• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Sequoia planting scheme in the uk (2 Viewers)

C

cheshirebirder

Well-known member
Just watched an article on tv about this . The main aim is carbon capture from the atmosphere as the trees grow to huge heights and particularly rapidly. Fabulous trees that I’ve had the privilege to see out in their native home in western America. We also have them in a number of our parks and gardens in the uk. but not on the same scale. The programme set me wondering how these trees interact with the rest of our native wildlife and a quick google revealed no information . The planting scheme guarantees three native trees will be planted for each sequoia to help biodiversity , assume carefully planted so as not to get rapidly shaded out ! What do other people think about the impact ( or not ) of this on our wildlife generally ?
 
Didn't see the programme but it seems very odd. I wouldn't imagine Sequoia are that fast growing, I used to live next to parkland that had been planted up in Victorian times with a wide variety of world trees. Some trees had thrived more than others but the Sequoia were no larger than some of the others.
 
Mono said:
Didn't see the programme but it seems very odd. I wouldn't imagine Sequoia are that fast growing, I used to live next to parkland that had been planted up in Victorian times with a wide variety of world trees. Some trees had thrived more than others but the Sequoia were no larger than some of the others.
Click to expand...
According to the report they're the fastest growing conifers. This will obviously depend on conditions although as I understand it the west of the UK is very favourable. (Haven't checked if they are the fastest.)
 
Fastest could just mean trivially-faster than most others. It's a silly-gimmick idea, presumably originating from people who know/care little about wild environments, whose sole positive is to engage public interest in the larger issues. Madness to do this in favour of planting native species.
 
Last edited:
Butty said:
Fastest could just mean trivially-faster than most others. It's a silly-gimmick idea, presumably originating from people who know/care little about wild environments, whose sole positive is to engage public interest in the larger issues. Madness to do this in favour of planting native species.
Click to expand...
Think they said that sequoia grow three times faster hence the great capacity for removing carbon from the atmosphere. What I can’t find out is how useful or not they are to our native insects,fungi,birds etc. Even in the states all I can remember around them were chipmunks and kinglets .
 
I hate to use the word scam but reading that site it has green wash written all over it!
 
cheshirebirder said:
Think they said that sequoia grow three times faster . . .
Click to expand...
...than...? - commercially-grown conifers? eucalypts? That sounds super-unlikely. Anyway, I'd far rather have native species that were far more than three times as useful to other native biota. Stupid idea, just designed to catch media attention.
 
Butty said:
...than...? - commercially-grown conifers? eucalypts? That sounds super-unlikely. Anyway, I'd far rather have native species that were far more than three times as useful to other native biota. Stupid idea, just designed to catch media attention.
Click to expand...
The background was an investigative overview of "offsetting". One might be sceptical of such schemes in general. They did say you have to be careful because of course trees can be cut down etc—what assurances are there your money will be used for stated purpose—so reasonably balanced. In this scheme the report said they plant 3 natives for each sequoia (iirc; not looked at website).

Personally, I think it's great if "carbon capture", "offsetting" or whatever means more forest is protected. I might even support it if it leads to planting (depending on type/location etc). I'd certainly prefer to protect or replant the Mata Atlantica (for example), over sequoias in Wales.

Overall, though, I'm sceptical. It's a bit like Carbon Capture and Storage but on a timescale of centuries rather than thousands (or millions) of years. You have to believe the carbon will be locked up all that time and no fires, chainsaws etc will intervene. I feel this is unlikely...

(If carbon capture is the objective, it's actually probably better to use non-natives. They'll suffer less herbivory = lock up more carbon. Obviously this is less good for biodiversity, but these are 2 different things. Protecting or extending existing native forest is the only approach which meets both criteria but from the capture point of view it's usually a compromise.)
 
Mono said:
Pay £1250 to plant 1 Sequoia or get free trees to plant in your local community.

www.tcv.org.uk

Free Trees for Communities

Just ordered FREE TREES through #IDigTrees from TCV For Climate For Wildlife For Communities Claim your trees here https://www.tcv.org.uk/i-dig-trees/free-trees
www.tcv.org.uk www.tcv.org.uk
Click to expand...
Gee, send me that much and I'll plant you a full grove of mixed birch/oak. I'll even put a free name tag on to honour you or your granny.
 
Last edited:
On their site the main sell is offsetting.
"A single Giant Sequoia tree can sequester as much CO2 as the lifetime carbon footprint of your average UK citizen."
Bung us £1250 and then you can turn up the heating and fly to Las Vega for the weekend.
 
Agree with most comments. Stick to planting & managing native trees / woodlands and plant non-native conifer species useful for timber in commercial plantations.

My recent experience of Sequoia in their native range is that there is very little understorey and few birds in the Sequoia groves but the understorey and birdlife increases as soon as you reach areas with groves of White Fir and other species mixed in - so I can't see them being of much use to our native fauna.
 
Without the ability to sell carbon credits to companies wishing to green wash (think of some green energy providers who don't switch the supply off on cold, still, dark nights) this plan would not happen because there is no profit in it.
 
Planting local natives is so much better. Non-natives don’t feed the native insects that the native birds feed on. Yes, the Sequoias get big fairly quickly and live for thousands of years but they don’t feed British insects that feed British birds. English Oaks, on the other hand, each feed hundreds of species of British birds and live for hundreds of years at least.
 

Similar threads

D
"Planting trees in woods"
Replies
1
Views
825
Sangahyando
S
Troubador
The Final Surprises Through My Zeisses / 18 A Shrike, Several Nightjars and Two Woodpeckers
Replies
9
Views
1K
Thotmosis
Thotmosis
Tiraya
Kaua'i (Garden Isle of Hawai'i) December 2022
Replies
7
Views
1K
Owene
O
Troubador
Have Zeiss, Will Travel.
Replies
19
Views
3K
Bentley03
B
wolfbirder
Morocco Marvels and Meanderings 21 - 28 March 2023
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top