Interesting (long) article about global warming and its effects on growing zones. It points out that the warming trend isn't necessarily good--invasive weeds "receive a greater boost from higher levels of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas, than desirable plants do. Poison ivy becomes more toxic, ragweed dumps more pollen, and kudzu, the fast-growing vine that has swallowed whole woodlands in the South, is creeping northward."
I think that for most of us in Canada, a little warming--with or without the weeds and bugs--will be appreciated. In this transition period though, it's really difficult to know how much to push the envelope. I may try growing beans this year--and hey, next year maybe (dare I hope) corn!!! Oh, and roses...
Has anyone noticed a real difference yet in what they can grow?
Feeling Warmth, Subtropical Plants Move North http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/science/03flowers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Global warming and gardeners
I was digging yesterday and unearthed what looked to me like Japanese Beetles. These are not usually found this far north. I used to lose half my flowers to these darn beetles when I gardened in SE Pennsylvania, and I shall be very upset if they are moving into this neigbourhood due to milder winters.
Yep. Every year I buy a pkt of reticulata iris, planted in hopes. This year for the first time, they have survived and are showing growth.
Also crocrosmia. Last year I forgot to dig up a patch before winter. They grew well last summer but no bloom. This year they are already poking through so think they will bloom.
Also, first iris bloom today in Saskatoon, May 4, much too early.
Was thinking of you last night Rosemary. Quite a long in depth study about Prince George and thepine beetle problem. Miles and miles of brown dying trees. People actually hearing them munching on their trees and hearing the sawdust and frass raining down. Said it was not cold enough to kill he beetle.
inanda
What concerns me more is rapid weather changes including abrupt temperature changes, high winds and more severity between summer hot & dry and our winters becoming wetter and wetter. I already grow bananas, palms, eucalyptus, etc but we went from +7 to -7 in a matter of hours, followed by snow, melt, heavy freezing, snow and then high winds. In 2006 we had almost a full month of rain minus a day (February). I can't ever remember it changing so quickly and the winter windstorm was downright aggressive. Is this what we'll be seeing more of? The east had a late freezing which burned new growth and if you recall, winter came late for eastern Canada. There are large 30-40' Eucalyptus that are dead & brown in Vancouver because of this past wacky winter.
growin I posted this link in a thread a couple of months ago:
http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/posters/bc/index_e.php it lists the changes that are predicted to occur and are most certainly happening at the coast. There are further links off to the side, of the above link, that you can click on to get detailed information. I believe just about everything that you listed above is covered in that link (except the unusual winter weather, ie. large snow dump, that your location rec'd this past winter).
This message was edited May 8, 2007 5:37 PM
Glenda, that's a great link, thanks for re-posting it.
We've been in the forefront of the beetle problem as Dave (my Dave) is on the board of CCBAC, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Committee, and also on the Premier's Advisory committee. We got quite a (sad) chuckle last year when Alberta had a symposium on the critter and invited Dave to discuss the environmental impacts of the beetle. The main thrust of the symposium was to explore ways and means of stopping the beetle, presumably at the Alberta border!. Of course, nothing stops this winged menace except lack of food or, we're told, about 3 weeks of -30 weather in a November or early December. The biologists now believe it will move right across Canada. Frightening. The lovely big Ponderosas are going now, not just the lodgepole and jackpine. And there is a Fir Beetle, and the Spruce budworm....
Plant deciduous trees!
Rosemary (writing in a heavy snow storm)
Why aren't other conifer species being planted where pine beetle has taken hold? Wouldn't it make economical sense to cut down infested trees, immediately plant non-pine species? It would significantly reduce dramatic climate issues in the province.
You're welcome Rosemary (I think you were referring to me...my name's Pam )
Unfortunately they've already failed at stopping that beetle at the Alberta border: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/07/04/pine-beetle.html
I'm sick over what's going to happen to our beautiful Boreal Forest.
:(
This message was edited May 8, 2007 3:33 PM
BTW about 2/3rd's of the way down on this link: http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/posters/bc/bc_01_e.php is a really pretty (not) orange and red map showing the expected temperature changes for the world (Canada will really be in a hot spot)..........2 winters ago may have been a mild foreshadow of that.
Hey, growin...just got our satellite internet back so can spend time on line again (our pitiful telus connection was on a rampage of anywhere from 9 to 16 Kbps!!!).
