Honorable Forum:
Rose's additions and clarifications are illuminating. My concerns too are
general--related to principle--not specific to the South-Central Iowa area.
While I am not overly concerned with individual projects at local scales,
particularly urban areas, I am concerned with the impression left with the
public at large, upon which ecological distinctions are largely lost. And,
of course, the implication that tree planting on a scale actually large
enough to have any measurable effect upon global warming can be effective
enough is disturbing, even though I do not necessarily wish to imply that
the case instant is itself all that disturbing.
I only hope that students of all ages and the public at large are not
mislead into thinking that the rather romantic practice of tree planting,
whether or not a site is actually suitable or historically a tree or forest
habitat, will even be a preferable allocation of concern and investment in
"solving" the global warming phenomenon. Such investments may be better
directed at oceanic organisms and scales, and certainly, as I believe
Hernandez may be suggesting, that simply stopping the wholesale destruction
of forests, particularly in the tropics, are more likely to have an effect
on the carbon balance than Arbor Day-like projects that, while perhaps
consciousness-raising, simply seduce us with an appealing fantasy rather
than actually educate and move in the direction of actual solutions.
I would emphasize that considering the ecological context is ALWAYS
possible; and it's high time that horticulturalists realize that they can
choose to move from fascinating fantasies toward even more fascinating
realities if they do so. The too-common, even prevalent idea that
landscaping and gardening as currently practiced is "natural" or yes, even
"ecological" is in fact far from ecological or natural is largely fiction,
and fostering that idea is simply fraudulent.
I hope that Johnson, Hernandez, Rose and similarly enlightened folks will
propagate the idea that urban spaces actually can be made to better fit into
local ecosystems, not only without giving up aesthetic considerations, but
actually enhancing them.
The answer to the genetic uniformity issue with nursery stock is to stop
using it--at least until the nursery industry stops its
industrial-production obsession. Throw out the nursery catalogs. Look to the
kinds of ecosystems that existed prior to their destruction, and at least
exhaust the ecological options (of which most of the
nursery/gardening/landscaping industry is ignorant of and even biased
against) before resorting to non-indigenous species--however, when this is
done, it may be better, in ecosystem terms, for the species selected to be
aliens from very different climatic and ecological conditions so that
reproduction is prevented. Selecting species that are well-adapted can
seriously backfire, simply because the selected species came from a similar
climate on another continent. Liquidambar, for example, can be a weedy tree
in some locations beyond its natural or original range.
And above all, discard the notion that GMO trees will provide a solution to
global warming for the fraud that it is, promulgated by corporate
profiteers, not responsible natural scientists. Any additional sequestration
that some lab-created and patented tree variety MIGHT (or might not, despite
reckless claims) provide would have to be so miniscule as to have no
significant or actual effect upon global warming.
My purpose in commenting here is to support and supplement the comments of
Rose and Hernandez and to better understand what Johnson is proposing, not
to dictate or micromanage from afar. I do not expect great changes in
established habits overnight, but I do believe that ecologists should stand
up and be counted, and help the industries that deal in living things to
make better choices. Homo sapiens has been increasingly deluding itself for
the last ten millennia or so, and it's time we started to make amends for
the damage we have done to the earth in the most sensible way possible. And
it IS possible. It's just a matter of the knowledge, the understanding, and
the will to do so.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Rose" <katieroseouts...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Tyson adds a much appreciated nuanced response. I agree that
ecological context should be taken into account whenever possible, as
well as with his point about looking at the whole carbon footprint of
a planting project. I am unfamiliar with the ecological context of
South-Central Iowa:I was answering generally without looking at the
specific question. So first generally:
Planting trees which were grown nearby not only lower the carbon
balance of the project (through reducing transportation costs), but
also lower the chance of pests being spread (which often happens
through the movement of nursery stock). Furthermore, planting trees
grown in local nurseries makes it more likely that the trees are
already adjusted to the local climatic conditions. I agree that trees
should be planted in the context of the area: not only will this make
their success more likely, but can help boost populations of native
trees.
Both age diversity and genetic variation are an important component of
a healthy forest, but may be difficult to accomplish. Age diversity
requires long term planning. In Durham, NC we are currently
experiencing the result of a lack of this planning: the city is filled
with beautiful willow oaks, who have reached their age limit and are
now dying more or less all at once. My impression is that within
species genetic diversity is hard to accomplish when utilizing nursery
stock. Thoughts?
Now, as to specifically planting trees in South-Central Iowa. Often we
move without looking at the larger affects on the ecosystem. What
happens if the trees planted escape and take over? Are we planting
trees easily controlled, or does it matter? In the Carolinas we have
problems with escaped china berry and bradford pear and are beginning
to see the escape of lacebark elm. However, in the face of the
dramatic loss of forests across the midwest due to the beetles, maybe
we should be actively creating forests in other locations. Or should
we working to maintain the ecosystems around us how currently are,
remembering that they are as much as a verb as a noun?
Perhaps this is too big of a question for this thread, but I am
curious to hear what those with more experience than I think.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
Ecolog:
[Note: I, for one, like this way of responding to initial posts, with the
original subject-line and the string of subsequent comments preserved,
rather than individual responses to the initial post. I know it is not
possible for this to remain uniform, because some will post before one or
more other responses are posted, (ships will pass in the night) but it is
nice to have the thread in a sequence. I also appreciate it a lot when
tangential posts preserve the original subject line whilst adding an
appropriate subject label ahead of the initial one so that I, the reader,
can follow all of the branches of all the tangents back to their source.]
I share Rose's comment about the Hernandez post, which I agree is "right
on."
I am not opposed to Rose's comments, but they do strike some complex
chords for me.
