-
I'd be surprised if commercial afforestation in recent times hasn't been focused on profit.
Depending on the mega.co behind it there could easily have been moves away from laissez-faire approaches in that respect.
Just because a plantation might take appx 40yrs to mature doesn't mean it has necessarily had a net positive impact on the ecosystem once the trees have been removed. I'm not sure how much research there is around this though.
The (sometimes non-native) dense coniferous plantations are an example of intensive farming of trees. There's little growth below canopy and the needles dropped can lead to acidification of the soil. Anyone who has ridden the trails at Llandegla will have seen this up close.
It is not all about the carbon, the NPK in the soil needs to be maintained too. Taking trees away removes some of that too iirc?
Additionally, commercial felling of stands needs careful management too else soil can be washed away, taking nutrients with it.
It still all better than Concrete though I'd guess.
Fwiw: I'm in that dangerous area of trying to recall a little knowledge from a degree module 25yrs ago... Happy to stand corrected on any of the above.
-
Yep intensive farming reduces nutrients, increases soil erosion etc. Whereas trees or regenerative farming techniques improve water and nutrient retention.
You are reading a single comment by @NotThamesWater and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
rhb
dancing james
@NotThamesWater
Isn't it intensive farming / monoculture that removes nutrients / reduces soil quality?
I'd have though that the time-scales of forestry, and more laissez-faire approach are such that it's not such a problem.