'By 2050, the artificial forest is to stretch 400 million hectares – covering more than 42 percent of China's landmass....Ordinary citizens have planted some 56 billion trees across China in the last decade, according to government statistics. In 2009 alone, China planted 5.88 million hectares of forest'
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/23/china-great-green-wall-climate
This is very confusing. Why would they plant non-native trees Zosterops?
"Jiang Gaoming, professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Botany and vice secretary-general of the China Society of Biological Conservation, said the Great Green Wall has, in some places, accelerated ecological degeneration by putting pressure on precious water resources in arid and semi-arid regions.Jiang also said that trees planted during the Great Green Wall project are non-native."
Samford Valley Qld.
asia has a long history of planting non-native trees
in south east asia large swathes of eucalypts were planted in areas affected by agent orange - simply because they were found to be the most tolerant trees. it's usually economically favoured species that are implemented - rubber, pines, cinchona etc and i suspect there may be an attempt to secure the green wall as a practical economic resource in the future
i can't actually find a species list of trees used in this project, just common names and conjecture (though the eucalypts surely aren't native) though i did find reference that vast swathes have already died as they were domestic fruit trees unsuited to arid conditions (!)
facts identified in this article seem rather alarming
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/chinas_reforestation_programs_big_success_or_just_an_illusion/2484/
just found this
'...Thirty-three thousand hectares of forest on the Bashang plains, Beijing’s last line of defence against sandstorms, are dead or dying. The State Forestry Administration said last month that in 90% of cases the trees were simply dying of old age.
Hou Yuanzhao (Hou): There are different types of poplars, with different lifespans. Those grown from cuttings will usually die off after 30 or 40 years. Trees grown from seeds are recorded to have lived past 800 years in Europe. One in Hainan is 300 years old and still flourishing. Generally they’ll live for over a century. But those grown artificially only last a few decades. And that’s how all the trees in China’s shelterbelt were grown'
'...The sea-buckthorn, a shrub native to these areas, was being eliminated as a pest in the 1980s. Its roots are hard to clear out, and new plants sprout from anything that’s left behind. But that’s a great thing! Couldn’t we have used that to quickly expand vegetation? But instead everyone was mobilised to eliminate it.
...Qian Zhengying, the Minister for Water Resources, set up a Sea-buckthorn Office, with Niu Maosheng in charge, planting it on Yellow River dykes. It’s a big industry now, mixed sea-buckthorn and poplar forests are moister and retain more soil, as well as reducing pests. And that plant was there all along, I just had to restore its natural place'.
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6732-Is-China-s-Green-Great-Wall-set-to-fall-
at least they're becoming cognisant of long-term viability
it seems people were drawn to faster-growing, more economically-valuable or aesthetically-imposing species regardless of origin, rather than local shrubby weeds
It appears there wasn't enough research in the begining....Shame really.
"The report in Earth Science Reviews suggests that ecological problems begin even before the thirsty trees themselves die off. When the trees are still growing, they take up water that otherwise would have been unavailable for shallower-rooting native shrubs and grasses. Meanwhile, their limbs and leaves tend to form a tight canopy so shady that it also hampers photosynthesis by smaller plants on the forest floor. As these plants die off, soil on the surface of the forest floor is exposed to wind erosion, the very problem the trees were planted to prevent.".
Samford Valley Qld.
true, it seems an impetuous response to the perceived imminent threat posed by sand dunes
'The project began in 1978, and three years later the National People's Congress, China's top legislative body, passed a resolution to make it the duty of every citizen above age 11 to plant at least three Poplar, Eucalyptus, Larch or other saplings every year'
at least there has been a realisation of the ecological ramifications of the exercise.. a few tens of billions of trees later.
See what happens when they have no one to copy. Right idea wrong plant, good on them for having a decent crack. Perhaps our governments can learn something.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
perspicaciously discerned, jason
at least they're trying
And it will now cost them heaps to repair the damage. That's if they're willing. Even then there's no guarantee that scientific revegetation will be as effective as they would wish given the huge amounts of air pollution in many parts of China.
