Forest loss in U.S.

[Gabe Ayers]

This report from the web and forestry groups: We lead the world in yet another category.

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0427-hance_forestloss.html

United States has higher percentage of forest loss than Brazil
Jeremy Hance

*From 2000 to 2005 the world lost over a million square kilometers of
forest.*

Forests continue to decline worldwide, according to a new study in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). Employing satellite
imagery researchers found that over a million square kilometers of forest
were lost around the world between 2000 and 2005. This represents a 3.1
percent loss of total forest as estimated from 2000. While the study did not
look at forest gains during the same time period, it reveals some surprises
about where and how much forest was lost: including the fact that from 2000
to 2005 both the United States and Canada had higher percentages of forest
loss than even Brazil.

Counting forest loss due either to human disturbance or natural causes, the
study found that North America lost the most forest of the world’s six
forest-containing continents. Perhaps surprisingly, thirty percent of total
forest loss occurred in North America alone. Combined with South America-the
largest extent of tropical forests in the world-the two continents represent
half of the world’s total forest loss. Africa, in turn, suffered the least
forest loss.

*Forest loss by nation*

<http://photos.mongabay.com/10/0426-gfcl_biome.jpg>
Global forest cover loss by biome, 2000-2005. Chart by Rhett A. Butler /
mongabay.com. Click to enlarge. Of the seven nations that contain over a
million square kilometers of forest-Russia, Brazil, the United States,
Canada, Indonesia, China, and the Democratic Republic of Congo-Brazil lost
the most total forest during the five year time period.

According to the researchers Brazil lost 26,000 square kilometers (10,038
square miles) per year of its rainforest, and 7,000 square kilometers (2,702
square miles) in its dry tropical forests. Over the five years, total forest
loss in Brazil came to 165,000 square kilometers (63,706 square miles). In
all this represents 3.6 percent of its total 2000 forest cover: half a
percent higher than the global average. However, the study does not
incorporate small-scale logging or forest degradation in places like Brazil
unless the canopy cover falls below 25 percent.

Canada was close behind Brazil: losing some 160,000 square kilometers
(61,776 square miles) of its forest cover. However, proportionally Canada’s
forest loss equals 5.2 percent of the nation’s total forest cover: higher
than Brazil’s percentage and over two points higher than the global average.

But the United States had the greatest percentage loss of the seven
nations-even more than Brazil and Canada-losing 6 percent of its forest
cover in just five years time, a total of 120,000 square kilometers (46,332
square miles). While fire and beetle infestation played a role in Alaska and
the western US, large-scale logging industries in the southeast, along the
western coast, and in the Midwest play a big role in the nation’s forest
loss.

“This does not mean that [the forests] do not regenerate, and we make no
statements whatsoever about sustainability,” lead author Matthew Hansen
explained to USA Today. “But, compared to other regions of the world, a lot
is going on.” [image: Percent forest cover loss by for major forest
countries] <http://photos.mongabay.com/10/0426_gfcl_percent.jpg>
Percent forest cover loss by for major forest countries, 2000-2005. Chart by
Rhett A. Butler / mongabay.com. Click to enlarge. The researchers write
that “the often publicized phenomenon of forest conversion within the humid
tropics is observed in our results, but significant GFCL [i.e. global forest
cover loss] is evident in all biomes. For example, rates of GFCL in regions
such as the southeast United States are among the highest globally.”

Of the other seven nations: Indonesia lost 3.6 percent of its forest cover
during the five years, Russia 2.8 percent, China 2.3 percent, while the
Democratic Republic of Congo lost the smallest percentage: 0.6 percent.

The study also highlights other countries with significant forest loss
including Malaysia due to palm oil plantations, Paraguay and Argentina to
agriculture, and Australia to fires.

*Forest loss by ecosystem*

Clear-cut logging in Alaska. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler. Comparing the
world’s four major forest ecosystems, the study found that the boreal
experienced the largest loss in the five years, tropical rainforests came in
second, dry tropical forest were third, and finally temperate forests

In the boreal 60 percent of the loss was due to fires, while the remaining
40 percent was caused by logging, disease, and infestations of pine beetles
linked to climate change.

