Should we have more trees in King's County California?
View Full Version : Poll: Plant trees in King's County?
We should plant trees, but not to make more oxygen i/expressions/rolleye.gif
Cut down 1 tree and plant two more.
nik
IamDavid
11-16-2002, 04:52 PM
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
Azraele
11-16-2002, 04:54 PM
Trees are pretty. Plant them. :)
NikPreviousAcct
11-16-2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.
nik
MacBaine
11-16-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
Even if that were true... think about this. say out of 100% O2, 60% (a majority) comes from sea life... well, there's still 40% that we need to take care of. I know this isn't the most accurate of comparisons, but we can't say land based oxygen producers don't matter.
NikPreviousAcct
11-16-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
Even if that were true... think about this. say out of 100% O2, 60% (a majority) comes from sea life... well, there's still 40% that we need to take care of. I know this isn't the most accurate of comparisons, but we can't say land based oxygen producers don't matter.
That's true, but still. Plant atleast 2 trees for every 1 we harvest, and we're in business. :)
nik
klah
11-16-2002, 04:58 PM
There are more trees in the US now than in 1900, and I don't remember reading about people suffocating back then.
Ask A Scientisté: More Trees Today? (http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm)
Certainly there are more trees now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation, and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has been turned back to forest
Eli
11-16-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.
nik
So does that mean that we should just cut all the trees down, because they don't matter? i/expressions/rolleye.gif
Yes, of course. We should plant as many trees as we can. Especially in urban environments.
Did you know that the air inside your house can be worse than the air outside? Having plants in your house helps combat the problem.. plus it makes it homey. :) You can never have too many plants in the house, or in your yard.
NikPreviousAcct
11-16-2002, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.
nik
So does that mean that we should just cut all the trees down, because they don't matter? i/expressions/rolleye.gif
Yes, of course. We should plant as many trees as we can. Especially in urban environments.
Did you know that the air inside your house can be worse than the air outside? Having plants in your house helps combat the problem.. plus it makes it homey. :) You can never have too many plants in the house, or in your yard.
Did you read my post immediately under the one you quoted, smart guy? i/expressions/rolleye.gif
nik
Eli
11-16-2002, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by: klah
There are more trees in the US now than in 1900, and I don't remember reading about people suffocating back then.
Ask A Scientisté: More Trees Today? (http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm)
Certainly there are more trees now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation, and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has been turned back to forest
Uh..... I find that very, very, very hard to believe. I mean, think about it. How many acres of rainforest gets cut down a day? It's rediculous. That alone should tell you that there aren't more trees today than there were in 1900. What about all the cities? What do you think used to be there? Do you think the contcrete and asphalt was there from the beginning?
The idea that there are more trees today than there were in 1900 is absolutely obsurd.
Edit: Ah.. Well, it says in the United States. I dunno, I still find it hard to believe. All the cities.... It doesen't say for sure that there are more. It appears as if he doesen't really even know himself, says it very well could be even..
Besides.. I don't think it's fair that we can cut down an 800 year old tree, plant a new one and call it "even". It's not the individual trees that we need to worry about, it's the loss of natural ecosystems and habitat. That's the real loss. When we cut a forest that has never been touched down, you can't replace that just by replanting some 3 year old trees. Have you ever seen one of our so called replanted forests? Come to Portland and drive to the coast, they're very visable. And they aren't lush and green.. They're small, spindly, and diseased.
Nik - Sorry.. I didn't mean to come across like that.. I wasn't flaming you, I was just trying to point out that something like that isn't worth arguing over.. It wouldn't be long before people would be arguing that we don't need to plant trees because of this fact, lol.
ohtwell
11-16-2002, 05:04 PM
Of course we should! :)
: ) Amanda
klah
11-16-2002, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: klah
There are more trees in the US now than in 1900, and I don't remember reading about people suffocating back then.
Ask A Scientisté: More Trees Today? (http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm)
Certainly there are more trees now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation, and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has been turned back to forest
Uh..... I find that very, very, very hard to believe. I mean, think about it. How many acres of rainforest gets cut down a day? It's rediculous. That alone should tell you that there aren't more trees today than there were in 1900. What about all the cities? What do you think used to be there? Do you think the contcrete and asphalt was there from the beginning?
The idea that there are more trees today than there were in 1900 is absolutely obsurd.
In the US, not the world.
Dragnov
11-16-2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by: klah
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: klah
There are more trees in the US now than in 1900, and I don't remember reading about people suffocating back then.
