Talk:Tree planting

Treeplanting

Is it just Canada, or do other places have scads of university students rushing off to plant trees for the summer? Probably this article could be generalized somewhat, but I hesitate to make claims about treeplanting other places. In particular, I'm sure there are places the workers are underpaid and exploited and conditions are awful. Maybe some in Canada. --Andrew 07:34, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes treeplaning is not just in Canada... It happens in Australia, South America, and almost anywhere ther is responsible forest management.

The treeplanting culture page should be linked to treeplanting, because the culture is intrinsically linked to the job.

It seems like the article would be better named 'a tree planter dictionary.'

I can't find any sign of the article "Treeplanting culture" that is proposed to be merged into this one. Does anyone know what's up with that?Lisamh 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

updates

Hi all

I couldn't find a treeplanting culture page either, so I put a bit in about that on the main treeplanting page. Definitely someone should add some text on treeplanting in Australia. As for the rest of the world. . . it's not as big a phenomenon, from what I know, and definitely not a 'free market' venture like in Can. Perhaps I'll add something about NS and NB too, and the loathed dibbles. Any feedback?

m

Climate change

Hi all,

I was surprised to see no mention of climate change, as treeplanting has become a hot topic in the environmental world. A lot of information had spilled over into the article on carbon offsets, where it was clearly not appropriate, so I moved it over here. I understand that this article has previously focused more on the cultural aspects of the treeplanting, but this seemed like an important element to cover as well. Hope no one minds.

GreenSarah (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup, Culture section

I removed the culture section, as it seemed to deal only with the Canadian experience, and probably only a subset of that. Also removed a lot of needless/suspect material from the Canadian section. Still vastly undersourced. Pnels081 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Treeplanting exclusive to forestry/reforestation?

Not sure I agree with the choice of title, the wording of the lead or the scope of the article. Tree planting encompasses a wide variety of contexts, and while big-tree transplants may or may not be a little outside the scope, I don't see why tree planting, as done in arboriculture and by individuals on their own inspiration, would not be included in an article about tree planting. Shouldn't this article properly be titled Tree planting (which now redirects here), and shouldn't it mainly detail the process of properly planting trees, the history of the activity, key worldwide tree planters perhaps (such as John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) and J. Sterling Morton (founder of Arbor Day) in the US), balanced neutrally and at due weight with the organized and sometimes commercially driven aspect reflected in the article now? Is there a good reason not to? Comments? Duff (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. This is an example of content that was "decided" back in the day when Wikipedia was quite different. This is how it looked in 2005 [1]. While a little different than the current version, it seems to have not changed all that much. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative, possibly a better one, would be to merge information from this page with afforestation and reforestation (possibly in its own section?) and break the redirect of Tree planting to allow its own article, which could clearly be a main article with appropriate sections for afforestation and reforestation also.Duff (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should probably be merged with Reforestation. The fact that there is a separate "tree planting" (or "treeplanting") article at all is probably an artifact of the Canadian reforestation industry's tendency to think of itself as a stand-alone entity with the historical title "treeplanting". I don't see why all of the information in this article couldn't be merged reasonably cleanly into the Reforestation article. Hughstimson (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the WP:GOOGLETEST, "treeplanting" has 116,000 hits, whereas "tree planting" has 2,530,000! I think the 20+ fold (10 fold on GoogleScholar) difference between the two could be a basis for the renaming (or redirecting) of the article (see Wikipedia:ENGLISH#Divided_usage). It rudimentarily seems that the single word version is more prevalent in (if not particular to) Canada, but as tree planting is definitely not exclusive to Canada then the renaming is appropriate.

Furthermore, I concur that the information presented here goes far beyond the scope of tree planting (quote "the process of transplanting tree seedlings"), and is better suited elsewhere (for example, Climate impacts could easily be put into the main Forest article, and the country-specific aspects of regeneration could be placed into the "Forestry of country" articles (if they already exist, otherwise they'd have to be created). Perhaps the Forest regeneration article should be created (an expansion of that which is currently under Silviculture#Regeneration and which a handful of these artificial regeneration search results could link to) – which would deal more with the techniques used to reforest land.

However (and maybe I'm splitting hairs here), according to this Glossary of Forestry Terms in British Columbia and some other resources the terms are nearly synonymous:

*Regeneration: The act of renewing tree cover by establishing young trees naturally (natural seeding, coppice, or root suckers) or artificially (direct seeding or planting). Regeneration usually maintains the same forest type and is done promptly after the previous stand or forest was removed.
*Reforestation: The re-establishment of trees on denuded forest land by natural or artificial means, such as planting and seeding.

