Works well in some ecosystems when people choose the right plant material. With the wrong ecosystem and the wrong plant material it's one of those ideas from the temperate core that fails in the tropical periphery.
From the examples, it looks like the age-old distinction between process and results: do you want to/get rewarded for having a forest after some years, or do you just want to plant some trees as cheaply as possible to tick a box?
Getting good results costs more because it requires caring about what you're doing and putting in extra effort to ensure success.
The Orchard of Flavours experimented successfully with the Miyawaki method in their botanical garden located in Algarve, Portugal, with a Koppen climate classified as temperate but with hot and dry summer periods, see https://www.orchardofflavours.com/miyawaki-experiment-1-wild.... They grow plenty of tropical trees like feijoa, guava, papaya, etc.
I mean, you have major tree planting happening every summer in Canada, and it's all around trying to mono-culture the entire country for the sake of timber companies. They immediately spray Glyphosate on areas burnt by forest fires, so that low value fire break species like Alder don't establish themselves in the area and then they can send in tree planters to plant higher value pine, which is a serotinous species, ie: promotes fire. Then they blame all the bush fires on Climate change.
Forest planting for commercial forestry is not the same as forest planting for urban improvement. The goals and means are different.
Climate change and forestry practices can both take blame for the fire cycles. Commercial foresters have been following these practices for generations and it only started becoming a major issue as climate conditions changed... Practices must adapt, but nobody likes change.
Separate from the forestry philosophy in the headlines article, Japan also famously made a decision in the 1960s that resulted in monoculturing the country into seasonal allergies for the timber industry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever_in_Japan
The Yale article says forest scientists warn that "failed afforestation projects around the world threaten to undermine efforts to make [tree] planting a credible means of countering climate change by reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or generating carbon credits for sale to companies to offset their emissions."
Afforestation of any kind is good, but we can't forget the importance of large, contiguous forest ecosystems too. Segmentation of forest can threaten some species that rely on not being near the edge.
“The Miyawaki Method of micro-forestry is a viral sensation: sprouting tiny, dense, native tree cover in neighbourhoods all around the world. With the promise of afforestation at a revolutionary speed, this planting technique has become the darling of green-space enthusiasts, industry, and governments alike — yet few professional or academic ecologists have commented on its efficacy, or even seem to have heard of it!
In this episode, we debate the legacy of Dr. Akira Miyawaki: the man, the myth, and the method.”
If anyone enjoyed this feature, you might also want to check out The One Straw Revolution, which is about permaculture and its philosophy. It's one of the few books I've read.
Just saw a really interesting Nova centering on Crowther Labs at ETH (recently disbanded). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 was held up as encouraging unsustainable reforestation for greenwashing PR.
But the most interesting part was a segment covering how tree roots engage in aggressive recruitment and exchange of resources with an underground biome of bacteria and fungi.
I have seen a couple of these in Berkeley. They were all the rage and still are in some ways.
I personally was initially enthusiastic. However, I think there is much easier ways to get the benefits. For example, by adding trees and landscaping in Parks, medians and other public spaces.
Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
> However, I think there is much easier ways to get the benefits. For example, by adding trees and landscaping in Parks, medians and other public spaces.
This is a method to add trees and landscaping.
> Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
It sounds like they're completely inaccessible because of fencing and density. Fencing might be hard to remove, but density at ground level tends to decrease as a forest grows; the canopy blocks sun and lower tree limbs may drop or become less productive and bushier plants have a harder time. After the forest gets somewhat established, pathways are easier to form (although brambles and thickets may need help to clear), and thinning the trees can help the remaining trees thrive.
My parcel has a woods on the edges, and it wasn't too bad to establish paths in most of it, especially with a little help from goats to clean up the ground clutter. Similarly, there are trails in a nearby well established reserve, but you could easily go off trail if you had a reason too... Some bits are too dense to pass through, but most of it is fine. Your local forests likely grow a bit differently than mine though.
