More trees than there were 100 years ago?

[The Straight Story]

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!


The numbers are in.

In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.

This is great news for those who care about the environment because trees store CO2, produce oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — remove toxins from the air, and create habitat for animals, insects and more basic forms of life. Well-managed forest plantations like those overseen by the Forest Stewardship Council also furnish us with wood, a renewable material that can be used for building, furniture, paper products and more, and all of which are biodegradable at the end of their lifecycle.

The increase in trees is due to a number of factors, including conservation and preservation of national parks, responsible tree growing within plantations — which have been planting more trees than they harvest — and the movement of the majority of the population from rural areas to more densely populated areas, such as cities and suburbs. Tree planting efforts begun in the 1950s are paying off and there is more public awareness about the importance of trees and forests. Finally, 63 percent of the forest land in the United States is privately owned, and many landowners are leaving their land intact instead of using it for agriculture or logging (at least partially because many of these activities have shifted overseas).

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/s...

[FSogol]

1. This country should double the budgets of Federal Parks and encourage States to do the same

It would go a long ways toward ending unemployment and preserve the environment.

[SoCalDem]

2. All trees are not created equal

Old growth (naturally selected) trees are worth more because of their diversity and long-proven hardiness.

Modern tree-farms & housing development "trash-trees" are no substitute..

that said, more oxygen is still a good thing

[HopeHoops]

3. Christmas tree farms are included in those calculations. Throw-away pulp.

[Yavin4]

4. This Is A Little Deceptive

A 100 years ago (1911) a good deal of America still used wood to heat their homes.

[mike_c]

5. the vast NA deforestations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries...

...were mainly to provide raw materials for industry-- building materials, fiber and other forest products, charcoal, etc-- and to clear land for habitation and expansion. Of course, some of that also went up household chimneys, but I'd bet the proportion used for fuel is minuscule in comparison to that sold for industrial and construction use, or simply left to rot. We're seeing much the same thing happening in some of the worlds last great forests today, e.g. in Amazonia, Africa, and Indonesia.

Land use maps from the last century or so show significant reforestation in much of the U.S., especially the northeast and southeast. As others have pointed out though, the replacement forests are rarely drop-in replacements for the original primeval continental forests.

[snooper2]

9. And a lot of shit that used to be made out of wood, is now plastic

Toys for starters...

[PVnRT]

11. 1911 also would have been the beginnings of the conservation movement

At least, by that point, it was picking up real steam.

It's somewhat deceptive, but it's believable.

[Matariki]

34. How does that fact make the study deceptive?

[Yavin4]

38. It Chose A Comparison Point In Time When We Cut Down More Trees

A 100 years ago, we cut down more trees and used them more often for heating, for finished goods, etc. The study implies that we have restored nature to its original state. When, in fact, we just have a few more trees because we have less uses for trees.

[TlalocW]

6. I think for the most part this is true

I remember in a book that looked at some of Rush's (then) most outrageous lies, and he claimed that there were more trees in the continental United States now than when the country was founded. When he was called on it, he changed it to the beginning of the 1900s, which the organization that wrote the book did say was correct.

TlalocW

[Cleita]

7. Probably because they were mowed down a hundred

years ago with no thought of conservation when the west was being developed. I have seen pictures of the California Sierras and other northwest states that were denuded of growth back before the turn of the last century. It was when the settlements that destroyed the forests realized that it caused erosion that they started growing the forests back.

[DCKit]

8. Guess the "Healthy Forests Initiative" didn't have the same level of success as "NCLB". nt

[NickB79]

10. It's all about cherry-picking the data

Like how climate-change deniers pick one cold year and say we're seeing global cooling, when in reality the long-term trend is decidedly upwards.

HUGE amounts of forest were destroyed in first 200 yrs of this country's history. Lumber industries swept across this country, clearcutting forests for the wood needed to feed the massive expansion of the US economy during that time.

Now, if they'd said we had more forest today than when Columbus landed, that would be something.

[PVnRT]

12. On the other hand

It shows that conservation and planning actually work.

[WatsonT]

13. And with under 7% of the worlds land mass

not bad.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. In the northwest, the lack of large sawmills is a killer to diversity.

