Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Back to the future: Reforesting Scotland's iconic hills | Focus on Europe
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 08. 2024
- After being deforested centuries ago, southern Scotland is now dry and barren. Now, to preserve nature and protect the climate, weekly volunteers are replanting pastureland to be forests in the future.
Subscribe: www.youtube.co...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#Scotland #Reforestation #Deforestation
Ive heard the main problem is that the deer eat saplings and that that is the problem. Wolfs used to maintain deer populations but now the balance is wrong. Lets hope though
Its not just that they eat them, their antlers grow and shed like skin, during the shedding season, they use the trees to basically scratch it off. For older trees this isn't a big problem, but the younger ones dont stand the pressure.
Most of these future woods are deer fenced and grazing is barred to help allow the new trees to establish free of the pressure. Still, the other half of the problem they're finding is that once they do, if the woods aren't refenced at a certain point, the new growth can't get established, either.
What we really need is much more aggressively active deer management, and a push back against grazing farmers to be better contained to their own land.
Yes. I would be very much in favour of reintroducing the lynx and the wolf.
Without fencing the area. Waste of time and money.
Any new plantings need to be fenced off properly until the trees are established. maybe 10 years.
I live further north in Scotland. My local forests were wiped out with Dutch Elm disease and Ash die back. With the permission of the land owners, I cut up the dead trees for firewood and replanted with thousands of Birch, Beech, Oaks, Hornbeams and Chestnuts. I have done this over a 24 year period, Im still planting. Thank you for the video
In 2001 I planted 90k trees on a Canadian government plan to reforest an area decimated by a forest fire. I think every person should get out and plant a 1000 trees. If everyone did, it would make a huge difference everywhere in bringing back forests and its animals!
A young woman, volunteering in Scotland's reforestation efforts, says "I get the feeling of being a mother. I need to get the right place for it [the native seedling] and then wish [hope] that it grows up strong and has a happy life." F'me. Why are we tolerating those who destroy our world, in part each of us, and cause such terrible deprivation and suffering. This young woman warrants our support and encouragement.
I always wondered why they would not do this many, many years ago! Ireland also!
And Iceland and faroe islands. Why not also Greenland some day.
In the Netherlands 150 years ago only 1-2% of our land area was covered with forest, today it is around 11%. Im not sure how countries have done in the past, but I wasn't aware of this until I really looked into this. I always had the idea that the place where I live doesnt have enough nature, but when I discovered that it was way worse in the past Im hopefull we can restore nature :)
@@joren7653 The difference is that the forest that was planted in the Netherlands in the past 150 years is mainly non native monoculture forests meant for production. Not only do we need to plant more trees, we also need to replace the excisting those forests with trees that are native and diverse.
@@emieloh5406 yes, this is true, but these non native forests are slowly replaced right?
Where sheep are the mainstay of Ireland and Scotland’s agricultural economy forests have a difficult time coming back. John Muir called sheep “hoofed locusts”.
This is the third project that I've seen doing this already, independent of each other. Amazing!
I’m so happy to see this happening I hope you do well!!
Glad you're doing that. Hope you bring back beavers and other animals as well. It should be a national program like the former CCC in the US.
Well, the beavers aren't native in Scotland .... doubt they'd be welcome.
@@EducatedSkeptic Ah but they were native, sadly hunted to local extinction. Thankfully there are now several re introduction programs across the UK including Scotland.
@@raclark2730 . Thought you were referring to the American beavers, which I believe were introduced into the Old World during the hayday of the fur trade. I hadn't known there was a native species! Thanks for the new tidbit!
@@EducatedSkeptic Cheers, only found out about them recently myself. It will be interesting to see how they go.
@@EducatedSkeptic: wrong: they are native. Wrong: they are back now, and welcome.
Beautiful. Great job Scotland, keep it up 🙂💪
When you plant trees everything comes back amazingly. Birds bugs animals and water
Most countries still allow the existing forests they have to be destroyed - even in mainland Europe I frequently see patches of recently felled trees and fields of stumps. Restoration is good, but it needs to become nearly impossible to destroy the little remaining ancient forests we have.
Well then don’t buy IKEA ever year. They use illegal felled trees from century old forests in Romania (for example). Buy something that holds and keep it…
It's doubtful that true ancient forests are especially common in Europe, even in America nearly all the forests that exist are regrowth after clearing by settlers, timber can be managed for both meeting human needs and preserving natural space simultaneously.
