Tree planting

Tree planting is the process of transplanting tree seedlings, generally for forestry, land reclamation, or landscaping purposes. It differs from the transplantation of larger trees in arboriculture and from the lower-cost but slower and less reliable distribution of tree seeds. Trees contribute to their environment over long periods of time by providing oxygen, improving air quality, climate amelioration, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife. During the process of photosynthesis, trees take in carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we breathe.

A tree planter in northern Ontario

Tree planting is an aspect of habitat conservation. In each plastic tube, a hardwood tree has been planted.

Tree planting in Ghana

In silviculture, the activity is known as "reforestation", or "afforestation," depending on whether the area being planted has recently been forested or not. It involves planting seedlings over an area of land where the forest has been harvested or damaged by fire, disease, or human activity. Tree planting is carried out in many different parts of the world, and strategies may differ widely across nations and regions and among individual reforestation companies. Tree planting is grounded in forest science and, if performed properly, can result in the successful regeneration of a deforested area. Reforestation is the commercial logging industry's answer to the large-scale destruction of old-growth forests, but a planted forest rarely replicates the biodiversity and complexity of a natural forest.^{[citation needed]}

Because trees remove carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, tree planting can be used as a geoengineering technique to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Desert greening projects are also motivated by improved biodiversity and reclamation of natural water systems, as well as improved economic and social welfare due to an increased number of jobs in farming and forestry.

By country

Australia

Australian forests have been heavily affected since European colonisation, and some attempts have been made to restore native habitats, both by government and individuals. Greening Australia is a national Non profit set up to run the "National Tree Program" initiated by the Federal Government in 1982.^[1] Greening Australia completed the 1 Billion Tree target and has gone on to become one of the major tree-planting organisations in the country.

There is a strong volunteer movement for conservation in Australia through Landcare and other networks. National Tree Day is organised annually by Planet Ark in the last week in July, encouraging the public to plant 1 million native trees per year. Growing trees for Timber industries is a long-term project. It may take many years for a tree to mature to an age and size that is appropriate for the Timber to be used by industry. Some trees are many hundreds of years old.

Many state governments run their own "Million Tree" programs each year to encourage community involvement.^[2][3]

Trees for Life (Brooklyn Park) is an excellent example of a community organisation having a sustainable impact.

Bangladesh

45,000 tree saplings will be planted on rural roads in Bangladesh. Legal agreements will ensure that 60% tree wealth created will belong to the poorest families (45 km × 15 = 675 families). Local government and PEP each receive 20% tree wealth. 45 poor rural women & 3 local social workers will be employed for 3 years to nurture the young saplings, receiving a monthly salary. With only 8% of the desired 25% land under tree coverage, the project will improve environment.^[4]

Canada

Most tree planting in Canada is carried out by private reforestation companies.^[5] The reforestation companies compete with one another for contracts which are provided by logging companies. The annual allowable cut for the following year is based upon how much money the logging company invests into reforestation and other silvicultural practices. Planting is carried out in accordance to the client's specifications, and planters are expected to learn the quality standards for each contract that they work on. Planted blocks are spot checked on a regular basis. Although quality concerns vary across contracts, spot checkers are typically looking for such things as: species appropriate site choice, species appropriate spacing, how tight the saplings are in the ground, how straight the saplings are, and whether or not the saplings have been damaged. These concerns vary from region to region, and from contract to contract.

Tree-planting is typically piece work and tree prices can vary widely depending on the difficulty of the terrain and on the winning contract's bid price. As a result, there is a saying among planters: "There is no bad land, only bad contracts." 4 months of hard work can yield enough to live on for an entire year, but conditions are harsh.^[5]

Tree planting crews often do not permanently reside in the areas where they work, thus much planting is based out of motels or bush camps. Bush camp accommodations usually consist of a mess tent, cook shack, dry goods tent, first aid tent, freshly dug outhouses, and a shower tent or trailer. Planters are responsible for bringing either a tent or car to sleep in. A camp also contains camp cooks and support staff.^[5]

The average British Columbian planter plants 1,600 trees per day,^[6] but it is not uncommon for experienced planters to plant up to 4,000 trees per day while working in the interior.^[5] These numbers are higher in central and eastern Canada, where the terrain is generally faster, however the price per tree is slightly lower as a result. Average daily totals of 2,500 are common, with experienced planters planting upwards of 5,000 trees a day. Numbers as high as 7,500 a day have been recorded.^[5] Planters typically work 8–11 hours per day with an additional 1 to 2 hours of (usually) unpaid traveling time. Work weeks on British Columbian planting contracts are usually 3–4 days long, with 1 day off. In Ontario, work weeks are generally 5–6 days long, with 1 day off.

Quite often, tree planting contractors will deduct some of the cost associated with the operation of the contract directly from the tree planter's daily earned wages. These imposed fees typically vary from $10 to $30 per day, and are referred to as "camp costs".^[7]

Once inflation is factored in, real tree planter earnings have declined for many years in Canada. This has adversely affected the sector's ability to attract and retain workers.^[8] Higher wages and much better working conditions in many other industries, from construction, to oil and gas, and even information technology, has led to fewer Canadian young people wanting to plant trees.

Based on statistics for British Columbia, the average tree planter: lifts a cumulative weight of over 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb), bends more than 200 times per hour, drives the shovel into the ground more than 200 times per hour and travels over 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) with a heavy load, every day of the entire season. The reforestation industry has an average annual injury rate of approximately 22 claims per 100 workers, per year. It is often difficult and sometimes dangerous.^[6]

 

Traditional tree protectors in the Black Forest, Germany

Germany

Tree planting is widely practiced in Germany.

