# Is deforestation really a threat?



## Scifi fan (Jan 31, 2009)

I don't believe in limits to growth, because we will always find new ways around problems and new resources. But it seems that at least one problem is not as bad as previously thought - deforestation. 

It seems that new forests are growing at a rapid rate, replacing the areas that were previously razed. They're not as thick as the previous ones, but they're pretty active, and, I think, in a couple of decades or so, can become as thick and robust as their predecessors. 

I've been wondering about this for awhile. I mean, if you don't mow your lawn for a few months, the grass will grow pretty high, and ancient cities have been swallowed up by forests. So this should not be surprising.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 31, 2009)

It may not be a true threat YET, but one must remember that the world's human population is growing-hence the creation AND maintainence of new cities, not to mention the expansion of pre-existing ones. Deforestation, I think, WILL become a threat, just not necessarily from the timber company. Expansion is the true threat to forestry.


----------



## Scifi fan (Jan 31, 2009)

The article talks of the web of community spiders and palm trees. I'd like to see the growth of that new, young rainforest. Must be quite fascinating to catalogue it over the years.


----------



## Drachir (Jan 31, 2009)

Scifi fan said:


> I don't believe in limits to growth, because we will always find new ways around problems and new resources. But it seems that at least one problem is not as bad as previously thought - deforestation.
> 
> It seems that new forests are growing at a rapid rate, replacing the areas that were previously razed. They're not as thick as the previous ones, but they're pretty active, and, I think, in a couple of decades or so, can become as thick and robust as their predecessors.
> 
> I've been wondering about this for awhile. I mean, if you don't mow your lawn for a few months, the grass will grow pretty high, and ancient cities have been swallowed up by forests. So this should not be surprising.



This certainly seems to be good news, Sci-Fi.  Of course that should be no surprise to anyone who has ever wandered through the west coast temperate rainforests of Canada and noted the giant stumps of ancient trees surrounded by new growth.

You might be a bit overly optimistic, however, concerning the fact that "we will always find ways around problems and new resources."  History shows that many civilizations essentially destroyed themselves through resource depletion.  The civilizations of the Maya, the Khmer, and the Ephesians certainly found that they were unable to overcome the problems of deforestation they created, and there is evidence that part of the reason for the decline of Rome and perhaps the great Indian civilization of Mohenjo Daro may have been due to destruction of the environment.  These ancient civilizations were apparently blindsided by careless use of critical resources and there is nothing to say that it cannot happen again.


----------



## Nik (Jan 31, 2009)

*Trees make their own weather...*

Um, IIRC, part of the problem is that mature trees make their own micro-climate, shading the forest floor and re-circulating a lot of moisture from ground to air...

Clear enough trees, and you risk scrubby land where too many saplings get eaten by browsers to permit natural re-afforestation, the trees' last seeds vanish from ecosystem and...

Another dire snag is that trees hold slopes: Clear the trees, and erosion soon strips the soil bare. If you check history of eg Ancient Greece, those mountains were thickly wooded. But, even then, the locals were concerned that tree-clearance destroyed the uplands' fertility, smothered low-lands with flash-flood silt and dried the 'steady' streams...

Um, IIRC, the 'slopes' binding is reason a lot of forestry no longer pull all stumps. That, plus eg many pines rely on symbiotic root fungii. Clear the land, the fungus dies off and new pines may struggle to grow...


----------



## Scifi fan (Jan 31, 2009)

I know of Jared Diamond's thesis, but the difference is that we can land on the moon and Mars, while the Polynesians, Romans, and Mayans cannot. 

As for the regrowth, I'd be fascinated to read more about it, and it is good news. Anyone care to dig around?


----------



## jojajihisc (Jan 31, 2009)

Scifi fan said:


> we can land on the moon and Mars,


 
Mars? We can? Haven't done it yet. Unless you mean those robots. Besides, what good is that going to do?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 31, 2009)

jojajihisc said:


> Mars? We can? Haven't done it yet. Unless you mean those robots. Besides, what good is that going to do?


 
My thoughts exactly. Putting Mars' average temperatures aside, its atmosphere is very thin, made up mostly of carbon dioxide. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to be breathing in. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but biodomes, as far as I know, are still in the "good idea but no way to implement" stage. The closest we could come to would be greenhouses-and how would you power it? We have no idea what Mars' natural resources are.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jan 31, 2009)

Scifi fan said:


> I don't believe in limits to growth, because we will always find new ways around problems and new resources. But it seems that at least one problem is not as bad as previously thought - deforestation.
> 
> It seems that new forests are growing at a rapid rate, replacing the areas that were previously razed. They're not as thick as the previous ones, but they're pretty active, and, I think, in a couple of decades or so, can become as thick and robust as their predecessors.
> 
> I've been wondering about this for awhile. I mean, if you don't mow your lawn for a few months, the grass will grow pretty high, and ancient cities have been swallowed up by forests. So this should not be surprising.