@@The_left_hand_pillar in England an ancient woodland is anything that is/was on a map or charter in the 1600s. Making it at least 500 years old, so yeah you’re right, not many woodlands would be truly ancient. But the hope is that if they were there at that point then they were there for a lot longer than that as well. Giving our history with woodlands and woodland management etc.
@@hermanspaerman3490 the total gains are small, and what little remains of old growth forest is under significant threat. A sprinkling of seedlings will not become a mature forest for at least a century. A spruce plantation is not and never will be a "forest".
@@hermanspaerman3490 I found one site listing "18%", but a previous report on the same site lists a loss for the same period. Frankly 18% gain does not sound realistic, and comes with the same caveats. Two other sources give about -5% Greece for the last 20 years.
In the places I've been in the last year - Germany, Austria, and Finland, there's still heavy deforestation and it was very evident traveling around these places - lots of clear cutting. Multiple data sources also corroborate my anecdotes 🤷♂️
Still see no evidence loss of old growth/ancient forests is a "myth".
Sorry to hear the spruce is unwelcome, though I can understand since it's only native on the mainland. I WAS surprised not to see Scotch Pine in the mix of plantings - it IS native. But, undoubtedly, you know best what is appropriate there. I've been planting trees here in the U.S.A. since the early 1970s, but it does sometimes seem like a long, arduous battle against the inevitable. Getting too old to be doing it on any grand scale now, but am keeping 15 of the 18 hectares in our own modest plot completely forested as long as I can - with over 20 native species of hardwoods and conifers. Have to turn back would-be loggers every year.
So glad that some people understand whats it all about, a garden for generations to come.
Good Job you Guys !!
Great reporting DW, thanks👏
Scotland is very similar to some mountains between Brescia and Bergamo and thanks to this video I discovered why: in addition to the presence of granite, many trees had been cut down to allow animals to graze...
Good job. Jesus that looked a bloody cold day.
Great to see it
Nice but I don't get why they don't use Pottiputki Plant Tools. Seems hard to work with a spade.
Nordic desert without forests.😔Great initiative
Crazy to think it use to be full of trees
I've never seen tree planting done in winter conditions. I doubt anyone is getting a jump start on growth when the sun isn't in the sky for long.
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in about five years.
Awesome
my lands :D
Well there will be a forest over 25 years or 75 years
It takes a very long time for trees to grow so.
It ages like wine. But it is still wine when its young.
Nearly everything truly worth doing takes time.....
Filmmaker @AidinRobbins did a wonderful video called "Scotland's Forgotten Rainforest". I highly recommend watching it - it's beautiful shot and wonderfully narrated with interesting insights into ecology, culture, history, et cetera!
America needs to follow Scotland's lead and start reforesting land in America.
America has > 50 forests larger than Scotland. Canada 100s larger. Scotland is not majestic - It is a baron land of sheep, wooly cattle and for the land owners profit deer. Unfenced trees have no chance.
It's underway in many places, but difficult. We have 40+ acres (just over 18 hectares), and about 15 hectares of it I'm protecting as forest. It was pasture until 1960 or so, but now I have over 20 species of mixed hardwoods and conifers, and some of the pines are over 60 cm (2 feet) in diameter at the base. Debating whether to put it into a protected easement to prevent logging when I can no longer guard it personally.
Waow! Dont stop
Very nice to see
Beautiful❤
An excellent idea 🏴👌
Awesome. Every person needs to do their part to keep this beautiful planet beautiful. We live in a new neighborhood which doesn’t have a lot of trees and plants. My wife and I planted some smaller trees in the back yard and put some bird feeders and the birds keep coming including butterflies. As humans, we need to stop being selfish and allow other animals and plants to share the planet with us. Most of them were here before humans evolved anyway. Without diversity, this planet is going to be barren.
so cool!
Well done😊
Good on ya!
We Love you.
I'm an American of high British content. Some of my ancestors were Hadleys. I wonder...
This is great. But, I guess they don’t have any deer, that will eat the young saplings?
These reforested areas are often deerfenced, with the fence being removed once trees are old enough to resist the deer.
Wonderful!
Thats great. Was there only 1 scotsman in the volunteer group?
Does it matter?
A model for other countries inc. England.
Good news
When it comes to reforestation native species must be used and certainly not one species only
Previous reforestation in Scotland was a monoculture of Scottish Pine planted in rows like corn.
@@davidrink1291 The same mistake again and again
Good news! It’s always depressing to visithe UK; yes, the rolling green hills of England can look nice, but what we’re looking at is really a destroyed landscape, nearly totally deforested
Why not wait till Spring when the snow is gone to plant the tender seedling when the survival rate would be better?