Ask A Scientisté: More Trees Today? (http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm)
Certainly there are more trees now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation, and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has been turned back to forest
Uh..... I find that very, very, very hard to believe. I mean, think about it. How many acres of rainforest gets cut down a day? It's rediculous. That alone should tell you that there aren't more trees today than there were in 1900. What about all the cities? What do you think used to be there? Do you think the contcrete and asphalt was there from the beginning?
The idea that there are more trees today than there were in 1900 is absolutely obsurd.
In the US, not the world.
Hehe, thats because now instead of cutting down our own trees we just have the other countries cut down thiers for us. :D Like good ol' Canda, and South America so that they can make more cattle for our fast food hamurger patties.
HappyPuppy
11-16-2002, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Originally posted by: klah
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: klah
There are more trees in the US now than in 1900, and I don't remember reading about people suffocating back then.
Ask A Scientisté: More Trees Today? (http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm)
Certainly there are more trees now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation, and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has been turned back to forest
Uh..... I find that very, very, very hard to believe. I mean, think about it. How many acres of rainforest gets cut down a day? It's rediculous. That alone should tell you that there aren't more trees today than there were in 1900. What about all the cities? What do you think used to be there? Do you think the contcrete and asphalt was there from the beginning?
The idea that there are more trees today than there were in 1900 is absolutely obsurd.
In the US, not the world.
Hehe, thats because now instead of cutting down our own trees we just have the other countries cut down thiers for us. :D
And once again the U.S. is the global bad guy.
klah
11-16-2002, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Originally posted by: klah
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: klah
There are more trees in the US now than in 1900, and I don't remember reading about people suffocating back then.
Ask A Scientisté: More Trees Today? (http://newton.dep.anl.gov:70/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm)
Certainly there are more trees now than in 1900, at the end of the great timber baron era of deforestation, and especially since the 1930's depression years much marginal farmland has been turned back to forest
Uh..... I find that very, very, very hard to believe. I mean, think about it. How many acres of rainforest gets cut down a day? It's rediculous. That alone should tell you that there aren't more trees today than there were in 1900. What about all the cities? What do you think used to be there? Do you think the contcrete and asphalt was there from the beginning?
The idea that there are more trees today than there were in 1900 is absolutely obsurd.
In the US, not the world.
Hehe, thats because now instead of cutting down our own trees we just have the other countries cut down thiers for us. :D Like good ol' Canda, and South America so that they can make more cattle for our fast food hamurger patties.
Now we just need to build a big bubble over the US so those SOB's stop leeching off of our oxygen!!
N8Magic
11-16-2002, 05:17 PM
Yes, we should.
1,000 trees is pretty much a drop in the bucket on a global scale, but every little bit helps. Someone already have done this poll, they founf that 89% of people in King's county think there should be more trees. No wonder, with the air qaulity we need as much as we can get!
lowtech1
11-16-2002, 05:25 PM
You should plant trees because it is pretty & it also provide shelter/protection from the environment to the animals & human.
I have planted over 300,000 trees as an ex tree-planter (average about 1200 per/day every summer for 5 years during college).
FoBoT
11-16-2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by: Zap0602
i think we should do this
what?
the O2 level here is fine, no excess CO2 either, are you inside a refrigerator? should i call 911?
n0cmonkey
11-16-2002, 05:36 PM
Plant 1000 *more* trees per year or 1000 *total* trees per year?
lowtech1
11-16-2002, 05:44 PM
What kind of tree do you want to plant?
Fruit trees can be had for $5.00-12.00 each, and spruce/pine/hemloch/cedar range from a low $2.00 each to about $10.00 each seadling. It can set you back a good chunk of money even for the seedling, but 30 to 45 footers can set you back thousands per tree.
MacBaine
11-16-2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by: lowtech
You should plant trees because it is pretty & it also provide shelter/protection from the environment to the animals & human.
I have planted over 300,000 trees as an ex tree-planter (average about 1200 per/day every summer for 5 years during college).
1,200 per day? I find it hard to believe that you yourself could have done that... 8 hours a day, that's 2.5 trees per minute...
bleckywelcky
11-16-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by: N8Magic
Yes, we should.
1,000 trees is pretty much a drop in the bucket on a global scale, but every little bit helps.
Seriously. I think it would be safe to bet that I have over 1000 trees in my backyard alone (although the back 50 yards is forest). Now, they aren't all nice 2 feet in diameter beasts, they range from a couple inches in diameter (and a good 10 - 20 feet tall) to several feet in diameter (and a good 50 - 100 feet tall). We have enough trees in the US, we just need more trees in our urban areas.
For a very quick and dirty US tree population calculation:
The BLM (Burea of Land Management) manages 264 million acres of public land, approximately 1/8th the land area of the US. Most of this is just general land with a random array of forests, rivers, lakes, grassland, desert, chaparal etc.