 

Plastic tree protectors in the Black Forest, Germany

Great Britain

Planting in Britain is commonly referred to as restocking, when it takes place on land that has recently been harvested. When occurring on previously unforested land it is known as new planting.^[9] Under the British system, in order to acquire the necessary permissions to clearcut, the landowner must agree a management plan with the Forestry Commission (the regulatory body for all things forestry) which must include proposals for the re-establishment of tree cover on the land. Planting contractors will be engaged by the landowner/management company, a contract drawn up and work will typically take place from November to April when most of the transplants are dormant.

Planting is part of the rotational nature of much British plantation forestry. Productive tree crops are planted and subsequently clearcut. Some form of soil cultivation may take place and the ground is then restocked. Where the production of timber is a management priority, a prescribed stocking density must be achieved. For coniferous species this will be a minimum of 2500 stems per hectare at year 5 (from planting). Planting at this density has been shown to favour the development of straighter knot-free logs.

Planters are normally paid under piece work terms and an experienced worker will plant around 1600 trees a day under most conditions.

India

 

Tree Plantation Drive by Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai, India

Tree Plantation drives combat many environmental issues like deforestation, erosion of soil, desertification in semi-arid areas, global warming and hence enhancing the beauty and balance of the environment. Trees absorb harmful gases and emit oxygen resulting in an increase in oxygen supply. On average, a single tree emits 260 pounds of oxygen annually. Similarly, a fully-grown tree is sufficient for 18 human beings in one acre of land in one year stressing the importance of tree plantation for mankind. Aniruddha's Academy of Disaster Management in Mumbai, India carries out numerous projects to plant trees on a huge scale. The foundation trains volunteer on this subject at Govidyapeetham (Cattle Conservation Institute) in the city of Karjat in Maharashtra, India. The trained volunteers then plant saplings, trees in groups on available land. Local government authorities also provide vacant plots, land on highways sides and on the hills for tree plantation. Ek Kadam Sansthan^[10] of Jaipur, India is involved in many plantation projects including one tree my duty to plant trees on the earth. The Ek Kadam plant trees and hand them over to the individual at the village, who meets beneficiary criteria like they are financially challenged, physically challenged etc. After handing over the process Sansthan pays them 100 INR per tree for watering and safety from grazing cattle. Hence by this process Ek Kadam sansthan want to ensure 100% survivability of planted trees. Many volunteers are added to this campaign. The trained volunteers help Ek Kadam Sansthan to plant saplings, and managing all processes. Ek Kadam Sansthan not taking any support from government agencies. The management committee is regularised and managed by retired bureaucrats to ensure transparency in funds and performance measures.

Ek Kadam Sansthan's campaign One Tree My Duty is working with technology-enabled tree plantation work.

Israel

See: Jewish National Fund#Afforestation; List of forests in Israel.

Tree-planting is an ancient Jewish tradition. The Talmudic rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai used to say that if a person planting a tree heard that the Messiah had arrived, he should finish planting before going to greet him.^[11] Due to massive afforestation efforts,^[12] this fact echoed in diverse campaigns.^[13][14] Israeli forests are the product of a major afforestation campaign by the Jewish National Fund (JNF).^[15]

The largest planted forest in Israel is Yatir Forest, located on the southern slopes of Mount Hebron, on the edge of the Negev Desert. It covers an area of 30,000 dunams (30 square kilometers).^[16] It is named after the ancient Levite city within its territory, Yatir, as written in the Torah: "And unto the children of Aaron the priest they gave Hebron with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Libnah with its suburbs, and Jattir with its suburbs, and Eshtemoa with its suburbs" (Book of Joshua 21:13–14).^[17] In 2006, the JNF signed a 49-year lease agreement with the State of Israel which gives it control over 30,000 hectares of Negev land for the development of forests.^[18] Research on climate change is being carried out in Yatir Forest.^[19][20] Studies of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in collaboration with the Desert Research Institute at Sde Boker, have shown that the trees function as a trap for carbon in the air.^[21][22] Shade provided by trees planted in the desert also reduces evaporation of the sparse rainfall.^[21] Yatir Forest is a part of the NASA project FluxNet, a global network of micrometeorological tower sites used to measure the exchanges of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy between terrestrial ecosystem and atmosphere. The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies conducts research that focuses on crops such as dates and grapes grown in the vicinity of Yatir forest.^[23][24] The research is part of a project aimed at introducing new crops into arid and saline zones.^[25]

The JNF has been criticized for planting non-native pine trees which are unsuited to the climate, rather than local species such as olive trees.^[26] Others say that JNF deserves credit for this decision, and the forests would not have survived otherwise.^{[27][better source needed]} According to JNF statistics, six out of every 10 saplings planted at a JNF site in Jerusalem do not survive, although the survival rate for planting sites outside Jerusalem is much higher – close to 95 percent.

New Zealand

 

Tree planting by a boy in India

Kaingaroa Forest in New Zealand is the second largest planted forest in the southern hemisphere after the Sabie/Graskop area in South Africa. It is one of the many plantation forests planted since European settlement. The Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) is commonly used for plantations since a fast-growing cultivar suitable for a wide range of conditions has been developed.

Government agencies, environmental organisations and private trusts carry out tree planting for conservation and climate change mitigation. While some work is carried out by private enterprise, there are also planting days organised for volunteers. Landcare Research use planted forests for their EBEX21 system for greenhouse gas emissions mitigations.^[28]

South Africa

South Africa's forests have been a heavily depleted mostly due to agriculture, traditional farming and urbanisation in the coastal regions. Various organizations are working on increasing the forest cover in parts of the country. Currently there is less than 0.5% forest cover in South Africa. Wildlands Conservation Trust and Food & Trees for Africa (FTFA) are some of the oldest NGOs working to plant trees throughout South Africa—both established in the early 1990s. Greenpop is a national Social Enterprise established in 2010 which focusses on tree planting in sustainable urban greening and forest restoration in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is a strong volunteer movement for conservation in South Africa. National Tree Day or Arbor Day is organised annually in September, and has gone on to become national Arbor Month.

