[HN Gopher] The Miyawaki Method: A Better Way to Build Forests? ...
___________________________________________________________________
The Miyawaki Method: A Better Way to Build Forests? (2019)
Author : nkurz
Score : 112 points
Date : 2021-02-12 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (daily.jstor.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (daily.jstor.org)
| awinter-py wrote:
| the 'random mix' and monoculture points in here are the topic of
| the first chapter of Seeing Like a State, the book about why
| institutions over-simplify the societies they govern
| beaconstudios wrote:
| it's a good book, especially as an introduction to why
| reductionism and quantitative measurement distort what they
| measure when taken apart from holism and qualitative valuation
| - but boy is it a slow burner. I listened to it on audiobook
| during my commute and I'm surprised I didn't fall asleep at the
| wheel.
| awinter-py wrote:
| yeah I made it to the middle of the jane jacobs / corbusier
| section and gave up
|
| midsection is like fractally repetitive where it's repeating
| previous chapters and also repeating the current chapter
|
| really good footnotes though
| _joel wrote:
| Just became aware of this term after looking at this BBC article
| on micro-forests https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-56003562
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if left
| alone. The real question is not how to get people to plant trees,
| it's how to get people to leave trees and the areas where they
| will grow alone.
|
| That's in the majority of places where trees would normally grow.
| Of course in some ecosystems like a full desert, we can help
| nature do it's thing. And we can also help along the natural
| process by selectively planting additional species. In the US
| tree planting is about foresty not nature or the environment.
| Forestry is the planting and managing trees for economic gain,
| usually for pulp or lumber often by planting only one or two
| species.
|
| So, another misleading thing would be that forestry involves
| planting several times as many trees and then weeding, culling,
| thinning out the trees. So one misleading statistic you will find
| is something like "we planted 1 million trees", where the actual
| number of trees finally will be something like 100,000.
|
| Trees come with their own built in reproductive system via seeds,
| acorn and the like. The urge to plant forests is a human urge to
| meddle and fix things. This urge is also the reason why the
| forests were cleared and nature curtailed. This urge should, in
| most of the world, be resisted if we are to let nature do it's
| own thing.
| 786caeefb13016 wrote:
| Trees are planted in urban environments all the time. In this
| kind of environment, "leaving it alone" is unfortunately not an
| option, although I agree it would be best for the trees.
|
| The Miyawaki method presents a stark alternative to the
| recommendations of the International Society of Arboriculture,
| with many benefits.
|
| Maybe people want a Miyawaki forest in a city to help with
| runoff, air quality, and temperature regulation.
|
| On the other hand, maybe people prefer sparsely placed trees
| which don't obscure their views of road signs and
| intersections, or provide shade over a lawn for congregation.
| DanBC wrote:
| > Any ecologist would tell you that trees plant themselves if
| left alone.
|
| They'd also tell you that the attrition rates are terrible.
| hinkley wrote:
| Planted also doesn't mean 'survived'. You plant these trees
| among disturbed soil and broken branches. The trees left behind
| are supposed to harbor species that will repopulate, but those
| species are used to the water levels and shade of the closed
| canopy, and now they're in the middle of a hellscape that won't
| recover for decades, only to be chopped down again.
|
| Even if the trees are fit for the local ecology, they're now in
| a very bad microbiome and not all will make it.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| Don't feel like rambling too much here but after taking a class
| (Ecosystem Restoration Design) last year that touched on this
| method a few notes:
|
| - Yes, you generally try to use native species only. Search for
| things like the WWF ecoregions map to get a broad idea, search
| for a local resource on native species.
|
| - The reason it grows a bit faster isn't magic - it involves a
| higher input effort/cost, and you skip a stage of succession by
| focusing more on planting 'keystone species' rather than going
| through an initial stage of 'pioneer species'. - Because of this,
| they tend to be more attractive in urban environments. See also
| related organizations like "tiny forests"
| https://www.ivn.nl/tiny-forest/tiny-forest-worldwide
| (netherlands), https://theotherdada.com (beirut), more listed on
| https://www.afforestt.com/about. You do need a minimum
| width/length to implement, and may need to dig the soil/amend the
| soil to deal with urban-area compaction.
|
| - The most actionable things you can do is: -
| got money? Right now (temperate winter here) is a good time to
| plant native saplings if they're not sold out. You may even find
| some folks 'salvaging' native plants from areas where land is
| about to be cleared for construction. - setup a tree
| nursery. Native saplings can be expensive - try
| things in a small way, tell your neighbors, start mutual
| learning.