Let's assume the average tree on BLM land is 8" in diameter
Let's assume the average distance between trees in 'dense forest' areas is 12'.
Let's assume that 'dense forest' land consists of 65% of the total BLM land.
One acre is 4.05e3 square meteres.
One square meter is 10.76 square feet.
One acre = 4.05e3 * 10.76 = 43,578 square feet.
For a square plot of dense forest, one side is SQRT(43578) = 208.753 ft in length.
Using the equation x * (8/12) + (x-1) * (12) = 208.753 where x is a number of trees, we can find the number of trees that will fit on one side of a square acre of 'dense forest'. We find that x = 17.428, the number of average trees that will fit on one side of our average square acre of 'dense forest'.
{Side Note: This number is slightly off because by the nature of this equation we are progressively adding fractional parts of the trees as we are adding fractional parts of the additional trees. So even though we could have half a tree on the edge of our acre, we do not have half a tree with this equation because when x = 1.5 (we are adding a tree and then another half a tree), the diameter added to the total number is 12" (1') and the distance between the trees added is 6' even though at 6' away from one tree we do not have half a tree yet (we have to go another 6' before we encounter the next tree). Still, this is just for approximation purposes.}
So, square that number to find the total number of trees on the average square acre of 'dense forest' 17.428^2 = 303.735 total trees.
Since we are assuming that 65% of the total land is 'dense forest' then .65 * 264 million = 171.6 million acres of 'dense forest'. Multiply that number by 303.735 trees per acre 171.6 million * 303.735 = 52.121 billion trees.
---
So, BLM manages 52.121 billion trees alone by itself. For simplistic purposes, let's assume that each tree produces 1 unit of oxygen in 1 year, so the BLM 'dense forest' land produces 52 121 000 000 units of oxygen in 1 year. If we add 1000 trees to the BLM population in 1 year, then the the BLM 'dense forest' land will produce 52 121 001 000 units of oxygen in 1 year.
That is a .0000192 % increase in oxygen unit production for the year. To increase the oxygen unit production for the year by 1 % based on the first year we started planting trees, we would need to plant 1000 trees per year for 521 210 year. Yes, half a million years later we will have effected the oxygen unit production by 1 %.
Obiously there are errors all over the place in the assumptions, etc of this calculation. However, I think if you accounted for every single piece of land in the US, or even take a look at the entire world, the statistics would look even worse, and you would need to exaggerate the number of years required to effect the oxygen unit product by 1 % immensely.
Edit: This does not mean that I am some anti-tree nazi, I personally love trees and feel sad for the thousands of people moving into these 'planned neighborhoods' around me where you might see some 1 inch diameter saplings every 50 feet along the sidewalk. I just think that we need to be planting millions of trees per year across the land in order to make the places we live that much more beautiful and friendly.
-
Squisher
11-16-2002, 06:30 PM
For those of you wanting to plant trees, and willing to start with year old whips, you might want to check out arborday.com (http://www.arborday.com) for some really cheap trees.
My personal fav. is the Thornless Honey Locust, it's very open so you can plant underneath it, golden in color, and no leaves to rake(they're so small they fall between the blades of grass).
lowtech1
11-16-2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by: MacBaine
Originally posted by: lowtech
You should plant trees because it is pretty & it also provide shelter/protection from the environment to the animals & human.
I have planted over 300,000 trees as an ex tree-planter (average about 1200 per/day every summer for 5 years during college).
1,200 per day? I find it hard to believe that you yourself could have done that... 8 hours a day, that's 2.5 trees per minute...
It is piecework & we work 10-14 hours per day 6 days a week.
Just to let you wankers know how motivated us tree planter are when it comes to paying school tuition & books. Only 1 out of 6 tree-planters survived the first year & come back for second and it is about 1 out of 40 make it for the fourth year.
It is not the hard work that get the planters, but the living condition & insects that break the average person.
The average person that plant in Ontario/Quebec/prairie slash burned (beach planting in tree planter term) average about 2000 trees per day & high-baller do some where around 3000-3500 trees per average day. But the beach planting trees can be price as low as $0.035 CAD per tree, but normally average around 5 to 9 cents per tree. Now calculate how many trees average planter have to plant to get the average pay of $150.00-180.00 per day.
I plant on the steep West Coast mountains where the environment & terrain is much harsher therefor the price is much higher than the prairie or Eastern Canada. Tree price range from $17-55 cents per treeand average around $22-23 cents per tree. I personally can do well in most condition, but detest 40 cents & above terrain, because you have to be a mountain goat to climb the mountain with average over 100 pounds of weight (gear & trees), and generally have to dig through trees & berries bushes & roots to plant a tree. I do best at around $28-32 cents per tree terrain, because I have a screef technique that take an average of 3-5 strokes to break through the root-mat to mineral soil. As a high-baller, I average between 600 trees per day to 2000 trees per day on the West Coast, and thank fully most planting condition isn?t so harsh that I tend to get in between 1000-1400 trees per day.