The largest planted forest in the Southern Hemisphere is located in the Sabie/Graskop area in South Africa and covers approximately 6,000 km².^[29]

United States

Hand planting is the most widely practiced planting method in the United States. Hand planting is possible on most terrain, in most soil conditions, and around obstacles. Equipment for hand planting is inexpensive, but hand planting is labor-intensive resulting in costs that are generally 20% to 50% greater than those of machine planting.^[30] Hand planting is an attractive option for landowners and conservation organizations planting small acreages; especially if volunteer labor is available. Seedling survival rates will vary based on planters' experience levels. In the U.S., common hand planting tools include dibbles, mattocks, augers, and hoedads^[31] that are paired with a hip or shoulder harness style planting bag.

Machine planting is another common planting method in the United States. Equipment and transportation costs are such that machine planting is generally used for larger acreages where reduced labor cost and high planting productivity are desired. Machine planting is generally restricted to reasonably level terrain with good soil and limited obstacles. While machine planting is most often associated with plantation silviculture in the Southeast and Upper Midwest, it has been used in ecological restoration. Machine planting was used for forest restoration on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula following a large scale Spruce Bark Beetle outbreak in the 1990s.^[32] Common tree planting machines include the C&G Tree Planter,^{[33][34][35][36][37][38][39]} Hoedag Tree Planter,^[40] Taylor Tree Planter,^[41] Reynolds Tree Planter, and Whitfield Tree Planter.^[42][43]

Trees for the Future and Plant With Purpose are non-profit organizations based in the U.S. that plant trees in developing countries to improve land management.^[44][45] Other organizations that plant trees in the United States include:

• American Forests
• Planting Shade Student run non-profit based in Virginia Beach. Gives citizens the resources to plant trees in their own backyard and other residential areas.
• Arbor Day Foundation^[46]
• Nature Conservancy
• Plant-it 2020^[47]
• USDA Forest Service "Plant-A-Tree" program in which a person can donate to plant trees in the National Forests.^[48]
• Our City Forest^[49]
• TreeFolks empowers central Texans to build stronger communities through planting and caring for trees. Since 1989, TreeFolks has planted over 1.5 million trees in parks, neighborhoods, and natural areas throughout central Texas.

Role in climate change

The development of markets for tradeable pollution permits in recent years have opened up a new source of funding for tree planting projects: carbon offsets. The creation of carbon offsets from tree planting projects hinges on the notion that trees help to mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon dioxide as they grow. However, the science linking trees and climate change is largely unsettled, and trees remain a controversial source of offsets.

Climate impacts

Climate scientists working for the IPCC believe human-induced global deforestation is responsible for 18-25% of global climate change.^{[citation needed]} The United Nations, World Bank and other leading nongovernmental organizations are encouraging tree planting to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Trees sequester carbon through photosynthesis, converting carbon dioxide and water molecules into molecular dioxygen (O₂) and plant organic matter, such as carbohydrates (e.g., cellulose). Hence, forests that grow in area or density and thus increase in organic biomass will reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels. (Carbon is released as CO₂ if a tree or its lumber burns or decays, but as long as the forest is able to grow back at the same rate as its biomass is lost due to oxidation of organic carbon, the net result is carbon neutral.) In their 2001 assessment, the IPCC estimated the potential of biological mitigation options (mainly tree planting) is on the order of 100 Gigatonnes of carbon (cumulative) by 2050, equivalent to about 10% to 20% of projected fossil fuel emissions during that period.^[50]

However, the global cooling effect of forests from carbon sequestration is not the only factor to be considered. For example, the planting of new forests may initially release some of the area's existing carbon stores into the atmosphere. For example, if one included emissions from the conversion of peat bogs into oil palm plantations in national GHG totals, this would move Indonesia from 21st to third place as the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases.^[51]

Compared to less vegetated lands, forests affect climate in three main ways:

• Cooling the Earth by functioning as carbon sinks, and adding water vapor to the atmosphere and thereby increasing cloudiness.
• Warming the Earth by absorbing a high percentage of sunlight due to the low reflectivity of a forest's dark surfaces. This warming effect, or reduced albedo, is large where evergreen forests, which have very low reflectivity, shade snow cover, which is highly reflective.

To date, most tree planting offsets strategies have taken only the first effect into account. A study published in December 2005 combined all these effects and found that tropical forestation has a large net cooling effect, because of increased cloudiness and because of high tropical growth and carbon sequestration rates.^[52]

Trees grow three times faster in the tropics than in temperate zones; each tree in the rainy tropics removes about 22 kilograms (50 pounds) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.^[53] However, this study found little to no net global cooling from tree planting in temperate climates, where warming due to sunlight absorption by trees counteracts the global cooling effect of carbon sequestration. Furthermore, this study confirmed earlier findings that reforestation of colder regions—where long periods of snow cover, evergreen trees, and slow sequestration rates prevail—probably results in global warming. According to Ken Caldeira, a study co-author from the Carnegie Institution for Science, "To plant forests outside of the tropics to mitigate climate change is a waste of time.".^[54]

His premise that grassland reflects more sun, keeping temperatures lower, is, however, applicable only in arid regions. A well-watered lawn, for example, is as green as a tree, but absorbs far less CO₂.^{[citation needed]} Deciduous trees also have the advantage of providing shade in the summer and sunlight in the winter; so these trees, when planted close to houses, can be utilized to help increase energy efficiency of these houses.