I find it curious that in spite of all the scientific information that's been available for decades about the environmental damage caused by the planting of non-indigenous species it still goes on across Earth. No doubt, as you say, zosterops, economic use of feral vegetation is a motivating factor but this so often turns out to be short term economics as you imply, Reflex.
I understand that Eucalyptus plantings in Vietnam were a project of our CSIRO. Not a trerribly bright idea for the long term health of the environment there I wouldn't think. First agent orange, then feral vegetation.
By the way, zosterops, isn't "local shrubby weeds" an oxymoron?
indeed, woko. i was merely utilising their nomenclature satirically
it seems eucs are still being promoted for cultivation in vietnam, woko, they've been incorporated into local traditional folk medicines for purported therapeutic properties, i dare say the plantation monocultures have supplanted some local traditional remedies..
eucs alongside pinus radiatas from california:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/eucalyptus-the-australian-ingredient-in-vietnam's-miracle-cure/6755134
seems australian acacias are also big business there:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/in_war-scarred_landscape_vietnam_replants_its_forests/2336/
Yikes, yet more devastating attacks on wildlife.
Nothing wrong with a good piece of satire, zosterops.
Um, I hate to butt in but some species of Eucalypts are native to south east asia folks, just not our Australian species I don't think. But seriously, there are still a lot of countries out there who do not have access to the knowledge that we have here in Australia. I'm not even sure if China's general population is even allowed internet access.
I think China's Green Wall was probably done out of desperation, using whatever they had available to them at the time. Just planting that many trees is a huge effort in itself. We all should be proud of China for making the effort to try. Making trees grow in a desert is no easy task in itself, and getting them to grow and die of old age is just marvellous if you ask me. At least the trees lived a full life.
Our little planet has more plant species on it than all the animals species combined. Plants are older than the rest of the lifeforms, probably except for some microorganisms and sea creatures. Plants are adaptive more than any other life form on Earth. But we humans are in no way capable of recreating nature, let alone how plants would naturally grow together in the wild. We do our best to try. We do our best to understand these things but we still fail.
The one thing I have learnt about plants is they are adaptive and will adapt to their environment. But this adaptation is just not for the benefit of growing. I mean, they adapt to the wildlife as well. Think of it as a need to survive. Without attracting the local birds to feed on the plant, to eat it's nectar, or to pollinate it's flowers, the plants cannot reproduce. The plants HAVE TO ATTRACT whatever animals/birds/insects THAT IS IN IT'S ENVIRONMENT to survive or it will die, or worse, NOT REPRODUCE SEED. Every single seed that sprouts has to begin life like this. But if you tried this with a mammal, let's say a carnivore, it will either adapt and kill and eat whatever herbivore is available or it will die of hunger.
Plants are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. They will benefit the local wildlife because they will need to in order to guarantee their own survival. So planting Australian gum trees in a gum tree free country, will only increase the food source for the wildlife (especially birds and small mammals) that would not normally have such rich source of food availalbe previously.
We humans are on a learning curve when it comes to learning about life on Earth. Plants are a life form we are yet to fully comprehend. Some of us are more learned than others, and as I see it, China is, on its own, going through its own learning curve about trees and plants in general. Not everyone learns things at the same rate as everyone else does.
What is so terribly wrong with planting exotics if that's all you've got that you believe might fix a problem? Just ask yourselves this question....How many exotic plants do you have in your garden that the native wildlife is attracted to?
China's problems are far greater than our own, environmentally speaking. They're planting and learning as they go. They make mistakes and they're fully aware that they make mistakes. To me, that just makes them human. You don't become wise from doing. You become wise from doing, making mistakes and then learning from those mistakes, and then not repeating those mistakes. This is what is happening in China.
As a few folk have said here, "At least they're trying."