If the seedlings were properly grown, they're dormant now .... and it'll be far less jarring for them to be transplanted now, rather than when they're starting to initiate their spring awakening and growth period.
Isto sim é ser ecologista.
If you do not fence it it does not work.
The Spruce might not be native but I don' see any problem leaving the few that grow.
a good thing that normal people can do is also recycling waste.
When reforestation of Germany?
?? Germany has a lot of forests, but the health degrades again after some decades where it got better. Many german forests are professional managed and they try to keep them in balance.
@@micumatrixmany forrestd are in bad shape and mostly only used for wood production/scrap production. They are mostly 'Fichte' monoculture that is
How little we care for the environment that the people doing the work have to be volunteers. How about we fund tree planting jobs and stop with the altruism nonsense. This profession is valuable and worthy of real pay. At the end of the day , it will be the one job that saves us from ourselves and climate change. Seems we should properly fund it no?
Seems exceptionally odd to define a tree species whose seeds- according to what the man himself says- landed there naturally (presumably via bird droppings?) as “non-native” and something to be eradicated. Particularly when the tree in question is a spruce, so perfectly inclined to those climates, and when the native forest is already completely gone. Isn’t the above process (via droppings) exactly how plant species naturally expand their habitats? Can a species that’s gone extinct in a place really still be considered more “native” than one arriving in a place sans human interference?
It's likely a Norway spruce, native on the mainland but not in the British Isles. The seeds are winged, and on a strong wind can travel for as much as tens of kilometers. The species has been widely planted as a production forest tree, since the wood is harvested for timber and paper pulp production. And since it's not native, it has no native pests, so it grows much more vigorously than it would in its native range. Consider by comparison, that the largest Monterey Pines in the world (native to Monterey County, California, USA) are in New Zealand, and over 50 meters tall. In California they rarely reach 20 meters - becoming bushy and devoting most of their energy to chemical defenses against insect pests rather than growth.
Many endangered Scottish species are used to pine forest. Sure a sprinkling of spruce won't do any harm, but huge forests of spruce where there used to be pine is not good for conservation.
I don't think it landed there naturally, it likely came from a nearby forestry plantation. Quite a lot of the spruce plantations in Scotland are Sitka Spruce, which is not even native to Europe let alone Scotland.
@@jbjaguar2717 .. Well, "naturally" means, to me, that it blew there on its own - as opposed to being deliberately brought in and planted, even if it blew in from a plantation. Surprising to hear that Sitka spruce are what are being planted, but it would stand to reason - the more exotic the species, the less likely to have insect pest problems. (Like Australian eucalyptus in California, USA.) And Sitka spruce CAN get enormous. I've seen them over two meters in diameter and 50 meters tall in SE Alaska.
They're doing good work, but I need to research if this charity is one of those tree planting organizations that gets donations from those hilarious "Become a Scottish Lord/Lady" schemes. The tree planting is the only good thing that comes from those.
Seriously, they dig out the spruces? - They should be glad for any tree that sprouted spontaneously instead!
It looks good.
But it will take hundreds of years for the forest to look like a natural forest.
Many trees get 100 years old, and it can take as much time for a dead tree to completely decompose, while providing home and food for other species. And as the trees all are planted at about the same time they will all be about the same age for many years. Thus those who plants the trees will never see the natural forest they are trying to create. It takes time to right the wrongs of generations 😢.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” (Attributed to various sources)
@@hks2377 I think those who cut down the trees did it to buil a future for there kits. And here we are sitting in the shade they build, complaining about the smell.
We can plant some trees now, but we will leave plenty of other problems for future people to fix. Some of the problems we know of and some we don't know of yet.
@@Petch85fixing the problems we know of is a prudent course of action.
You can stager planting and work on an area in a mosaic pattern. Also note the concept that these plantings create a seed bank. The seed bank then grows it own extension according to natural patterns. No Human's cant directly replicate a old growth forest. But they can re start the process that leads to a future one.
Its not about what it looks like. Its about laying the foundations for the future of any given site.
@@raclark2730 maybe look wasn't the right word. Maybe "to be" like a natural forest, would have been better.
It is great to plant new trees and it is great to reduce CO2 emissions. But the damage done will take over 100 years to be repaired. And people need to know that. If we stopped emitting CO2 today the temperature would still keep rising, as would the sea levels.
This is not an argument for doing less, it is an argument for doing more and to protect the small amounts of natural forrest that is left. It is much easier saving a forest than building a new one.
Don't expect to see quick results.