There used to be several sawmills which could handle large logs (large = >24" diameter). Now there are almost none. Consequently, landowners are harvesting on a 35 year rotation despite the fact that there are myriad reasons, including economic, to harvest on a 50+ year cycle. A plantation of 45 year old trees adds more, higher quality timber volume each year than any younger forests.

This has ramifications for habitat. A diverse canopy is vitally important, but in the northwest, all you see is acre upon acre of <30 year old forests.

Government, as one of the largest landowners in the west, should encourage the building of large sawmills. Some people see a truck filled with 5 or 6 large logs and think it a tragedy. I think of it as a huge success that the tree was allowed to grow to 70 years before cutting it down. I see the truck loaded with 12" logs and think it the greater tragedy.

All trees are not created equal.

[AngryAmish]

19. So you think just becvause you are a lumberjack you have some sort of insight into this situation?

Pshaw. I haven't spent a day worrying about this problem, but this is DU so I no doubt have a fully formed opinion that I will shout at others about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Well, you know, that and I stayed at a holiday inn last night. n/t

[uppityperson]

15. A tree does not = a tree. Here are a couple picts to help you out

This does not equal this

[Lard]

16. EXACTLY! A bunch of fast growth pines

The hardwood forests are all but gone.

[Kaleva]

40. Visit Upper Michigan sometime.

You'll drive thru miles upon miles of hardwood forests.

[csziggy]

41. A lot of those are regrowth forests, not old growth

I know, because my grandfather and greatgrandfather cut down a lot of the original trees around 1900-1930. Before that, they traveled to Vancouver Island to cut down trees, but the 1890 recession put them out of business and they returned to Escanaba.

Same as around here, North Florida and South Georgia. Now there are lots of trees, some wonderful mixed hardwood/pine habitat. But 150 years ago, this land was mostly cotton fields, nearly all the way to the coast. After the Civil War, without the slave labor, the cotton plantations weren't profitable. Some of the marginal land, like the sandy land closer to the coast, had been farmed out and was too poor to grow corn or tobacco. That land has been used for planted pines, first for turpentine, now for pulp wood for most of the last 150 years.

Some of the higher land became tobacco farms but much of it was bought up by wealthy Northerners for hunting plantations and has been managed to maximize wildlife for at least 100 years. While some parts are used for limited crops, there are acres of mixed hardwoods, pines and meadows that are left for the deer, quail and turkey.

[Kaleva]

42. Depends on the species

A woodland dominated by silver and red maple can reach old growth stage in a little over a hundred years. It's about 300 years for white pine. Jack pine forests, which are common in Michigan, can reach old growth status in as little as 60 years.

The great white pine forests that once covered much of the western part of Upper Michigan are gone forever but that doesn't mean there aren't any old growth woodlands left here anymore. They are just of a different species.

[csziggy]

43. I gues I am used to the species here

Here in the South, "old growth" tends to mean live oaks that are hundreds of years old. There are still some stands of them left, primarily because they were managed to provide ship timbers for the Navy. We do have some pine species that are long lived and those have been a bone of contention between developers and conservationists since they provide habitat for endangered species of woodpeckers.

There are few, natural old growth forests left anywhere though, if you think about what the original mix of trees would have been, rather than the picked over remnants we see now.

[greyl]

31. Yep. nt

[bobbolink]

17. In the west, it is NOT good news. It is caused by suppression of the natural wildfires.

These forests evolved with wildfires, and those fires are necessary to the environment. Too many trees too close together make for unhealthy forests.

Without the fires, Mother Nature is finding other ways of thinning the forests... the pine beetle being the current sad example.

[Gold Metal Flake]

21. Pine beetle infestations are growing not because of fire suppression.

The infestations are growing because of warmer winters and fewer hard freezes that used to kill the bugs and reduce the damage they cause.

[bobbolink]

22. That is a factor, yes, but foresters have long said that unhealthy trees are the ones that are at

risk, and they are unhealthy because of overcrowded forests.

[Cleita]

29. That's one reason but another one a botanist told me

was because of a lack of genetic diversity in replanted forests that had been logged sometimes into third growth replants. In a more diverse forest like Mother Nature would plant, not all trees would be susceptible to the same bugs and diseases so fewer trees would succumb to pests. Anyway that's what I was told. I'm a gardener and not a botanist.