This study remains controversial and criticized for assuming dark colored trees might replace the frozen, white tundra in the upper northern hemisphere. Regular tree planting projects typically take place on lands that are only slightly different in color. The warming impact was also measured over hundreds of years, rather than a 30- to 70-year time horizon most climate experts believe we have to fix climate change.

Furthermore, the described warming effect (of temperate and boreal latitude forest) is only apparent once the trees have grown to create a dense 'close canopy', and it is at precisely this point that trees grown for offset purposes should be harvested and their absorbed carbon fixed for the long-term as timber.

Costs

While the benefits of tree planting are subject to debate,^[55] the costs are low compared to many other mitigation options. The IPCC has concluded that "The mitigation costs through forestry can be quite modest (US$0.1–US$20 / metric ton carbon dioxide) in some tropical developing countries ... The costs of biological mitigation, therefore, are low compared to those of many other alternative measures".^[50] The cost-effectiveness of tropical reforestation is due not only to growth rate, but also to farmers from tropical developing countries who voluntarily plant and nurture tree species which can improve the productivity of their lands.^[56] As little as US$90 will plant 900 trees, enough to annually remove as much carbon dioxide as is annually generated by the fossil-fuel usage of an average United States resident.

Types of trees planted

 

A eucalyptus plantation in final stages at Arimalam.

The type of tree planted may have great influence on the environmental outcomes. It is often much more profitable to outside interests to plant fast-growing species, such as eucalyptus, casuarina or pine (e.g., Pinus radiata or Pinus caribaea), even though the environmental and biodiversity benefits of such monoculture plantations are not comparable to native forest, and such offset projects are frequently objects of controversy.

To promote the growth of native ecosystems, many environmentalists advocate only indigenous trees be planted. A practical solution is to plant tough, fast-growing native tree species which begin rebuilding the land. Planting non-invasive trees that assist in the natural return of indigenous species is called "assisted natural regeneration." There are many such species that can be planted, of which about 12 are in widespread use in the US, such as Leucaena leucocephala.^[57] Alternatively, farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR), involves farmers preserving trees (not replanting), and is considered to be a more cost-effective method of reforestation than regular tree planting.

Season of planting

 

Planting trees in USA

Bareroot stock

The classical silvicultural literature unanimously advocates spring as the time to plant bareroot stock, with lifting and outplanting taking place while the trees are still apparently dormant.^[58] This view, in which spring planting is implicit, was epitomized by Toumey and Korstian (1942):^[59] "Almost without exception the most favourable time for ... planting is 2 weeks or more before buds [of the planting stock] begin their growth". Soil moisture conditions are generally favourable at the time when the growing season is about to begin, while dormant stock is less subject to mechanical injury and physiological shock.^[60]

If the size of the planting program allows, there is little doubt that such scheduling would be advantageous in that it satisfies one, and commonly 2, of the factors essential for success: (1) the use of planting stock that is physiologically capable of responding to a growth environment at planting, and (2) planting when site factors favour tree survival and growth. The 3rd factor a good planting job, and although desirable in all plantings, is probably somewhat less critical in conventional spring plantings than at other times. If, however, a planting program cannot be completed in this way, there are other options: conventional fall planting with fresh-lifted stock; summer planting with fresh-lifted stock; and spring and summer planting with stored spring-lifted or fall-lifted stock.^[58]

Conventional spring planting with fresh spring-lifted stock

In the context of regeneration silviculture, "spring", "summer", etc. lack precise meaning. Typically, the spring planting season begins as soon as lifting becomes possible in the nursery, and ends with the completion of the program. At this time, planting stock is physiologically attuned to the oncoming growing season, and the outplant has the whole of that season in which to establish its root system before it is challenged by any frost heaving. In practice, ideals are seldom attained. That stock is normally dormant when spring-planted is a widespread fallacy. Active growth is commonly obvious at the time of planting, but in any case the metabolic activity increases in planting stock before the tops give visible expression to this. The difficulty of obtaining, in quantity, spring-lifted stock in dormant condition increases with increasing continentality of climate. In many areas, the period of springlike weather is unreliable and often short. As well, the soil moisture advantage claimed for spring planting is also insecurely founded. Soils that are sandy or gravelly, and shallow soils of any texture are highly dependent on current weather due to their limited available water capacities. Nor will a plentiful supply of soil moisture benefit an outplant whose roots are enveloped in anaerobic and/or cold soil, and mortality of trees outplanted into soil colder than about 6 °C may be excessive.^[61][62] Flushing increases the vulnerability of planting stock to both physiological stress (because of increased water requirements and reduced root growth capacity) and mechanical damage, which probably accounts for the commonly asserted superiority of early spring over late spring planting.

In fact, the spruces may be planted not only throughout the spring planting period provided that the period of most active shoot elongation is avoided, but virtually throughout the whole growing season, with little loss of performance other than some reduction in increment. Mullin's (1971)^[63] study at Midhurst in southern Ontario illustrates both the success with which white spruce can be planted throughout the period in question and the need to minimize stresses on the planting stock. Mullin used 3+0 stock from regular shipping beds in a series of 6 weekly plantings beginning with apparently dormant trees on 3 May and ending on 7 June, by which time the new leading shoots were several centimetres long. Trees were lifted with and without root dipping, planted on the day of lifting after their root systems had been exposed for 0, 1, 2, or 3 hours. Whereas 2nd year survival in the control (root exposure = 0) condition varied little among the 6 plantings, with averages of 83.5% +/− 4.7% for root-dipped trees and 77.2 +/− 7.0% for non-dipped, mortality rates among root-exposed stock were very much more variable. For instance, 2nd-year survival among root-dipped trees whose root systems had been exposed for 1 hour varied from 17% to 84%.