The tree shown grows fast, but trees with needles create a rather sour earth, which is not liked by trees with leafs. They should think before what to plant. There are enough stories of renaturations gone wrong. Maybe at first smaller trees with strong roots, that don’t mind stony ground and can withstand a storm in such a plane without cover…
Which of the species of trees he listed have needles?
You misinterpreted the video. He removed that tree. All the species he mentioned are broadleaf species.
To really achieve anything in Scotland without control and interference from England, the Scots should declare independence from the Union. These days, age-old agreements mean nothing with many countries blatantly breaking them and turning to thievery. If the rest think likewise too, they should not remain idle. England is wasting the Union's money fighting America's wars around the globe instead of using it for development and in the interest of the people.
Unless someone cares a whole awfull lot nothing is going to change, its not...
People are doing this kind of thing across the world in increasing numbers. Are you going to help or mope. Up to you.
Europeans are less numbers but they did deforestation more in europe, Africa and America..some in India..should live in minimum
People don't realize a forest is not a bunch of trees it's a complex system consisting of a huge number of interdependent organisms. Planting trees alone is pretty suspect overall, it's not how succession in a forest works naturally. Permaculture practices address this in a very practical manner. But planting trees and good intentions make people feel good so I guess that's what is most important.
You can make a BIG difference just by planting trees ..... as pointed out in the video, this brings in lots of new species of birds, which in turn will bring in seeds of understory plants in their feathers and droppings. And the leaves of the trees add to the organics in the soil as they decompose, creating a complex ecosystem of soil biota, which in part also helps generate organic acids to assist in the slow chemical degradation of the stones int he soil and the underlying bedrock, releasing more nutrients into the soil to feed the entire system.
Its called regenerative conservation. and its not just about hap hazard throwing of trees and the ground. Its a scientific art. And how do you know what else they are planting or doing. Its just one video.
Don't be a perma snob. 😉
I don't see any harm in spruce. Removing the young spruces seems like counterproductive. So what if it is "invader". And wasn't it spruce thousands of years ago?
No spruce are non native there.
Non native species tend not to be utilized by native fauna, and can out compete the botanical diversity you want. Regenerative conservation involves a lot of removing such species.
But the barren hills are so much more scenic...
This seem a common concern. I doubt the intention is to plant every square foot. Open land is needed for human use and for plants and animals that inhabit that zone.
There is just less of the forest biome than there was before. So its fair to put some back for the forest dwellers. Surely a bit can be spared here and there.
You've been conditioned to think that, but actually once you get used to the 'original' forested landscape you'll see it's far nicer.
Anyway don't worry, many of the upland areas above the valleys won't be reforested, because they're peat bogs. Peat stores even more carbon than trees.
@@jbjaguar2717 Well, I live in northeastern US and it's very heavily forested here. And I hated it. I wish the landscape looked more like Scotland today.
But re. your second point, I think it's a fair compromise!
There is too much hypocrisy.
Too many people talk about deforestation.
But nobody nor governments reforest.
Also, whose land is that?
You can't plant trees in private land without permission.
Reforestation is happening all over Scotland these days. Partly on government-owned land but also on many private estates and farms. Most Scottish land is of poor quality agriculturally, so it was often surviving on subsidies and low-intensity sheep farming. Now landowners can make far more money from carbon credits etc, so they are actively buying in.
Interestingly, some of the first rewilded areas were actually community-owned land - a concept that's quite rare in Europe but is becoming more common in Scotland.
@@jbjaguar2717 congratulations. I don't like it when some try to impose
It looks better without trees. Why do people always have to morally justify their own selfish actions? What is invasive is a matter of opinion. Even the Scottish aren't exactly native.
It absolutely doesn't look better without trees in my opinion. And yes, we are native.
Scots descended from the Picts, that makes them native. Also, they only restore the original state, since their ancestors cut everything down, so where exactly is this selfish?
Leave the hills alone its bonnie the way it is
Most groups doing this kind of work also understand the value of open lands as part of a mix of habitat. I am sure they don't intend to plant every square foot.
The trouble is trees grow tall and hide the beauty of the hills so all you see is 10 metres in front of you
Nobody walks on the hills to see trees
@@douginn3090 Yes I see were you are coming from I enjoy big sky country myself.
Deer, livestock and other animals also need open range. It would be extreme to plant all of it. Balance with other uses and environments should be made.
But you can tolerate a few woods here and there surely.
@@douginn3090 Absolute nonsense. You can see the view fine from viewpoints or going above the treeline. Walking through a living forest is far more pleasant than walking through a windy wasteland with nothing but sheep.