Rangeland afforestation is not a natural climate solution; great article by Dave Briske and colleagues. https://lnkd.in/gQqTc5mK WHY? (1) reforestation and afforestation are conflated, (2) C sequestration potential overestimated, (3) insufficient recognition of rangeland ecosystem services, (4) potentially adverse ecological outcomes, (5) neocolonial tendencies of afforestation programs Solution: conserve existing rangeland carbon
Rick Young
9mo
Which contribute more to a stable soil carbon store: grassland or 'woody weeds' in Australia's range lands?
Agriculture Leader | Regenerative Farmer | Nuffield Scholar 2024 | Speaker | Natural Capital Advocate | Engineer | Photographer | Kayaker
9moHaving read the paper I feel frustrated that this much effort is put into the lesser problem of rangelands having trees planted into them. I don't want to degrade significant rangelands but in comparison to the impact agriculture has had on woodlands and forests I feel the agenda is negatively affecting the efforts to reforest land. Deforestation is still a far larger problem globally. 1 - It has been shown for decades that you don't have to reduce grazing production with well designed agroforestry plantings. We're doing it on our farm and I've visited farms that have increased production even in low rainfall areas where trees can grow. 2 - The rangeland ecosystem is often used as an excuse by graziers to not bring back trees. See NZ and UY as just two examples. 3 - It is far easier to remove trees than bringing them back. Ask any forester. 4 - We're living in a time of climate change that is evolving faster than many ecosystems have evolved in the past. Worth considering the lack of shelter in rangelands for continued food production? See IPCC. 5 - "potentially adverse ecological outcomes" weren't considered when many woodlands were turned into grasslands. "Neocolonial t'den's" might be limiting our views on ecology also?