Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for planting

planting

Planting Millions Of Trees Isn’t So Easy | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

There are initiatives around the world to plant millions of trees as a way to fight climate change.  Unfortunately, scientists have observed that many of these projects are ill-conceived and poorly managed.  Some have failed to grow any forests at all.

One such project was an attempt to plant a million mangrove seedlings in coastal mud on the Filipino island of Luzon in 2012.  Ten years later, less than 2% of the trees have survived.  The other 98% have died or have washed away.  The problem was that the site of the project was ecologically unsuited to mangroves because it is too waterlogged and there is no oxygen available except in a few sheltered spots.

In 2019, the Turkish government managed the planting of 11 million trees in 2,000 sites across the country.  A later survey found that 90% had died, although the government denies that assertion.

Many other projects have also had dismal results.  The causes of failure vary but include planting single species of trees that become vulnerable to disease, competing demands for land, changing climate, planting in areas not previously forested, and lack of ongoing care for the saplings including watering them.

Nobody is opposed to mass tree planting.  There is no anti-tree lobby.  But tree planting is sometimes a form of greenwashing.  It is great for public relations but unless it is done properly with appropriate planning, it can be a waste of effort and money.  The result can be a phantom forest that does nothing for the climate.

Forest planting can work if the social and environmental conditions are right, and if planting is followed by long-term monitoring and care of the trees.

**********

Web Links

Phantom Forests: Why Ambitious Tree Planting Projects Are Failing

Photo, posted April 20, 2016, courtesy of the U.S. Navy / Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Benson via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Trees Are Growing Bigger | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The alarming rate of carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere is having a real and actually positive effect on plant life. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide make plants more productive because photosynthesis makes use of the sun’s energy to synthesize sugar out of carbon dioxide and water.  Plants make use of the sugar both as a source of energy and as the basic building block for growth.  When carbon dioxide levels go up, plants can take it up faster, supercharging the rate of photosynthesis.

In a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, scientists at Ohio State University found that trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions and are growing bigger as a result. 

The researchers tracked wood volume in 10 different tree groups from 1997 to 2017 and found that all of them except aspens and birches grew larger.  Over that time period, carbon dioxide levels climbed from 363 parts per million to 405 parts per million.  According to the study, each 1% increase in lifetime CO2 exposure for trees has led to more than a 1% increase in wood volume.

In the big picture, the news isn’t so positive.  The global warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels increasingly threatens the forests of the world.  It has led to worsening droughts, insect infestations, and wildfires.  So overall, increasing levels of carbon dioxide are by no means a good thing for the world’s trees.  However, since trees are growing bigger more quickly, it means that planting them is an increasingly cost-effective method for fighting climate change because the same number of trees can sequester more carbon.

**********

Web Links

As Carbon Dioxide Grows More Abundant, Trees Are Growing Bigger, Study Finds

Photo, posted September 12, 2015, courtesy of Nicholas A. Tonelli via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Primary Ways To Mitigate Climate Change | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The most recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that the world must halt the increase in greenhouse gases within three years, reduce emissions by 43% in the next seven years, and eliminate them entirely by 2050.  Otherwise, there will likely be catastrophic and irreversible impacts on the climate.

With respect to achieving these reductions, the report emphasizes decarbonizing the energy sector through electrification by replacing fossil fuels anywhere and everywhere possible.  Where that isn’t yet practical – such as in shipping and aviation – the use of biofuels and hydrogen can provide a stopgap until battery technology becomes a viable alternative.

The economics of this approach continue to improve.  Since 2010, the cost of wind, solar, and batteries has declined by as much as 85%.  In many cases, costs have fallen below those of fossil fuels.  Nonetheless, the report stresses that continuing to provide national, state, and local incentives for using renewable energy is a key factor in achieving the necessary reductions.

However, reducing emissions will no longer be enough.  This is the first major IPCC report that states that man-made carbon dioxide removal strategies will be necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.  So-called natural carbon storage options, like planting trees and using farming methods that sequester carbon in soil, are also important parts of the strategy.

It is up to governments, policymakers, and investors to implement the necessary changes to mitigate climate change.  There is lots of talk about it, but it will take concerted action to avoid increasingly dire consequences.

**********

Web Links

Report highlights affordable, available ways to mitigate climate change now

Photo, posted September 8, 2007, courtesy of Kevin Dooley via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Benefits Of No-Till Farming | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

No-till farming is not new.  In fact, it was used as far back as 10,000 years ago.  But during the 18th and 19th centuries, tilling became popular because it allowed farmers to plant seeds more efficiently.