But from my understanding one uses (forest) regeneration methods to reforest stands, being more of a matter of scale. The forest regeneration article would deal more with the tools one uses to reforest, and the reforestation article with the overall benefits, causes, etc. Or just keep it all in reforestation and keep an eye on redirects. Thoughts? (I've had this article on my radar/to-do list for about a year so I have a substantial amount of opinion obviously). Minnecologies (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

East Coast Planting

Just noting to readers that there is a significant amount of treeplanting in NS as well as NB, and it is often done with planting tubes called dibbles instead of shovels, and paid by the area planted rather than by the tree. These are not fringe examples, please don't generalize treeplanting so much....

In fact these areas are not that unlike Western Canada. Particularly in NS speed spades are gaining popularity due to companies having experienced planters from out West, one particular company exclusively uses shovels, except for the odd vet. The production and quality of this company has led foresters to promote the use of shovels to other contractors. Though many planters for other companies still use dibbles they are paid piece-rate, that is, per tree, not by area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rompperestroika (talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article's lack of representation of other geographic areas/countries is definitely one of its many problems. Do you have any good sources to back up your suggestions? > Minnecologies^Talk 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of View in the intro?

The last sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:

"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."

I tagged that last part with citation needed (it's probably true, but it's a very specific claim that should be supported by a link to specific research). But the whole sentence strikes me as being there to push a political point of view. One I happen to agree with, but not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Also it's factually dubious -- the logging industry doesn't just reforest old growth clear cuts, they're happy to cut and reforest secondary areas as well. --Hughstimson (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of link to grow-trees.com?

Currently the entire "India" section consists of a single link to a for-profit website.

I removed that link on the grounds that

1. it was not in itself informational
2. it represented possible self-promotion and
3. my understanding is that it is not common Wikipedian practice to reproduce website links in the text body, but rather to include them as citations to support substantive claims.

The link was subsequently re-instated by the same user who first inserted it, who has no other history of editing in Wikipedia. Their justification for re-instating it was "invalid reason to remove easy resource for planting trees in India".

I don't want to get into an editing war with another user. I would appreciate it if someone else would remove that link. Or, if anyone agrees or disagrees with my position, please leave a comment here. Hughstimson (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your removal, your reasons are in line with policy - WP:EL. This could be reincluded with a secondary source discussing the site/initiative, but as just a URL, it's not up to spec. There are a few other links in the article that could be removed/turned into footnotes. The Interior (Talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Look at the U.S.A. part of the article?

Americans? You don't "Care" about Tree planting. Terrible. Nobody in America wants to contribute. This is a "ten year old" article in June 2013. Yous are more interested in writing War articles or car articles!! Burning "Oil". The superstorm (1,000 mile wide) was a "Warning" you "Have to Change your Ways". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.179.10 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Carbon Sequestration

"Tropical deforestation contributes as much as 90% of the current net release of biotic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This change may represent as much as 20% - 30% of the total carbon flux due to humans - i.e., rivaling the carbon release due to fossil fuel burning. Deforestation thus is an important potential source of carbon. "

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html

Not sure where they get their numbers, but possibly useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.192 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

7500 is not the highest number of trees planted in one day in British Columbia

I hope I'm not being too petty but one of my proudest moments was when I planted 8100 Trees in 2001, Ingenika BC. I've heard rumors of higher too, but there are records at the company I worked with. I stopped tree planting in 2009 but number of trees planted came up recently in a discussion with another tree planter whom found it too difficult to believe that anyone planted 8100 trees in BC, so out of curiousity I wanted to see if there were any high numbers recorded on the Internet and was disappointed to see 7500 trees as being highest number claimed by Wikepedia. My 8100 was a company record that stood with Bugbusters Pest Managment for a very long time. I'm not even sure if it was beaten after I left, but they were a big company and they amalgamated with another company to form Spectrum Reforestion which is still active. I left Bugbusters but continued to plant for several seasons with other companies. I remember someone who was previously working with Spectrum, recognized my last name at the top of a list of company record holders with our corresponding records. I was told the list is posted at Spectrum's main office in Prince George, BC for everyone to see. Also, Spectrum's website list a couple of managers who were with the company at the time I broke the previous company record and I'm 100% certain that either one of them can verify my claim. Maybe there is even a higher records I don't know about, but I swear I planted 8100 in BC in 2001 and I was in a camp with about 80 others present. Spectrum's website is http://srgi.ca/. Can their records be used to validate and update the Wikepedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimme5Bubba (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I can verify the 8100...I was camp supervisor at the time. Another planter put in 7500 on the same day but 8100 (I believe it was 8140 or 8160?) is unreal and unlikely to be topped. I'm sure there are records at spectrum. JB get in touch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.23.156 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tree planting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120043716/http://www.themanitoban.com/2005-2006/0118/1918.pain.pleasure.plant.php to http://www.themanitoban.com/2005-2006/0118/1918.pain.pleasure.plant.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061117182000/http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/green-trees.pdf to http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/green-trees.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090927094101/http://www.sustainableharvest.org:80/international_programs.cfm to http://sustainableharvest.org/international_programs.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tree planting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091014101303/http://programmes.france2.fr/vu-du-ciel/accueil.htm to http://programmes.france2.fr/vu-du-ciel/accueil.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Photograph