Doesn't seem bad to me. Grow the forest and then let the maintainers cut a miniature trail network. People don't need to tromp all over vegetation for it to be beneficial.
Manicured trees & landscaped parks take a lot of active effort and expense, whereas forests are naturally homeostatic. The biodiversity in the latter is also beneficial to flora & fauna compared to the overly-sterile environment of traditional landscaping.
> Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
I agree: I think the podcast touched on this, but “racing towards the densest forest you can find” sometimes makes no sense - there may have simply been grassland or shrubland before human habitation that supported its own unique flora and fauna!
The density and inaccessibility (to large birds and mammals) is critical for sensitive species like butterflies. I'd wager we'd see a resurgence in some declining insect populations if there were more dense pockets of forest.
This is a point made well in the film Wilding - https://www.wildingmovie.com/ - about a rewilding project in the UK. You need change and open ground for any biodiversity benefits. It's a bit like the close-planted commercial forestry fir plantations that are entirely silent and dead aside from the trees themselves.
If you want to decrease the value of your land plant trees so some nimby can come in designated it as protected habitat and then prevent you from maintaining or cutting any of them down. Tree law is almost as bad as HOA laws. Even if it’s not designed once a tree gets too big you loose any right to manage or maintain it
Related: The Japanese method of creating forests comes to Mexico
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44013933
(2 months ago, only 4 comments)
Works well in some ecosystems when people choose the right plant material. With the wrong ecosystem and the wrong plant material it's one of those ideas from the temperate core that fails in the tropical periphery.
From the examples, it looks like the age-old distinction between process and results: do you want to/get rewarded for having a forest after some years, or do you just want to plant some trees as cheaply as possible to tick a box?
Getting good results costs more because it requires caring about what you're doing and putting in extra effort to ensure success.
The Orchard of Flavours experimented successfully with the Miyawaki method in their botanical garden located in Algarve, Portugal, with a Koppen climate classified as temperate but with hot and dry summer periods, see https://www.orchardofflavours.com/miyawaki-experiment-1-wild.... They grow plenty of tropical trees like feijoa, guava, papaya, etc.
The entire point of this method is you look at successful forests nearby and mimic them. So, choosing the right plant material is implicit in this.
And it's been successfully replicated in vastly different places like India and the Netherlands.
I don't know what counts as temperate core for you, but Japan is famous for its diverse climate zones.
Japan is mostly cold to temperate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Japan
except for some small islands like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamitorishima
There's a lot of concern that tree-planting projects wind up like this
https://e360.yale.edu/features/phantom-forests-tree-planting...
I mean, you have major tree planting happening every summer in Canada, and it's all around trying to mono-culture the entire country for the sake of timber companies. They immediately spray Glyphosate on areas burnt by forest fires, so that low value fire break species like Alder don't establish themselves in the area and then they can send in tree planters to plant higher value pine, which is a serotinous species, ie: promotes fire. Then they blame all the bush fires on Climate change.
Forest planting for commercial forestry is not the same as forest planting for urban improvement. The goals and means are different.
Climate change and forestry practices can both take blame for the fire cycles. Commercial foresters have been following these practices for generations and it only started becoming a major issue as climate conditions changed... Practices must adapt, but nobody likes change.
Separate from the forestry philosophy in the headlines article, Japan also famously made a decision in the 1960s that resulted in monoculturing the country into seasonal allergies for the timber industry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever_in_Japan
The Yale article says forest scientists warn that "failed afforestation projects around the world threaten to undermine efforts to make [tree] planting a credible means of countering climate change by reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or generating carbon credits for sale to companies to offset their emissions."
Podcast. There is a transcript, which is in fine print and not concise.
Afforestation of any kind is good, but we can't forget the importance of large, contiguous forest ecosystems too. Segmentation of forest can threaten some species that rely on not being near the edge.