[MineralMan]

18. And don't forget the urban forests.

Here in Saint Paul, MN, where I live, every street outside of the downtown area is lined with mature trees. It's an amazing sight when seen from the air or in a Google satellite view zoomed in. The suburbs? Not so much, but their trees are still growing. In Minneapolis, it's estimated that 26% of all land in the city is shaded by trees. Homeowners take pride in their mature yard trees. I have a 50 year old silver maple that even yields sufficient sap to make a couple of gallons of maple syrup each year. There are a couple of good-sized trees in my back yard as well. That's typical of households here.

[Gold Metal Flake]

20. 100 years ago they did not replant as they do now.

Forests were clear cut and the land left barren.

Also, the softwood pulp farms are not equal to the old growth hardwoods. The giant tree forests of the east coast (yup, there were giant trees on the east coast) are extinct. But expect this to be bandied about by the wasteland-loving republicans.

[JCMach1]

23. In Florida I was lucky enough to a tiny bit of Florida's old forest that remains in the Withlacochee

State Park. I one particular place there is a cluster of 500yr old + live oaks.

In the swamps you can still see the stumps of the giant cypress trees that must have been thousands of years old. They don't rot, so the evidence of their murder is still there.

[HuckleB]

33. Replanting the trees does not replant the ecosystem.

[Old Troop]

25. Well for one thing, we don't graze sheep in the large numbers we

did in New England during the 19th century (New England is my home; I can't comment on the rest of the country). Much of that pasture land has returned to forest. Farming acreage itself has been reduced in the same area over the last 75 or so years as well. It's pretty cool to walk through a state forest in MA and come upon cellar holes and stone walls completely surrounded by woods. I often look at cellar holes and stone walls and wonder about the lives that were led there when they were a going concern.

[xchrom]

26. all things are not = in this picture.

old growth is better for the environment than new growth.

over crowded forests are bad for the over all health of the forest.

new growth habitat does not sustain the kind of diversity old growth does.

it's having more of the right kind of trees that makes a significant difference.

[morningglory]

27. This sounds like "ketchup is a vegetable" logic.

When I lived in Atlanta, they were clearing 50 acres of forest per day, to put in sod and sprinkler systems for housing developments.

[HuckleB]

36. +1

[Hannah Bell]

28. the main reason is plantations. but plantations aren't ecosystems.

[HuckleB]

32. +1

[slampoet]

30. It is NOT as much as 200 years ago. 90% of the old growth forest were already gone in 1911.

[applegrove]

35. I remember driving through the Nova Scotia town on Golden with my grandmother who was

about 93. She was born there. And she had to close her eyes as we drove through because she couldn't stand to see how much the town had shrunk and had been retaken by forest. She started to say "no, no, no, no". Poor thing. A lot of the farms were gone too.

[Kaleva]

37. Some here who speak of old growth forests are actually talking about primary forests.

There is no simple, one size fits all definition of what an old growth forest is. Some, depending on species and assuming there is no calamity as a forest fire, can reach old growth stage and remain there indefinably. Other old growth forests may only have a life span of 40-50 years before dieing out and being replaced by another species. Some, when speaking of old growth forests, are talking about an entire eco-system and not just the dominate species of trees.

As there is no definition of 'old growth' that most everyone can agree on, politics often comes into play when deciding which woodlands are old growth and which ones aren't.

A better term would be "primary forest" or "natural heritage forest" which is one that has had minimal logging or other disturbance by human activity and is allowed to naturally progress thru its various stages.

Forests are very dynamic places. An interesting one to me is the Jack Pine forests found in many parts of Michigan. The Jack Pine is a "fire" species dependent on periodic forest fires for its own survival. The fire destroys competing species, along with the Jack Pine but it also opens up the area for the shade intolerant new growth Jack Pine. The heat of the fire opens up the cones of the Jack Pine so it can release its seeds.

[CanonRay]

39. Look at old pics of Colorado mountain towns

and you'll see that every hill for miles is stripped bare. These are again heavily forested, although the pine beetle may have some say in the matter.