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
I tend to agree with the position put by Shirley. They are PLANTING and learning as they go. They are at least doing something. They have the numbers and the resources to correct their mistakes. Whereas here they just cut down and denude. Precious little planting.
I can assure Shirley the Chinese do have access to the internet. Its just that anything critical of the communist party is blocked or censored. I always get the feeling of being watched when I am on the internet in China, and I probably am. To get onto a terminal at a cyber cafe in China, foreigners have to produce their passports (the locals probably have to provide ID as well).
At one cyber cafe in China I came across a line of about a dozen teenagers, handcuffed and forced by "police" to squat on the footpath outside while they waited for vans to take them away. I was told that their heinous crime was being under eighteen.
not the species that were being planted.
not necessarily, note how the second article i linked states that acacia plantations in vietnam lack biodiversity.
it's so case-specific that it's very hard to generalise, but species can take a very long time to adapt to novel food sources (i recall some study that found that galahs took 100 years to start utilising seeding liquidambars).
if these plant introductions do favour species, it is usually only the most adaptable species, and even then there's the contention that they are being attracted away from their original ecological role (spreading introduced species x when they could be distributing seeds of local plant species dependent on them). the more adaptable species are then found in unnaturally high concentrations.
but then many species cannot adapt to the new food sources at all.
but granted the exotics were being planted 'to stop sand dunes' not 'to promote local ecology' to that was not the intent
the crux of the issue is that exotics are not all they have. much, much better more drought-resistant indigenous choices are right under their noses (which incidentally are now being utilised). thousands of hectares are now dying due to not having been suited to the local conditions (granted it is a desert) but if local species had been planted i'd suggest they might have faired a bit better. part of the problem is much of the region having been deforested in ancient times so it's hard to say what grew in particular areas originally.
i'm not so sure it's a matter of experience; the chinese are amongst the world's preeminent horticulturalists. they domesticated rice 6,000 BC.
Hopefully, the Chinese are on a learning curve. Perhaps we all are. I recall that when a few people became aware that it was damaging on an enormous scale to clear bushland they planted exotic pine trees, particularly Monterey Pine Pinus radiata & Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis - at least they did in SA. When they discovered what a disaster that was they thought that natives were the go. Now they're discovering that any native isn't good enough because of the damage that some non-indigenous natives were causing. So now there's gathering awareness that indigenous trees are the go. Once they discover that just trees isn't appropriate they'll start planting indigenous shrubs in greater numbers. Then they'll become aware of the need to plant indigenous lilies, ground covers, herbs etc. Indigenous mosses, lichens, fungi etc. will follow. By the time this happens let's hope that there are enough of these smaller plants left to enable restoration of as much as possible of the original plant communities.
I think your write woko, it was not so long ago Aus natives were ugly, ignored, and worthless to most Australians in the garden. And perhaps for other uses as well. But now days it's a little different. China may well be only 30 years behind us in native plant usage and it's mindset. But I could imagine Aus using something exotic to stop some human made natural disaster.
Even to this day the Brisbane council are trying to beautify foot paths on busy roads with exotic plants. The cars should carry or blow the seeds to where ever just nicely, and next to the river is an excellent choice by some boof head.
And unfortunately there is nothing to see but pine needles and lantana under the pine plantations just Nth of Brisbane. And the plantation eucalypt forrests of Tassis have as much diversity as a bitumen car park. Perhaps we have learned little, and practice less. Maybe China did copy us after all.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
zosterops, these trees are planted on the edge of a desert that is constantly shifting, and the sand is being blown over the countryside and into heavily built up human areas. The sandstorms became a health hazard, so too the pollution created by humans. It is documented that Eucalypt trees were planted as they were more tolerant of the Agent Orange chemical. Therefore there are 3 major elements at play : sandstorms; pollution; and Agent Orange.
