Is it helpful if trees are planted in the barren lands?

Question

this is about aforestation and is it helpful for anyone who looks for planting trees in the barren lands , please tell your opinions about global warming also

Answer 1

yeah we can by manuring  the natural cakes only if we do this we can be free from global warming they answers is good and i ensure that it is right ,,,,,,,

<<<cheers!!!>>>

Answer 2

Only if has enough water.

Answer 3

yes

Answer 4

It's a very good idea.

Answer 5

If those lands you want to plant trees on are barren naturally, there's a REASON that land is barren, and altering the ecosystems of those supposedly barren lands will cause even further environmental damage.  

Here's an example:  200 years ago, the mid-section of the United States was pretty much just huge prairies, with only small numbers of trees - mainly growing along waterways.  As humans have spread out, building our cities and such, we've planted trees - for a variety of reasons (shade, fruit, fuel, wind breaks, etc.).  Because we've planted these "urban forests", certain species of animals/birds have been able to expand beyond their "natural" range.  One such case is the Barred Owl.  Historically, the Barred Owl was pretty much limited to the southeastern United States.  As these urban forests grew, the Barred Owl has increased its range.  Now, there's a dilemma beginning in the Pacific Northwest...  Barred Owls have been sighted in increasing numbers in the range of the Spotted Owl - and because the Barred Owl is larger than the Spotted Owl, the Spotted Owls are being forced out of their ranges and predated upon by the Barred Owls.  

...These are the same Spotted Owls that were the driving force behind closing off many of the forests of the Pacific Northwest to logging many years ago - because people were afraid that logging was killing the Spotted Owls...  Just a side note:  It has been noted in studies that the Spotted Owls seem to actually prefer areas that have been thinned by selective logging - and not the overgrown "old-growth" forests that were given the protected status that shut down many logging operations and put so many people out of work...

Now, there are people wringing their hands about what to do with the Barred Owls...  Options being considered include shooting the Barred Owls to save the Spotted Owls...

Another example would be the "Common Flicker".  20 years ago, there were two different species noted in bird books:  The "Red-Shafted Flicker" and the "Yellow Shafted Flicker", with the Red-Shafted Flickers living in the Western United States, and the Yellow Shafted Flickers in the Eastern United States.  

Now?

They've been re-named the "Common Flicker" because they've begun inter-breeding where their ranges have started to overlap.  

Certain areas are barren for reasons.  Other areas (prairies) don't - didn't - have trees for a reason...  

All things need to be considered before many "green" projects are attempted.  In fact, green projects should be subject to the same scrutiny and environmental regulations that are required when logging, mining, construction, etc. are being considered for certain areas, and those "Environmental Impact Studies" for green projects, once complete, need to be open for public comment...

Answer 6

yes, it increases the greenaruy and it is very useful if we can do cultivation on barren lands.

global warming is increasing..

Answer 7

yes very helful

Answer 8

With longer summers in certain areas of the world, planting trees that will reach very tall heights is a great improvement.

In this manner, you get a blocking of sun's rays which is deadly, and at the same time you get oxygen pumped back into the atmosphere.  

In barren areas, most trees won't grow.  

Pollution from big corporate entities has caused the most damage to the environment.

The solution is relatively simple.

When corporate polluters get caught in the act, they need to be fined severely, not just a few million dollars, but multi billions of dollars in fines so that the horendous income tax burden being carried by individuals gets placed on the back of the corporations who shun paying them.  

This would cause equality and fairness in taxing, while punishing those who abuse the environment.  

The problem is that the big corporations feed our elected officials with soft money (P.A.C. money), and the people we vote into office turn a blind eye.

The only way to alert our politicians is by calling them or writing to them, or even visiting them.  

The environment will get the recognition it needs for improvement soon, but I'm hoping more will be done.

Answer 9

Depends on what trees you are planting and which land etc.

But yes it is helpful to plant trees in barren lands. Many barren lands were once dense forests later cut by mankind for their greed.

How does it help ?

