Comment by jvm___ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jvm___ | Hacker News Reader

The Curiosity Daily podcast had a related topic this past week. There are plans to plant 1 billion (or 1 Trillion) trees at various levels of government (WEF is the 1Trillion number). So researchers went out to try to find saplings from local nurseries that could supply the diversity of trees that would be needed. They found that less than half the nurseries could supply saplings - and very few were 'climate change friendly' saplings, most were decorative or other non-climate-friendly trees.

“Plans to plant billions of trees threatened by massive undersupply of seedlings.” by Joshua Brown. 2023. https://www.uvm.edu/news/story/plans-plant-billions-trees-th...

“A lack of ecological diversity in forest nurseries limits the achievement of tree-planting objectives in response to global change.” by Peter W. Clark, et al. 2023. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-abstract...

“Trees Help Fight Climate Change.” Arbor Day Foundation. N.d. “Benefits of Planting Trees.” Tree Advisory Board. N.D. https://www.bgky.org/tree/benefits

... of course the nurseries don't have seedlings to plant one trillion trees. Growing seedlings of the appropriate species would have to be part of that effort.

There are volunteer efforts in some places to spread the load in starting seedlings. Not sure how effective it would be though in contributing to an effort of that scale where you need commercial scale to make a dent.

It can be done though, if anyone that has a balcony or a back yard were to look after a tray of seedlings (25 or so trees?) until they're ready to be planted, it'd quickly add up. The challenge then becomes logistics though. But again, can be done with volunteers.

Can you expand on the difference between climate change friendly and non climate change friendly trees, for the noobs like me?

The money is in growing saplings of white-pine, the ones commercial re-planters will buy - because they grow fast and can be turned into toilet paper in 25(?) years. Growing saplings of local 'slow' growing, non-harvestable species doesn't make you $$$.

"In essence, forest nurseries tended to maintain a limited inventory of a select few species, electing to prioritize those valued for commercial timber production over species required for conservation, ecological restoration, or climate adaptation."

"Yet, in their 20-state survey, the team only found two tree nurseries that had inventory of red spruce, a species from which many millions of seedlings are needed to meet restoration goals. “Remarkably, only 800 red spruce seedlings were commercially available for purchase in 2022,” the team reports in their new Bioscience study, “—enough to reforest less than one hectare.”

Maybe we should plant seeds, same as nature does. Dozens of different seeds per m2, nature would choose what'd survive and flourish.

An example of a forest farm planted with the same approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ST9NyHf09M

I recall some initiative (in Africa, iirc) where locals would collect seeds of random herbs, shrubs, trees etc, mix those up & pack into seed bombs.

Then others who travel around for their work, would toss those in random places. From bicycle thrown some distance from roadside, or a bush pilot dropping some during flight, etc.

Basically as many different seeds in as many different places as possible. Then let nature do its thing.

Note this was still mostly local. So not introducing invasive species from other side of the globe. Just helping native species to spread a bit further & faster.

Yes, that's a very effective method. Such initiatives are all over the world.

It's based on ancient method of seedballs, promoted by Fukuoka.

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/06/18/making-seedballs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqYTz6-zGcg

The same problem exists at the seed level. Who is collecting the 2 trillion seeds (50% germination rate)?

It's a similar problem but on a smaller scale (it's easier/cheaper to collect & spread seeds than grow & plant the seedlings).

Perhaps we could, I dunno, pay people to do it with the millions(billions) of dollars of carbon credits? Isn't that what they're for?

If you want to prioritise speedy regeneration then this is not the best approach. Nature is incredibly effective in the slow and steady mode of operation but to maximise efficiency you need to be more deliberate.

This method is known as "close planting" or "high-density planting". It's frequently employed in regeneration projects, such as the Green Great Wall in China. Syntropic agriculture, as seen in the video I've posted, and Miyawaki forests also use this approach.

Akira Miyawaki developed a variant of this method, which involves planting a variety of native species in close proximity. The idea is that the trees compete for sunlight, growing upwards more than outwards, leading to a fast-establishing and diverse forest.

https://www.sugiproject.com/blog/the-miyawaki-method-for-cre...

Another example would be Mark Shephard's farm where he's using his Sheer Utter Total Neglect (STUN) method. He describes in his video that the goal is to find a combination of plants that is so resilient, that you can't kill those trees even if you try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=RePJ3rJa1Wg

Sure, it's essential to ensure that the selected species are suitable for the specific soil, climate, and conditions of the site. Additionally, as the forest grows, some form of management, like thinning or selective removal of species, may be required to ensure the forest remains healthy and achieves the desired goals.

Did you even read your own links? They are carefully preparing soil and planting saplings, not randomly scattering seeds. The exact opposite of what gp is suggesting. They are planting in an intentional manner exactly as I said.

> carefully preparing soil and planting sapling

None of that is strictly necessary. While it helps, it's not a requirement. Simply selecting the right seeds, maximizing cover/photosynthesis, and perhaps mowing at the appropriate time are usually sufficient, unless the soil is seriously degraded.

https://www.amazon.com/Sowing-Seeds-Desert-Restoration-Ultim...

Fukuoka spent years working with people and organizations in Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Europe, and the United States, to prove that you could, indeed, grow food and regenerate forests with very little irrigation in the most desolate of places.

By randomly scattering seeds.

Supply and demand then; if there's demand for a million of these saplings, the nurseries will adapt. I don't understand why this is posited as a weird finding. Just place an order for X saplings and the nurseries will get to work.

If a plant isn't native, the insects and animals that eat or use it aren't around, those that are can't use it, and it's of limited use to the ecosystem. Not to mention it's interactions with other plants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com