The best I have done ever is 1975 trees on 43 cents land in 6.5 hours and I would have got more than 3000 trees if the trees weren?t frozen (they froze 15 trees to a bundle & you are not allow to break it apart, because it kill the seedlings). The land happened to be beautiful semi flat land cream with slight mist in the air at around 10 Celsius to keep me cool & the sun off my back.
MacBaine ? Just to let you know any tree-planter that survive longer than 2 years is well respect by anyone that know or work in the bush, because it separate us real men from boys.
lowtech1
11-16-2002, 07:02 PM
2.5 trees per minute...
Actually, I average about 17 sec per tree in the average West Coast land :P
Wheatmaster
11-16-2002, 07:55 PM
i wish this could happen
Staples
11-16-2002, 09:12 PM
Is this happening? We actually have people who think about the environment? From all the political threads, seems that most of the people here are "can't think for myself" Republicans and the one of the major Republican philosophies riding on success is to destroy the environment. As for the topic, sure we should plant trees but I have way to many on my proporty so I need to plant them elsewhere.
Edit: And Hackberry trees grow like weeds around here so I think even spreading their seeds is probably quite effective to in producing more trees.
Staples
11-16-2002, 09:26 PM
And my mom is concerned about the environment but she continues to use paper plates because she says it is better to waste paper that to waste water. That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. We are talking about 60 gals for the dishwasher. I need to find some proof that this is stupid to see if she will stop doing it. I always use glass plates but as long as she keeps buying them, the family will continue to use them. And if it means anything, I am from San Antonio and we have lots of water considering the dish washer uses 60 gals.
Tominator
11-17-2002, 08:30 AM
Fact: Trees are a renewable resource.
Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.
Fact: Too many trees CAN CAUSE pollution!
That last one will have you doing some research!:D
Lonyo
11-17-2002, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by: Tominator
Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.
How come people are worrying about deforestation then?
Czar
11-17-2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by: Tominator
Fact: Trees are a renewable resource.
Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.
Fact: Too many trees CAN CAUSE pollution!
That last one will have you doing some research!:D
and the last one is actually reqiring you to do your own research because people wont just take your word for it
Czar
11-17-2002, 09:32 AM
like someone posted here before, its not the oxygen the trees produce that we should look as the most important aspect of having more trees but the shelter they produce for thousands of other types of life.
Tominator
11-17-2002, 10:18 AM
There are about 300 rabbits killed whenever one acre of wheat is harvested. So, we should not harvest wheat?
Where clear cut logging is done, the chances of devestating forrest fires are greatly reduced.
Paper and lumber companies plant more trees every year that all the tree huggers put together plant in a decade!
Hayabusa Rider
11-17-2002, 10:49 AM
Trivia
Most of the deforestation occurs from overpopulation. The South American ecosystem has all it's nutrients in the canopy, not in the soil which is very, very poor. More people need more food. They clear the land, and plant it. The soil structure is so poor, that no amount of fertilizer will keep it productive more than a few seasons. Fields become useless, so slash and burn some more.
Trees are renewable, rain forests are not. Too complex an ecosystem. You get fields of mud in their place.
There are more trees now in number, but few mature forests. I doubt if the biomass of trees today exceeds that of pre logging times
The huge forrest fires we have today is not due to lack of logging, but lack of smaller fires. In a "normal" forest, you have trees of various sizes and underbrush. Every so often you have lightening strikes, etc that trigger off a fire. The underbrush is killed and the smaller trees. The big ones survive and the forrest continues on regenerating at a fairly good rate. Some time ago, it was decided to agressive fight fires. Since houses were being built near forrests, and the use of public land increased, it seemed ok on the face of it. Unfortunately, the face of it is what won. The Forrestry Service knew it was bad policy, but the politicians as always won.
The result of this is that underbrush accumulated at unprecidented levels.When you think underbrush think kindling. With so much fuel and dry conditions, fires started and spread. Not only did they cover a larger area, but they were hotter, killing trees that would normally survive. Some of these areas will be many decades in recovery where it would have been years before.
There ya go
McPhreak
11-17-2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.
nik
There's no plant life on the bottom of the ocean. Sunlight can't reach down there. Hence, no photosynthesis. There's probably more plant life in the ocean than out, but unfortunately none of it's at the bottom.
Czar
11-17-2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by: McPhreak
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..
There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.
This poll was created on 2012-05-17 23:16:52
by KCAdmin