Your question about re-planting is a good one and one that many people ask. The thing that no one who isn't directly involved can appreciate is the SCALE of the infestation. Literally millions and millions of hectares in B.C. alone...in fact, several million just in the Cariboo region. Replanting on that scale is physically impossible and economically unviable. Not only that, conifers planted now will take a minimum of 60 - 80 years to mature and with the planet changing so rapidy, no one can guess what species will be able to adapt.
For those who haven't seen a beetle-attacked forest, I've attached a picture taken about 4 years ago in the Vanderhoof area, when that area was first impacted. It's a lot worse now, of course.
The Boreal forest accounts for 1/3 of the world's conifers. Losing any large percentage will cause a drastic increase in global warming.
We have done a terrible thing to Gaia but she will survive our stupidity...will we?
Rosemary
Thanks Rosemary,
I understand what you're saying but everyone is touting "Global Warming". Well, replacing should be at the top of the Premier's agenda. The 2 are very much connected. It baffles me why the powers that be aren't putting more focus on replanting, for the sake of all. I have heard from many about the damage and the extent. I guess I'm just dissappointed at the lack of response. My comments are in no way directed towards you or Dave. People just need to be made more aware so they can put 2 + 2 together and more $ put towards resolution/replanting.
"The Boreal forest accounts for 1/3 of the world's conifers. Losing any large percentage will cause a drastic increase in global warming.
We have done a terrible thing to Gaia but she will survive our stupidity...will we?"
and to the above this:
'One degree and we're done for': the vast sub-Arctic forests and bogs may be just 1[degrees]C away from a disastrous and unstoppable thaw.(This week: Boreal meltdown). Fred Pearce.
New Scientist 191.2571 (Sept 30, 2006): p8(2).
Subjects
Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2006 For more science news and comments see [HYPERLINK@www.newscientist.com.]
"FURTHER global warming of 1[degrees]C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."
So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2[degrees]C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1[degrees]C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).
The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska, underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as dramatic on land in the far north.
A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change. Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central Siberia has warmed by almost 2[degrees]C since 1970--that's three times the global average.
Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2[degrees]C since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5[degrees]C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).
In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused the onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.
The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still further. Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths. "They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says. The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy soft vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.
In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin, warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe," says Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.
Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US scientists (Nature, vol 443, p71).
"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter. Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he says.
We could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the past million years, outside that range--beyond a further warming of about 1 [degrees]C--the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.
Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs, permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole, they are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250 billion a year, or $160 per hectare.
These benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.
The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber, minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of our gross domestic product--similar in value to our health and social services."
You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volmne of carbon locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system, Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."
And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.
Source Citation: Pearce, Fred. "'One degree and we're done for': the vast sub-Arctic forests and bogs may be just 1[degrees]C away from a disastrous and unstoppable thaw.(This week: Boreal meltdown)." New Scientist 191.2571 (Sept 30, 2006): 8(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL LIBRARY. 26 Nov. 2006
.
Thomson Gale Document Number: A152327213
Thanks for printing the article, Lilypon. And of course since then, things have accelerated beyond those predictions.
Growin, replanting isn't just an economic issue; it's far more complex. Perhaps most important, logging and planting releases more carbon than leaving the dead trees alone. And consider this: to reach the vast wilderness areas of dead trees, new roads would have to be built. This has a huge negative impact on wildlife. And once a road is in, the area no longer is true wilderness. I could write a book about that! For instance, even if the road is deactivated, predation patterns change--both human and canine.
You're right about the politicians. If they all did what was right rather than worrying about economics, perhaps we wouldn't have global warming in the first place!
The conglomerates who rule our logging industry are always concerned with the bottom line, and there currently is little legislation in B.C. to keep them honest. If you want to hit up our politicos, ask why the logging companies are allowed to log so much green wood during this crisis--most of them choose cutblocks that have a lot of spruce and fir mixed in with the dead pine, because it is worth more. They technically should be in cutblocks that have at least 70% dead, but no one is monitoring that and millworkers we know say they are processing a LOT more than 30% green wood. The AAC (Annual Allowable Cut) in B.C. has been increased as much as 60 - 75% in some regions and logging companies are currently operating flat out trying to get the easily-reached trees while they are still useful. (Beetle-attacked trees have a shelf life, beyond which it is useless to the mills.) Even supposing all the timber moguls suddenly became altruistic and logged the wood for nothing, then burned it in order to replant--one pound of carbon burned creates 3.2# of C02, which would add tonnes to the atmosphere.
And don't forget, even dead trees also provide habitat for the existing residents--clearcuts and young saplings don't. If the whole of Kits and the West End were evacuated permanently in the space of a month, wouldn't it be a scramble for those residents to find new homes? And if you're thinking about the fire hazard, it is highest right now, while the trees still have needles. Once they are gone, the fire hazard actually drops dramatically.