Conventional fall planting with fresh-lifted stock

The fall planting season is generally considered to begin when nursery stock has hardened off and soil moisture reserves have been replenished by autumnal rain. It then continues until the planting program has been completed or is terminated by freeze-up or heavy snow. The advantages of fall planting were once considered "To outweigh those of spring so certainly" that in the National Forests of the Lake States almost all planting was done in the fall,^[64] but in spite of some success, operational fall plantings in North America have tended to be less successful than operational spring plantings.^[65] On certain sites, a major disadvantage of fall planting is that the root systems of outplants have little time in which to become firmly anchored before being subjected to frost heaving. Such plants are also vulnerable to "winter browning", which in fact may occur in the fall soon after planting, especially among stock having high shoot:root ratios.^[66] Relationships between dormancy progression and physiological condition, including root-growth capacity, are much less clear in the spruces than in the pines, but certainly there is good evidence^{[67][68][69][70][71]} that, in the absence of frost heaving, plantings of spruces can be just as successful in fall as in spring.

Summer planting with fresh-lifted stock

Conceptually and logistically, the simplest way of extending the conventional planting season is to extend lifting and planting of fresh stock through summer until the planting program has been competed. There is evidence that spruces may be planted successfully throughout the summer.^{[citation needed]} Summer planting has also been successful in a number of research studies with white spruce, e.g., Crossley 1956;^[72] Ackerman and Johnson 1962;^[73] Decie 1962 cited by Revel and Coates 1976;^[74] Burgar and Lyon 1968;^[75] Mullin 1971,^[63] 1974;^[76] Revel and Coates 1976.^[74] Success depends on minimizing stresses to planting stock at all stages from lifting through planting and on planting when site conditions are conducive to survival and growth.

Spring and summer planting with stored stock

Refrigerated storage of planting stock has been developed largely with the aim of overcoming problems experienced in using flushed planting stock. Storage provides a means of holding stock for use when fresh stock is either unavailable or at a stage of development that renders it unsuitable for planting. It also offers possibilities of manipulating the physiological condition of the stock. However, there are problems associated with storage, e.g., mold, cold injury, desiccation, and depletion of food reserves. The rate of deterioration depends very much on the physiological condition of the planting stock at the time of lifting, as well as on the storage environment and duration of storage. In attempts to devise safe schedules for spring-lifting of stock for frozen storage, Mullin (1978)^[77] used a base of 0 °C and accumulated daily maximum soil temperatures at 15 cm depth to calculate degree days (DD). He interpreted the evidence to mean that white spruce destined for frozen storage should have accumulated no more than 50 DD before being lifted. With regard to cool-stored, spring-lifted stock, the main ingredients for success are lifting before flushing has begun, prevention of desiccation, maintenance of a constant temperature within 1 or 2 degrees of freezing, minimization of mold by good temperature control and sanitation, avoidance of crushing and other mechanical damage, and avoidance of longer than necessary periods of storage.

Mullin and Forcier (1976)^[78] and Mullin and Reffle (1980)^[79] examined the effects of spring-lifting date and planting date on several species, including 3+0 white spruce after frozen storage, with fresh-lifted controls planted on each planting date for comparison. In all plantings, the earliest (2 May) lifting gave highest average second-year survival in all species. In another study, Mullin (1978)^[77] found that outplantings of frozen-stored 3+0 white spruce were consistently successful to the end of July only with the earliest-lifted (25 April) stock. Sutton (1982)^[80] also used 3+0 white spruce in outplanting every 2 weeks from the end of June through the growing season in 3 successive years on a variety of sites in northern Ontario. Despite variation in planting stock, poor storage environments and adverse weather, 4th-year results showed a consistent pattern of reasonable survival and growth rates among trees planted through July, with a rapid decline in performance of trees planted thereafter. Overwinter storage of stock has also been employed. It has the advantage of lifting stock at the end of the growing season when physiological processes are invoking natural dormancy. Time of fall lifting was investigated by Mullin and Parker (1976)^[81] along with overwinter storage temperature to determine their effects on the performance of spring-planted 3+0 white spruce. There were 5 lifts, weekly from 19 October through 16 November, after which frozen ground put a stop to lifting. Two storage temperatures were used, −18 °C and −4 °C. Nearly all of the trees stored at −18 °C died. The other stock was planted in shallow furrows in sparsely sodded field of loamy sand on 12 April, 17 May, and 14 June along with fresh-lifted stock on each date. Fresh and stored white spruce gave comparable results in plantings extended into mid-June in the Midhurst area of Ontario.

Natural refrigerated overwinter storage has been used in root cellars and snow caches. Using natural refrigeration in root cellar storage, Jorgensen and Stanek (1962)^[82] kept 3+0 and 2+2 white spruce in dormant condition for 6 months without apparent detriment to performance after outplanting. Moreover, the stock was highly resistant to spring frost damage. Natural cold storage for overwintering 3+0 and 2+2 white spruce was also used by Mullin (1966).^[83] Unlike Jorgensen and Stanek's (1962)^[82] stock, which was raised 550 km to the south of where it was planted, Mullin's stock was raised in a nursery at about the same latitude as the planting site; the stock experienced inside-bale temperatures down to -15 °C in mid-winter, but still showed first- and second-year survival rates of 85.9% and 65.9%, respectively, compared with 91.4% and 76.2%, respectively, for fresh-lifted stock. However, Mullin's stored stock was much more damaged by spring frost than was fresh-lifted stock and it "showed a reduction in vigour as measured in terms of survival, susceptibility to damage and growth".

