in the category of "some improvement is better than none"...

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by songbird, Jun 10, 2015.

  1. songbird

    songbird Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,780
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    gardening, reading, etc
    Location:
    near St. Charles, MI, USoA
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    -15C-35C, 10cm rain/mo, clay, full sun, K-G Dfa=x=Dfb
  2. Bryant RedHawk

    Bryant RedHawk Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Arkansas Senior Appraiser
    Location:
    Vilonia, Arkansas, deep in the woods
    Climate:
    USDA zone 7b,8a.
    This is very good news perhaps they will end up actually replanting the rain forest they destroyed.

    The biggest issue I have with the rainforest destruction is that the soil these trees live in is totally built by the trees. Once cut down, if not immediately replanted the soil looses most of the nutrition it held while in forest. This makes it very hard to make a rainforest viable as a resource since once the canopy is gone, nothing will grow back for years and years. In Brazil they started clearing land for farms back in the 1970's and found that the soil would not produce a crop after only two years of farming. Unfortunately that meant that the farmers had to clear more rainforest so they could plant for another two years. Quite the expensive farming habit there. Now they are remediating some of that previously cleared rainforest land but it is an expensive undertaking and it takes around 5 years to get the trees going or to build the soil enough so that farming can be practiced on that soil.
     

Share This Page

-->