y ago

> The seedlings are planted very densely—20,000 to 30,000 per hectares as opposed to 1,000 per hectare in commercial forestry. For a period of two to three years, the site is monitored, watered, and weeded, to give the nascent forest every chance to establish itself. Any planting of new forest is to be applauded, but(at least where I live) this is an unrealistic approach. We have 10 acres (about 4 acres) of land that we have mostly replanted. I've learnt a bit in the process. 1) watering everything is not feasible. We're on tank water, and each summer ends with me policing the lengths of family showers. This southern hemisphere summer, we added one more 25kl tank (several $k) just for plant watering. It barely scratches the surface. 2) weeding is unpleasant and hard work.I struggle to get any help with it. In practice, spraying is the only practical approach, not ideal environmentally. 3) the profile of species that thrive is changing, right before our eyes last summer was brutal and we lost several big trees probably 50+years old in the heat. While this article's approach is an interesting one, I would say it's is suited to a very compact environment, such as one might find in japan. At a larger scale, a less intensive approach is to plant semi-intensively mainly in pioneer species. Planted in the autumn or spring, these will survive without watering. These form a thick forest that prevents weed growth underneath. You have now reached a stable point - you can now leave your forest to nature. Birds will drop seeds, and those seeds will germinate beneath the pioneer canopy, letting the larger species come through and eventually replace the pioneer species. If you want you can accelerate the process by planting large trees here and there within the pioneer canopy. But again, that won't require watering or weeding. Key to it is using native species, and picking species that will survive at higher temperatures. Being in the southern hemisphere, that means species that are commonly found in the north, where it is hotter already.

howlin 6y ago
There is some interesting thinking to be done on "native" versus "adapted" when it comes to planning new forest. It's a reality that the climate is changing and there are many introduced pest species that are all drastically changing the landscapes. On the Pacific coast, the combination of drought, sudden oak death disease and pine beetles are rapidly changing the flora and also the fauna when food and shelter disappears. When you plant a new forest today, do you try to preserve the native species or do you anticipate what species will thrive in the area 20-50 years from now?

_joel 6y ago

Just became aware of this term after looking at this BBC article on micro-forests https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-56003562 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-56003562

thinkingemote 6y ago

Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if left alone. The real question is not how to get people to plant trees, it's how to get people to leave trees and the areas where they will grow alone. That's in the majority of places where trees would normally grow. Of course in some ecosystems like a full desert, we can help nature do it's thing. And we can also help along the natural process by selectively planting additional species. In the US tree planting is about foresty not nature or the environment. Forestry is the planting and managing trees for economic gain, usually for pulp or lumber often by planting only one or two species. So, another misleading thing would be that forestry involves planting several times as many trees and then weeding, culling, thinning out the trees. So one misleading statistic you will find is something like "we planted 1 million trees", where the actual number of trees finally will be something like 100,000. Trees come with their own built in reproductive system via seeds, acorn and the like. The urge to plant forests is a human urge to meddle and fix things. This urge is also the reason why the forests were cleared and nature curtailed. This urge should, in most of the world, be resisted if we are to let nature do it's own thing.

DanBC 6y ago
> Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if left alone. They'd also tell you that the attrition rates are terrible.
786caeefb13016 6y ago
Trees are planted in urban environments all the time. In this kind of environment, "leaving it alone" is unfortunately not an option, although I agree it would be best for the trees. The Miyawaki method presents a stark alternative to the recommendations of the International Society of Arboriculture, with many benefits. Maybe people want a Miyawaki forest in a city to help with runoff, air quality, and temperature regulation. On the other hand, maybe people prefer sparsely placed trees which don't obscure their views of road signs and intersections, or provide shade over a lawn for congregation.
hinkley 6y ago
Planted also doesn't mean 'survived'. You plant these trees among disturbed soil and broken branches. The trees left behind are supposed to harbor species that will repopulate, but those species are used to the water levels and shade of the closed canopy, and now they're in the middle of a hellscape that won't recover for decades, only to be chopped down again. Even if the trees are fit for the local ecology, they're now in a very bad microbiome and not all will make it.

