0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hi Andrew - I also have a vested interest in trees (I have just completed my PhD at the Institute of Forest Growth in Freiburg) and I just want to point out that of course, in general, trees are a good thing, but they do have disadvantages too. For example, non-site adapted species can be detrimental to timber production and local ecology, and can also be very susceptible to pathogens and storm damage - for example the use of spruce in many central European countries. The use of the incorrect species can have a massive effect on the local hydrological cycle. For example the use of eucalypts in Spain and Portugal which can notably reduce the local water table. Also, in the generation of HEP (Hydro-Electric Power), for example in Wales where the removal of forests can improve the production of HEP since there is less water being removed from the system by the trees' evapotranspiration. The decisions about how, where and how many trees to plant has profound consequences on the environment, and is not a decision that should be made lightly. I am in full support of improving the environment, but it needs to be a well considered approach, and one that does not jeopardise the future health and vitality of the associated ecosystems.
You should try developing some heathland for your next project - I think it's the most endangered habitat in the UK now...
Heathland is as important as forest, without a shadow of a doubt.Grazing animals, natural fires and limited resources all occur naturally, so health lands are certainly a natural, rather than man made environment.Forests are great, but support a different range of species to other environments. If we were to replace all of England's heath with forest, we would lose almost all of our remaining reptile species, a few species of ground bees, several other insects and probably a few birds.Boundaries between one habitat and another tend to be the most species rich areas.
Ye-es. However. I've always suspected planting trees was a footling way of approaching climate change (in the sense that it would never make sufficient difference to be meaningful. I've always vaguely meant to do the sums... It turns out the very clever (and thorough) David Mackay has done the sums for me.http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c31/page_245.shtmlhttp://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c31/page_246.shtmlSo we might as well stick to husbanding our forest and heathland environments to preserve diverstiy.
Andrew..One of the forum rules is that we ask that all posts be (primarily) English language, we don't have the resources to moderate foreign language posts, and although in the case of the above article in (presumably) Thai I am reasonably confident there is nothing anyone need worry about, that position has to be maintained so that we can enforce it elsewhere. Please post a translation instead.
Andrew:Do you attempt to recreate primeval mixed forest, or do you specialize in Oak? Either way the more hardwoods the better. In the states we have something called Arbor day when people plant trees. I don't know much about it. However, we have a LOT of land area that is returning to nature since it does not lend itself to industrial farming.My local stomping grounds in NE Ohio is one good example. The farm land seems to have been divied up three ways. 1) Some of it is absorbed into larger farms; 2) Some of it is subdivided for suburban housing; an 3) Some of it has simply been abandoned from agricultural or suburban development. The wildlife tell the story. When I was a kid we trapped Muskrat out of the swamps for extra money. I don't think anyone traps them anymore. Whatever. Even the beavers have returned and are now a nuisance, as are deer.Thats progress. Keep up the good work!
There is nothing to worry about in the text, although I do understand your concerns.