I think that the Miyawaki Method would work just as well to start a large forest. Here's a possible path
* Secure the large area of land
* If your budget is limited, plant a few small areas in the Miyawaki Method to get healthy ecosystems started
* In future years, as you get more money, plant more areas, or just wait for the forest to spread from the Miyawaki areas.
“The Miyawaki Method of micro-forestry is a viral sensation: sprouting tiny, dense, native tree cover in neighbourhoods all around the world. With the promise of afforestation at a revolutionary speed, this planting technique has become the darling of green-space enthusiasts, industry, and governments alike — yet few professional or academic ecologists have commented on its efficacy, or even seem to have heard of it!
In this episode, we debate the legacy of Dr. Akira Miyawaki: the man, the myth, and the method.”
If anyone enjoyed this feature, you might also want to check out The One Straw Revolution, which is about permaculture and its philosophy. It's one of the few books I've read.
Just saw a really interesting Nova centering on Crowther Labs at ETH (recently disbanded). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848 was held up as encouraging unsustainable reforestation for greenwashing PR.
But the most interesting part was a segment covering how tree roots engage in aggressive recruitment and exchange of resources with an underground biome of bacteria and fungi.
You should also look at the follow-up paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06723-z
(and the erratum for the 2019 potential paper https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abc8905)
Why was it disbanded?
I have seen a couple of these in Berkeley. They were all the rage and still are in some ways.
I personally was initially enthusiastic. However, I think there is much easier ways to get the benefits. For example, by adding trees and landscaping in Parks, medians and other public spaces.
Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
> However, I think there is much easier ways to get the benefits. For example, by adding trees and landscaping in Parks, medians and other public spaces.
This is a method to add trees and landscaping.
> Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
It sounds like they're completely inaccessible because of fencing and density. Fencing might be hard to remove, but density at ground level tends to decrease as a forest grows; the canopy blocks sun and lower tree limbs may drop or become less productive and bushier plants have a harder time. After the forest gets somewhat established, pathways are easier to form (although brambles and thickets may need help to clear), and thinning the trees can help the remaining trees thrive.
My parcel has a woods on the edges, and it wasn't too bad to establish paths in most of it, especially with a little help from goats to clean up the ground clutter. Similarly, there are trails in a nearby well established reserve, but you could easily go off trail if you had a reason too... Some bits are too dense to pass through, but most of it is fine. Your local forests likely grow a bit differently than mine though.
Doesn't seem bad to me. Grow the forest and then let the maintainers cut a miniature trail network. People don't need to tromp all over vegetation for it to be beneficial.
Manicured trees & landscaped parks take a lot of active effort and expense, whereas forests are naturally homeostatic. The biodiversity in the latter is also beneficial to flora & fauna compared to the overly-sterile environment of traditional landscaping.
> Once a forest is added to an area, it becomes completely inaccessible because of how dense it grows. All of the ones I have seen are completely fenced off.
I agree: I think the podcast touched on this, but “racing towards the densest forest you can find” sometimes makes no sense - there may have simply been grassland or shrubland before human habitation that supported its own unique flora and fauna!
The density and inaccessibility (to large birds and mammals) is critical for sensitive species like butterflies. I'd wager we'd see a resurgence in some declining insect populations if there were more dense pockets of forest.
This is a point made well in the film Wilding - https://www.wildingmovie.com/ - about a rewilding project in the UK. You need change and open ground for any biodiversity benefits. It's a bit like the close-planted commercial forestry fir plantations that are entirely silent and dead aside from the trees themselves.
If you want to decrease the value of your land plant trees so some nimby can come in designated it as protected habitat and then prevent you from maintaining or cutting any of them down. Tree law is almost as bad as HOA laws. Even if it’s not designed once a tree gets too big you loose any right to manage or maintain it
The one at King Middle School in Berkeley grew almost instantly. I'd read a report about how much biomass they have harvested there.
TLDR: plant native.
[dead]