Due to climate change we need more trees. However why not plant orchards instead of woodlands?

Then the land will still be producing a food crop and fruit trees remove CO2 just as well as non-fruit trees. For fruits are commonly commercially grown in Britain, apples, cherries, plums and pears. In addition cobnuts,a type of hazel are grown in Kent, and in recent years apricots have been grown in the southernmost counties of England. Of the four more commonly grown fruits,cherries and pears can be reliably grown to the south of a line from the Wirral to the Wash, andapples, or at least the later-blossoming varieties can be grown in most parts of England except the high upland areas, such as the Pennines and the Cumbrian Fells, and also in the non-mountainous areas of Scotland south of the Highland Fault line. Not sure how far north plums can be grown, would guess it is the same as for pears and cherries.I seem to remember seeing plum orchards in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk,

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm all in favor of doing both. However, they are completely different enterprises. Planting trees to regenerate a forest is one thing - typically this is done by a forest management company, they will harvest, then plant seedlings amidst the stumps and whatnot, and more-or-less walk away. 

    Establishing an orchard is a completely different deal. First the land would need to be cleared of stumps and graded, then the trees would need to be planted, and as opposed to walking way, they would typically be nurturing them - irrigating, trellising, pruning, and spraying as needed. It's a much more active management scenario. An entirely different set of skills and expertise is needed to manage an orchard compared to a forest. 

    Not a bad idea, but they are really 2 totally different things. It's not simply a case of planting apple seedlings as opposed to forest tree seedlings. 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    It is mostly a matter of cost and benefit.  Orchards require a lot set up cost and  maintenance costs, where as woodlands require very little.  Also most profitable orchards use relatively small trees, compared with much larger forest trees. 

    Another problem with any commercial growing is that is impossible not to use fertilsers and pest control measure that are harmful to the environment.  

    The final problem with commercial growing is that too much growing would reduce the market price for fruit and nut to the point it would not be economical to continue. This happens already with almost every crop, do to national (and EU wide) subsidies.

    I have be involved in some orchard projects in Ethopia which helped rejuvinate the locate environment as well as providing local income. However, more recent projects in the same region which have allowed natural forests and scrub land to regrow themseves, have had a much greater positive environmental impact at much less cost and in a shorter space of time.   

    The answer to your question then, is that we should continue to do both.   

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Planting trees or plants that are non-native are more damaging than not planting anything.  In most cases, fruit trees, or clustered populations of fruit trees, are not sustainable without human (and energy) intervention.  The goals should be find a native flora that is optimal for the area.

    • ...Show all comments
    • random_man
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Planting a tree native to a different area is not generally harmful to the environment. The primary concern is that it will become invasive which happens only with a small portion of non-native species. 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    No reason you couldn't.  Orchards aren't exactly high value crops though and in a lot of areas, they are being bulldozed and replaced with housing in high population areas.  Given the broad use of wood in our economy it would also make sense to plant replacement forests but the problem is that a harvest takes a long time which companies aren't going to do unless required by government.  The Scandinavian countries I understand have done a much better job sustainable harvesting their forests than Canada and the US have done.

     

    The CA redwood forests were essentially razed before government took action to preserve the last remaining forests.

    https://outofthewoodsmill.com/california-redwoods/

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    because producing fruit takes alot of water. Water that must be pumped generally long distances. Most fruit trees are also hard wood, which grow much slower than softwoods like pine trees. 

    the goal of planting trees to counter climate change is to plant fast growing trees to suck up the most carbon per year per tree.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Sandy
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    that's a great idea. but don't forget, you need bees to pollinate all these fruit flowers. so you need a lot more apiaries. 

    • mrh-slos
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Not a bad thing, more bees is itself good for the environment, and then there is the honey, a good byproduct, several crops of which can be taken between May and September each year.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.