Put all of those 3 elements together and what do you have? One very big problem. Doing some research tells me that the indigenious flora of China affected by Agent Orange will take centuries to regenerate on it's own. In the meantime the area affected by Agent Orange becomes a wasteland. This makes me think, that perhaps the reason why China has sandstorms now is because the flora that was holding back the desert all finally died, releasing the grip it had on the desert to keep it in place. Now the desert is free to roam again.
Knowing all of that, indigenious flora now becomes useless to revegetate the edge of the desert. So what do you do now? What did China plant before they planted Eucalypts? They planted something because it was said that they found Eucalypts to be more tolerant of Agent Orange (than other species). You plant whatever the heck works and survives.
I think in this case China has already tried planting natives but were not resistant to the Agent Orange or the desert conditions. Sometimes its okay to not give a hoot whether exotic tree planting messes up the ecosystem. If local native plants won't grow then it has to be exotics if they are tough enough to survive.
And why plant fruit trees in a desert? To retain moisture in the ground? Hmm....not sure about that one.
Chemical warfare is ugly and it's effects disasterous for generations to come. Agent Orange kills off plants and animals alike, for centuries. This is what China is up against - an environmental disaster that will continue for centuries, and it seems the effects of the dieing/dead environment has started to take effect during the last 20 or so years.
The real question is why plant only trees and not shrubs and grasses? You have to start somewhere in working with a deadzone. And why plant enmasse Pine trees and Eucalypts knowing their leaves are toxic to other plants? What grows underneath just these 2 species of trees in nature? In foreign countries - nothing. In Australia - very little unless the plants have adapted to the toxins. So why grow them in the first place? For the nutrients, of course. It makes perfect sense to me. Agent Orange eliminates the nutrients in the soil, so China is trying to grow these particular two tree species (amongst others) to build up the nutrients in the soil over a longer period of time. It takes 10 years for gum leaves to fully break down but when they do the soil is rich and black in colour, so China is planning for a long term solution starting at the soil up.
jason... humans are pretty much the same all over the world when it comes to seeing how ugly and useless native plants are. That is until we discover a connection between the value of the Earth to our own existence. People only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear - that's a fact. But there may come a time when people open their eyes and realize that without plants and the wildlife we would all die. Without bees, for example, none of our precious fruits and vegatables would ever fruit. We'd starve to death. Without grass, cows would die of hunger and therefore we'd die of hunger - being omnivores and all. I ask you, is there a subconscious link between letting cows roam to eat grass, so eventually we can eat the cows vs the mentality of the average person having a green lawn and consistently mowing it because there's no cows to eat the grass? There has to be a subconscious reasoning behind growing a lawn in the first place, and only growing lawn and nothing much else? I think humans are stuck in some sort of mentality about the environment that we can't seem to get passed but I think with China they are just desperate to stop the encroachment of the Gobi desert and are using whatever works for them. Any native plants they find along the way that can be thrown amongst the exotics is a bonus as well as a big deal to them by the sound of it.
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
Shirley rightly wonders about the reasoning behind growing a lawn and nothing much else. I agree with her that humans are stuck in some sort of mentality in that regard..
We are talking about agent orange in Vietnam? Not China?
Well, of course there won't be any kind of diversity if only one tree species is planted. Sorry, haven't read the article yet - too much on my mind. Some tree species are not much good for anything at all but acacias are good for timber though.
That's because Galahs are not opportunistic feeders. Some bird species are like that. Sulphur-crested Cockatoos, for example, are opportunistic feeders, and will eat seed and fruit from anything. It only takes them 1 year to figure out if something is edible or not. If there are opportunistic bird species in China that will try new food sources via the introduction of exotic tree species, other similiar bird species that eat similiar food as those birds will catch on that the food is edible - by watching those birds eat from those trees, and will try it out for themselves. I've seen it happen here in Tenterfield. If it happens here it will happen elsewhere in the world too.
