To consider the possibility that using nursery stock has very negative ecological consequences one need only visit a large scale tree and shrub production facility. Certainly the quantity of fertilizers and pesticides used, coupled with extensive runoff (the largest one in Oklahoma is in the Ozarks east of Tulsa on steep terrain with very shallow and rocky soils in a karst geology) have potentially devastating effects.
Cities and other jurisdiction can (and I believe a few have) develop codes that require developers to leave what is there so far as possible. A smaller total developed footprint can allow native (whatever that means) landscapes to remain in place. This is not a new notion. but a lot of the work that is contemplated by cities and developers today is renovation in existing developed property, some of it having displaced "native" landscape decades ago. My small city has in place one of the nicer city parks in this area. It was placed atop a former dump (that was there long before the term or the practice of "landfill" existed). The dumping had simply taken place amongst clumps of native grasses and trees (for those familiar with the southern plains, it is in the mixed oak/prairie area known as the "Cross Timbers"). With careful work, the city was able to get a quite nice semi-natural park established, and the native trees and meadows that sit atop the hills complement the playgrounds and picnic areas in riparian areas. Some replanting was done, mostly with locally native species that are fairly easily established, like cedar elm and shumard oak, rather than the more difficult cross timbers species such as post oak and blackjack. The hillsi! de and hilltop woods themselves, however, are native Cross Timbers. Was carbon sequestering a consideration in the park development? Not at all at the time, several decades ago. Is it a reasonable factor to consider now for such work? Probably not. Tyson is correct, that a different attitude and action regarding the largescale removal of native ecosystems is needed to have any effect. But, has the increase in wooded area in the eastern U.S. over the past century slowed the advance of climate change? I haven't seen an adequate analysis to know. mcneely ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > 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 -- David McNeely