History

Trees have been selectively planted by mankind for thousands of years the world over to provide food, shelter, timber, and other tree products as well as for ornamental and ceremonial purposes. The first woody species planted was probably olive in southeast Europe in 4000BC. There are also many biblical references to tree planting, such as in the Old Testament record of Abraham planting a tamarisk to commemorate the treaty of Beersheba (Gen. 21:33).^[84]

The concept of planting multiple trees together on a large scale to replenish material supplies first developed in Europe during the Middle Ages, and gradually gave rise to forestry plantations.^[84] The earliest records of conifer plantations come from Nuremberg in 1368,^[85] although the planting of trees on a large scale may have taken place as early as the 13th century in this region to reafforest exploited areas.^[86]

As Neolithic humans assumed a more settled way of life, and with the technological development of agriculture and consequent growth of civilization, more trees would need to be felled and gathered as a source of timber and other forest products and to make way for cultivation of crops. Given the finiteness of tree products in the absence of sufficient replanting, it was realized that clearance of forest and woodland must be controlled, and forests had to be managed and conserved for the natural resources they provided as demand grew. In England for example, this is evident from early laws that were passed in 1457 to encourage tree planting.^[87] However, despite these laws, persistent destruction of woodlands since the Anglo-Saxon period had by the seventeenth century led to a so-called "timber famine".^[88] Because of this shortfall, timber was at a premium and thus became very expensive, which was especially problematic for shipbuilding and naval enterprises. Following an appeal by the Navy Board to the Royal Society for a solution,^[89] one member of the Society, John Evelyn, wrote and published his seminal 1664 work Sylva, or A Discourse of Forest-Trees and the Propagation of Timber. This conveyed a successful plea for reafforestation by persuading landowners to plant millions of trees on their private estates to make good the severe shortage of timber and repair the "wooden walls" of England.

In the tropics, there is a long history of planting teak for timber, dating back to the 15th century in Java. The demand for sustainable teak for general construction and shipbuilding purposes intensified with the arrival of the Portuguese in the 15th century and the Dutch in the 17th century. The teak growing industry thereafter became controlled and monopolized by the Dutch East India Company.^[84]

In North America, tree planting on the western prairies was practiced by immigrants from the east during the 19th century. This was to satisfy the demand for wood and other tree products as well as to establish shelterbelts for agriculture, since naturally growing trees were very scarce on the Great Plains.^[90]

See also

•  Environment portal
•  Trees portal

• Agroforestry
• Arbor Day
• Arboretum
• Billion Tree Campaign
• Ecosia
• Farmer-managed natural regeneration
• Forest restoration
• Great Green Wall (Africa)
• Hoedad (tool)
• Hoedads Reforestation Cooperative
• Johnny Appleseed
• Lists of trees
• Mattock
• Million Tree Initiative
• Multipurpose tree
• Planet Ark
• Plant-for-the-Planet
• Pottiputki
• Propagation of Christmas trees
• Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
• Tree planting bar
• Trillion Tree Campaign
• Tu Bishvat
• Tubestock
• Urban forest
• Urban forestry
• Urban reforestation