|
| - Keep in mind not all areas in the world should be planted with
| trees. Some areas are natively grasslands and thus trees are less
| populated.
|
| - If you're going to have a dense forest, you need a plan for
| maintenance so you don't end up with woody mass building up to
| cause a fire later on (see millan millan's papers "greening and
| browning in a climate change hotspot". You might be able to
| partner with a local businesses, school, government, etc. to find
| a spot & help with expenses/maintenance
| Pfhreak wrote:
| I'm considering a few hundred acres of mountainous clearcut
| land in the pacific northwest. Are there any resources you'd
| recommend to learn about replanting non-urban areas?
| jointpdf wrote:
| The best option might be to get in touch with your local
| university forestry extension, for example:
| https://forestry.wsu.edu/
|
| Another resource would be your local USDA office. The NRCS
| should be available to provide free site-specific technical
| assistance (e.g. for soil regeneration and conservation
| planning). There are also zillions of
| loan/grant/easement/conservation payment programs that the
| USDA runs: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/nat
| ional/prog...
| reportingsjr wrote:
| Beware that the USDA will typically not provide good advice
| if you aren't planning on using land for resources like
| harvesting lumber/crops/animal husbandry.
|
| If you want to restore a local ecosystem you'll need to
| reach out to another organization, probably an NGO, to
| figure out how to proceed in a reasonable manner. The
| biggest group that would probably help would be the Nature
| Conservancy.
| iammiles wrote:
| I'll second talking to a local nonprofit over the USDA or
| USFS. At least in the PNW, these agencies are focused on
| extracting value from the land and their replantings are
| tightly-packed monocultures designed to be harvested
| again. They have about as much in common with a forest as
| a golf course has with a prairie.
| martincolorado wrote:
| I'm curious as to why you decided to look into purchasing a
| clearcut in order to better understand if this is popular
| amongst a demographic such as tech workers with growing
| wealth--is there a market for this specifically in
| consulting forestry with a tech focus. Check out the
| Society of American Foresters if you want to pay for a
| forest management plan. Or as noted try the local forestry
| extension and the Forest Service's State and Private
| Forestry contacts.
|
| https://www.eforester.org/Main/Certification_Education/Cert
| i...
|
| https://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/forestry-and-natural-
| re...
|
| https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/communityforests/?cid=fsb
| d...
| abraae wrote:
| > The seedlings are planted very densely--20,000 to 30,000 per
| hectares as opposed to 1,000 per hectare in commercial forestry.
| For a period of two to three years, the site is monitored,
| watered, and weeded, to give the nascent forest every chance to
| establish itself.
|
| Any planting of new forest is to be applauded, but(at least where
| I live) this is an unrealistic approach.
|
| We have 10 acres (about 4 acres) of land that we have mostly
| replanted. I've learnt a bit in the process.
|
| 1) watering everything is not feasible. We're on tank water, and
| each summer ends with me policing the lengths of family showers.
| This southern hemisphere summer, we added one more 25kl tank
| (several $k) just for plant watering. It barely scratches the
| surface.
|
| 2) weeding is unpleasant and hard work.I struggle to get any help
| with it. In practice, spraying is the only practical approach,
| not ideal environmentally.
|
| 3) the profile of species that thrive is changing, right before
| our eyes last summer was brutal and we lost several big trees
| probably 50+years old in the heat.
|
| While this article's approach is an interesting one, I would say
| it's is suited to a very compact environment, such as one might
| find in japan.
|
| At a larger scale, a less intensive approach is to plant semi-
| intensively mainly in pioneer species. Planted in the autumn or
| spring, these will survive without watering.
|
| These form a thick forest that prevents weed growth underneath.
| You have now reached a stable point - you can now leave your
| forest to nature. Birds will drop seeds, and those seeds will
| germinate beneath the pioneer canopy, letting the larger species
| come through and eventually replace the pioneer species.
|
| If you want you can accelerate the process by planting large
| trees here and there within the pioneer canopy. But again, that
| won't require watering or weeding.
|
| Key to it is using native species, and picking species that will
| survive at higher temperatures.
|
| Being in the southern hemisphere, that means species that are
| commonly found in the north, where it is hotter already.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| > Birds will drop seeds, and those seeds will germinate beneath
| the pioneer canopy, letting the larger species come through and
| eventually replace the pioneer species.