Tilling (or ploughing) is the process of preparing the soil for the cultivation of seeds by overturning the soil.  The practice works animal manure, weeds, and other surface residues deep into the soil.  While this all sounds like a good thing, it’s not. 

Tilling removes plant matter and loosens the soil, leaving the soil bare and vulnerable to erosion.  Tilling also displaces the millions of microbes and insects that form healthy soil biology.  The long-term use of tilling can turn healthy soils into lifeless growing mediums dependent on chemical inputs.  

But no-till farming also tends to rely on chemical inputs like glyphosate for weed control.  According to a new study recently published in Agronomy Journal, researchers at Penn State have found that farmers using no-till farming can reduce herbicide use and still maintain crop yields by implementing integrated weed-management methods.   

The research team conducted a nine-year experiment using herbicide-reduction practices in a crop rotation, which included soybean, corn, alfalfa, and canola.  Some of the practices used to reduce herbicide inputs included seeding small-grain companion crops with perennials, and plowing once in six years to terminate the perennial forage rather than killing it with an herbicide. 

While there was more weed biomass in the reduced herbicide treatment, the researchers found that the added weed pressure did not substantially affect crop yields. 

It is possible to make agriculture more environmentally-friendly and sustainable without sacrificing productivity.

**********

Web Links

No-till production farmers can cut herbicide use, control weeds, protect profits

Photo, posted February 11, 2019, courtesy of the United Soybean Board via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Corn Belt Is Losing Topsoil | Earth Wise

By 2 Comments

According to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, more than a third of the farmland in the U.S. Corn Belt has completely lost its carbon-rich topsoil due to erosion.   The affected area is nearly 100 million acres and the amount of carbon loss is nearly 2 million tons.

The study, led by scientists at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, found that the greatest loss of carbon-rich topsoil was on hilltops and ridgelines.  This indicates that tillage – the repeated plowing of fields – was the primary cause of the erosion because loosened soils move downslope.

The loss of topsoil has reduced corn and soybean yields in the Midwest by 6%, resulting in a loss of nearly $3 billion a year for farmers.  In addition, the loosening of the topsoil increases runoff of sediment and nutrients into nearly waterways, worsening water quality.

Previous studies have shown that no-till farming practices can have a significant impact on reducing erosion.  A study published last November found that if farmers shifted entirely to no-till practices, it would reduce soil erosion from U.S. agricultural fields by more than 70%, as well as significantly reducing nutrient and sediment runoff. 

No-till farming is the practice of planting crops without tilling the soil.  Instead, seeds are planted through the remains of previous crops by planters or drills that cut seed furrows, place the seeds, and close the furrow.  Currently less than 15% of farmland in the upper Mississippi River watershed is farmed with no-till practices. 

Even partial changes in tilling practices could produce positive results for topsoil retention and for waterways.

**********

Web Links

One-Third of Farmland in the U.S. Corn Belt Has Lost Its Topsoil

Photo, posted September 15, 2010, courtesy of the United Soybean Board / Soybean Checkoff via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Restoring Coastal Ecosystems | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Research published by CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, examined the positive effects of restoration efforts for coastal ecosystems in terms of biodiversity, local economies, and human wellbeing.

Coastal ecosystems include saltmarshes, mangroves, seagrasses, oyster reefs, kelp beds, and coral reefs.  All of these have suffered declines of up to 85% over recent decades.  The research identified a number of successful coastal and marine restoration projects in recent years that indicate the likelihood that such efforts could be expanded by as much as a factor of ten to support human health and wellbeing, boost the adaptation response to climate change, and generate jobs. 

Some of the successful efforts identified included projects in the Great Barrier Reef to harvest coral larvae to boost large-scale coral restoration efforts.   Simple changes to how saltmarshes are planted have resulted in doubled survivorship and biomass.  In the U.S., the propagation of seagrass seeds has resulted in seagrass meadows recovering in areas where they had been lost decades ago.  In Indonesia, recovery of reefs impacted by blast fishing has been achieved by placing rocks or other hard structures underwater to help with coral colonization.

Investing in coral restoration creates jobs and can be used as a strategy to boost economic recovery and coastal marine health.  Restoration of marine habitats like kelp forests and oyster reefs has improved commercial and recreational fishing.

The United Nations has recognized the importance of coastal restoration and has declared the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to start from 2021.