References

1. . Archived from the original on 2011-02-20. Retrieved 2011-02-11.
2. . Archived from the original on 2013-05-17.
3. . SA Urban Forests Million Trees Program. Government of South Australia. Archived from the original on September 24, 2014. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
4. "Poverty Eradication Program PAP- Innovative reforestation project". 2013-02-11. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
5. Brittany Shoot (December 18, 2011). "The Dark Side of Reforestation Programs: Planting 7,000 Trees a Day in Brutal Conditions". AterNet. from the original on June 8, 2021. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
6. (PDF). Work Safe BC. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 27, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
7. [1] November 20, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
8. Betts, John (2007-07-30). "2007 Planting Season: More Planters—Less Experience". Current Affairs. Western Silvicultural Contractors' Association. from the original on 2011-05-23. Retrieved 2010-11-12.
9. "Forestry Statistics 2005". Forestry Commission: Economics and Statistics. Forestry Commission. 2005. from the original on October 4, 2012. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
10. Ek Kadam Sansthan
11. . Jerusalem Post. July 29, 2009. Archived from the original on 2013-12-04. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
12. "Israel Forestry & Ecology". Jewish National Fund, East 69th Street, NY 10021 USA. from the original on 7 February 2009. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
13. (PDF). standwithus.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 17, 2006. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
14. . standwithus.com. Archived from the original on 2 November 2011. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
15. "JNF Tree Planting Center". Jewish National Fund, East 69th Street, NY 10021, USA. from the original on 25 October 2011. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
16. . Fr.jpost.com. 2013-12-17. Archived from the original on 2011-01-15. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
17. "JPost | French-language news from Israel, the Middle East & the Jewish World". Fr.jpost.com. 2013-12-17. Archived from the original on 2012-07-08. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
18. Professor Alon Tal, The Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, The Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben Gurion University of the Negev."NATIONAL REPORT OF ISRAEL, Years 2003–2005, TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION (UNCCD)" 2011-05-26 at the Wayback Machine; State of Israel, July 2006
19. Sahney S, Benton MJ, Falcon-Lang HJ (2010). "Rainforest collapse triggered Pennsylvanian tetrapod diversification in Euramerica". Geology. 38 (12): 1079–1082. Bibcode:2010Geo....38.1079S. doi:10.1130/G31182.1.
20. Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.; Lenihan, J. M.; Drapek, R. J. (2001). (PDF). Ecosystems. 4 (3): 164–185. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0002-7. S2CID 15526358. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2003-06-20. Retrieved 2011-10-29.
21. Issar, Arie (2009-11-30). "Benefits of planting trees in the desert". Haaretz. from the original on 2010-03-15. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
22. "KKL-JNF cooperating on afforestation at Yatir forest". from the original on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2015-09-22.
23. Vu du Ciel-documentary by Yann Arthus-Bertrand October 14, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
24. . Watsonblogs.org. Archived from the original on 2012-02-20. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
25. MERC Project M-20-0-18 project 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine
26. Rabbi David Seidenberg."The Giving Tree: A Way to Honor Our Vision for Israel"; Neohasid, 2006
27. "JPost | French-language news from Israel, the Middle East & the Jewish World". Fr.jpost.com. 2013-12-17. Retrieved 2013-12-21.^{[permanent dead link]}
28. EBEX21 2015-05-10 at the Wayback Machine, Carbon Credits System
29. "Forestry - Sabie". from the original on 2018-11-09. Retrieved 2018-11-22.
30. Lowman, Ben (1999). "Tree Planting Equipment". Stocking Standards and Reforestation Methods for Alaska Proceedings of the Alaska Reforestation Council April 29, 1999 Workshop. Misc Publication 99-8: 74.
31. "Forest Landowners Guide to Tree Planting Success". PennState Extension. from the original on 12 February 2021. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
32. Peterson, Al; Charton, Jason (1999). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Machine Planting in South-Central Alaska". Stocking Standards and Reforestation Methods for Alaska Proceedings of the Alaska Reforestation Council April 29, 1999 Workshop. Misc Publication 99-8: 68.
33. "Manufacturer Site". Tree Planting from C&G. from the original on 2021-02-15. Retrieved 2021-02-09.
34. "Navy Veteran Recalls Service During World War II". Arkansas Democrat Gazette. November 8, 2015. from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved February 10, 2021.
35. "Tree in a Row". Journal of Forestry. 81 (2): 114. February 1983. from the original on 2023-03-17. Retrieved 2021-02-10.
36. "Heavy Duty Seedling Planter". Google Patents. from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
37. "History of ACTGA". Arkansas Christmas Tree Growers Association. from the original on 16 May 2021. Retrieved 10 February 2021.
38. Peterson, Al; Charton, Jason (December 1999). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Machine Planting in South-Central Alaska". Stocking Standards and Reforestation Methods for Alaska Proceedings of the Alaska Reforestation Council April 29, 1999 Workshop (Misc Publication 99-8): 68.
39. Arnold, Jim (1984). "Trees Are My Life". Progressive Farmer (March): 62.
40. Converse, Chad (1999). "Mechanical Site Preparation and Tree Planting Equipment for Alaska". Stocking Standards and Reforestation Methods for Alaska Proceedings of the Alaska Reforestation Council April 29, 1999 Workshop. Misc Publication 99-8: 65.
41. Converse, Chad (1999). "Mechanical Site Preparation and Tree Planting Equipment for Alaska". Stocking Standards and Reforestation Methods for Alaska Proceedings of the Alaska Reforestation Council April 29, 1999 Workshop. Misc Publication 99-8: 64.
42. Converse, Chad (1999). "Mechanical Site Preparation and Tree Planting Equipment for Alaska". Stocking Standards and Reforestation Methods for Alaska Proceedings of the Alaska Reforestation Council April 29, 1999 Workshop. Misc. Publication 99-8: 64.
43. "Equipment Gallery". R.A. Whitfield Manufacturing. from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
44. "Trees for the Future". Plant-trees.org. from the original on 2010-07-07. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
45. "Plant With Purpose". Plant With Purpose. from the original on 2013-11-22. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
46. "Replanting," 2012-06-19 at the Wayback Machine Arbor Day Foundation.
47. "Plant-it 2020". from the original on 2012-06-09. Retrieved 2012-07-07.
48. "Plant-A-Tree" program 2012-07-17 at the Wayback Machine, USDA Forest Service
