Read on Twitter
There’s been a lot of renewed interest in large-scale tree planting programs in the US, but most people don’t understand how planting works and why getting trees in the ground is only the first step in a very long, expensive process. A 
.
.
First, some historical context on why planting is so ingrained in our culture to begin with. Because we didn’t begin planting on a large scale until the middle of the 20th century.
After WW2 the demand for wood was skyrocketing. A reappraisal of forests across the US showed the country was quickly on its way to depleting its timber base. Trees were being harvested faster than they could grow back.
In 1947 an act was passed that called for rapid reforestation and in the 1950s tree planting began in earnest. A national “tree farm” program backed by the timber industry gained momentum.
From 1950 to 1960ish there was a big investment in conservation education as folks were desperately trying to re-grow forests to offset what had been so heavily logged after the war. Fun fact: women were largely involved in this effort!
The idea behind tree planting was not to restore forests back to a natural state, but to get trees growing as quickly as possible again to be *used for timber* in the future.
This is important, because our obsession with planting trees is a holdover of this mentality. There is a misconception that we *need* to be planting because our forests are being logged to bits, when actually we have way more trees in the US now than we did a century ago.
(Recently the mentality has shifted to needing to replant after fires, but the idea is the same: “We need to help nature along!”)
Since the 1980s, tree growth (in terms of cubic feet) has outweighed removal via harvesting. This gap is still widening, and probably will for several decades.
OK! This leads me to the actual planting of trees. Since the original intent was to get trees growing quickly for timber, trees were PACKED IN on federal plantations during the 1950s-1980s. Planting a high density of trees triggers competition and forces them to grow tall, FAST.
I’m talking like 400+ trees/acre depending on the site, species, location, etc. This is a plantation in Brazil, but you get the point. Up until the turn of the century, millions of acres of FS lands were planted like this.
(Side note, this is why Christmas tree farms plant their trees at larger spacings. You want a happy, bushy, Christmas tree. Not a toothpick.)
Here’s an old plantation on @MendocinoNF. It was supposed to be commercially harvested in...wait for it...2020. (Guess we were a bit preoccupied with the August Complex, oops). It’s hard to tell from the picture, but this plantation was *never* thinned before. It’s a mess.
The general lifecycle of a timber plantation is: plant, pre-commercial thin after 5-10yrs to get rid of the less competitive trees, commercially thin in another 20-30yrs, and then remove the remaining canopy and plant again when the stand reaches maturity.
Now. Today. Most national forests do not plant or manage plantations this way anymore. Generally, foresters try to mimic natural regeneration by planting at wider spacings and planting a mix of species instead of a monoculture.
However, these natural “plantations” still need to be taken care of and that’s why *many* are failing. If a site is not properly prepped (burning, clearing brush, using herbicide, etc.) the trees have a high chance of dying or simply not growing.
Here’s an example, where the planted trees are being overtaken by faster-growing shrubs. (Yes, there are baby trees in there somewhere.)
There’s not a lot of interest or $$ for tending to plantations anymore. It’s not as glamorous as planting trees themselves, and plantations need to be cared for for many years, so maintenance often falls by the wayside.
So, what does this mean for tree-planting programs? First I encourage people to read this NatGeo article because it sums up the issue better than I could ever do: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/how-to-regrow-forest-right-way-minimize-fire-water-use/
The gist is, if we no longer need to plant trees for timber production, and we’re only doing it to mimic natural regeneration then...there is no need to plant (*most* of the time, more on that in a bit).
Trees do an amazing job of growing back on their own. Foresters have ALWAYS known this; the entire field of silviculture is based on it.
The desire to plant trees is noble but it’s not a silver bullet for climate change. We should be focusing that energy (and $$$) on improving existing stands, and caring for the decades-old plantations across all NFS lands.
But. BUT. I don’t want folks to think all planting is bad or unnecessary. There are genetic improvement projects, such as breeding and planting White pine blister rust-resistant sugar pines, and climate projects, such as planting the endangered whitebark pine, etc.
TL;DR. Planting just to plant is an outdated and largely unnecessary practice. We should shift our time, energy, and money to increasing the health of existing stands. 