**********

Web Links

Scientists shine light on ‘bright spots’ to restore coastal ecosystems

Photo, posted November 29, 2012, courtesy of Robert Linsdell via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Do Forests Grow Better With Our Help? | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Tree planting has become a worldwide cause.  International calls to plant a trillion trees to combat climate change have led to multiple initiatives by countries around the world.  Even the current U.S. administration, with support from businesses and nonprofits has promised to plant over 800 million trees across an estimated 2.8 million acres.  Planting trees is widely seen to be a vital nature-based solution to climate change; a way of moderating its effects as the world works to reduce carbon emissions.  However, recent studies have created some pushback from that view.

The new studies are not opposed to trees.  What they have revealed is that allowing forests to grow back naturally is a better strategy than planting trees.  The new data has shown that, among other things, estimates of the rate of carbon accumulation by natural forest regrowth have on average been 32% too low and, for tropical forests, have been 53% too low.

A new study published in Nature identified 1.67 billion acres that could be set aside to allow trees to regrow.  It excludes land under cultivation or built on, along with various existing valuable ecosystems. 

Natural regrowth allows nature to select which tree species take hold and turns out to happen quite rapidly and in a widespread manner.  The great thing about natural restoration of forests is that it often requires nothing more than human inaction.  Because it requires no policy initiatives, investments, or oversight, data on its extent is rather scarce.  But the data we have reveals that wherever forests have been allowed to recover on their own, it appears to happen rapidly and with great success.

**********

Web Links

Natural Debate: Do Forests Grow Better With Our Help or Without?

Photo, posted September 5, 2015, courtesy of Nicholas A. Tonelli via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Dangers Of Negative Emissions Technologies | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Reducing carbon emissions is not easy and there are plenty of people who don’t even want to try for various reasons, generally related to their perceived economic interests and convenience.  As a result, there is a great deal of interest in so-called negative emissions technologies or NETs.   These are methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that NETs will play a role in mitigating the effects of climate change and meeting international goals.

The most widely studied approaches to negative emissions technology are bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – which entails growing crops for fuel, and then capturing and burying the CO2 produced from burning the fuel; planting more forests; and direct air capture, which involves actually pulling CO2 out of the air and storing it – probably underground. 

A new study published in Nature Climate Change points out that none of these technologies has even been tried at the demonstration scale, much less at the massive levels required to make a dent in current CO2 emissions. 

Their analysis of the biofuel and reforestation strategies show that each would take up vast land and water resources already needed for agriculture and nature.  Air capture uses less water than the other two approaches, but still uses quite a bit and even more energy, which if supplied by fossil fuels, would offset the benefits of carbon capture.

Negative emissions technologies may well play an important role in combating climate change, but it is essential that we understand what the consequences will be from implementing them.  We need to know the pitfalls that could arise.  It would be a major mistake to simply count on NETs to be some kind of silver bullet.

**********

Web Links

Remove CO2 from the air? Don’t bet on it before examining costs, researchers say

Photo, posted January 11, 2008, courtesy of Al Pavangkanan via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Tree-Planting Is Not Necessarily A Good Thing | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

There is no question that forests have a major role in efforts to combat climate change as well as to slow biodiversity loss.   As a result, tree-planting on a massive scale has gained traction as a strategy and there have been major commitments made to plant billions of trees around the world.

A new study at Stanford University has rigorously analyzed the potential effects of these efforts and has found some significant problems.  For example, the Bonn Challenge, which seeks to restore an area of forest more than eight times the size of California over the next 10 years, has 80% of its commitments in the form of  planting monoculture tree plantations or a limited mix of trees that produce fruit and rubber, rather than restoring natural forests.   The problem is that plantations have significantly less potential for carbon sequestration, habitat creation, and erosion control than natural forests.  The potential benefits of the planting dwindle further if planted trees replace natural flora – forests, grasslands, or savannahs – which are ecosystems that have evolved to support local biodiversity.

The study looked at previous policies that created subsidies for planting trees.  Chile’s Decree Law, in effect from 1974 to 2012, has served as a model for similar policies in a number of countries.  Those subsidies further reduced native forest cover by encouraging the establishment of plantations in places where forests might have naturally regenerated.  The subsidies expanded the area covered by trees, but decreased the area of native forests.

The study recommends that nations should design and enforce their forest subsidy policies to avoid undesirable ecological impacts and actually promote the recovery of carbon- and biodiversity-rich ecosystems.