|
| FYI This can actually be a huge problem if you live in
| Washington State, because Himalayan Blackberry spreads through
| bird droppings. You have to aggressively weed it or it will
| choke out everything else in the area within a matter of years,
| including saplings, mature brush, grass, native blackberry, and
| other invasives like Scotch Broom.
| howlin wrote:
| There is some interesting thinking to be done on "native"
| versus "adapted" when it comes to planning new forest. It's a
| reality that the climate is changing and there are many
| introduced pest species that are all drastically changing the
| landscapes. On the Pacific coast, the combination of drought,
| sudden oak death disease and pine beetles are rapidly changing
| the flora and also the fauna when food and shelter disappears.
|
| When you plant a new forest today, do you try to preserve the
| native species or do you anticipate what species will thrive in
| the area 20-50 years from now?
| 786caeefb13016 wrote:
| "Assisted migration" provides ongoing ethical dilemmas, but
| things seem to be moving in that direction. See, for example,
| https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northern-
| forests/topic...
|
| So I think the current consensus is something like: help
| forests migrate faster than their natural rate, but don't
| wormhole species across the planet.
| abraae wrote:
| That's a fascinating question. We hear a lot of talk about
| planting forests to combat climate change.
|
| But it seems very feasible that just planting whatever is
| thriving today will backfire in 20 years time when that
| species becomes unviable due to temperature rise, reduced
| rainfall or arrival of some exotic bio pest.
| reportingsjr wrote:
| Yes, this is something larger groups are starting to realize
| and try to work with. Look up the Nature Conservancy's
| climate change corridors.
|
| They are trying to preserve/conserve land in strips as a
| priority. This way as climate changes, plants and animals
| will have a path to migrate unimpeded (or at least impeded
| less than if there were large roads/developments in the
| way!).
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I am confused. There are a host of different methods in creating
| a forest depending on the end goal. If the goal is to generate
| more board-feet of lumber you do A. If the goal is to sequester
| carbon you do B. If you want to promote animal life you do C. If
| you want to promote particular plants/trees you do D. Of course
| you can balance these interests, but you cannot maximize all at
| once. What exactly is the end goal of the Miyawaki Method? What
| does the finished forest look like?
| Peckingjay wrote:
| From the article: "A high level of diversity is paramount on
| Sharma's list of essential goals. In projects Afforestt has
| undertaken in India, his company so far managed to use about
| 336 types of native trees out of 2800 that are known to have
| existed in the country. And the company has started its own
| nursery in Rajasthan to begin to add more species to their
| plantings.
|
| Sharma is adamant that the impact of even very small forests on
| local communities is significant enough to matter. Research
| from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, which found
| increased fungi, bacteria, pollinators, and amphibians on two
| tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad that were based on
| Sharma's models,, lends some scientific credence to this
| claim."
|
| In this case, it would seem end goal is fauna/flora diversity.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad
|
| Ok. But that is where the debates start. Many forests will
| not lend themselves towards diversity. Look at places like
| the pacific coastal rain forests. If left alone they will
| become a homogenous zone, one canopy of trees. Clearcutting
| strips increases diversity of tree/bush cover, helping small
| animals and everything that feeds on them. Diversity over and
| above the "natural" untouched state. So is the goal a natural
| level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for
| diversity's sake?
| carapace wrote:
| FWIW, my limited understanding is that initially, in Japan,
| the focus was on restoring the native forests, conserving
| Japanese species and ecosystems.
|
| > So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an
| artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake?
|
| I favor E. O. Wilson's proposal that we set aside half the
| Earth as a nature preserve and more-or-less let evolution
| do it's thing. _Which_ half is, of course, an open
| question, eh?
|
| One way or another, I doubt we can avoid continent-scale
| ecological management.
| _jal wrote:
| > Which half is, of course, an open question, eh?
|
| This approach would of course favor species that thrive
| in toxic waste, radiation and trash mountains.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Which half is always this problem. It's compounded by the
| fact that Europeans have scourged their land of anything
| worthwhile - relegating nature to tiny preserves and
| replacing most wilderness with farms and cities. Often
| these same people insist that other nations avoid
| developing and "preserve" their land. How about we raze
| Europe's cities and give half her land back to Nature
| first.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| because the cities don't have that much land. its the
| farm land one would need to reclaim
| hinkley wrote:
| I think you need to look a bit closer at the pacific
| coastal rain forests. Even if you had a tree monoculture
| (which you don't), the amount and number of lichen and moss
| on untouched, old or even second growth trees is
| exhorbitant. Those in turn host a huge variety of other
| organisms.
