I'm of two minds about this. We do need ways to disperse seeds in otherwise unreachable terrain, so for that application this is great innovation. However restoration, particularly forest...
Exemplary
I'm of two minds about this. We do need ways to disperse seeds in otherwise unreachable terrain, so for that application this is great innovation. However restoration, particularly forest restoration regimes, often aren't helpful or in some cases damaging to the target ecosystems. What is often carried out is some form of planting that gets you closer to a timber farm than a forest. Natural regrowth is a long process, one that fosters not only trees but the rich biodiversity of a forest. The initial growth of grasses and fungus, then the first return of shrubs and early stage trees, and finally the trees that make us think of 'forests' reappear. This timeline is important because early adopters need this period free from competition to establish. The process adds complexity, it adds biodiversity, and it allows for healthy forests to establish. However the response by the US Forest Service (which is interestingly a part of the US Department of Agriculture, not interior or environmental which to me highlights their priority) is to regrow forests that are easily logged (ie, planned and accessible) and quickly regrown. The end result is unhealthy forests, prone to intense forest fire because of tree density (exacerbated by clearcutting), and uninhabitable by diverse forest ecology. Effectively we have a timber farm.
If you want to see what this looks like, zoom into the Shasta area of California on google earth and you'll see this weird tiling effect. It's not a issue with the satellite imagery, the checkerboard effect is the scar leftover from our out of date forestry practices. Ok so why the long side rant that seems completely off topic?
When we look at the projects utilizing this type of technology, they are by and large this type of resource extraction focused planting. Who else would need to spread this many seeds this quickly? While I'm sure there are a few beneficial conservation projects using this type of equipment (probably well funded groups like The Nature Conservancy), the majority of their projects are likely traditional Forest Service work that is perpetuating degraded forests and the insane wildfires we've been seeing in the western US for the last decade.
I think my take away is that this is a new tool that is really effective at a specific job which in itself isn't a bad thing. However the people using it are continuing methods that have been proven to be destructive to environmental health. This makes me feel kind of like the old "guns don't kill, people do". True, but giving them more effective guns is just going to make things worse.
(Last hot take I promise. In the video they compare physically planting established trees to seed dispersal as if there is a apples to apples comparison)
Not sure if you’ve seen, but the former CEO of reddit started a non profit trying to tackle exactly what you’re describing here. https://www.terraformation.com
Not sure if you’ve seen, but the former CEO of reddit started a non profit trying to tackle exactly what you’re describing here. https://www.terraformation.com
I don't doubt that resource extraction is a primary motivator of these technologies, but the video claims carbon sequestration and habit restoration is their goal. In a quick skim of the coverage...
Who else would need to spread this many seeds this quickly?
I don't doubt that resource extraction is a primary motivator of these technologies, but the video claims carbon sequestration and habit restoration is their goal.
In a quick skim of the coverage of AirSeed it was mentioned that they've partnered with the University of Technology Sydney to assist mangrove restoration after the bushfires. That's similar to what first came to mind after reading your reply, since I'm in an area under threat by emerald ash borers who may end up killing off most ash trees then dying out.
The technology seems split between three things:
Seed pods that help protect from wildlife and support early growth
Drone delivery of said seed pods
Software that tracks where plants have gone and is able to process camera data to assess health(?)
Superficially (feel free to correct me!) the technology doesn't seem well-suited to timber farms. I'd guess timber farms would prefer accessible/clear-ish land for the eventual ease of harvesting where traditional vehicles would be fine as a solution, and the need to assess health of planted trees wouldn't be cost-competitive with just using more land and assuming X% would fail to grow?
Unfortunately just about any technology can be abused or have undesirable side-effects. The example I got growing up was Eli Whitney believing his cotton gin would reduce the need for slaves when instead it just made slavery more profitable.
I'm too uninformed to have an opinion on the USFS (the wiki entry on ecological succession was a helpful refresher on this topic, at least) but in a future where climate changes threaten existing wildlife having technology that can quickly/cheaply/intentionally regrow areas could be really important. Fingers-crossed that qualified ecologists are given control over the decisions.
I'm not opposed to technological solutions, but treating this tool as if it's revolutionary obscures and dilutes understanding the extremity of our environmental problems. It's not just "plant...
I'm not opposed to technological solutions, but treating this tool as if it's revolutionary obscures and dilutes understanding the extremity of our environmental problems. It's not just "plant trees to absorb CO 2 and we've done a huge fix."
Unfortunately, it's hard to establish most trees from seed (or even seedlings and years-old saplings). This is true even in established fertile biomes for a given species - germination depends on adequate rainfall, seedling-eating predators (deer, etc.), presence of competing species (some trees make the ground toxic to new growth), and so on.
Even if the seeds are successful and chosen for maximum diversity, what's grown won't resemble naturally evolved forests, with centuries or millennia of soil, duff, micro- and macro- biota, fungal networks, and subsidiary plant life. It's possible to build pocket forests quickly (Miyawaki method and variations), but this is again highly labor- and resource-intensive work.