**********

Web Links

Poorly designed tree-planting campaigns could do more harm than good, according to Stanford researcher and others

Photo, posted April 28, 2016, courtesy of the U.S. Department of State via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Planting Trees and Climate Change | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Forests are among the most important natural carbon sinks.  Trees remove carbon from the air and store it in their trunks, branches, and leaves, and transfer part of it into the soil.  But in some regions, these natural carbon sinks are starting to weaken due to deforestation, forest degradation, and the impacts of climate change.  This problem has led some climate mitigation projects to focus on increasing the overall number of trees on the planet. 

But, according to a paper recently published in the journal Science, “we can’t plant our way out of climate change.”  That’s the simple message from Restoration Ecologist Karen Holl and University of São Paulo Professor Pedro Brancalion to anyone who thinks planting one trillion trees will reverse the effects of climate change.  They say planting more trees is only one piece of the puzzle.  Any initiatives like 1t.org or the Trillion Tree Campaign must be done carefully and be accompanied by commitments to long-term management.

Tree plantings can provide many environmental benefits, including improving water quality, biodiversity, and increasing shade.  But trees can sometimes have undesirable impacts, such as harming native species and ecosystems or reducing water availability, depending on where and how the trees are planted.

The authors suggest four principles that should guide forest enhancement initiatives: reduce forest clearing and degradation, balance ecological and social goals, view tree plantings as one part of a multifaceted solution, and plan, coordinate and monitor the work. 

While tree plantings can clearly be part of the solution, slowing the pace of climate change requires a comprehensive approach that must start with burning less fossil fuels.

**********

Web Links

Challenges in tree-planting programs

Planting trees is no panacea for climate change

Photo, posted December 1, 2019, courtesy of Akuppa John Wigham via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Intense Rainfall And Crops

By Leave a Comment

The warming of the planet does not necessarily imply local weather will be warmer or drier than average.  While heatwaves and droughts are increasingly common events in many places, so are intense rain events.

A new study led by scientists at the University of Illinois has found that intense rainfall is as damaging to the U.S. agricultural sector as heatwaves and excessive droughts.

The study examined more than three decades of crop insurance, climate, soil, and corn yield data.  Researchers found that since 1981, corn yields in the U.S. Midwest were reduced by as much as 34% during years with excessive rainfall.  Years with drought and heatwaves experienced yield losses of up to 37%.

Intense rain events can physically damage crops, delay planting and harvesting, restrict root growth, and cause oxygen deficiency and nutrient loss.  The study estimated that between 1989 and 2016, excessive rainfall caused $10 billion in agricultural losses. However, excessive rainfall can have either negative or positive impact on crop yield and the effects can vary regionally.

Parts of the Midwest have already experienced a 42% increase in the heaviest precipitation events since 1958.  Climate change models predict that much of this region will experience even more frequent and intense precipitation events in the coming decade.

According to the study, excessive rainfall is the major cause of crop damage currently in the U.S. for corn, and also has broad impacts for other staple crops such as soybeans and wheat. The authors suggest that as rainfall becomes more extreme, reforms will be needed in the U.S. crop insurance industry in order to better meet planting challenges faced by farmers. 

**********

Web Links

Intense Rainfall Is As Damaging to Crops As Heatwaves and Drought, and Climate Change Is Making It Worse

Photo, posted October 2, 2013, courtesy of the United Soybean Board via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Trees And The Future Of Cities

By Leave a Comment

The shade of a single tree is a welcome source of relief on a hot summer day.  But even a relatively small patch of woods can have a profound cooling effect.  A new study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison looks at the role trees play in keeping towns and cities cool.

According to the study, the right amount of tree cover can lower daytime temperatures in the summer by as much as 10 degrees.  The effects are noticeable from neighborhood to neighborhood and even on a block-by-block basis.

Cities are well-known to be hot spots due to the urban heat islanding effect.  Using trees to keep temperatures more comfortable in cities can make a big difference for the people who live and work there.

The man-made structures of cities – roads, sidewalks, and buildings – absorb heat from the sun during the day and slowly release it at night.  Trees, on the other hand, not only shade those structures from the sun, but they also transpire -or release water in the air through their leaves – which helps to cool things down.

According to the study, to get maximum cooling benefits, tree canopies must exceed forty percent, meaning that city blocks need to be nearly halfway covered by tree branches and leaves.  To get the biggest bang for the buck, cities should start planting more trees in areas that are already near the forty percent threshold.  But

trees can’t just be in parks.  They need to be in places where people are active.

If we want the places where we live to be more comfortable and resilient in a warming world, we need to plant more trees.

**********

Web Links

Study suggests trees are crucial to the future of our cities

Photo, posted May 26, 2012, courtesy of Mislav Marohnic via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio is a regional public radio network serving parts of seven northeastern states (more...)