gautamdivgi 6y ago

I believe Jadav Payeng should have a mention here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng. Considering Jadav's forest is magnitudes of cover more.

andrebotelho 6y ago

I'm a bigger proponent for agroforestry than other methods. Being that monocultures are the biggest catalyst of desertification, agroforestry, when implemented in industrial agricultural settings, has a higher dimensionality/impact.

hinkley 6y ago
I did not scientifically measure this, but anecdotes are a good place to start for grant applications, so I'll mention it anyway. I'm trying to turn a compacted field back into a tiny woodland. It's still mostly horizontal at this point, but it's full of pillbugs and spiders and earthworms and the birds seem to love foraging in it. An hour ago I looked out the window and saw a finch pulling a spider off the side of my house, and it reminded me that one of the supposed tenets of polycultures is that you build up the food web and the food web will take care of the pests. Then it reminded me that I don't recall seeing this many birds the previous year. I've temporarily drawn in the bird population from the surrounding area, by providing a richer hunting ground (more carrying capacity). Next year there will be a few more baby birds surviving to adulthood, then they'll be competing aggressively for all the other invertebrates in the area, dropping more fruit seeds everywhere they perch, which means more bugs and fruit and so on.

darth_avocado 6y ago

On a similar topic, 10 years ago, a couple of friends and I led a replantation drive in a 2 acre patch of land (a portion of a larger degraded area slated for replantation with the help of the government and NGOs) near a dried up lake in India. Instead of the usual mass mono culture plantations that are cost effective and easily doable, we decided to do something different. Here's a couple of things we did: 1. Use native species 2. Instead of a blanket plantation of rows of trees, landscape a more natural habitat. This included, a dense canopy, a meadow and some sparce shrubbery all on different areas of the lot. 3. Include plants that provide food and shelter for native fauna, even if the plants weren't native. 4. Landscape a little to allow for water retention 5. Focus on soil improvement in the beginning We did a few more things to ensure high survival rate, but that's probably not of interest. The results were amazing. Our section was the one with the most promising results. Our lot grew like a natural habitat in the 2nd and 3rd year in a way that you'd never feel that this was a barren piece of land. And eventually, some of the species started spreading to the nearby lots as well. The other lots didn't do so well, some of them had survival rate of about 30-40%, but a lot of them ended up more like less than 10%. Mind you, we are talking about 40C+ summer temperatures.

uxamanda 6y ago
I am interested in how you ensured high survival rate in a very hot climate if you’re willing to share.
- darth_avocado 6y ago
  Of course, beyond the fact that we used plants that survive in the weather here's a couple more: 1. We tilled the land (burying whatever dead plant material was above it), almost the entire lot. High temperatures tends to harden the top soil and therefore increase water run off during the rainy season. Tilling ensures higher water absorption when it rains. 2. We amended the soil just around each of the planted saplings with coconut coir and cow dung because the soil was really degraded, devoid of much organic matter. 3. The way we would plant each tree would be that the sapling at the center, with a depression in the soil around it followed by a small bund around the depression, and some hardy shrubs/ground cover on the bund. During the rainy season, this collects a lot of water and retains it for the roots for a longer time, and once the dry season kicks in, even if there's no water at the surface, the shrubs around the bund kind of prevent direct sunlight from hitting the ground, thereby retaining moisture even in the dry season. 4. For the first year we had to ensure we water the plants till they take root and can sustain themselves, especially during the summer. We couldn't set up a drip irrigation system, nor could we flood the surface with water. We instead buried clay pots in the ground around the plants and would fill them with water regularly during the summer. The clay pots release water slowly into the ground throughout the day, and since the pots were covered with a lid after filling up, water loss to evaporation was minimal. The plants would get water directly at the roots in a slow and steady manner.