A few years ago for the #teamtrees fundraiser Mark Rober did a video on similar drones, for those who want to see more footage of drone planting in action: Using Drones to Plant 20,000,000 Trees
I'm of two minds about this. We do need ways to disperse seeds in otherwise unreachable terrain, so for that application this is great innovation. However restoration, particularly forest restoration regimes, often aren't helpful or in some cases damaging to the target ecosystems. What is often carried out is some form of planting that gets you closer to a timber farm than a forest. Natural regrowth is a long process, one that fosters not only trees but the rich biodiversity of a forest. The initial growth of grasses and fungus, then the first return of shrubs and early stage trees, and finally the trees that make us think of 'forests' reappear. This timeline is important because early adopters need this period free from competition to establish. The process adds complexity, it adds biodiversity, and it allows for healthy forests to establish. However the response by the US Forest Service (which is interestingly a part of the US Department of Agriculture, not interior or environmental which to me highlights their priority) is to regrow forests that are easily logged (ie, planned and accessible) and quickly regrown. The end result is unhealthy forests, prone to intense forest fire because of tree density (exacerbated by clearcutting), and uninhabitable by diverse forest ecology. Effectively we have a timber farm.
If you want to see what this looks like, zoom into the Shasta area of California on google earth and you'll see this weird tiling effect. It's not a issue with the satellite imagery, the checkerboard effect is the scar leftover from our out of date forestry practices. Ok so why the long side rant that seems completely off topic?
When we look at the projects utilizing this type of technology, they are by and large this type of resource extraction focused planting. Who else would need to spread this many seeds this quickly? While I'm sure there are a few beneficial conservation projects using this type of equipment (probably well funded groups like The Nature Conservancy), the majority of their projects are likely traditional Forest Service work that is perpetuating degraded forests and the insane wildfires we've been seeing in the western US for the last decade.
I think my take away is that this is a new tool that is really effective at a specific job which in itself isn't a bad thing. However the people using it are continuing methods that have been proven to be destructive to environmental health. This makes me feel kind of like the old "guns don't kill, people do". True, but giving them more effective guns is just going to make things worse.
(Last hot take I promise. In the video they compare physically planting established trees to seed dispersal as if there is a apples to apples comparison)
Not sure if you’ve seen, but the former CEO of reddit started a non profit trying to tackle exactly what you’re describing here. https://www.terraformation.com
I don't doubt that resource extraction is a primary motivator of these technologies, but the video claims carbon sequestration and habit restoration is their goal.
In a quick skim of the coverage of AirSeed it was mentioned that they've partnered with the University of Technology Sydney to assist mangrove restoration after the bushfires. That's similar to what first came to mind after reading your reply, since I'm in an area under threat by emerald ash borers who may end up killing off most ash trees then dying out.
The technology seems split between three things:
Superficially (feel free to correct me!) the technology doesn't seem well-suited to timber farms. I'd guess timber farms would prefer accessible/clear-ish land for the eventual ease of harvesting where traditional vehicles would be fine as a solution, and the need to assess health of planted trees wouldn't be cost-competitive with just using more land and assuming X% would fail to grow?
Unfortunately just about any technology can be abused or have undesirable side-effects. The example I got growing up was Eli Whitney believing his cotton gin would reduce the need for slaves when instead it just made slavery more profitable.
I'm too uninformed to have an opinion on the USFS (the wiki entry on ecological succession was a helpful refresher on this topic, at least) but in a future where climate changes threaten existing wildlife having technology that can quickly/cheaply/intentionally regrow areas could be really important. Fingers-crossed that qualified ecologists are given control over the decisions.
I'm not opposed to technological solutions, but treating this tool as if it's revolutionary obscures and dilutes understanding the extremity of our environmental problems. It's not just "plant trees to absorb CO 2 and we've done a huge fix."
Unfortunately, it's hard to establish most trees from seed (or even seedlings and years-old saplings). This is true even in established fertile biomes for a given species - germination depends on adequate rainfall, seedling-eating predators (deer, etc.), presence of competing species (some trees make the ground toxic to new growth), and so on.
Seeding drones also aren't a solution to degraded or desertified land. Re-greening currently requires labor-intensive, generations-long, multistage eco-engineering projects.
Even if the seeds are successful and chosen for maximum diversity, what's grown won't resemble naturally evolved forests, with centuries or millennia of soil, duff, micro- and macro- biota, fungal networks, and subsidiary plant life. It's possible to build pocket forests quickly (Miyawaki method and variations), but this is again highly labor- and resource-intensive work.
A few years ago for the #teamtrees fundraiser Mark Rober did a video on similar drones, for those who want to see more footage of drone planting in action: Using Drones to Plant 20,000,000 Trees