3 ms·

related: https://grist.org/climate/climate-change-forest-loss/ https://grist.org/climate/climate-change-forest-loss/ "When trees fail to regenerate after a fir

related: https://grist.org/climate/climate-change-forest-loss/ https://grist.org/climate/climate-change-forest-loss/ "When trees fail to regenerate after a fire, new plants take their place. To generalize, in the northern Rocky Mountains, it’s a mix of grasses and shrubs of the genus ceanothus — like snowbrush. In parts of the Southwest, juniper and oak savannas replace pine forests. In New Mexico, thorny locusts often dominate. In northern California, its dense hip to head-high thickets of manzanita and ceanothus. The general trend: fewer forests, more shrublands." (also, https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2021/07/19/california-fires-fire-advisor-wildfires/ideas/essay/ https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2021/07/19/california-fir...)

hinkley 5y ago
I think we are going to have to put more wood behind fewer arrowheads by concentrating human restoration effort on quality over quantity. More intensely restoring tree cover to smaller areas, strategically chosen not just for convenience (access) but also for how and where it can spread on its own. Trees together collaborate on building forest, especially if there are a few older trees to serve as figurative scaffolding. If we don't know, we can study how far away an 'island' of trees can be from an intact stand and still draw mammals, birds, insects, pollen, spores, etc, across different terrains, watersheds, and seasonal winds. The animals bring plants with them, and we can 'hire' them just like plants do, if we set up the same kinds of incentives. There was a video I watched years ago that I lament not making a bookmark for. In a restoration in SE Asia they factored bird services into the equation. They planted a handful of species of plants that the birds liked for forage, and then waited for the birds to bring in other fruits on their own. At the time I think they were looking at around 2x as many species as they had planted, and I believe they expected that to continue as the forage season was expanded by each new plant that arrived.

hinkley 5y ago

I think we are going to have to put more wood behind fewer arrowheads by concentrating human restoration effort on quality over quantity. More intensely restoring tree cover to smaller areas, strategically chosen not just for convenience (access) but also for how and where it can spread on its own. Trees together collaborate on building forest, especially if there are a few older trees to serve as figurative scaffolding. If we don't know, we can study how far away an 'island' of trees can be from an intact stand and still draw mammals, birds, insects, pollen, spores, etc, across different terrains, watersheds, and seasonal winds. The animals bring plants with them, and we can 'hire' them just like plants do, if we set up the same kinds of incentives. There was a video I watched years ago that I lament not making a bookmark for. In a restoration in SE Asia they factored bird services into the equation. They planted a handful of species of plants that the birds liked for forage, and then waited for the birds to bring in other fruits on their own. At the time I think they were looking at around 2x as many species as they had planted, and I believe they expected that to continue as the forage season was expanded by each new plant that arrived.