Rose is right on when she mentions resilience, and I would add that not
only diversity in species is important, but diversity of age classes and
genetic variation also is important--yea, more important than species
diversity in some contexts. One thing troubles me a bit however. Well,
maybe it troubles mee a lot.
The implication of Rose's and Johnson's remarks seems to be that one can
decide to plant all kinds of different species without regard to the
suitability of the site for the species, although they perhaps believe
that such goes without saying. In my days in the U.S. Forest Service, for
example, we were careful, perhaps absurdly so, about the provenance of the
seeds collected, taking care to note the elevation, orientation, slope
aspect, etc. so that the resulting saplings could be planted in comparable
circumstances, believing that a good match of the genes to the site would
maximize the potential for survival (e.g., temperature tolerance range,
etc.) and result in optimum growth potential. I know that forest science
has undoubtedly come a long way since then, so I look forward to those
more advanced to bring me up to date.
But what disturbs me even more is the unstated possibility that various
sorcerer's apprentices might loose designer-trees based upon some
marginal, perhaps largely fictional, increased ability to provide a single
"ecosystem service." (For some reason the Irish potato famine comes to
mind . . .)
The request also strikes me as more horticultural than ecological, and
Rose and Johnson seem to imply that planting trees in South-Central Iowa
(or any other location) can be done without regard to ecological context.
While all the things Rose mentions are "good," and can be part of the
ecological context, I often hear/read/see similar tree boosterism
overriding ecosystem concerns as well-intentioned prescriptions without
regard to context.
Also (almost?) never mentioned are the supposedly tangential but real
factors in the net-energy and carbon-balance equations that include energy
consumption and carbon-release numbers associated with the production,
transportation, and planting of growing trees. I stand ready to be further
enlightened on this subject as well.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Rose" <katieroseouts...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
Hello Dr. Johnson,
I'd like to supplement some of the points made by Jason Hernandez,
which are all right on.
The best way to promote carbon sequestration is to plant a resilient
forest: one that has a combination of tree species so you are buffered
against pests and diseases, and then plan for what you will do with
the trees after they die. If you plant trees which can be used to
create furniture, such as cherry, oaks or pines, you will be creating
a more permanent carbon sink. Also you can direct dead trees to a
facility which will burn them for fuel: this will not only produce
"carbon neutral" power, but will prevent more fossil fuels from being
used. Finally, you can compost tree matter (leaves, pruned branches,
etc). Although much of the carbon will be released, some will remain
in the soil, which is actually a very under appreciated "carbon sink".
An aside: besides providing for carbon storage, trees help cities in a
huge variety of ways. They improve urban streams by intercepting storm
water (prevent flooding), stabilizing and creating soil, contributing
organic matter, and cooling stream water. Trees cool streets and
buildings, reducing air conditioning costs (and therefor lessening the
electricity needed to climate control the building). They remove
pollutants from the air, and provide habitats for birds, bugs,
squirrels, and other wildlife.
Katie Rose
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jason Hernandez
<jason.hernande...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your criteria are shared by countless homeowners wanting to landscape
their yards (fast growing, long-lived, low maintenance). Unfortunately,
there are physiological tradeoffs involved, whereby fast growing trees
tend to "live fast" in other ways, too, and hence are as a general rule
not long-lived. Think about the way forest succession works: fast growing
trees fill in gaps quickly, reproducing before the competition catches
up; slow growing trees are the shade tolerant ones, coming up underneath
the fast growing pioneers and eventually supplanting them.
From what I have read of carbon sequestration (as it is not my primary
area of knowledge), old-growth forests hold a lot of carbon, but do not
take it up quickly; the decomposition of old trees and the carbon uptake
of growing trees about cancel out, making the old-growth forest
approximately carbon-neutral. Young forests take up carbon quickly, but
as they age, the uptake rate slows down. When a tree decomposes, all the
carbon sequestered in its biomass is re-released. So to have effective
sequestration, you would have to have a steady supply of young trees
taking up carbon, without a concurrent stream of decomposing trees. Net
growth would have to exceed net decomposition. In other words, the only
long-term way to counteract ever-increasing CO2 emissions, is to have
ever-increasing acreage of forest.
Jason Hernandez
________________________________
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:59:02 -0800
From: Stephen Johnson <pseud8c...@yahoo.com>
Subject: best tree species for carbon sequestration
dear Ecolog-ers,
I am designing a tree planting-planting project designed to counter CO2
production at a college in south central Iowa. Students will be involved
in planting. I have heard that Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are both good candidates for carbon
sequestration an I wonder if there is any primary literature that backs
the claim. Also are there any other tree species with high rates of
carbon uptake and biomass accumulation, fast growing and long-lived and
with low maintenance and perhaps with any or all of these properties
reflected in any scientific studies.
Dr. Stephen R. Johnson
Freelance Plant Ecologist/Botanist
pseud8c...@yahoo.com
--
Katie Rose Levin
Duke University, Nicholas School of The Environment
Masters of Environmental Management Candidate, 2012
Masters of Forestry Candidate, 2012
Environmental Professional, National and North Carolina Association of
Environmental Professionals
Wilderness First Responder, National Outdoors Leadership School
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do
not expect to sit. ~Nelson Henderson
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4833 - Release Date: 02/26/12
--
Katie Rose Levin
Duke University, Nicholas School of The Environment
Masters of Environmental Management Candidate, 2012
Masters of Forestry Candidate, 2012
Environmental Professional, National and North Carolina Association of
Environmental Professionals
Wilderness First Responder, National Outdoors Leadership School
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do
not expect to sit. ~Nelson Henderson
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4833 - Release Date: 02/26/12