For tropical rainforests the majority of the loss was due to clearing for
agriculture in Brazil and plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia. The report
found that while the Congo Basin was impacted by some logging, large-scale
clearing for agriculture was not yet an issue leaving the region with less
forest decline.

Dry tropical forests were largely impacted by clearing for agriculture in
places like Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina.

[image: Percent forest cover loss by for major forest
countries]<http://photos.mongabay.com/10/0426_gfcl_loss.jpg>
Total forest loss (natural and deforestation) for the United States, China,
Brazil, and Russia, 2000-2005. Chart by Rhett A. Butler / mongabay.com.
Click to enlarge. Temperate forests suffered the least amount of total loss
because, as the researchers write, “the majority of this biome has long been
converted to agricultural and settlement land uses.” Yet proportionally,
temperate forests came in second of the four forest types largely due to
high forest loss in the United States.

In measuring forest loss, the study calculated forest cover as 25 percent of
canopy cover with trees over 5 meters high.

CITATION: Hansen, Matthew C.; Stehman, Stephen V.; and Potapov, Peter V.
Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. PNAS.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912668107.

* <http://photos.mongabay.com/10/0426-gfcl_country.jpg>
Global forest cover loss by country, 2000-2005. Chart by Rhett A. Butler /
mongabay.com. Click to enlarge.

<http://photos.mongabay.com/10/0426-gfcl_region.jpg>
Global forest cover loss by country, 2000-2005. Chart by Rhett A. Butler /
mongabay.com. Click to enlarge.*

“In fact, young forests rather than old-growth forests are very often
conspicuous sources of CO2 because the creation of new forests (whether
naturally or by humans) frequently follows disturbance to soil and the
previous vegetation, resulting in a decomposition rate of coarse woody
debris, litter and soil organic matter that exceeds the NPP (net primary
production) of the regrowth.” Luyssaert et. al. 2008. Old-growth forests as
global carbon sinks. Nature, Vol 455|11

~

[Carl Russell]

Frickin’ Awesome Dude!!!

Carl

[blue80]

Well a recent two day project we just did as a family (for the 1/2 day the sun was out) resulted in fantastic lifetime memories for our family, and possibly-if the trees live- for our community.
Since the most gratifying work in life seems to be without fiscal reward, I just thougth this would be a nice opportunity to pat ourselves on the back;)….
A month ago we ordered 600 trees from the NRCS and pics below show some of the activity transplanting to pots/burnt gated pipe until we can afford a drip system irrigation system. We are thinking of an “adopt a tree” program where people/children will get their name on dog tags on the tree, the proceeds will put in the drip system. They can recheck their tree as life goes on, show their kids, etc. etc.
Too many ideas, too much fear/overhead to get started…

Wyoming may just lead the reforestation program in the US! :D:rolleyes:

Kevin

[J-L]

Pretty ambitious project blue. Where are you at exactly? That kind of looks like some of the country around Worland.

[blue80]

J-L Yep we are 50 miles north of Worland.

NRCS had a half price deal on trees, up to $300.00 worth. So we got almost 600 trees for 300 bucks! Not bad when a local landscaper wanted $380.00 for one supplied and installed tree guaranteed for a year…

The trees came out of the Colorado nursery.
We figured we’d have some mortality, the neighbours cows would get at some, we’d give some away as gifts, still leaving us with a forested oasis in years to come. It’s fun to watch the wind blow stuff around now, then think of the growth that may transform the property in the years to come.

After spending 10 hrs the first day shovelling pots full and getting 300 trees done, I went and picked up a little loader tractor and finished the last 300 in 5 hrs. I do not feel guilty, I was tired before I started the transplanting project, and wasn’t prepared for their arrival…..

So far they have made it through a 3 inch slush storm, the aspens popped right back up when the ice melted off them! Resilient little buggers…

Kevin

[Author]

Posts