1. Economically : Plants like Jatropha yield seeds which are used to make biodiesel. So they allow you to make money. Similarly there are various other trees which give you some income.

Certain species also allow the barren land to cool and make it cultivable for other plants/crops thus giving food and income.

2. More Oxygen , more cooling in the area.

3. Less pollution

4. Les CO2 so possibly act in reduction of Global Warming and pollution.

5. Bio-diesel provides alternative clean energy source.

6. Tree species like Neem can be used for medicinal purposes.

7. Allows the area to generate economic revenue thus growth.

8.  Retains groundwater better thus increasing water table.

9. Possibly better rains.

10. Reduces desertification of land and sometimes acts as barrier to deserts.

Answer 10

Well, it does help. But if it doesn't rain a lot then you're better of planting trees in a place where it does rain!

Answer 11

trees in vast numbers contribute to slowing global warming because they are a live store of carbon, which they take from CO2 in the air.

Trees at desert edges and barren lands are beneficial, since they effect climate and temperature, slow soil erosion and of course provide shadow, these trees are disappearing because of over grazing and deforestation.

Answer 12

Not unless you are able to make the barren lands more fertile. (being barren suggests lack of fertility and structure in the soils).

Making the soils more fertile (through the use of fertilisers) would cause secondary pollution such as run off which would in turn pollute local water sources and possibly cause eutrophication (a boom of algae which uses up all the oxygen in the water killing everything else including eventually itself) and improving soil structure would involve digging up and transportation of other materials to the site.

Global Warming is a natural effect, whether we caused enhance global warming is unknown - for example during the middle ages (900 to 1300AD) the temperature was 2-3 degrees higher than what they are currently - how do we know that we are not just experiencing a fluctuation in global temperature?

But having said that. Is it better to be safe than sorry? - i think so, plus by using global warming to reduce pollution and become more sustainable it can only be a good thing even though i have doubts as to the reasons why we're doing it.

Answer 13

it is a must but before planting trees,there should be grass and shrubs that may cool the surrounding so that the trees will be healthy growing.so it is important to consider to provide the optimum conditions before planting trees.it is better if different species will be planted to make the ecosystem a super stability.

Answer 14

Depends ont he land.  CHina is planting trees near the Gobi desert to preven the desert from growing.  It slows the wind so it want blow sand onto arable land and remove the top soil.

As for global warming, it isn't as effective as one might think.    It's basically a bandaid.  If someone chops down the tree and burn it, it would just return the CO2 to the air.   If it dies, part of the carbon stored would return after it decays.    It is an investment in the futer though.   The tree would help protect our water supply, clean the air of pollution, provide wood in the future.  THis is assuming that the tree would take on the land.

Answer 15

Trees Won't Fix Global Warming

The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates.

Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.

The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels of the greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere to four matched plots that didn't receive any extra gas.

The treated trees produced about 20 percent more biomass on average, but since water and nutrient availability differed across the plots, averages don't tell the whole story, the researchers noted.

"In some areas, the growth is maybe five to 10 percent more, and in other areas it's 40 percent more," said FACE project director Ram Oren of Duke University. "So in sites that are poor in nutrients and water we see very little response. In sites that are rich in both, we see a large response."

These differences are key since the weather isn't always cooperative with human needs—if a drought takes hold, trees won't be able to do much in the way of carbon storage.

"If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration," Oren said.

Fertilizing forests to spur more carbon dioxide uptake is impractical, Oren added, because of the ramifications to the local environment and water supply.

"In order to actually have an effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the results suggest a future need to fertilize vast areas," Oren said. "And the impact on water quality of fertilizing large areas will be intolerable to society. Water is already a scarce resource."

The results of the study, presented yesterday at a national meeting of the Ecological Society of America, also noted that only a few parts of a tree will store carbon for long periods of time.

"Carbon that's in foliage is going to last a lot shorter time than carbon in the wood, because leaves decay quickly," said Duke graduate student and project member Heather McCarthy. "So elevated CO2 could significantly increase the production of foliage, but this would lead to only a very small increase in ecosystem carbon storage."