I grew up in the woods, literally, since my dad worked mainly summers we spent a lot of winters living in logging camps. Twenty years ago they still had those, not much anymore.

The woods have changed. A LOT. And they are not as thick. I'm not a trees before people person, I realize that we all have to eat. Its not just the trees though, its all manner of creatures that belong in the forest. 

You know, when I was a kid I used to be able to find turtles everywhere. And frogs. And there were always bees. I've seen and occasionally shot at bears, cougars, deer, and even hit a timber wolf once in our car. Likely it was the last wolf in the area. I rarely see any of these animals except for the cougars, which are hardy animals, and deer, which now live in town. Up here, and most people who live up here will agree, the forests are not the same as they used to be. Its hard to put a finger on it. I don't see why we have to either deforest or forest, my dad and his crew spent uncountable years replanting trees, but even they will tell you that once the forests are gone they are never the same again. 

Deforestation is a real problem. The woods are no longer thick and luscious and teeming with life. 

Plus, I like to think that old growth forests have fairies in them.


----------



## Scifi fan (Feb 1, 2009)

The lack of thickness of the new forests is an issue, but, over time, they can become as thick as the old ones.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Feb 1, 2009)

Scifi fan said:


> The lack of thickness of the new forests is an issue, but, over time, they can become as thick as the old ones.



Over ten thousand years, yeah. You have to figure that the old growth forests are the way they are because they are old.


----------



## Scifi fan (Feb 1, 2009)

Apparently not - the forests seem to be growing pretty fast.


----------



## Nik (Feb 1, 2009)

Succession, succession, succession...

Forest dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Scifi fan (Feb 1, 2009)

Fascinating! 

The question, though, is how fast the forest can grow, and if it can grow fast enough to replace what was lost.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 1, 2009)

In the past, most of Europe was covered in forests.

Yorkshire was, and most of it went as charcoal to smelt iron.

Spain was, and most of that went to build ships to haul bullion back from the new world.
Greece, Alsace, France, Italy; everybody needed wood, and agricultural land; it was considered very laudable to combine the two. It was cut down, and has never grown back in a millennium.

As a general rule now, when forest is logged and replanted it is fast growing species (frequently conifers) that replace the traditional hardwoods, and the species they shelter are different. Not better, not worse, but reducing biodiversity.

And trees are sickening and dying for no recognisable reason. It's fashionable to put this down to global warming, but many of these trees have seen other warm periods in their enormous lives. 

It may well be that forest as an environment is not essential for the survival of mankind as a species (though there was a lot of it when the species was young) but retaining and enlarging the remaining forests will be possible only if people believe it's necessary, not if they say "Oh, it'll come back anyway, look at those green shoots." It hasn't in the past, there is no reason to believe it will in the future.

Look at the Sahara; quite a lot of that was once forested, some even quite recently.

As a species, we're a lot better at destroying things than we really need to be.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Feb 1, 2009)

Yes Chrispy! and think of the fairies, man, the fairies!

Thats what I was trying to say. They don't replant oaks, they plant yew and pine. 

There are no more turtles, frogs, bees. Well there are, but not like there was in my childhood. It makes me so sad.


----------



## Dave (Feb 2, 2009)

I'd just add that it is quite amazing how quickly succession actually takes place.

It isn't often that you can watch it happen, because most of the landscapes we see are managed and kept in check by various means - heather moorland by periodic burnings, woods by coppicing and pollarding, meadows by sheep or goats or cows, Golf Courses by lawn mower!

If you stopped doing that then the trees would surely return. I didn't have any next door neighbours for three years and the new occupants of the house have just taken over a small forest of Sycamores. There are no Sycamores anywhere nearby either. But they don't replace the Oak forest that would have been here 200 years ago. Ancient Woodland does need protection where it still exists as it is quite unique and took thousands of years to form.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Feb 2, 2009)

Re Chris's remark about tree health, not sure if this applies up your way, but down here a study was done last year proving that the presence of certain species of tiny birds had a direct impact on the health of eucalypt forest - because they were eating insect parasites, and if the birds weren't there the trees didn't thrive. What a tangled web...


----------



## Scifi fan (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm fascinated to see how this would work out, to see the trees regrow, along with insects and animals migrating again. Must be quite an experience.


----------