|
| The number of edible natives is also respectable, and those
| didn't come from nowhere. They were here all the time in
| those 'homogenous' zones.
| vram22 wrote:
| Diversity does not have to be a static or micro thing,
| along any dimension. E.g. temporal or spatial. If you look
| on a larger scale, there was/is species diversity across
| centuries/aeons (evolution, Ice Ages, ...) and across
| hundreds or thousands of square km. Could be a large
| _homogeneous_ patch of 500 sq. km. next to another 300 in
| size next to a large or medium heterogeneous patch, and so
| on. On a larger scale, that 's still diversity.
| setr wrote:
| Not mentioned in TFA, but apparently this method also leads to
| short timelines (~10 yrs) to reach self-sustaining forests[0]
|
| That article also goes a lot more in depth on how they setup
| the forest
|
| [0] https://fellowsblog.ted.com/how-to-grow-a-forest-really-
| real...
| 786caeefb13016 wrote:
| You almost answered your own question by mentioning "balance"
| -- the primary goal is self-regulating stability. This is an
| approach which uses intensive (and expensive) horticultural
| methods to quickly create a patch of forest that will require
| no further human management or operating expense.
|
| The biodiversity should increase a little bit as local fauna
| habituate and immigrate to the forest, bringing with them
| propagules from other native species, so humans don't have to
| do all the work.
|
| Specific benefits of the Miyawaki method are that it can
| dovetail well with common urban practices. A small forest can
| grow next to concrete buildings, roads and sidewalks, and offer
| all the common "green building" benefits such as fire
| suppression, improved thermal regulation, and runoff
| absorption. Of course, there will be wildlife as well. Some
| people consider it a nuisance for whatever reason.
|
| M.R. Hari in Kerala has done some experiments with
| "eccentrifying" (my word, not his) Miyawaki forests into types
| such as a edible- or flower- dominated forests, which the mix
| of such species is slightly increased, but not enough to
| disrupt the ecological balance. I recommend his YouTube channel
| 'Crowd Foresting' for many examples of what these forests can
| look like (in his particular location).
| OnACoffeeBreak wrote:
| This 99% Invisible podcast episode talks about the unintended
| consequences of planting trees in the peat tundra of Scotland
| spurred by the British government's tax breaks to incentivize re-
| forestation around the country in the 1980s:
|
| https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/for-the-love-of-peat/
|
| EDIT: This is not to say that trees should not be planted. I
| wrote the post in support of using science and nuance to plant
| trees the right way, which I think is the major point of the
| article.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| TL;DR Plant a huge variety of native plants in good soil. Seems
| like a good approach.
| sriram_malhar wrote:
| The details are what set this method apart. The myriad ways of
| rejuvenating fallow soil, planting on clusters of mounds,
| planting 30x denser than accepted practice, the idea that a
| forest can be just 4m wide and so on ...
| mekoka wrote:
| A previous discussion (different article) on HN
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9074473
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| I believe Jadav Payeng should have a mention here -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng. Considering Jadav's
| forest is magnitudes of cover more.
| andrebotelho wrote:
| I'm a bigger proponent for agroforestry than other methods. Being
| that monocultures are the biggest catalyst of desertification,
| agroforestry, when implemented in industrial agricultural
| settings, has a higher dimensionality/impact.
| hinkley wrote:
| I did not scientifically measure this, but anecdotes are a good
| place to start for grant applications, so I'll mention it
| anyway.
|
| I'm trying to turn a compacted field back into a tiny woodland.
| It's still mostly horizontal at this point, but it's full of
| pillbugs and spiders and earthworms and the birds seem to love
| foraging in it. An hour ago I looked out the window and saw a
| finch pulling a spider off the side of my house, and it
| reminded me that one of the supposed tenets of polycultures is
| that you build up the food web and the food web will take care
| of the pests. Then it reminded me that I don't recall seeing
| this many birds the previous year.
|
| I've temporarily drawn in the bird population from the
| surrounding area, by providing a richer hunting ground (more
| carrying capacity). Next year there will be a few more baby
| birds surviving to adulthood, then they'll be competing
| aggressively for all the other invertebrates in the area,
| dropping more fruit seeds everywhere they perch, which means
| more bugs and fruit and so on.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-12 23:00 UTC)