The Man Who Planted Trees: David Milarch

I think he's got his heart in the right place, but from listening to his TED talk, I worry that planting clones of very few trees would dramatically decrease the genetic and species diversity in our forests making them more susceptible to pests and disease.

Also, he states that high grading forests has degraded the gene pool of our forests. From what I understand, the shape of trees in a forest are more related to their placement in the canopy and is more an affect of reaction to light then poor genes.

I would say its more important to encourage planting of trees in general then encouraging planting clones of the worlds oldest trees. I would also say that sustainable management of our forests is important as well, because there is no way to get around that we need wood. Our need for wood keeps forested land forested.
 
1. The idea is to make copies of the individuals that have survived the longest, through great changes in ecology and climate. That means making copies of the champion specimen of each tree, at first in America, then the rest of the world.

2. The point about the genetic strength of the individuals of the forests holds when you consider several pieces of information:

i) It is not a scientific based statement to presume that the most successful trees are those that are the longest lived or largest. But, it sure is a strong anecdotal argument. If we wait around for a scientific answer, given that our politicians have pretty much abdicated tackling the environmental problems we might face due to our industrial actions, it might be too late.

ii) Light, sure...but we're talking trees that have survived in the shade of the older and perhaps larger trees that preceded them. And then continued to survive after they were gone, through drought, fire...etc. Get the point?

iii) The majority of the largest and oldest trees with perhaps the most successful genetics have all been processed. What we are left with is a fragmented ecology which, moving forward, might not be prepared for the changes both expected and unexpected in our near future.

iv) The point of preserving the genetics of these survivors is to allow future generations with greater technological capabilities to discern the mysteries of longevity and survival.

3) "Our Need for wood keeps forested land forested."

We need a hell of a lot more from forested land than wood. It is about f&^%&% time we as a species realized this.
 
Thanks for sharing, Dylan. I'm going to dial up that TED and give it a listen and have more to share...
 
I understand what the project is trying to do, but my largest concern is with the changes that have not happened in the individuals life span. Having genetic diversity allows a forest and species to adapt to changes more then just an individual can. I certainly see the value of keeping champion trees in the gene pool, but I don't think they should be the only genes in the pool.

As far as light is concerned; as an arborist, one can look at a tree and get many clues as to what the past looked like for that tree. This is especially true with light. Most champion trees are most likely the result of a tree that began its life after a disturbance in the forest. This means that the tree was most likely not growing in the shade, but in the light. If this weren't the case, the tree would not have a canopy nearly as tall or wide. Yes it has survived multiple disturbance events, but it started its life at the beginning of a disturbance event. Forests are dynamic!

The need for wood does keep forests forested. When I talk about sustainable forest management I'm not talking all large clear cuts and monocultured plantations. I'm talking management that mimics natural disturbance regimes to preserve the forested ecosystem while producing products for human consumption. Young forests sequester carbon faster than old forests. If we harvest trees at the peak of carbon sequestration in a sustainable manor then use them as lumber, we store the carbon for the life of the wood. While this carbon is stored young trees are growing in its place to sequester carbon. The entire time, the ecosystem is conserved, and allowing more carbon to be stored in the soil and the biodiversity in the forest. This being said I do not condone harvesting old growth forests. We have plenty of forest that has been harvested to continue harvesting wood. For more info see http://www.forestguild.org/

I understand trees are worth more then wood and that is why I'm an arborist. It is important to recognize that in an urban environment trees do not naturally regenerate. We must plant them. In a sustainably managed forest, trees DO regenerate. They self seed and through the roll of the dice called genetics the most fit will survive. This is how evolution works and by depleting a gene pool through planting of clones we reduce the amount of survivors.
 
I don't like to criticize with out proposing an alternative solution so here it goes:

I think it would be more valuable for the long term survival of tree species and forests to propagate from champions seeds rather then creating clones from cuttings. This spreads the champions genetics while conserving other genes for future changes in the environment the champion may not have the genes to adapt.

As a side note, I would also say that most of the trees in the forest around a champion tree are probably direct descendents of the champion. Remember, that champion has been pumping out seeds for thousands of years.
 
No argument here, but I would point out that one of the main reasons for preserving and propagating the genetics of these old champion trees is so that, in time, we might be able to discern the mysteries held within that helical arrangement of protein.

'Our need for wood keeps forests forested.'

Such a human thing to say...haha.

I could literally write an essay about this one statement. But to keep it brief (in my verbose nature), it seems to me that this is an complete oversimplification of the reality of our relationship with forests. Especially considering we as a species are as yet ignorant of all the ways in which we are connected to and benefit from them. Yes, we need wood...so yes we set aside tracts of land for forestry management purposes and avoid developing in these areas. While you paint a pretty picture of what you think should be done, well it just ain't the case, jack. Clear cuts and monoculture plantations are pretty much all I can see in my backyard. BC is a great example of what not to do...and what was done was because our forests were chalk full of what we needed. We are left with the fractured remnants of what was...and we don't even really know the value of what we lost. Maybe my children or grandchildren will find out. But, luckily for those of us in this generation we will all probably be gone when the scope of what has been done in the last 100 years is realized. Sustainable forestry does exist...its just rare.

That and I don't know if I agree with the idea that young forests sequester more carbon than old. Where can I find that data? Especially when you consider that the older forest has more biomass than the young? I would posit that a forest which has never been messed with would be the most valuable one, ecologically speaking. The best we can do is to try and recreate that, unless we are talking about managed plantation lands that we use for wood...like a hay crop or some such. I think the main point is simply that the wood is not the most valuable part of a forest. Which would lead one to the conclusion, that our need for wood is simply part of the reason that forests remain as such.

The problem in my mind, with that type of thought, is that it seems to suggests that if we didn't need wood, we wouldn't have forests.

Thanks for making my brain work, Scuba.
 
I haven't read the book and I'm sure that goes more into depth on the purpose of the project. I think studying champion trees to see why they have been able to survive is very different then the jump to say we need to repopulate the world's forests with clones of champions.

Here are some sources:

Age-related patterns of forest complexity and carbon storage in pine and aspen-birch ecosystems of northern Minnesota, USA Bradford, John B.; Kastendick, Douglas N. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Volume 40, Issue 3, p.401 - 409 (2010)

https://www.cns.umass.edu/neclimate/cont...h-ecosystems-no

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_damato_002.pdf

Most of the theory behind young forests sequestering carbon faster is that they are growing at a faster rate, where as an old growth forest is growing much slower and may be storing a lot of carbon, but is not taking in a lot of carbon.

I have found some studies supporting your argument:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/247/4943/699.short

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0a5b32ljqb4wm7x4/

I think what it probably comes down to is carbon sequestration management will be different depending on forest type.

It's sad to say but I imagine if we didn't need wood we wouldn't have as much forest land as we do. We recognize the many values of forested land and trees in general, but most people do not. Again, I am not condoning harvesting of old growth forest. I'm just recognizing the fact that we will need to cut down trees and its more important that when we cut them down they are allowed to grow back to continue providing their many benefits rather then being paved over. A lot of the deforestation around the world that is putting us into such a horrible spot is forested land that is converted to another use, whether that be agriculture or development. Managing a forest for forest products keeps the forest intact.

You're making my brain work too Dylan. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion over such an important issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom