4 ms·

Where did you find this information? In most places modern technology has only increased the rate it is possible log, which has allowed for large scale clear cu

Where did you find this information? In most places modern technology has only increased the rate it is possible log, which has allowed for large scale clear cutting to occur. Although many trees are successfully planted each year, very little old growth forest remains. Most people are not aware of how much logging has actually occurred, because it is done away from the road. Secondary forests are also often monocultures, and planted essentially as bumper crops. Which means that they can not support the same biodiversity as the original trees that are being replaced. My experience with this comes from working in the Canadian Silviculture industry as a tree planter for several years. If it is possible to create timber in a lab faster then it is possible to grow a tree, this could be really exciting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_forest

hcurtiss 4y ago
What information? The fact that there are more trees today than 100 years ago? Lots of sources on that. [1][2][3] As for the rest, I think the magic of trees is self-evident, and though I work in the industry, I don't think the utility of trees is terribly controversial. Also, relative to your arguments around old growth, that strikes me as moving the goal posts (and not terribly relevant as there's very little old growth harvest ongoing in the US -- what's left has almost all been protected). But as for the article's argument that "At that rate, some scientists predict the world’s forests could disappear in 100 to 200 years." -- that's simply preposterous. [1] "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." https://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm https://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm [2] https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115 https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-... [3] "The acreage of all private and public forests have remained the same over the last half-century. The area of productive unreserved forest and (timberland) has remained stable for the last 50 years. The reserved (timberlands where cutting is not allowed) are actually increasing." https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343034 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343...
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  1920 is a convenient date since peak deforestation was in the 1910’s. You can only go up from rock bottom, no? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > 1920 is a convenient date since peak deforestation was in the 1910’s. You can only go up from rock bottom, no? Measuring from historic highs will make a positive trend look like a negative one. Which is why if you want to work out whether trees are increasing or decreasing you measure from the recent minimum.
- markandrewj 4y ago
  It could be correct that the number of trees total is increasing in America, and that would be excellent if true, but healthy forests require trees that are left to become mature. It also means a complex forest ecology made up of more then a few select species of vegetation. Most of the trees that are planted each year in Canada, are planted as crops, to be logged for industrial use, before being able to reach full maturity. Although there are some companies which are making efforts to log, and manage forests, in a sustainable way. This research is interesting to me, because if we were able produce organic materials such as wood fibre in a lab, it could reduce our dependency on harvesting natural resources, and the impact it has on forests. Although I don't agree with the sentiment that "At that rate, some scientists predict the world’s forests could disappear in 100 to 200 years.", I would argue there is a distinction between a primary forest, a secondary forest, and a crop. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/primary-forests-definition-and-protection/ https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/pri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_degradation "Since 1990, it is estimated that some 420 million hectares of forest have been lost through conversion to other land uses, although the rate of deforestation has decreased over the past three decades. Between 2015 and 2020, the rate of deforestation was estimated at 10 million hectares per year, down from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. The area of primary forest worldwide has decreased by over 80 million hectares since 1990. More than 100 million hectares of forests are adversely affected by forest fires, pests, diseases, invasive species, drought and adverse weather events.[3]" I think the 'utility of trees' may not be controversial, but people may have different perspectives on what they view as the 'utility of trees'. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-fires-logging-british-columbia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-... https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/blog/map-reveals-british-columbia-old-growth-forests/ https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/blog/map-reveals-british... https://veridianecological.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/bcs-old-growth-forest-report-web.pdf https://veridianecological.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/bcs-o... Although this research is interesting, the use of drones for reforestation may be more immediately applicable. Treeplanting is normally a process which is done by hand. Through the 70's there were a number of innovations in the process, planting via drones may provide further possibilities. Not to mention the application of drones in sites surveys.

hcurtiss 4y ago

What information? The fact that there are more trees today than 100 years ago? Lots of sources on that. [1][2][3] As for the rest, I think the magic of trees is self-evident, and though I work in the industry, I don't think the utility of trees is terribly controversial. Also, relative to your arguments around old growth, that strikes me as moving the goal posts (and not terribly relevant as there's very little old growth harvest ongoing in the US -- what's left has almost all been protected). But as for the article's argument that "At that rate, some scientists predict the world’s forests could disappear in 100 to 200 years." -- that's simply preposterous. [1] "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." https://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm https://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm [2] https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115 https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-... [3] "The acreage of all private and public forests have remained the same over the last half-century. The area of productive unreserved forest and (timberland) has remained stable for the last 50 years. The reserved (timberlands where cutting is not allowed) are actually increasing." https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343034 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343...

fnordpiglet 4y ago
1920 is a convenient date since peak deforestation was in the 1910’s. You can only go up from rock bottom, no? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > 1920 is a convenient date since peak deforestation was in the 1910’s. You can only go up from rock bottom, no? Measuring from historic highs will make a positive trend look like a negative one. Which is why if you want to work out whether trees are increasing or decreasing you measure from the recent minimum.
markandrewj 4y ago
It could be correct that the number of trees total is increasing in America, and that would be excellent if true, but healthy forests require trees that are left to become mature. It also means a complex forest ecology made up of more then a few select species of vegetation. Most of the trees that are planted each year in Canada, are planted as crops, to be logged for industrial use, before being able to reach full maturity. Although there are some companies which are making efforts to log, and manage forests, in a sustainable way. This research is interesting to me, because if we were able produce organic materials such as wood fibre in a lab, it could reduce our dependency on harvesting natural resources, and the impact it has on forests. Although I don't agree with the sentiment that "At that rate, some scientists predict the world’s forests could disappear in 100 to 200 years.", I would argue there is a distinction between a primary forest, a secondary forest, and a crop. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/primary-forests-definition-and-protection/ https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/data-and-research/pri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_degradation "Since 1990, it is estimated that some 420 million hectares of forest have been lost through conversion to other land uses, although the rate of deforestation has decreased over the past three decades. Between 2015 and 2020, the rate of deforestation was estimated at 10 million hectares per year, down from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. The area of primary forest worldwide has decreased by over 80 million hectares since 1990. More than 100 million hectares of forests are adversely affected by forest fires, pests, diseases, invasive species, drought and adverse weather events.[3]" I think the 'utility of trees' may not be controversial, but people may have different perspectives on what they view as the 'utility of trees'. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-fires-logging-british-columbia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/canada-floods-... https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/blog/map-reveals-british-columbia-old-growth-forests/ https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/blog/map-reveals-british... https://veridianecological.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/bcs-old-growth-forest-report-web.pdf https://veridianecological.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/bcs-o... Although this research is interesting, the use of drones for reforestation may be more immediately applicable. Treeplanting is normally a process which is done by hand. Through the 70's there were a number of innovations in the process, planting via drones may provide further possibilities. Not to mention the application of drones in sites surveys.