Ecolog: To minimize the temptation to get lost in the brambles, I'm going to annotate McNeely's remarks [[thus. WT]]
WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration > 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. [[Good addition to this thread. This is a large subject, and I hope all the comments lead to wider consideration of the merits of various approaches to fostering a wider understanding of the value of real rather than fantastical conceptions of what ecology is and is not all about. WT]] > 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. [[I applaud any city which has > made progress in a more realistic approach to land development with respect > to ecosystems at all scales. The issue of what "native" means may best be > left to a separate, though related, thread of discussion that has its own > importance in transitioning the human-earth relationship from one of > exploitation to one of mutualism. WT]] > > 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 > hillside and hilltop woods themselves, however, are native Cross Timbers. [[This sounds like a good example of the integration of landscaping with ecosystem restoration, management, and preservation that could come to characterize a more sensible, useful, aesthetic, and more efficient approach to our relationship to the land right under our feet and noses as well as the earth itself. WT]] > 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. [[Indeed, we may never know the effects of small-scale projects on climate change, but everything has to start someplace, and if such projects give rise to greater awareness that produces a paradigm shift within individuals and cultures, the implications for enhanced ecosystem health on a large enough scale to have effects on many aspects of global systems. WT]] [[ > > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 >