Birds distributing seed of plants is rare in nature, zosterops. It entirely depends on the plant species and the bird species involved. Most seeds distributed by birds come in the form of fruit/berries. Every other type of seed is usually destroyed once eaten by the bird/s. Eucalypt seeds germinate only because they weren't eaten by birds.
The real question is what type of wildlife, birds and animals alike, actually survive on the edge of the Gobi desert, if there is anything there at all? And if not, then it doesn't matter if China plants exotics in the desert or not because there's nothing there to be attracted to it in the first place.
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
agent orange was not even used in china.
knowing that agent orange is not present, indigenous flora are suited to revegetate the desert.
local desert flora was not adapted to the desert?
planting any trees encourages local rainfall events via evapotranspiration processes.
not sure why fruit trees were selected in this case but that's what they did. i can only speculate, perhaps they saw the potential of some semblance of a future food resource.
internet research reveals that desertification in the gobi is largely a result of 'deforestation'. deforestation suggests to me that there were trees there to begin with across much of the region. ancient deforestation was followed by centuries of graduallly increasing grazing pressure ousting the native shrubby grasses which prevented soil erosion in the first place.
not directly, though it's not present anway.
eucalypt leaves actually have very low fertility, even moreso when grown on infertile soils.
Every plant species on earth has uses, some uses are lost to history or yet to be discovered.
the gobi desert possesses a rather biodiverse ecosystem even in its current largely deforested state; the only place there is no life on earth is parts of the atacama. the edge of the gobi is especially rich, though even in the most barren areas life endures.
possibly, but why. native plants have been doing a good job of providing for these birds for a long time. many desert species are specialists. specialised species will likely not be able to adapt to the novel food sources, and may be eliminated by inflated populations of more adaptable species favoured by artificial exotic plantings.
even a single bird-distributed plant species can prove invasive and potentially form a monoculture if it adapts to local conditions. in fact bird-dispersed plants have been amongst the most successful perennial weeds.
Hi Shirley. I'm keen to learn the source of your information that "Birds distributing seed of plants is rare in nature..." Here is a list of plants the seeds of which are spread by birds in my neck of the woods:
Acacia pycnantha, spread by Galah & Little Corella
Acacia argyrophylla, Little Corella
Mistletoe, Mistletoe Bird
Pinus radiata, Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Olive, probably Common Blackbird &/or Common Starling
Black Nightshade, unsure but found in numbers at the base of trees
Enchylaena tomentosa, Silvereye, Crested Pigeon, Singing Honeyeater, Adelaide Rosella, Little Corella, Australian Magpie
Also, I'm aware of the critical role that birds play in the spread of seeds of rainforest plants.
I'm unaware of the use of agent orange in China. Do you have a source for this information? My understanding is that the US used agent orange in Vietnam.
Also, I'm not sure why you would perhaps advocate exotics to repair the damage done by the removal of native vegetation. I'm wondering what your rationale for this would be. If it is that any speices is OK to stop the spread of desert then why wouldn't you use indigenous species?
black nightshades (solanum nigrum) are readily spread by silvereyes, blackbirds, starlings and presumably others, woko.
blackbirds in particular owing to their frugivorous propensities have actually contributed towards altering the landscape in parts of south-eastern australia, spreading bushy perennials and small trees (cotoneaster, privet, firethorn, coprosmas), vines and scramblers (ivy, blackberries) and various herbaceous weeds (eg. solanums). they have also been implicated in the spreading of some natives well outside their natural ranges (e.g. pittosporum undulatum)
camphor laurels were planted as ornamentals in parts of the east coast. then white-headed and topknot pigeons fed on the fruits, eventually causing a large increase in the bird population. the seeds were subsequently distributed en masse in surrounding areas forming dense monocultures. allelopathic properties reduce native vegetation colonisation, and the chemical properties of the leaves mean they are ignored by almost all insects, so the groves are devoid of insectivorous birds.
That is interesting!
Samford Valley Qld.
indeed
for further reading i recommend 'where song began' by australian biologist tim low.