<story><title>To regrow forests the U.S. needs billions of seeds–and many more &apos;seed hunters&apos;</title><url>https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/to-regrow-forests-us-needs-billions-of-seeds-many-more-seed-hunters</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lettergram</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know if &amp;quot;Mother Jones&amp;quot; is a great source also -- &amp;quot;to outrun climate change,&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;What does that mean exactly?&lt;p&gt;The greatest carbon sink in the world is the midwest during growing season. Would converting that into forests improve that? No.&lt;p&gt;Also, it&amp;#x27;s not clear why they only grow at the given estimated rate. I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s as simple as &amp;quot;plant more trees&amp;quot;.</text></item><item><author>sp332</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not fast enough. &amp;quot;The average forest migrates at a rate of roughly 1,640 feet each year, but to outrun climate change, it must move approximately 9,800 to 16,000 feet—up to 10 times as fast.&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.motherjones.com&amp;#x2F;environment&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;trees-forests-assisted-migration-fire-climate-joshua-redwoods-sequoia&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.motherjones.com&amp;#x2F;environment&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;trees-forest...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[Edit 2: a more direct source for that number is &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;academic.oup.com&amp;#x2F;jof&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;111&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;287&amp;#x2F;4599572&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;academic.oup.com&amp;#x2F;jof&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;111&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;287&amp;#x2F;4599572&lt;/a&gt; ]&lt;p&gt;Edit: also, while the article only names one species of tree, it switches to using the term &amp;quot;tree seed&amp;quot; which I think covers more diversity. At least the linked project &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.blm.gov&amp;#x2F;programs&amp;#x2F;natural-resources&amp;#x2F;native-plant-communities&amp;#x2F;native-plant-and-seed-material-development&amp;#x2F;collection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.blm.gov&amp;#x2F;programs&amp;#x2F;natural-resources&amp;#x2F;native-plant-...&lt;/a&gt; mentions diversity a lot, so they&amp;#x27;re not aiming for a monoculture.</text></item><item><author>xipho</author><text>This seems like a short term fix prone to all the problems of mono-culture.  First pine-beetle infestations brining in disease put all that hard-work to naught.&lt;p&gt;There is a natural progression to growing forests, how about protecting, and just staying off large swaths of land, using fire treatment and land management techniques as we understand them and let the land restore itself? Perhaps we have to think past 5-10 year windows and start to work at plans that think a minimum of 50 years out.  Old-growth forests take easily that long, at minimum, to get started &amp;quot;naturally&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Flashtoo</author><text>What happens in the Midwest that makes it a carbon sink? Growing crops that turn back into atmospheric CO2 within a couple of months would be carbon neutral at best.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The strong atmospheric sink in the agricultural region is consistent with the difference in the spatial distribution of agricultural production and product consumption: a strong atmospheric uptake by crops during the growing season in the Midwest states, while much of the release of carbon associated with consumption of agricultural products occurs in other regions, in the United States and abroad. It must thus be pointed out that this apparent atmospheric sink in the Midwest does not imply a long-term carbon sequestration&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;107&amp;#x2F;43&amp;#x2F;18348&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;107&amp;#x2F;43&amp;#x2F;18348&lt;/a&gt; , Discussion</text></comment>
<story><title>To regrow forests the U.S. needs billions of seeds–and many more &apos;seed hunters&apos;</title><url>https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/to-regrow-forests-us-needs-billions-of-seeds-many-more-seed-hunters</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lettergram</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know if &amp;quot;Mother Jones&amp;quot; is a great source also -- &amp;quot;to outrun climate change,&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;What does that mean exactly?&lt;p&gt;The greatest carbon sink in the world is the midwest during growing season. Would converting that into forests improve that? No.&lt;p&gt;Also, it&amp;#x27;s not clear why they only grow at the given estimated rate. I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s as simple as &amp;quot;plant more trees&amp;quot;.</text></item><item><author>sp332</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not fast enough. &amp;quot;The average forest migrates at a rate of roughly 1,640 feet each year, but to outrun climate change, it must move approximately 9,800 to 16,000 feet—up to 10 times as fast.&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.motherjones.com&amp;#x2F;environment&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;trees-forests-assisted-migration-fire-climate-joshua-redwoods-sequoia&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.motherjones.com&amp;#x2F;environment&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;trees-forest...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[Edit 2: a more direct source for that number is &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;academic.oup.com&amp;#x2F;jof&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;111&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;287&amp;#x2F;4599572&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;academic.oup.com&amp;#x2F;jof&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;111&amp;#x2F;4&amp;#x2F;287&amp;#x2F;4599572&lt;/a&gt; ]&lt;p&gt;Edit: also, while the article only names one species of tree, it switches to using the term &amp;quot;tree seed&amp;quot; which I think covers more diversity. At least the linked project &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.blm.gov&amp;#x2F;programs&amp;#x2F;natural-resources&amp;#x2F;native-plant-communities&amp;#x2F;native-plant-and-seed-material-development&amp;#x2F;collection&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.blm.gov&amp;#x2F;programs&amp;#x2F;natural-resources&amp;#x2F;native-plant-...&lt;/a&gt; mentions diversity a lot, so they&amp;#x27;re not aiming for a monoculture.</text></item><item><author>xipho</author><text>This seems like a short term fix prone to all the problems of mono-culture.  First pine-beetle infestations brining in disease put all that hard-work to naught.&lt;p&gt;There is a natural progression to growing forests, how about protecting, and just staying off large swaths of land, using fire treatment and land management techniques as we understand them and let the land restore itself? Perhaps we have to think past 5-10 year windows and start to work at plans that think a minimum of 50 years out.  Old-growth forests take easily that long, at minimum, to get started &amp;quot;naturally&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>fennecfoxen</author><text>I will not endorse Mother Jones. However, &amp;quot;outrunning&amp;quot; is straightforward. A forest can &amp;quot;move&amp;quot; a certain amount a year — it is not motion of individual trees, but new trees and plants can grow where there were none before.&lt;p&gt;If the extents of a forest are constrained by climate, and the boundaries of its climate zone moving at a speed which is slower than the trees can move, then the collection of organisms can meaningfully persist and be said to move north. If on the other hand the climate zones are moving too quickly, then sooner or later there will no longer exist a collection of trees and related organisms that functioned as this forest once did.</text></comment>