I can't stress too much the scale we are facing. Just the area where we live, the Chilcotin, is the size of Switzerland. Even if it was the best solution, can you imagine clear-cutting and replanting that? And we're only a small portion of the whole problem.
We have finally been stumped by an issue that cannot be solved by applying more money and resources. I imagine that eventually the plants and animals will evolve to live in a much-changed environment but personally, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.
a gloomy Rosemary
Never mind the fact that our cross Canada Boreal Forest also provides oxygen to our very poisoned air. I'm pretty sure I've read that's also pretty important. (wee touch of bitterness here).
Rosemary you might find this thread of interest too (while the subject matter is the prairies it certainly effects the forest as well) : http://davesgarden.com/forums/t/689627/
Here's a thread in the European forum where they were discussing a program regarding the planting (hopefully ;) of 1 billion trees : http://davesgarden.com/forums/t/668977/
This message was edited May 14, 2007 1:49 PM
In today's newspaper.....
Canada's boreal forest key in battle with climate change
Toronto (CP) Scientists from more than 50 countries are urging Canada to strengthen protection for the boreal forest the Globe and Mail reports.
The plea is contained in a letter signed by 1,500 scientists who note that only 10 per cent of the forest is currently protected (my note....wouldn't it be nice if they also put the $$$$$$ behind their request esp since our contribution to the carbon dioxide levels is only a small percentage of the total. ;).
The scientists say Canada's large northern forest is the biggest carbon storehouse on Earth and vital to the planet's battle with climate change.
They say it is under threat from logging, mining and oil and gas operations.
One of the scientists, Terry Root of Stanford University, says Canada's boreal forest could provide plants and animals with a sanctuary to withstand climate change until humans reduce harmfull emissions.
The letter also points out forests absorb and store carbon dioxide.
Global warming concerns are based on predictions human emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide are trapping heat in the atmosphere.
The boreal forest, made up primarily of coniferous trees, stretches from Alaska to Newfoundland and from the tundra to Lakes Superior and Huron.
This message was edited May 14, 2007 5:04 PM
This whole thing just makes me feel sick inside. When I think of how relatively short a span man has had on this planet and how quickly we have "progressed" to the point we're at now.....well, I'm sure you all feel the same sense of frustration and despondency I do with this complete focus on the bottom line. When did the race of man lose touch so completely?
--Ginny
I am sorry to be checking in so late on this thread. I am a biologist, and having worked in this province for 27 years, I have to say I am a bit disgusted with the forestry contingent here, because some of us were very nervous about lodgepole pine being the dominant species in the interior, and the lack of preparation for climate change or insect outbreaks. Also the lack of use of controlled fire. The federal forest service actually pretty much dismantled the Forest Insect and Disease Survey around 1998, and all that expertise and experience was lost.
Katherine...
Monocropping, even when it's done by Nature!--leaves the land very vulnerable, doesn't it.
As you know, the pine beetle is endemic, but didn't reach epidemic proportions here until this century. And because, as you say, FIDS was dismantled the few remaining biologists here have had to play serious catch-up. But I doubt anyone could have stopped the spread of the pine beetle. I just hope that more serious attention is now being paid to the Fir Bark Beetle and the Spruce Bud Worm. You'd be shocked if you drive Highway 20 now--those beautiful firs all around the Alexis Creek area lost their foliage to the Fir Bark Beetle 2-3 years ago, and are now unlikely to recover.
Something has also been attacking the willows. Do you know anything about that? It will be a pretty bleak landscape if we lose our deciduous trees as well!
I agree, it would have been hard to stop, but they could perhaps have not planted pine for millions of hectares from Babine to Princeton. I remember when so-called natural regeneration was expected to occur following clearcutting and burning (and which foresters were responsible for the theory) and when that didnt happen, they had 'backlog' reforestation problems, which were solved with herbicides, scalping and mounding and lodgepole pine size 14's.
Several wildlife biologists and a few of us plant ecologists were willing to try controlled burns of older lodgepole pine that was heavily fuel loaded, then mixed planting afterwards. That was not taken seriously enough I think. Especially at Okanagan Mountain Park. This sort of thing might have have broken up the pine beetle playground a bit.
However you are right. I am sorry I am not sure what would be eating your willows. Is it a tent caterpillar? Or a looper, perhaps? We can expect more of these problems with global climate change, I am afraid.
Katherine