49. "Our City Forest". from the original on 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2013-12-12.
50. Working Group III (July 2001). Bert Metz (ed.). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. World Meteorological Organization. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ISBN 0521015022. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
51. "How the Loss of Peat Lands Affects Greenhouse Gas Buildup". Scientific American. June 16, 2009. from the original on 2022-04-01. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
52. S. G. Gibbard; K. Caldeira; G. Bala; T. Phillips; M. Wickett; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Carnegie Institution of Washington (2005-10-29). "Climate effects of global land cover change". Geophysical Research Letters. 32 (23): L23705. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3223705G. doi:10.1029/2005GL024550.
53. . Trees for the Future. 2006. Archived from the original on 2010-06-13. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
54. Jha, Alok (2006-12-15). "Planting trees to save planet is pointless, say ecologists". The Guardian. from the original on 2007-10-09. Retrieved 2008-04-03. To plant forests to mitigate climate change outside of the tropics is a waste of time
55. "The potentials and limitations of tree plantings as a climate solution". Climate Feedback. 2020-06-11. from the original on 2022-02-23. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
56. . Sustainable Harvest International. Archived from the original on September 27, 2009. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
57. Dave Deppner; John Leary; Karin Vermilye; Steve McCrea (2005). (PDF) (Second ed.). Trees for the Future. ISBN 1-879857-20-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-15. Retrieved 2022-03-12.
58. Sutton, R.F. 1984. Plantation establishment in the boreal forest: glyphosate, hexazinone, and manual weed control. For. Chron. 60:282–287.
59. Toumey, J. W. and Korstian, C.F. 1942. Seeding and planting in the forestry practice. Ed. 3. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
60. Stiell, W.M. 1976. White spruce: artificial regeneration in Canada. Dep. Environ., Can. For. Serv., Ottawa ON, Inf. Rep. FMR-X-85. 275 p.
61. Sutton, R.F. 1968. Ecology of young white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss). Ph.D. thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca NY, Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan MI, 68–11645. 500 p.
62. Sutton, R.F. 1969. Form and development of conifer root systems. Commonw. For. Bureau, Oxford, U.K., Tech. Communication No. 7. 131 p.
63. Mullin, R.E. 1971. "Some effects of root dipping, root exposure and extended planting dates with white spruce." For. Chron. 47(2):90–93.
64. Kittredge, J (1929). "Forest planting in the Lake States". U.S.D.A., for. Serv., Washington DC, Agric. Bull. (1497): 87 p.
65. LeBarron, R.K.; Fox, G.; Blythe, R.H. 1938. The effect of season of planting and other factors on early survival of forest plantations. J. For. 36:1211–1215.
66. Rudolf, P.O. 1950. Cold soaking – a short-cut substitute for stratification? J. For. 48(1):31–32.
67. Baldwin, H.I. 1938. Planting experiments in the northeast. J. For. 36:758–760.
68. Mullin, R.E. 1968. Comparisons between seedlings and transplants in fall and spring plantings. Ont. Dep. Lands For., Res. Div., Toronto ON, Res. Rep. 85. 40 p.
69. Sinclair, C.; Boyd, R.J. 1973. Survival comparisons of three fall and spring plantings of four coniferous species in northern Idaho. USDA, For. Serv., Intermount. For. Range Exp. Sta., Ogden UT, Res. Pap. INT-139. 20 p.
70. McClain, K.M. 1975. Continuous planting of seedling black spruce. p. 177–194 in Black Spruce Symp. Proc., Can. Dep. Environ., Can. For. Serv., Sault Ste. Marie ON, Symp. Proc. O-P-4.
71. McClain, K.M. 1979. A review on the possibility of extending the planting season. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Northern For. Res. Unit, Thunder Bay ON. 44 p.
72. Crossley, D.I. 1956. The possibility of continuous planting of white spruce throughout the frost-free period. Can. Dep. Northern Affairs National Resour., For. Branch, For. Res. Div., Ottawa ON, Tech. Note 32. 31 p.
73. Ackerman, R.F.; Johnson, H.L. 1962. Continuous planting of white spruce throughout the frost-free period. Can. Dep. For., For. Res. Branch, Ottawa ON, Tech. Note 117. 13 p.
74. Revel, J.; Coates, H. 1976. Planting white spruce throughout the growing season on high site areas in the Sub-Boreal Forest Region of B.C. B.C. For. Serv., Res. Div., Victoria BC, Rep. E.P.668. 37 p.
75. Burgar, R.J.; Lyon, N.F. 1968. Survival and growth of stored and unstored white spruce planted through the frost-free period. Ont. Dep. Lands Forests, Toronto ON, Res. Rep. 84. 37 p.
76. Mullin, R.E. 1974. Some planting effects still significant after 20 years. For. Chron. 50:191–193.
77. Mullin, R.E. 1978. "Tests of frozen spring storage for white spruce and red pine planting stock." USDA, For. Serv., Tree Plant. Notes 29(4):26–29.
78. Mullin, R.E.; Forcier, L. 1976. Effect of lifting and planting dates on survival and growth of spring stored nursery stock. Ont. Min, Nat. Resour., For. Res. Branch, Toronto ON, For. Res. Notes 3. 4 p.
79. Mullin, R.E.; Reffle, R.J. 1980. Effects of dates of lifting and planting on success of frozen spring storage at Swastika Nursery. Ont. Min, Nat. Resour., Toronto ON, Nursery Notes 66. 5 p.
80. Sutton, R.F. 1982. "Plantation establishment in the boreal forest: planting season extension." Can. Dep. Environ., Can. For. Serv., Sault Ste. Marie ON, Inf. Rep. O-X-344. 129 p.
81. Mullin, R.E.; Parker, J.D. 1976. "Provisional guidelines for fall lifting for frozen overwinter storage of nursery stock." For. Chron. 52(1):22–25.
82. Jorgensen, E.; Stanek, W.K.L. 1962. "Overwinter storage of coniferous seedlings as a means of preventing late frost damage." For. Chron. 38(2):192–202.
83. Mullin, R.E. 1966. "Overwinter storage of baled nursery stock in northern Ontario." Commonw. For. Rev. 45(3):224–230.
84. Evans J. 2009. "The history of tree planting and planted forests." Planted Forests: Uses, Impacts and Sustainability. Published jointly by FAO and CAB International, pp. 5–22. [9781845935641.pdf (slu.se)]
85. Rubner K. 1925. Die pflanzengeographischen Grundlagen des Waldbaus. J. Neumann.
86. Ortloff W. 1999. "Sustainability issues in Switzerland’s forests." New Forests 18: 59–73.
87. Harris E, Harris J. 2003. Wildlife Conservation in Trees and Forests. Second Edition, pg. 29. Research Studies Press Ltd. ISBN 0863802060
88. Hoskins WG. 1967. The Making of the English Landscape. Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
89. Albion RG. 1926. Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Problem of the Royal Navy, 1652–1862 (Vol. 29). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
90. Droze WH. 1977. Trees, Prairies, and People: A History of Tree Planting in the Plains States (Vol. 10). Texas Woman's University.

Further reading

• Gill, Charlotte (2011). Eating dirt : deep forests, big timber, and life with the tree-planting tribe. David Suzuki Foundation. Vancouver: Greystone Books. ISBN 9781553659778. OCLC 743390470.

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tree planting.

Nursery | https://nursery.id