How millions of trees brought a broken landscape back to life | Hacker News Reader

How millions of trees brought a broken landscape back to life

theguardian.com

45 pointsmafro23 comments

A similar transformation has been done in Eastern Germany since the wall came down. The GDR was heavily dependent on brown coal for its energy production, devastating large areas of countryside in northern Saxony (south of Berlin) with open pit mines. Today these pit mines are flooded and have been turned into lakes. The difference when traveling though this area in the mid-90's couldn't be greater. Huge deep dirt holes with rusting machinery have been replaced with blue lakes with white sailing yachts amidst green forest and heathlands.

Here's a 2010 article (one of the few in english I found): http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/extreme-makeover...

Overall the situation of forests in Europe has been improving since the 90s [0].

In Germany wolves are back [1], elks are beginning to come back [2] and occasionally even a bear visits [3].

Of course this is only partly intended. Many effects - like the German Green Belt [4] - are just a consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union or - like in the article - dying industries. Still I find it very uplifting how fast nature can recover.

[0]: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS

[1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/113...

(2): http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wild-elks-return...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_JJ1

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Green_Belt

One thing makes me curious. Here in Carpathians, if you leave unmaintained plot of land, it will turn into forest by itself in 20 years. First it gets grown over by blackberries, wild roses and other thorny bushes (birds excrement the seeds everywhere). Few years later, between the bushes trees (like maple) will grow from seeds brought in by wind. You can't plant trees directly into the grass, they don't compete well with it and prefer growing between the bushes instead. Why apparently noone in the UK realized that there's easier more natural way?

I've seen the same phenomenon in New England. If you stop mowing a field for five years, within twenty you'll have a young wood lot. Clear-cut forest grows back even faster - as you said, two-three years of blackberries, then hardwood whips will come back from the seed dormant on the ground or the old stumps, and grow up into harvestable timber again in short order. Unless the logging companies are trying to grow a piece back with something that wouldn't naturally grow, there's rarely a need to replant.

I would suppose that in this situation, the landscape is too devastated for the natural process to quickly recolonize the area. With so much open pit/strip mining, the old topsoil is stripped away,so all of that residual seed that would otherwise spring up no longer is present, and the soil present is far less welcoming to any wind-blown or animal-deposited seed.

Did you look at the area that is trying to be restored? This is not just an "unmaintained plot of land", these are open-pit coal mines [0].

[0] https://i.imgur.com/AtjYk17.jpg (rehosted, but it is the first picture in the linked article)

Have you considered the possibility that people know what they're doing and have not embarked on multi-million pound project without realising how trees work?

By the sound of it, the land has been out of use for a while and had not already grown back. Probably due to lack of nearby trees to seed from?

This is pretty well known in the UK. See, for example, the "Rothamsted Broadbalk and Geescroft Wilderness Experiment" [1] which was started in 1880.

I suspect that the critical difference here is that the landscape was blighted by a century or more of open cast mining and heavy industry

[1] http://www.era.rothamsted.ac.uk/Wilderness

I'd love to see the ecological models or decision making rules that were applied to decide where to plant the trees, what kind and how many to plant, and any other imporant factors that a lay person like myself might not think of. Open sourcing the decision making process could spread these techniques to many more locations.

The UK is completely strong enough to invest in areas of need around the world AND in the landscape/enviroment in the UK also.

It's a matter of priorities and political will (both by the UK and Indian government), not ability nor lack of need by those aid is aimed at.

a really nice short movie about this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvYh8ar3tc

> "Why would you not do this? It has cost just £2.5m a year..."

This is is a real feel-good success story and all for 2.5 GBP a year. The frustrating side of this is that the UK Government gives hundreds of millions of GBP in aid per year to nations like India, who have their own space program. Just imagine how this money could be used to transform the landscape and environment in the UK itself.

In hn of all places, I'd expect people to appreciate the benefits of a space program. Are you saying that should not be a priority because they recieve aid?

I mean, there is valid criticism of any aid program, and you pick that?

His point is that if India can afford their space program, UK should not be sending them aid.

Ie just like if your cousin decides to buy a Ferrari, you probably should not have to to support him financially.

And I disagree with that point. India is a large country. I believe having a space program is a sensible long term investment.

A space program is not a luxury.

I guess the point is that some benchmark should be used to determine whether a country is rich enough to take care of it s citizens. You and the commenter above disagree whether space program can be considered such metric.

Investments in space are an investment in the future of mankind. In a sense, a big chunk of the funds in either space exploration or international aid are effectively lit on fire - except in one case, it's in literal burning rocket fuel, and in the other wanton corruption...

It's not like the USA or USSR didn't have their share of problems or pockets of crushing poverty when they were engaging in the space race, either.

IMHO, It's more like your cousin decides to buy a $200 textbook on Organic Chemistry.

Space Program is more of an investment than luxury.

That example misconstrues what foreign aid is actually about.

It's not about propping up poor economies: it's a diplomatic tool.

You may have perfectly legitimate reasons to support your Ferrari buying cousin, if you thought he was going to buy a house (or on the scale of an economy, build a factory in return).

Its about a lot of things. Including disaster relief, and humanitarian ideals. Along with the diplomacy.

I've read it as a criticism of giving money to a country which is rich enough to fund a space program, when there isn't enough money to fund initiatives at home. Sure, space programs are great, but unlike food and health care they are not a necessity.

Britain had sent 'foreign aid' to India for hundreds of years--but the returns just aren't so great anymore.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_India

I'm only surprised because this story has basically nothing to do with India's space program. HN has its share of "India is too poor to do space" commenters that come out of the woodwork on every ISRO related story.

Aid to India will come with many strings attached, which are intended to benefit Britain in the long term.

It's likely money well spent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com