Assisted planting using a portable auger in northern Germany

Those working on this article might like to use the given photograph. Up to you though! More details on the Wikimedia Commons page. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

BC Revision

Just wanted to add that 1600 trees a day might be the average for rookies, but experienced planters in BC should be hitting 2000 or more, unless they're working on the coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.55.50 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal communication as source

I removed the following personal communication and quote from the 'Summer planting with fresh-lifted stock' section. An assertion and quote like this requires a source that is reliable and can be confirmed - a personal communication is neither.

'not least the notable operational success of Marek (Personal communication, 1985, George T. Marek, R.P.F., Beardmore, Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) in northwestern Ontario: "the success of my plantations is primarily due to different strategies and cool storaging in Beardmore. I have planted all species from spring to late fall, throughout the summer on a large scale, without any difficulties" '

Leschnei (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tree planting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924184135/http://www.milliontrees.com.au/ to http://www.milliontrees.com.au/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258489197018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152801104
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220010831/http://www.watsonblogs.org/meef/subjects/plants/ to http://www.watsonblogs.org/meef/subjects/plants/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111173935/http://www.desertagriculture.org/index.html to http://www.desertagriculture.org/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726157819&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The part about Israel have highly controversial claims and anti-Israeli propaganda

Many of the claims made in the Israel section sounds like nothing but propaganda. There is nothing to back those ridiculous claims about how the JNF is planting forests just to "restrict Bedouin herding" or "JNF afforestation policy is a mean to erase traces of the Arab presence prior to 1948". The claims with the "Palestinian refugees"(which is a controversial topic by itself) are also controversial and are part of the Arab political attempts of claiming lands within Israel(outside the west bank) and this is the only reason for why the "Palestinian Refugees" were never treated as normal refugees and treated as "refugees" from 1948 to this day despite the fact that the vast majority of them didn't even born in that time. The part about the Palestinian Authority have nothing to do with Israel, the new city of Rawabi isn't part of Israel and isn't even a jewish settlement that might be annexed to Israel.

Some people need to learn that you can't just make everything about Israel into a political issue about Arabs/West-Bank/Gaza Strip.--ThunderheadX (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've reinstated the material that was deleted by User:ThunderheadX as it was sourced to works by Susan Nathan, and others, that appear reliable. Asserting that this material consists of "politically biased accusations" is itself a political statement. Bahudhara (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

How Susan Nathan can back up those claims of "JNF afforestation policy is a mean to erase traces of the Arab presence prior to 1948" and "trees have been planted to restrict Bedouin herding"?. The people who made such claims had no way to know it or provide any kind of evidence for those wild claims so what makes them reliable? or more reliable than any random person?. Those are politically biased accusations and this is a fact and claiming that mentioning this fact is also a politically biased statement doesn't change that. You failed to provide any good reasoning for your decision to restore those baseless opinions in the article.

Israel definitely doesn't need trees to prevent bedouins from herding and they already need permissions for herding anyway. Israel also doesn't need trees to "erase traces of the Arab presence prior to 1948", may be some trees were planted on some land that was belonged to some village according to the ottoman or british rule but those lands weren't an actual part of the village and probably contained some trees and wild vegetation even before 1948. Why planting an entire forest if you can just bulldoze some abandoned buildings?. Those accusations doesn't make sense and are completely ridiculous. --ThunderheadX (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed content on climate change mitigation

I've just removed a chunk of outdated and poorly sourced text about climate change mitigation from this article. I think we are better off including this content via the excerpt from carbon sequestration#Forestry (which we can now work on updating). See also talk page discussion here. Here is a block of text that I have removed:

+++++++++

Climate impacts

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.

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.

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. EMsmile (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)